Why do you hate

[emilynghiem]

No. Once independent of the mother, she AND society get a say in it's future.

If you wouldn’t kill it after than it should have no bearing on killing it before.

It is you who see no difference between an egg and an adult, not me. I see fundamental changes in the development of a baby.

Dear alang1216
The REAL issues being missed aren't about the egg or fetus vs. mother at all.
A. Laws aren't addressing the MEN in the decisions to have sex
that LEAD to either unwanted pregnancy or abortion.
If we start addressing that, where both partners are EQUALLY
responsible BEFORE SEX AND PREGNANCY OCCUR
then we rewrite the whole equation instead of focusing
on just the "egg or fetus vs the adult mother"

Where is the FATHER or the MAN in all this?
That's one thing missing causing DISPARITY from the start.

B. The Constitutional part missed
Instead of focusing on
* rights of the mother or woman's due process
* rights of the unborn child
Where people WOULD be equal is respecting BELIEFS EQUALLY -- NOT creating situations
or passing laws that violate the BELIEFS of one person or group or another

So REGARDLESS if we are
* prochoice IN BELIEFS
and don't believe legislation against abortion are fair or practical, or we are
* prolife in BELIEFS
and don't believe any other rights or laws should disparage the right to life of the unborn

the CONSTITUTION would require
* NO SUCH BELIEFS either be Prohibited NOR Established where it compromises others
(ie with both prochoice and prolife beliefs, both are guaranteed protection of the laws
instead of violating one or the other by passing biased laws)
* No such rights should be DISPARAGED or compromised
but ALL rights and ALL beliefs should be EQUALLY PROTECTED

IN order to achieve that, clearly we cannot intervene AFTER pregnancy occurs because WE DON'T AGREE at that point.
The place we CAN agree is at the point we AVOID unwanted pregnancy to begin with.
So that's where we need to focus
in order to satisfy ALL beliefs and rights, and violate NONE of them.

The only disagreement I have with what you've written is ALL rights and ALL beliefs should be EQUALLY PROTECTED. A fine sentiment but an impossible goal since there is a fundamental conflict in people's values. I think pro-lifers honestly believe pro-choicers are evil and will never compromise their values on this issue.

I don't believe proponents of abortion are evil. Just misguided.

Also ding don't forget there is a logical
and legal distinction between
* advocating ABORTION
* and "opposing laws banning or regulating
abortion ineffectively" (so as to impact women more than
men especially in cases where men coerce
women into sex and pregnancy but suffer
no legal responsibility that are pushed onto women)

Prolife outreach to PREVENT unwanted pregnancy and abortion
doesn't rely on banning abortion to prevent it.

So this serves as proof abortion CAN be prevented without banning it.

Opposing bans because of legal complications
IS NOT THE SAME AS SUPPORTING ABORTION.

I don't support abortion, but oppose biased laws
banning it that don't address the causes to PREVENT
abortion and to hold both men and women equally
responsible for PREVENTION in the first place.

What do you think of the idea of proposing
BANS on SEX where sex results in unwanted
pregnancy or abortion. If the woman doesn't want the
pregnancy, she has the option of filing abuse complaints
against the man. So if people really want 100% deterrence,
the punishment for such abuses should be so great as to
deter any such sex; or there should be 100% consensual AGREEMENTS
to follow abstinence policies against sex unless both partners consent to carry the
pregnancy to term. Where that isn't possible on a statewide or national level,
why not allow districts to form such agreements locally, and use that process
to screen out sex abusers to reduce rape, coercion and relationship abuse/fraud
that otherwise leads to unwanted pregnancy and abortion.

Why not explore other angles on prevention
instead of arguing over "bans" after pregnancy
which doesn't represent all people and discriminates
by imposing one set of beliefs or creeds over others.

 

[emilynghiem]

Are you willing to say... the hell with your invisible code of common decency. I know it’s wrong and I don’t care.

Your premise is mistaken. If I think something is wrong, I won't accept it because I do care about right and wrong. I just don't agree with your views of them.

That doesn’t make me wrong. That makes me correct.

You have rationalized a wrong as a right. You can't believe that abortion is a good thing. No one will admit to that. Which means we know it is wrong. If it were as you said... not wrong, then no one would have any need to feel bad about abortion.

So if we start from the position that abortion is wrong and you are rationalizing you aren't violating the law of right and wrong, then you have proven me exactly correct when I said that man knows the difference between right and wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes he didn't violate it.

dblack on the other hand was honest. He didn't abandon the concept of right and wrong. He said the hell with the concept. I know it's bad and I still choose it. That was honest. He was honest with me and he was honest with himself.

You love your absolutes but there are few of them in the real world. I don't like abortions and I'm glad I've never been involved in such a decision. However there are always other 'wrongs' that have to be balanced: raising an unwanted child, risks to the mother's health, abnormalities, etc.

You keep proving my point. You acknowledge they are bad on one hand and rationalize they are good with the other one.

I can 100%, unequivocally say abortion is bad. It is never good.

Why can't you say you know they are bad but you still support them? Because being moral is hardwired into you. It's universal. You desire so much to be good that you can't bring yourself to say something that makes you look bad. If you are looking for proof of God, there it is.

^ Nope ding that's not the cause of the objection.
The problem is with the PROCESS of law enforcement,
and Government authority INTO the issue of pregnancy.

We can be AGAINST drug use or abuse, but have problems
with CRIMINALIZATION that ADDS problematic complications.

We can be AGAINST abortions but still oppose certain
conflicts with how laws would be enforced that
INTRODUCE other conflicts with due process and equal protections.

This is similar to the arguments against "govt health care"
based on CONSTITUTIONALITY and complications with Govt management
which is SEPARATE and NOT THE SAME AS
"wanting to deprive people of health care"

Having problems with Govt administration and process
creates a WHOLE OTHER LEVEL of issues to deal with,
IN ADDITION to either health care or abortion.

And if we don't agree on that level, again,
that's where we would need to focus on PREVENTION
so we never have to argue over complications with
legal or govt process "after the fact." Just prevent it in
the first place, and everyone's beliefs would be respected.
instead of arguing "whose rights should be protected more"
PROTECT ALL OF THEM so there IS NO MORE CONFLICT.

 

[alang1216]

It is a valid example that shows abortion is sometimes the lesser of two evils.

Used to rationalize the ending of healthy human lives.

Seems dishonest to me.

I was talking about babies with Achondrogenesis. You changed that to "healthy human lives".

Seems dishonest to me.

No. I highlighted that you were using a miniscule number of unhealthy babies to rationalize the killing of millions of healthy babies. It's that whole defining the rule through exception thingee I was telling you about.

Apples and oranges. There should be, and there are, different rules for different situations. Much as you'd like it to be, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Sorry but this is the real word.

Except you have been using it to justify all abortions.

Untrue.

 

[TrueTT]

WithM

I don't hate God since I don't believe he exists. I don't hate Zeus either for the same reason. I don't hate people of faith but I do hate what some people of faith have done and continue to do in the name of faith. Flying planes into buildings is an obvious example but enacting laws that affect me in the name of their faith is essentially the same thing.

Maybe you can answer:

• Why do people of faith hate people of other faiths?
  
• Why do people of faith hate people with no faith?

are you referring to the law that doesnt allow you to murder your child???

I'm referring to any law that gives a single cell, a fertilized egg, more rights than an adult human being.

With few exceptions, women have an alternate choice to abortion, it's called "NO". No to sex, to unprotected sex. Abortion has become a common method of birth control, killing unwanted children because Mom couldn't control herself. "NO" is a way to exert a woman's choice. Why do so many women not know that? Or is it more convenient to ignore that choice?

I lean liberal on almost everything.

Everything but abortion. Unless in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother......the idea of tax dollars being allocated towards allowing every Rebecca, Jane and Ashley in the world who wish to terminate a prospective human being just because they couldn’t be bothered being on the pill, ensuring her man is wearing a condom, or demanding that he pull out....is fcking sickening.

Right. So we understand from your post that all decisions about sex and prevention of pregnancy fall to the woman. Yet, you then insist that no choices are allowed for women when it comes to consequences of unwanted pregnancy.

Isn't that convenient.

If you can’t live with the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.... then close your damn legs.

Vibrators are quite popular you know? And from what my female friends tell me, quite the worthwhile investment.

 

[alang1216]

I'm not the one using achondrogenesis to justify their support of abortion. You are.

You do realize the vast majority of abortions are abortions of healthy babies, right? As in babies that don't have achondrogenesis.

I think achondrogenesis is a powerful justification for abortion. I have yet to hear what you'd say to a mother that just found out her baby has achondrogenesis. Would you allow her to make the choice or will you make it for her?

I don't make that choice. Never have. It should be up to each state to decide.

Now let me flip that around on you, a mother found out her baby doesn't have achondrogenesis, would you allow her to abort it?

Dodge!

 

[TrueTT]

WithM

I don't hate God since I don't believe he exists. I don't hate Zeus either for the same reason. I don't hate people of faith but I do hate what some people of faith have done and continue to do in the name of faith. Flying planes into buildings is an obvious example but enacting laws that affect me in the name of their faith is essentially the same thing.

Maybe you can answer:

• Why do people of faith hate people of other faiths?
  
• Why do people of faith hate people with no faith?

are you referring to the law that doesnt allow you to murder your child???

I'm referring to any law that gives a single cell, a fertilized egg, more rights than an adult human being.

With few exceptions, women have an alternate choice to abortion, it's called "NO". No to sex, to unprotected sex. Abortion has become a common method of birth control, killing unwanted children because Mom couldn't control herself. "NO" is a way to exert a woman's choice. Why do so many women not know that? Or is it more convenient to ignore that choice?

I lean liberal on almost everything.

Everything but abortion. Unless in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother......the idea of tax dollars being allocated towards allowing every Rebecca, Jane and Ashley in the world who wish to terminate a prospective human being just because they couldn’t be bothered being on the pill, ensuring her man is wearing a condom, or demanding that he pull out....is fcking sickening.

Tax dollars do not fund abortions

Take your half truths elsewhere.

Or are you actually going to go to the extent of shameless denial of the fact that government funded Medicaid reimbursements would still be possible if not for the federal taxes collected to balance budgets.

 

[alang1216]

But you still support all abortions, right?

No

 

[Flopper]

If you wouldn’t kill it after than it should have no bearing on killing it before.

It is you who see no difference between an egg and an adult, not me. I see fundamental changes in the development of a baby.

Dear alang1216
The REAL issues being missed aren't about the egg or fetus vs. mother at all.
A. Laws aren't addressing the MEN in the decisions to have sex
that LEAD to either unwanted pregnancy or abortion.
If we start addressing that, where both partners are EQUALLY
responsible BEFORE SEX AND PREGNANCY OCCUR
then we rewrite the whole equation instead of focusing
on just the "egg or fetus vs the adult mother"

Where is the FATHER or the MAN in all this?
That's one thing missing causing DISPARITY from the start.

B. The Constitutional part missed
Instead of focusing on
* rights of the mother or woman's due process
* rights of the unborn child
Where people WOULD be equal is respecting BELIEFS EQUALLY -- NOT creating situations
or passing laws that violate the BELIEFS of one person or group or another

So REGARDLESS if we are
* prochoice IN BELIEFS
and don't believe legislation against abortion are fair or practical, or we are
* prolife in BELIEFS
and don't believe any other rights or laws should disparage the right to life of the unborn

the CONSTITUTION would require
* NO SUCH BELIEFS either be Prohibited NOR Established where it compromises others
(ie with both prochoice and prolife beliefs, both are guaranteed protection of the laws
instead of violating one or the other by passing biased laws)
* No such rights should be DISPARAGED or compromised
but ALL rights and ALL beliefs should be EQUALLY PROTECTED

IN order to achieve that, clearly we cannot intervene AFTER pregnancy occurs because WE DON'T AGREE at that point.
The place we CAN agree is at the point we AVOID unwanted pregnancy to begin with.
So that's where we need to focus
in order to satisfy ALL beliefs and rights, and violate NONE of them.

The only disagreement I have with what you've written is ALL rights and ALL beliefs should be EQUALLY PROTECTED. A fine sentiment but an impossible goal since there is a fundamental conflict in people's values. I think pro-lifers honestly believe pro-choicers are evil and will never compromise their values on this issue.

I don't believe proponents of abortion are evil. Just misguided.

Also ding don't forget there is a logical
and legal distinction between
* advocating ABORTION
* and "opposing laws banning or regulating
abortion ineffectively" (so as to impact women more than
men especially in cases where men coerce
women into sex and pregnancy but suffer
no legal responsibility that are pushed onto women)

Prolife outreach to PREVENT unwanted pregnancy and abortion
doesn't rely on banning abortion to prevent it.

So this serves as proof abortion CAN be prevented without banning it.

Opposing bans because of legal complications
IS NOT THE SAME AS SUPPORTING ABORTION.

I don't support abortion, but oppose biased laws
banning it that don't address the causes to PREVENT
abortion and to hold both men and women equally
responsible for PREVENTION in the first place.

What do you think of the idea of proposing
BANS on SEX where sex results in unwanted
pregnancy or abortion. If the woman doesn't want the
pregnancy, she has the option of filing abuse complaints
against the man. So if people really want 100% deterrence,
the punishment for such abuses should be so great as to
deter any such sex; or there should be 100% consensual AGREEMENTS
to follow abstinence policies against sex unless both partners consent to carry the
pregnancy to term. Where that isn't possible on a statewide or national level,
why not allow districts to form such agreements locally, and use that process
to screen out sex abusers to reduce rape, coercion and relationship abuse/fraud
that otherwise leads to unwanted pregnancy and abortion.

Why not explore other angles on prevention
instead of arguing over "bans" after pregnancy
which doesn't represent all people and discriminates
by imposing one set of beliefs or creeds over others.

You make a good point; being against some type of behavior such as, abortion, is far different than supporting laws that ban it. Laws that ban some activities invariable violate individual freedoms as well cause other problems.

If you ask in a poll, do you approve of abortion. You will get 60% to 70% saying no. However if you ask, do you favor laws that ban abortion, about the same percentage will say no.

 

[progressive hunter]

in suicide youre killing yourself in abortion youre killing someone else,,,,

It doesn't matter whether you think it's another person. If it's inside of someone else's body, it's none of your business. If you try to make it your business, you will create far more problems than you solve.

It's all of our business. The fact that the pendulum is swinging the other way is proof that it is our business.

The pendulum swinging the other way is proof you're going to try to make it your business. It will prove to be a mistake. No matter how much you may want to control society, there's only so much government can do. Overreaching always fails. Liberals and conservatives alike enamored with the idea that they can reshape society in their own image by passing laws. They are wrong.

It was inevitable that it would swing this way just like it was inevitable that slavery would swing that way.

Prohibition is a much better comparison. Self-righteous zealots hell-bent on forcing their faith on others. In the end, they lost. So will you.

sorry but prohibition wasnt about killing children,,,it was about what adults did in the privacy of their own home,,,

try again,,,,

 

[Hollie]

WithM

are you referring to the law that doesnt allow you to murder your child???

I'm referring to any law that gives a single cell, a fertilized egg, more rights than an adult human being.

With few exceptions, women have an alternate choice to abortion, it's called "NO". No to sex, to unprotected sex. Abortion has become a common method of birth control, killing unwanted children because Mom couldn't control herself. "NO" is a way to exert a woman's choice. Why do so many women not know that? Or is it more convenient to ignore that choice?

I lean liberal on almost everything.

Everything but abortion. Unless in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother......the idea of tax dollars being allocated towards allowing every Rebecca, Jane and Ashley in the world who wish to terminate a prospective human being just because they couldn’t be bothered being on the pill, ensuring her man is wearing a condom, or demanding that he pull out....is fcking sickening.

Right. So we understand from your post that all decisions about sex and prevention of pregnancy fall to the woman. Yet, you then insist that no choices are allowed for women when it comes to consequences of unwanted pregnancy.

Isn't that convenient.

If you can’t live with the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.... then close your damn legs.

Vibrators are quite popular you know? And from what my female friends tell me, quite the worthwhile investment.

That was quite a sidestep. You simply deny any responsibility for your actions and place blame on others for your stunted emotional growth.

 

[Hollie]

It doesn't matter whether you think it's another person. If it's inside of someone else's body, it's none of your business. If you try to make it your business, you will create far more problems than you solve.

It's all of our business. The fact that the pendulum is swinging the other way is proof that it is our business.

The pendulum swinging the other way is proof you're going to try to make it your business. It will prove to be a mistake. No matter how much you may want to control society, there's only so much government can do. Overreaching always fails. Liberals and conservatives alike enamored with the idea that they can reshape society in their own image by passing laws. They are wrong.

It was inevitable that it would swing this way just like it was inevitable that slavery would swing that way.

Prohibition is a much better comparison. Self-righteous zealots hell-bent on forcing their faith on others. In the end, they lost. So will you.

sorry but prohibition wasnt about killing children,,,it was about what adults did in the privacy of their own home,,,

try again,,,,

“In the privacy of their own homes...”

Do mean decisions someone makes about their current and future goals, aspirations and abilities?

Did anyone invite you hyper-religious types into their home to be lectured about your twisted morality?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you can’t live with the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.... then close your damn legs.

No, you advise YOURSELF. Not others. Get that through your head.

 

[Flopper]

It doesn't matter whether you think it's another person. If it's inside of someone else's body, it's none of your business. If you try to make it your business, you will create far more problems than you solve.

It's all of our business. The fact that the pendulum is swinging the other way is proof that it is our business.

The pendulum swinging the other way is proof you're going to try to make it your business. It will prove to be a mistake. No matter how much you may want to control society, there's only so much government can do. Overreaching always fails. Liberals and conservatives alike enamored with the idea that they can reshape society in their own image by passing laws. They are wrong.

It was inevitable that it would swing this way just like it was inevitable that slavery would swing that way.

Prohibition is a much better comparison. Self-righteous zealots hell-bent on forcing their faith on others. In the end, they lost. So will you.

In the end slavery lost and so will abortion. 150 years from now people will look back at abortion like we look back at slavery. People are not property to be disposed of at the will of their owner.

In 150 years from now there will an artificial uterus in which a woman will be able to transfer her embryo avoiding the need for abortion and also the need for going through pregnancy. Such a device exist today but has only been tested with lambs. We are years away from one that can take an embryo or fetus younger than 21 weeks but it's coming and you can bet the religious right will want it ban because God intended women to suffer through pregnancy.

 

[Flopper]

Slaves weren't silently growing in a womb. There were fully realized people. Keep trying.

Doesn't matter. At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. This in not a matter of conjecture. This is a scientific fact based on empirical evidence.

So it is not just any human life, it is a very specific human life. One that should be afforded legal rights. Specifically the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Which are our country's founding values.

Doesn't matter. Until the mother cuts it it loose, a fetus isn't a separate person, and it's none of your business. Claiming that it is, and having government intervene, is laying claim to the mother's uterus as state property. That is unacceptable and far more dangerous than the abortion problem.

Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to regulate reproduction might do things you don't like? Like force women to abortions, for example?

So it's like her property, right?

She can do with it as she likes, right?

Exactly, yeah. That might be upsetting to those of you who believe the fetus is a fully formed person, waiting to emerge - but it's the only way it can really work. What you're proposing creates a nightmare scenario where government is in control of our inner bodily processes. No thanks.

Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to regulate reproduction might do things you don't like? Like force women to abortions, for example?

OR genetically engineered fetuses.

If we actually ban all abortions, what happens to the resulting babies since the parent(s) don't want them? According to pro-lifers, there are over a million abortion in the US. There are only 87,000 adoptions in the US excluding step parent adoptions. That mean we would have potentially, 913,000 unwanted un-adopted babies. That is more than twice the number of kids now in foster care.

 

[progressive hunter]

Slaves weren't silently growing in a womb. There were fully realized people. Keep trying.

Doesn't matter. At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. This in not a matter of conjecture. This is a scientific fact based on empirical evidence.

So it is not just any human life, it is a very specific human life. One that should be afforded legal rights. Specifically the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Which are our country's founding values.

Doesn't matter. Until the mother cuts it it loose, a fetus isn't a separate person, and it's none of your business. Claiming that it is, and having government intervene, is laying claim to the mother's uterus as state property. That is unacceptable and far more dangerous than the abortion problem.

Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to regulate reproduction might do things you don't like? Like force women to abortions, for example?

So it's like her property, right?

She can do with it as she likes, right?

Exactly, yeah. That might be upsetting to those of you who believe the fetus is a fully formed person, waiting to emerge - but it's the only way it can really work. What you're proposing creates a nightmare scenario where government is in control of our inner bodily processes. No thanks.

Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to regulate reproduction might do things you don't like? Like force women to abortions, for example?

OR genetically engineered fetuses.

If we actually ban all abortions, what happens to the resulting babies since the parent(s) don't want them? According to pro-lifers, there are over a million abortion in the US. There are only 87,000 adoptions in the US excluding step parent adoptions. That mean we would have potentially, 913,000 unwanted un-adopted babies. That is more than twice the number of kids now in foster care.

you ever considered that the mother take care of her child???

 

[TrueTT]

WithM

I'm referring to any law that gives a single cell, a fertilized egg, more rights than an adult human being.

With few exceptions, women have an alternate choice to abortion, it's called "NO". No to sex, to unprotected sex. Abortion has become a common method of birth control, killing unwanted children because Mom couldn't control herself. "NO" is a way to exert a woman's choice. Why do so many women not know that? Or is it more convenient to ignore that choice?

I lean liberal on almost everything.

Everything but abortion. Unless in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother......the idea of tax dollars being allocated towards allowing every Rebecca, Jane and Ashley in the world who wish to terminate a prospective human being just because they couldn’t be bothered being on the pill, ensuring her man is wearing a condom, or demanding that he pull out....is fcking sickening.

Right. So we understand from your post that all decisions about sex and prevention of pregnancy fall to the woman. Yet, you then insist that no choices are allowed for women when it comes to consequences of unwanted pregnancy.

Isn't that convenient.

If you can’t live with the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.... then close your damn legs.

Vibrators are quite popular you know? And from what my female friends tell me, quite the worthwhile investment.

That was quite a sidestep. You simply deny any responsibility for your actions and place blame on others for your stunted emotional growth.

See, this is where you are so wrong.

Unlike the women in question- your fellow women who you feel compelled to defend for god knows what reason- as a male, I actually understand the implications of not wearing a condom. Seeing as I have no intention of ever fathering a child, whenever I do capitulate to my carnal impulses I make sure to:

1) carry latex in my wallet
2) make sure the girl is on birth control before foreplay even ends
3) if the answer to 2) is a negative, then I don’t proceed
4) if the answer to 2) is in the affirmative, I ensure that I pull out nonetheless.

So spare me this bullsht sob posting about me “shifting the burden of responsibility” onto the women.

I have slept with a handful of women in my life. Guess what? None ever got pregnant. Contrary to what you think, women and men can both indeed take the necessary steps to stifle unwanted pregnancies.

 

[TrueTT]

If you can’t live with the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.... then close your damn legs.

No, you advise YOURSELF. Not others. Get that through your head.

Why not both? The two are not mutually exclusive you illogical dunce.

Anything that I advise others about also applies to me.

 

[SweetSue92]

Why do so many of you hate God and people of faith?

I spent the first 27 years of my life playing the Good Christian game. I played it all the way. Hell, I was an officer of the church I belonged to. Then, on August 22, 2001 my eyes were opened. “The scales fell away from my eyes and I could see clearly” as Saul/Paul would put it. I finally understood the bullshit and lies of organized religion. It would take another three years to fully realize the extent of the fraud thst is organized religion, but in thst day I walked away from religion forever.

People who claim they at one time really believed almost unfailngly give a list of chores as proof.

I find that so interesting.

 

[Hollie]

WithMWith few exceptions, women have an alternate choice to abortion, it's called "NO". No to sex, to unprotected sex. Abortion has become a common method of birth control, killing unwanted children because Mom couldn't control herself. "NO" is a way to exert a woman's choice. Why do so many women not know that? Or is it more convenient to ignore that choice?

I lean liberal on almost everything.

Everything but abortion. Unless in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother......the idea of tax dollars being allocated towards allowing every Rebecca, Jane and Ashley in the world who wish to terminate a prospective human being just because they couldn’t be bothered being on the pill, ensuring her man is wearing a condom, or demanding that he pull out....is fcking sickening.

Right. So we understand from your post that all decisions about sex and prevention of pregnancy fall to the woman. Yet, you then insist that no choices are allowed for women when it comes to consequences of unwanted pregnancy.

Isn't that convenient.

If you can’t live with the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.... then close your damn legs.

Vibrators are quite popular you know? And from what my female friends tell me, quite the worthwhile investment.

That was quite a sidestep. You simply deny any responsibility for your actions and place blame on others for your stunted emotional growth.

See, this is where you are so wrong.

Unlike the women in question- your fellow women who you feel compelled to defend for god knows what reason- as a male, I actually understand the implications of not wearing a condom. Seeing as I have no intention of ever fathering a child, whenever I do capitulate to my carnal impulses I make sure to:

1) carry latex in my wallet
2) make sure the girl is on birth control before foreplay even ends
3) if the answer to 2) is a negative, then I don’t proceed
4) if the answer to 2) is in the affirmative, I ensure that I pull out nonetheless.

So spare me this bullsht sob posting about me “shifting the burden of responsibility” onto the women.

I have slept with a handful of women in my life. Guess what? None ever got pregnant. Contrary to what you think, women and men can both indeed take the necessary steps to stifle unwanted pregnancies.

That’s quite the reversal from your earlier blathering.

 

[ding]

Government regulating reproductive rights would look like a permit to have a child. No permit. No child. Opps, you got pregnant with a non-permitted child, sorry, we are giving you an abortion. That's what government regulation looks like of reproductive rights.

Ok, you want to equivocate on the meaning of "regulate" - tiresome, but we'll skip that.

Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to overrule a woman's decisions concerning her pregnancy might do things you don't like? Like force women to have abortions, for example?

The opposition to abortion has to do with providing a voice for an innocent defenseless human being who cannot defend himself.

The woman who got pregnant had a say in getting pregnant. The resultant child did not. That child will never exist again. It's a one shot deal. Who is going to speak for him?

Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to overrule a woman's decisions concerning her pregnancy might do things you don't like? Like force women to have abortions, for example?

I guess not. But it should. Statists tend to convince themselves that only people who agree with them will ever be in charge of government. So they're happy to give government whatever power is necessary to achieve their ends, without really giving any thought to what other people - people they don't agree with - will do with that power.

Do you understand the concepts of consequence and accountability?

Why should someone else suffer for your mistakes?

These aren’t clumps of tissue being aborted.

You can tell they are human babies.

Who is going to speak for them.

Despite your belief that they are nothing more than property, they aren’t. They are human beings.