Women have the right to control their own bodies.

[BS Filter]

Let's get back on topic. I stated that abortions wouldn't be required if women just learned to say no. Can anyone refute this?

Abortions wouldn't be required if men just learned to say no. Can anyone refute this?

It's the woman's body. That's what we're told. Therefore, she's responsible.

And therefore, it is HER choice.

Yes. The woman will be judged by God.

As will the man who carelessly distributes his sperm. (for those who believe in in god)

Yes. Everyone will be judged.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The human fetus is a human being. Take an elementary biology class. Duh.

I understand the biology just fine. The question is whether a fetus is a separate legal person, with rights that should be protected by the government.

Where do the rights of a baby begin?

‘The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157.

[…]

…an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.’

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

A child’s rights manifest once it is born; prior to birth, an embryo/fetus has no rights, it is not a ‘baby,’ and not entitled to Constitutional protections.

Ok then, so my question has been answered. Someone who kills a pregnant woman cannot legally be charged with double homicide.

This is apparently the case, according to the courts......

Scott Peterson murdered his pregnant wife. He was convicted of double murder.

It's a bogus conviction according to the left. He should have only been charged with the murder of his wife. According to the left, the baby is not a person and has no rights....

Were there any Democrat activist groups protesting his conviction? Anyone on the left to stand up and say he was unjustly convicted? Did PP organize a march on his behalf?

 

[Beyond]

Dog zeros in with personal insults the minute he spots me in a thread, and he digs up arguments from years ago. At least I think it's a he--he carries grudges and attacks more like a girl.
Which is more than you had any business knowing, so stick your nose back where it belongs and I'll handle my business, thanks very much.

Whines about insults..then insults.

Yeah you're a leftist. Man up

Who asked you, bitch?

What ya going to do about it ya hypocritical Old Hag?

Again...you support abortion you're just as guilty of doing it. Burn in hell hag

So you want to force women to carry a pregnancy to full term, regardless of her wishes, but once a baby is actually born, you wish to damn them to burn in hell? Do you see no conflict in these to opinions?

How did your twisted mind reach this conclusion?

Nothing twisted about it, it says so right there in the post I quoted.

 

[Beyond]

And the pro-lifers pretend the fetus is a full-fledged person. More importantly, they pretend that a pregnant woman's womb is public property.

The human fetus is a human being. Take an elementary biology class. Duh.

I understand the biology just fine. The question is whether a fetus is a separate legal person, with rights that should be protected by the government.

Where do the rights of a baby begin?

Some rights come with viability, but it cannot have rights equal to the mother’s until birth.

So viability determines personhood? There are a lot of people incapable of caring for themselves who would disagree.

If they are alive and breathing, they are clearly viable by definition.

 

[Beyond]

If the state want to controls the uterus they can raise what is developed there...

Honestly I’d rather have the State raise the child than any woman who would consider terminating a pregnancy. Of course the woman would lose all parental rights and interests in the child. They should never even see the child after birth, nor be told anything (including gender) about the child.

State care that is fife with child abuse? Why are people so concerned about fetuses, but cease to care for children and the adult they become, once they're born?

So tell us why you dont care for these people

Who tells you I don't?

 

[Beyond]

Let's get back on topic. I stated that abortions wouldn't be required if women just learned to say no. Can anyone refute this?

Abortions wouldn't be required if men just learned to say no. Can anyone refute this?

As more places become poorer look at all the pregnant broads and all the men who leave Dodge. You will see the demise of your agendas. Why? The economy will tank or males who are so poor because of extreme feminism will take it from you. That is the world. Its time for you to put up for your beliefs. And that means to die for them if necessary. You are not doing that. You are cashing checks you have not even begun to pay back. Just watch the violence from those who do not care. Not from those protected by insane laws.

Are you under the impression you answered my question?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

You gotta open them legs first. Unless it is rape, they have the ultimate control. Sperm is cheap, eggs are precious.

Every sperm is sacred, a potential new life if allowed to follow it’s natural course in the right environment. That makes masturb action mass murder. M en need to learn to control their hands.

Me dumpin a nut in a sock and you lettin the guy who bought you three 'Jaeger Bombs' dump one in you have two drastically different outcomes.

A sperm, if allowed to continue in it’s natural environment will create a baby. You, jerking off in the bushes, are murdering millions of potential babies.

That's the dumbest goddamn defense of baby murder there is. Seriously

 

[Beyond]

Let's get back on topic. I stated that abortions wouldn't be required if women just learned to say no. Can anyone refute this?

Abortions wouldn't be required if men just learned to say no. Can anyone refute this?

It's the woman's body. That's what we're told. Therefore, she's responsible.

Both men and women are responsible for their bodies and their actions. If a man is involved in creating a pregnancy, he shares responsibility with the woman for creating that pregnancy.

Are you under the impression men are moronic, lesser creatures who cannot control their actions?

The left says it's her body and the woman makes the call.

Are you suggesting men are coerced into sex and proceed with intercourse against their will?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I never put anyone on ignore for disagreeing with me. And yet you took exception to it. Why? Because they were liberals? Is that why you were upset?

Dog zeros in with personal insults the minute he spots me in a thread, and he digs up arguments from years ago. At least I think it's a he--he carries grudges and attacks more like a girl.
Which is more than you had any business knowing, so stick your nose back where it belongs and I'll handle my business, thanks very much.

Whines about insults..then insults.

Yeah you're a leftist. Man up

Who asked you, bitch?

What ya going to do about it ya hypocritical Old Hag?

Again...you support abortion you're just as guilty of doing it. Burn in hell hag

So you want to force women to carry a pregnancy to full term, regardless of her wishes, but once a baby is actually born, you wish to damn them to burn in hell? Do you see no conflict in these to opinions?

Wtf are you trying to convey? That has absolutely nothing to do with my post newbie

 

[22lcidw]

Let's get back on topic. I stated that abortions wouldn't be required if women just learned to say no. Can anyone refute this?

Abortions wouldn't be required if men just learned to say no. Can anyone refute this?

As more places become poorer look at all the pregnant broads and all the men who leave Dodge. You will see the demise of your agendas. Why? The economy will tank or males who are so poor because of extreme feminism will take it from you. That is the world. Its time for you to put up for your beliefs. And that means to die for them if necessary. You are not doing that. You are cashing checks you have not even begun to pay back. Just watch the violence from those who do not care. Not from those protected by insane laws.

What on earth are you going on about?

You took God away. You took thousands of years of trying to bring civility to people in all ways and removed most of it. The parts between men and women took a long time to get to a high percentage of civil relationships that resulted in a union or marriage. And then you through it all away. You promoted the earth as the living breathing gaia. And we sprang from that. Then you took what was the male side and emasculated his DNA from the living breathing gaia. At least in the Western World. What we have today is an issue many times worse then in the past not due to men but to to the emancipation of women through feminism. Men are near always going to sniff around when meeting women. Women for centuries held the cards in sexual relations in civil cultures. With marriage as a result. You talk about all of this women's rights on abortions and half the night on TV is endless commercials and infomercials on sex, sex toys, sex pills to ph uk, medicine for sex diseases, and more. It says nothing about civility. It suggests otherwise. And the result that comes from it. And in all of this it is mostly women involved in this even getting men to take the hard on pill. So if we make it simple. All women have to do in the ways of sex is say..."No" when asked. It worked in the past with marriage being an excuse to bypass it. Back then marriage was stronger and people were stronger.

 

[Beyond]

Dog zeros in with personal insults the minute he spots me in a thread, and he digs up arguments from years ago. At least I think it's a he--he carries grudges and attacks more like a girl.
Which is more than you had any business knowing, so stick your nose back where it belongs and I'll handle my business, thanks very much.

Whines about insults..then insults.

Yeah you're a leftist. Man up

Who asked you, bitch?

What ya going to do about it ya hypocritical Old Hag?

Again...you support abortion you're just as guilty of doing it. Burn in hell hag

So you want to force women to carry a pregnancy to full term, regardless of her wishes, but once a baby is actually born, you wish to damn them to burn in hell? Do you see no conflict in these to opinions?

Wtf are you trying to convey? That has absolutely nothing to do with my post newbie

It's right there in your post, just two up from this one.

"Again...you support abortion you're just as guilty of doing it. Burn in hell hag"

Your post, your words.

 

[iceberg]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

And if people minded their own business we wouldn't be constantly dealing with a plethora of controversies both here and abroad. Why people simply can't just live and let live is beyond me. You talk about others controlling themselves better while you advocate for your control over other people.

So how is abortion live and let live?

 

[ThisIsMe]

The human fetus is a human being. Take an elementary biology class. Duh.

I understand the biology just fine. The question is whether a fetus is a separate legal person, with rights that should be protected by the government.

Where do the rights of a baby begin?

Some rights come with viability, but it cannot have rights equal to the mother’s until birth.

So viability determines personhood? There are a lot of people incapable of caring for themselves who would disagree.

If they are alive and breathing, they are clearly viable by definition.

A fetus is alive, maybe not breathing but it gets its life from the mother....but it is alive.

Unless you are devolving personhood to being able to breathe on your own, in which case, people on ventilators are....not people...

Also, when did the narrative change to the "personhood" of the baby. The right wing argument against abortion is about the extinguishing of innocent life, and what will eventually become a child.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Whines about insults..then insults.

Yeah you're a leftist. Man up

Who asked you, bitch?

What ya going to do about it ya hypocritical Old Hag?

Again...you support abortion you're just as guilty of doing it. Burn in hell hag

So you want to force women to carry a pregnancy to full term, regardless of her wishes, but once a baby is actually born, you wish to damn them to burn in hell? Do you see no conflict in these to opinions?

Wtf are you trying to convey? That has absolutely nothing to do with my post newbie

It's right there in your post, just two up from this one.

"Again...you support abortion you're just as guilty of doing it. Burn in hell hag"

Your post, your words.

Earn your stripes, recognize who you're dealing with on this and get back ro me

 

[Carl in Michigan]

If the state want to controls the uterus they can raise what is developed there...

Honestly I’d rather have the State raise the child than any woman who would consider terminating a pregnancy. Of course the woman would lose all parental rights and interests in the child. They should never even see the child after birth, nor be told anything (including gender) about the child.

State care that is fife with child abuse? Why are people so concerned about fetuses, but cease to care for children and the adult they become, once they're born?

So tell us why you dont care for these people

Who tells you I don't?

You said they arent being cared for.

 

[iceberg]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

You gotta open them legs first. Unless it is rape, they have the ultimate control. Sperm is cheap, eggs are precious.

That is hardly her point. Men can go beat off also.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You people CONSTANTLY tell us it's none of our business. Based on that logic alone it is YOUR problem and yours alone no?

I am not "you people." I am me. One person. Stick to my arguments or talk to someone else.

Men either have a say so in the issue or they don't. Which is it?

Men have equal responsibility, yes.

That's half the battle. No for the question that matters. If the MOTHER wants an abortion and the FATHER doesn't what do we do?

It's the woman's call given that it's her life and her health that is being put on the line.

Nonsensical gibberish

 

[Moonglow]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

You gotta open them legs first. Unless it is rape, they have the ultimate control. Sperm is cheap, eggs are precious.

That is hardly her point. Men can go beat off also.

Does this guy not know that eggs are flushed monthly during the menstrual cycle?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let's be perfectly clear on one thing. This whole argument about abortion is not about whether a fetus is alive or not. It's about whether a person has a right to end that life. Medical science is clear about the first question. It's alive. Criminal law is also clear about the second. It's murder. There should be no debate about this.

The only thing clear is that this is as ignorant as it is wrong.

What is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute is the fact that abortion is not ‘murder.’

The right to privacy concerns civil law, not criminal; it prohibits the state from compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.

The right to privacy is about limiting the authority of the state and safeguarding the protected liberties of women.

However wrong, reprehensible, or evil some might perceive abortion to be, it is not within the purview of the state to compel through its authority others to follow those subjective, personal perceptions.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let's be perfectly clear on one thing. This whole argument about abortion is not about whether a fetus is alive or not. It's about whether a person has a right to end that life. Medical science is clear about the first question. It's alive. Criminal law is also clear about the second. It's murder. There should be no debate about this.

Your post is a good representation of why there is so much controversy about abortion. You present your personal opinions as facts.

Nevertheless, they are still facts.

No, they are not.