Women have the right to control their own bodies.

[buttercup]

Says you. Many others believe differently. And fortunately for them, you're not the arbitrator of morals.

Yes, and there are many murderers and rapists out there too, so what's your point? Sane, decent people understand that using abortion as a birth control method is wrong and morally bankrupt.

At the risk of being repetitive.... again, according to you. Not everyone believes as you.

Doesn't matter, it's a logical fallacy to imply that something is moral/ethical because some people believe it is. Some people thought slavery was fine, did that make it right? I mean, you're entitled to your opinion, but don't be surprised when people say something about it.

What is the difference between slavery and forcing a woman to catry an unwanted pregnancy within her body?

No one forced you to get pregnant, you did that to yourself. A translation of what you said: How can someone force me not kill an innocent human being? Well I'm sure Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy and others like them would agree with you on that.

 

[Faun]

Says you. Many others believe differently. And fortunately for them, you're not the arbitrator of morals.

Yes, and there are many murderers and rapists out there too, so what's your point? Sane, decent people understand that using abortion as a birth control method is wrong and morally bankrupt.

At the risk of being repetitive.... again, according to you. Not everyone believes as you.

Doesn't matter, it's a logical fallacy to imply that something is moral/ethical because some people believe it is. Some people thought slavery was fine, did that make it right? I mean, you're entitled to your opinion, but don't be surprised when people say something about it.

And again... you're not the arbitrator of morals.

 

[Beyond]

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 want to include the men in the decision making process? How progressive of YOU!

Men have always been part of the decision to risk inpregnation, it's the part where they want subsequent control of the woman's body that's an issue

 

[Coyote]

Says you. Many others believe differently. And fortunately for them, you're not the arbitrator of morals.

Yes, and there are many murderers and rapists out there too, so what's your point? Sane, decent people understand that using abortion as a birth control method is wrong and morally bankrupt.

At the risk of being repetitive.... again, according to you. Not everyone believes as you.

Doesn't matter, it's a logical fallacy to imply that something is moral/ethical because some people believe it is. Some people thought slavery was fine, did that make it right? I mean, you're entitled to your opinion, but don't be surprised when people say something about it.

What is the difference between slavery and forcing a woman to catry an unwanted pregnancy within her body?

No one forced you to get pregnant, you did that to yourself. A translation of what you said: How can someone force me not kill an innocent human being? Well I'm sure Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy and others like them would agree with you on that.

Is that innocent human being occupying and using your body for nine months? Does a person have a right to take over your body against your will?

 

[Beyond]

No one can have a say over another's body. Only their own.

Yes, they can choose not to have sex until they are ready to be a parent

As can men.

Yep, the point is, both are willing participants in the act, so both share the responsibility. If she agrees to have sex, then she agrees there is a risk of pregnancy. What you are saying is, both can be willing participants, but if she gets pregnant, and the man wants to be a father to the child, the woman can deny him his child.

You're saying that the man doesnt matter in this scenario, and that his desires do not count, so, if you are going to give sole authority to the woman over the pregnancy, then she needs to be the one to decide to have control over her body, and not have sex. If she is willing to have sex, and take the risk of getting pregnant, and shut the man out of the decision making process, then she needs to abstain.

I'm saying a woman can deny a man's demand to use her body as an incubater for his offspring. It's a process that throws a woman's body and life into a spin for a minimum of 9 months, can leave her with serious medical issues for the rest of her life and can kill her. No person has the right to impose that on another person in order to have their own gratification satisfied.

I'm not saying a man doesn't matter, I'm saying each one, both men and women, must deal with the cards nature has dealt them in terms of which aspect of procreation they have governance over.

I'm not sure I completely agree with that. Pregnancy in this day and age, in this country, is rarely fatal and doesn't cause life long health problems. Well, it did straighten my hair. While I understand your argument, I think it is half the man's and if there is no reason to think the woman is at medical risk, she should seriously consider having the child if he wants to take sole guardianship and raise it himself.

Whether you agree with me or not, the fact remains, women continue to die as a consequence of being pregnant. The changes in the body are also no small thing, then can and often do lead to health issues and lowering of one's quality of life. As such the woman involved, have the right to choose what risks to take with their health and bodies.

 

[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?

Welcome, Beyond. Good to have you on board. Have a nosh.

View attachment 264506

Thank you, nosh accepted.

 

[gipper]

Yes. The woman will be judged by God.

Exactly. And as far as I can tell you aren’t God nor do you speak for God.

Never said I was God, but God's Word says you're a murderer if you murder an innocent defenseless human being.

G-d smote Sodom and Gomorrah for far less than 55 million murdered unborn children. So when are you fleeing the U.S. for your own safety?

Nothing is more endangered than the fetus of a liberal woman.

The science is against you. Morality is against you. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is against you.

History will condemn the baby killer for all time.

And what dou YOU to help those women with their babies?

LOL. It’s my responsibility. LOL.

 

[Beyond]

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?

That's true.

But since fathers are not allowed to save the life of their child, nor kill their child, they aren't any where near being equal partners.

Both men AND women have to deal with the cards nature deal. But you're right, men are not equal partners in the control of a woman's body, nor should they be.

Unless of course, they want women to be the one's to decide which men are steralized or castrated. I suspect you prefer that men continue to be the one's to make that decision?

 

[Coyote]

Exactly. And as far as I can tell you aren’t God nor do you speak for God.

Never said I was God, but God's Word says you're a murderer if you murder an innocent defenseless human being.

G-d smote Sodom and Gomorrah for far less than 55 million murdered unborn children. So when are you fleeing the U.S. for your own safety?

Nothing is more endangered than the fetus of a liberal woman.

The science is against you. Morality is against you. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is against you.

History will condemn the baby killer for all time.

And what dou YOU to help those women with their babies?

LOL. It’s my responsibility. LOL.

If it isnt your responsibility then why are you trying to interfere in their decisions?

 

[OldLady]

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?

That's true.

But since fathers are not allowed to save the life of their child, nor kill their child, they aren't any where near being equal partners.

Both men AND women have to deal with the cards nature deal. But you're right, men are not equal partners in the control of a woman's body, nor should they be.

Unless of course, they want women to be the one's to decide which men are steralized or castrated. I suspect you prefer that men continue to be the one's to make that decision?

Well, when you put it that way....

 

[gipper]

Never said I was God, but God's Word says you're a murderer if you murder an innocent defenseless human being.

G-d smote Sodom and Gomorrah for far less than 55 million murdered unborn children. So when are you fleeing the U.S. for your own safety?

Nothing is more endangered than the fetus of a liberal woman.

The science is against you. Morality is against you. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is against you.

History will condemn the baby killer for all time.

And what dou YOU to help those women with their babies?

LOL. It’s my responsibility. LOL.

If it isnt your responsibility then why are you trying to interfere in their decisions?

Lol. Killing bothers me Heinrich Himmler.

 

[Coyote]

G-d smote Sodom and Gomorrah for far less than 55 million murdered unborn children. So when are you fleeing the U.S. for your own safety?

Nothing is more endangered than the fetus of a liberal woman.

The science is against you. Morality is against you. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is against you.

History will condemn the baby killer for all time.

And what dou YOU to help those women with their babies?

LOL. It’s my responsibility. LOL.

If it isnt your responsibility then why are you trying to interfere in their decisions?

Lol. Killing bothers me Heinrich Himmler.

G-d smote Sodom and Gomorrah for far less than 55 million murdered unborn children. So when are you fleeing the U.S. for your own safety?

Nothing is more endangered than the fetus of a liberal woman.

The science is against you. Morality is against you. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is against you.

History will condemn the baby killer for all time.

And what dou YOU to help those women with their babies?

LOL. It’s my responsibility. LOL.

If it isnt your responsibility then why are you trying to interfere in their decisions?

Lol. Killing bothers me Heinrich Himmler.

Oh...you are another one of those who's concern ends at birth and defaults to cheesy Hitler references.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Says you. Many others believe differently. And fortunately for them, you're not the arbitrator of morals.

Yes, and there are many murderers and rapists out there too, so what's your point? Sane, decent people understand that using abortion as a birth control method is wrong and morally bankrupt.

At the risk of being repetitive.... again, according to you. Not everyone believes as you.

Doesn't matter, it's a logical fallacy to imply that something is moral/ethical because some people believe it is. Some people thought slavery was fine, did that make it right? I mean, you're entitled to your opinion, but don't be surprised when people say something about it.

What is the difference between slavery and forcing a woman to catry an unwanted pregnancy within her body?

No one forced you to get pregnant, you did that to yourself. A translation of what you said: How can someone force me not kill an innocent human being? Well I'm sure Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy and others like them would agree with you on that.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

An embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’ entitled to Constitutional protections; the individuals Dahmer and Bundy killed were persons entitled to Constitutional protections.

You may not like the law, you may not agree with the law, you might believe that the law is ‘wrong’ – but that doesn’t change the fact that the protected liberties of a woman are paramount, immune from attack by the state.

And that you might believe a woman subject to an unintended and unwanted pregnancy is ‘irresponsible’ is legally irrelevant, having no bearing on her right to privacy, giving the state no ‘authority’ to compel her to give birth against her will through force of law.

 

[Beyond]

LOL No, that would be you saying that, Gipper.

No that is exactly what you posted, in other words. You can’t have it both ways.

Besides, why would you want to murder your own child? Ugh! That’s sick!

Just WHERE in that post do you get the idea that I said women are weak or incapable of taking care of themselves?
C'mon, parse those words.

You think a woman can’t control herself. She is just too weak. She is going to have unprotected sex. Then when she does you want to make the father responsible for her actions, but you don’t believe the father has any say in whether his child lives or dies. You can’t have it both ways any longer.

Abortion is legalized murder. You don’t get to murder your baby anymore.

? I said the sperm donor needs to be held equally responsible. Does that infer that the man is too weak to control himself and that he will have unprotected sex? My point was that both male and female are responsible, not just the woman for spreading her legs, as some here have so charmingly put it.

If they responsible, why does the father have no say in whether his child lives or dies?

because he isn't the one giving his body over to the process.

 

[Chuz Life]

So, a lawyer gets to decide when life begins?

You are talking about charges for homicide. It doesn't sound like a medical question.

You are saying a baby is not considered a person until they are born, so I'm asking you, if a baby isnt a person, then if a pregnant woman is killed, the assailant cannot be charged with a double homicide, right?

I'm not asking what a lawyer would say, because that lawyer may believe the unborn baby is a person. I'm asking what you would say.

You cant say a baby is not a person inside the womb, but advocate for double homicide in the scenario mentioned.

Why do you keep asking me the same legal question?

Are you dense?

I'm trying to figure out when you, or other pro abortionists, consider when a baby is a person.

I am pro-choice. I chose not to have an abortion because I knew from almost the first week that (1) I was pregnant (2) that it was a boy and (3) that it was my child in there. I did not want to terminate that life, even though it was not at all what I had planned for my life at the time. I was lucky that the dad was willing to step up to the plate and we made a go of it.
Yet if things had been different I might have been forced to make a different decision. I do not consider that tiny developing embryo as being a "baby" or a "child." It is nowhere near ready to live as a functioning independent human. Another collision of egg and sperm can be arranged later down the road when a baby could enter the world wanted and celebrated, into a family that had confidence they could feed it and raise it for all its time.

No.

First you said it was a child / boy in there and then you claimed it was not a child at all.

And someone called that a winner?


Okay? Now you know my opinion. Does that clear things up for you at all? (No)

 

[Beyond]

As can men.

Yep, the point is, both are willing participants in the act, so both share the responsibility. If she agrees to have sex, then she agrees there is a risk of pregnancy. What you are saying is, both can be willing participants, but if she gets pregnant, and the man wants to be a father to the child, the woman can deny him his child.

You're saying that the man doesnt matter in this scenario, and that his desires do not count, so, if you are going to give sole authority to the woman over the pregnancy, then she needs to be the one to decide to have control over her body, and not have sex. If she is willing to have sex, and take the risk of getting pregnant, and shut the man out of the decision making process, then she needs to abstain.

I'm saying a woman can deny a man's demand to use her body as an incubater for his offspring. It's a process that throws a woman's body and life into a spin for a minimum of 9 months, can leave her with serious medical issues for the rest of her life and can kill her. No person has the right to impose that on another person in order to have their own gratification satisfied.

I'm not saying a man doesn't matter, I'm saying each one, both men and women, must deal with the cards nature has dealt them in terms of which aspect of procreation they have governance over.

I'm not sure I completely agree with that. Pregnancy in this day and age, in this country, is rarely fatal and doesn't cause life long health problems. Well, it did straighten my hair. While I understand your argument, I think it is half the man's and if there is no reason to think the woman is at medical risk, she should seriously consider having the child if he wants to take sole guardianship and raise it himself.

She should consider it, but it should be up to her to make that. The problem is that the man can exit at any time. And financial support is just that, financial, and realistically, with poor men and women may not begin to cover things. That is why it has to remain her decision.

Yes, ultimately I suppose it must be her decision, since she will bear the child. But I would hope every woman realizes that what is in her womb is not solely hers when she makes that decision. A man would have to take full legal responsibility for the child, LEGALLY, in my scenario. Not just a promise over dinner.

I'd agree that the ideal is the couple being in a relationship that allows each to consider the feelings and welfare of the other. Again that decision of circumstances is with both parties.

 

[Beyond]

And therefore, it is HER choice.

Yes. The woman will be judged by God.

Exactly. And as far as I can tell you aren’t God nor do you speak for God.

Never said I was God, but God's Word says you're a murderer if you murder an innocent defenseless human being.

G-d smote Sodom and Gomorrah for far less than 55 million murdered unborn children. So when are you fleeing the U.S. for your own safety?

Nothing is more endangered than the fetus of a liberal woman.

The science is against you. Morality is against you. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is against you.

History will condemn the baby killer for all time.

According to science, childbirth carries higher health risks than abortion.

 

[gipper]

Yes. The woman will be judged by God.

Exactly. And as far as I can tell you aren’t God nor do you speak for God.

Never said I was God, but God's Word says you're a murderer if you murder an innocent defenseless human being.

G-d smote Sodom and Gomorrah for far less than 55 million murdered unborn children. So when are you fleeing the U.S. for your own safety?

Nothing is more endangered than the fetus of a liberal woman.

The science is against you. Morality is against you. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is against you.

History will condemn the baby killer for all time.

According to science, childbirth carries higher health risks than abortion.

Yeah so kill it.

 

[OldLady]

I honestly don't know where this personal animosity toward me comes from with you, but I've had enough. You're on ignore. Rave on.

Lolol! Could this be the same old Biddy who once chastised me for ignoring others? Say it isn't so.

LOL Yes, it is. I suggested you not to put people on ignore because they have different opinions from you. That is not why Dog is on ignore.

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.

I took exception to your continual bossing people around like you do.

That is not a personal attack, even if you whine that it is in hopes that the statement addressing your pattern of behavior will get removed.

I didn't need your statements to be removed; I removed you instead. I don't usually leave folks on ignore for long, but it looks like you can't learn how to keep your fat troll mouth shut.
So bye again.

 

[gipper]

No that is exactly what you posted, in other words. You can’t have it both ways.

Besides, why would you want to murder your own child? Ugh! That’s sick!

Just WHERE in that post do you get the idea that I said women are weak or incapable of taking care of themselves?
C'mon, parse those words.

You think a woman can’t control herself. She is just too weak. She is going to have unprotected sex. Then when she does you want to make the father responsible for her actions, but you don’t believe the father has any say in whether his child lives or dies. You can’t have it both ways any longer.

Abortion is legalized murder. You don’t get to murder your baby anymore.

? I said the sperm donor needs to be held equally responsible. Does that infer that the man is too weak to control himself and that he will have unprotected sex? My point was that both male and female are responsible, not just the woman for spreading her legs, as some here have so charmingly put it.

If they responsible, why does the father have no say in whether his child lives or dies?

because he isn't the one giving his body over to the process.

Are you one of those dumb women who doesn’t know how to prevent pregnancy, that OldLady speaks of?