You explain it to me, because I don't understand

[Quantum Windbag]

If you are drunk and seriously injure a person, are you forced to donate a kidney, or donate blood? Why is this girl being forced to use her body to sustain a life when the drunk driver does not? The consequences are hardly the same, are they?

Are you loosing it?

She isn't being forced to do anything, she just can't pretend she is independent when it is convenient, and then still force her foster parents to support her.

She is being forced to carry a fetus to term.

No she is not, the court decision did not say she could not get an abortion, despite your histrionics. Until you get that through your head, you really should shut up.

 

[BDBoop]

Are you loosing it?

She isn't being forced to do anything, she just can't pretend she is independent when it is convenient, and then still force her foster parents to support her.

She is being forced to carry a fetus to term.

No she is not, the court decision did not say she could not get an abortion, despite your histrionics. Until you get that through your head, you really should shut up.

And you really should stop telling people to shut up. If you don't want to hear her, turn off the damn computer.

 

[Unkotare]

Yes, well that point generally escapes people who have elevated a fetus to god-like status.

Does the fact that you don't take a knife and butcher your neighbors mean you have elevated them to "god-like status"?

 

[Unkotare]

While I hate abortion I think its silly to argue with the right of a woman to choose to carry a child or not. I just dont see anyway a man has any say in that. Regardless if she puts the baby up for adoption or not its her body that is dealing with carrying the child until its born. In this case its really stupid to bring a child into the world that the mother doesn't really want.

This kind of callous, immoral, inhuman attitude is what results from the leftist agenda of dehumanization.

Its not callous or immoral. I just dont have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. .

It obviously IS callous and immoral. The fact that you can't see that should give you some idea how far you have sunk.

And of course you - as a member of society - DO have the right to tell a woman (or a man) what to do with her body. You share that right with every other man and woman who is a member of society. And that's the way you want it.

 

[Asclepias]

This kind of callous, immoral, inhuman attitude is what results from the leftist agenda of dehumanization.

Its not callous or immoral. I just dont have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. .

It obviously IS callous and immoral. The fact that you can't see that should give you some idea how far you have sunk.

And of course you - as a member of society - DO have the right to tell a woman (or a man) what to do with her body. You share that right with every other man and woman who is a member of society. And that's the way you want it.

Thats the type of thinking that supported slavery for so long. You are absolutely wrong in your conclusions. Where do you have evidence to support your warped view of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Did anyone consider that forcing a woman to carry a fetus to full term is actually TELLING HER what she can and can't do with her body?

Besides, did anyone ever consider that she might not be able to financially have the child? It costs 4,000 plus to have a kid in the hospital, and that's BEFORE you start buying them clothes, feeding them, etc.

 

[Unkotare]

Its not callous or immoral. I just dont have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. .

It obviously IS callous and immoral. The fact that you can't see that should give you some idea how far you have sunk.

And of course you - as a member of society - DO have the right to tell a woman (or a man) what to do with her body. You share that right with every other man and woman who is a member of society. And that's the way you want it.

Thats [sic] the type of thinking that supported slavery for so long.

No, it's the type of thinking that makes it illegal for someone (even a member of your own family) to hack you to death with a knife. It is also the type of thinking that makes it illegal for someone to steal your car, or store plutonium in the house next to yours, or to cook up nerve agents in the open air in the yard next to yours. It's the type of thinking you rely on all the time. It's just the way you want it.

 

[Unkotare]

Did anyone consider that forcing a woman to carry a fetus to full term is actually TELLING HER what she can and can't do with her body?.

And?

 

[Unkotare]

Besides, did anyone ever consider that she might not be able to financially have the child? It costs 4,000 plus to have a kid in the hospital, and that's BEFORE you start buying them clothes, feeding them, etc.

So, by that reasoning it should be legal for poor people to kill their children. Is that what you're advocating?

 

[BDBoop]

Did anyone consider that forcing a woman to carry a fetus to full term is actually TELLING HER what she can and can't do with her body?

Besides, did anyone ever consider that she might not be able to financially have the child? It costs 4,000 plus to have a kid in the hospital, and that's BEFORE you start buying them clothes, feeding them, etc.

She is not ready in any sense of the word ready. Nobody should be having babies they can't afford to provide for.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Besides, did anyone ever consider that she might not be able to financially have the child? It costs 4,000 plus to have a kid in the hospital, and that's BEFORE you start buying them clothes, feeding them, etc.

So, by that reasoning it should be legal for poor people to kill their children. Is that what you're advocating?

Never said anything about poor people being able to kill their children.

However.....................I DO believe that a woman should have access to birth control and abortion if needed. Especially in the cases of incest and rape. If a woman is raped, she should not be punished by making her carry the result of that rape to full term. I also believe that poor people should have access to any kind of contraceptive that works well for them. Like I said, some families don't have the money to have a child.

Especially now.

 

[BDBoop]

Besides, did anyone ever consider that she might not be able to financially have the child? It costs 4,000 plus to have a kid in the hospital, and that's BEFORE you start buying them clothes, feeding them, etc.

So, by that reasoning it should be legal for poor people to kill their children. Is that what you're advocating?

Never said anything about poor people being able to kill their children.

However.....................I DO believe that a woman should have access to birth control and abortion if needed. Especially in the cases of incest and rape. If a woman is raped, she should not be punished by making her carry the result of that rape to full term. I also believe that poor people should have access to any kind of contraceptive that works well for them. Like I said, some families don't have the money to have a child.

Especially now.

Funny how they always have to change the subject to get their point across.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

She is being forced to carry a fetus to term.

No she is not, the court decision did not say she could not get an abortion, despite your histrionics. Until you get that through your head, you really should shut up.

And you really should stop telling people to shut up. If you don't want to hear her, turn off the damn computer.

I told her to pay attention to reality, and suggested she shut up if she doesn't.

By the way, I don't here her, thank God.

 

[BDBoop]

No she is not, the court decision did not say she could not get an abortion, despite your histrionics. Until you get that through your head, you really should shut up.

And you really should stop telling people to shut up. If you don't want to hear her, turn off the damn computer.

I told her to pay attention to reality, and suggested she shut up if she doesn't.

By the way, I don't here her, thank God.

I'm quite sure it is mutual.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Its not callous or immoral. I just dont have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. .

It obviously IS callous and immoral. The fact that you can't see that should give you some idea how far you have sunk.

And of course you - as a member of society - DO have the right to tell a woman (or a man) what to do with her body. You share that right with every other man and woman who is a member of society. And that's the way you want it.

Thats the type of thinking that supported slavery for so long. You are absolutely wrong in your conclusions. Where do you have evidence to support your warped view of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

There was a column in today's New York Times that got me to thinking, you really should read it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did anyone consider that forcing a woman to carry a fetus to full term is actually TELLING HER what she can and can't do with her body?

Besides, did anyone ever consider that she might not be able to financially have the child? It costs 4,000 plus to have a kid in the hospital, and that's BEFORE you start buying them clothes, feeding them, etc.

Did anyone consider that telling me I have to buy insurance that covers the possibility that I might get pregnant means that you can never again call me on anything?

 

[Unkotare]

Did anyone consider that forcing a woman to carry a fetus to full term is actually TELLING HER what she can and can't do with her body?

Besides, did anyone ever consider that she might not be able to financially have the child? It costs 4,000 plus to have a kid in the hospital, and that's BEFORE you start buying them clothes, feeding them, etc.

She is not ready in any sense of the word ready. Nobody should be having babies they can't afford to provide for.

So human life is just a matter of cash value to you? Should countries have citizens they "can't afford to provide for"? We're already in the red. Should the government 'solve' this problem by killing all poor people? I wonder what your wergild is...

 

[Kondor3]

They can't afford to have kids, so they should kill them in the womb?

That's class warfare, isn't it?

 

[Unkotare]

Besides, did anyone ever consider that she might not be able to financially have the child? It costs 4,000 plus to have a kid in the hospital, and that's BEFORE you start buying them clothes, feeding them, etc.

So, by that reasoning it should be legal for poor people to kill their children. Is that what you're advocating?

Never said anything about poor people being able to kill their children..

That is the exact reasoning you gave to justify killing unborn children.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did anyone consider that forcing a woman to carry a fetus to full term is actually TELLING HER what she can and can't do with her body?

Besides, did anyone ever consider that she might not be able to financially have the child? It costs 4,000 plus to have a kid in the hospital, and that's BEFORE you start buying them clothes, feeding them, etc.

She is not ready in any sense of the word ready. Nobody should be having babies they can't afford to provide for.

And, once again, no one is forcing her to have a baby. That wasn't even the issue in the trial, despite your obsession with abortion. The issue was that she wanted emancipation from her foster parents, but still wanted them to provide 3 hots and a cot. She clearly is not mature enough to be emancipated, so the court ruled correctly. She still has other options to purse in order to obtain an abortion, even if she doesn't want to tell her foster parents about it.