• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is a good punishment?

What is a good punishment for mothers who kill their unborn babies?

  • A large fine.

    Votes: 1 12.5%

  • A small fine.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • A short prison sentence: 90 days - 5 years.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • A long prison sentence: 5 years or more.

    Votes: 5 62.5%

  • No punishment for mothers. It should be illegal just because.

    Votes: 2 25.0%
  • Total voters
    8
  • Poll closed .
Lursa said:
You didnt come up with an example that proved the point and I explained why. It is part and parcel of THE CONTRACT of joining the military. There is no such thing for sex.

And such limited thinking...an abortion does not mean a woman will never choose to be a mother....most will just choose WHEN they are ready and do so.
Click to expand...
My good god lady, are all your arguments so lame? Here is exactly how you framed it:
Lursa said:
Give me an example where strangers or the govt can demand that you take a risk to your life or life-long health? Something that you dont want to do? C'mon....example.
Click to expand...

Now was that your question or not? Only the...truth... I know its hard, but tell the truth.

And then I did, my example was near perfect... and now you try to wriggle off the hook... sorry lady. Females know exactly what the score is, just now the low life ones [ where the bad morals are murdering your own children ] get to be off the hook... not after we get finished with tearing down your little shrine to killing off our young, going to blow that thing up and rejoice.
 
Lursa said:
Your example didnt work...you choose to ignore why.

Here, try this one again....it's the real proof.

Much of our society, even pro-lifers, recognize the termination of the fetus in cases of rape and incest. WHY? Try to answer it.

Now....does society allow the killing of a toddler who is the product of rape or incest? WHY NOT? And WHY is that toddler treated differently than the fetus? Try to answer it.


You know the answer, you just dont like it. Because the fetus does not have equal rights with the woman...or any 'person' already born.

I dont ask that people 'like it.' There's nothing to 'like' about those situations or even abortion. Just the recognition that a woman's rights supersede a fetus's and to live your own beliefs and not attempt to force them on others.
Click to expand...
I am finished with your silly questions...I have already answered them a dozen times...nothing, no reasoning has a chance to get through the thick barrier of nothingness, I presume.

BECAUSE IT IS A LIFE, IT IS A FELLOW HUMAN, IT HAS RIGHTS ACCORDED THAT ALL HUMANS HAVE... AN INNOCENT LIFE THAT ONCE STARTED CANNOT BE JUST ENDED FOR CONVENIENCE... or even FOR "OOOooooh, I am feeling so faint, might get some mild depression, or an upset stomach...." or whatever else lame excuse the murderous folk with which you identify come up with.

My good lord the second question is more lame than the first... the only reason the toddler, who is the same as the baby in the womb as to being a product of rape or incest, is allowed to live is because you folks could not subvert the law that far... I am pretty sure you would if you could...you don't care about babies or life, you care about woman's choice...that is IT...nothing more, nothing less.

That's it, I have more than countered every point, answered every question multiple times... if you cannot understand, I am not a miracle worker, just a person attempting to save the innocent and defenseless from the evils out there that would do them grave harm.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
My good god lady, are all your arguments so lame? Here is exactly how you framed it:


Now was that your question or not? Only the...truth... I know its hard, but tell the truth.

And then I did, my example was near perfect... and now you try to wriggle off the hook... sorry lady. Females know exactly what the score is, just now the low life ones [ where the bad morals are murdering your own children ] get to be off the hook... not after we get finished with tearing down your little shrine to killing off our young, going to blow that thing up and rejoice.
Click to expand...

When you join the military it is very specific that you MUST do as ordered up to and including risking your life. If you werent willing to accept that, you shouldnt have signed up. How can that be explained any simpler? Willingness to risk your life for your country is almost THE DEFINITION of joining the military.

Getting pregnant is NOT the definition of casual sex, nor is it even necessary or an obligation to remain pregnant. No contract, no commitment.

Are you comparing our men's sacrifices in the military to men/women having casual sex?
 
Lursa said:
Your example didnt work...you choose to ignore why.

Here, try this one again....it's the real proof.

Much of our society, even pro-lifers, recognize the termination of the fetus in cases of rape and incest. WHY? Try to answer it.

Now....does society allow the killing of a toddler who is the product of rape or incest? WHY NOT? And WHY is that toddler treated differently than the fetus? Try to answer it.


You know the answer, you just dont like it. Because the fetus does not have equal rights with the woman...or any 'person' already born.

I dont ask that people 'like it.' There's nothing to 'like' about those situations or even abortion. Just the recognition that a woman's rights supersede a fetus's and to live your own beliefs and not attempt to force them on others.
Click to expand...

Gaugingcatenate said:
I am finished with your silly questions...I have already answered them a dozen times...nothing, no reasoning has a chance to get through the thick barrier of nothingness, I presume.

BECAUSE IT IS A LIFE, IT IS A FELLOW HUMAN, IT HAS RIGHTS ACCORDED THAT ALL HUMANS HAVE (not if you can terminate it to save a woman from mental anguish...which society recognizes.)... AN INNOCENT LIFE THAT ONCE STARTED CANNOT BE JUST ENDED FOR CONVENIENCE... or even FOR "OOOooooh, I am feeling so faint, might get some mild depression, or an upset stomach...." or whatever else lame excuse the murderous folk with which you identify come up with.

My good lord the second question is more lame than the first... the only reason the toddler, who is the same as the baby in the womb as to being a product of rape or incest, is allowed to live is because you folks could not subvert the law that far... I am pretty sure you would if you could...you don't care about babies or life, you care about woman's choice...that is IT...nothing more, nothing less.

That's it, I have more than countered every point, answered every question multiple times... if you cannot understand, I am not a miracle worker, just a person attempting to save the innocent and defenseless from the evils out there that would do them grave harm.
Click to expand...

No where did you answer the question in red. The stuff in all caps you wrote? THat is not an answer. Unless you are once again describing the trauma of rape and incest as mild discomfort. Not only that....I asked why 'society including most pro-lifers' recognize it, not you. You have already displayed your disrespect for victimized women.

And the answer to THAT is the evidence proving that the fetus's life is not equal to an individual already born.
 
The Misanthrope said:
Any woman who aborts her baby should be forced to attend half a church service full of sanctimonious, supercilious, psalm-singing arseholes publicly grovelling to God. I say half a service because a full service should only be inflicted on child molesters, mass murderers, and f--king beetle-browed imbeciles who wear baseball caps back to front and call each other "dude."
Click to expand...

I have been to thousands of the church services that you describe.
 
Lursa said:
When you join the military it is very specific that you MUST do as ordered up to and including risking your life. If you werent willing to accept that, you shouldnt have signed up. How can that be explained any simpler? Willingness to risk your life for your country is almost THE DEFINITION of joining the military.

Getting pregnant is NOT the definition of casual sex, nor is it even necessary or an obligation to remain pregnant. No contract, no commitment.

Are you comparing our men's sacrifices in the military to men/women having casual sex?
Click to expand...
Well, since it has in the past been only been men who have been called upon to do that, why not at least bring it up...sure. Except sex and pregnancy is not even close to being as risky and it should be something women do lovingly. And when the rules change, casual sex will have repercussions and women will know what they are risking... so it will be exactly the same. Contract and commitment.

Come on, I don't have to explain every single thing to you, do I?
 
lursa said:
no where did you answer the question in red. The stuff in all caps you wrote? That is not an answer. Unless you are once again describing the trauma of rape and incest as mild discomfort. Not only that....i asked why 'society including most pro-lifers' recognize it, not you. You have already displayed your disrespect for victimized women.

And the answer to that is the evidence proving that the fetus's life is not equal to an individual already born.
Click to expand...
its a life, you cannot just go around killing OTHER humans... Do you not understand that?

Sorry about that, sometimes bad things happen in life that we just have to deal with... Sometimes someone T bones you running a red light, not at all your fault... Had it happen to me, totaled my car, insurance would not give me near what it was actually worth, an older car but one that I had kept in great condition mechanically, completely paid for already, had to buy a new one to get the same reliability... I just had to deal with it... Things happen in life. But just because someone might have some mental trauma, or some anguish? That is silliness and certainly not a reason to put someone, someone that person created and knew may occur as a result of their own actions, to death... at least not to most of us, those equipped with a brain and born with a conscience...

As stated earlier, I am not a miracle worker, I cannot create a conscience in those born without... or make people be reasonable... that is one of the reasons why we have laws and enforcement agencies to police them...so at least we will know after the laws change that the ones willing to kill others, those who are lacking compassion in such volume as to be a danger to others... we can just lock them up, keep those compassion-less turned murderers from harming others, hopefully for most of their killing of their own children reproductive window.

Justice will then prevail in this area once again.
 
Removable Mind said:
Liberals? Ha!

Well, at least you're consistently wrong.

And...if your dream comes true...and half of the women in our nation will be imprisoned...then you're right Kleenex stock will go crazy. What a man you are. I'm sure you've made your mom proud for wanting to imprison evil women who do nothing more than exercise their Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
Yes, first step of being a liberal, not being able to think beyond their own feelings, not able to think deeply, can only have surface compassion for others...all this as long as it does not impinge on their own life too much...

I am sure most women in this nation are not near as stupid as you make them out to be, certainly not half... and those that are? Well, best to have those dangerous types off the streets, eh? I am sure your mother is awfully proud she didn't abort you, too, right? One who incessantly advocates for the mass killing of innocent children, simply by the millions, now tens of millions? As opposed to advocating justice in imprisoning the murderers of their own children...not even close as to the injustice you advocate versus the actual justice I advocate.

You gotta be kidding me as to whose mother would and should be prouder. Not even a fair comparison.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
its a life, you cannot just go around killing OTHER humans... ...
Click to expand...

I disagree.
An embryo is not a life.
A fetus is not a life until it reaches viability.

Before viability it is the woman's life forces it uses for development...just as her organs use her life's forces to function.

If a pregnant women with a pre viable dies , there is no way the pre viable will survive even if quickly removed and given the very best medical care available. The pre viable fetus has no life forces.

However if a fetus dies within the womb of the woman, the woman will usually survive because she has her own life forces.

Once viability is reached , if the woman dies the fetus has a good chance of survival if quickly removed and given the medical care it might need.

It has its own life forces and does not need the bio moms life's forces.

A nurse, the father, a grandparent, an adoptive parent, a foster parent, or another caretaker can fed and care for the infant.
 
Last edited:
The Misanthrope said:
Any woman who aborts her baby should be forced to attend half a church service full of sanctimonious, supercilious, psalm-singing arseholes publicly grovelling to God. I say half a service because a full service should only be inflicted on child molesters, mass murderers, and f--king beetle-browed imbeciles who wear baseball caps back to front and call each other "dude."
Click to expand...
You seem to have it a bit upside down and backwards... oh, I see, you are from Oz, at least accounts for the upside down part of it, perhaps.

Well, it would certainly be too cruel to force them to attend a Democratic convention, sitting in circles singing Kumbaya and groveling to their current lesser-god charismatic who him/herself grovels to Marx, their on-high god, in this country...don't know what would be the liberal equivalent "down there". Talk about sanctimony and superciliousness... with their camouflaged commie manifesto pamphlets, combined with unsocial engineering, coming in bite sized chunks spewed from almost every mainstream media outlet over and up here...
 
minnie616 said:
I disagree.
An embryo is not a life.
A fetus is not a life until it reaches viability.

Before viability it is the woman's life forces it uses for development...just as her organs use her life's forces to function.

If a pregnant women with a pre viable dies , there is no way the pre viable will survive even if quickly removed and given the very best medical care available. The pre viable fetus has no life forces.

However if a fetus dies within the womb of the woman, the woman will usually survive because she has her own life forces.

Once viability is reached , if the woman dies the fetus has a good chance of survival if quickly removed and given the medical care it might need.

It has its own life forces and does not need the bio moms life's forces.

A nurse, the father, a grandparent, an adoptive parent, a foster parent, or another caretaker can fed and care for the infant.
Click to expand...
So? Not at all persuasive...and I already know your opinion. The embryo as you put it, it is alive in most cases right? Not a squirrel... so human, has its own DNA?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
No, you are entirely correct... we, society, just get to dole out the punishment if you kill your baby, afterwards... so, my opinions CAN be relevant... at least after the fact. You can do whatever you want, but you have to know, as well as I, that Roe is on its last legs, its gonna go... the good people of America just have no kinda truck with that sort of immorality committed upon our most innocent.

Texas is that good kinda state where they are least likely to allow such a holocaust... femi-nazis who would commit such atrocities upon their own blood are not too welcome there, one would expect.
Click to expand...

What you have to know is that millions of women who would be punished for "killing their babies" if they had an illegal abortion in your utopian US would just cross the border into Canada, have legal abortions there, and come home. The US government does not have the right, nor does any state government have the right, to determine whether a woman is pregnant and prevent her from going to Canada. No embryo has citizenship and abortion is not the killing of a human being/person in Canada. When the woman returned to the US, the government would have no right to prosecute her. Similarly, US women would patronize Women on Waves for medical/chemical abortions, and because these would occur in international waters on ships not of US origin, US law would not apply. So you would not prevent abortion but merely move it to a different location and you would not be able to punish the women who had abortions.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Just notifying you that I am not going to keep replying to posts that only serve to push one sided, gender and human life insensitive views after you have been given, if you have a conscience, an ethical view beyond just your gender and reasoning powers of a rational adult, sufficient cause to agree that killing the unborn is wrong. Your arguments are simply unpersuasive.
Click to expand...

You can't win me over to the anti-choice side, so you're "not going to keep replying..." Gee, I'm so crushed. :lamo
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
As stated before, EVERYTHING INVOLVES RISK. One is enjoined to minimize risks, its just smart if that is what you decide...however, does not give anyone leeway to kill your way out of any risk. As stated before, if it were only her life, sure, but there is now ANOTHER life involved that has to be taken into consideration. So what she can do for herself alone is simply no longer an option. Period.

Lets don't start with this disrespectful silliness. You disrespect male and society's views... so off your high horse you go, now... might be easier with a step ladder, btw. Its a stupid choice to value a woman's convenience and her minimal risk of permanent injury as compared to the absolute threat she poses to her own baby...death is more absolutely permanent.

Whoever said a baby is a punishment? I mean, who would think that way? My view, I would much rather we keep the baby and abort those females callous enough to want to murder their own. You know, if we really wanted to improve society as a whole. And my words are just as dehumanizing as murdering a baby? Are you joking me? Listen to yourself, try to understand that others can see your views for the shockingly reprehensible garbage that they are... equating words in defense of the innocent with murdering a baby... one wonders why with this kind of absolute silliness that Roe still stands...and Roe stands as a solemn monument to the craven souls in our society who would do this to others...

Again, for shame.
Click to expand...

If a woman does not want to be pregnant and is forced to continue being pregnant on the grounds that she had sex, then pregnancy is punishment for sex, of if she is forced to continue being pregnant on the grounds that the embryo is a human being, then pregnancy is punishment for being female and impregnable with human beings. Only if the woman wants to be pregnant is pregnancy not a punishment.

Indeed, it is only because I want to read and reply on these threads that having to read your drivel is not a punishment. If I were forced to read this misogynist crap, it would be a punishment and not at all value-neutral.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
What trash you write and expect someone to thoughtfully ponder. Thank god that the people who generally "proliferate" this earth are kind, gentle, moral/ethical and think rationally. Those that want to just kill anything that inconveniences them, whether born or not, should probably go the way they want others to go...

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you... wonder how many "born" mothers might rethink the whole deal if the baby could make the choice to abort their uncaring mothers?
Click to expand...

If I remember rightly, minnie616 provided references in some of her posts to the fact that 60+% of women who have abortions already have children. They are among the people who proliferate. There are many pro-choice women who have grown-up daughters and the two increase their mother-daughter bond by advocating together for the right to choose.

When a pregnancy threatens the life of the woman, the fetus is choosing to abort its potential mother, and in that case, only a very small percentage of Americans would favor the fetus aborting its potential mother over the woman aborting her pregnancy with a potential child.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Nobody, not even females, have a right to shoot or kill everyone they presume is a threat. That is just stupid talk. And, I would say, if society says they are not allowed to abort, well, females can kill their babies and then society can lock them away... if they are serial abortionists, death penalty. If it were up to me, I would keep the baby and throw out the murderous mothers.

So, no disrespect for male views, huh? Lets see how honestly you answer this one: Mother wants to abort, father doesn't... who gets to decide on their baby's future in your world?

I have called murderers murderers...that is not calling anybody a name, that is labeling them what they are. Would you call it shameful what the Nazis did in the Holocaust? Would you then say that anybody that called that shameful was dehumanizing the Nazis... like pro-choicers, the Nazis do it to themselves.
Click to expand...

I've said it before. No person has the right to have any of his/her body parts inside any part of your body without your explicit consent to that body part being in that body part. A woman has a right to assume that if you put or keep any of your body parts inside her sex organs without her consent and refuse to stop, even though she has no idea of your actual intent, you are committing rape and she has the right to use deadly force if necessary to prevent/stop that behavior on your part. So if an embryo is a person and the woman did not explicitly consent to a blastocyst/embryo being inside her uterus and attaching to her endometrial wall, that embryo can be assumed to be committing rape.

Your missing the point on what society can do. If you make anti-abortion laws in the US, then pregnant US women can leave the US and go to Canada, where there is a statement in law related to abortion that you have to be born to be a human being/person, or can go on board one of the Women on Waves ships that can go into international waters. In both of those places, those women can have abortions and it is not illegal and they are not killing their babies. When or if those women opt to return to the US, the government has no right to arrest them for killing babies, so you can't do anything about it except illegally attack those women and thus become liable for prosecution yourself.

The Nazis, by the way, were utterly anti-abortion as regards Aryan women, and even if Aryan women were raped in Nazi Germany, if they were raped by Aryan men, they were forced to continue pregnancies. There is no doubt whatsoever that the grossly materialistic views of anti-abortion fanatics here are the same as the grossly materialistic views of Nazi anti-abortion fanatics in Nazi Germany.

So please don't try to use the Holocaust for comparison to abortion because it doesn't favor your side at all and merely makes you appear to be insulting the Jews by your implicit comparison of born Jews to mindless, brainless embryos.
 
The Misanthrope said:
Any woman who aborts her baby should be forced to attend half a church service full of sanctimonious, supercilious, psalm-singing arseholes publicly grovelling to God. I say half a service because a full service should only be inflicted on child molesters, mass murderers, and f--king beetle-browed imbeciles who wear baseball caps back to front and call each other "dude."
Click to expand...

No can do. Freedom of religion.
 
Lursa said:
That is what you sign on for when you join the military. That is not what a woman signs on for when she has sex. Not only that, she has several legal options and complete control over her body. A military soldier does not...and knows it.

A woman is not obligated to remain pregnant anymore than the fetus is obligated not to miscarry. Sound silly? Good because it is and proves my point.

Please, you look silly trying to use the military as an analogy.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong, but if I remember right, you have to take an oath in the military to defend the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. That is sufficient warrant for claiming that the military man has voluntarily explicitly consented in advance to fight in a war. This is really different from a woman saying yes to sexual intercourse, especially with contraception, because there is no explicit consent given to any consequences of sexual intercourse.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Well, since it has in the past been only been men who have been called upon to do that, why not at least bring it up...sure. Except sex and pregnancy is not even close to being as risky and it should be something women do lovingly. And when the rules change, casual sex will have repercussions and women will know what they are risking... so it will be exactly the same. Contract and commitment.

Come on, I don't have to explain every single thing to you, do I?
Click to expand...

You are basing you answer on 'the rule changing?' That's ridiculous, so lame. Meaning, *there is NO such example.*

Goodness, that would be like me starting to use 'when men get pregnant....' as an example. LOLOLOL

Sorry, it's not going to change. Even if the law did, women would still get them and more WOMEN would die and you'd get the satisfaction of being able to *punish* the ones you caught...and nothing would actually change...except malicious people would get satisfaction from their punishment, just like using fetal rights to FORCE women who are victims of rape and incest to carry a fetus and give birth to it....just people that hate women and choose to use the unborn to punish them.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
its a life, you cannot just go around killing OTHER humans... Do you not understand that?

No, and neither does most of the rest of society....I didnt ask IF it was ok....it's already law. I asked WHY it was accepted. In cases of rape or incest. Why even most pro-lifers agree. And you cannot answer. You know the answer, you just wont admit it because you dont believe it.

Sorry about that, sometimes bad things happen in life that we just have to deal with... Sometimes someone T bones you running a red light, not at all your fault... Had it happen to me, totaled my car, insurance would not give me near what it was actually worth, an older car but one that I had kept in great condition mechanically, completely paid for already, had to buy a new one to get the same reliability... I just had to deal with it... Things happen in life. But just because someone might have some mental trauma, or some anguish? That is silliness and certainly not a reason to put someone, someone that person created and knew may occur as a result of their own actions, to death... at least not to most of us, those equipped with a brain and born with a conscience...

And the same applies to a fetus except it never even knows about it. There! If they are equal, then they are subject to the same hard luck crap as everyone else. (Dont bother with the 'innocent' claim.....they cannot form intent, they cannot be anymore innocent or evil than a rock.) *Oh well!* as you seem to be saying to women victimized by rape and incest. Tough luck fetus!

As stated earlier, I am not a miracle worker, I cannot create a conscience in those born without... or make people be reasonable... that is one of the reasons why we have laws and enforcement agencies to police them...so at least we will know after the laws change that the ones willing to kill others, those who are lacking compassion in such volume as to be a danger to others... we can just lock them up, keep those compassion-less turned murderers from harming others, hopefully for most of their killing of their own children reproductive window.

Justice will then prevail in this area once again.

No it wont. :)
Click to expand...

...........................
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Well, since it has in the past been only been men who have been called upon to do that, why not at least bring it up...sure. Except sex and pregnancy is not even close to being as risky and it should be something women do lovingly. And when the rules change, casual sex will have repercussions and women will know what they are risking... so it will be exactly the same. Contract and commitment.

Come on, I don't have to explain every single thing to you, do I?
Click to expand...

The reason that we do not have a draft army today is the same as the reason that we do not have laws forbidding abortion today. The guys who did not want to fight in the Vietnam War believed that the war was wrong. It was not "WWII" to them. They knew the government people were lying about it, not only to the public, but indeed even to each other, with army generals, congressmen, and the White House not telling even each other the truth.

These guys protested the war and the draft. Some burned their draft cards. It was supremely unjust that Quakers could get out of the draft as conscientious objectors but ordinary Protestants and atheists could not. Some guys went to prison over this issue. Sometimes, instead, they fled to Canada and Sweden in order not to go. Because this was an issue that not only concerned what one was willing to risk one's life and health and bodily integrity for, but of conscience and how one wished to live one's life. Those guys who went to Canada and Sweden have never come home, and we are the poorer for having lost them.

But they accomplished one great thing for their country, aided by millions of other protestors against our involvement in that war, and by guys who came home from Vietnam and burned their own medals for heroism in protest. The government realized that, if it wanted to pursue military action in the world which was not truly self-defensive, not truly defensive of real friends in serious alliances, and not truly justifiable by almost all the consciences in the nation, it could not get people to support it - they would even flee their nation in order not to go along.

And that's why, today, even though guys still register for selective service, we use only a small professional military and do not draft non-pros. The government backs down before the consciences and reason of individual citizens as to how they wish to live and die.

And at the same time that those anti-war protests and escapes were going on, intelligent, educated, thoughtful women who had pregnancies they did not want to carry to term were going abroad for abortions they could not get here, started underground organizations helping other women to get illegal abortions performed by medical doctors here, and engaged in a movement against anti-abortion laws in states all over the country.

Some women did not want to give birth to seriously deformed children, products tracing to rapists' sperm, more children than they could afford. Some just did not want to risk their lives and health and bodily integrity for what thoughtful reasoning or conscience told them were nothing but "mistakes." Together with many other protesters, they changed many laws in various states at the state level. And when the issue went to the federal level through the courts, the decision that came had remarkable similarities to the one that ended the male draft.

If you want a professional army of human breeders to produce just any old products of blind and mindless nature, then go out and recruit for it. But don't you dare expect non-pros to breed or to fight for any particular cause they do not believe in and they believe is a "mistake."

Your conscience is not everyone's, and your self-lying "reasoning" is not everyone's, any more than the consciences and self-lying "reasoning" of the government during the VN War were those of the men who defied them.
 
Last edited:
Gaugingcatenate said:
Yes, first step of being a liberal, not being able to think beyond their own feelings, not able to think deeply, can only have surface compassion for others...all this as long as it does not impinge on their own life too much...

I am sure most women in this nation are not near as stupid as you make them out to be, certainly not half... and those that are? Well, best to have those dangerous types off the streets, eh? I am sure your mother is awfully proud she didn't abort you, too, right? One who incessantly advocates for the mass killing of innocent children, simply by the millions, now tens of millions? As opposed to advocating justice in imprisoning the murderers of their own children...not even close as to the injustice you advocate versus the actual justice I advocate.

You gotta be kidding me as to whose mother would and should be prouder. Not even a fair comparison.
Click to expand...

Women who stand up for their equal rights under the law which includes reigning over their reproductive rights are far from stupid. In fact, I have high regard for women. Most probably have more snap than men, in general.
 
choiceone said:
If a woman does not want to be pregnant and is forced to continue being pregnant on the grounds that she had sex, then pregnancy is punishment for sex, of if she is forced to continue being pregnant on the grounds that the embryo is a human being, then pregnancy is punishment for being female and impregnable with human beings. Only if the woman wants to be pregnant is pregnancy not a punishment.

Indeed, it is only because I want to read and reply on these threads that having to read your drivel is not a punishment. If I were forced to read this misogynist crap, it would be a punishment and not at all value-neutral.
Click to expand...
Pick your poison then, actual prison punishment, or follow up with what you agreed to do... which you call punishment... your constant misandry has been duly noted, btw, and calling me names only because of my gender confirms it... just a load of sexist hooey.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Pick your poison then, actual prison punishment, or follow up with what you agreed to do... which you call punishment... your constant misandry has been duly noted, btw, and calling me names only because of my gender confirms it... just a load of sexist hooey.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I adore all the pro-choice men I know personally and all the pro-choice men on these threads. I'm not calling you a misogynist because you're male, but because you're not pro-choice on this issue. I'm not obligated to like or respect everybody, and the bases on which I do like and respect people have nothing to do with gender.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom