A Question To Pro-Choice People

[marke]

Re: @ least two errors there

I never said they hated their daughter, that is a distortion/lie of what I said. I said they did not have their daughters best interest at heart, and that is not an evil accusation that a fact.

And her loving husband only wanted to let his wife finally die with some dignity rather than being forced to remain a vegetable.

How do you assume a vegetable wants to die with dignity? If the vegetable doesn't care and her parents want to keep the vegetable to care for because they love her then why take the vegetable away from her parents and give her to the executioners to slowly starve her to death because she lingers on in spite of having the plug pulled?

 

[marke]

Re: @ least two errors there

Here. I'll pull a Tosca and see if that helps you understand.

Killing animals is not illegal.

That's the trouble with human laws. Some human laws demand the death penalty for anyone hiding Jews from roving bands of genocidal maniacs and some laws make it a crime to put an injured animal to death to put it out of its misery.

 

[tosca1]

When a Woman becomes pregnant, as the result of a sperm impregnating the egg, cell division begins in which the creation of a human life goes through stages pre-birth, zygote, embryo, and fetus.
Abortion, IMO, occurs when the woman decides to cease production prior to birth,

It couldn't be about "ceasing production," when the product has been created already!
Production is done! A human life exists!

It's just now a matter of delivery.....which can't be done through amazon.

Ceasing production, would be at anytime before Joe ejaculates.... when the woman yells time-out, and asks:

ARE YOU WEARING A CONDOM? :mrgreen:

and in rare cases may be finalized outside her body.

So.....giving birth to a child has now become just one of those "rare cases?"
And here I thought birth is part of the natural cycle of life.

Also IMO, government has no rights to become involved until a birth has been documented through the creation of a birth certificate.

The government has every right to interfere when another human's right is being violated.
That's why it's crucial for pro-choice to try to dehumanize the fetus.

I've not seen anyone use the argument that a fetus is not human, although the term fetus indicates that birth has yet to occur.

You have not been in this section for long? You should review the posts on this thread.

No Woman should ever be forced to bring a life into existence,

:doh

Who said anything about forcing to impregnate a woman?

......and should be the sole sovereign authority allowed to make that decision.

Only when she doesn't oppress the right of another human being.

Having allowed for another human to be created inside her, is a conscious decision on her part
to have agreed, and allowed for that consequence.

She's made that decision.



Unless the woman was raped............how did the baby get created inside her?

Surely pro-choice isn't in any way insinuating that a woman is also "not conscious of her surroundings,
and is lacking of awareness?" :lol:

 

[AGENT J]

1.) The government has every right to interfere when another human's right is being violated.
2.) That's why it's crucial for pro-choice to try to dehumanize the fetus.
3.) You have not been in this section for long? You should review the posts on this thread.
4.):doh Who said anything about forcing to impregnate a woman?
5.) Unless the woman was raped............how did the baby get created inside her?
6.)Surely pro-choice isn't in any way insinuating that a woman is also "not conscious of her surroundings, and is lacking of awareness?" :lol:

1.) what about the womans human rights? oh thats right you dont care about them
2.) lie, disagree prove otherwise you cant
3.) another lie, disagree quote all these people that claim a zef is not human
4.) :doh is right who said anything about forcing to impregnate? nobody but you said that retarded strawman
5.) doesnt matter to law or rights.
6.) nope again thats ANOTHER retarded strawman you made up

LMAO looks like all your lies failed again, why post so many lies when you cant back them up with any facts?
Let us know whne you can, thanks!

 

[tosca1]

Yes, the woman (unless raped) has control of her body.

Birth control has failure rates, you know that, right?

So what?


You're saying, just because protection isn't 100% guaranteed, therefore they shouldn't bother at all?

No wonder STD is skyrocketing! :lol:

 

[Wayne Jr]

Re: @ least two errors there

That's the trouble with human laws. Some human laws demand the death penalty for anyone hiding Jews from roving bands of genocidal maniacs and some laws make it a crime to put an injured animal to death to put it out of its misery.

On that, we can agree. Mercy killing should be legal.

 

[tosca1]

The smoker knows that his/her habit can result in lung cancer. We still allow him/her to have the tumour(s) removed.

:roll:

:mrgreen:

How desperate are you guys? That's the silliest yet to have come out from pro-choice!


The tumor is not a human being. The fetus, is.

 

[Logician Man]

So what?


You're saying, just because protection isn't 100% guaranteed, therefore they shouldn't bother at all?

No wonder STD is skyrocketing! :lol:

Odd ( and disgusting ) that you would LOL because you claim STD is skyrocketing. Just exactly what do you find humorous about such a thing ?

 

[AGENT J]

The tumor is not a human being. The fetus, is.

so is the woman . . oops your hypocrisy fails again :lamo

 

[tosca1]

The women most at risk for abortion (working poor) are frequently too rich for medicaid or too poor for insurance. The most reliable form are the jimplantables and IUDs which can cost about 2 times the cost of an abortion, Other forms like BCP - the effectiveness can completely go away if you miss one dose,

Lol.....you make me cry. Tough luck. :shrug:

You should worry more about people (regardless of gender and age) who themselves are actually dying, because they're too poor to buy food, and medicines for treatment.

The woman who plays fast and loose with her health (acquiring STD), would be at the bottom of my worries. That's called, prioritizing.

Again, you are insisting the woman place the value of a full person into her belly.

Most abortions are done in the first trimester. I personally would not have an abortion, but nor do I place the "value" of a fetus as a full person. You are having a rant trying to make others feel your way. And you don't. Clearly legally not a person, and IMHO not a person either. It is a possible person. An embryo or fetus that is human.

Let's get this straight.

The fetus is a full person - who's simply going through the natural stages of development
(just like you and I did when we were at that stage).


You can't diminish his humanity just because you've already passed that stage!
Lol. Before we know it, you guys will also be claiming a toddler isn't a full human!


Legally.....we'll have to wait until some of these cases reach the Supreme Court.
Whatever laws exist today that favors pro-choice could be overturned, or maybe not.

 

[marke]

so the woman . . oops your hypocrisy fails again :lamo

Who is the real human and the human who has the preeminence? The slave owner or the slave? The German SS trooper or the Jew? The mother or her baby?

 

[marke]

Re: Follow the bouncing ball

I did answer it...so then why did you remove it from my quote? I added the complete quote here, so we can see that either you're dishonest or didnt understand it. Which is it? Or is it both?

I am not following you. What did I remove?

 

[tosca1]

Re: @ least two errors there

On that, we can agree. Mercy killing should be legal.

We should start with women who are "not conscious of their surroundings.....and who lacks awareness!"

They don't know how they end up pregnant!

They're walking disasters!



We euthanize them - then we wouldn't have to be dealing with unwanted pregnancies.....and abortion!
Think of the money we'll save!


If pro-choice want to be like Hitler - then, it's only logical to round up these women!

Start with repeat offenders! They're the worst of the lot!

 

[AGENT J]

Who is the real human and the human who has the preeminence? The slave owner or the slave? The German SS trooper or the Jew? The mother or her baby?

weird . . can you quote where i said anything about one having factual preeminence between them ooops another retarded strawman bites the dust. LMAO

In fact HONEST people who are educated, objective and integrity based understand and admit to the fact theres no such thing as equal rights in this case. We ALL pick one entity over the other and treat one as a lesser. The only difference is which one and when.

Can YOU admit that? Can YOU post with honesty and integrity?

 

[marke]

Re: @ least two errors there

Of course it's not. That doesnt even exist. :doh That's some religious belief of yours. And quite convoluted the way you express it.

It's a legal right in America.

Now it is. Let's see if the modern law is changed again in the future.

 

[marke]

Re: @ least two errors there

That's not an answer to this:

You are "one of the people" that thinks it's fine for the govt to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will? Yes or no?

Why not? Care to try again?

The government should not have to force parents to treat their kids right and take responsibility for their actions.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Re: @ least two errors there

We should start with women who are....

You were talking about animals, not humans.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: @ least two errors there

The government should not have to force parents to treat their kids right and take responsibility for their actions.

what responsibility?

 

[marke]

Re: @ least two errors there

I never heard of this new fantasy of yours but it is as self-indulgently and inaccurately described as your ghoulish fantasies of abortions. Your mind seems to live in some charnel house where you find stimulation in death fantasies.

Perhaps you should consider meditating?

I oppose butchering babies in the womb and you accuse me of having a fantasy about death?

 

[Wayne Jr]

Re: @ least two errors there

Now it is. Let's see if the modern law is changed again in the future.

Of course, the law will change. Everything changes. The only question is, what the change will be. It doesn't mean either of us will get our way. It only means thing will, in some way, change.

 

[marke]

Re: @ least two errors there

Please explain: what is a post-birth abortion?

Murdering babies after they are born alive and calling it abortion instead of murder. You know, what Beto proposed and what Gosnell practiced.

 

[tosca1]

Re: @ least two errors there

You were talking about animals, not humans.

They're not human!

A cold-blooded person.....isn't really human.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Re: @ least two errors there

I oppose butchering babies in the womb and you accuse me of having a fantasy about death?

I support butchering babies in the womb and talking about it only makes me hungry

 

[Wayne Jr]

Re: @ least two errors there

They're not human!

A cold-blooded person.....isn't really human.

Humans are mammals and are all warm-blooded. Basic biology.

 

[tosca1]

Re: @ least two errors there

I support butchering babies in the womb and talking about it only makes me hungry

And I enjoy bashing moronic women who think so full of themselves!
More so the ones who put them on a pedestal! :mrgreen: