We exist, FYI. Some of us are even pro-life.

ND HB 1572 FTW!!!

Views: 1556

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

No, your right to not go through a few inconvenient months does not supersede the child's right TO NOT BE FUCKING KILLED!

Oh, and do you know what incubators even are? They're basically artificial wombs!

You not being allowed to have an abortion does not make you an incubator any more than not being allowed to drop a passenger (or even a stowaway) from your plane makes you a chauffeur.
Riiight, because not being allowed to commit homicide is totally slavery. Men aren't allowed to commit homicide either!

And the price thing wouldn't be a problem if we'd just communism-ize already!
Oh sweetie, Homicide is a legal term. Terminating a pregnancy is not homicide. Nor is it murder. It is an abortion. *You* can call it whatever you like, in order to invoke nothing but an emotional response however, words mean things.

You may *feel* that an abortion is murder, however that does not make it so. Plain and simple. You still have not answered the issue of the potentiated children already here. You can yell and scream all you like about ripping of limbs, however much like most of your ilk, you miraculously drop off the face of the planet when it comes time to take care of these children. You just think that it is a woman/child's DUTY to lay down and take what's coming to them when it comes to pregnancy. You want to punish the raped and the abused and force them to further endure the torture. Some how in your feeble mind you are able to justify harming an already born person because they are bringing a life into the world that you will have nothing to do with. You will not clothe or feed the child you so desperately cling to saving. You will not provide medical care for either mother or child. You will not be there in the middle of the night for 2am feedings, or be there to provide the proper care for a mother who gives a child up for adoption. You attempt to balance on you high horse the worth of a person already born against a potential one. This a decision to be handled between a woman (or child in many cases) and her doctor. To try to reduce pregnancy to a "few uncomfortable months" is simply one more lacking ploy you are using to rather un-skillfully prove your point. The bottom line is simply this: the decision to carry a pregnancy to term is a medical and moral decision for the person who will forever be impacted by the decision. You my friend are clearly neither the person impacted by the pregnancy, nor the person who will step up to raise the child, therefore you are nothing but the peanut gallery.
Homicide is an English word, which also has a legal definition. It also has a dictionary definition: the killing of one human being by another. I don't call McDonald's a person either.

And, if we're going to not use "invok[ing] emotional responses", don't give me this bullshit about "punishing" rape victims. If anything, the child is being given capital punishment for his/her father's crime.

BTW, I advocate socialized medicine.
But, am I not allowed to speak out against my neighbor's abuse of his family if I am not willing to to house them myself?
You have no idea what those "inconvenient months" means! Go find out, ask some real women, teenagers or unwanted babies then come back and give us your report.

KILLED huh this is your argument then tell me what this means to you, be emotive if you want, but tell me why you are so bothered about killing an embryo. I DO know about life I have 'incubated' two real people, I have felt them grow inside me and given birth and watched them grow older. I GET it not just conceptually and I know that it is HUGE to bring life into this world.

I have tried to get you to see that this is a complex issue but you are STUCK on this idea that KILLING is simply bad, that everyone involved should rally around for the supreme purpose of saving life at all cost, even if it FUCKS up everyone's lives in the process. If you can't see the bigger picture than it is time to go think about it some more, get some perspective and perhaps accept that a bunch of people who have considered this issue deeply may have a POINT and that perhaps while you may not be wrong, other people do have the right to their view and the liberty to use their bodies as they wish.

You see in practice most woman will not callously KILL the growing life inside them without considering these bigger issues, women take this decision very seriously indeed.
You have the liberty to use your body as you wish, but your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

And this isn't about saving lives; it's about just not killing.
The tip of one's nose? Perhaps you should use the same logic with another's uterus as well. Your right to save another "person" ends at the opening of my vagina!
Any points that are made against his case he simply ignores. I used the point that even if a fetus/embryo was considered fully human (which isn't legally the case) you cannot force anyone to undergo risk for another. That means that even if you are growing a fully functioning, aware member of society in your stomach, it is your choice whether that "person" remains there or not because pregnancy carried inherent risk for permanent damage and/or death.
No, you cannot drop a hitch-hiker out of a plane, but if he is swinging a knife or threatening anyone on board (that's there legally) then the use of lethal force is absolutely acceptable and will not be prosecuted.
If you invite a person over for coffee and they come back later that night and try to rob you, it is within your legal right to shoot this person to defend yourself (and in some states even just to defend your property)
You do not have to give up a kidney to save your dying sister (because giving up a kidney poses a risk for you) but you do have to feed and warm a newborn baby (because that doesn't)
Legally defined, you do not have to risk yourself (and all pregnancies are a medical risk) to save, rescue, preserve the life of or even let exist any other person or persons on this earth. Duty to Rescue and Right to Rescue laws have established this fact in every state of America.
Even if it was murder (which has clearly NOT been proven) it still would not be illegal.
This guy obviously knows nothing about medicine/biology (calling pregnancy "a few months of inconvenience") or law. (By his refusal to even acknowledge the Self Defense/Right to Rescue points I made)
He's nothing more than an emotive fanatic that can't back up his case, so instead falls to vulgarity.
This is not risking your life to save a right. This is not being allowed to kill someone else to leave a risky situation.

The kidney analogy is fucking retarded. Not donating a kidney is passive killing, violating a positive right to life. An abortion is active killing, violating the negative right to life. A woman is under no obligation to become pregnant, but she may not kill the fetus.

We tell women not to rape, murder, steal, assault, arson, defraud, etc., etc., et cetera.
"A woman is under no obligation to become pregnant, but she may not kill the fetus"
Another lovely quote from you.
I guess in your fantasy world rape doesn't happen, huh?
Fact of it is, a woman does not have to give consent to become pregnant, so in fairness to her she should have to give consent to continue the pregnancy.
In a court of LAW, these ideals do stand up. I have listed the LAWS in question and got no response from you.
What law on the books says that being the victim of violence gives you the right to initiate violence against a third party?


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service