My body MY CHOICE
Comments
-
Good poont!MikeDamone said:
Has there every been an abortion performed in and alley? Front alley or back alley?creepycoug said:
People still murder people but we keep it illegal.RaceBannon said:We're not a theocracy
Trite but true
I would be crushed if I got a gal preggers and she got an abortion. Against everything I believe in
Prohibition was also good. Before it Americans were basically drunk if they were awake
Drugs are bad for you and the country
But back ally abortion would return and that's bad secular policy
Prohibition doesn't work. Not even in Iran
Back alleys will back alley. It’s a person or it’s not. No line? Then it is. Can’t kill it. Period. No circumstances. The Catholics nailed this one.
I doubt it. -
If a fetus could drive, and drove slow in the fast lane, then that would be my one exception.RaceBannon said:Technology is the biggest reason the first trimester is BACK
After that you can't argue it's not life
I think murder should be legal in some cases as well
Slow drivers in the fast lane for example
In all states btw. -
And people who can’t figure out round-a-bouts or know how to zipper merge. Die.RaceBannon said:Technology is the biggest reason the first trimester is BACK
After that you can't argue it's not life
I think murder should be legal in some cases as well
Slow drivers in the fast lane for example -
In a statement, King County Executive Dow Constantine said he was “disgusted, yet unsurprised.”
“I believe in and am committed to the right of every woman tomake the choicebe persuaded that is best for herself and her family, and I will never stop fighting to ensure that abortion and family planning care are available, without barriers and unnecessary restrictions, in King County and Washington State,” Constantine said in prepared remarks.
There's likely a bigger risk of population collapse than overpopulating the earth.Sources said:
I think if you're looking for a clear, brightline rule, this is the one. But I can't help but think at a minimum that people that have had circumstances thrust on them deserve some sort of exception.creepycoug said:There are some weird takes on this issue. It's one thing to want to protect state's rights, but some things are pretty fundamental. That's why you can't have slaves in some states and not others.
I've done some thinking about this, and my views have evolved. As much as it sucks to have more derelicts born into society every day and inevitably increase the welfare state, nobody has been able to make a thought-provoking argument to draw the line anywhere. If you can't draw the line, the Catholics are right: at conception. The rest, my body, viability, rape, incest, save the mother, etc, is just mental masturbation. There is no reconciling it. It is morally unacceptable.
There is literally no justification for it. Human life at conception, period. No ifs, ands or butts. Are you allowed to kill an innocent bystander to save yourself? Or because the bystander has inconvenienced you? Did the fetus rape you? Is the fetus responsible for threatening your life? No, no, no and no.
States rights is perhaps the most retarded of arguments. We don't leave it to state legislatures to define what life is and where it begins, and we certainly don't leave it to the voters to decide that it's ok to just randomly kill somebody. "Watch out on your vacation to Glacier Sammy! The voters in Montana have approved the right of citizens to randomly kill people that they view as inconvenient." Please. Stop with this business.
Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and abortion should be ruled unconstitutional throughout the land.
So, no abortion, ever, in any circumstances. That's the right answer. I can draw no other conclusion.
I know rape is the scenario everyone loves to point to because it's extreme, but I think it's a valid example. And quite honestly, I wouldn't want a rapist procreating anyway. Same can be said for minor abuse, etc.
More broadly, as someone who thinks our population levels are fucked anyway, I'm all for culling the herd a bit. I'm not religious, so I don't worry about any of that side of things,
For me, the issue is:when does an abortion blur into something that could be considered murder. I land on viability. By then, there's no longer an excuse - plenty of time to have "addressed" the problem and the unborn child is just that - a child.
YMMV (but if you disagree, fuck off)
If a baby is not considered viable until 12 weeks - whatever the line is - why can someone be charged with murder of a baby in the womb? -
Listen. I'm pro choice.
But all these women are insistent that this is about controlling women instead of just not wanting to abort a heart beat.
It's actually pissing me off. I realize there is a chunk of men who want to control women. There is also a chunk who want the baby to be born and don't want to hold women back.
do they not realize that many of these aborted babies are females? Wouldn’t saving these potential females be considered pro women? -
Always a powerful moment when a Democrat accuses others of wanting control. After two years of forced lockdowns, business closures and maskings.GrundleStiltzkin said:The transphobia here, smdh
-
Adding to Creepy's logic-based explanation is the fact that premature babies commonly survive at ever more shorter gestation periods than in 1973, so this problem of when the state's interest overrides the mother's has been bearing down upon the Roe standards and time periods for at least 3 decades now. Lefty-Libs have satisfied themselves for decades by distinguishing between a baby and a fetus. Well, if it can survive outside the womb, then it's a baby folks. A viable, living, human baby. So abortion at that point is, to me, taking a life, and I don't see how any thoughtful person can argue otherwise.
That said, I think it's a woman's right to choose and if they choose to kill their unborn child, that's up to them. But killing is killing, and there's no way around it IMO. -
There are freezers filled with fertilized ova scattered around the country. All are life.
Obviously conscription of the female population will be required to carry them. -
Pipsqueak Beta-Males spoken for.HHusky said:There are freezers filled with fertilized ova scattered around the country. All are life.
Obviously conscription of the female population will be required to carry them. -
I have binders of women, and freezers full of ova
-
Looks like the moral philosophizing is officially over.
-
-
Attempts?TurdBomber said: -
Besides the right not to race against male at birth athletes, what other rights should women have?
-
Women have the right to race against male athletes. Or not. That’s always been a thing., madam. Freedom of choice man.HHusky said:Besides the right not to race against male at birth athletes, what other rights should women have?
Fuck wit. -
Sorry to have interrupted your weepy, sentimental circle jerk. The point stands. We have an entire fertility industry that includes freezing pre-born human life. Papists are right, I hear. What is to be done?
-
I think those ova are
You should probably kill yourselfHHusky said:Sorry to have interrupted your weepy, sentimental circle jerk. The point stands. We have an entire fertility industry that includes freezing pre-born human life. Papists are right, I hear. What is to be done?
-
Perhaps the worst pro-choice argument ever advanced.HHusky said:Sorry to have interrupted your weepy, sentimental circle jerk. The point stands. We have an entire fertility industry that includes freezing pre-born human life. Papists are right, I hear. What is to be done?
Keep up the good work, Dazzler. -
You have had days to conjure arguments and THIS is what you start with?HHusky said:There are freezers filled with fertilized ova scattered around the country. All are life.
Obviously conscription of the female population will be required to carry them.
Embarassing. -
If it's a Dazzler argument no matter the topic, it's almost a certainty that it's one of the worst arguments ever being advanced.TurdBomber said:
Perhaps the worst pro-choice argument ever advanced.HHusky said:Sorry to have interrupted your weepy, sentimental circle jerk. The point stands. We have an entire fertility industry that includes freezing pre-born human life. Papists are right, I hear. What is to be done?
Keep up the good work, Dazzler. -
But there are frozen eggs! Checkmate, gals
-
Every month men and women who menstruate flush an egg
What do we do about that? -
I already told you: forget viability. It's a losing argument. Has nothing to do with anything. See the Turd's good post on this.BleachedAnusDawg said:In a statement, King County Executive Dow Constantine said he was “disgusted, yet unsurprised.”
“I believe in and am committed to the right of every woman tomake the choicebe persuaded that is best for herself and her family, and I will never stop fighting to ensure that abortion and family planning care are available, without barriers and unnecessary restrictions, in King County and Washington State,” Constantine said in prepared remarks.
There's likely a bigger risk of population collapse than overpopulating the earth.Sources said:
I think if you're looking for a clear, brightline rule, this is the one. But I can't help but think at a minimum that people that have had circumstances thrust on them deserve some sort of exception.creepycoug said:There are some weird takes on this issue. It's one thing to want to protect state's rights, but some things are pretty fundamental. That's why you can't have slaves in some states and not others.
I've done some thinking about this, and my views have evolved. As much as it sucks to have more derelicts born into society every day and inevitably increase the welfare state, nobody has been able to make a thought-provoking argument to draw the line anywhere. If you can't draw the line, the Catholics are right: at conception. The rest, my body, viability, rape, incest, save the mother, etc, is just mental masturbation. There is no reconciling it. It is morally unacceptable.
There is literally no justification for it. Human life at conception, period. No ifs, ands or butts. Are you allowed to kill an innocent bystander to save yourself? Or because the bystander has inconvenienced you? Did the fetus rape you? Is the fetus responsible for threatening your life? No, no, no and no.
States rights is perhaps the most retarded of arguments. We don't leave it to state legislatures to define what life is and where it begins, and we certainly don't leave it to the voters to decide that it's ok to just randomly kill somebody. "Watch out on your vacation to Glacier Sammy! The voters in Montana have approved the right of citizens to randomly kill people that they view as inconvenient." Please. Stop with this business.
Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and abortion should be ruled unconstitutional throughout the land.
So, no abortion, ever, in any circumstances. That's the right answer. I can draw no other conclusion.
I know rape is the scenario everyone loves to point to because it's extreme, but I think it's a valid example. And quite honestly, I wouldn't want a rapist procreating anyway. Same can be said for minor abuse, etc.
More broadly, as someone who thinks our population levels are fucked anyway, I'm all for culling the herd a bit. I'm not religious, so I don't worry about any of that side of things,
For me, the issue is:when does an abortion blur into something that could be considered murder. I land on viability. By then, there's no longer an excuse - plenty of time to have "addressed" the problem and the unborn child is just that - a child.
YMMV (but if you disagree, fuck off)
If a baby is not considered viable until 12 weeks - whatever the line is - why can someone be charged with murder of a baby in the womb? -
That's all I need to read. The rest is blah blah blah blah blah. You support murder of innocent persons. I hate you and you should stop posting here.Prestonluv said:Listen. I'm pro choice.
Go away Preston. -
-
Bingo. Someone gets it. Viability is a moving target. Personhood is not.TurdBomber said:Adding to Creepy's logic-based explanation is the fact that premature babies commonly survive at ever more shorter gestation periods than in 1973
Not an item for state choice. Law of the land. We're a country or we're not. -
Lots of funerals.RaceBannon said:Every month men and women who menstruate flush an egg
What do we do about that? -
Miss a period and take a pill and have a miscarriage. I don't have a problem drawing the line there.creepycoug said:
Sleddy is right on this one. Can’t compromise a murder of an innocent person. That’s non-sense when you really think about it. It’s a person or it’s not. Or draw me a line that is at least thought provoking. So far I’ve seen none.Sledog said:
I can't call killing a child a compromise because we cut some time off. A compromise is have the kid and put it up for adoption.SFGbob said:
I think a decent compromise is to allow it but restrict it to 8-12 weeks.Sledog said:
Allow 0 weeks. I didn't think about abortion that much until I had kids. Could never imagine killing them. If you can you need help.SFGbob said:
20 weeks is way too long. 12 should be the max. Hell France only allows 10 weeks.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:I get tired of the media fueled abortion debate but how is limiting it to the first 20 weeks unreasonable?
-
I'm not even a pretend lawyer but doesn't the constitution leave to the state that which is not enshrined as a federal responsibility?creepycoug said:
Bingo. Someone gets it. Viability is a moving target. Personhood is not.TurdBomber said:Adding to Creepy's logic-based explanation is the fact that premature babies commonly survive at ever more shorter gestation periods than in 1973
Not an item for state choice. Law of the land. We're a country or we're not.
I agree that the democrats have used state's rights for slavery to Jim Crow to ignoring Federal immigration law
Slavery was left to the states originally but Crow and immigration were not
Before Roe many state's had legislated abortion as legal. The Supremes let that stand
My folks got married late and had kids late especially for the 50's. I was in grade school and my parents were mid 40's when mom got pregnant again. She had a miscarriage and our concern was for her not the lost brother or sister. Of course I'm a sociopath so that helps
Anyway the only hospital in town was catholic so I doubt she got a secret abortion. Just lost the kid
I may have a point or I may not
