Official Abortion Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ALL human beings DESERVE the RIGHT to LIFE.

When it’s capable of existing independent of me, sure. But while it’s a parasite endangering my life for its own sake, it’s my choice whether to continue as a host.

Then you're AGAINST the killing of a VIABLE human life in utero. Thank you!

If the government wants to solely provide for the care of that fetus from the moment it’s removed from my body, and there’s a non-abortive procedure for removing it from my uterus that is no riskier than an abortion, then sure, have at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Over the time period when the Bible was written, it's very likely that most women weren't having sex out of wedlock and weren't having abortions.

People didn't have sex and they didn't pee either. Humans were different than all other mammals back then.

PP here. Not sure why you're being so sarcastic. I didn't say anything about "people," which would include men. I said "very likely most women."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Over the time period when the Bible was written, it's very likely that most women weren't having sex out of wedlock and weren't having abortions.

People didn't have sex and they didn't pee either. Humans were different than all other mammals back then.

PP here. Not sure why you're being so sarcastic. I didn't say anything about "people," which would include men. I said "very likely most women."

But some were. Why do you think God was ignorant of that? Or do you not believe the Bible is the word of God and are just using it as a pretense for other motives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ALL human beings DESERVE the RIGHT to LIFE.

When it’s capable of existing independent of me, sure. But while it’s a parasite endangering my life for its own sake, it’s my choice whether to continue as a host.

Then you're AGAINST the killing of a VIABLE human life in utero. Thank you!

If the government wants to solely provide for the care of that fetus from the moment it’s removed from my body, and there’s a non-abortive procedure for removing it from my uterus that is no riskier than an abortion, then sure, have at it.

the "it" made of your DNA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ALL human beings DESERVE the RIGHT to LIFE.

When it’s capable of existing independent of me, sure. But while it’s a parasite endangering my life for its own sake, it’s my choice whether to continue as a host.

Then you're AGAINST the killing of a VIABLE human life in utero. Thank you!

If the government wants to solely provide for the care of that fetus from the moment it’s removed from my body, and there’s a non-abortive procedure for removing it from my uterus that is no riskier than an abortion, then sure, have at it.

the "it" made of your DNA?

Yep.

[Anonymous]

Abortion should be a woman’s right to choose - end of story.
Similarly child support should be a man’s right to choose.

There should be zero compulsion by the state regarding child support just as the state should not interfere in a woman’s right to choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Abortion should be a woman’s right to choose - end of story.
Similarly child support should be a man’s right to choose.

There should be zero compulsion by the state regarding child support just as the state should not interfere in a woman’s right to choose.

That's a completely incoherent point of view. But go ahead and continue to try to use your HS debate tactics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Abortion should be a woman’s right to choose - end of story.
Similarly child support should be a man’s right to choose.

There should be zero compulsion by the state regarding child support just as the state should not interfere in a woman’s right to choose.

So you don’t believe children should have a right to parental support?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Abortion should be a woman’s right to choose - end of story.
Similarly child support should be a man’s right to choose.

There should be zero compulsion by the state regarding child support just as the state should not interfere in a woman’s right to choose.

That's a completely incoherent point of view. But go ahead and continue to try to use your HS debate tactics.

Why is it incoherent?

Why do you support one and not the other?

A woman shouldn’t be compelled to do something she doesn’t want to, and likewise a man shouldn’t either

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Abortion should be a woman’s right to choose - end of story.
Similarly child support should be a man’s right to choose.

There should be zero compulsion by the state regarding child support just as the state should not interfere in a woman’s right to choose.

So you don’t believe children should have a right to parental support?

No.

[Anonymous]

If this thread is the best pro-birthers can do, then I'm actually feeling a bit better about our prospects. They have not managed to articulate a single coherent position for a complete ban on abortion.

[Anonymous]

Someone here has to care about the children.
This more of us, the better...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If this thread is the best pro-birthers can do, then I'm actually feeling a bit better about our prospects. They have not managed to articulate a single coherent position for a complete ban on abortion.

I don’t know why anyone wants to ban abortion.

Banning abortion would mean the mix of births would skew lower in IQ and browner given current abortion trends.

Abortion is a life saver for society.

[Anonymous]

Founder of PP hated "inferior" people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Founder of PP hated "inferior" people.

Founder of PP would’ve vigorously agreed with Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Charles Murray on a lot of topics.