Official Abortion Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

You clearly have some sort of problem. A fetus is dependent on its mother. A newborn infant is dependent on someone, who does not necessarily have to be its mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

Very good, you understand that someone needs to take care of babies, I’m proud of you. But you do understand that a fetus can not be physically separated from the body of the woman carrying it, correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

You clearly have some sort of problem. A fetus is dependent on its mother. A newborn infant is dependent on someone, who does not necessarily have to be its mother.

No. I have no problem. When the baby is born, it belongs to the parents that conceived it (unless they give up legal rights to it). Otherwise...IT IS THEIRS. It is their flesh and blood. IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. It is dependent upon them, unless they get someone else to agree to take care of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

You clearly have some sort of problem. A fetus is dependent on its mother. A newborn infant is dependent on someone, who does not necessarily have to be its mother.

No. I have no problem. When the baby is born, it belongs to the parents that conceived it (unless they give up legal rights to it). Otherwise...IT IS THEIRS. It is their flesh and blood. IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. It is dependent upon them, unless they get someone else to agree to take care of it.

JFC, the POINT IS that they CAN agree to someone else taking care of it. Not possible for a fetus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

You clearly have some sort of problem. A fetus is dependent on its mother. A newborn infant is dependent on someone, who does not necessarily have to be its mother.

No. I have no problem. When the baby is born, it belongs to the parents that conceived it (unless they give up legal rights to it). Otherwise...IT IS THEIRS. It is their flesh and blood. IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. It is dependent upon them, unless they get someone else to agree to take care of it.

And you understand that a woman cannot “get someone else to agree” to carry a fetus to term, correct? That is her body on the line, that is her at risk of dying if something bad happens. Do you understand that?

[Anonymous]

You're missing the part where the woman was a slut and therefore HAS to take care of the baby as punishment.

Pro-life = babies are the punishment for sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're missing the part where the woman was a slut and therefore HAS to take care of the baby as punishment.

Pro-life = babies are the punishment for sex.

Specifically, the WOMAN’S punishment for sex. Men don’t have such consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're missing the part where the woman was a slut and therefore HAS to take care of the baby as punishment.

Pro-life = babies are the punishment for sex.

FOR WOMEN, not men. Remember it’s about punishing WOMEN for having sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're missing the part where the woman was a slut and therefore HAS to take care of the baby as punishment.

Pro-life = babies are the punishment for sex.

FOR WOMEN, not men. Remember it’s about punishing WOMEN for having sex.

Au contraire....the person that does not want the baby seems to be viewing it as a punishment....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're missing the part where the woman was a slut and therefore HAS to take care of the baby as punishment.

Pro-life = babies are the punishment for sex.

FOR WOMEN, not men. Remember it’s about punishing WOMEN for having sex.

Au contraire....the person that does not want the baby seems to be viewing it as a punishment....

Neither want the baby. The woman pays the price. Men can go off and have as much sex as they want without consequences.