Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It’s never right to take the life of a child because of a problem.

The child is always innocent, and should never be punished with death.

Everyone agrees we shouldn’t hurt children.
You don’t abort a child. You abort a fetus.

Exactly.

So when does life begin? Do you know? No one knows.
No one.
So let's give that clump of cells the benefit of the doubt. Because we don't know.
If you support Roe v. Wade, at least read it first. And question why the science of 1973 applies today.
http://landmarkcases.c-span.org/pdf/Roe_Blackmun_Opinion.pdf

Your president** has slaughtered 92,000 souls who were beyond a doubt alive. Maybe stop playing at caring about people; the jig is up. You just hate women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It’s never right to take the life of a child because of a problem.

The child is always innocent, and should never be punished with death.

Everyone agrees we shouldn’t hurt children.
You don’t abort a child. You abort a fetus.

Exactly.

So when does life begin? Do you know? No one knows.
No one.
So let's give that clump of cells the benefit of the doubt. Because we don't know.
If you support Roe v. Wade, at least read it first. And question why the science of 1973 applies today.
http://landmarkcases.c-span.org/pdf/Roe_Blackmun_Opinion.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It’s never right to take the life of a child because of a problem.

The child is always innocent, and should never be punished with death.

Everyone agrees we shouldn’t hurt children.
You don’t abort a child. You abort a fetus.

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It’s never right to take the life of a child because of a problem.

The child is always innocent, and should never be punished with death.

Everyone agrees we shouldn’t hurt children.
You don’t abort a child. You abort a fetus.

Anonymous wrote:
It’s never right to take the life of a child because of a problem.

The child is always innocent, and should never be punished with death.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It’s never right to take the life of a child because of a problem.

The child is always innocent, and should never be punished with death.

What if a doctor says the mother will die if she carries to term (eg, the mother has cancer or some other clearly life-threatening condition). Then would you at least acknowledge it is self defense for the mother to terminate the pregnancy? Because if someone points a gun or raises a knife at a man, he is entitled to kill in self defense.

Anonymous wrote:
It’s never right to take the life of a child because of a problem.

The child is always innocent, and should never be punished with death.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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....

Why should you carry a pregnancy and risk death of you do not want to?

Isn’t having your freedom impeded considered a punishment in this country?

There are lots of things we are not free to do in this country...doesn't mean we are being punished.

Would death qualify as a punishment to you? Do you understand that the US has the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed nation?

Our laws allow for abortions where the life of mother is in danger.

No. If I die from cancer, I am not being punished.

If someone prevented you from removing cancer or whatever was causing you pain or suffering, isn’t that a punishment?

My mother is a physician from a country where abortions were illegal. She watched a mother of 3 bleed out and die from a botched abortion and supported choice thereafter. Do we need to have that happen in the US?

Our laws allow for abortions where the life of mother is in danger.

If you get rid of laws allowing abortion, a lot more mothers’ lives will be in danger.

Why doesn’t the aborted baby even get a chance to live on?

Because it is inside someone else’s body. That person’s life and health are more important.

That’s an extremely selfish view. And yes, an unborn child can live outside the womb. That’s been possible for decades. I know you’d like to think it is all about the woman, but it isn’t. Also, no one is running around trying to punish women. They are instead trying to save babies. Again, it is back to the scientific point where the baby can be sustained outside of the womb. At that point, abortion should be called murder, not abortion. Yes, of course there are medical circumstances that can prove the exception, but economics and convenience aren’t justification for murdering a human entity capable of being sustained outside the womb. I see this as no different than mass disposal of homeless people off our city streets, but we don’t do that do we? I know you won’t be convinced as you’re incapable of taking emotion out of your thought process.

What are you even talking about? Abortion after viability is illegal. Literally no one said it should be otherwise. Pay attention!

Yes they implied it. However you agree with me then that the current abortion laws are fine. Before viability it is ok, after it is not. Great. End of discussion. Anybody trying to ban abortion before viability is pushing religion into a scientific argument. Government is no place for a
Religious argument. Separation of church and state and all that. THAT was my point. The arguments are invalid and most of the current laws
Are fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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....

Why should you carry a pregnancy and risk death of you do not want to?

Isn’t having your freedom impeded considered a punishment in this country?

There are lots of things we are not free to do in this country...doesn't mean we are being punished.

Would death qualify as a punishment to you? Do you understand that the US has the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed nation?

Our laws allow for abortions where the life of mother is in danger.

No. If I die from cancer, I am not being punished.

If someone prevented you from removing cancer or whatever was causing you pain or suffering, isn’t that a punishment?

My mother is a physician from a country where abortions were illegal. She watched a mother of 3 bleed out and die from a botched abortion and supported choice thereafter. Do we need to have that happen in the US?

Our laws allow for abortions where the life of mother is in danger.

If you get rid of laws allowing abortion, a lot more mothers’ lives will be in danger.

Why doesn’t the aborted baby even get a chance to live on?

Because it is inside someone else’s body. That person’s life and health are more important.

That’s an extremely selfish view. And yes, an unborn child can live outside the womb. That’s been possible for decades. I know you’d like to think it is all about the woman, but it isn’t. Also, no one is running around trying to punish women. They are instead trying to save babies. Again, it is back to the scientific point where the baby can be sustained outside of the womb. At that point, abortion should be called murder, not abortion. Yes, of course there are medical circumstances that can prove the exception, but economics and convenience aren’t justification for murdering a human entity capable of being sustained outside the womb. I see this as no different than mass disposal of homeless people off our city streets, but we don’t do that do we? I know you won’t be convinced as you’re incapable of taking emotion out of your thought process.

What are you even talking about? Abortion after viability is illegal. Literally no one said it should be otherwise. Pay attention!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So in summary.....

Let's all push for free/accessible healthcare, education, and free/accessible LARCs.

And then we will have fewer unwanted pregnancies to worry about.

It’s also about substance abuse. Users aren’t taking any responsibility at any point. No Safe sex, or abortion.
Bottom line: unwanted children are perhaps the biggest societal ill.

LARCs could help with that...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not conflating the two issues. Those two issues have been conflated by pro choicers. They use both as justification for their position.

Once again, I am not advocating for women to be forced to give birth to children they don't actually want. I. said. that. I. don't. agree. with. aborting. because. the. child. is. unwanted. There are plenty of people and organizations that are willing to "contend with the outcome of that".

Do you possess a magic wand that magicks an embryo out of a woman who DOES. NOT. WANT. TO. BE. PREGNANT. and into some sort of device that finishes the pregnancy? Because AFAIK there’s no way to have a baby out of your body without being pregnant or giving birth. Ergo: you support forced birth.

I'll say it again, and keep saying it:

I don't think anyone should be FORCED to give birth. She has the right to certain choices. Do you understand that part?

I also don't agree with, and don't like, one of the available choices. That DOESN'T mean that I support forced birth. Do you understand that part as well?

Dp- you are pro choice

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So in summary.....

Let's all push for free/accessible healthcare, education, and free/accessible LARCs.

And then we will have fewer unwanted pregnancies to worry about.

It’s also about substance abuse. Users aren’t taking any responsibility at any point. No Safe sex, or abortion.
Bottom line: unwanted children are perhaps the biggest societal ill.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not conflating the two issues. Those two issues have been conflated by pro choicers. They use both as justification for their position.

Once again, I am not advocating for women to be forced to give birth to children they don't actually want. I. said. that. I. don't. agree. with. aborting. because. the. child. is. unwanted. There are plenty of people and organizations that are willing to "contend with the outcome of that".

Do you possess a magic wand that magicks an embryo out of a woman who DOES. NOT. WANT. TO. BE. PREGNANT. and into some sort of device that finishes the pregnancy? Because AFAIK there’s no way to have a baby out of your body without being pregnant or giving birth. Ergo: you support forced birth.

I'll say it again, and keep saying it:

I don't think anyone should be FORCED to give birth. She has the right to certain choices. Do you understand that part?

I also don't agree with, and don't like, one of the available choices. That DOESN'T mean that I support forced birth. Do you understand that part as well?