Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-choice because I believe women should be able to make those decisions for herself. But if you're pro-life and believe abortion is murder, there's no principled way to excuse rape victims. We wouldn't legally condone a rape victim hunting down and killing her rapist, so we certainly can't condone her murdering the baby who committed no crime against her at all.

Yes, there is. Usually making absolutes about other people's ideas is a bad idea.

Then please explain what makes murder of an innocent person acceptable.

The supreme court has already decided that a fetus is not a person under the US constitution.

Call 'it' what you want. Killing 'it' in utero is a horrifically violent act of sheer evilness.

That is what you think, and that is fine. I assume in the same circumstances you would not abort. Others do not agree, so it would be ideal to give them the same respect afforded to you.

How about some respect for the little life?
It wouldn't kill you. No, it would not kill you.

How about some respect for the woman?
It wouldn't kill you. No, it would not kill you.

It's not a little life, PP. Not yet. It's too precarious, it's none of your business. And outlawing abortion wouldn't make it go away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-choice because I believe women should be able to make those decisions for herself. But if you're pro-life and believe abortion is murder, there's no principled way to excuse rape victims. We wouldn't legally condone a rape victim hunting down and killing her rapist, so we certainly can't condone her murdering the baby who committed no crime against her at all.

Yes, there is. Usually making absolutes about other people's ideas is a bad idea.

Then please explain what makes murder of an innocent person acceptable.

When the law doesn't consider it a "person?"

So if conceived during consensual sex, it's a person and aborting it would be murder, but if conceived due to rape, it's not a person? How does that work? Your personhood is based on how you were conceived?

I thought only Catholics believe life begins at conception?

The points is to avoid legislating the uterus' of women. They are big enough to made decisions on their own bodies without state involvement. I'd check the laws, but I believe legally life begins at birth.

I woman should never be forced to carry the fetus of a man that raped her -ever- as that is further violating her.

while I obey the laws, I would never ever use them to define my morality.

The exercise your CHOICE and not get an abortion. Your morality should not dictate the discisions of another women. The law protects this.

Different poster, but this is stupid. If you genuinely believe that innocent people are being unjustly killed, how could you ever remain silent about it? "I know you think this is murder, but respect my right to murder someone!"

Before birth I felt very much enslaved by the burden of always having to be carrying the baby. After, I could give him away to others and it was a very different feeling. It makes a difference, the inter-changeability. I agree that it dirs not change anything from the baby/fetus side but it does change a lot on the mother's burden side.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-choice because I believe women should be able to make those decisions for herself. But if you're pro-life and believe abortion is murder, there's no principled way to excuse rape victims. We wouldn't legally condone a rape victim hunting down and killing her rapist, so we certainly can't condone her murdering the baby who committed no crime against her at all.

Yes, there is. Usually making absolutes about other people's ideas is a bad idea.

Then please explain what makes murder of an innocent person acceptable.

The supreme court has already decided that a fetus is not a person under the US constitution.

Call 'it' what you want. Killing 'it' in utero is a horrifically violent act of sheer evilness.

That is what you think, and that is fine. I assume in the same circumstances you would not abort. Others do not agree, so it would be ideal to give them the same respect afforded to you.

How about some respect for the little life?
It wouldn't kill you. No, it would not kill you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On one hand, I have some (very teeny tiny amount of) respect for "pro-life" people who do not support abortion exceptions in the case of rape or incest - at least they're being consistent.

But personally, I 1000xinfinity support a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, any time, and unquestionably for a pregnancy incurred via rape. A woman comes first - always. The woman is a person. If something cannot exist in any rudimentary form without being physically dependent on a specific person, then it is not an "individual" and thus not a person.

Are you ideologically consistent? Are severally disabled humans and newborn infants not persons in your view? What about severally premature babies? None of these can survive in any kind of rudimentary form.

Yes, I am ideologically consistent. Severely disabled humans, newborn infants, nor severely premature babies are completely and totally physically dependent on a very specific, non-interchangeable person.

That's a meaningless distinction to the "non-person" whose "personhood" you are trying to determine.

Not at all.

If something cannot even exist without being wholly physically dependent on a specific, non-interchangeable person, then that something is not an individual, and does not have individual rights, and is not a "person."

No, it is a meaningless distinction. a being who cannot survive but for the intervention of interchangeable persons is functionally no different than a being who cannot survive but for the intervention of a specific person. You try to frame this issue on the basis of survival or viability, but the really point for you is who carries the burden of providing for that survival. This is particularly weird given that in 96% of unplanned pregnancies, the specific person who is required to provide survival played a direct role in creating the situation in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-choice because I believe women should be able to make those decisions for herself. But if you're pro-life and believe abortion is murder, there's no principled way to excuse rape victims. We wouldn't legally condone a rape victim hunting down and killing her rapist, so we certainly can't condone her murdering the baby who committed no crime against her at all.

Yes, there is. Usually making absolutes about other people's ideas is a bad idea.

Then please explain what makes murder of an innocent person acceptable.

When the law doesn't consider it a "person?"

So if conceived during consensual sex, it's a person and aborting it would be murder, but if conceived due to rape, it's not a person? How does that work? Your personhood is based on how you were conceived?

I thought only Catholics believe life begins at conception?

The points is to avoid legislating the uterus' of women. They are big enough to made decisions on their own bodies without state involvement. I'd check the laws, but I believe legally life begins at birth.

I woman should never be forced to carry the fetus of a man that raped her -ever- as that is further violating her.

while I obey the laws, I would never ever use them to define my morality.

The exercise your CHOICE and not get an abortion. Your morality should not dictate the discisions of another women. The law protects this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-choice because I believe women should be able to make those decisions for herself. But if you're pro-life and believe abortion is murder, there's no principled way to excuse rape victims. We wouldn't legally condone a rape victim hunting down and killing her rapist, so we certainly can't condone her murdering the baby who committed no crime against her at all.

Yes, there is. Usually making absolutes about other people's ideas is a bad idea.

Then please explain what makes murder of an innocent person acceptable.

The supreme court has already decided that a fetus is not a person under the US constitution.

Call 'it' what you want. Killing 'it' in utero is a horrifically violent act of sheer evilness.

Wowzers. It is none of those things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-choice because I believe women should be able to make those decisions for herself. But if you're pro-life and believe abortion is murder, there's no principled way to excuse rape victims. We wouldn't legally condone a rape victim hunting down and killing her rapist, so we certainly can't condone her murdering the baby who committed no crime against her at all.

Yes, there is. Usually making absolutes about other people's ideas is a bad idea.

Then please explain what makes murder of an innocent person acceptable.

The supreme court has already decided that a fetus is not a person under the US constitution.

Call 'it' what you want. Killing 'it' in utero is a horrifically violent act of sheer evilness.

That is what you think, and that is fine. I assume in the same circumstances you would not abort. Others do not agree, so it would be ideal to give them the same respect afforded to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-choice because I believe women should be able to make those decisions for herself. But if you're pro-life and believe abortion is murder, there's no principled way to excuse rape victims. We wouldn't legally condone a rape victim hunting down and killing her rapist, so we certainly can't condone her murdering the baby who committed no crime against her at all.

Yes, there is. Usually making absolutes about other people's ideas is a bad idea.

Then please explain what makes murder of an innocent person acceptable.

When the law doesn't consider it a "person?"

So if conceived during consensual sex, it's a person and aborting it would be murder, but if conceived due to rape, it's not a person? How does that work? Your personhood is based on how you were conceived?

I thought only Catholics believe life begins at conception?

The points is to avoid legislating the uterus' of women. They are big enough to made decisions on their own bodies without state involvement. I'd check the laws, but I believe legally life begins at birth.

I woman should never be forced to carry the fetus of a man that raped her -ever- as that is further violating her.

while I obey the laws, I would never ever use them to define my morality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-choice because I believe women should be able to make those decisions for herself. But if you're pro-life and believe abortion is murder, there's no principled way to excuse rape victims. We wouldn't legally condone a rape victim hunting down and killing her rapist, so we certainly can't condone her murdering the baby who committed no crime against her at all.

Yes, there is. Usually making absolutes about other people's ideas is a bad idea.

Then please explain what makes murder of an innocent person acceptable.

The supreme court has already decided that a fetus is not a person under the US constitution.

Call 'it' what you want. Killing 'it' in utero is a horrifically violent act of sheer evilness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pro-choice because I believe women should be able to make those decisions for herself. But if you're pro-life and believe abortion is murder, there's no principled way to excuse rape victims. We wouldn't legally condone a rape victim hunting down and killing her rapist, so we certainly can't condone her murdering the baby who committed no crime against her at all.

Yes, there is. Usually making absolutes about other people's ideas is a bad idea.

Then please explain what makes murder of an innocent person acceptable.

When the law doesn't consider it a "person?"

So if conceived during consensual sex, it's a person and aborting it would be murder, but if conceived due to rape, it's not a person? How does that work? Your personhood is based on how you were conceived?

I thought only Catholics believe life begins at conception?

The points is to avoid legislating the uterus' of women. They are big enough to made decisions on their own bodies without state involvement. I'd check the laws, but I believe legally life begins at birth.

I woman should never be forced to carry the fetus of a man that raped her -ever- as that is further violating her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On one hand, I have some (very teeny tiny amount of) respect for "pro-life" people who do not support abortion exceptions in the case of rape or incest - at least they're being consistent.

But personally, I 1000xinfinity support a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, any time, and unquestionably for a pregnancy incurred via rape. A woman comes first - always. The woman is a person. If something cannot exist in any rudimentary form without being physically dependent on a specific person, then it is not an "individual" and thus not a person.

Are you ideologically consistent? Are severally disabled humans and newborn infants not persons in your view? What about severally premature babies? None of these can survive in any kind of rudimentary form.

Yes, I am ideologically consistent. Severely disabled humans, newborn infants, nor severely premature babies are completely and totally physically dependent on a very specific, non-interchangeable person.

That's a meaningless distinction to the "non-person" whose "personhood" you are trying to determine.

Not at all.

If something cannot even exist without being wholly physically dependent on a specific, non-interchangeable person, then that something is not an individual, and does not have individual rights, and is not a "person."

This is what you believe. However, I am sure you can understand that reasonable intelligent people may see it differently. While your definition of life might seem reasonable to you, there are other definitions that are just as reasonable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Abortion should be limited ti first try master only After 12 weeks it should be banned.

What the fucking fuck is a "try master"?

Not the poster but I assume that spell check kindly messed with the words trimester.

Also, watch your language, someone might think you are an uneducated idiot. Not me of course

Anonymous wrote:Abortion should be limited ti first try master only After 12 weeks it should be banned.

What the fucking fuck is a "try master"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On one hand, I have some (very teeny tiny amount of) respect for "pro-life" people who do not support abortion exceptions in the case of rape or incest - at least they're being consistent.

But personally, I 1000xinfinity support a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, any time, and unquestionably for a pregnancy incurred via rape. A woman comes first - always. The woman is a person. If something cannot exist in any rudimentary form without being physically dependent on a specific person, then it is not an "individual" and thus not a person.

Are you ideologically consistent? Are severally disabled humans and newborn infants not persons in your view? What about severally premature babies? None of these can survive in any kind of rudimentary form.

Yes, I am ideologically consistent. Severely disabled humans, newborn infants, nor severely premature babies are completely and totally physically dependent on a very specific, non-interchangeable person.

That's a meaningless distinction to the "non-person" whose "personhood" you are trying to determine.

Not at all.

If something cannot even exist without being wholly physically dependent on a specific, non-interchangeable person, then that something is not an individual, and does not have individual rights, and is not a "person."