It's obvious Abortion is wrong

ABCDEFG.....here's the post, no alphabet...

Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post

Yup, they're "Pro-Life" of the fetus...after it's born, not so much.....they even wish to take away it's rights if it's female.

 

Which is one reason I use the term 'anti choice'.

 

I will outline my case and not rely on Democrats and their ilk to do it on my behalf.

This is extremely complex, so please do not think this is the be all and end all post by me on the human.

To begin, what does the woman wish to end the life of?

I mean she believes sans action by the abortionist, a child will be born.

The logic of that is simple. A got pregnant. A learns of it. A seeks a clinic. A seeks to prevent her child. B the wiseacre thinking he helps her, acts like those wanting to save a child from dying are acting against the woman.

Sure, we are in a way. We act against the Susan Smith woman for the same reason. Susan drowned her children. To not act against the ending of childrens lives is very unsocial to say the least and very callous to the max.

Who can watch children be put to death and not speak out?

I know, try to pretend there is no child.

But the human has a chain of life. Similar to evidence. Evidence has a chain of custody. The woman keeps the chain of life. She does not tell the sex partner, "Darn Ralph, I have one of those darned zygotes and crap, if I refuse to remove it, who knows what it might do to me."

She does not mention she has this fetus to fear.

She tells Old Ralphie the father, more this way.

"Ralph, man I am going to have a baby. Do you want to marry me?" Ralph the Democrat says, "heck no. I don't take care of children." She sighs and heads to the abortionist since Ralph at least sprang for the cash to end his child's life.

This nonsense women speak of things like the Zygote and Fetus is nonsense. They do not tell Ralph, help me, this baby is injuring me. It has intruded on me and thinks it can take my rights away.

This crap comes from the left wingers. But in real life, nobody talks to the father as they talk to posters.

 

Then don't get one.



​

 

Have you ever talked to a human that was able to live when the mom changed her mind?

The unborn is who has no choice.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is the thing. Party A decided she will get an abortion. Party B, the father, wants his child to live.

Telling B not to have an abortion never saves the life of his child.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no logic, no truth in that comment.

matter of fact, i outlined my actual position on this.

 

""""Here is the thing. Party A decided she will get an abortion. Party B, the father, wants his child to live.

Telling B not to have an abortion never saves the life of his child.""""""



No, since HE isn't the pregnant one.....did you want the father to be able to dictate whether the woman he impregnated has the kid ..OR AN ABORTION ?

 

Death comes in many forms. I want to do more than abortion though.

The topic of abortion boils down to a variety of terms. Right, life, dictate, child, fetus, and on and on.

I never will get those who think death of the child is a right of the mother.

But let's deal with death imposed by others.

Death before the firing squad also has some complex issues.

Does the firing squad have the right to decide whom to kill? Can they simply refuse to aim at the convict and instead aim at the governor or the political hack standing there?

We are talking of whom has the right to kill. You claim the woman has that right.

I claim the baby is the victim of the woman.

 

What a load of excrement.

Abortion is a fact of life.

Fairy tale anecdotes do not alter the facts.

 

Your logic fails when you refer to the developing potential whatever as an actual child

I call it only a potential because it may not develop fully (blighted ovum) it may be maldeveloped or it may terminate spontaneously for a multitude of reasons

This is particularly so with early pregnancies - you know those most commonly aborted??

As for who aborts - I can assure you that as many republicans abort as democrats. Especially since the demographics of WHO aborts has shifted from the white single teen to mid twenties women

 

His child doesn't have a life. The life Party B want's it to have, he want's that life to come from Party A.

A and B both get to choose whether they are willing to give their life to create a child. B's choice though is only as significant as his contribution.



​

 

Again confusing actual with potential

Look mate - if you are going to refer to a foetus as a "child" then accept that sooner or later it will pass the cute stage and become a teenager

There is less appeal in saving the self-centred mouthy twonks that kids turn into when they reach the teens

 

Nope!

The choice can be an entirely pragmatic one based upon circumstances.

It is disingenuous to impose morality on the choices that women make.

As I have mentioned earlier legislating morality has consistently failed and yes, that applies to prostitution too. There would be fewer drug and other crime problems if prostitution was legalized. It isn't as though making it illegal has stopped it any more than making abortion illegal stopped it from happening. People drank alcohol throughout the prohibition and they still smoke marijuana even though it is illegal.

So morality is just a feeble excuse to prop up the theist agenda to make abortion illegal. And yes, that morality is exposed as a farce since theists won't punish women who have abortions as 1st degree murderers.

The only time morality comes into play is when it is the personal and private morality of the pregnant woman. She alone decides how much weight to grant it. No one else gets a say in the matter.

 

Lots of BS but NO ANSWER to :


"No, since HE isn't the pregnant one.....did you want the father to be able to dictate whether the woman he impregnated has the kid ..OR AN ABORTION ?

 

And the child could turn out to be one of the future prime ministers of your country. Could be a famous scientist. But the woman killed the child. It is like garbage tossed out by restaurants.

- - - Updated - - -

Look, I am free to choose what questions I will reply to. Stop pouting.

 

Well, of course you don't have to answer those INconvenient questions that show you to be wrong......

 

So, your bias is that only a "theist" supports the life of the child?

I never consult religion when I speak up for the most innocent of the parties.

 

Apparently you believe it is not questions, but only answers that prove a person wrong. You pouted that I did not reply to that particular question.

I can dig up your posts but I suspect you do not answer each question posed to you.

 

How did you arrive at your anti-choice position?

 

You seem to always completely misunderstand what I'm saying, and replace it with some sort of caricature of what you disagree with. I don't see how anything you've said is relevant to what I'm saying.

If I want to stop women from having abortions, on what basis are you going to tell me I'm wrong to do that?

 

Look when I expose the fallacious nature of this question.

To test it, let's use Susan Smith as an analogy.

Here is the question.

Susan Smith was married.

She drowned the children of her and her husband.

The question can be structured to this.

I am for saving lives.

 

You can choose whatever basis you like for YOURSELF but you cannot IMPOSE your morality on anyone else.

To ASSUME that the REASON a woman chooses to have an abortion is based on morality (or lack thereof) is disingenuous.

Women have to make a very difficult choice and that is entirely up to them and no one else.

No one else gets to impose their morality on anyone else as far as abortion goes.

 

Does it have to be born to be a child?

I would say that abortion being wrong has to do with an interface between present existence and potentiality. If the baby can't survive that long, it wouldn't be all that terrible to kill it. For example, a cancer patient who has been told he only has four months to live, or an ultra-premature baby that has come out at 19 weeks. If you kill them, it is still wrong, but it's not nearly as bad as murdering a regular person with potentiality. On the other hand, potentiality on its own does not a person make; for example, sperm and eggs in a test tube, and a virile young woman in her reproductive prime is holding this test tube. Potentiality is there, but no human exists.

 

This is the most fundamental question.

Was this changed due to careful legislation? Was this abortion issued decided due to the word abortion being in the constitution? When I point out that it was new law, law created by the men in robes, I am told I am wrong. But I ask then, show wording in the constitution. And get back blank stares.

 

The firing squad imposes the morality on the convicted.

You or others make the claim rights are not rights. That they are desires with rules attached.

Why then do you believe the woman has some absolute right to kill? Why is she unrestricted?

 

yes it does

- - - Updated - - -

No actually they do not

Morality in the situation remains with the people performing the act - not the victim