I would gladly trade gay marriage and capital punishment to end abortion

They know they can't win. Plus BR is "trading" something that the non-Right has already LOST...i.e. gay marriage, which will be legal effectively nation-wide within 20 years.

- - - Updated - - -

AN, as a "friend", until you find a woman with ZERO self-esteem....you're going to be keeping that virginity of yours for a LONG time.

 

That's funny, because I don't think women today have ANY self-esteem. Contraceptives, abortion methods, etc. If not to devalue parenthood, then what is it for? Women today, in fact humanity today as a result of the 50/50 split have no idea towards actual masculinity or Feminism. What may qualify as "feminism" today is largely unattractive, if perhaps desired within a one-night stand or sexual basis.

 

All the above would be all well and good if abortion was a "modern" thing, it isn't, it has been around since women first got pregnant and will remain even if it is made illegal.
One only has to look through history to see that women were never treated as equals, and even today the full equality has not been reached.

 

Just because abortion has been practiced for thousands of years, that doesn't make it right!

 

Why do you consistently try to put words into other peoples mouths, show me anywhere I have said anything like what you are trying to make out I have said.

TBH Sam it is becoming boring and annoying.

 

Nope....

 

To most liberals, abortion "rights" is so precious. Even more than their views on other issues.

 

Abortion equals murder from a conservative point of view and gun rights equal murder from a liberal point of view.

My point of view is that more rights are better than less rights and let those who misuse them be judged after the fact, and never before.

So I am for both.

 

So you're okay with not objecting when violent criminals are sentenced to death and you're agreeing to give up the fight to continue arbitrarily denying people the same rights that others enjoy...just so long as you can arbitrarily deny a different group of people their rights.

I see I see.

I'm glad that people's rights are a bargaining chip to you.

 

I believe in God. But I can totally understand why non-religious people support gay marriage rights. But I cannot understand why somebody would support a woman's "right" to kill her own child. I was pro-life even before I became a Christian. I know some people who don't even believe in God (some of them are even atheists) who are pro-life.

 

We support a woman's right to control what's inside her own body. Pregnant women are expected to turn over control of their uterus to the whims of pro-lifers. That's no different than trying to take control of my lungs or my heart from me. What's inside a person's body is nobody else's business but theirs. Saying otherwise says you have no limit on what you're willing to use the law to control, which I find depressingly ironic because the pro-life crowd tend to be Republican/Conservative who complain about too much government control. There is literally NO amount of control more pervasive and overreaching than making laws about how a person is allowed to regulate their internal organs. If the law can go there, it can go anywhere, at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all.

 

Somebody controlling their own lungs or heart doesn't take away the life of an unborn child. That's the difference.

 

Unborn children have their lives taken away naturally all the time when fertilized eggs fail to implant on the uterine wall. Mother nature is responsible for more abortions every year than people ever could be. But, that's beside the point.

An unborn child has no rights that trump a mother's right to her own body. I understand what happens during an abortion and I understand why you oppose it. Abortion isn't pretty or worthy of celebration, but pretending that a fetus has more rights than it's mother is wrong. Yes, an unborn child does get terminated during an abortion, and it's unfortunate that there are circumstances that lead a mother to have to choose that, but the fact that life isn't pretty or fair doesn't mean a woman becomes a slave to her own body.

I think you and I probably hope for a world that's much the same. A world where abortions don't happen, except that I wish for it to be that way because they don't need to happen, not because someone else decided their noses belong inside a woman's body in her very exclusive personal business. To me, a person's subjective discomfort with abortion is not grounds for the usurpation of another person's rights. And like I said before, if the law can go there, there's no where that it can't go, and you shouldn't be surprised when it does. I find it almost disgusting that there are people who decry Obamacare as some kind of attack on personal rights but are just fine opposing abortion which is an exponentially bigger assault on personal liberty than ten thousand Obamacare's combined. That just goes to show how subjective the abortion debate actually is, and why the law shouldn't be used to limit a person's choice in the matter.

 

The fetus's right to life is WAY more important than the woman's precious "right" to convenience.

 

I think you completely failed to comprehend Junkieturtle's post.

 

She has a right to control her own body, not a right to "convenience".

 

That statement contradicts your assertion that you don't hate women. If you can trivialize a pregnancy that puts a woman's health and life at risk, and permanently damages her body as an "inconvenience," it seems you don't have a lot of respect for them.

 

That is a rather sexist position, especially since you have no clue about rights or the circumstances of any woman choosing to abort. Such meaningless generalizations only betray ignorance and misogyny.

 

Okay. So you're saying that a child's RIGHT TO LIFE is not as important as the woman's "right" to spend time with her friends at parties instead of being a parent (which is exactly what casey anthony did)?

- - - Updated - - -

Please answer this question. Do most women have abortions to save their own lives? That's only a very small percentage of abortions. This discussion is about the vast majority of abortions.

 

Are you comparing the alleged murder of a toddler with termination of a pregnancy?

IRRELEVANT. ANY pregnancy potentially risks a woman's health and life. That's why it's her decision, not yours.

 

Yes, because their MOTIVATIONS were the same. Women have abortions so they can spend time doing their own thing, instead of spending time being a parent. That's what I call convenience.

 

You are assuming the worst of women. Why?

 

Why not? Why do you think some women have abortions? Convenience.

 

Then pregnancy that risks women's health and lives--that's just an INCONVENIENCE?

 

Less than 1% of abortions have to do with the mother's life or health.