sotamayor speaks.

It's clear from your responses that you are just emotionally tied to your (false) belief that all these stockpiled unwanted kids get adopted by Daddy Warbucks and live in mansions with maids and fancy clothes.

It's clear from your responses that you are just emotionally tied to your (false) belief that all these stockpiled unwanted kids get adopted by Daddy Warbucks and live in mansions with maids and fancy clothes.

Here's where I suggest you start if you are sincerely interested in discussing this issue.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/statistics/can/

P.S. I'm tired. I'll find some more information and post links tomorrow or Monday.

P.S.S. I don't mean to be intrusive but do you have some kind of vision problem that leads you to use larger fonts and colors? If so, I'll respect that. If not, could you please consider throttling back on the colors?
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

your quote: It's clear from your responses that you are just emotionally tied to your (false) belief that all these stockpiled unwanted kids get adopted by Daddy Warbucks and live in mansions with maids and fancy clothes. now where in any of my posts did is even hint to that statement? i didn't!! please use just what i posted not made up quotes. thank you.

your quote:
Here's where I suggest you start if you are sincerely interested in discussing this issue.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/statistics/can/

i read your source. unless i missed it i found --no--comparative numbers on the kids who grew up in these homes becoming good us citizens compared to the ones you claimed turned to crime of all types. what % comparison can you give me?

 

It's clear from your responses that you are just emotionally tied to your (false) belief that all these stockpiled unwanted kids get adopted by Daddy Warbucks and live in mansions with maids and fancy clothes.

The unwanted babies\kids I'm referring to are the one's that don't get that fairy tale life - which is a majority of them.

Here's where I suggest you start if you are sincerely interested in discussing this issue.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/statistics/can/

P.S. I'm tired. I'll find some more information and post links tomorrow or Monday.

P.S.S. I don't mean to be intrusive but do you have some kind of vision problem that leads you to use larger fonts and colors? If so, I'll respect that. If not, could you please consider throttling back on the colors?
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]





I have no idea what happened here. Have you tried to learn to use the "quote" feature? All these fonts and colors just make a garbled mess.

If you need help learning how to use it, please pm me and I will help guide you through it.

 

your quote: P.S.S. I don't mean to be intrusive but do you have some kind of vision problem that leads you to use larger fonts and colors? If so, I'll respect that. If not, could you please consider throttling back on the colors? no offence taken. i tried to use caps, but that upset the admin. so i got permission to use this. on the colors i want to make sure the admin know what i am posting to other peoples quotes. only trying not to break rules, which i seem to do alot.
your quote: The unwanted babies\kids I'm referring to are the one's that don't get that fairy tale life - which is a majority of them. i can understand your view on that. but, there are millions of unadopted kids that grow up and do great as adults, get jobs, raise families, live a good life. i don't hold with using the very, very few who use not having parents and growing up in a home, for their turning to crime. that to me is just a excuse. and not worth killing/ murdering the millions of unborn children.
your quote: P.S. I'm tired. I'll find some more information and post links tomorrow or Monday. that is fine. i am really enjoying our conversation on this. keep up the good work. thanks. [/QUOTE]

I want to reiterate that I NEVER said unwanted babies and children ALL turn to a life of crime and funnel into our prisons. That's not true and neither is all of them growing up to be law-abiding members of society true.

Can you share what data you are using that leads you to believe that unwanted babies are growing up into being well-balanced and productive members of society? There are people that grow up in two parent households that don't grow up into being well-balanced and productive members of society and that number falls in direct proportion to other hardships people face prior to adulthood.

P.S. No offense, but these colors and font changes are giving me migraines.

 

ok, as you said last night, "i'm tired, but i will answer this from you. quote: can you share what data you are using that leads you to believe that unwanted babies are growing up int we-ballanced productive member of society? i found this, link: Parents Don't Turn Children Into Criminals | Psychology Today the 3rd paragraph is answering your question quite well. let me know what you think. good night. post again tomorrow.

 

That article does not support your position. The author is talking about people that grow up in the household of their parents or another relative, not abandoned, orphaned children or runaways or people that grow up in group homes.

Also,

You didn't quote me correctly so I didn't get a notification for this message.

Is there some reason you don't want to learn how to use the quote feature? It's very hard to read all these fonts and colors.

 

your quote:
No, I SAID : it is still a part of the woman's body...it belongs to her, not to the government, not to you.
Your "interpretation" of it is not an accurate one....was that done purposely ?????? really? so the women can legaly take her life, right? she can legaly hurt herself, right? there are laws against that. those laws can put her in a mental hospital. also she can be charged with a crime if she drinks to much or does drugs that can harm the child. that is child abuse!! and the constitution does--not---give her the right to murder her child.

your quote:
They can survive earlier.. they do NOT grow faster.
A human fetus is human, it is NOT A human as in born legal person.
A human fetus is human, it is NOT A human as in born legal person.

NO.

1. i didn't say the child "grows faster" and you talk about me not reading and understanding?
2. your quote: A human fetus is human, it is NOT A human as in born legal person. and just where in the constitution does it say that? it doesn't!!! that is liberal propaganda they put out. no offence to you, just disagreeing with you.
3. your quote: A human fetus is human, it is NOT A human as in born legal person. and where in the constitution does it say that. the constitution all have a right to-----life. nothing else on that subject.

your quote; AFTER it's BORN. right and the constitution says the child has a right to ----life. nothing about a women's right to kill it.
your quote: NAME a right that does NOT interfere in the rights of the woman it's in. there is no women's right to kill/murder her child. so there is no violation of any women's right in this matter. check the constitution.
your quote: NO Anti-Choicer has ever done that . see the above statement. there is no right in the constitution for a women to kill/murder her child. so there is no right to interfere with.
your quote: Not every right is enumerated in the Constitution....but the right to bodily autonomy is a primary right...a right YOU treasure but wish to deny women. if the constitution doesn't give you that right, like freedom of the press, freedom of speech, or the 2nd amendment. and protection from search and seizure, then you don't have that right. and there is no right in the constitution for a women to kill/murder her child. in my opinion, and no offence meant, you can spin all you want but can't get away from that is---not--in the constitution.
and i like posting this way. so will continue. not attacking, or putting down anyone. just like it this way.

 

I want to reiterate that I NEVER said unwanted babies and children ALL turn to a life of crime and funnel into our prisons. That's not true and neither is all of them growing up to be law-abiding members of society true.

Can you share what data you are using that leads you to believe that unwanted babies are growing up into being well-balanced and productive members of society? There are people that grow up in two parent households that don't grow up into being well-balanced and productive members of society and that number falls in direct proportion to other hardships people face prior to adulthood.

P.S. No offense, but these colors and font changes are giving me migraines.[/QUOTE]

so, we've had abortion for many, many years. has that stopped or diminished child abuse? no? so your side that abortion doesn't hold water. my source shows other wise. either in foster care, in a children's home. or adopted, they stand a much better chance of having a safer life. will this stop child abuse?--no! but it will save babies lives so they have a chance to grow up and become good citizens. your way only ---kills---them with no chance for them at all.

 

so, we've had abortion for many, many years. has that stopped or diminished child abuse? no? so your side that abortion doesn't hold water. my source shows other wise. either in foster care, in a children's home. or adopted, they stand a much better chance of having a safer life. will this stop child abuse?--no! but it will save babies lives so they have a chance to grow up and become good citizens. your way only ---kills---them with no chance for them at all. [/QUOTE]

You really need to figure out the quote feature. Half of that isn't even my comments.

Your argument is what is called "appeal to emotion". You have no support for your position other than your opinion.

What I wrote previously is that unwanted children typically get abandoned or sold to human traffickers. Statistically, those children will funnel into the criminal justice system whereby they will be forever "tainted" and not welcome back into their own communities post-incarceration.

I understand that you don't like the idea of abortion, but you've spent at least the last 72 hours ignoring questions from me and others about what are you doing to help these unwanted children typically born to unwed mothers.

Further, all of your comments about how to not get pregnant rests completely on the female. Can you not understand why that defeats your argument?

Here's why...

If you contend that birth control (doesn't always work) and/or abstinence (doesn't usually work) are the responsibility of the female that engages in some form of sexual intercourse that has lead to conception, you are contradicting your own position.

Why is it that a female is obligated to take some action to control the outcome of sexual intercourse with a male (which clearly means she should be in control of her own body and her choice what to do with her body) but you think you have the right to be in control of her body if there is something in her womb?

Are you willing to sign over your body and health decisions to be via a legal document called a "Power of Attorney for Health"? If not, why not?

 

Two things: INABILITY to learn the simple quote function.
AND
Presenting old, tired, trite crap about abortion that every previous Anti-Choicer has presented....nothing new, nothing different , nothing logical or factual..... and it's HILARIOUSLY presented as if it's new and hasn't been debunked a thousand times... !!!


AND LIKE ALL anti-Choicers can't answer (DUCKS,DODGES, AVOIDS) the oft asked questions:


What rights do you want a fetus to have that don't interfere in the rights of the woman it's in?

And

WHY do you want the fetus to have more rights than any born human?



They can NEVER answer those questions....gee, must be too hard

 

You really need to figure out the quote feature. Half of that isn't even my comments.

Your argument is what is called "appeal to emotion". You have no support for your position other than your opinion.

Your argument is what is called "appeal to emotion". You have no support for your position other than your opinion.

I understand that you don't like the idea of abortion, but you've spent at least the last 72 hours ignoring questions from me and others about what are you doing to help these unwanted children typically born to unwed mothers.

Further, all of your comments about how to not get pregnant rests completely on the female. Can you not understand why that defeats your argument?

Here's why...

If you contend that birth control (doesn't always work) and/or abstinence (doesn't usually work) are the responsibility of the female that engages in some form of sexual intercourse that has lead to conception, you are contradicting your own position.

Why is it that a female is obligated to take some action to control the outcome of sexual intercourse with a male (which clearly means she should be in control of her own body and her choice what to do with her body) but you think you have the right to be in control of her body if there is something in her womb?

Are you willing to sign over your body and health decisions to be via a legal document called a "Power of Attorney for Health"? If not, why not?[/QUOTE] YOUR

your quote: Your argument is what is called "appeal to emotion". You have no support for your position other than your opinion. wrong! they are facts. how i want these babies to have a chance to grow up! that is fact. also even if a small minority live through child abuse, they still are alive, and have a chance to become very good people. the vast majory of these (unwanted) babies are alive and can choose their own courst in life. good or bad. but! with your side they only---are killed!!!!! they have no choice in the matter, and can't make up their minds on anything. that is another---fact!!! my way the vast majority live---your way they all---die!!!! fact.

your quote: Your argument is what is called "appeal to emotion". You have no support for your position other than your opinion. please show me the data on that. if your talking about illegals then you might be close on that. but from the vids showing illegals crossing the border the mothers are still carring their kids. babies carried to term here in the u.s. have birth records showing the mother & possibly the father. so social services can or should track them. there your imo way out in left field.

your quote: Further, all of your comments about how to not get pregnant rests completely on the female. Can you not understand why that defeats your argument? well it does reinforce my view. why? it is the female who is risking getting pregnant. so it is her option to take precautions or not. if the man will not use a condom, then no sex, period. if she is not on the pill, or using a disk, or other internal devices, then clearly it is her fault for getting pregnant. question: are your saying women are too (stupid) not to get pregnant? that is what it sounds like to me. and like doing many things in life, (you) are responsible for your actions. so is the women.

your quote: If you contend that birth control (doesn't always work) and/or abstinence (doesn't usually work) are the responsibility of the female that engages in some form of sexual intercourse that has lead to conception, you are contradicting your own position. now imo your spinning. many drs. can find ways for a women to "not" get pregnant if one or more birth control ways don't work. birth control has come a very long way since the 60's 70's 2000's to now. and abstinence always works.!!!! you do know that right? if not please explain that one to me.

your quote: Why is it that a female is obligated to take some action to control the outcome of sexual intercourse with a male (which clearly means she should be in control of her own body and her choice what to do with her body) but you think you have the right to be in control of her body if there is something in her womb? didn't you take biology (bad spelling i think) lol because that is how nature made men & women. you can't change that by any law. women bare children. so it is their responsibility on when to have babies or not. but once connived , then the baby feeds from the mother like breast feeding. except through the cord. it is a separate individual and with new medical advances can live with less & less time in the mother. again. your side only tries to ---kill/murder babies, my side doesn't do that. we give them a chance to live.

 

~ I think Sotomayor will retire soon ...

 

Agree nobody is forcing them to get pregnant.

 

your quote: Presenting old, tired, trite crap about abortion that every previous Anti-Choicer has presented....nothing new, nothing different , nothing logical or factual..... and it's HILARIOUSLY presented as if it's new and hasn't been debunked a thousand times... !!! ah! i was waiting for this. when ever your side can't use facts, your side turns to (name calling & and insults) and all the "facts" presented by anti abortion people you can't disprove. and say their facts have been (debunked?) but never show any (debunking).

your quote: AND LIKE ALL anti-Choicers can't answer (DUCKS,DODGES, AVOIDS) the oft asked questions: really? i'm right here, lay them on me. i will answer them.

your quote: WHY do you want the fetus to have more rights than any born human? i've answered that in may post. don't want the baby to have (more) rights than any one. just the --"same" rights as anyone else.

your quote: They can NEVER answer those questions....gee, must be too hard [/QUOTE] really? i just did!! got any more? ready to answer any of them.

 

My Lord have mercy. Please let me help you figure out the quote feature. This is just silly and it gives me a headache.

your quote: Your argument is what is called "appeal to emotion". You have no support for your position other than your opinion.

Can you back up those facts? Until you do, your position is "appeal to emotion".

OK. I need for you to focus. Ready? Let's go. Prove it.

You need to back up these statements. How many of the "vast majority (I have no idea how you got that spelling) of the unwanted kids can choose their course in life, good or bad?

Well, I would agree with you except for the fact that you're wrong.

I never once said that I'm in favor of abortion. Reiteration: I'm not in favor of abortion.

However, I'm against some people in the USA that want to encroach on somebody else's life who has the exact same rights as they do.

Tell me, please. Why is it acceptable that you retain all your rights, free and clear but you want to take away somebody else's rights that have the exact same rights you do.

Dude, the fonts and sizes are bad enough. Don't start adding unnecessary punctuation.

Again, I'm not pro-abortion. I'm anti-the-stop-messing-with-my-rights-crowd.


----------------------

your quote: Your argument is what is called "appeal to emotion". You have no support for your position other than your opinion. please show me the data on that. [/quote]
Reread the above please. Does your response even come close to making sense in this context?

How on Earth do you expect me to show you the data on your opinion?

The onus is on you. Prove that your argument is NOT an appeal to emotion (and please try to use less than all these colors).

I can't comment on this because it fell from the sky. Who in the hell mentioned "illegals"?

I have absolutely no idea of what any of that means. What were your trying to convey?
----------------------------------
your quote: Further, all of your comments about how to not get pregnant rests completely on the female. Can you not understand why that defeats your argument?

So, let's recap a minute.

Your original position is that all abortion is wrong and a woman should not be able to do to her own body what she wants to do (because you like stomping on other people's rights)

BUT

She is 100% responsible for her body when it comes to not getting pregnant.

Why did you flip the switch there? If we start with your premise that you get to tell a pregnant woman that she can't do whatever she wants with her body, wouldn't it also be under your purview for protecting her from an unwanted pregnancy? Or, is it more like "good Christians" that pick and choose which parts of the Bible (Buy Bull) they want to follow?

There are only two options:

1. A woman has complete control over her whole body and what she chooses to put in it or take out of it.

OR

2. A woman's rights as provided by the Constitution and Bill of Rights aren't *technically* her rights because you get to make choices for her.
-------------------------------------
your quote: If you contend that birth control (doesn't always work) and/or abstinence (doesn't usually work) are the responsibility of the female that engages in some form of sexual intercourse that has lead to conception, you are contradicting your own position.

now imo your spinning. many drs. can find ways for a women to "not" get pregnant if one or more birth control ways don't work. birth control has come a very long way since the 60's 70's 2000's to now. and abstinence always works.!!!! you do know that right? if not please explain that one to me.

Nobody sane thinks it's possible to get pregnant while abstinent unless they believe a that BS about the Virgin Mary.
-----------------------------------------------
your quote: Why is it that a female is obligated to take some action to control the outcome of sexual intercourse with a male (which clearly means she should be in control of her own body and her choice what to do with her body) but you think you have the right to be in control of her body if there is something in her womb?

didn't you take biology (bad spelling i think) lol surprisingly, that is one of the few words you spelled correctly. because that is how nature made men & women. you can't change that by any law. women bare [this word is "bear"] children. so it is their responsibility on when to have babies or not. but once connived [that's not the word you mean. You probably meant "conceive"(?)], then the baby feeds from the mother like breast feeding. except through the cord. it is a separate individual and with new medical advances can live with less & less time in the mother. again. your side only tries to ---kill/murder babies, my side doesn't do that. we give them a chance to live. [/QUOTE]

You haven't made your case. All of this is high-strung guilt-tripping emotional blackmail.

Please explain to me why you get ALL your rights but a pregnant woman carrying an unwanted pregnancy does not.

 

I oppose restricting abortion purely because of what I see is the purpose of laws. Someone who 'accidentally' gets pregnant is certainly demonstrating a severe lack of self control and responsibility, and then aborting that pregnancy instead of giving it up for adoption is IMO callously killing their kid just because its the easiest way to avoid the consequences of their irresponsibility. Fundamentally, its selfishness of the highest order. Cases of rape or medical danger are exceptions and not my place to make a moral judgement.

But none of that is particularly relevent to the purpose of laws. We cannot value individual liberty while attempting to legislate morality. TBC, I don't believe morality is subjective, but from the perspective of govt and authority, it absolutely must be treated as subjective (and meaningless). In an extreme example, if we value individual liberty, then we allow lawfullness to include standing on the deck of your luxurious yacht while sailing past slums of starving children to be 'lawful' even though it is absolutely immoral to lavish in luxury while your neighbors suffer in poverty. Immorality is not a crime and it shouldn't be. In the same way (though in a much less extreme way), driving past those same slums with those same starving children in order to buy a big screen tv to replace your slightly smaller big screen tv isn't exactly moral either. But it absolutely should be legal. In both cases, we are allowed to choose whether or not the fruits of our labor will benefit ourselves or others, and by how much. That choice, how selfish we can choose to be, is fundamental to liberty and self determination. Also fundamental to liberty and self determination is self defense. I would also say its immoral to kill someone who is running away with your big screen TV or your car or even your life savings. I would also say it should be lawful to try and stop them (in many places its not anymore, and I oppose that as much as I oppose restricting abortion, and for the same reasons). An unwanted pregnancy, for most people, is not unlike a thief running away with your life savings. Its just as irresposnible as if you'd left your life saving sitting in a pile on your front porch, and its just as immoral as valuing that pile of money more than another human being. But it is also just as legitimate to claim 'I need that pile of money to survive' when a thief is stealing it as it is to make the same claim when there's a baby thats about to eat it.

Murder and theft (and by extension offensive violence and fraud) are unlawful because they destabilize society. Society requires a minimum degree of order to function. It is the purpose of laws, and the only purpose of laws imo, to preserve that minimal amount of order to preserve society and civilization. Abortion does not destabilize society. It doesn't effect how well we can travel or trade or communicate, nor does it undermine the degree of 'faith in the system' that society relies upon for these things to happen. Its purely a moral issue, rather than an issue of social order. And I don't believe we should be delegating our authority to the enforcement of morality, because I'm certain that if we do, it will eventually become unlawful to go buy a big screen TV for yourself unless you can buy one for everyone else too.

 

DUHHH, there was no name calling or insults in that statement....

Gee, aren't Anti-Choicers "honest "

I'll address one of your rants.
The last one.

My answer is NO, you want a fetus to be able to use another's body to sustain their life...something NO one else is allowed to do.

Now this is where you go off on a silly rant about "yes, fathers have to use their bodies to support their kids", "mothers have to use their bodies to feed their kids"...or some such predictable Ant-Choicer claptrap deliberately missing the point.

But the FACT is that no one can force another to sustain their life by giving them any part of their body, whether it's a heart or a kidney or blood... NO one has to do that...BUT YOU WANT THE FETUS TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT..

SO YOU DO NOT WANT THE FETUS TO HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS ANYONE ELSE....YOU WANT THEM TO HAVE GREATER RIGHTS.....MORE RIGHTS THAN THE WOMAN THEY ARE IN.

 

SHOW EXACTLY WHERE THERE IS NAME CALLING AND INSULTS IN THIS STATEMENT AS YOU CLAIM :

"""""Presenting old, tired, trite crap about abortion that every previous Anti-Choicer has presented....nothing new, nothing different , nothing logical or factual..... and it's HILARIOUSLY presented as if it's new and hasn't been debunked a thousand times... !!!"""""


OR ADMIT you are being "INACCURATE"

 

Reread the above please. Does your response even come close to making sense in this context?

How on Earth do you expect me to show you the data on your opinion?
your quote: Can you back up those facts? Until you do, your position is "appeal to emotion".
The onus is on you. Prove that your argument is NOT an appeal to emotion (and please try to use less than all these colors).

I can't comment on this because it fell from the sky. Who in the hell mentioned "illegals"?

I have absolutely no idea of what any of that means. What were your trying to convey?
----------------------------------
your quote: Further, all of your comments about how to not get pregnant rests completely on the female. Can you not understand why that defeats your argument?


So, let's recap a minute.

Your original position is that all abortion is wrong and a woman should not be able to do to her own body what she wants to do (because you like stomping on other people's rights)

BUT

She is 100% responsible for her body when it comes to not getting pregnant.

Why did you flip the switch there? If we start with your premise that you get to tell a pregnant woman that she can't do whatever she wants with her body, wouldn't it also be under your purview for protecting her from an unwanted pregnancy? Or, is it more like "good Christians" that pick and choose which parts of the Bible (Buy Bull) they want to follow?

There are only two options:

1. A woman has complete control over her whole body and what she chooses to put in it or take out of it.

OR

2. A woman's rights as provided by the Constitution and Bill of Rights aren't *technically* her rights because you get to make choices for her.
-------------------------------------
your quote: If you contend that birth control (doesn't always work) and/or abstinence (doesn't usually work) are the responsibility of the female that engages in some form of sexual intercourse that has lead to conception, you are contradicting your own position.

now imo your spinning. many drs. can find ways for a women to "not" get pregnant if one or more birth control ways don't work. birth control has come a very long way since the 60's 70's 2000's to now. and abstinence always works.!!!! you do know that right? if not please explain that one to me.

Nobody sane thinks it's possible to get pregnant while abstinent unless they believe a that BS about the Virgin Mary.
-----------------------------------------------
your quote: Why is it that a female is obligated to take some action to control the outcome of sexual intercourse with a male (which clearly means she should be in control of her own body and her choice what to do with her body) but you think you have the right to be in control of her body if there is something in her womb?

didn't you take biology (bad spelling i think) lol surprisingly, that is one of the few words you spelled correctly. because that is how nature made men & women. you can't change that by any law. women bare [this word is "bear"] children. so it is their responsibility on when to have babies or not. but once connived [that's not the word you mean. You probably meant "conceive"(?)], then the baby feeds from the mother like breast feeding. except through the cord. it is a separate individual and with new medical advances can live with less & less time in the mother. again. your side only tries to ---kill/murder babies, my side doesn't do that. we give them a chance to live. [/QUOTE]

You haven't made your case. All of this is high-strung guilt-tripping emotional blackmail.

Please explain to me why you get ALL your rights but a pregnant woman carrying an unwanted pregnancy does not.[/QUOTE]

your quote: Can you back up those facts? Until you do, your position is "appeal to emotion".

 

your quote: SHOW EXACTLY WHERE THERE IS NAME CALLING AND INSULTS IN THIS STATEMENT AS YOU CLAIM :

"""""Presenting old, tired, trite crap about abortion that every previous Anti-Choicer has presented....nothing new, nothing different , nothing logical or factual..... and it's HILARIOUSLY presented as if it's new and hasn't been debunked a thousand times... !!!"""""


OR ADMIT you are being "INACCURATE" your statement there is name calling. old, tried trite crap, that is name calling. do i do that to you. no! i just state facts. but you have to pull out name calling of my idea's. you don't use facts.

your quote: Can you back up those facts? Until you do, your position is "appeal to emotion". simple! by your standards--every single kid that is raised in a childrens home. a unwanted home, or has child abuse, should turn out to be a violent criminal. but they don't do they. there are millions & millions in these situations. and a small group as my source showed decide on their own to become criminals. the vast majority don't. now you show your (facts?) that support your opinion. if you can.

your quote: You haven't made your case. All of this is high-strung guilt-tripping emotional blackmail. guilt-tripping? no! just stating (facts) nature made females to have and bare children. that is a (fact). they decide if they want to get pregnant or not. again a (fact)

your quote: There are only two options:

1. A woman has complete control over her whole body and what she chooses to put in it or take out of it.

OR

2. A woman's rights as provided by the Constitution and Bill of Rights aren't *technically* her rights because you get to make choices for her.
1. yes a woman has control of her own body--till she gets pregnent!!! then the child has a --right to live under the constitution. and if she harms that child she is committing child abuse or murder!!
2. there is --no--women's right in the constitution to kill/murder her child. please show me in the constitution where you think that is. if you can.

your quote: If you contend that birth control (doesn't always work) and/or abstinence (doesn't usually work) are the responsibility of the female that engages in some form of sexual intercourse that has lead to conception, you are contradicting your own position. abstinence (doesn't usually work?) are you kidding me? you posted this stuff. please explain to me if a women has abstained from sex. how the heck does she get pregnent? i can't believe you post that. now if i were you i could come up with some quips about you. but i will not. just please explain that statement to me how she would get pregnent without sex?

 

And, ironically this is a perfect example of my point. You are not interested in anybody asking you to stop with all these loud colors or offering to help you sort out the quote feature on this forum and you have done what you want to do with your body which is see and type and do what you want. That's not even an 18+ year emotional and financial obligation and you still don't give a damn. You can't have it both ways. Either EVERYBODY has the right to make the choices they deem most appropriate for their lives and future or NOBODY does.

Full stop.

P.S. Please don't bother responding until you get your act together with the features offered here. No. I'm not getting another migraine trying to sort out your posts. Everyone else in this forum has learned how to use the quote feature. You completely ignored my offers to help you get it sorted. I'm out, man.

 

LOOK, in here we can call what people POST anything we want...it's the posters we can't call names so YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN LOLOLOLOL

Hey, think of all those billions of women having sex any way they want anytime they want and NOT CARING WHAT YOU THINK

 

Where TF does it say that in the Constitution??????

WHERE TF in the Constitution does it say abortion is murder????

 

Where in the Constitution does it say women must use birth control?

Where does it say they must abstain from sex or have their rights revoked?

 

Why should any Human being have any less rights than any other human being.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑


"""once pregnant, then you have to carry it to term.""""

Why?


BTW, there is an Abortion Forum...



No, it's a ZEF...not a child and there are no rules, no laws, that say you have you have to gestate it.

Why should a ZEF have more rights than anyone born person ????






LOL, ya, most Anti-choicers hate those frightening scientific ACCURATE words for humans...

Hilarious that you think calling a human ZEF a ZEF is DE-humanizing them...


And why TF would anyone have to pretend they aren't human?

Why do YOU have to pretend they're born people with more rights than anyone else.


Why do you pretend you can't see this question ?
Why should a ZEF have more rights than any born person ???? LOLOLOL....

I never said a human being should have less rights than any other human BEING.

One has to be born to have rights.

Why should a pregnant woman have less rights than her fetus?

Why do you pretend you can't see this question ?
Why should a ZEF have more rights than any born person ???? LOLOLOL....