The irrationality of Liberals

Originally posted by Misoir
Why have you not answered my questions??

Because they are silly.

A murderer running around in the neighborhood IS my business. He's a threat to me and my family.

Wait! The rights of the woman because a baby is dependent solely upon her so she has the right to terminate its life!?

Yes. She has the right to decide if she wants to allow her body to be USED to support this fetus. It's HER choice.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Shall we start to decide if all humans are "viable" enough to be granted human rights?

Viability is the ability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus without artificial aid. People ARE viable. Not all fetuses are.

There are plenty of people walking down the streets surviving ONLY because of artificial aid...why is it any different for a baby? Seems like it is some twisted form of age descrimination.


And there are plenty of babies that are born at full term that still need artificial aid. And most of these abortions are to babies that would perfectly grow to full term.


Sorry...I can't sympathize with anyone that has an abortion...or anyone supports that abortion is a "valid" choice.

To me, there is something dead inside people who have or support abortion...yes it is harsh...but it is my true opinion.

reply to post by intrepid


Christopher Reeves was not a fetus.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Alright Benevolent I must end this here. I am completely at odds with your opinions as I just see it as condoning murder, period. I respect you and so I must end this.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by intrepid

 

Christopher Reeves was not a fetus.

I guess I'm missing your point on assisted life then. Isn't a fetus living?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
There are plenty of people walking down the streets surviving ONLY because of artificial aid...why is it any different for a baby?

I have answered this several times... I don't know why people are missing it.

A woman has to consent or deny to have her body used as an incubator for a certain period of time. If she does not want to consent to that, she shouldn't be forced to do it.

People walking down the street surviving because of artificial aid are NOT depending on someone's uterus for their survival.

reply to post by intrepid


Yes, a fetus is a living organism.

I don't understand your confusion...

reply to post by intrepid

"Too bad"? It must be nice to be able to blanket all 15yo girls like that to put forth your own personal beliefs. Even those that are against what the SCOTUS has determined.

Yes...too bad...I won't excuse murder of a baby because she is 15yo.

Thanks for the back handed insult, is that all the hard liners have(?), but I guess you didn't read my posts here. I'm pro-life.

It doesn't matter if you are pro-life or not...you are treating 15 year olds like they are just poor little kids that don't know any better. And they know a lot of people are like this...and they use it to their advantage to get out of responsibility. You are just making excuses for their behavior...and that doesn't help anything.

I'm also more open to other opinions. You should try it some time

More than what? More than me? lol...nice judgement call there.

I'm open to lots of ideas...killing babies, excusing the killing of babies because it's just a poor little 15 year old girl, or making excuses for kids making dumb choices are not ones I am open to.

Sorry...I don't excuse people being idiots.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

A woman has to consent or deny to have her body used as an incubator for a certain period of time. If she does not want to consent to that, she shouldn't be forced to do it.

Unless she was RAPED or unless she's RETARDED, she knows that her behavior has a chance of creating another human life that will depend on her body for several months to survive.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Yes. She has the right to decide if she wants to allow her body to be USED to support this fetus. It's HER choice.

Yes...she had this choice...the same time the guy had the choice if he was prepared to be a father. BEFORE they had sex.

After that...you have made your choice...now the only thing left it to be responsible for that CHOICE you made.

Or she can just go kill the baby...because that is the easy way out.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yes, a fetus is a living organism.

I don't understand your confusion...

Well what's the difference between Chris Reeves needing assistance to live and a fetus needing the same?

Where do these threads keep coming from! There's like 4 active abortion posts right now, I mean seriously, people.

In any fashion, calling abortion murder succeeds only in showing me how incapable some people are at looking below the surface of pretty much anything. When else in our society are you permitted to kill someone? Self defense. Now, would you that that if someone was going to crawl inside my uterus and tear my vagina apart from the inside out, possibly killing me if I have other complications.... it would not be self-defense to painlessly terminate their life? That's inhumane? That's murder? No, anyone who wants to condemn this pregnant woman to death, to force her martyrdom based on your personal moral standards, that person is the real murderer.

Give me a break.

Now, I don't have a uterus, but I do have some perspective.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

People walking down the street surviving because of artificial aid are NOT depending on someone's uterus for their survival.

Of course, Christopher Reeve, towards the end of his life wasn't walking down any street while surviving because of the benefit of artificial aid, and he was most assuredly highly dependent upon his wife...perhaps not so much her uterus, but her physical help, and most certainly her compassion and strong moral character. I suppose Mrs. Reeve had the choice to walk away from the tragic figure that was her husband, and she simply chose not to, but if she had, Christopher Reeve would still be highly dependent upon some physical human being to help him get through the change of colostomy bags, the necessary enemas, and just getting in and out of his chair that he moved by blowing throw a straw.

The fact of the matter is that women do have a choice when it comes to not having to deal with a pregnancy. They have several options available to them in terms of contraceptives, and if the fear is that the contraceptives will not work, there is always the surgical procedure that would render her infertile...or, she could choose the seemingly very unpopular, but always effective abstinence. A woman has plenty of choices long before she gets pregnant.

Originally posted by Brood
Now, would you that that if someone was going to crawl inside my uterus and tear my vagina apart from the inside out, possibly killing me if I have complications....

It didn't crawl into your uterusYOUR ACTIONS PUT IT THERE.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

It didn't crawl into your uterusYOUR ACTIONS PUT IT THERE.

No. The actions of TWO people put it there. But how handy is it that we only wish to make ONE of those parties culpable and accountable for blame.

Sheesh.

~Heff

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

A woman has to consent or deny to have her body used as an incubator for a certain period of time. If she does not want to consent to that, she shouldn't be forced to do it.

Like I said before...then she shouldn't have sex if she doesn't want to have her body "used as an incubator" (what an inhuman way to look at this...guess it helps with murdering babies...remove them as human).

The father has ONE time to make a choice if he wants to become a father...before he decides to have sex. After that he is required to take responsibility...enforcable by a court. As it should be.

But the "mother" I guess can make this choice after she has sex.

These girls don't get pregnant by accident...it isn't a random drawing by nature as to who is going to get pregnant or not...they ACTIVELY participate in the act that makes them pregnant. They made their CHOICE.


There is a time and place for all decisions...before having sex is the time and place to make the decision if you are prepared to be a mother/father. There should be no choice to "decide" if your body is to be used as an "incubator" (Seriously...that is just a disgusting way to think of carrying a baby).

I make choices all the time...at the appropiate time...I am FORCED to do so all the time. I see no reason not to FORCE women to make the CHOICE at the appropriate time.

reply to post by Hefficide


Our laws should control the sins that pro-lifers do not commit, and allow the sins that they do. Right, pork industry?

Originally posted by Hefficide

But how handy is it that we only wish to make ONE of those parties culpable and accountable for blame.

What on earth are you talking about?

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by SevenBeans

It didn't crawl into your uterusYOUR ACTIONS PUT IT THERE.

No. The actions of TWO people put it there. But how handy is it that we only wish to make ONE of those parties culpable and accountable for blame.

Sheesh.

~Heff

Heff...really?

Men are court ordered to pay child support...and I think they should be.


But why do you think it is ok for women to walk away from the consequences of their own actions?

double post