The Latest Pro-Choice Hypocrisy

reply to post by seabag

If she didn't want a child then she should keep her legs closed rather than being irresponsible.

Ditto.

If he didn't want a child then he should have kept his pecker in his pants.

Originally posted by CranialSponge
reply to post by seabag

 

If she didn't want a child then she should keep her legs closed rather than being irresponsible.

Ditto.

If he didn't want a child then he should have kept his pecker in his pants.

I agree!

But one has another alternative left and the other doesn't.

Neither should or both should!

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by CranialSponge
reply to post by seabag

 

If she didn't want a child then she should keep her legs closed rather than being irresponsible.

Ditto.

If he didn't want a child then he should have kept his pecker in his pants.

I agree!

But one has another alternative left and the other doesn't.

Neither should or both should!

edit on 17-5-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)

I disagree.

They both had an equal alternative prior to fertilization:

Abstinence.

It's the only guaranteed form of birth control.

I would say that the homicide charge will likely be dismissed or overturned if a conviction results. I wouldn't be surprised to see state charges under the felony murder rule. In the end those charges would likely be dismissed also. In any event, the guy is screwed for life.

reply to post by CranialSponge

I disagree.

They both had an equal alternative prior to fertilization:

Abstinence.

It's the only guaranteed form of birth control.

Good!

Then we both agree neither should have an alternative after conception. We could have saved a lot of time arguing had you just said that from the start!

reply to post by Florida Fox

I would say that the homicide charge will likely be dismissed or overturned if a conviction results. I wouldn't be surprised to see state charges under the felony murder rule. In the end those charges would likely be dismissed also.

I don't know how this will play out but I don't believe he should have been charged with murder since abortion isn't illegal. It should be illegal but unfortunately it's not. If its not murder for a woman to voluntarily take that drug then it's not murder for him to administer that drug to her.

Illegal? Yes!

Murder? Nope!

In any event, the guy is screwed for life.

As he should be. He's a scumbag for what he did.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by CranialSponge

 

I disagree.

They both had an equal alternative prior to fertilization:

Abstinence.

It's the only guaranteed form of birth control.

Good!

Then we both agree neither should have an alternative after conception. We could have saved a lot of time arguing had you just said that from the start!

Wrong.

Once the seed has been planted and given away for free, then the person who's left carrying that seed is the one that gets to decide what to do with it.

Ah well, such is the consequences of making an irresponsible decision.


As a side note:
I'm curious Seabag, have you ever actually sat down and had a heart to heart with a woman who's had an abortion ? You seem to think this abortion thing is an "easy come, easy go" decision for a woman. You might be surprised to find out that most women suffer with haunting guilt for the rest of their lives at the taking of an innocent life due to their own "irresponsibility".

Most of the women I know, wish that they would have made the decision to give the child up for adoption instead. The taking of an innocent life is a lot more traumatic to these women than you think.

reply to post by seabag


OP, this is why the pro-choice community opposed the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" that was promoted by and passed under the Bush adminstration and pro-life community, and why your title "The Latest Pro-Choice Hypocrisy" is incorrect.

Pro-Abortion Groups Lash Out As House Panel Approves "Unborn Victims of Violence Act"

The bill is focused entirely on violent assaults on mother and child by third parties. Any abortion to which a woman consents, or any act by the mother herself (legal or illegal) that affects her own unborn child, are not included in the scope of the bill.

Nevertheless, pro-abortion groups have harshly denounced the legislation.

The Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union distributed a press release under the headline, "New Battle on Reproductive Choice Opens As House Panel Considers Fetal Rights Legislation."

In the statement, ACLU Legislative Counsel Kathryn Engustian objected to the bill because it would, she said, "separate the woman from her fetus in the eyes of the law. And we believe that such separation is merely the first step toward eroding a woman's right to determine the fate of her own pregnancy and to direct the course of her own health care."

Don't blame the pro-choice community for this perceived inconsistency. Your argument is the argument that we knew would come out of this bill.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

The fetus IS a life. But so is that ant I stepped on a minute ago. So is the basil I picked this morning.

So a human fetus is comparable to an ant?

That is seriously messed up.


To the op:

IS a fetus given a choice?

Nope if it could talk which it would be able to do someday, and be asked hey kid, 'Want the same chance at life, as your mother, and father did' ?

Probably would say yes, then next day step on an ant, and pick some basil.

Originally posted by muse7
Should doctors that remove and kill tumors with chemotherapy be considered murderers?

A lump of cells that form tumors can be considered a living organism.

Oh so a human life in the womb is now considered a 'tumor'.

Another messed up comment.

I didn't even know abortion pills existed.

Originally posted by Astrocyte
I didn't even know abortion pills existed.

Oh they exist birth control pills. and the abortion pills that come from big corporate pharmaceuticals.

They love them, then go off to the next thread and decry GMO.

The op has several layers of hypocrisy.

reply to post by neo96

So a human fetus is comparable to an ant?

No. An ant is more sentient and valuable to it's community. A six week old fetus isn't aware of anything, it's just a blob of cells that is following a blue print that started by a chemical reaction.

There's nothing supremely sacred or holy about human biology that's above and beyond any other natural life.

reply to post by seabag


Sounds like its "murder" when its convenient.

Originally posted by Nevertheless

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by Nevertheless

Originally posted by seabag
Ummmm….she was given an abortion pill. That’s the same pill a doctor would prescribe. There would have been no difference as far as procedure.

Except there is a slight difference in me murdering you, and you committing suicide.

Did this man commit murder in your opinion?

If she was expecting a child, then yes, obviously.

Does a woman commit murder when she chooses to have an abortion?

No, because it is ultimately her choice whether or not to have children.

There should be no difference. Either it’s murder or its not.

But there should, and is.
Why are you so bothered about this?

It's murder of the unborn regardless of whether the man or woman wanted it or not. The woman's choice makes very little difference. That is the whole hypocrisy of the pro choice crowd.
Sorry if the truth hurts.

reply to post by windword

No. An ant is more sentient and valuable to it's community. A six week old fetus isn't aware of anything, it's just a blob of cells that is following a blue print that started by a chemical reaction.

Saying a human fetus given the chance to 'grow up' will never be smarter than an ant?

REALLY?

This is ridiculious.. By charging him with murder... They are admitting that a fetus is a living human being and not some collection of cells... At what point after conception does it cease being a "mass" and transform into a human?

Ive always been prolife.. You play you pay... Every other mistake in life comes with a price.. I also struggle with it being all on the woman.. If she wants it and he doesnt... He pays... If he wants it and she doesnt.. so what.. Can a "father" file murder charges on the mother?

About the RAPE and INCEST argument... Has anyone of those arguers ever looked up the percentage of abortions that are done as a result of those two circumstances? Numbers conflict but all are EXTREMELY low..

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by windword

 

No. An ant is more sentient and valuable to it's community. A six week old fetus isn't aware of anything, it's just a blob of cells that is following a blue print that started by a chemical reaction.

Saying a human fetus given the chance to 'grow up' will never be smarter than an ant?

REALLY?

Do you think that humans are more valuable as a species than ants? Ants are pretty smart. They garden and cultivate herds, communicate with one another and create fantastic city structures.

A 6 weeks fetus has no mind, no thoughts, no hopes and dreams for the future, no intention or self determinism and can't survive if not for the housing and nourishment gleemed from its host.

reply to post by seabag


Umm, there's a bit of irony in calling this thread "pro choice" and yet not realizing that he's been charged with murder, logically, because he circumvented her right to CHOOSE.

Clearly, the determinant here is the right to choose. Choice is what makes the difference between "murder" and abortion.

That being said, I lean towards pro-life, as I don't think it's a necessarily wise social policy to encourage people to kill fetuses that would otherwise become people. It just doesn't feel right.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by onthedownlow

 

Originally posted by onthedownlow
Procreation is a right reserved to the women?

No. Procreation is the right of men AND women. Pregnancy and childbirth are biological functions of the female of the species.

Absent the 9 months of pregnancy, a man has the same, and more often, more stringently imposed obligations when he procreates, whether it is his choice or not.

Yeah, that pesky little life-threatening "9 months of pregnancy" (plus childbirth, don't forget the actual birth) falls to the woman. So, if we just forget about pregnancy and childbirth, men and women share equally in the job of procreation.

How is procreation the right of men? In most cases, consenting adults decide to partake in an act that can ultimately end with procreation, yet, the male has no legal say in the efficacy of culminating factors. In fairness, the right to choice should end with consenting adults at the time of conception, yet only the male's rights terminate.

Yes, there is some degree of risk for the female, but there is risk in driving a car, or smoking a cigarette. Or in this case, there is a risk when having sex, or when having an abortion, yet we have created an extra protection for the female in which the male is exempt. Choices, hmm, now we consider the affects of our choices to be choices- or at least we do for the female. The male is guilty of making a choice that only females are entitled to make. He had the right to abstain from sex, but he is required by law to be accountable for his choice, and because he made a decision to effect what he considered to be a favorable outcome for his choice, he is considered a murderer. Sorry, but it smacks of hypocrisy.