Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on January 28, 2013, 06:32:16 AM
-
In a special message to the annual anti-abortion protest March for Life, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) vowed that ending abortion would be one of the top priorities of Republicans this year.
“Defending life, of course, is about much more than voting the right way or saying the right things,” he said. “It’s about promoting a culture of life. It’s about understanding that abortion is a defining human rights issue of our time. Because human life is not an economic or political commodity, and no government on Earth has the right to treat it as such.”
“With all that’s at stake, it is becoming more and more important for us to share this truth with our young people, to encourage them to lock arms, speak out for life, and help make abortion a relic of the past,” Boehner continued. “Let that be one of our most fundamental goals this year.”
Boehner said the Republican-led House would again seek to pass the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which sparked controversy in 2011 because of how it defined rape. The bill was approved by the House but died in the Senate.
MORE...
Raw Story (http://s.tt/1z0js)
-
What a fucking moron. This is a goal for them? not the economy, jobs etc? Small government my ass, they want to tell people, namely woman what to do with there own bodies, even in the case of rape, incest etc
Every time you blow your load you are killing babies an unborn thing should never control a living human.
-
Pretty damn dumb almost as dumb as telling ppl your oaks fr your next term are gun control and gay marriage ::)
-
He/they shouldn't be making this some foremost policy goal, but politics aside, making abortion "a relic of the past" is a good goal. Even the reasonable people who are pro abortion believe it should be "safe, legal, and rare."
-
There war on women certainly helped them at the polls last go around.
-
He/they shouldn't be making this some foremost policy goal, but politics aside, making abortion "a relic of the past" is a good goal. Even the reasonable people who are pro abortion believe it should be "safe, legal, and rare."
the liberal movement is making Bill Clinton's policy of "safe, legal, and rare" an outdated policy.
In 10 years it will be considered offensive to a liberal to say abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare".
-
the liberal movement is making Bill Clinton's policy of "safe, legal, and rare" an outdated policy.
In 10 years it will be considered offensive to a liberal to say abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare".
It's probably offensive to a lot of liberals today.
-
He/they shouldn't be making this some foremost policy goal, but politics aside, making abortion "a relic of the past" is a good goal. Even the reasonable people who are pro abortion believe it should be "safe, legal, and rare."
Abortion should be safe, legal and as frequent as necessary with no barriers to get one whatsoever. The last thing we need is more welfare babies. Pro-Lifers who want to end abortion should pick up the cost since they want every ejaculation to have a name.
-
Typical Repubs
so utterly and completely tone deaf on what the public actually wants
-
Typical Repubs
so utterly and completely tone deaf on what the public actually wants
weren't you the one who posted the article saying that finally in 2013 in the US the majority of the population thinks abortion should be legal? So from 1973-2012 the majority did not agree with Roe v Wade?
I am assuming you agree with Roe v Wade and do not want it overturned so you obviously are OK with passing a law that the majority does not agree with. So what the fuck are you even talking about?
-
He/they shouldn't be making this some foremost policy goal, but politics aside, making abortion "a relic of the past" is a good goal. Even the reasonable people who are pro abortion believe it should be "safe, legal, and rare."
Are you feeling okay? ???
-
There war on women certainly helped them at the polls last go around.
x2
-
weren't you the one who posted the article saying that finally in 2013 in the US the majority of the population thinks abortion should be legal? So from 1973-2012 the majority did not agree with Roe v Wade?
I am assuming you agree with Roe v Wade and do not want it overturned so you obviously are OK with passing a law that the majority does not agree with. So what the fuck are you even talking about?
no law was passed in 1973 legalizing abortion
The Supreme Court issued a decision that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortion
We don't make laws in this country by what the population thinks nor are Supreme Court cases decided by popular decision
The fact is that in 2013 the majority of the people are in favor of legal abortion with some limitation and there is virtually ZERO SUPPORT for "ending abortion"
So with all the other shit we have to work on in this country why would the party that just got their ass handed to them in the last election (in part because of their nutty views on abortion) decide to make this one of their most fundamental goals?
Also, from 1973 to 2012 the majority did agree with the Roe v. Wade Decision
-
Abortion should be safe, legal and as frequent as necessary with no barriers to get one whatsoever. The last thing we need is more welfare babies. Pro-Lifers who want to end abortion should pick up the cost since they want every ejaculation to have a name.
Obama approved. He said his first act as president in 09 would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would remove restrictions from abortions. Never happened, but there are a number of people with this view.
-
Boehnergetting SOTH was a huge mistake
-
Sometimes abortions are not only called for, but a boon to society.
Case in point.
(http://images.4chan.org/b/src/1359426364574.jpg)
-
Typical Repubs
so utterly and completely tone deaf on what the public actually wants
how you feel about obama making gun control and gay marriage his goals for the next 4 years?
-
Sometimes abortions are not only called for, but a boon to society.
Case in point.
(http://images.4chan.org/b/src/1359426364574.jpg)
Exactly. I can`t think of any positive reason to ban abortion. None exists.
-
Coach is going to be along soon trying to spin this. It will include the words 'liberals' and 'commies'.
-
Sometimes abortions are not only called for, but a boon to society.
Case in point.
(http://images.4chan.org/b/src/1359426364574.jpg)
I hope that page and posting is just a joke.
-
Exactly. I can`t think of any positive reason to ban abortion. None exists.
I don't think I've heard one that isn't religious based. Might be, but I can't recall one.
-
I don't think I've heard one that isn't religious based. Might be, but I can't recall one.
plenty of reasons to be against abortion outside or religion. Thats like saying there arent any reasons to be against murder but religious ones too.
-
not only should abortions be easier to get, there should be a 5 year retro-active policy.
you can get rid of the kid up to year 5; no questions asked.
-
plenty of reasons to be against abortion outside or religion. Thats like saying there arent any reasons to be against murder but religious ones too.
such a poor analogy.
-
not only should abortions be easier to get, there should be a 5 year retro-active policy.
you can get rid of the kid up to year 5; no questions asked.
I'm assuming you're being facetious. But Australia is trying to push through legislation to allow the mother to terminate the baby in the delivery room after it's born. Give it a few years. it'll pass. Why? Because they'll have 1,000 doctors telling the court that there is no actual difference between a baby that's 5 months into gestation and a baby that was born 1 minute ago. Because there isn't. And they'll prove it.
-
such a poor analogy.
how is that a poor analogy? it's a very good one considering there are a lot of states that will charge a man with double murder if he kills a pregnant woman.
-
plenty of reasons to be against abortion outside or religion. Thats like saying there arent any reasons to be against murder but religious ones too.
Well....hit me with 'em ya damn Texan!
-
Well....hit me with 'em ya damn Texan!
Personal Responsibility, holding ppl accountable for their actions
Mens rights in the procreation process, if she doesnt want to keep the kid and the father does.
If you believe the fetus is a human life
morality sake, according to our resident libtards morals arent based in religion.
-
I'm assuming you're being facetious. But Australia is trying to push through legislation to allow the mother to terminate the baby in the delivery room after it's born. Give it a few years. it'll pass. Why? Because they'll have 1,000 doctors telling the court that there is no actual difference between a baby that's 5 months into gestation and a baby that was born 1 minute ago. Because there isn't. And they'll prove it.
Wow. Hadn't heard about that. That's crazy.
-
I'm assuming you're being facetious. But Australia is trying to push through legislation to allow the mother to terminate the baby in the delivery room after it's born. Give it a few years. it'll pass. Why? Because they'll have 1,000 doctors telling the court that there is no actual difference between a baby that's 5 months into gestation and a baby that was born 1 minute ago. Because there isn't. And they'll prove it.
::)
Are you a kid Bear?
-
::)
Are you a kid Bear?
i don't get it.
you're rolling your eyes the same way people rolled their eyes in the 70's when conservatives claimed that allowing legal abortion would result in future annual abortions of over 1 million in the US alone. Those conservatives were called "crazy bible thumping maniacs" and people would just roll their eyes. now that prediction came to fruition and they're still rolling their eyes.
you need to stop rolling your eyes and start opening them. i'm not even staunchly against abortion. I believe that there are times when it is justified. I just don't blindly defend it simply because tv tells me to.
-
oh yeah and there are also numerous feminist groups in the US who are traveling to India fighting for legislation to ban abortion based on the sex of the baby in response to the horrifying statistics of 3 males being born for every 1 female over the last 20 years.
so their saying "keep your laws off my body" is now "keep your laws off of my body, but those people in India need laws placed on theirs because they're aborting more girls then boys"
My point is that you liberals need to stop judging the beliefs of pro life advocates because in reality your arguments can be torn apart, mocked, and ridiculed just as much as theirs. because you don't have this figured out either.
-
i don't get it.
you're rolling your eyes the same way people rolled their eyes in the 70's when conservatives claimed that allowing legal abortion would result in future annual abortions of over 1 million in the US alone. Those conservatives were called "crazy bible thumping maniacs" and people would just roll their eyes. now that prediction came to fruition and they're still rolling their eyes.
you need to stop rolling your eyes and start opening them. i'm not even staunchly against abortion. I believe that there are times when it is justified. I just don't blindly defend it simply because tv tells me to.
Do you have a source for the Australien thing?
-
Personal Responsibility, holding ppl accountable for their actions
Mens rights in the procreation process, if she doesnt want to keep the kid and the father does.
If you believe the fetus is a human life
morality sake, according to our resident libtards morals arent based in religion.
too bad about the 'father'. its her body and her issues. it was only his penis for a couple minutes. her 'problem' now.
-
Do you have a source for the Australien thing?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html
and they are right. if you are in favor of abortion, you are a complete hypocrite if you don't also favor after birth abortion. thats HER baby. not yours. you have no right to tell her what to do with it. unless of course you want to pay for it. it is proven by doctors that there is NO DIFFERENCE between a baby that was born 1 minutes ago and a baby 6 months into gestation.
i've always said that the hypocrisy of the liberal left will eventually be what destroys them. and it's happening right now
-
too bad about the 'father'. its her body and her issues. it was only his penis for a couple minutes. her 'problem' now.
Then make her and her alone responsible for her actions. If you really feel its her choice alone then don't require the father to pay child support if he chooses not too.
If you don't then if he wants to keep the baby and she doesn't then she can carry it through and give it to the father after delivery. She doesn't have to deal with it after that if she doesn't want to.
She made the same decision he did to get into that situation. If you're going to hold one accountable then hold them both accountable, if youre not then don't require one to be accountable and not the other.
-
Then make her and her alone responsible for her actions. If you really feel its her choice alone then don't require the father to pay child support if he chooses not too.
absolutely correct!
and if she has the kid and cant afford it, dont make all of us pay support for her to keep it.
better to not have had it in the first place.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html
and they are right. if you are in favor of abortion, you are a complete hypocrite if you don't also favor after birth abortion. thats HER baby. not yours. you have no right to tell her what to do with it. unless of course you want to pay for it. it is proven by doctors that there is NO DIFFERENCE between a baby that was born 1 minutes ago and a baby 6 months into gestation.
i've always said that the hypocrisy of the liberal left will eventually be what destroys them. and it's happening right now
Dude, some people made an article.
That doesnt mean Australia is making laws like this.
If an american writes a pro Nazi article does that mean every american is a nazi ???
Smarten up this is a politics board so try to think a little.
-
absolutely correct!
and if she has the kid and cant afford it, dont make all of us pay support for her to keep it.
better to not have had it in the first place.
So you agree with the fathers right to walk away from his unborn baby just like you do the mothers then?
-
Dude, some people made an article.
That doesnt mean Australia is making laws like this.
If an american writes a pro Nazi article does that mean every american is a nazi ???
Smarten up this is a politics board so try to think a little.
you need to learn a little bit from the history of the law. everything those "crazy bible thumpers" back in the 1970's said about what this law would eventually become is coming to fruition. you liberals have a very selective memory. and if you don't think that after birth abortion is a reality that we will face over the next 100 years you're naive at best a liberal who blindly defends everything "abortion" at worst (which is what i assume you are).
for instance, let me play devils advocate. Australia allows partial birth abortion and abortions during the last trimester. You tell me that you honestly believe that there is a difference between a baby that was born 1 minute ago and a baby in its 8th month of gestation. you would label the former a murderer and not the latter? really? i thought you liberals were all about science right? thats stupid and i know you don't really believe that.
that being said. they will argue that the woman who gave birth a minute ago has just as much right to terminate her baby as the 8 months pregnant woman. there is no scientific difference between the two. and they'll be correct. why is one baby's life more important than the other? because you saw it?
Sorry but if you allow late term abortions its only fair to allow women after birth abortions. the science doesn't lie.
-
In a special message to the annual anti-abortion protest March for Life, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) vowed that ending abortion would be one of the top priorities of Republicans this year.
“Defending life, of course, is about much more than voting the right way or saying the right things,” he said. “It’s about promoting a culture of life. It’s about understanding that abortion is a defining human rights issue of our time. Because human life is not an economic or political commodity, and no government on Earth has the right to treat it as such.”
“With all that’s at stake, it is becoming more and more important for us to share this truth with our young people, to encourage them to lock arms, speak out for life, and help make abortion a relic of the past,” Boehner continued. “Let that be one of our most fundamental goals this year.”
Boehner said the Republican-led House would again seek to pass the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which sparked controversy in 2011 because of how it defined rape. The bill was approved by the House but died in the Senate.
MORE...
Raw Story (http://s.tt/1z0js)
-
So you agree with the fathers right to walk away from his unborn baby just like you do the mothers then?
double absolutely! one less kid/mother on welfare for the rest of us to pay for.
-
Personal Responsibility, holding ppl accountable for their actions
Mens rights in the procreation process, if she doesnt want to keep the kid and the father does.
If you believe the fetus is a human life
morality sake, according to our resident libtards morals arent based in religion.
they are being accountable for their actions, they are undergoing abortion. I don't think a lifelong commitment is holding them accountable. The planet is overpopulated, people can do as they please with their bodies.
Men, have no rights over woman's bodies, it's quite obvious that this is the arrangement going in.
Religion has terrible morals, the first few commandments are on worship, nothing on rape, torture etc.. please don't use this worn out silly myth to support your argument.
-
you need to learn a little bit from the history of the law. everything those "crazy bible thumpers" back in the 1970's said about what this law would eventually become is coming to fruition. you liberals have a very selective memory. and if you don't think that after birth abortion is a reality that we will face over the next 100 years you're naive at best a liberal who blindly defends everything "abortion" at worst (which is what i assume you are).
for instance, let me play devils advocate. Australia allows partial birth abortion and abortions during the last trimester. You tell me that you honestly believe that there is a difference between a baby that was born 1 minute ago and a baby in its 8th month of gestation. you would label the former a murderer and not the latter? really? i thought you liberals were all about science right? thats stupid and i know you don't really believe that.
that being said. they will argue that the woman who gave birth a minute ago has just as much right to terminate her baby as the 8 months pregnant woman. there is no scientific difference between the two. and they'll be correct. why is one baby's life more important than the other? because you saw it?
Sorry but if you allow late term abortions its only fair to allow women after birth abortions. the science doesn't lie.
Science? lol.
One is inside the host the other outside capable of sustaining life if cared for. This is not clear cut like you suggest. Late term abortions are not common also. your argument can be extended as you have defined nothing, in this scenario a two year old can be murdered. It can't take care of itself. It is absurd. Late term abortions indicate that something is wrong, medically.
-
how is that a poor analogy? it's a very good one considering there are a lot of states that will charge a man with double murder if he kills a pregnant woman.
he is comparing two totally seperate things. One a living being, along with the consequences of murder if it were legal compared to abortion. If murder was legal, many people would die, violence would skyrocket, fear, panic and society as a whole would crumble, there is a reason it carries the harshest of penalties. Abortion offers none of this and a fetus is not a living thing so long as it requires a living host to survive.
again terrible analogy.
Your argument is equally ridiculous. The law assumes the baby would be carried to full term. Also, law is subjective and not all law is sane or warranted. The very act of pregnancy over a period of time indicates intent. It's a sticky subject, but ultimately, it infringes upon the freedoms of a living person in favor of a non-living thing.
why do you think you have the right to tell woman what they can or cannot do with there bodies?
-
you need to learn a little bit from the history of the law. everything those "crazy bible thumpers" back in the 1970's said about what this law would eventually become is coming to fruition. you liberals have a very selective memory. and if you don't think that after birth abortion is a reality that we will face over the next 100 years you're naive at best a liberal who blindly defends everything "abortion" at worst (which is what i assume you are).
for instance, let me play devils advocate. Australia allows partial birth abortion and abortions during the last trimester. You tell me that you honestly believe that there is a difference between a baby that was born 1 minute ago and a baby in its 8th month of gestation. you would label the former a murderer and not the latter? really? i thought you liberals were all about science right? thats stupid and i know you don't really believe that.
that being said. they will argue that the woman who gave birth a minute ago has just as much right to terminate her baby as the 8 months pregnant woman. there is no scientific difference between the two. and they'll be correct. why is one baby's life more important than the other? because you saw it?
Sorry but if you allow late term abortions its only fair to allow women after birth abortions. the science doesn't lie.
Why would anyone choose a late abortion? If you have carried the child for 8 months im pretty sure its a keeper.
And no i dont think a doctor would give a go for it unless there was a valid reason. Its dangerous for the mother.
-
Personal Responsibility, holding ppl accountable for their actions
Mens rights in the procreation process, if she doesnt want to keep the kid and the father does.
If you believe the fetus is a human life
morality sake, according to our resident libtards morals arent based in religion.
Sorry, but this just isn't showing it.
Claiming personal responsibility dictates that a person can't have an abortion suggests that their is something inherently wrong with abortion.
And whether or not it is a 'life' is at the core of the religous debate.
Like I said, I've yet to see any non-religious argument. Not one.
-
Sorry, but this just isn't showing it.
Claiming personal responsibility dictates that a person can't have an abortion suggests that their is something inherently wrong with abortion.
And whether or not it is a 'life' is at the core of the religous debate.
Like I said, I've yet to see any non-religious argument. Not one.
he wants to dictate what the consequences are, abortion for most woman is not easy and that is claiming responsibility.
-
they are being accountable for their actions, they are undergoing abortion. I don't think a lifelong commitment is holding them accountable. The planet is overpopulated, people can do as they please with their bodies.
Men, have no rights over woman's bodies, it's quite obvious that this is the arrangement going in.
Religion has terrible morals, the first few commandments are on worship, nothing on rape, torture etc.. please don't use this worn out silly myth to support your argument.
Good point I guess about abortion being a way of taking responsibility. Its pretty shitty to step up and take responsibility in that manner after youve already created the life but point taken either way.
One could argue however that if you believe that human life is sacred and again this does not have to come from a religious stand point. That once the process has begun(fertilization) that the responsible thing to do would be to nurture that life.
PS all youre morals are based in religion whether you accept it or not is up to you.
-
Sorry, but this just isn't showing it.
Claiming personal responsibility dictates that a person can't have an abortion suggests that their is something inherently wrong with abortion.
And whether or not it is a 'life' is at the core of the religous debate.
Like I said, I've yet to see any non-religious argument. Not one.
Im not saying whether or not life is a core religious issue or not. What Im saying is that you dont have to have a religious stand point to believe it is a life.
and b/c of that you can believe that abortions are wrong and it not with religious justification.
Mens rights in the procreation process means nothing to you?
At the very least give the man the right to walk away from the potential child for the same amount of time the woman has.
-
he wants to dictate what the consequences are, abortion for most woman is not easy and that is claiming responsibility.
I never said it was easy, but to think that its not easy for some women is ignorant. Men, have no rights over woman's bodies, it's quite obvious that this is the arrangement going in.
sorry I forgot to address this in my previous post. There are plenty of ways to achieve equal procreation rights without forcing the woman to carry the baby to term. Give the man a choice of whether or not he wants the baby if he doesnt then he gets to walk away from the fetus just like the mother can do, no child support and he has no parental rights to the child if she keeps it. If he does and she doesnt she can either carry it to term and give it to the father after birth or she pays a monetary sum to the father, somewhat akin to child support I guess.
-
Good point I guess about abortion being a way of taking responsibility. Its pretty shitty to step up and take responsibility in that manner after youve already created the life but point taken either way.
One could argue however that if you believe that human life is sacred and again this does not have to come from a religious stand point. That once the process has begun(fertilization) that the responsible thing to do would be to nurture that life.
PS all youre morals are based in religion whether you accept it or not is up to you.
I don't think life begins at fertilization, we have to define life, and is all life sacred or just humans, because other species are being wiped out at an alarming rate.
I know my morals aren't based in religion because religion gathered it's morals from humans. Do you think humans had no morals before religion? the book was written by humans, humanity and it's morals predate the bible. Also, I disagree with the morality taught in the bible, so it's hard to imagine I get my morals from it. You are putting to much faith into the importance of religion. Animals show morality, dolphins for example show altruism, sharing, they help injured peers etc.
morality comes from logic and reason, the higher these factors the "better" the morals. That's why we no longer have slaves and soon will not discriminate gays etc. morality is not absolute but evolving just like everything else, everything, absolutely everything evolves.
-
Im not saying whether or not life is a core religious issue or not. What Im saying is that you dont have to have a religious stand point to believe it is a life.
and b/c of that you can believe that abortions are wrong and it not with religious justification.
Mens rights in the procreation process means nothing to you?
At the very least give the man the right to walk away from the potential child for the same amount of time the woman has.
Because your proposed solution of absolving men of fiscal responsibility in those cases would actually push that responsibility (or may if the woman does not have the means), onto taxpayers.
So no, I'm not thrilled with that.
-
I never said it was easy, but to think that its not easy for some women is ignorant. sorry I forgot to address this in my previous post. There are plenty of ways to achieve equal procreation rights without forcing the woman to carry the baby to term. Give the man a choice of whether or not he wants the baby if he doesnt then he gets to walk away from the fetus just like the mother can do, no child support and he has no parental rights to the child if she keeps it. If he does and she doesnt she can either carry it to term and give it to the father after birth or she pays a monetary sum to the father, somewhat akin to child support I guess.
I agree with procreation rights to a degree, the woman obviously has a bit more involvement, I mean they can die from birth, I don't think men can. Unless the load exhausts there semen levels and sucks all there essence from the genital chakra.
-
I don't think life begins at fertilization, we have to define life, and is all life sacred or just humans, because other species are being wiped out at an alarming rate.
I know my morals aren't based in religion because religion gathered it's morals from humans. Do you think humans had no morals before religion? the book was written by humans, humanity and it's morals predate the bible. Also, I disagree with the morality taught in the bible, so it's hard to imagine I get my morals from it. You are putting to much faith into the importance of religion. Animals show morality, dolphins for example show altruism, sharing, they help injured peers etc.
morality comes from logic and reason, the higher these factors the "better" the morals. That's why we no longer have slaves and soon will not discriminate gays etc. morality is not absolute but evolving just like everything else, everything, absolutely everything evolves.
I agree lets define life, those in favor of abortion often believe that the child is not technically alive until the baby is born as if there is some distinction between a baby in the womb and a baby 2 mins later out of the womb. Those in favor of no abortions often believe that the life begins at conception when genetic material from two different individuals comes together to create something that didnt exist prior. I guess we could also use medical technologies like heart beats, brain activity etc.
When do you consider the fetus "alive"?
Ill refrain from the morals debate for the moment as this thread seems like it has the potential for good debate on the topic at hand but Ill come back to it when the topic dies out.
-
Because your proposed solution of absolving men of fiscal responsibility in those cases would actually push that responsibility (or may if the woman does not have the means), onto taxpayers.
So no, I'm not thrilled with that.
I agree I didnt say it was a great solution but equal procreation rights is a reason against abortion that isnt based in religion.
-
he is comparing two totally seperate things. One a living being, along with the consequences of murder if it were legal compared to abortion. If murder was legal, many people would die, violence would skyrocket, fear, panic and society as a whole would crumble, there is a reason it carries the harshest of penalties. Abortion offers none of this and a fetus is not a living thing so long as it requires a living host to survive.
again terrible analogy.
Your argument is equally ridiculous. The law assumes the baby would be carried to full term. Also, law is subjective and not all law is sane or warranted. The very act of pregnancy over a period of time indicates intent. It's a sticky subject, but ultimately, it infringes upon the freedoms of a living person in favor of a non-living thing.
why do you think you have the right to tell woman what they can or cannot do with there bodies?
but the law places a tag of "living thing" if the mother intends to carry the baby full term?? LOL!!
like i said you liberal asshats are all about sticking to the science but your definition of a human being hinges upon the intent of the mother and father. thats about as unscientific as you can get. again all i can do is LOL!!!
-
I agree I didnt say it was a great solution but equal procreation rights is a reason against abortion that isnt based in religion.
Fair enough
-
but the law places a tag of "living thing" if the mother intends to carry the baby full term?? LOL!!
like i said you liberal asshats are all about sticking to the science but your definition of a human being hinges upon the intent of the mother and father. thats about as unscientific as you can get. again all i can do is LOL!!!
Just because the law is at odds with itself, doesn't mean people are inconsistent. I don't agree that people should be charged for murder when it comes to a fetus.
Nothing I can do about if some is charged that way though.
You are capable of understanding something that basic?