There is Everything Wrong with Abortion

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#228000 Mar 31, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/roe-wade.html
Holding and Rule (Blackmun)
Yes. State criminal abortion laws that except from criminality only life-saving procedures on the mother’s behalf, and that do not take into consideration the stage of pregnancy and other interests, are unconstitutional for violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Yes. The Due Process Clause protects the right to privacy, including a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, against state action.
Yes. Though a state cannot completely deny a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life at various stages of pregnancy.
No. The natural termination of Roe’s pregnancy did not render her suit moot.
Yes. The district court was correct in denying injunctive relief.
Game, set, match
There are few things funnier than watching someone google and cite law that they don't understand.
Golf clap for your google-foo
Chuckle for your inability to understand hat his doesn't even address come chain pure addressing. In our original statement that I replied to, which you quoted, you stated "the UNITED STAES, you know that country we live in.....bla blah blah woman's privacy after sex"
While your response sounds great to a retard, it in fact ignores he DECADES of restrictions on abortion and rights given to the fetus which have developed since.
As I have stated, and supported, a woman's freedom to kill her unborn child has been, and will continue to be, resticted o the point of impossibility.
Game.
Set.
Match.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#228001 Mar 31, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>I completely disagree. No one can be "forced to care" by law. If you truly believe that will work, or even that it should be considered, you are utterly ignorant of human nature.
Women must retain our right to medical autonomy, personal risk assessment, and self-defense. Abortion is a medical procedure, which alleviates many risks of permanent injury, debilitating disease, and death. It won't be denied to women, no matter how many times you say it should be, and the primary thing more restrictions against it accomplish, is misery. For this reason, and a myriad of others, I consider your stance to be shortsighted, sadistic, and reprehensible.
Of course you disagree. You have no concept of personal responsibility. I don't expect that level of understanding from ANYONE who still thinks its OK to kill unborn children because here inconvenient.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#228002 Mar 31, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
Abortion is still legal. So, they haven't changed. Women will still have abortions. There will never be a way of stopping women from doing what they want with their bodies.
Your obtuse statement intentionally fails to recognize that's while killing unborn children may be legal, it's becoming more restrictive every year.

“Jesus is coming soon”

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#228003 Mar 31, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...okay then. I don't think any woman should be forced to have a child she does not want or cannot care for. I'm not interested in subjugating women the way you are.
No you are interested only in allowing them to become murderers of their unborn by way of not taking any responsibility.

Judged:

10

10

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Columbus, OH

#228004 Mar 31, 2013
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your obtuse statement intentionally fails to recognize that's while killing unborn children may be legal, it's becoming more restrictive every year.
Sure, a lot of places TRY to restrict women's options, but none of them have been able to stick. It's still possible to get an abortion in this country. If I wanted to get one right now, I could with no problem.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Columbus, OH

#228005 Mar 31, 2013
LAWEST100 wrote:
<quoted text>No you are interested only in allowing them to become murderers of their unborn by way of not taking any responsibility.
You're entitled to your opinion on the matter, but your opinion isn't gospel. Abortion is a way of taking responsibility.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#228006 Mar 31, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, a lot of places TRY to restrict women's options, but none of them have been able to stick. It's still possible to get an abortion in this country. If I wanted to get one right now, I could with no problem.
None of them have stuck?

How can you blatantly say things that just aren't true?

Go try to have a late term abortion, for starters. Then add to it the cases I've already cited.

Your dishonesty is almost as disgusting as your desire to kill unborn babies.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Columbus, OH

#228007 Mar 31, 2013
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
None of them have stuck?
How can you blatantly say things that just aren't true?
Go try to have a late term abortion, for starters. Then add to it the cases I've already cited.
Your dishonesty is almost as disgusting as your desire to kill unborn babies.
Two things wrong with your argument:

One, I don't have a desire to kill unborn babies. Who would want such a thing?

Two, no one on here advocates late-term abortion as being a viable option. Not one. I defy you to find someone who does. You won't and you can't. So what you're doing is saying something far-fetched because your argument sucks.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#228008 Mar 31, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
Two things wrong with your argument:
One, I don't have a desire to kill unborn babies. Who would want such a thing?
Two, no one on here advocates late-term abortion as being a viable option. Not one. I defy you to find someone who does. You won't and you can't. So what you're doing is saying something far-fetched because your argument sucks.
Actually, nothing is wrong with my argument.

One, you promote it, hence support it.
Two, "on here"? WTF is "on here"? The counsel for Planned Parenthood spoke in favor of that very thing recently. It's "far fetched" because it can't be done. As I stated, there ARE restrictions. Those restrictions are getting tighter, hence your statement was 100% untrue.

You lie in your defense of killing unborn babies. Unless you just aren't that bright. There really is no third option.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Columbus, OH

#228009 Mar 31, 2013
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, nothing is wrong with my argument.
One, you promote it, hence support it.
Two, "on here"? WTF is "on here"? The counsel for Planned Parenthood spoke in favor of that very thing recently. It's "far fetched" because it can't be done. As I stated, there ARE restrictions. Those restrictions are getting tighter, hence your statement was 100% untrue.
You lie in your defense of killing unborn babies. Unless you just aren't that bright. There really is no third option.
I'm not affiliated with Planned Parenthood. And if I have to explain to you what "on here" means, perhaps you should bow out of the conversation.

I maintain, I can get an abortion if I choose. There is no law prohibiting me from obtaining one if I wish. I don't condone killing babies. That's a horrid act.

The majority of states that have tried to pass bans on abortions have not been able to succeed. North and South Dakota, Mississippi. Some states are trying to pass laws so ludicrous that it would make taking birth control illegal. People need to stay out of my uterus.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#228010 Mar 31, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not affiliated with Planned Parenthood. And if I have to explain to you what "on here" means, perhaps you should bow out of the conversation.
I maintain, I can get an abortion if I choose. There is no law prohibiting me from obtaining one if I wish. I don't condone killing babies. That's a horrid act.
The majority of states that have tried to pass bans on abortions have not been able to succeed. North and South Dakota, Mississippi. Some states are trying to pass laws so ludicrous that it would make taking birth control illegal. People need to stay out of my uterus.
And I maintain restrictions on your ability to kill unborn babies continue to increase. If you want people out of your uterus, don't put them there.

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#228011 Mar 31, 2013
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are few things funnier than watching someone google and cite law that they don't understand.
Golf clap for your google-foo
Chuckle for your inability to understand hat his doesn't even address come chain pure addressing. In our original statement that I replied to, which you quoted, you stated "the UNITED STAES, you know that country we live in.....bla blah blah woman's privacy after sex"
While your response sounds great to a retard, it in fact ignores he DECADES of restrictions on abortion and rights given to the fetus which have developed since.
As I have stated, and supported, a woman's freedom to kill her unborn child has been, and will continue to be, resticted o the point of impossibility.
Game.
Set.
Match.
Keep dreaming. Reality proves that you don't know what you're talking about.

North Dakota made abortion illegal? Fine. Women will go to South Dakota. Or Minnesota. Or Montana.

This country will never force a woman to remain pregnant and give birth against her will.

Game, set, match.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#228012 Mar 31, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep dreaming. Reality proves that you don't know what you're talking about.
North Dakota made abortion illegal? Fine. Women will go to South Dakota. Or Minnesota. Or Montana.
This country will never force a woman to remain pregnant and give birth against her will.
Game, set, match.
You're equating illegal with acceptance. It's illegal to murder someone, but it's still done.

You're correct, this country will never keep the immoral from killing anyone, unborn or not. That doesn't mean we'll accept it without prosecution.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Columbus, OH

#228013 Mar 31, 2013
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
And I maintain restrictions on your ability to kill unborn babies continue to increase. If you want people out of your uterus, don't put them there.
There are definitely restrictions on killing babies. But there aren't a lot of restriction for early-term abortions. There's a difference between an abortion and killing a baby. And don't worry, I don't let anyone into my uterus that doesn't belong there. If I happen to become pregnant, the only person who gets to make the decision as to whether I remain pregnant is me.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Columbus, OH

#228014 Mar 31, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep dreaming. Reality proves that you don't know what you're talking about.
North Dakota made abortion illegal? Fine. Women will go to South Dakota. Or Minnesota. Or Montana.
This country will never force a woman to remain pregnant and give birth against her will.
Game, set, match.
It's cute when Grunt responds with words that tries to convince others that he has any power...lol.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#228015 Mar 31, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are definitely restrictions on killing babies. But there aren't a lot of restriction for early-term abortions. There's a difference between an abortion and killing a baby. And don't worry, I don't let anyone into my uterus that doesn't belong there. If I happen to become pregnant, the only person who gets to make the decision as to whether I remain pregnant is me.
You're able to kill unborn babies now. As I've pointed out, that offense is restricted more every year.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#228016 Mar 31, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's cute when Grunt responds with words that tries to convince others that he has any power...lol.
It's cute when you ignore the fact that you've been proven wrong time NDAA time again.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#228017 Mar 31, 2013
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you disagree. You have no concept of personal responsibility. I don't expect that level of understanding from ANYONE who still thinks its OK to kill unborn children because here inconvenient.
You are free to define 'convenient' and 'responsible' for yourself. You are not free to define either for anyone else. I consider myself personally responsible for my reproductive choices, and I responsibly terminated one of my eight pregnancies, because otherwise it would have irresponsibly terminated me, leaving myself free to gestate two children. The other five were terminated by miscarriage.
Had I not lost the others, I'd have 7 children - many folks disparage that choice too.
Whether you 'like' it, or not, abortion will always be with us. And in this country the precedent for safe and legal abortion has been established as being the province of the woman obtaining one.
Your assertion that it is becoming ever more restricted, is temporarily correct - I'll grant you that - but you should be ever mindful of the pendulum of public opinion. Restrict it too far now, and we'll have drive through abortion clinics on every street corner in this country in another 50 years.
Have fun with that.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#228018 Mar 31, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>You are free to define 'convenient' and 'responsible' for yourself. You are not free to define either for anyone else. I consider myself personally responsible for my reproductive choices, and I responsibly terminated one of my eight pregnancies, because otherwise it would have irresponsibly terminated me, leaving myself free to gestate two children. The other five were terminated by miscarriage.
Had I not lost the others, I'd have 7 children - many folks disparage that choice too.
Whether you 'like' it, or not, abortion will always be with us. And in this country the precedent for safe and legal abortion has been established as being the province of the woman obtaining one.
Your assertion that it is becoming ever more restricted, is temporarily correct - I'll grant you that - but you should be ever mindful of the pendulum of public opinion. Restrict it too far now, and we'll have drive through abortion clinics on every street corner in this country in another 50 years.
Have fun with that.
I guess you're a prime example of people telling themselves whatever they need to so they can feel better about killing their unborn child.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#228019 Mar 31, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are definitely restrictions on killing babies. But there aren't a lot of restriction for early-term abortions. There's a difference between an abortion and killing a baby. And don't worry, I don't let anyone into my uterus that doesn't belong there. If I happen to become pregnant, the only person who gets to make the decision as to whether I remain pregnant is me.
Our friend is not merely speaking of the medical restrictions, conditions, coercions, etc. on the procedure. She references the insidious ones...the ones which require all sorts of logistical, temporal, bureaucratic, and architectural hoops, which have nothing to do with the safety of abortion, and focus on its accessibility. She very succinctly pointed out that the whole point of most of these restrictions, is not to legally remove her right to a legal safe abortion, but her physical ability to obtain one.

It matters not a whit to her that every year, thousands of women are informed by their physicians, that an abortion is necessary, in order to maintain their health and their lives. Women who desperately wanted to gestate their pregnancies, but whose pregnancies are destined to result in her death, fetal death, or a profoundly compromised child.

Nor does she care a fig about the women whose miscarriages will eventually be prosecuted for reasons such as work-related injury to the fetus, or the fact that they decided go bungee jumping on vacation, or any of a host of other reasons the crafters and supporters of currently proposed personhood legislation will advance.

All she gives a shit about is her own self-righteous opinion, and that enough people share it, so that she can stroke her own ego on message boards like this one.

She advances personal responsibility for others, but watch anyone suggest SHE should be taxed, to assist in supporting all the new life SHE insists should be brought into the world, and she forgets what responsibility means.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
why Donald Trump is president (Oct '17) 16 min ffj 36
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 27 min Joe Fortuna 88,351
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 29 min Tellthetruth 996,521
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 59 min science is god 703,780
Division Of Cold Dead Hands 1 hr Happy 1
Sexual Desires: My wife pooping in my mouth (Aug '13) 1 hr poodawg 66
Trump is Gods anointed!!! 3 hr doG mnaDed lyoH r... 1