Is this a specious argument for pro-abortion?

It was a polite request. It was not an instruction.
I was tricking you into saying that I can't dictate anything here as izzy said I was doing.

I've never said you can force anyone to do anything,
but you still want to tell women what they can do with their bodies.
You wish to inflict your will on other people.


Your impotency is irrelevant.

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5101557)
Quote:
My guess is if men where the ones carrying pregnancies, this topic would not be getting any discussion. Men would be laughing at the notion that women or other men should have some say over what they do with their own bodies.

What a ridiculous argument that is.

Sure, like you must be a woman,
and think like a woman and has been in that situation.

It takes more than two months to make a decision?

And you're saying it has nothing to do with denial or shame to tell their parents,
or who don't realize they're pregnant, and it's just because they can't make up their mind.
[What I 'm saying is that none of that MATTERS;
let government be damned.] What are you implying about women, fag?

We both agree, I think, that a woman should have the right to choose abortion because this is first and foremost a medical issue that should be worked out between each woman, according to her own conscience and personal beliefs, and the appropriate professional medical practitioners.

I'm not gonna waste any time over this, as you prefer to copulate with counterproductive opinions in a serious manner, which makes it all the more fun to laugh at you.

The Homunculus, Sir, in however low and ludicrous a light he may appear,
in this age of levity, to the eye of folly or prejudice;--to the eye of
reason in scientific research, he stands confess'd--a Being guarded and
circumscribed with rights.--The minutest philosophers, who by the bye,
have the most enlarged understandings, (their souls being inversely as
their enquiries) shew us incontestably, that the Homunculus is created
by the same hand,--engender'd in the same course of nature,--endow'd
with the same loco-motive powers and faculties with us:--That he
consists as we do, of skin, hair, fat, flesh, veins, arteries,
ligaments, nerves, cartilages, bones, marrow, brains, glands, genitals,
humours, and articulations;--is a Being of as much activity,--and in all
senses of the word, as much and as truly our fellow-creature as my Lord
Chancellor of England.--He may be benefitted,--he may be injured,--he
may obtain redress; in a word, he has all the claims and rights of
humanity, which Tully, Puffendorf, or the best ethick writers allow to
arise out of that state and relation.

Pages and pages of men discussing abortion.

Does it happen in your real lives as well?

I find it truly bizarre to see non-medical men so interested in the innards of women's bodies.

then somewhere in the future, a government of a country can decide that "population control" mandates forced abortions

then somewhere in the future, a government of a country can decide that
"population control" mandates forced abortions

That's never going to happen in any civilised country
and the fact is if a country was even willing to contemplate that,
well they've probably gone down the Marxist road already
and are killing so many people birthrate wouldn't be an issue.

If anybody seeks an explanation why thumbing is ridiculous it is staring them in the face with that one applied to a quote from one of the acknowledged masters of English Literature with a reputation which will long outlast those of the assenting justices in the Roe/Wade debacle.

Me, weirdo?

And the way you explain yourselves, you are not a libertarian, you are an anarchist,

but what you and the rest of them fail to realize
is that this whole little utopian idea of anarchism is impractical.

We both agree, I think, that a woman should have the right to choose abortion

because this is first and foremost a medical issue

that should be worked out between each woman, according to her own conscience and personal beliefs,
and the appropriate professional medical practitioners.

Where we differ is that there is a smart way to do it, and there's stupid way to do it, and that is waiting too long, because the probability of averse scenarios arises in medicine, as well cost, as the female sex wait longer and longer to get abortion. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed, it is just stupid to wait that long, unless of course one plans on conceiving but some complication that leaves the mother's life at jeopardy and forces the choice of a late abortion.

I'm not gonna waste any time over this, as you prefer to copulate
with counterproductive opinions in a serious manner,
which makes it all the more fun to laugh at you.

We both agree, I think, that a woman should have the right to choose abortion because this is first and foremost a medical issue that should be worked out between each woman, according to her own conscience and personal beliefs, and the appropriate professional medical practitioners.

how do you justify cutting the other 50% of the creation team out of the process?

how do you justify cutting the other 50% of the creation team out of the process?

Re: hawkeye10 (Post 5102412)
hawkeye10 wrote:
how do you justify cutting the other 50% of the creation team out of the process?


If the two are at loggerheads, and someone has to make the final call, it should be the one whose body it is.

Foofie said.

Quote:

then somewhere in the future, a government of a country can decide that "population control" mandates forced abortions

That's never going to happen in any civilised country ...