ABORTION.......

Abortion is a deadly issue in the United States. Between 1977 and 2000, there have been seven murders, sixteen attempted murders, and forty bombings on abortion providing clinics in that country. Few other nations have seen such violence related to the issue of abortion - which essentially boils down to a tussle between two viewpoints - a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy vs. the belief that life begins at conception, and hence abortion is murder.

0 Replies

So, just because someone thinks abortion is murder they automatically think abortion doctors and women having abortions should get the death penalty? Shocked

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

So, just because someone thinks abortion is murder they automatically think abortion doctors and women having abortions should get the death penalty?

so it seems, yes.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State.

The state raping? huh

Without abortion everyone else in the world is doing something wrong except.....Oh forget it.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

So, just because someone thinks abortion is murder they automatically think abortion doctors and women having abortions should get the death penalty?

I'm merely pointing out that that could easily be the end result. As Pro-lifer's are wont to always remind the other side . . . consider the consequences of your beliefs.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State.

The State's refusal to take part in the denial of a pregnancy is not the same as the State committing rape.

0 Replies

Sorry Questioner, but I really hate to disappoint you here. I don't think that abortion doctors or women that have abortions should be given the death penalty. I do believe it is killing a child. I will not deny that. But I will adamantly deny that bombing abortion clinics or killing abortion doctors is ok to do. It's not!

This all must be done within the law and that's what we must all live by. I may not like the outcome and I may state that, but I'm not going to break the law because I don't like the law.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State.

The State's refusal to take part in the denial of a pregnancy is not the same as the State committing rape.

As the authority of the State's executive branch does the Governor take part in said rape? The people as a whole become guilty of this? lol

If this is forward thinking I'm gonna remain 'backward'.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State.

And we have South Dakota, the bastion of Fetal Rights leading the crusade ... yada, yada, yada ...

I think I'm going to start a foundation whose purpose is to fund transportation for any woman who can't afford to get the hell out of South Dakota for an abortion that wants to have one. They do a whole 800 abortions a year ... it just couldn't be that expensive to get them across a state line and put them up for a night! It would be worth it just to piss on the South Dakota Legislature's campfire!!

Anon

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:
Frank- Observe any country that is "backward". One of the hallmarks of a backward country is the subjugation of women. Whether we are talking about the former Taliban government in Afghanistan, where women were under virtual "house arrest", or the countries in sub-Saharan Africa where female genital mutilitation is rampant, there is one thing that these countries have in common.

These are areas that have not achieved the western standard in terms of technological and industrial advancement. They are living as their forebears lived centuries ago. And they each have one thing in common, that they treat women as inferior to men, as creatures to use for a man's pleasure, to provide sons, and to control her activities.

And the United States, the shining example of democracy, the radicals, (and not so radical) amongst us are now seeking to emulate the tribal mentality of these areas, by attempting to deprive women the soverenity over their own bodies.

The thing that is so ridiculous, if it weren't so sad, is that there are women in the US who are attempting to curtail their own rights.

And your talking about the superiority of woman that is so supreme over a child that they are given the power to abort them. Yet if a man by assault causes this unborn child to die......he is a what?A Killer? How when it was only an attack on HER BODY as you proclaim.

Oic now it's a death of a sovereign person with rights.

Very illogical. Backward you say?

Don't try to pin the backward, illogical title on our side of this issue...because it is your side that is screwed up.

A WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO CONTROL HER OWN BODY....PERIOD.

She does not lose those rights just because she is pregnant.

0 Replies

Questioner wrote:

Rehashed, mulled, and rehashed again.

Nothing new under the sun.

Nice to see you back, Frank.

Good to see you, too, Questioner.

0 Replies

Frank,

Then get the WOMEN to control their body before they have CONTROL of another LIFE! It's not the women I'm concerned with, nor do I think any other Pro-Lifers, or whatever you wish to calls us, are. We are concerned with the child. I know, I know. It's just a clump of cells, a zygote, etc. Rolling Eyes

Until it can definitively be decided when life begins, whether at conception or sometime after or when the child leaves the womb, this issue will never be resolved IMO.

0 Replies

Quote:

Until it can definitively be decided when life begins, whether at conception or sometime after or when the child leaves the womb, this issue will never be resolved IMO.

It has been decided. Life does begin not at conception, but even before. Every egg and sperm is living. I don't believe that any thinking person would question that. The issue is when it is HUMAN life.

Even if it were decided that legally that a clump of day old cells is a human, IMO, at any point in time where the mother is the host to the embryo, HER rights trump the rights of the embryo/fetus.

0 Replies

Well, let me ask you this Phoenix. Why would HER rights trump the rights of the embryo/fetus if it was determined it was a human?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Frank,

Then get the WOMEN to control their body before they have CONTROL of another LIFE! It's not the women I'm concerned with, nor do I think any other Pro-Lifers, or whatever you wish to calls us, are. We are concerned with the child. I know, I know. It's just a clump of cells, a zygote, etc.

Until it can definitively be decided when life begins, whether at conception or sometime after or when the child leaves the womb, this issue will never be resolved IMO.

A woman has a right to control her own body...even if she has made mistakes. Get it through your head!

The fact that a woman may have made a mistake does not mean that she forfeits her rights...no matter how much you may want that to be the case.

Stop trying to deny a woman the right to make decisions about her own body.

0 Replies

Frank and Phoenix - Spot on.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Well, let me ask you this Phoenix. Why would HER rights trump the rights of the embryo/fetus if it was determined it was a human?

IMO, Absolutely! She is an independent entity, who has been born, as is afforded the rights of a human being.The embryo/fetus could not exist without the host.

0 Replies

Frank,

I'm just having a discussion. I don't get to vote on this and doubt that you do either so I'm not denying anyone anything.

Phoenix,

Absolutely? I didn't ask if it does trump her rights, I asked if you would tell me why you felt it would if it was decided the embryo/fetus were a human.

0 Replies

first of all MA, who decides? secondly, you don't add to human rights by taking away rights. On the one hand you have a living breathing human that you would take away rights from in order to give rights to some degree of cellular tissue. this is certainly not a clear cut issue on either side BUT restricting the rights of a living breathing human being to give additional rights to a potential human being is just wrong.
The Dys has spoken, case closed.

0 Replies

dys,

Well, we can just agree to disagree on this. So, yes, case closed. Laughing

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know