ABORTION.......

Questioner wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

How can women have a choice to have a child when the government removes the laws that protect that right....just to avoid the possible undoing of the other right to abortion?

Did someone mention the government removing the rights of a woman to have a child? I guess I missed whatever it is you're referring to bart.

The right of a woman to give birth would be greatly diminished if the life of the unborn person were not sufficiently protected by law.

echi wrote:

Questioner wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

How can women have a choice to have a child when the government removes the laws that protect that right....just to avoid the possible undoing of the other right to abortion?

Did someone mention the government removing the rights of a woman to have a child? I guess I missed whatever it is you're referring to bart.

The right of a woman to give birth would be greatly diminished if the life of the unborn person were not sufficiently protected by law.

I still don't see how that is the case.

A woman has the right to choose what's done with her own body, no one else does. How does that diminish the right of a woman to give birth? It's still her right, still protected as her right, the same as her right to choose NOT to give birth.

It's equating one's right to speak with one's right to wear pants in public, it makes little sense.

If you punched a woman in the stomache intending on killing the unborn child and only received a mere assault charge......would government really be protecting a woman's right to have children?

...for the most part,...

Don't pussyfoot, Frank. Tell us the truth.

What this actually boils down to...

...is the the anti-choice people simply do not have the common decency to keep their noses out of other people's business.

Actually Frank, all it boils down to is Pro-Choice have their opinions and so do Anti-Abortion. Some of us just recognize that we don't need to belittle others for exercising their rights just as you are doing.

They want to paint themselves as heroic guardians of defenseless children....when in fact, for the most part, they are inappropriately interfering with the rights of other people to exercise prerogatives available to them.

Funny, but I don't recall a single Anti-Abortion person on this thread saying they are painting themselves as anything. And again, it's just a discussion where everyone is exercising their right to freedom of speech.

This anti-choice movement is one of the most pathetic, hypocritical, self-serving, dishonest endeavors ever taken by supposedly intelligent human beings.

Now, here there's a problem. We are not ANTI-CHOICE! What we are is ANTI-ABORTION! Yes, we understand the woman's right to choose is affected, we just happen to think someone NEEDS to stand up for the rights of the child. If you call that pathetic, then fine. I'd rather be called pathetic for erring on the side of a child that cannot protect themselves than I would erring on the side of an adult who should be more than capable of doing it herself.

We adjusted our term of Pro-Abortion to Pro-Choice because we understood where other's were coming from. Might be nice if you really tried to understand where WE are coming from instead namecalling. Gee Frank, you are a much better debater than that. Namecalling is soooo beneath your intelligence.

Bartikus wrote:

If you punched a woman in the stomache intending on killing the unborn child and only received a mere assault charge......would government really be protecting a woman's right to have children?

It'd be protecting it every bit as much as if it were considered 'murder'. Anyone that's out ot their mind enough to punch a pregnant woman in the stomach likely isn't considering any consequences

What this actually boils down to...

...is the the anti-choice people simply do not have the common decency to keep their noses out of other people's business.

They want to paint themselves as heroic guardians of defenseless children....when in fact, for the most part, they are inappropriately interfering with the rights of other people to exercise prerogatives available to them.

This anti-choice movement is one of the most pathetic, hypocritical, self-serving, dishonest endeavors ever taken by supposedly intelligent human beings.

LOL Edgar,

I was reading Frank's post thinking, gee Frank, tell us how you really feel.

Actually Frank, all it boils down to is Pro-Choice have their opinions and so do Anti-Abortion. Some of us just recognize that we don't need to belittle others for exercising their rights just as you are doing.

They want to paint themselves as heroic guardians of defenseless children....when in fact, for the most part, they are inappropriately interfering with the rights of other people to exercise prerogatives available to them.

Funny, but I don't recall a single Anti-Abortion person on this thread saying they are painting themselves as anything.

And again, it's just a discussion where everyone is exercising their right to freedom of speech.[/color][/b]

This anti-choice movement is one of the most pathetic, hypocritical, self-serving, dishonest endeavors ever taken by supposedly intelligent human beings.

Now, here there's a problem. We are not ANTI-CHOICE! What we are is ANTI-ABORTION!

Yes, we understand the woman's right to choose is affected, we just happen to think someone NEEDS to stand up for the rights of the child.

If you call that pathetic, then fine.

I'd rather be called pathetic for erring on the side of a child that cannot protect themselves than I would erring on the side of an adult who should be more than capable of doing it herself.

We adjusted our term of Pro-Abortion to Pro-Choice because we understood where other's were coming from.

Might be nice if you really tried to understand where WE are coming from instead namecalling.

Frank Apisa wrote:

What this actually boils down to...

...is the the anti-choice people simply do not have the common decency to keep their noses out of other people's business.

They want to paint themselves as heroic guardians of defenseless children....when in fact, for the most part, they are inappropriately interfering with the rights of other people to exercise prerogatives available to them.

This anti-choice movement is one of the most pathetic, hypocritical, self-serving, dishonest endeavors ever taken by supposedly intelligent human beings.

"To acknowledge what you do not know - is a display of strength. To pretend you know what you truly don't - is a display of weakness".

WoW!

If charging a person with assault for punching a pregnant woman in the stomach is every bit as much protection as a charge of murder as you say ...can I ask you something?

How would you feel about the law making it a mere assault to intentionally kill ........Oh I don't know....anyone with whom you are close to.

How's that feel for protection? Honestly? Don't worry...we all know the answer. Don't we people?

As far as anyone being out of their mind for punching a pregnant woman......you should realize that there are numerous examples of people out of their mind to end pregnancies and maybe not all of them are female.....nor the ones carrying the child!

My arguments are flimsy? lol

Bartikus wrote:

If charging a person with assault for punching a pregnant woman in the stomach is every bit as much protection as a charge of murder as you say ...can I ask you something?

Go ahead sport.

Quote:

How would you feel about the law making it a mere assault to intentionally kill ........Oh I don't know....anyone with whom you are close to.

I would likely lobby against it, as that would be murder.

Quote:

How's that feel for protection? Honestly? Don't worry...we all know the answer. Don't we people?

It's obvious, it isn't protection at all. Neither is it even relevant to what we were discussing as it's obviously a separate issue entirely. You may continue to grasp at whatever analogies and inanities you wish. . . it doesn't make you any more correct.

Quote:

As far as anyone being out of their mind for punching a pregnant woman......you should realize that there are numerous examples of people out of their mind to end pregnancies and maybe not all of them are female.....nor the ones carrying the child!

Quite possible. However, that doesn't change the fact that it's their choice to do what they will with their bodies, whereas the other is something being done TO them against their wishes.

Quote:

My arguments are flimsy? lol

Extremely.

Bartikus wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

What this actually boils down to...

...is the the anti-choice people simply do not have the common decency to keep their noses out of other people's business.

They want to paint themselves as heroic guardians of defenseless children....when in fact, for the most part, they are inappropriately interfering with the rights of other people to exercise prerogatives available to them.

This anti-choice movement is one of the most pathetic, hypocritical, self-serving, dishonest endeavors ever taken by supposedly intelligent human beings.

"To acknowledge what you do not know - is a display of strength. To pretend you know what you truly don't - is a display of weakness".

WoW!

Is there a point your are trying unsuccessfully to make here????

I thought you said assault was as much protection as a charge of murder then you admit assault charges would be no protection at all.

Then you say that point was not relevant.

I know....it was the point you made.

That right Questioner?

Bartikus wrote:

I thought you said assault was as much protection as a charge of murder then you admit assault charges would be no protection at all.

Yep, I sure did.

Quote:

Then you say that point was not relevant.

Correct.

Quote:

I know....it was the point you made.

That right Questioner?

Nope. I made the point about a pregnant woman being punched in the stomach and causing a miscarriage being labeled as an assault rather than murder being about the same in effectiveness.

You then, in your side's own inimitable fashion, came up with some ridiculous analogy that someone killing my friends, family, or other people was the same thing. It's not, therefore your analogy is not relevant.