ABORTION.......

Intrepid wrote:

Quote:

Even given the supposition that Momma Angel made if it was somehow decided and proven that life begins at conception?

Absolutely!

NO MATTER WHAT...A WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO CONTROL HER OWN BODY...AND YOU, MA, OR THE GOVERNMENT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ANY SAY IN THE MATTER.

Quote:

If this is the case, the tiny, closed and unmoved mind is not mine.

Oh yes it is. In spades!

Intrepid and Real Life,

It wouldn't matter if science proved to Frank or some others that it was a human being from conception. They have already said the woman's right trumps the right of the child in that scenario. And they wonder why WE think it's killing a child? Mind-boggling.

Bartikus wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

real life wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

I always find it silly when anti-choice people try to control the woman's right to do whatever she wants with her own body. And I find it, yet, extremely silly when men are in favor of it… what the heck does a man know about being pregnant?

I always find it ludricrous in the extreme when someone will try to pretend that the unborn is part of the mother's body.

Doctors consider the unborn a separate patient, and have for many years.

(Interested parties would be well advised to read the amicus brief submitted in the Roe v Wade decision by a group representing physicians.)

You mean to tell me that man should have the right to claim property over the woman's body? This isn't just funny…it's the ideal concept of a sitcom, buddy.

Claim property?..........Property? Property over a woman's body?

What do you mean Jason?

The subject and the argument here is "man"…if man has the right to forbid a woman from doing what she wants with her body. If man prohibits the woman from doing what she wants with her body, then he's claiming what isn't his…understand? For the love of grey-eyed Athena, daughter to the all-mighty Zeus…it's the woman's body!!!

No need to shout Frank.

Again, given this senario. It would mean that the woman's rights overshadow the child's rights and murder is deemed to be acceptable.

We are not now talking about a woman controlling her body. We are talking about a woman controlling another life that happens to, temporarily, reside in her body.

Why is it that your opinions necessitate a shouting match and you consider it none of anybody's business. However, you make it your business to accept the opposite stance?

Frank,

Look, if anyone needs to wake up here, I think it is you. Frank, in that scenario it IS decided that it is a human being! A child Frank! A living human being! Yet, you think a woman should just be able to kill that living human being for whatever reason she wants!

I could understand your position a bit better as long as you didn't know for sure it was a human being or if you really believed it wasn't, but you admit that even if it is a human being, you would still advocate it's death by a woman's choice.

You know what, Frank, Hitler thought the Jews weren't human beings and look how many people he convinced of the same thing! He thought the Jews were parasites on the world. Well, Frank, Hitler was wrong! I'd say he was about six million times wrong, Frank, wouldn't you!?

Frank,
I already showed you where a woman that DID NOT want an abortion was almost coerced into having one.
And even the original ROE in Roe v Wade said she was wrong in working for abortions.
Now,why did the pro abortion groups try to force a woman to have an abortion,just to make their case?

Did not these pro-abortion groups interfere with a womans right to choose?

Also,since you cant ever get pregnant,why are you so worried about it?

Frank,
I already showed you where a woman that DID NOT want an abortion was almost coerced into having one.
And even the original ROE in Roe v Wade said she was wrong in working for abortions.
Now,why did the pro abortion groups try to force a woman to have an abortion,just to make their case?

Did not these pro-abortion groups interfere with a womans right to choose?

Also,since you cant ever get pregnant,why are you so worried about it?

It seems that Frank is more concerned with sticking to his premise than admitting that nobody has the right to kill a human being.

This is too ignorant a posting to merit a response.

Frank,
Do you favor making prostitution legal,even if the prostitute is a 13 year old girl?
Do you favor making drugs legal?
Do you favor making public nudity legal?
Do you favor making public masturbation legal?

Thats funny.
I show you how the pro-abortion groups tried to force a woman to have an abortion,just so it could be made legal,and you instantly discredit the facts,because they dont agree with your opinions.
Yet you call everyone else close minded.

Given the statements that Mr. Apisa has made on this latest round of discussion. Even if he insists on shouting and carrying on about it..... It would be just as acceptable for the woman to kill the child after birth as it is before birth. There is not difference since, in both cases, the child would be deemed a living human entity.

After all, the woman can do to her body as she wishes. I guess suicide would be ok too, in Frank's eyes because the woman would be doing as she saw fit with her body.

Frank not only has blinders.... Somebody must have gouged out his eyes.

Intrepid wrote:

It seems that Frank is more concerned with sticking to his premise than admitting that nobody has the right to kill a human being.

It is wrong to kill a human being.

No problem there.

But a pregnancy is a unique situation...a host is carrying something (a zygote, embryo, fetus...whatever)...

...and the host can decide to cease being a host.

If you hyprocrites want to paint that as the killing of a human being...do so. I'm getting a huge kick out of you.

What is happening, however, is that the woman is exercising a right she definitely possesses...to terminate a pregnancy if she choose.

Love ya all.

Thanks for entertaining me this way.

I feel really welcomed back.