Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not at all. If the left thinks those who cannot sustain life on their own are expendable, that should apply to those dependent on welfare, public assistance, etc., as well.
Two different things entirely. One is already born and has rights, the other is not born and the rights reside with the woman. It’s the person who is already born that has the right to choice or care if independent or disabled.
In this case, it's semantics: "civil rights" = "murder" Amazing what people come up with in an attempt to cover up the truth.
Too bad the baby (oh wait, now it's just a fetus) doesn't have any civil rights. It's a fetus if you don't want the baby. . . if you want the baby, then it's a 'baby' from the moment of conception. You don't hear anyone commenting about a pregnant woman's "fetus bump".
As soon as it's proven that genetics is the reason for people being 'gay'. . . there will be an immediate reversal of legal abortions.
Hmmmm semantics. You are arguing the position of, right to life. I'm probably not going to convince you that a fetus isn't a life, as that's basically the most intractable part of this whole debate, but the position of pro-choice is not murder.
A fetus can't survive on its own. It is fully dependent on its mother's body, unlike born human beings.
Even if a fetus was alive, the "right to life" doesn't imply a right to use somebody else's body. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs, for example, even if doing so would save somebody else's life.
The "right to life" also doesn't imply a right to live by threatening somebody else's life. Bearing children is always a threat the life of the mother.
A "right to life" is, at the end of the day, a right to not have somebody else's will imposed upon your body. Do women not have this civil right as well?
Last edited by corpgypsy; 02-03-2019 at 04:24 AM..
If that's how liberals truly feel, I'd like them to apply the same conditions to those who are dependent on food, stamps, welfare, and the myriad of the other 80+ means-tested support programs that artificially support their lives. Just let them die.
If pro-lifers truly believe all life is sacred, I would like to see them support a national DNA database for the purpose of identifying and supplying living donors when needed to preserve life.
You do not get to opt out unless you can prove ahead of time that giving up a piece of your liver, one of your kidneys or some of your bone marrow will definitely put your life at risk.
Not to worry, the risks of dying from an unforeseen complication are negligible.
What's a little inconvenience when you can save a life? You wouldn't want to be selfish would you?
Two different things entirely. One is already born and has rights, the other is not born and the rights reside with the woman. It’s the person who is already born that has the right to choice or care if independent or disabled.
Did you NOT hear the VA Governor's description of post-delivery abortion? The baby had already been born, and the mother can choose to let it die.
If pro-lifers truly believe all life is sacred, I would like to see them support a national DNA database for the purpose of identifying and supplying living donors when needed to preserve life.
You do not get to opt out unless you can prove ahead of time that giving up a piece of your liver, one of your kidneys or some of your bone marrow will definitely put your life at risk.
Not to worry, the risks of dying from an unforeseen complication are negligible.
What's a little inconvenience when you can save a life? You wouldn't want to be selfish would you?
What a stupid idea. You obviously know nothing of medicine. Any surgery these days is dangerous. Have you not been keeping up with the medical news? They can barely contain infections in hospitals these days. These idiot doctors have over prescribed antibiotics to the point that not many work, especially against the super bugs these antibiotics have created.
In 5 years if things don't change medicine will be set back 100 years as all antibiotics will be useless.
Location: Somewhere gray and damp, close to the West Coast
20,955 posts, read 5,546,892 times
Reputation: 8559
Quote:
Originally Posted by sean1the1
Great night for women in the state of New York!! Hey OP if you need an abortion you know where to get one. I'm happy that y'all are human rights activists and like to stand up for the "unrepresented", but I'd suggest saving that for all of the oppressed peoples accross the globe.
What a stupid idea. You obviously know nothing of medicine. Any surgery these days is dangerous. Have you not been keeping up with the medical news? They can barely contain infections in hospitals these days. These idiot doctors have over prescribed antibiotics to the point that not many work, especially against the super bugs these antibiotics have created.
In 5 years if things don't change medicine will be set back 100 years as all antibiotics will be useless.
No more stupid than comparing pregnancy to providing food stamps to the poor.
Get it now? {here's a hint, read the post I quoted and was responding to}
Yes, any surgery is dangerous, yet we have pro-lifers right here in this thread talking about women having cesarean sections as if there is nothing to it......suggesting that women should have cesarean's to deliver nonviable fetuses rather than have an abortion.
Who cares if the woman acquires a deadly hospital acquired infection delivering a nonviable fetus?.....after all......a woman is lesser than a fetus, right?
In fact, every pregnancy is dangerous and can lead to the death of the woman without any warning.....and that is why no woman should be forced to give birth against her will.
Just like men, women have the right to decide what risks to take with their lives.
If pro-lifers truly believe all life is sacred, I would like to see them support a national DNA database for the purpose of identifying and supplying living donors when needed to preserve life.
You do not get to opt out unless you can prove ahead of time that giving up a piece of your liver, one of your kidneys or some of your bone marrow will definitely put your life at risk.
Not to worry, the risks of dying from an unforeseen complication are negligible.
What's a little inconvenience when you can save a life? You wouldn't want to be selfish would you?
Do not refer to them as pro-lifers as that is a self-righteous propaganda label they assigned to themselves. They are anti-choice and that is what they deserve to be called.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
