A WOMAN'S right to choose? - Page 17

Zack · 06-02-2008, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

Not if you're talking about BORN living humans.

We are back to Mars again... when is a human a human? When is potential life, life that could result in a mature adult begin?

Quote:

Are you saying that abortion prevents the birth of geniuses and therefore slows evolution toward a race of super-smart humans? If so, you are wrong on several counts. First, geniuses are no more likely to be aborted than fetuses with low IQs. Babies that are born will continue to have the same proportion of low and high IQs as ever. Second, breeding geniuses doesn't necessarily produce more geniuses, as the resulting offspring tend toward "average".

My argument is that nature's God is like a slot machine when it comes to popping out geniuses and geniuses are spit out at the regularity of a jackpot. You nor I can say with absolute certainty that abortion has not resulted in negative or positive progress. Would Bill Gates or Mr. Dell's mom aborting them have set back computers? Maybe, maybe not, would we have been at war with Iraq if George's mom had aborted him? Every action has a reaction and it's not nice to mess with Mother Nature.

OnTheLeft · 06-02-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

Naa, considering the abortion statistics, sperm depositories fits quite easily.

So you're not only a homophobe but a raging misogynist? Wow.

Quote:

If someone can take the planet analogy and go as far off as some people took it, you are kidding me about "veering" off topic. Child support is very relevant to "a woman's right to choose".

Child support isn't relevant at all. This is about a woman's rights over her own body.

garysher · 06-02-2008, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheLeft

This is about bodily autonomy. Women own their bodies. We have complete say over what enters our bodies and whether or not it stays inside our bodies.

This isn't about women's "bodily autonomy" it's about whether an unborn child can be murdered at will by some selfish female.

If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she shouldn't be forced to remain pregnant. To say otherwise is barbaric. Women aren't ambulatory incubators nor are we brood mares - we are human beings with rights over our own bodies.

Women are given the gift of child bearing from God.

If you don't want to become pregnant then don't have sex or else take precautions.

Don't kill babies just to satisfy your selfish yearhings

garysher · 06-02-2008, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

There always have been and always will be silver-tongued men who can charm a woman out of her panties, and then run from any responsibility.

So now you are portraying women as helpless, hopeless, gormless victims who are utterly incapable of resisting the charms of men or using contraception???

Then you go on to say that women should be equal etc etc??

Make up your mind woman!

Why do women love to play victim?

The sisterhood are gonna hate you for that huge betrayal.

garysher · 06-02-2008, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catus Felidae

A ZEF

ZEF = UNBORN CHILD

has rights just like anyone else. It has the right to live if it can do so on its own. But, like anyone else on the planet, it doesn't have the right to use someone else's body for its own benefit.

Why not?

garysher · 06-02-2008, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catus Felidae

Women are not planets either. We are PEOPLE!

Anti choicer's bitch and complain constantly that pro choicers try to make ZEF's 'less than human', but here you are attempting to make women less than human.

Women aren't planets. We aren't incubators. We aren't copying machines. We are more than the sum of our parts, and WE are in control of our parts.

If that were true then women wouldn't open their legs in the first place!

garysher · 06-02-2008, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheLeft

So you're not only a homophobe but a raging misogynist? Wow.

Child support isn't relevant at all. This is about a woman's rights over her own body.

Why have you decided that child support isn't relevant?

Should a man be forced to support a child he didn't want if the woman deliberately gets pregnant against his wishes?

As always you girlies defy logic and try to have it all ways - then you bleat about being abused victims!!!!

OnTheLeft · 06-02-2008, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

This isn't about women's "bodily autonomy" it's about whether an unborn child can be murdered at will by some selfish female.

It's not a child at that stage of development, Gary. It's a fetus. It can't be murdered because the legal guidelines for pressing murder charges don't cover a fetus. Please dispense with the hyperbole, m'kay?

Pregnancy should always be voluntary, not something forced on a woman. Only the woman knows if she's ready for that kind of commitment and responsibility.

Quote:

Women are given the gift of child bearing from God.

Actually women are impregnated from sperm, Gary. They're only a "gift from god" if the woman perceives her pregnancy that way. If the woman doesn't want to be pregnant, the state has no right to take jurisdiction of her uterus.

Quote:

If you don't want to become pregnant then don't have sex or else take precautions.

Yet you feel no need for a man to control his sperm? Birth control is only 99% effective and mistakes do happen. We're all flawed human beings. That doesn't give anyone the right to take away another's bodily autonomy.

Quote:

Don't kill babies just to satisfy your selfish yearhings

Again, nobody's "killing babies." Please consult a biology book.

garysher · 06-02-2008, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheLeft

It's not a child at that stage of development, Gary. It's a fetus. It can't be murdered because the legal guidelines for pressing murder charges don't cover a fetus. Please dispense with the hyperbole, m'kay?

Wrong again - why can't you get anything right?

You may recall the recent case of Scott Peterson who was found guilty on TWO murder charges - his wife Lacey and their unborn child.

Or fetus as you prefer to call it.

You really need to get your facts straight if you don't want to appear foolish.

Pregnancy should always be voluntary, not something forced on a woman. Only the woman knows if she's ready for that kind of commitment and responsibility.

Actually women are impregnated from sperm, Gary. They're only a "gift from god" if the woman perceives her pregnancy that way. If the woman doesn't want to be pregnant, the state has no right to take jurisdiction of her uterus.

Yet you feel no need for a man to control his sperm?

Yes absolutely the man should share responsibility, but in the end the woman is left holding the baby so her responsibility is even higher.

It may not be fair but it's part of the price you pay for the gift of womanhood

Birth control is only 99% effective and mistakes do happen. We're all flawed human beings. That doesn't give anyone the right to take away another's bodily autonomy.

Including the "bodily autonomy" of the unborn child you want to kill.

Again, nobody's "killing babies." Please consult a biology book.

See above. Please consult a legal dictionary

OnTheLeft · 06-02-2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

Wrong again - why can't you get anything right?

You may recall the recent case of Scott Peterson who was found guilty on TWO murder charges - his wife Lacey and their unborn child.

Or fetus as you prefer to call it.

You really need to get your facts straight if you don't want to appear foolish.

Scott Peterson was found guilty of murder in the death of his wife's fetus via "Connor's Law" (Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004) which was written "to protect pregnant women from violence perpetrated by third parties" (hint: the pregnant woman is never a "third party").

There is a specific exclusion written into the verbage of the bill that excludes abortion and any attempts by the woman to terminate her pregnancy.

Y'see, the people who wrote this law anticipated the anti-choice contingent would try to equate women who didn't want to be pregnant with murdering psychopaths. So they made sure this law would never be used to prosecute a woman seeking an abortion.

Scroll down to Section 1841 and it will 'splain it all to you:

Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 -- Laci and Conner's Law

Now, to further prove my point, I challenge you to show me one instance, just one, where a woman has been charged with the crime of murder for having an abortion.

Checkmate.

Quote:

Yes absolutely the man should share responsibility, but in the end the woman is left holding the baby so her responsibility is even higher.

It may not be fair but it's part of the price you pay for the gift of womanhood

The woman is only "left holding the baby" if she chooses to have the baby. She may decide to terminate the pregnancy or give the child up for adoption. Any of those choices are hers to make.

Quote:

Including the "bodily autonomy" of the unborn child you want to kill.

I don't want to kill anyone. I'm a middle-aged lesbian, remember? It's none of my business if a woman has an abortion or not.....and neither is it any of your business.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode