Poll of the Day > Why are leftist so radical about abortion rights?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Wanded 09/19/20 10:55:03 PM #101:	LinkPizza posted... you don't have to worry about it as the fetus is never born, and doesn't know what they could be missing if they were ever born according to this logic there is also no issue with killing 1 year old babies who are also unaware of what they are missing, say mom and dad got fired, things get rough, they don't want the baby anymore, this situation fits all of your "it's okay to kill" checklist except it being alive but- LinkPizza posted... Because "Trump" is alive and the fetus is not a fetus is also alive, it moves and breathes etc also pro lifers consider the unborn as people with human rights since they are human and are alive LinkPizza posted... They are already grown. And we have shelters. being grown or not is irrelevant to whether it's okay to kill you or not, i don't think being under a certain age takes away your human rights. homeless people are a real problem in places like LA, there are plenty of people who moved away claiming they were the reason because you go outside with your kid to school and there is a homeless guy doing a number 2 in front of your house and used needles in the streets LinkPizza posted... hey can actually be helped, too. The homeless people, I mean. Having that baby helps no one, though... wait, so you're saying we can help a 50 year old homeless guy, who has debts, who has severe mental illness, but not a baby which is pretty much a clean slate? i don't think that is the case...guy is old while the baby still has his working years ahead of him hence he'll easier earn money and be productive for society, guy has debt hence needing more money than the baby who can also repay eventually after working and severe mental illness is really really hard to cure and costs a ton in theraphy LinkPizza posted... Lack of money can make people unhappy. You need money to actually afford things like shelter, food, utilities, etc. read what i said, i specifically talk about when shelter and food are accounted for, which is most cases so lets focus on those first the rest of what you said doesn't really counter my main point which is we don't really know whether that child will be happy or not so you can't automatically decide it'll be sad to justify killing it, you can't kill someone on an "if" or a "maybe" --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944839157] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>you don't have to worry about it as the fetus is never born, and doesn't know what they could be missing if they were ever born</quote>according to this logic there is also no issue with killing 1 year old babies who are also unaware of what they are missing, say mom and dad got fired, things get rough, they don't want the baby anymore, this situation fits all of your "it's okay to kill" checklist except it being alive but- LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>Because "Trump" is alive and the fetus is not</quote>a fetus is also alive, it moves and breathes etc also pro lifers consider the unborn as people with human rights since they are human and are alive LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>They are already grown. And we have shelters.</quote>being grown or not is irrelevant to whether it's okay to kill you or not, i don't think being under a certain age takes away your human rights. homeless people are a real problem in places like LA, there are plenty of people who moved away claiming they were the reason because you go outside with your kid to school and there is a homeless guy doing a number 2 in front of your house and used needles in the streets LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>hey can actually be helped, too. The homeless people, I mean. Having that baby helps no one, though...</quote>wait, so you're saying we can help a 50 year old homeless guy, who has debts, who has severe mental illness, but not a baby which is pretty much a clean slate? i don't think that is the case...guy is old while the baby still has his working years ahead of him hence he'll easier earn money and be productive for society, guy has debt hence needing more money than the baby who can also repay eventually after working and severe mental illness is really really hard to cure and costs a ton in theraphy LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>Lack of money can make people unhappy. You need money to actually afford things like shelter, food, utilities, etc.</quote>read what i said, i specifically talk about when shelter and food are accounted for, which is most cases so lets focus on those first the rest of what you said doesn't really counter my main point which is we don't really know whether that child will be happy or not so you can't automatically decide it'll be sad to justify killing it, you can't kill someone on an "if" or a "maybe" </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/19/20 10:57:57 PM #102:	BlackScythe0 posted... As controversial as peta calling me a murderer when I eat a burger It's nonsense can you answer these simple yes or no questions is a fetus human? is a fetus alive? --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944839233] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>BlackScythe0 posted... </cite> <quote>As controversial as peta calling me a murderer when I eat a burger It's nonsense</quote>can you answer these simple yes or no questions is a fetus human? is a fetus alive? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 09/19/20 11:05:20 PM #103:	Wanded posted... can you answer these simple yes or no questions is a fetus human? is a fetus alive? As much as cancer is. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:944839471] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>can you answer these simple yes or no questions is a fetus human? is a fetus alive?</quote> As much as cancer is. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 09/19/20 11:11:19 PM #104:	Wanded posted... can you answer these simple yes or no questions is a fetus human? is a fetus alive? Dude youre obsessed with asking strawman yes/no questions. It doesnt win arguments and it doesnt make you seem smart. Stop watching so much Ben Shapiro. --- The Betrayer <cite>Mead posted [p:944839663] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>can you answer these simple yes or no questions is a fetus human? is a fetus alive?</quote> Dude youre obsessed with asking strawman yes/no questions. It doesnt win arguments and it doesnt make you seem smart. Stop watching so much Ben Shapiro. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/19/20 11:15:08 PM #105:	LinkPizza posted... Good thing abortion isn't attacking a baby, then. I mean, first of all, it's a fetus. Secondly, I don't even think I'd call it attacking, tbh... i dunno it sounds pretty violent https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0tQZhEisaE --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944839791] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>Good thing abortion isn't attacking a baby, then. I mean, first of all, it's a fetus. Secondly, I don't even think I'd call it attacking, tbh...</quote>i dunno it sounds pretty violent https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0tQZhEisaE </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/19/20 11:17:47 PM #106:	BlackScythe0 posted... As much as cancer is. of course everybody here are a-okay with you equating fetuses to cancer anyway, cancer isn't human, it does not belong to the human race --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944839863] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>BlackScythe0 posted... </cite> <quote>As much as cancer is.</quote>of course everybody here are a-okay with you equating fetuses to cancer anyway, cancer isn't human, it does not belong to the human race </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 09/19/20 11:20:06 PM #107:	Wanded posted... of course everybody here are a-okay with you equating fetuses to cancer anyway, cancer isn't human, it does not belong to the human race o.0 <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:944839927] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>of course everybody here are a-okay with you equating fetuses to cancer anyway, cancer isn't human, it does not belong to the human race</quote> o.0 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/19/20 11:21:08 PM #108:	BlackScythe0 posted... o.0 what is the definition of murder? --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944839945] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>BlackScythe0 posted... </cite> <quote>o.0</quote>what is the definition of murder? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 09/19/20 11:22:36 PM #109:	Wanded posted... what is the definition of murder? Different than what you believe it to be. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:944840002] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>what is the definition of murder?</quote> Different than what you believe it to be. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/19/20 11:31:38 PM #110:	Wanded posted... according to this logic there is also no issue with killing 1 year old babies who are also unaware of what they are missing, say mom and dad got fired, things get rough, they don't want the baby anymore, this situation fits all of your "it's okay to kill" checklist except it being alive but- Except the baby is alive already. Born and everything. And they're a baby, unlike a fetus... Wanded posted... a fetus is also alive, it moves and breathes etc also pro lifers consider the unborn as people with human rights since they are human and are alive Except they can t live without a host of some kind. I should have said alive. I should have used the word born instead. Wanded posted... being grown or not is irrelevant to whether it's okay to kill you or not, i don't think being under a certain age takes away your human rights. Sure. But being grown takes being born. And a fetus won't be born if it's aborted... Wanded posted... homeless people are a real problem in places like LA, there are plenty of people who moved away claiming they were the reason because you go outside with your kid to school and there is a homeless guy doing a number 2 in front of your house and used needles in the streets So let's keep having abortions and fix the homeless problem first instead of forcing women to have a bunch of unwanted babies (and possibly die in the process), and possibly making the homeless problem worse. Wanded posted... wait, so you're saying we can help a 50 year old homeless guy, who has debts, who has severe mental illness, but not a baby which is pretty much a clean slate? i don't think that is the case...guy is old while the baby still has his working years ahead of him hence he'll easier earn money and be productive for society, guy has debt hence needing more money than the baby who can also repay eventually after working and severe mental illness is really really hard to cure and costs a ton in theraphy Guy is old, but with the right help, could get back on track and eventually take care of himself. Getting cleaned up and a job can do wonders for him. And set him up in a place. Just somewhere cheap. Which is most likely way better than outside on the streets. As for the baby, I never said anything about helping the baby. I said that having the baby helps no one. Which is doesn't. It's hurts more than helps. Also, the baby won't be productive for probably another 15+ years, where the 50 year old man could be productive much sooner, if helped. Who knows if the kid will even make it that far, or want to be productive (or have to) by then. And who says the kid won't be worse in the mental illness department? That could be why they want to have the abortion in the first place. Wanded posted... read what i said, i specifically talk about when shelter and food are accounted for, which is most cases so lets focus on those first the rest of what you said doesn't really counter my main point which is we don't really know whether that child will be happy or not so you can't automatically decide it'll be sad to justify killing it, you can't kill someone on an "if" or a "maybe" And you only getting rid of a fetus, and not a person. Why bring a child in the world to immediately throw them into an adoption agency where it could easily have a bad life. And take the spot of another child that could have been adopted? Instead, just abort the fetus and let's try working on shrinking the overcrowded adoption agency first. Again, it doesn't matter if the fetus could have been born and had a good or bad life. It doesn't matter if you just don't let it be born... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:944840284] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>according to this logic there is also no issue with killing 1 year old babies who are also unaware of what they are missing, say mom and dad got fired, things get rough, they don't want the baby anymore, this situation fits all of your "it's okay to kill" checklist except it being alive but-</quote> Except the baby is alive already. Born and everything. And they're a baby, unlike a fetus... Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>a fetus is also alive, it moves and breathes etc also pro lifers consider the unborn as people with human rights since they are human and are alive</quote> Except they can t live without a host of some kind. I should have said alive. I should have used the word born instead. Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>being grown or not is irrelevant to whether it's okay to kill you or not, i don't think being under a certain age takes away your human rights.</quote> Sure. But being grown takes being born. And a fetus won't be born if it's aborted... Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>homeless people are a real problem in places like LA, there are plenty of people who moved away claiming they were the reason because you go outside with your kid to school and there is a homeless guy doing a number 2 in front of your house and used needles in the streets</quote> So let's keep having abortions and fix the homeless problem first instead of forcing women to have a bunch of unwanted babies (and possibly die in the process), and possibly making the homeless problem worse. Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>wait, so you're saying we can help a 50 year old homeless guy, who has debts, who has severe mental illness, but not a baby which is pretty much a clean slate? i don't think that is the case...guy is old while the baby still has his working years ahead of him hence he'll easier earn money and be productive for society, guy has debt hence needing more money than the baby who can also repay eventually after working and severe mental illness is really really hard to cure and costs a ton in theraphy</quote> Guy is old, but with the right help, could get back on track and eventually take care of himself. Getting cleaned up and a job can do wonders for him. And set him up in a place. Just somewhere cheap. Which is most likely way better than outside on the streets. As for the baby, I never said anything about helping the baby. I said that having the baby helps no one. Which is doesn't. It's hurts more than helps. Also, the baby won't be productive for probably another 15+ years, where the 50 year old man could be productive much sooner, if helped. Who knows if the kid will even make it that far, or want to be productive (or have to) by then. And who says the kid won't be worse in the mental illness department? That could be why they want to have the abortion in the first place. Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>read what i said, i specifically talk about when shelter and food are accounted for, which is most cases so lets focus on those first the rest of what you said doesn't really counter my main point which is we don't really know whether that child will be happy or not so you can't automatically decide it'll be sad to justify killing it, you can't kill someone on an "if" or a "maybe"</quote> And you only getting rid of a fetus, and not a person. Why bring a child in the world to immediately throw them into an adoption agency where it could easily have a bad life. And take the spot of another child that could have been adopted? Instead, just abort the fetus and let's try working on shrinking the overcrowded adoption agency first. Again, it doesn't matter if the fetus could have been born and had a good or bad life. It doesn't matter if you just don't let it be born...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unbridled9 09/19/20 11:32:07 PM #111:	RCtheWSBC posted... No method of birth control is 100% foolproof. Accidents can, and do, happen, even when precautions are taken to avoid them. Yes, but that's never the argument that gets presented or even mentioned. When it does get mentioned it's always as a defense, never a solution to the problem. Remember, it's beneficial to both parties (even if it heavily favors the left) to keep the issue going. If abortions ever stop being an issue they risk losing voters. So things like the effectiveness of contraceptives only matter in that they occasionally fail. That means they can go and say 'do you think you'll be safe because you used condoms/birth control? THOSE THINGS FAIL! Better vote dem or else you're off to motherhood city!'. Abstinence? Why should you be forced to abstain and, even if you do, bad things can happen! Better vote dem in case those bad things happen! When it comes to politics it's best not to think of it in terms of 'right' and 'wrong' but, rather, like two master players of a game. Both parties desire power and votes and it's beneficial to them to have a problem that they can solve but only do so slowly if at all. Because if they actually SOLVE the issue they lose votes. Let's assume something happened tomorrow and, for whatever reason, the right went 'You know what? Abortions are okay'. The left now has a bunch of young female voters whose top issue may be something like illegal immigration, crime, jobs, or whatever instead of abortion rights. Those are votes that the right wing can snatch up. However if there's the constant threat that the right will find a way to make it illegal again then that issue remains the top issue regardless of if it's been 'solved' or not. --- I am the gentle hand who heals, the happy smile who shields, and the foot that will kick your ***! - White Mage <cite>Unbridled9 posted [p:944840303] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>RCtheWSBC posted... </cite> <quote>No method of birth control is 100% foolproof. Accidents can, and do, happen, even when precautions are taken to avoid them.</quote> Yes, but that's never the argument that gets presented or even mentioned. When it does get mentioned it's always as a defense, never a solution to the problem. Remember, it's beneficial to both parties (even if it heavily favors the left) to keep the issue going. If abortions ever stop being an issue they risk losing voters. So things like the effectiveness of contraceptives only matter in that they occasionally fail. That means they can go and say 'do you think you'll be safe because you used condoms/birth control? THOSE THINGS FAIL! Better vote dem or else you're off to motherhood city!'. Abstinence? Why should you be forced to abstain and, even if you do, bad things can happen! Better vote dem in case those bad things happen! When it comes to politics it's best not to think of it in terms of 'right' and 'wrong' but, rather, like two master players of a game. Both parties desire power and votes and it's beneficial to them to have a problem that they can solve but only do so slowly if at all. Because if they actually SOLVE the issue they lose votes. Let's assume something happened tomorrow and, for whatever reason, the right went 'You know what? Abortions are okay'. The left now has a bunch of young female voters whose top issue may be something like illegal immigration, crime, jobs, or whatever instead of abortion rights. Those are votes that the right wing can snatch up. However if there's the constant threat that the right will find a way to make it illegal again then that issue remains the top issue regardless of if it's been 'solved' or not. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Monopoman 09/19/20 11:38:30 PM #112:	Unbridled9 posted... Yes, but that's never the argument that gets presented or even mentioned. When it does get mentioned it's always as a defense, never a solution to the problem. Remember, it's beneficial to both parties (even if it heavily favors the left) to keep the issue going. If abortions ever stop being an issue they risk losing voters. So things like the effectiveness of contraceptives only matter in that they occasionally fail. That means they can go and say 'do you think you'll be safe because you used condoms/birth control? THOSE THINGS FAIL! Better vote dem or else you're off to motherhood city!'. Abstinence? Why should you be forced to abstain and, even if you do, bad things can happen! Better vote dem in case those bad things happen! When it comes to politics it's best not to think of it in terms of 'right' and 'wrong' but, rather, like two master players of a game. Both parties desire power and votes and it's beneficial to them to have a problem that they can solve but only do so slowly if at all. Because if they actually SOLVE the issue they lose votes. Let's assume something happened tomorrow and, for whatever reason, the right went 'You know what? Abortions are okay'. The left now has a bunch of young female voters whose top issue may be something like illegal immigration, crime, jobs, or whatever instead of abortion rights. Those are votes that the right wing can snatch up. However if there's the constant threat that the right will find a way to make it illegal again then that issue remains the top issue regardless of if it's been 'solved' or not. I love when the right even wants people to carry the baby in the instance of clear rape, statutory rape, or incest when combined with one of the other two. Yeah, Repub's you guys sure look like you care when you are forcing a 14 year old girl to carry her baby because her dad knocked her up. <cite>Monopoman posted [p:944840521] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Unbridled9 posted... </cite> <quote>Yes, but that's never the argument that gets presented or even mentioned. When it does get mentioned it's always as a defense, never a solution to the problem. Remember, it's beneficial to both parties (even if it heavily favors the left) to keep the issue going. If abortions ever stop being an issue they risk losing voters. So things like the effectiveness of contraceptives only matter in that they occasionally fail. That means they can go and say 'do you think you'll be safe because you used condoms/birth control? THOSE THINGS FAIL! Better vote dem or else you're off to motherhood city!'. Abstinence? Why should you be forced to abstain and, even if you do, bad things can happen! Better vote dem in case those bad things happen! When it comes to politics it's best not to think of it in terms of 'right' and 'wrong' but, rather, like two master players of a game. Both parties desire power and votes and it's beneficial to them to have a problem that they can solve but only do so slowly if at all. Because if they actually SOLVE the issue they lose votes. Let's assume something happened tomorrow and, for whatever reason, the right went 'You know what? Abortions are okay'. The left now has a bunch of young female voters whose top issue may be something like illegal immigration, crime, jobs, or whatever instead of abortion rights. Those are votes that the right wing can snatch up. However if there's the constant threat that the right will find a way to make it illegal again then that issue remains the top issue regardless of if it's been 'solved' or not.</quote> I love when the right even wants people to carry the baby in the instance of clear rape, statutory rape, or incest when combined with one of the other two. Yeah, Repub's you guys sure look like you care when you are forcing a 14 year old girl to carry her baby because her dad knocked her up. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/19/20 11:41:18 PM #113:	Monopoman posted... I love when the right even wants people to carry the baby in the instance of clear rape, statutory rape, or incest when combined with one of the other two. Yeah, Right you guys sure look like you care when you are forcing a 14 year old girl to carry her baby because her dad knocked her up. Or that recent story about the 10-year-old girl and her whole ordeal... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:944840607] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Monopoman posted...</cite> <quote>I love when the right even wants people to carry the baby in the instance of clear rape, statutory rape, or incest when combined with one of the other two. Yeah, Right you guys sure look like you care when you are forcing a 14 year old girl to carry her baby because her dad knocked her up. </quote> Or that recent story about the 10-year-old girl and her whole ordeal...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wolfy42 09/19/20 11:44:30 PM #114:	I did not have an easy early life. My mother had mental problems and moved from project to project every 3 months for the first 11 years of my life. She did not feed me or my brother, nor ever touched us. I lived in the poorest places through the 70's basically and saw how many kids (not just me and my brother, lived. So to me, children are a responsibility, that I think parents need to prioritize, and you should not be allowed to have them UNLESS you are prepared to do so. Abortion is actually a good thing and prefered in my opinion, over giving birth to a child who isn't going to have anyone there to actually care for them and ensure they have a safe/secure life. I'm of the personal opinion that abortion should be legal, but that IF you have an abortion, you should have your tubes tied (reversable) in the process, so it does not happen again. Exceptions of course for rape, where it was not the womans choice (which I realize could be abused). I am very against just basically using abortion as a form of birth control and just getting them over and over again, that is crazy as well, but I do think a woman should have control over her own body and not be required to have a baby, especially if the abortion can be done (and it should be made easy to do) before 5 months. I think the whole debate is ridiculous and a compromise should be easy to come up with. Abortions for the first 4-5 months, but offer to have a surgery in the process to prevent future pregnancy until the woman actually wants to get pregnant (Which is obviously not at that point if she wants an abortion). Yes it puts it on the woman (honestly I'm pro, snipping all guys at puberty (also reversable) to prevent pregnancies by accident as well, but that is forcing a surgery on someone. IF a woman is getting an abortion, your already violating her body to do that, so tying the tubes isn't really invasive at that point (Still should not be done without consent, but, predicating the abortion on having that done (especially if it's the second abortion from one person), means you have to give consent basically to get the abortion. --- Tacobot 3000 "Saving the world from not having tacos." Glowing Elephant "Stonehedge was a sex thing." <cite>wolfy42 posted [p:944840701] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>I did not have an easy early life. My mother had mental problems and moved from project to project every 3 months for the first 11 years of my life. She did not feed me or my brother, nor ever touched us. I lived in the poorest places through the 70's basically and saw how many kids (not just me and my brother, lived. So to me, children are a responsibility, that I think parents need to prioritize, and you should not be allowed to have them UNLESS you are prepared to do so. Abortion is actually a good thing and prefered in my opinion, over giving birth to a child who isn't going to have anyone there to actually care for them and ensure they have a safe/secure life. I'm of the personal opinion that abortion should be legal, but that IF you have an abortion, you should have your tubes tied (reversable) in the process, so it does not happen again. Exceptions of course for rape, where it was not the womans choice (which I realize could be abused). I am very against just basically using abortion as a form of birth control and just getting them over and over again, that is crazy as well, but I do think a woman should have control over her own body and not be required to have a baby, especially if the abortion can be done (and it should be made easy to do) before 5 months. I think the whole debate is ridiculous and a compromise should be easy to come up with. Abortions for the first 4-5 months, but offer to have a surgery in the process to prevent future pregnancy until the woman actually wants to get pregnant (Which is obviously not at that point if she wants an abortion). Yes it puts it on the woman (honestly I'm pro, snipping all guys at puberty (also reversable) to prevent pregnancies by accident as well, but that is forcing a surgery on someone. IF a woman is getting an abortion, your already violating her body to do that, so tying the tubes isn't really invasive at that point (Still should not be done without consent, but, predicating the abortion on having that done (especially if it's the second abortion from one person), means you have to give consent basically to get the abortion. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ClarkDuke 09/20/20 12:14:23 AM #115:	Unbridled9 posted... A decent chunk of the pro-lifers are fine with the woman having the child then giving it up for adoption. well that's great for the people that don't have to deal with it for 9 months and have it wreck their bodies, ok? how about the pro-lifer's worry more about themselves and less about other strangers sex-lives, ok? --- https://imgur.com/qL0DHFI https://imgur.com/JL9rRLt https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ <cite>ClarkDuke posted [p:944841497] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Unbridled9 posted... </cite> <quote>A decent chunk of the pro-lifers are fine with the woman having the child then giving it up for adoption.</quote>well that's great for the people that don't have to deal with it for 9 months and have it wreck their bodies, ok? how about the pro-lifer's worry more about themselves and less about other strangers sex-lives, ok? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/20/20 12:14:55 AM #116:	wolfy42 posted... So to me, children are a responsibility, that I think parents need to prioritize, and you should not be allowed to have them UNLESS you are prepared to do so. Abortion is actually a good thing and prefered in my opinion, over giving birth to a child who isn't going to have anyone there to actually care for them and ensure they have a safe/secure life. but according to that wouldn't you yourself had been aborted and not be with us today? i also thought like that until i realized my family wouldn't fit the ticket either because my parents are poor and they both worked all day while i was alone in the house, hence i wouldn't exist --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944841516] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>wolfy42 posted... </cite> <quote>So to me, children are a responsibility, that I think parents need to prioritize, and you should not be allowed to have them UNLESS you are prepared to do so. Abortion is actually a good thing and prefered in my opinion, over giving birth to a child who isn't going to have anyone there to actually care for them and ensure they have a safe/secure life.</quote>but according to that wouldn't you yourself had been aborted and not be with us today? i also thought like that until i realized my family wouldn't fit the ticket either because my parents are poor and they both worked all day while i was alone in the house, hence i wouldn't exist </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/20/20 12:15:51 AM #117:	Wanded posted... hence i wouldn't exist And if you didn't exist, you wouldn't (couldn't) care... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:944841542] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>hence i wouldn't exist</quote> And if you didn't exist, you wouldn't (couldn't) care...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ClarkDuke 09/20/20 12:22:07 AM #118:	Wanded posted... hence i wouldn't exist if only they were that fortunate, ok? --- https://imgur.com/qL0DHFI https://imgur.com/JL9rRLt https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ <cite>ClarkDuke posted [p:944841690] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>hence i wouldn't exist</quote> if only they were that fortunate, ok? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125 09/20/20 12:23:06 AM #119:	Wanded posted... but according to that wouldn't you yourself had been aborted and not be with us today? i also thought like that until i realized my family wouldn't fit the ticket either because my parents are poor and they both worked all day while i was alone in the house, hence i wouldn't exist You would still exist if your mother didn't believe abortion was the right choice for her. No one is asking for mandatory abortions. Dumb line of logic. --- https://imgur.com/4ihiyS2 "I am not gay! Can't you get that through your head? I am very much aroused at the site of a naked woman!" - Dan0429 <cite>Jen0125 posted [p:944841712] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>but according to that wouldn't you yourself had been aborted and not be with us today? i also thought like that until i realized my family wouldn't fit the ticket either because my parents are poor and they both worked all day while i was alone in the house, hence i wouldn't exist</quote> You would still exist if your mother didn't believe abortion was the right choice for her. No one is asking for mandatory abortions. Dumb line of logic. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
thedeerzord 09/20/20 12:36:04 AM #120:	wolfy42 posted... I did not have an easy early life. My mother had mental problems and moved from project to project every 3 months for the first 11 years of my life. She did not feed me or my brother, nor ever touched us. I lived in the poorest places through the 70's basically and saw how many kids (not just me and my brother, lived. So to me, children are a responsibility, that I think parents need to prioritize, and you should not be allowed to have them UNLESS you are prepared to do so. Abortion is actually a good thing and prefered in my opinion, over giving birth to a child who isn't going to have anyone there to actually care for them and ensure they have a safe/secure life. I'm of the personal opinion that abortion should be legal, but that IF you have an abortion, you should have your tubes tied (reversable) in the process, so it does not happen again. Exceptions of course for rape, where it was not the womans choice (which I realize could be abused). I am very against just basically using abortion as a form of birth control and just getting them over and over again, that is crazy as well, but I do think a woman should have control over her own body and not be required to have a baby, especially if the abortion can be done (and it should be made easy to do) before 5 months. I think the whole debate is ridiculous and a compromise should be easy to come up with. Abortions for the first 4-5 months, but offer to have a surgery in the process to prevent future pregnancy until the woman actually wants to get pregnant (Which is obviously not at that point if she wants an abortion). Yes it puts it on the woman (honestly I'm pro, snipping all guys at puberty (also reversable) to prevent pregnancies by accident as well, but that is forcing a surgery on someone. IF a woman is getting an abortion, your already violating her body to do that, so tying the tubes isn't really invasive at that point (Still should not be done without consent, but, predicating the abortion on having that done (especially if it's the second abortion from one person), means you have to give consent basically to get the abortion. Im sorry that your life was so hard. Thank you very much for posting your opinion on the matter. And I agree with the requirement of having your tubes tied when getting an abortion. That would solve the problem real quick. --- Please pray for this GFaqs user:Jen0125. Shes like, so mean and hateful and stuff. <cite>thedeerzord posted [p:944842029] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>wolfy42 posted... </cite> <quote>I did not have an easy early life. My mother had mental problems and moved from project to project every 3 months for the first 11 years of my life. She did not feed me or my brother, nor ever touched us. I lived in the poorest places through the 70's basically and saw how many kids (not just me and my brother, lived. So to me, children are a responsibility, that I think parents need to prioritize, and you should not be allowed to have them UNLESS you are prepared to do so. Abortion is actually a good thing and prefered in my opinion, over giving birth to a child who isn't going to have anyone there to actually care for them and ensure they have a safe/secure life. I'm of the personal opinion that abortion should be legal, but that IF you have an abortion, you should have your tubes tied (reversable) in the process, so it does not happen again. Exceptions of course for rape, where it was not the womans choice (which I realize could be abused). I am very against just basically using abortion as a form of birth control and just getting them over and over again, that is crazy as well, but I do think a woman should have control over her own body and not be required to have a baby, especially if the abortion can be done (and it should be made easy to do) before 5 months. I think the whole debate is ridiculous and a compromise should be easy to come up with. Abortions for the first 4-5 months, but offer to have a surgery in the process to prevent future pregnancy until the woman actually wants to get pregnant (Which is obviously not at that point if she wants an abortion). Yes it puts it on the woman (honestly I'm pro, snipping all guys at puberty (also reversable) to prevent pregnancies by accident as well, but that is forcing a surgery on someone. IF a woman is getting an abortion, your already violating her body to do that, so tying the tubes isn't really invasive at that point (Still should not be done without consent, but, predicating the abortion on having that done (especially if it's the second abortion from one person), means you have to give consent basically to get the abortion.</quote>Im sorry that your life was so hard. Thank you very much for posting your opinion on the matter. And I agree with the requirement of having your tubes tied when getting an abortion. That would solve the problem real quick. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/20/20 12:42:19 AM #121:	thedeerzord posted... And I agree with the requirement of having your tubes tied when getting an abortion. That would solve the problem real quick. Probably not. But maybe we should give all the fathers vasectomies, as well... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:944842195] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>thedeerzord posted...</cite> <quote>And I agree with the requirement of having your tubes tied when getting an abortion. That would solve the problem real quick.</quote> Probably not. But maybe we should give all the fathers vasectomies, as well...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wolfy42 09/20/20 12:45:15 AM #122:	Wanded posted... but according to that wouldn't you yourself had been aborted and not be with us today? i also thought like that until i realized my family wouldn't fit the ticket either because my parents are poor and they both worked all day while i was alone in the house, hence i wouldn't exist I went through some stuff as a kid, that caused me to have a very hard time enjoying myself after that, in any way. I overcame that by caring for others, which I have done most of my life, and because of that, if given a choice now, I would probably not choose to have never existed. It would cause additional suffering for too many people. But we do not get a choice (as far as we know) when we are born. We are brought into this world and at least for a decent amount of time, we are reliant on others to care for us. My mother had 3 kids, the first she put up for adoption as she was still under the care of my grandfather I believe, she was 2 years older than me, named heather, I have thought of doing a DNA test to see if she could be found. I was next, but I was not normal, I never cried at all. They backpacked around with me for 2 years and according to my mother they could stay at churches for free because they had me. When my brother was born 2 years later, he was not like me and cried alot, so either A: My father bounced because of that (what my mother said), or B: My mother decided to ditch my father so she could have all the money from the state for herself and moved every 3 months to avoid him finding her. She should not have had ANY kids, she was not a mother, did not take care of us at all and literally lived of the state for 24 years from money and free lodging she got because she supposedly had 2 kids (I did not realize this of course till my brother turned 24 and she lost section 8 because of that and needed help moving). My brother was put into the system when he was 9 and I was 11 because he acted out at school and my mother was in a mental institution at the time. He did not have a good life, never accomplished anything and died by the time he was 40 (after being homeless most of that time and then getting housing from the state because of an illness). If given a choice, he would not have chosen to live that life, though I tried to make it as pleasant as I could for him for the first 9 years. You can over come a bad start. I did, but I lucked out with Young Life (christian organization), and a few very nice people (who do exist). If given an option to not exist for most of my early life I would have taken it though. But yeah, having tubes tied just prevents unwanted pregnancy, it ensures the children born are wanted, and hopefully the parents are ready to care for that child. I was lucky in alot of ways (unlucky in some), I saw children with much worse lives than me (especially when I was much younger). That is FAR worse than having abortions, so fix that first and THEN focus on alternatives to abortion such as adoptions (perhaps even paying weman who are pregnant to have the baby (but again, tubes tied afterwards as part of the contract). Get pregnant? Instead of abortion, you can go to a program that will pay you to keep the baby and deliver it, and then if you don't keep it, other people who can't have children get it, and you get paid, but again, you are required to have your tubes tied in the process to ensure it doesn't happen again. That works for same sex couples, people with fertility issues etc, and you could even set up a program like that now, since it would probably deal with alot of the children not being cared for problem as well. I hate the concept of just saying all abortions are bad though because there are poor people, even in this country, who have kids and then don't take care of them, or abuse them, or sell them etc. Deal with those atrocities first and THEN deal with abortion issues. --- Tacobot 3000 "Saving the world from not having tacos." Glowing Elephant "Stonehedge was a sex thing." <cite>wolfy42 posted [p:944842267] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>but according to that wouldn't you yourself had been aborted and not be with us today? i also thought like that until i realized my family wouldn't fit the ticket either because my parents are poor and they both worked all day while i was alone in the house, hence i wouldn't exist</quote> I went through some stuff as a kid, that caused me to have a very hard time enjoying myself after that, in any way. I overcame that by caring for others, which I have done most of my life, and because of that, if given a choice now, I would probably not choose to have never existed. It would cause additional suffering for too many people. But we do not get a choice (as far as we know) when we are born. We are brought into this world and at least for a decent amount of time, we are reliant on others to care for us. My mother had 3 kids, the first she put up for adoption as she was still under the care of my grandfather I believe, she was 2 years older than me, named heather, I have thought of doing a DNA test to see if she could be found. I was next, but I was not normal, I never cried at all. They backpacked around with me for 2 years and according to my mother they could stay at churches for free because they had me. When my brother was born 2 years later, he was not like me and cried alot, so either A: My father bounced because of that (what my mother said), or B: My mother decided to ditch my father so she could have all the money from the state for herself and moved every 3 months to avoid him finding her. She should not have had ANY kids, she was not a mother, did not take care of us at all and literally lived of the state for 24 years from money and free lodging she got because she supposedly had 2 kids (I did not realize this of course till my brother turned 24 and she lost section 8 because of that and needed help moving). My brother was put into the system when he was 9 and I was 11 because he acted out at school and my mother was in a mental institution at the time. He did not have a good life, never accomplished anything and died by the time he was 40 (after being homeless most of that time and then getting housing from the state because of an illness). If given a choice, he would not have chosen to live that life, though I tried to make it as pleasant as I could for him for the first 9 years. You can over come a bad start. I did, but I lucked out with Young Life (christian organization), and a few very nice people (who do exist). If given an option to not exist for most of my early life I would have taken it though. But yeah, having tubes tied just prevents unwanted pregnancy, it ensures the children born are wanted, and hopefully the parents are ready to care for that child. I was lucky in alot of ways (unlucky in some), I saw children with much worse lives than me (especially when I was much younger). That is FAR worse than having abortions, so fix that first and THEN focus on alternatives to abortion such as adoptions (perhaps even paying weman who are pregnant to have the baby (but again, tubes tied afterwards as part of the contract). Get pregnant? Instead of abortion, you can go to a program that will pay you to keep the baby and deliver it, and then if you don't keep it, other people who can't have children get it, and you get paid, but again, you are required to have your tubes tied in the process to ensure it doesn't happen again. That works for same sex couples, people with fertility issues etc, and you could even set up a program like that now, since it would probably deal with alot of the children not being cared for problem as well. I hate the concept of just saying all abortions are bad though because there are poor people, even in this country, who have kids and then don't take care of them, or abuse them, or sell them etc. Deal with those atrocities first and THEN deal with abortion issues. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wolfy42 09/20/20 12:56:17 AM #123:	LinkPizza posted... Probably not. But maybe we should give all the fathers vasectomies, as well... Tracking down the father can often be hard, but I mentioned above I'm pro snipping guys at puberty, and only reversing it later if they schedule to have it done (which would stop all unwanted pregnancies right away basically). At least make it some kind of option to have done around that age, perhaps for free (not getting into the issue of free health care here, just doing this would save the gov tons of money in the long run anyway). I no that is never gonna happen though, but I do think people could get behind the have and abortion, tie the tubes idea. It's not fair, I realize it's not fair, but it's MORE fair to the freaking kids who should be the ultimate focus. People think abortion is murder, but torture is worse then murder, and bringing someone into this world with no support is often torture. We can't give children a choice over if they exist or not, so it's on us to make that existance as pleasant and non-horrible as possible. The problem is pretty much everyone who ever has any actual real power are politicians who are almost all from rich/wealthy families and the concept of life being something you might not want, is pretty foreign to them. Giving birth in some ways could be considered rape in a way, not of the woman, but of the child, they are being forced into this world without consent. The had absolutely no say about their creation, and no control over how their life is going to be at least for quite a few years. I'm not saying we should have no children at all, but I AM saying that we should be responsible for those kids that do get born, most especially the parents of those kids. Sadly there are many people who do not believe that and some even think they own the kids and the kids owe them for being born etc. We actually have technology to freeze eggs and sperm, so you could literally have that done for everyone when they hit puberty (or fairly soon afterwards) and you wouldn't even need to undo the surgeries at that point. It would make it very easy for people to hire surragates later on as well (which might just become another job that is common to have). We are not at demolition man etc stage, but we are certainly to a point where we could stop all unwanted pregnancies and still have procreation continue just fine. --- Tacobot 3000 "Saving the world from not having tacos." Glowing Elephant "Stonehedge was a sex thing." <cite>wolfy42 posted [p:944842508] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>Probably not. But maybe we should give all the fathers vasectomies, as well...</quote> Tracking down the father can often be hard, but I mentioned above I'm pro snipping guys at puberty, and only reversing it later if they schedule to have it done (which would stop all unwanted pregnancies right away basically). At least make it some kind of option to have done around that age, perhaps for free (not getting into the issue of free health care here, just doing this would save the gov tons of money in the long run anyway). I no that is never gonna happen though, but I do think people could get behind the have and abortion, tie the tubes idea. It's not fair, I realize it's not fair, but it's MORE fair to the freaking kids who should be the ultimate focus. People think abortion is murder, but torture is worse then murder, and bringing someone into this world with no support is often torture. We can't give children a choice over if they exist or not, so it's on us to make that existance as pleasant and non-horrible as possible. The problem is pretty much everyone who ever has any actual real power are politicians who are almost all from rich/wealthy families and the concept of life being something you might not want, is pretty foreign to them. Giving birth in some ways could be considered rape in a way, not of the woman, but of the child, they are being forced into this world without consent. The had absolutely no say about their creation, and no control over how their life is going to be at least for quite a few years. I'm not saying we should have no children at all, but I AM saying that we should be responsible for those kids that do get born, most especially the parents of those kids. Sadly there are many people who do not believe that and some even think they own the kids and the kids owe them for being born etc. We actually have technology to freeze eggs and sperm, so you could literally have that done for everyone when they hit puberty (or fairly soon afterwards) and you wouldn't even need to undo the surgeries at that point. It would make it very easy for people to hire surragates later on as well (which might just become another job that is common to have). We are not at demolition man etc stage, but we are certainly to a point where we could stop all unwanted pregnancies and still have procreation continue just fine. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zareth 09/20/20 1:30:13 AM #124:	Why are conservatives so passionate about protecting unborn babies but once the kid is born they don't give a fuck about it or its parents? Also, you'd think more conservatives would be for abortion, seeing how it means less (potential) liberals being born... --- It's okay, I have no idea who I am either. https://imgur.com/WOo6wcq <cite>Zareth posted [p:944843364] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Why are conservatives so passionate about protecting unborn babies but once the kid is born they don't give a fuck about it or its parents? Also, you'd think more conservatives would be for abortion, seeing how it means less (potential) liberals being born... </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ClarkDuke 09/20/20 1:34:13 AM #125:	Zareth posted... Why are conservatives so passionate about protecting unborn babies but once the kid is born they don't give a fuck about it or its parents? Also, you'd think more conservatives would be for abortion, seeing how it means less (potential) liberals being born... they enjoy watching others below them suffer, it makes their own daily suffering much more palatable, ok? --- https://imgur.com/qL0DHFI https://imgur.com/JL9rRLt https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ <cite>ClarkDuke posted [p:944843456] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Zareth posted... </cite> <quote>Why are conservatives so passionate about protecting unborn babies but once the kid is born they don't give a fuck about it or its parents? Also, you'd think more conservatives would be for abortion, seeing how it means less (potential) liberals being born...</quote>they enjoy watching others below them suffer, it makes their own daily suffering much more palatable, ok? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DirtBasedSoap 09/20/20 1:34:31 AM #126:	male masturbation kills thousands of unborn babies! --- me when anyone replies to my posts: https://youtu.be/d1YBv2mWll0 <cite>DirtBasedSoap posted [p:944843467] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>male masturbation kills thousands of unborn babies! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
magemaximus 09/20/20 1:43:40 AM #127:	i actually think it is less radical to give women the option to abort or not abort than just giving them one option, which is you cannot abort. so the latter is more radical. --- You can't persuade fanboys. You'd be better off trying to convince a wall. ~CodeNamePlasmaSnake~ <cite>magemaximus posted [p:944843691] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>i actually think it is less radical to give women the option to abort or not abort than just giving them one option, which is you cannot abort. so the latter is more radical. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VioletGekko 09/20/20 2:24:42 AM #128:	No one doing 6 months abortion unless some things critically dangerous happen to the mother that requires it. TC is just a moron. <cite>VioletGekko posted [p:944844494] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>No one doing 6 months abortion unless some things critically dangerous happen to the mother that requires it. TC is just a moron. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VioletGekko 09/20/20 2:54:42 AM #129:	wolfy42 posted... I did not have an easy early life. My mother had mental problems and moved from project to project every 3 months for the first 11 years of my life. She did not feed me or my brother, nor ever touched us. I lived in the poorest places through the 70's basically and saw how many kids (not just me and my brother, lived. So to me, children are a responsibility, that I think parents need to prioritize, and you should not be allowed to have them UNLESS you are prepared to do so. Abortion is actually a good thing and prefered in my opinion, over giving birth to a child who isn't going to have anyone there to actually care for them and ensure they have a safe/secure life. I'm of the personal opinion that abortion should be legal, but that IF you have an abortion, you should have your tubes tied (reversable) in the process, so it does not happen again. Exceptions of course for rape, where it was not the womans choice (which I realize could be abused). I am very against just basically using abortion as a form of birth control and just getting them over and over again, that is crazy as well, but I do think a woman should have control over her own body and not be required to have a baby, especially if the abortion can be done (and it should be made easy to do) before 5 months. I think the whole debate is ridiculous and a compromise should be easy to come up with. Abortions for the first 4-5 months, but offer to have a surgery in the process to prevent future pregnancy until the woman actually wants to get pregnant (Which is obviously not at that point if she wants an abortion). Yes it puts it on the woman (honestly I'm pro, snipping all guys at puberty (also reversable) to prevent pregnancies by accident as well, but that is forcing a surgery on someone. IF a woman is getting an abortion, your already violating her body to do that, so tying the tubes isn't really invasive at that point (Still should not be done without consent, but, predicating the abortion on having that done (especially if it's the second abortion from one person), means you have to give consent basically to get the abortion. Getting abortion again and again is very rarely thing to happen because of how traumatic it is for the body and brain. It's a shit talking point of Bible thumper. In fact, women who get repeated abortions usually come from Bible thumper families where they want to have a boy regardless of the mother's wish and they see women as breeding tubes and daily servant. <cite>VioletGekko posted [p:944845012] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>wolfy42 posted... </cite> <quote>I did not have an easy early life. My mother had mental problems and moved from project to project every 3 months for the first 11 years of my life. She did not feed me or my brother, nor ever touched us. I lived in the poorest places through the 70's basically and saw how many kids (not just me and my brother, lived. So to me, children are a responsibility, that I think parents need to prioritize, and you should not be allowed to have them UNLESS you are prepared to do so. Abortion is actually a good thing and prefered in my opinion, over giving birth to a child who isn't going to have anyone there to actually care for them and ensure they have a safe/secure life. I'm of the personal opinion that abortion should be legal, but that IF you have an abortion, you should have your tubes tied (reversable) in the process, so it does not happen again. Exceptions of course for rape, where it was not the womans choice (which I realize could be abused). I am very against just basically using abortion as a form of birth control and just getting them over and over again, that is crazy as well, but I do think a woman should have control over her own body and not be required to have a baby, especially if the abortion can be done (and it should be made easy to do) before 5 months. I think the whole debate is ridiculous and a compromise should be easy to come up with. Abortions for the first 4-5 months, but offer to have a surgery in the process to prevent future pregnancy until the woman actually wants to get pregnant (Which is obviously not at that point if she wants an abortion). Yes it puts it on the woman (honestly I'm pro, snipping all guys at puberty (also reversable) to prevent pregnancies by accident as well, but that is forcing a surgery on someone. IF a woman is getting an abortion, your already violating her body to do that, so tying the tubes isn't really invasive at that point (Still should not be done without consent, but, predicating the abortion on having that done (especially if it's the second abortion from one person), means you have to give consent basically to get the abortion.</quote>Getting abortion again and again is very rarely thing to happen because of how traumatic it is for the body and brain. It's a shit talking point of Bible thumper. In fact, women who get repeated abortions usually come from Bible thumper families where they want to have a boy regardless of the mother's wish and they see women as breeding tubes and daily servant. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 09/20/20 3:10:25 AM #130:	TamiaSympa posted... @Revelation34 That's impossible since abortion is not mentioned in the bible. *<u>'' Scriptural truths</u>* Ten biblical episodes and prophecies provide an unequivocal expression of God's attitude toward human life, especially the ontological status of "unborn children" and their pregnant mothers-to-be. Brief summaries: A pregnant woman who is injured and aborts the fetus warrants financial compensation only (to her husband), suggesting that the fetus is property, not a person (Exodus 21:22-25). The gruesome priestly purity test to which a wife accused of adultery must submit will cause her to abort the fetus if she is guilty, indicating that the fetus does not possess a right to life (Numbers 5:11-31). God enumerated his punishments for disobedience, including "cursed shall be the fruit of your womb" and "you will eat the fruit of your womb," directly contradicting sanctity-of-life claims (Deuteronomy 28:18,53). Elisha's prophecy for soon-to-be King Hazael said he would attack the Israelites, burn their cities, crush the heads of their babies and rip open their pregnant women (2 Kings 8:12). King Menahem of Israel destroyed Tiphsah (also called Tappuah) and the surrounding towns, killing all residents and ripping open pregnant women with the sword (2 Kings 15:16). Isaiah prophesied doom for Babylon, including the murder of unborn children: "They will have no pity on the fruit of the womb" (Isaiah 13:18). For worshiping idols, God declared that not one of his people would live, not a man, woman or child (not even babies in arms), again confuting assertions about the sanctity of life (Jeremiah 44:7-8). God will punish the Israelites by destroying their unborn children, who will die at birth, or perish in the womb, or never even be conceived (Hosea 9:10-16). For rebelling against God, Samaria's people will be killed, their babies will be dashed to death against the ground, and their pregnant women will be ripped open with a sword (Hosea 13:16). Jesus did not express any special concern for unborn children during the anticipated end times: "Woe to pregnant women and those who are nursing" (Matthew 24:19).'' Source : https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/25602-abortion-rights Yes abortion is mentioned in the Bible. Nope. Your post is a flat out lie. The scriptures do not say the word abortion at all. I like how you picked that one site out of the thousands of biblical sites that actually say the scriptures accurately. Here's even the real scripture for your first bullshit example. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:22-25&version=NIV thedeerzord posted... A fetus can still be considered a sentient human being. So killing a fetus is akin to murdering a baby. This is so blatantly wrong. wolfy42 posted... and just getting them over and over again This doesn't happen. It's just pro-life propaganda. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:944845290] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>TamiaSympa posted...</cite> <quote>@Revelation34 That's impossible since abortion is not mentioned in the bible. <u>'' Scriptural truths</u> Ten biblical episodes and prophecies provide an unequivocal expression of God's attitude toward human life, especially the ontological status of "unborn children" and their pregnant mothers-to-be. Brief summaries: A pregnant woman who is injured and aborts the fetus warrants financial compensation only (to her husband), suggesting that the fetus is property, not a person (Exodus 21:22-25). The gruesome priestly purity test to which a wife accused of adultery must submit will cause her to abort the fetus if she is guilty, indicating that the fetus does not possess a right to life (Numbers 5:11-31). God enumerated his punishments for disobedience, including "cursed shall be the fruit of your womb" and "you will eat the fruit of your womb," directly contradicting sanctity-of-life claims (Deuteronomy 28:18,53). Elisha's prophecy for soon-to-be King Hazael said he would attack the Israelites, burn their cities, crush the heads of their babies and rip open their pregnant women (2 Kings 8:12). King Menahem of Israel destroyed Tiphsah (also called Tappuah) and the surrounding towns, killing all residents and ripping open pregnant women with the sword (2 Kings 15:16). Isaiah prophesied doom for Babylon, including the murder of unborn children: "They will have no pity on the fruit of the womb" (Isaiah 13:18). For worshiping idols, God declared that not one of his people would live, not a man, woman or child (not even babies in arms), again confuting assertions about the sanctity of life (Jeremiah 44:7-8). God will punish the Israelites by destroying their unborn children, who will die at birth, or perish in the womb, or never even be conceived (Hosea 9:10-16). For rebelling against God, Samaria's people will be killed, their babies will be dashed to death against the ground, and their pregnant women will be ripped open with a sword (Hosea 13:16). Jesus did not express any special concern for unborn children during the anticipated end times: "Woe to pregnant women and those who are nursing" (Matthew 24:19).'' Source : https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/25602-abortion-rights Yes abortion is mentioned in the Bible. </quote> Nope. Your post is a flat out lie. The scriptures do not say the word abortion at all. I like how you picked that one site out of the thousands of biblical sites that actually say the scriptures accurately. Here's even the real scripture for your first bullshit example. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:22-25&version=NIV thedeerzord posted...</cite> <quote> A fetus can still be considered a sentient human being. So killing a fetus is akin to murdering a baby. </quote> This is so blatantly wrong. wolfy42 posted...</cite> <quote> and just getting them over and over again</quote> This doesn't happen. It's just pro-life propaganda.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wolfy42 09/20/20 3:46:22 AM #131:	Revelation34 posted... This doesn't happen. It's just pro-life propaganda. It does in poor neighborhoods. Less likelyhood to actually buy/use protection, so you either see women who have had multiple kids before they are 18 (kelly a friends sister had her first at 13, her mom had her at 13 and her grandmom had her mom at 13. Kelly had 3 kids by the time she was 18). The other option is abortions (I guess they didn't believe in them), and it certainly does happen that women have more then 1 or 2 abortions, sometimes even before they are 18 as well. --- Tacobot 3000 "Saving the world from not having tacos." Glowing Elephant "Stonehedge was a sex thing." <cite>wolfy42 posted [p:944845810] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Revelation34 posted... </cite> <quote>This doesn't happen. It's just pro-life propaganda.</quote> It does in poor neighborhoods. Less likelyhood to actually buy/use protection, so you either see women who have had multiple kids before they are 18 (kelly a friends sister had her first at 13, her mom had her at 13 and her grandmom had her mom at 13. Kelly had 3 kids by the time she was 18). The other option is abortions (I guess they didn't believe in them), and it certainly does happen that women have more then 1 or 2 abortions, sometimes even before they are 18 as well. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PBusted 09/20/20 3:50:13 AM #132:	I legit dont understand how anyone can be anti-abortion rights. The left because women have a right to their own bodies over a fetuss. The right because a baby born to unwilling parents unable to take care of them will only leech off society more. The all humans have rights and deserve to live is honestly just so dishonest when it comes to the rights policies in all other areas that encourage the rich, successful, and conforming to live over the poor and disenfranchised. It comes across as being solely to spite women or sluts. <cite>PBusted posted [p:944845856] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>I legit dont understand how anyone can be anti-abortion rights. The left because women have a right to their own bodies over a fetuss. The right because a baby born to unwilling parents unable to take care of them will only leech off society more. The all humans have rights and deserve to live is honestly just so dishonest when it comes to the rights policies in all other areas that encourage the rich, successful, and conforming to live over the poor and disenfranchised. It comes across as being solely to spite women or sluts. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/20/20 4:04:28 AM #133:	LinkPizza posted... Except they can t live without a host of some kind. I should have said alive. I should have used the word born instead. hmm this is actually the main issue, if you think abortion is the same as tensilectomy, or basically popping a zit, as in the fetus has no value to warrant bothering for it and is like a kidney or something, then obviously everything you said up until now is correct, because with that view nothing is actually lost in the process of abortion pro lifers view the fetus as having the same value as after birth, do you think third semester abortions are okay? say a woman decides to abort an hour before the baby is due --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944846009] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>Except they can t live without a host of some kind. I should have said alive. I should have used the word born instead.</quote>hmm this is actually the main issue, if you think abortion is the same as tensilectomy, or basically popping a zit, as in the fetus has no value to warrant bothering for it and is like a kidney or something, then obviously everything you said up until now is correct, because with that view nothing is actually lost in the process of abortion pro lifers view the fetus as having the same value as after birth, do you think third semester abortions are okay? say a woman decides to abort an hour before the baby is due </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/20/20 4:21:09 AM #134:	Zareth posted... Why are conservatives so passionate about protecting unborn babies but once the kid is born they don't give a fuck about it or its parents? Also, you'd think more conservatives would be for abortion, seeing how it means less (potential) liberals being born... conservatives adopt and donate more than any other group so fake news, also being against murder doesn't require conditions. indeed less liberals would be a great thing but unlike liberals we don't put partisanship before our values, so we won't condone murder even if it means less liberals... --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944846197] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Zareth posted... </cite> <quote>Why are conservatives so passionate about protecting unborn babies but once the kid is born they don't give a fuck about it or its parents? Also, you'd think more conservatives would be for abortion, seeing how it means less (potential) liberals being born...</quote>conservatives adopt and donate more than any other group so fake news, also being against murder doesn't require conditions. indeed less liberals would be a great thing but unlike liberals we don't put partisanship before our values, so we won't condone murder even if it means less liberals... </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/20/20 4:25:41 AM #135:	PBusted posted... when it comes to the rights policies in all other areas that encourage the rich, successful, and conforming to live over the poor and disenfranchised. most rich people and big tech companies are liberal so i think you got things the other way around mate --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944846246] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>PBusted posted... </cite> <quote>when it comes to the rights policies in all other areas that encourage the rich, successful, and conforming to live over the poor and disenfranchised.</quote>most rich people and big tech companies are liberal so i think you got things the other way around mate </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 09/20/20 4:48:24 AM #136:	Wanded posted... most people are liberal so ftfy --- The Betrayer <cite>Mead posted [p:944846554] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>most people are liberal so</quote> ftfy </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ClarkDuke 09/20/20 5:53:45 AM #137:	Wanded posted... conservatives adopt more than any other group let's see some data, ok? --- https://imgur.com/qL0DHFI https://imgur.com/JL9rRLt https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ <cite>ClarkDuke posted [p:944847231] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>conservatives adopt more than any other group</quote> let's see some data, ok? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PBusted 09/20/20 6:04:40 AM #138:	Wanded posted... most rich people and big tech companies are liberal so i think you got things the other way around mate Amusing but I meant policies. The policies that aim to aid everyone like universal healthcare, UBI, free college, ie socialism is the opposite of right wing. Right wing policies are all about having the cutthroat best get the most success. <cite>PBusted posted [p:944847346] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>most rich people and big tech companies are liberal so i think you got things the other way around mate</quote>Amusing but I meant policies. The policies that aim to aid everyone like universal healthcare, UBI, free college, ie socialism is the opposite of right wing. Right wing policies are all about having the cutthroat best get the most success. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/20/20 9:19:32 AM #139:	Wanded posted... hmm this is actually the main issue, if you think abortion is the same as tensilectomy, or basically popping a zit, as in the fetus has no value to warrant bothering for it and is like a kidney or something, then obviously everything you said up until now is correct, because with that view nothing is actually lost in the process of abortion pro lifers view the fetus as having the same value as after birth, do you think third semester abortions are okay? say a woman decides to abort an hour before the baby is due Do you mean tonsillectomy? Either way, I dont see it close to popping a zit. tonsillectomy is closer, as its a medical procedure, though not quite there yet... As for the second part, depends on if the mothers life is at stake. If so, then its fine. If not, then they probably should have done it earlier. Because while there is red tape sometimes stopping women from getting an abortion, I dont think it usually last up until a hour before birth. So, I guess thats another one on the already overcrowded adoption agency... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:944850121] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>hmm this is actually the main issue, if you think abortion is the same as tensilectomy, or basically popping a zit, as in the fetus has no value to warrant bothering for it and is like a kidney or something, then obviously everything you said up until now is correct, because with that view nothing is actually lost in the process of abortion pro lifers view the fetus as having the same value as after birth, do you think third semester abortions are okay? say a woman decides to abort an hour before the baby is due</quote> Do you mean tonsillectomy? Either way, I dont see it close to popping a zit. tonsillectomy is closer, as its a medical procedure, though not quite there yet... As for the second part, depends on if the mothers life is at stake. If so, then its fine. If not, then they probably should have done it earlier. Because while there is red tape sometimes stopping women from getting an abortion, I dont think it usually last up until a hour before birth. So, I guess thats another one on the already overcrowded adoption agency...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unbridled9 09/20/20 9:32:42 AM #140:	Monopoman posted... I love when the right even wants people to carry the baby in the instance of clear rape, statutory rape, or incest when combined with one of the other two. Yeah, Repub's you guys sure look like you care when you are forcing a 14 year old girl to carry her baby because her dad knocked her up. See. This is exactly what I mean. At no point did I say anything about if abortion was right or wrong. Just that it benefits the left to be able to whip people up into a hysteria over it. How many instances of abortion where this is legitimately the case are there? It's not like there are ** gangs going about just looking to knock up innocent women and the only thing stopping them is a brave and heroic abortion doctor sweeping in to save the day and the republicans are the villains who are trying to ban Abortion Man so that they can forwards an evil agenda. However it's beneficial to the left to be able to spin that narrative because it means they can forwards their party agenda with the threat of 'if you don't vote for us some evil republican will come in and remove your right to an abortion. Then evil gangs will roam the street, knock up your women, and turn them into domestic slaves!' Remember, the question of this topic is 'why make it so radical' not 'is it right'. The answer is clear. Make it radical because it is a great way to convince college-age women to vote dem out of fear. ClarkDuke posted... well that's great for the people that don't have to deal with it for 9 months and have it wreck their bodies, ok? how about the pro-lifer's worry more about themselves and less about other strangers sex-lives, ok? Remember, they see it as murder. To them you are basically asking that they be fine with murder just because it's a stranger that's doing it. You may not view it as murder but until you at least acknowledge that they do and understand what that means you will never be able to understand them. --- I am the gentle hand who heals, the happy smile who shields, and the foot that will kick your ! - White Mage <cite>Unbridled9 posted [p:944850370] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Monopoman posted... </cite> <quote>I love when the right even wants people to carry the baby in the instance of clear rape, statutory rape, or incest when combined with one of the other two. Yeah, Repub's you guys sure look like you care when you are forcing a 14 year old girl to carry her baby because her dad knocked her up.</quote> See. This is exactly what I mean. At no point did I say anything about if abortion was right or wrong. Just that it benefits the left to be able to whip people up into a hysteria over it. How many instances of abortion where this is legitimately the case are there? It's not like there are * gangs going about just looking to knock up innocent women and the only thing stopping them is a brave and heroic abortion doctor sweeping in to save the day and the republicans are the villains who are trying to ban Abortion Man so that they can forwards an evil agenda. However it's beneficial to the left to be able to spin that narrative because it means they can forwards their party agenda with the threat of 'if you don't vote for us some evil republican will come in and remove your right to an abortion. Then evil ** gangs will roam the street, knock up your women, and turn them into domestic slaves!' Remember, the question of this topic is 'why make it so radical' not 'is it right'. The answer is clear. Make it radical because it is a great way to convince college-age women to vote dem out of fear. ClarkDuke posted... </cite> <quote>well that's great for the people that don't have to deal with it for 9 months and have it wreck their bodies, ok? how about the pro-lifer's worry more about themselves and less about other strangers sex-lives, ok?</quote> Remember, they see it as murder. To them you are basically asking that they be fine with murder just because it's a stranger that's doing it. You may not view it as murder but until you at least acknowledge that they do and understand what that means you will never be able to understand them. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kind9 09/20/20 9:33:49 AM #141:	The Satanic Temple recently made abortion one of their "religious practices". I love how they exist to be a middle finger pointed at organized dogmatic religions. --- https://imgur.com/NkZUeFd <cite>kind9 posted [p:944850406] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>The Satanic Temple recently made abortion one of their "religious practices". I love how they exist to be a middle finger pointed at organized dogmatic religions. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unbridled9 09/20/20 9:40:56 AM #142:	kind9 posted... The Satanic Temple recently made abortion one of their "religious practices". I love how they exist to be a middle finger pointed at organized dogmatic religions. Erm. The church of satan making something a religious tenet that their opponents is convinced that they already do doesn't sound like a middle finger to me. If anything it's conformist. If they wanted to give a middle finger they'd go pro-life specifically so that, when they tried to birth the anti-christ into the world, the Christians couldn't abort it. --- I am the gentle hand who heals, the happy smile who shields, and the foot that will kick your ***! - White Mage <cite>Unbridled9 posted [p:944850554] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>kind9 posted... </cite> <quote>The Satanic Temple recently made abortion one of their "religious practices". I love how they exist to be a middle finger pointed at organized dogmatic religions.</quote> Erm. The church of satan making something a religious tenet that their opponents is convinced that they already do doesn't sound like a middle finger to me. If anything it's conformist. If they wanted to give a middle finger they'd go pro-life specifically so that, when they tried to birth the anti-christ into the world, the Christians couldn't abort it. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kind9 09/20/20 9:50:25 AM #143:	The Satanic Temple is not the Church of Satan, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say. There's a lot more to it than that. https://announcement.thesatanictemple.com/rrr-campaign41280784 "In accordance with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), first trimester abortions are now exempt from unnecessary regulations for all individuals practicing The Satanic Temple's religious abortion ritual." For example they're no longer required to listen to the fetus heartbeat or see the ultrasound, which is emotional manipulation. --- https://imgur.com/NkZUeFd <cite>kind9 posted [p:944850772] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>The Satanic Temple is not the Church of Satan, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say. There's a lot more to it than that. https://announcement.thesatanictemple.com/rrr-campaign41280784 "In accordance with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), first trimester abortions are now exempt from unnecessary regulations for all individuals practicing The Satanic Temple's religious abortion ritual." For example they're no longer required to listen to the fetus heartbeat or see the ultrasound, which is emotional manipulation. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/20/20 10:04:42 AM #144:	Unbridled9 posted... if you don't vote for us some evil republican will come in and remove your right to an abortion. I mean, this part seems true, though. They want to take away a woman's rights. If they was a way to transfer the baby to the man like seahorse so that they had to be responsible, I bet they'd sing a different tune about how abortion should be a right everyone has... I mean, people have done a lot to women in the past, so it's not that surprising... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:944851124] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>if you don't vote for us some evil republican will come in and remove your right to an abortion.</quote> I mean, this part seems true, though. They want to take away a woman's rights. If they was a way to transfer the baby to the man like seahorse so that they had to be responsible, I bet they'd sing a different tune about how abortion should be a right everyone has... I mean, people have done a lot to women in the past, so it's not that surprising...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TamiaSympa 09/20/20 10:49:55 AM #145:	Revelation34 posted... Nope. Your post is a flat out lie. The scriptures do not say the word abortion at all. I like how you picked that one site out of the thousands of biblical sites that actually say the scriptures accurately. Here's even the real scripture for your first bullshit example. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:22-25&version=NIV This is so blatantly wrong. This doesn't happen. It's just pro-life propaganda. I don't get why you are getting all worked up because of psalms I took on a site. You seem to be Pro-choice (at least, on this post.) I am Pro-Choice too. Let's not confront on semantics. And I said abortion was mentioned. I didn't say the word "Abortion" was mentioned. Whatever. I'm agnostic. I don't believe in religion but I am open to discuss about the possibilities. --- Fan of the Quantic Dream, Blizzard and Square Enix franchises. <cite>TamiaSympa posted [p:944852230] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Revelation34 posted... </cite> <quote>Nope. Your post is a flat out lie. The scriptures do not say the word abortion at all. I like how you picked that one site out of the thousands of biblical sites that actually say the scriptures accurately. Here's even the real scripture for your first bullshit example. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:22-25&version=NIV This is so blatantly wrong. This doesn't happen. It's just pro-life propaganda.</quote> I don't get why you are getting all worked up because of psalms I took on a site. You seem to be Pro-choice (at least, on this post.) I am Pro-Choice too. Let's not confront on semantics. And I said abortion was mentioned. I didn't say the word "Abortion" was mentioned. Whatever. I'm agnostic. I don't believe in religion but I am open to discuss about the possibilities. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 09/20/20 11:03:02 AM #146:	TamiaSympa posted... I don't get why you are getting all worked up because of psalms I took on a site. You seem to be Pro-choice (at least, on this post.) I am Pro-Choice too. Let's not confront on semantics. And I said abortion was mentioned. I didn't say the word "Abortion" was mentioned. Whatever. I'm agnostic. I don't believe in religion but I am open to discuss about the possibilities. You were wrong. Be a big boy about it. --- The Betrayer <cite>Mead posted [p:944852609] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>TamiaSympa posted... </cite> <quote>I don't get why you are getting all worked up because of psalms I took on a site. You seem to be Pro-choice (at least, on this post.) I am Pro-Choice too. Let's not confront on semantics. And I said abortion was mentioned. I didn't say the word "Abortion" was mentioned. Whatever. I'm agnostic. I don't believe in religion but I am open to discuss about the possibilities.</quote> You were wrong. Be a big boy about it. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/20/20 12:38:17 PM #147:	PBusted posted... universal healthcare, UBI, free college, ie socialism ie theft there is no such thing as "free stuff", and we can argue about that all we want but it's irrelevant since even if you elect democrats they will never implement those policies, they just use them as bait dangling in front of voters, Yang would have probably seriously issue ubi which is why the democrat party and mainstream media (but i repeat myself) did everything they could to make him lose mainly by not ever giving him attention or spotlight, right wing alternative media actually gave him more spotlight then normal media lol) weirdly enough there are actually plenty of states ruled entirely by democrats, some of them for decades at this point, why aren't they making those policies? in fact they were brought up and denied by democrats in their states several times, why is that? --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944855317] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>PBusted posted... </cite> <quote>universal healthcare, UBI, free college, ie socialism</quote> ie theft there is no such thing as "free stuff", and we can argue about that all we want but it's irrelevant since even if you elect democrats they will never implement those policies, they just use them as bait dangling in front of voters, Yang would have probably seriously issue ubi which is why the democrat party and mainstream media (but i repeat myself) did everything they could to make him lose mainly by not ever giving him attention or spotlight, right wing alternative media actually gave him more spotlight then normal media lol) weirdly enough there are actually plenty of states ruled entirely by democrats, some of them for decades at this point, why aren't they making those policies? in fact they were brought up and denied by democrats in their states several times, why is that? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wanded 09/20/20 12:39:48 PM #148:	LinkPizza posted... If not, then they probably should have done it earlier. Because while there is red tape sometimes stopping women from getting an abortion, I dont think it usually last up until a hour before birth. So, I guess thats another one on the already overcrowded adoption agency... why wouldn't you kill it thoug, it hasn't been born yet and you said the parameter for human is being born --- Puss in Boots was a good movie and it deserves more recognition <cite>Wanded posted [p:944855368] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>If not, then they probably should have done it earlier. Because while there is red tape sometimes stopping women from getting an abortion, I dont think it usually last up until a hour before birth. So, I guess thats another one on the already overcrowded adoption agency...</quote>why wouldn't you kill it thoug, it hasn't been born yet and you said the parameter for human is being born </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 09/20/20 12:44:29 PM #149:	Wanded posted... why wouldn't you kill it thoug, it hasn't been born yet and you said the parameter for human is being born lol my dude doing the Shapiro thing where he thinks logic is an if then yugioh match --- The Betrayer <cite>Mead posted [p:944855522] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>why wouldn't you kill it thoug, it hasn't been born yet and you said the parameter for human is being born</quote> lol my dude doing the Shapiro thing where he thinks logic is an if then yugioh match </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 09/20/20 12:46:16 PM #150:	Wanded posted... why wouldn't you kill it thoug, it hasn't been born yet and you said the parameter for human is being born Because while its still technically parasitic, it can survive on its own. And to get rid of it might actually be worse for person its attached to. And Im more worried about them being hurt. Plus, I read that a bunch of late term abortions resulted in accidentally birth, I guess. And I think a bunch of them are still alive today, according to one thing I read. At that point, its makes it more difficult on the state as you could have caused damage to it, meaning it cost more to care for then. So, at that point, might as well let it come out... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:944855587] in Why are le... [t:78986545]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted...</cite> <quote>why wouldn't you kill it thoug, it hasn't been born yet and you said the parameter for human is being born</quote> Because while its still technically parasitic, it can survive on its own. And to get rid of it might actually be worse for person its attached to. And Im more worried about them being hurt. Plus, I read that a bunch of late term abortions resulted in accidentally birth, I guess. And I think a bunch of them are still alive today, according to one thing I read. At that point, its makes it more difficult on the state as you could have caused damage to it, meaning it cost more to care for then. So, at that point, might as well let it come out...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Poll of the Day > Why are leftist so radical about abortion rights? (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Why are leftist so radical about abortion rights?