womens decisions basically always ruin lives actually...
womens decisions basically always ruin lives actually...
you need both men and women to make a baby to suggest otherwise meerly suggests your own stupidity
womens decisions basically always ruin lives actually...
...does anyone really have the right to dictate what they should do with their reproductive system? My answer is no. Reproductive matters are private and they do not merit public involvement.
They can do whatever they want with their bodies; If they spread their legs, they have exercised their "choice", after which there are consequences and obligations to a third party -- At that point the State has a legitimate interest at intervention. Were it not for the presence of a third party, no-one would care.
The other questions are entirely too rhetorical for me to engage, so I will refrain ...[/B]
curious how none of these advocates can speak plainly to what they're advocating -- killing a human being
look at the contortions in speech
womens decisions basically always ruin lives actually...
you need both men and women to make a baby to suggest otherwise meerly suggests your own stupidity
did you forget condoms and various forms of birth control?
If they spread their legs, they have exercised their "choice", after which there are consequences and obligations to a third party
FYI, the poster you're responding to is an fundamentalist creationist evangelical Christian misogynist who regularly espouses partyline talking points derived from extreme rightwing political propaganda, though allegedly and peculiarly he claims to be 100% gay, incongruous as that may seem. There might be some 'issues' there. Just thought you'd like to know that before you get too invested in meaningful 'logical' dialogue. :wink:Do you apply this same logic to men? If you got a ONS pregnant would you be as dedicated to the consequences and obligations? I'm sincerely interested in your answer, as one can easily postulate from your opinion that once a man has inserted himself he has made his "choice" as well. The great divide lies in the fact that women are left with the physical responsibility of the lives they carry. Men can choose to divest themselves of any responsibility, women can not...and ironically, these woman are chastised for decisions they didn't want to make alone to begin with.
Dear god, cross your legs you wanton women and devil's strumpets, and close the gates of Hell!!! :sasmokin:They can do whatever they want with their bodies; If they spread their legs, they have exercised their "choice",...
I'm merely providing an example of how difficult these reproductive decisions can be.
curious how none of these advocates can speak plainly to what they're advocating -- killing a human being
look at the contortions in speech
I'd guessed.FYI, the poster you're responding to is an fundamentalist creationist evangelical Christian misogynist who regularly espouses partyline talking points derived from extreme rightwing political propaganda,
But I'm more than happy to speak plainly. No one is guaranteed life and especially not at the cost of someone elses health. If the baby wants to walk out of the mothers body and do its own thing by itself,i have no objection to it doing so. I have every objection to any human claiming they have a right to use someone elses body to keep them alive, and even more objection if that particular human has no mental capacity. Now, the state might chooses to intervene and provide medical help to suffering humans, but I thought generally the US state didnt like doing that sort of thing. Leaving aside that slightly barbaric objection, I repeat, no one is guaranteed life. We are not gods. We make laws regulating how we live so as to provide the greatest good to the most. Heroic medical intervention does not do this. Torturing one human for the benefit of another is not moral.curious how none of these advocates can speak plainly to what they're advocating -- killing a human being
FYI, the poster you're responding to is an fundamentalist creationist evangelical Christian misogynist who regularly espouses partyline talking points derived from extreme rightwing political propaganda, though allegedly and peculiarly he claims to be 100% gay, incongruous as that may seem. There might be some 'issues' there. Just thought you'd like to know that before you get too invested in meaningful 'logical' dialogue. :wink:
Dear god, cross your legs you wanton women and devil's strumpets, and close the gates of Hell!!! :sasmokin:
I guess we'll just have to haul out the 'firehose' and put out the flames. :wink:I just got to see this, duly noted for future posts. I do have a question, though. What if the hellfire burns so hot that it forces the gates open?
I guess we'll just have to haul out the 'firehose' and put out the flames. :wink:
I decided to write a horror story about this. It's like the first step toward The Handmaid's Tale coming true.
The Handmaid's Tale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This film is showing in my town. It's cheaper for them to gestate your baby offshore, but maybe Georgia wants that business.
The film - Made in India
I'd guessed.
No one is guaranteed life and especially not at the cost of someone elses health.
Transposed onto other situations, that means the end of the fire, police, & military services!:smile:
I have every objection to any human claiming they have a right to use someone elses body to keep them alive, and even more objection if that particular human has no mental capacity.
That gets rid of the NHS - that'll save £100BN.:smile:
We are not gods.
We play God everytime we invent life saving drugs, medical techniques, or give aid to underdeveloped countries.
If you want to save some lives, stop using petrol, sponsor birth control in underdeveloped countries, reorganise company law so the poor can buy cheap drugs, stop eating meat...and so forth.
I found this story heartbreaking and then it made me mad:
Anti-abortion law forces parents to watch their 23 week-old child slowly suffocate to death.
The doctors told the Deavers that their baby had a ten percent chance of surviving even with heroic measures and a two percent chance, if she survived, of ever being able to perform even basic functions, like feeding herself. So even if she survived, the childs quality of life would be nonexistent. A severely damaged body with almost guaranteed brain damage.
Can you imagine the horror of learning this? Can you imagine having to decide whether or not to inflict such a life onto your child? A shortened life of physical and mental suffering if the pregnancy managed to go full term or several minutes of pain and inevitable death if it didnt. The Deavers chose to end the pregnancy rather than put their own flesh and blood through such torture.
And then they were told they couldnt because an anti-abortion billed passed only two months earlier made no exceptions except for the mothers immediate health. Their doctor was too afraid of the repercussions of this blatantly humane decision and refused to terminate the doomed pregnancy. Essentially, they were told you MUST force your baby to suffer because the GOP is pro-life.
Pro-life. What a sick joke.
The Deavers could have traveled over state lines to find a doctor who would put their child out if its misery, but Danielle was too distraught to go shopping for an abortion provider.
Anti-abortion law forces parents to watch their 23 week-old child slowly suffocate to death. |
What does that matter? According to the anti-abortionists it was their "Lord's will". :rolleyes2:This literally just brought tears to my eyes. These people are traumatized for life now because the law wouldn't allow them to do the humane thing.