There is Everything Wrong with Abortion

Life is worth it wrote:

<quoted text>But if she sees it as her unborn child she may very well change her mind.

Ultrasounds are already done for crying out loud, they are not forced to look, you can't force them to look and you can't put words in the mouths of the doctor performing the ultrasound. That is exactly what PL is pushing for and that is a violation of the freedom of speech. You want him to be required to turn the screen around and say, "do you want to look at your baby one last time"? Laughable if you think that will ever happen.

T-Town Clown wrote:

<quoted text>then whats it gonna hurt???? what if they wise up and say OMG I'am gonna kill my own child...!!!!!!!

Then I would worry about her mental state. A girl doesn't make an appointment for an abortion because she thinks she's going to a Justin Bieber concert and if she doesn't know what she's doing there she needs a psychological evaluation.

Are all the women in your neck of the woods as stupid as you indicate they are or is it just the ones in your family?

Ocean56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly. A woman who never wanted to get pregnant or have a child in the first place isn't likely to have her mind changed by seeing an ultrasound.

They have this image in their head that what they will see is a 25 weeker with arms and legs and facial features. At 9 weeks when the majority of abortions are performed it is about the size of an olive and looks like a white circle in gray background when viewing an US. The doctor is not going to say "here's a picture of your baby", he's going to say "the embryo is about one inch and weighs less than an ounce" if he says anything at all.

Life is worth it wrote:

<quoted text>He NEVER said anything about RAPE! If she consented even with being 13 it is NOT RAPE!
It is also not a good idea for a thirteen year old to become pregnant but he also said he supported her and loved her through it. Sounds like a pretty terrific father to me.

You need to research the laws, in no state is the age of consent 13. It is rape. He was 17, he knew exactly what he was doing, he knew exactly what could happen and I guarantee you he never offered to use a condom. At 13 there is no way she fully understood the consequences of her actions from the time she conceived to the day she gave birth. Thirteen year olds are not mature enough to be having sex and this is why there are laws against 17 year olds having sex with little girls and boys.

Ocean56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Cherry!:::waving::: I had the same question. I wonder if this anti-choicer will bother answering it.:-)

Hey Ocean. Happy Holiday.

Lyndi wrote:

<quoted text>
Then I would worry about her mental state. A girl doesn't make an appointment for an abortion because she thinks she's going to a Justin Bieber concert and if she doesn't know what she's doing there she needs a psychological evaluation.
Are all the women in your neck of the woods as stupid as you indicate they are or is it just the ones in your family?

I live in the same state as you..

AyakaNeo wrote:

<quoted text>
News flash for you bubba, it a violation of the right to privacy. If a man and woman have sex and she gets pregnant, she doesn't have to walk around with a big protruding belly showing the world she did have sex. If you don't understand it, the USN will teach you that you don't have to specifically support any one right, but they will teach you it is your duty to defend them all.
<quoted text>Now you understand why the right to privacy and autonomy must stand.

As I've stated before, these rights such as those to privacy apply up to the point at which someone else's rights are compromised. I think we can establish that we both agree upon that matter, but not the matter of whether or not abortion is a human rights violation.

T-Town Clown wrote:

The unborn must be protected from the evil dumb @$$ bimbos
GO TO HELL PRO-CHOICE

Do we really need to be that antagonistic? I wish people on these threads would express their opinons in a more mature manner.

Metal 0-4 wrote:

<quoted text> Do we really need to be that antagonistic? I wish people on these threads would express their opinons in a more mature manner.

And I wish you weren't a sock puppet troll, LightForce. That 5 month hiatus from this you were supposed to take was just another one of your lies so you could reinvent yourself.

You cannot disguise stupid, son.

Metal 0-4 wrote:

<quoted text> Do we really need to be that antagonistic? I wish people on these threads would express their opinons in a more mature manner.

Leave the clown alone. GFY. ESAD!

Metal 0-4 wrote:

<quoted text> As I've stated before, these rights such as those to privacy apply up to the point at which someone else's rights are compromised. I think we can establish that we both agree upon that matter, but not the matter of whether or not abortion is a human rights violation.

Whose human rights?

Lyndi wrote:

<quoted text>
Heck of a speech, son.
Now take the word "GUNS" you listed first in your list of favorite things in your bio, tell me no innocent person is killed in the profession you're choosing and you'll almost have a leg to stand on. Besides, you're too emotional to be a navy SEAL but I'll bet you'll look just dandy in one of those little sailor hats.
Anchors aweigh!

Navy SEALs (like other special forces [maybe except Rangers lol]) use PRECISION. That's why I like them. It's like using a scalpel as a weapon as opposed to a battleaxe (like Rangers do lol), and that's what I prefer. They don't kill civies, and I'd rather die than kill one myself. In fact, if I was given an order to shoot one by my commanding officer, I'd be aiming my weapon in HIS direction......... And I'm not emotional. I might be determined to get my point across, but I can be pretty cold-hearted (which is what you have to be for that occupation).

Metal 0-4 wrote:

<quoted text> As I've stated before, these rights such as those to privacy apply up to the point at which someone else's rights are compromised. I think we can establish that we both agree upon that matter, but not the matter of whether or not abortion is a human rights violation.

But no one else's right to privacy is being compromised when a pregnancy or an abortion occurs. Therefore terminating a pregnancy is not a human rights violation. But illegalizing it altogether is. Human rights are those little inalienable fundamental thingers that BORN PERSONS have simply because they are a human being. A fetus is not a BORN PERSON, therefore it is not a HUMAN BEING entitled to HUMAN RIGHTS. If it is not entitled to HUMAN RIGHTS, legal abortion is not a HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION. When HUMAN BEINGS are denied the same rights as every other BORN PERSONS it then becomes a HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION. As those BORN PERSONS in areas of Brazil, Africa and other poverty stricken countries where women have no reproductive rights and BORN PERSONS are being abandoned in the streets, left out in the heat of the sun to decompose, or put into garbage bags and thrown in the nearest waterway.

Metal 0-4 wrote:

<quoted text> Navy SEALs (like other special forces [maybe except Rangers lol]) use PRECISION. That's why I like them. It's like using a scalpel as a weapon as opposed to a battleaxe (like Rangers do lol), and that's what I prefer. They don't kill civies, and I'd rather die than kill one myself. In fact, if I was given an order to shoot one by my commanding officer, I'd be aiming my weapon in HIS direction......... And I'm not emotional. I might be determined to get my point across, but I can be pretty cold-hearted (which is what you have to be for that occupation).

You're a wuss.
FO

Ocean56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Like it or not, raising a child, from infancy to adulthood, is EXPENSIVE. Only a fool denies that. If some women choose not to be mothers for ANY reason, be it expense or anything else, that is HER choice, and none of your business.
By the way, ALL contraceptive methods can and DO fail. There is NO contraceptive that is 100% guaranteed against unwanted pregnancy, which means that even with careful use of birth control, the possibility of pregnancy still exists.
Motherhood is OPTIONAL, not required, even if a pregnancy happens because a woman's birth control method failed.

There is one contraceptive method that NEVER fails, and that is abstinence. If an unmarried couple feels the need to engage in sexual activity, it would be smarter to limit it to non-penetrative sexual acts. Besides, from what I've read, receiving oral sex is a woman's PREFERRED method of sexual satisfaction anyway..........

Metal 0-4 wrote:

<quoted text> There is one contraceptive method that NEVER fails, and that is abstinence. If an unmarried couple feels the need to engage in sexual activity, it would be smarter to limit it to non-penetrative sexual acts. Besides, from what I've read, receiving oral sex is a woman's PREFERRED method of sexual satisfaction anyway..........

Lyndi and I agree very little, but I think she is right about you being lightforce, you sound just like him.

Metal 0-4 wrote:

<quoted text> There is one contraceptive method that NEVER fails, and that is abstinence. If an unmarried couple feels the need to engage in sexual activity, it would be smarter to limit it to non-penetrative sexual acts. Besides, from what I've read, receiving oral sex is a woman's PREFERRED method of sexual satisfaction anyway..........

lol-
Says The Vigin Harry.

No woman has ever begged you for "IT," have they? I'm sorry. It must be very wee.

Metal 0-4 wrote:

<quoted text> There is one contraceptive method that NEVER fails, and that is abstinence. If an unmarried couple feels the need to engage in sexual activity, it would be smarter to limit it to non-penetrative sexual acts. Besides, from what I've read, receiving oral sex is a woman's PREFERRED method of sexual satisfaction anyway..........

If you want to keep your man (and I love a good hard johnson as well as an agile tongue), whether one is married or unmarried, abstinence is out of the question.

I get so tired of you asexual dictatorial azzoles.

CherryTheTart wrote:

<quoted text>
If you want to keep your man (and I love a good hard johnson as well as an agile tongue), whether one is married or unmarried, abstinence is out of the question.
I get so tired of you asexual dictatorial azzoles.

Well, men you have to engage in sexual activity with to keep are REALLY shallow. Sex isn't EVERYTHING in a relationship. That's one of the things wrong with our society, and it makes me sick. I'm a male, but it seems like men are such cockroaches and I'm one of the very few exceptions to the rule.

You did not prove where SCOTUS has said it's your business or anyone elses if a woman has an early term abortion. Because the FACT is, SCOTUS made it a privacy issue for women. Which means it's none of your business. I very specifically stated EARLY TERM abortion, and am not talking about the restrictions put on late term abortions. Learn to read.
Stating you provided facts does not mean that you did.

Grunt56 wrote:

<quoted text>
I did. Odd that you ignore it AGAIN.
Pretending I didn't post it isn't a rebuttal.