Why does the abortion crowd not respect pro-lifers' right to free speech?

That's only because women are the ONLY section of society who can get pregnant. Abortion only applies to them.

 

nice big wide brush you are using there, care to read my response as a pro-choice person, or will you continue to use those myopic lenses.

now I wonder will you retract your generalization or just make excuses.

 

Ditto to pro-lifers.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, so you admit to discrimination based on gender . .thank you.

 

It doesn't make any sense to compare a fetus with a rapist, because the fetus is innocent.

A lawyer said that pregnancy isn't an injury.

- - - Updated - - -

Abortion is discrimination based on age, since it only affects those between 1 second-9 months of existence.

 

WTF has this to do with my comment, where do I even mention rapists in my reply .. trying to go off topic again I see Sam.

and I can show you numerous cases where both lawyers and judges say it is, I can also quote you at least two state laws that say it is .. but you know that already as I have done so on a couple of occasions already in response to the very same comment you have made numerous times before.

Begging the question again I see .. prove that a zef from 1 second to 9 months is a human being.

Tell me Sam when do you measure your age from, is it from your conception (which you don't even know the date for) or from your birth?
when does you birth certificate measure your age from Sam
When will your driving license measure your age from Sam

etc etc etc

 

Many pro choicers have said that a person's right to life can be overriden if they are using another person's body without their consent. For example, a woman can use deadly force against a rapist. However, that cannot justify abortion, because fetuses are innocent, unlike rapists or kidnappers.

Abortion laws only affect women, because MEN CANNOT GET PREGNANT.

 

It has nothing to do with perceived innocence...the comparison was that a rapist and a fetus are the same because they are using the woman's body without her consent...the fetus doesn't have more rights than a rapist whether it's innocent or not...again, innocence has NOTHING to do with it.

 

Which has what to do with the comment you originally replied to .. off topic again.

so you are advocating laws of a discriminating nature . .good to know that you don't support your constitution.

 

Discrimination is allowing one group to do something that another group cannot. For example, during the 1800s, whites could vote, but blacks couldn't vote. That's discrimination. Laws against abortion are not discrimination. Do laws against abortion allow men to have abortions? Nope.

 

O'Reilly is one man, but did his followers denounce his rhetoric, calling Dr. Tiller a "baby killer" on 29 occasions? No, actually he received a "Media Courage" award from the Family Research Council:

“Bill O'Reilly has never shied away from denouncing late-term abortions and the handful of doctors who perform them. In the aftermath of George Tiller's murder, O'Reilly became an easy target for the liberal media who tried to pin some of the blame on Bill, saying he incited the violence by decrying these unnecessary procedures on his show. Despite the unfair allegations, O'Reilly spoke the truth, bringing new light to a gruesome procedure. On behalf of our co-sponsors and millions of values voters, we want to express our gratitude to a culture warrior.”
http://www.newshounds.us/2009/09/20/bill_oreillys_courage_award_speech_smears_dr_tiller_and_his_patients.php

But O'Reilly is certainly not the only one who uses extreme rhetoric. You can see it at almost any abortion clinic protest, or even at the homes of abortion providers. See photo:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katherine-spillar/kansas-abortion-doctor-ta_b_830592.html

 

if that was speech, then the vandalism was also speech...

 

pro-lifers have been known to kill people in churches while their victims are helping with church services...


.

 

First of all, I'm not "pro-life" and the issue is really free speech, not abortion.

I've considered your request, and while I compliment you on actually wanting to put up a competing display, rather than merely stomping on a pro life one, you didn't exactly claim that even if you disagreed with that viewpoint you would defend to the death their right to say it. That used to be a common talking point on the left (and on the right) and although we can quibble about the seriousness of anyone in particular deciding to defend an opposing viewpoint with their life, I at least accept the sentiment. That's vanished from the left, so although I rate you a step above the typical leftist in not merely responding to an alternative view with "shut up!" I can't say I have any reason to retract a generalization. It's generally true.

 

As usual you are wrong;

Discrimination - The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex: - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/discrimination

Legal Definition - unequal treatment of persons, for a reason which has nothing to do with legal rights or ability. - http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=532

do you just post inane comments for the sake of it

 

Sorry it is not true in any way shape or form, and just because I don't actually state that I would "defend to the death their right to say it" does not change the fact that I fully support ALL peoples right to free speech and certainly do not condone or accept those who would attempt to stifle it.

IMO there is far to much generalization going on and people need to point it out when ever it occurs. Pro-lifers would jump on me from a great height if I started stating all the time that they are ALL just a bunch of religious fruitcakes.

BTW I didn't say you were pro-life.

 

1. First point, the vandalism is unacceptable but is in no way representative of the pro-choice crowd generally.
2. These women should expect to be belittled for their backward and irrational beliefs. However they should not expect destruction of demonstrations, which is unacceptable.
3. A less important point here, there is no such thing as something that is 'unborn.' It's a nonsensical word unless applied in retrospect.