Why the Pro-Choice movement is a complete joke

So you include rape and incest as not good enough reasons for an abortion then?

 

OMgosh, you can read.

- - - Updated - - -

This statement will put this radically liberal group over the edge. They will be up all night coming up with responses to this one. LOL

 

According to this rabidly pro-abort crowd....no. It's the woman's body...so anything she does to it should be allowed...including trying to harm intentionally or unintelligently does not matter. Its her right to kill it....even into the ninth month. They celebrate this right and the power women have.
They say they stand on choice...yet some take the womans choice away...by saying that she can't abort in later terms. Hypocritical position

 

LOL! They weren't

 

yeah i proved that in my other thread. even if theyres other options they still support the right to kill.

 

That's not quite the question.

Could a mother, once declared sane, dispute a decision to terminate her child if the state made the choice when she was under their care?

Basically, The power to commit a mother to the care of the state stems from the mother's inability to make rational decisions on her own. Her rights at this time are suspended, and exercised by the state. She cannot be said to want, or not want her child, so the state might have to make that choice for her. Would the protection of the child fall under the unborn victims of violence act, or would the state become "the mother" by acting on her behalf and thus be protected by the right to privacy?

 

RTL believes that women who use RU-486...should be "executed for murder".

And sadly...it's not a JOKE to him.

 

The fact that the preborn are not "people" (persons) was not established by those that are Pro-Choice. That is a case of historical fact establised by historical legal precendent. Stating a historical fact is not merely someone "saying" something.

And, of course, the "preborn" are not "children" as childhood begins at birth so the anti-abortionists have fabricated a false definition of "child" so, in fact, it's the anti-abortionists that are just "saying" something and what they are stating is a blatant lie based upon all historical precedent.

BTW most of us that are Pro-Choice are also Pro-Life as well. What we do recognize, which the anti-abortionists refuse to recognize, is that the woman is a person with the inalienable Right of Sovereignty over her own body. Why do anti-abortionists oppose the inalienable Rights of the Woman?

 

you answered the question yourself. because we are pro life. we value innocent life. if we dont value all of it, we value none of it TBH. thats what you have to realize. woman does have rights to her own body, doesnt mean she has the right to kill an innocent human.

we also believe that life is the key right. the right to life. if you dont have that right, if we all dont have that right. then all other rights are meaningless here in america

 

Every pregnancy is a threat to a woman's life. Why do you think you have a right to threaten a woman's life with mandatory pregnancy?

 

Uh no.

This is unequivocally untrue. Pregnancy is a biological process that has functioned for millions of years before doctors came along and proclaimed it a medical condition that requires hospitalization for the protection of the mother. This is no more true than claiming that every defecation is a threat to a woman's life due to the death rate of people in the process of pooping.

 

The "Right to Life" is based upon the inalienable Right of the Person but there is no historical precedent establishing the "preborn" are persons. That precedent certainly isn't reflected by either historical law or the US Constitution and this was an undisputed fact by both sides of the legal arguments in Roe v Wade.

My issue with "anti-abortionists" is that they intentionally misrepresent the facts in attempting to present their arguments. If their arguments are valid then there is no logical reason for lying. The "preborn" are not nor have they ever been "children" historically so why lie about it? The Right to Life only exists for "persons" as all inalienable Rights relate only to Persons. The woman is a Person and has inalienable Rights but the preborn are not "persons" based upon historical legal precedent and therefore have no inalienable Rights. Why lie about these facts.

On the flip side there are those like myself that are Pro-Choice/Pro-Life and I don't have to resort to lying in presenting my arguments. I have historical facts on my side. I can call for a Constitutional Amendment to establish the "personhood" of the "preborn" but understand that there are many legal and pragmatic considerations to this. I know, for example, that two person's cannot have conflicting Rights so a line must be drawn between the Rights of the Woman and the Rights of the Preborn even if the Personhood of the Preborn is established based upon a Constitutional Amendment. I can be honest but the "anti-Abortionists" appear to be unwilling to ever be honest in their arguments.

Why would I or anyone be convinced of anything by those that are dishonest and downright liars in presenting their arguments?

If there is a "joke" then it's those that are literally lying in virtually all of their arguments related to abortion and that's the anit-Abortionists and not Pro-Choice/Pro-Life individuals such as myself that are involved in these discussions.

 

That precedent is called the unborn victims of violence act of 2004.

 

And many, MANY women died from childbirth before medicine became involved to help save their lives. In fact the death toll for women dying from complications due to pregnancy and childbirth is still the leading cause of death for women worldwide.

 

And many woman die as a direct result of the intervention that medical professionals attempt.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/pregnancy-and-parenting/pregnancy/labor-delivery/c-section2.htm

But that's not really the point. The statement I responded to was "Every pregnancy is a threat to a woman's life." That statement is not true.

 

This did not impart "personhood" to the preborn and actually relates to the violation of the Rights of the Woman based upon the assault of the woman that would result in the loss of the fetus. In court decisions it was noted that even if the attacker didn't know that the woman was pregnant that the intent of the law was to provide additional protections to the woman that is pregnant. The law is based upon the inalienable Rights of the Woman and the protection of her Rights under the law. A pregnant woman that loses the fetus because of a violent assault on her has suffered a greater loss than a woman that is not pregnant and doesn't suffer the loss of a fetus. There can be no violation of the law if the woman is not assaulted. There is no foundation for the law related to the "fetus" as the "fetus" does not have Rights that can be violated.

 

You have misread the law.

The law establishes that the killing of an unborn child is a separate offense from killing the mother, and the law establishes that the offense is intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. Human beings are persons.

 

Yep and I can think for myself as well, which is more than the rabid chirstians can do

 

Actually it is true as risks can be threatening and every pregnancy carries with it the risk to endanger one's life and health. If a person must face risks they should have the right to choose whether or not they wish to risk their health and lives.

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-i...#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm

 

If every pregnancy was a threat to a woman's life the human race would not exist. The most likely outcome in the average pregnancy is a healthy baby and a healthy mother.

 

Every pregnancy carries with it risk and every pregnancy has the risk of going from perfectly normal to horribly wrong. The risk is there and is proven by the phenomenal number of women who have died from complications due to pregnancy and childbirth and the number of women who continue to die every single day due to complications from pregnancy and childbirth. How do you justify stripping women of their right to reduce or remove serious potential serious risks for their own health and lives?

 

Yup and if men had to face all that there'd be a free abortion kiosk on every street corner...


However, since we're dealing with misogynist control freaks that list only delights them......