Mississippi down to one abortion clinic

[WelshBloke]

Oppress women? Really?

If a woman is oppressed because she is held responsible for her actions, then I am oppressed for having to pay child support.




Control? Really?

You want to talk about control? Lets talk about the thousands of men who are sent to jail every year for not paying child support.

When a man is held responsible for his actions, that is called justice.

When a woman is held responsible, that is control.

If everyone is created equal, when are we deserving of our rights? When we are born? Are we going to be selective of who has a right to life?

Pretty sure that the legal system would frown on a woman who refuses to feed or shelter her child as well.

 

[fskimospy]

Her rights stop when they infringe upon the rights of others. In this case her rights should stop when she wants to murder the unborn child.

Unfortunately our society does not give fetuses or embryos the same rights as people. This is because they are rational.

 

[nehalem256]

When they're born and no longer dependent on their mother's body for survival.

Why is that question so tough for you?

Is it really that hard for you to stay on topic? We're not talking about the civil rights of children in orphanages or people on welfare. Those are completely and utterly different then a fetus or a born baby.

I am actually seeing a lot of similarities there. Seems like in the first case you are saying a fetus is not a person because it is dependent on someone else for survival. Seems like the same could be said for someone on welfare.

So I guess under your logic poor people don't really count as a people.:\

 

[Texashiker]

Is it really that hard for you to stay on topic? We're not talking about the civil rights of children in orphanages or people on welfare. Those are completely and utterly different then a fetus or a born baby.

Part of your argument is that since the unborn child is dependent upon the mother, the mother has a right to make decisions for it, including killing the child.

So, if a child is in an orphanage, does the orphanage have the right to make life and death decisions?

None of us are truly independent. We are dependent on our employer, dependent on others to grow our food, dependent on others to make sure we have electricity, dependent on others to make sure we have safe drinking water,,,,,.

Dependence can not be a standard to measure civil rights.

Unfortunately our society does not give fetuses or embryos the same rights as people. This is because they are rational.

As I have stated dozens of times in this thread, 500+ years of documented history proves you wrong.

Society has no right to say if a certain group of people should or should not receive their civil rights. Everyone from the time of creation is entitled to their civil rights.

That is all there is to it. "Everyone" is entitled to their rights. There is no picking and choosing.

 

[fskimospy]

I am actually seeing a lot of similarities there. Seems like in the first case you are saying a fetus is not a person because it is dependent on someone else for survival. Seems like the same could be said for someone on welfare.

So I guess under your logic poor people don't really count as a people.:\

It's almost as if they view monetary support and actual requirement of being alive as two different things.

Then again, they aren't stupid and afflicted with a pathological hatred of women.

 

[fskimospy]

Part of your argument is that since the unborn child is dependent upon the mother, the mother has a right to make decisions for it, including killing the child.

So, if a child is in an orphanage, does the orphanage have the right to make life and death decisions?

None of us are truly independent. We are dependent on our employer, dependent on others to grow our food, dependent on others to make sure we have electricity, dependent on others to make sure we have safe drinking water,,,,,.

Dependence can not be a standard to measure civil rights.


As I have stated dozens of times in this thread, 500+ years of documented history proves you wrong.

Society has no right to say if a certain group of people should or should not receive their civil rights. Everyone from the time of creation is entitled to their civil rights.

That is all there is to it. "Everyone" is entitled to their rights. There is no picking and choosing.

This is because you don't understand what facts and evidence are. History most certainly doesn't prove me wrong. If anything, history proves me right.

You would be well served to study history before making any more claims about it. It might keep you from doing embarrassing things like quoting Thomas Jefferson in an argument against abortion.

 

[alzan]

Part of your argument is that since the unborn fetus is dependent upon the mother, the mother has a right to make decisions for it, including killing the fetus. <snip - off topic nonsense or not addressed to me>

FTFY. A child is born, a fetus is not a child.

That is the argument, period. A non-viable fetus is completely dependent on it's mother for nutrition, elimination of waste, etc. She is making the decision for herself, for her health and well-being. She has the constitutionally guaranteed and protected civil rights.

 

[abj13]

So when are we going to prosecute physicians and pregnant women for undergoing the treatment of choice for ectopic pregnancies? A woman who gets an ectopic pregnancy is supposed to attempt to carry a pregnancy that will most likely kill her?

How about a molar pregnancy? That's a person too, according to some of the bad logic around here, isn't it?

 

[Victorian Gray]

I am actually seeing a lot of similarities there. Seems like in the first case you are saying a fetus is not a person because it is dependent on someone else for survival. Seems like the same could be said for someone on welfare.

So I guess under your logic poor people don't really count as a people.:\

Why do you keep using the word logic in your posts? It's obvious that you have no idea what the word actually means.

Pretending that the words that you string together follow any kind of rational thought process is pretty silly on your part.

 

[Texashiker]

History most certainly doesn't prove me wrong. If anything, history proves me right.

History proves you wrong.

People such as yourself would minimize the value of life, just like the Romans, the Egyptians, the Mayans, Stalin, Pol Pot,,, and everyone else who slaughtered people "because."

FTFY. A child is born, a fetus is not a child.

When does a person get their rights? When they are created, born, 5 years old, 10 years old, 15 years old???

That is the argument, period. A non-viable fetus is completely dependent on it's mother for nutrition, elimination of waste, etc. She is making the decision for herself, for her health and well-being. She has the constitutionally guaranteed and protected civil rights.

You can not use dependance as a factor as to whether or not someone deserves civil rights.

 

[alzan]

When does a person get their rights? When they are created, born, 5 years old, 10 years old, 15 years old???



You can not use dependance as a factor as to whether or not someone deserves civil rights.

Legally I think it's at viability or birth, but I could be wrong; it's happened at least once before.

In the case of abortion, I'm pretty sure they can and do use the non-viable fetuses dependence on the mother. Once viability (~27 weeks) or birth happens, the fetus or child is no longer solely dependent on the mother for it's physiological needs.

 

[tommo123]

Blacks, Jews and Indians are not really people either. We know how well that mindset worked out.

Your argument that an unborn child is not entitled to civil rights has been proven wrong with over 500 years of documented history.

you're ignoring the simple fact that in spite of how much you might preach about it and blurt out random invalid comparisons, a lot of us don't consider a foetus either a person or a child.

and re your 2nd point - no it hasn't. men owned women during those times and men wanted to breed and have an heir. even the poor wanted more farmhands etc so the idea of women having control of their bodies was nipped in the bud. and that's the kind of mindset you're exalting here,just under the guise of caring about a bunch of cells that could develop into a human.

if you put forward a rational argument then there could be some kind of discourse here but you don't. you keep bringing random strawman arguments equating sucking out a month old foetus with gassing a jew and throwing them in an oven.

every egg a woman allows to bleed out "could" be a person too. and considering your (apparent) desire to remove womens rights, should they be bred with against their will to prevent such a tragic loss of life?

 

[Texashiker]

you're ignoring the simple fact that in spite of how much you might preach about it and blurt out random invalid comparisons, a lot of us don't consider a foetus either a person or a child.

The same thing was said about blacks, jews and various other groups of people. What valid reason do you have for stripping a certain demographic of its civil rights?

If you dare say a fetus is not a person, where would have have stood on slavery? It is pretty clear where you would have stood. You would have been beating your chest and declaring blacks are not real people and do not deserve equal rights.

When the US Army would slaughter Indian tribes, was that ok because Indians are not real people, they are just savages.

so the idea of women having control of their bodies was nipped in the bud. and that's the kind of mindset you're exalting here,just under the guise of caring about a bunch of cells that could develop into a human.

You are absolutly wrong. A woman has control of her body, that is until she fringes on the rights of the child.

Right to life is a basic human right.

if you put forward a rational argument then there could be some kind of discourse here but you don't. you keep bringing random strawman arguments equating sucking out a month old foetus with gassing a jew and throwing them in an oven.

Strawman, really? Is that what you call value of human life?

People such as yourself probably would have upheld slavery, slaughter of native americans, and would have no problem with ethnic cleansing. That tribe over there, they are not real people like us, so lets go slaughter them.

Events like the Bosnian genocide&#8206; are because of people like you.

 

[brycejones]

History proves you wrong.

People such as yourself would minimize the value of life, just like the Romans, the Egyptians, the Mayans, Stalin, Pol Pot,,, and everyone else who slaughtered people "because."

You forgot to call him Hitler, that would have made your point more effective. Your leaps of logic are amazing.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I can not believe the arguments being put forth in support of the pro life. Comparing women who chose to have an abortion to evil people in history is asinine. Though I would prefer that people make wise choices (birth control) prior to having sex, I support the right of women to abort the pregnancy rather than the child being born into poverty and/or being unwanted.

 

[nehalem256]

It's almost as if they view monetary support and actual requirement of being alive as two different things.

Then again, they aren't stupid and afflicted with a pathological hatred of women.

Woman gives the fetus nutrition, without which it would die.

Society gives the poor person nutrition, without which it would die.

Seems pretty comparable. Seems like society should be able to "abort" poor people.

 

[nehalem256]

No, they both have to support it. Equality for all.

Equality for all in the same way that radical Islamists stoning both the rapist and rape victim. They both had sex outside of marriage so they both have to get stoned. Equality for all!

 

[fskimospy]

Woman gives the fetus nutrition, without which it would die.

Society gives the poor person nutrition, without which it would die.

Seems pretty comparable. Seems like society should be able to "abort" poor people.

One might view the nutrition and environment provided by a mother to a fetus to money given to someone by society. Again though, that would require a pretty heavy dose of stupidity, probably mixed with some mental illness.

Lucky for you, you've got both!

 

[fskimospy]

Equality for all in the same way that radical Islamists stoning both the rapist and rape victim. They both had sex outside of marriage so they both have to get stoned. Equality for all!

Nope, equality for all in that both parents share an equal level of responsibility at all times.

I understand that you hate equality because it doesn't allow you to punish women as much as you want to, but that's something for you and your therapist to discuss.

 

[artvscommerce]

i don't understand why this TH guy hates freedom and women so much.

 

[Texashiker]

Nope, equality for all in that both parents share an equal level of responsibility at all times.

Bull crap.

I have to hold a job and pay child support or I got to jail. Thankfully I am on my last month and I will be free. May is my last child support payment. After that I will no longer be oppressed.

Isn't that what you call it when people are held responsible for their actions, oppressed? I have been oppressed for 14 years. This is the last month of my financial slavery.

Yet my ex-wife does not spend any quality time with the kids, lets them miss so many days of school my daughter fails a year.

In your mind you "think" both parents are held to the same level of responsibility. In reality the truth is far from it.

i don't understand why this TH guy hates freedom and women so much.

Women are free to pick the form of birth control that suits them.

Maybe you should be asking my women hate themselves and why women hate children.

If skinheads were killing blacks at the same rate women kill their children, the federal government would take some kind of action.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I can not believe the arguments being put forth in support of the pro life. Comparing women who chose to have an abortion to evil people in history is asinine. Though I would prefer that people make wise choices (birth control) prior to having sex, I support the right of women to abort the pregnancy rather than the child being born into poverty and/or being unwanted.

/thread.

seriously people, let it drop now.

 

[Texashiker]

I support the right of women to abort the pregnancy rather than the child being born into poverty and/or being unwanted.

/thread.

seriously people, let it drop now.

So ch33zw1z, you support population control for certain demographics?

Abortion targets low income families. Its not like planned parenthood is going to setup shop in an upper class white neighborhood.

As long as the child is being born into poverty it is ok to kill it.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So ch33zw1z, you support population control for certain demographics?

Abortion targets low income families. Its not like planned parenthood is going to setup shop in an upper class white neighborhood.

As long as the child is being born into poverty it is ok to kill it.

Let me guess, you think that women who belong to affluent households do not get abortions.

 

[Texashiker]

Let me guess, you think that women who belong to affluent households do not get abortions.

I imagine women who are well off probably get abortions.

As long as society aligns itself with killing an unborn child is saving it from a lifetime of drugs and poverty, abortion is easier to tolerate.

If you want to know the real purpose of organizations like planned parenthood,

We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population

Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence

http://www.houstoncoalition.com/index.cfm?load=page&page=284