Political Crossfire Forums

joe christian · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 282

trawick wrote: Let's be honest: this is about sex, isn't it? .....

If you're so "pro-life," you'd have a whole lot more to take issue with in this country than fetuses being aborted.
Actually, it is all about rights, and the kind of country and society we and our children are forced to live in.

It is about the religious will and rights of the majority being suppressed by the secular and atheistic will of a very small minority of pro-feminist and pro-abortion fanatics.

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

OK, im bored, Ill bite again.....

Quote: Well, at least you agree that lies are bad. Now, are you going to clarify how one of your two contradictory claims is not a lie?

I will clarify.....My claim was that I was for the preservation of life, and the prevention of death.....I made this claim, ON AN ABORTION BOARD! I see youre having a hard time understanding this. So my claim, was directed towards the issue of abortion. When it comes to abortion, im not out to control women, only to preserve life, and prevent death.

You are right about one thing, responsibility and "fault" have something to do with it. But its not the bottom line, as you are making it out to be. And I DO believe in preserving all life, but youre trying to apply a claim I made towards the abortion issue, to all other aspects of life. Again, you try and twist my words, and make them mean what you want them to...And yes, responsibility does have something to do with it.

You fail to grasp the concept of responsibility, and you fail to grasp the concept of innocence....

With most abortions, a mother is preventing a life from being born, that she was directly responsible for creating....I choose to preserve that life, and prevent its death....If the one who is responsible for creating that life is inconvenienced a bit, I think thats justified.....

Responsibility for ones own actions is a basic principle of life....One you dont seem to understand.

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5633 Location: Fulton, Ks

joe christian wrote: trawick wrote: Let's be honest: this is about sex, isn't it? .....

If you're so "pro-life," you'd have a whole lot more to take issue with in this country than fetuses being aborted.
Actually, it is all about rights, and the kind of country and society we and our children are forced to live in.

It is about the religious will and rights of the majority being suppressed by the secular and atheistic will of a very small minority of pro-feminist and pro-abortion fanatics.

Minority? www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: I will clarify.....My claim was that I was for the preservation of life, and the prevention of death.....I made this claim, ON AN ABORTION BOARD! I see youre having a hard time understanding this. So my claim, was directed towards the issue of abortion. When it comes to abortion, im not out to control women, only to preserve life, and prevent death. But you can't do this without controlling women.

Quote: You are right about one thing, responsibility and "fault" have something to do with it. Why? Whose morals about sex are valid here? And how does it give the right to intrude into others sex life?

Quote: But its not the bottom line, as you are making it out to be. And I DO believe in preserving all life, but youre trying to apply a claim I made towards the abortion issue, to all other aspects of life. Of course. Unless you see the embryo as MORE life than the kidney patient, you can't justify only forcing the pregnant woman but not anybody else to give bodily resources.

You are saying that the fetus is enough life that a person can be forced to give bodily resources to keep it alive. You are saying that the kidney patient is NOT enough person that a person can be forced to give bodily resources to keep him alive. So it is NOT the life thing that is central to the decision. That leaves the point about being at fault. THAT is the distinction you make between the kidney patient and the fetus. They are both life, and the only point in your argument that differentiates is whether the woman or the kidney donor is at fault.

So yes, it does come down to fault with you.

Quote: Again, you try and twist my words, and make them mean what you want them to...And yes, responsibility does have something to do with it. Nope, there simply is no other way of looking at it.

Quote: You fail to grasp the concept of responsibility, and you fail to grasp the concept of innocence.... Not at all. I get very clearly that THAT is the distinction you are making, rather than whether there is "life" to protect. That it is about fault.

It also shows that your denial of this subject as the deciding one is outright false.

Quote: With most abortions, a mother is preventing a life from being born, that she was directly responsible for creating.... Yup, it is a life, and she is at FAULT. You are saying that with the kidney patient, it still is a life, but you are NOT AT FAULT.

So it is fault that this comes down to, not life.

Quote: I choose to preserve that life, and prevent its death....If the one who is responsible for creating that life is inconvenienced a bit, I think thats justified..... But giving a kidney is not particularly inconveniencing either./ Yet you refuse to force this inconvenience because there is no "fault." Your claim about life is blatantly a falsehood.

Quote: Responsibility for ones own actions is a basic principle of life....One you dont seem to understand. Very funny. I don't see you arguing against treatment for lung cancer, head injuries from traffic accidents or any other medical treatment we provide to rectify the outcomes of one's own actions. So that is also a red herring, just another excuse for misogynistic oppression and enslavement of women.

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

steen wrote: WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: I will clarify.....My claim was that I was for the preservation of life, and the prevention of death.....I made this claim, ON AN ABORTION BOARD! I see youre having a hard time understanding this. So my claim, was directed towards the issue of abortion. When it comes to abortion, im not out to control women, only to preserve life, and prevent death. But you can't do this without controlling women.

And we cant probation people and supervise them without controling them....We cant make sure pedofiles arent snooping around elementary schools, without controling them....You know what that is? Its a horrible comparison, just like the ones you bring up....

Quote: You are right about one thing, responsibility and "fault" have something to do with it. Why? Whose morals about sex are valid here? And how does it give the right to intrude into others sex life?

When anothers sex life is intruding one the unborn, being born.... thats where the right to intrude on ones sex life comes in....

Quote: But its not the bottom line, as you are making it out to be. And I DO believe in preserving all life, but youre trying to apply a claim I made towards the abortion issue, to all other aspects of life. Of course. Unless you see the embryo as MORE life than the kidney patient, you can't justify only forcing the pregnant woman but not anybody else to give bodily resources.

You are saying that the fetus is enough life that a person can be forced to give bodily resources to keep it alive. You are saying that the kidney patient is NOT enough person that a person can be forced to give bodily resources to keep him alive. So it is NOT the life thing that is central to the decision. That leaves the point about being at fault. THAT is the distinction you make between the kidney patient and the fetus. They are both life, and the only point in your argument that differentiates is whether the woman or the kidney donor is at fault.

So yes, it does come down to fault with you.

As I said, the 2 situations have nothing to do with each other, and you continually fail to realize this....

Quote: You fail to grasp the concept of responsibility, and you fail to grasp the concept of innocence.... Not at all. I get very clearly that THAT is the distinction you are making, rather than whether there is "life" to protect. That it is about fault.

It also shows that your denial of this subject as the deciding one is outright false.

No, it shows your lack of understanding, plain and simple....

Quote: Responsibility for ones own actions is a basic principle of life....One you dont seem to understand. Very funny. I don't see you arguing against treatment for lung cancer, head injuries from traffic accidents or any other medical treatment we provide to rectify the outcomes of one's own actions. So that is also a red herring, just another excuse for misogynistic oppression and enslavement of women.

So we are back to me being a misogynist and an oppressor...In treating Lung cancer, etc., we are preserving life, and helping that person, just as preventing abortion is helping the unborn, and preserving life....This is justified in the way the unborn was put where it is....
[/quote]

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: So we are back to me being a misogynist and an oppressor... That is where your arguments lead.

Quote: In treating Lung cancer, etc., we are preserving life, But it is the person's own fault. How do they take responsibility for their own actions if you let them off the hook by surgery for their lung cancer? After all, the cancer tissue is innocent. That SI what you said, that it is an issue of innocence and responsibility. That is all you need to assign forced duties onto people, after all.

Quote: and helping that person, just as preventing abortion is helping the unborn, and preserving life....This is justified in the way the unborn was put where it is.... And forcing you to safely give up your extra kidney assuredly will help the kidney patient and preserve life.

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

Quote: That is where your arguments lead.

Wrong, this is where you take them by constantly comparing abortion to things it does not compare to....

Quote: But it is the person's own fault. How do they take responsibility for their own actions if you let them off the hook by surgery for their lung cancer? After all, the cancer tissue is innocent. That SI what you said, that it is an issue of innocence and responsibility. That is all you need to assign forced duties onto people, after all.

This is just funny....If left to grow inside the body, the cancer tissue will not be born into this world a walking, talking, breathing human child....The intent of the cancer tissue is to kill....hardly innocent.....For cancer there is no cure, so how is someone getting off the hook by undergoing treatment...It is just our way of helping the person with cancer.....Comparisons between an unborn, and cancer are laughable. It shows your true lack of compasion....and we wonder why the world is as messed up as it is.....One reason, people like you place an unborn child in the same category you place cancer.....This is sad.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Quote: But it is the person's own fault. How do they take responsibility for their own actions if you let them off the hook by surgery for their lung cancer? After all, the cancer tissue is innocent. That SI what you said, that it is an issue of innocence and responsibility. That is all you need to assign forced duties onto people, after all. This is just funny....If left to grow inside the body, the cancer tissue will not be born into this world a walking, talking, breathing human child.... Ah, but your point was about the responsibility, not about the recipient of the resources.

Quote: The intent of the cancer tissue is to kill....hardly innocent..... cancer has no intent. It is mindless, non-sensate. non-sentient tissue.

Quote: For cancer there is no cure, Sure there is. The removal of the unwanted tissue.

Quote: so how is someone getting off the hook by undergoing treatment... Well, they don't get to suffer the consequences of their choices. They are let off from taking responsibility for their own action. That IS your argument, after all.

Quote: It is just our way of helping the person with cancer..... Just like we help the woman with an unwanted pregnancy through an abortion.

Quote: Comparisons between an unborn, and cancer are laughable. SO far you have not countered even ONE of my points. It seems like your claim is rather hollow and without foundation in reality.

Quote: It shows your true lack of compasion.... Nonsense. YOU demanding the woman be forced into slavery is the TRUE display of lack of compassion.

Quote: and we wonder why the world is as messed up as it is..... No, we know it is because of the evangelicals' misogynistic, hate mongering desire to oppress and enslave women

Quote: One reason, people like you place an unborn child in the same category you place cancer.....This is sad. Nonsense. It is you placing the pregnant woman in the same class as brood mares... That is sad.

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

Quote: Ah, but your point was about the responsibility, not about the recipient of the resources.

You cant take what I say out of context and try to make a point.....When you click on the abortion board, you engage in discussion about abortion. When I make a statement about ones responsibility for their own actions, on an abortion board, thats what im talking about. As I said, find the forum for Lung Cancer, Tumors, and Kidney patients to discuss those issues. Making comparisons between those and abortion, on an abortion forum do not hold water. You cant take what someone says about abortion, and apply it to Lung cancer. They are not the same thing, but you still try and compare them as if they were related. I laugh at you.

Quote: cancer has no intent. It is mindless, non-sensate. non-sentient tissue.

Which, intentionally or not, breaks down and kills the body of its host. If you want to place the innocence of cancer along side that of an unborn child, fine....One Kills, one is born into this world a walking, talking human being just like you and I. Comparing the two only make you look bad, and illogical.

Quote: Well, they don't get to suffer the consequences of their choices. They are let off from taking responsibility for their own action. That IS your argument, after all.

Without treatment and medical intervention, the cancer patient dies. Without medical intervention, the pregnant mother gives birth to a beautiful child, and no one dies....The consequences of the two situations, both brought on by the actions of the ones involved(in most cases) are WORLDS apart. Life and Death.....Black and white....Apples and Oranges, which you seem to keep trying to compare.

Quote: Just like we help the woman with an unwanted pregnancy through an abortion.

Helping the cancer patient by saving his life....Helping the Mother by taking the life of the unborn.....The former is an apple, the later is an orange....once again.

Quote: SO far you have not countered even ONE of my points. It seems like your claim is rather hollow and without foundation in reality.

Now this tops them all...reality is realizing the difference between a patient of Lung Cancer, and an expecting mother. Reality is seeing the difference between an unborn child, and a cancerous tumor.....I have countered all of your points, it just seems that you dont have a solid foundation in reality.

Quote: Nonsense. YOU demanding the woman be forced into slavery is the TRUE display of lack of compassion.

The womans sexual actions are what "force her into slavery", which I have nothing to do with....I do not demand the woman be forced into slavery, that was caused by her own free will....I simply demand that she do not take the life, the chance at life on earth away from the unborn on account of her own convenience....

Quote: No, we know it is because of the evangelicals' misogynistic, hate mongering desire to oppress and enslave women

Here we go again, the all-mighty steen.....You sure do know a lot about the people on the other side of the fence. Their intentions, their desires....Blanket Statements, labels, and generalizations only make you look worse, and water down your argument. I see you often resort to name calling. How very Jr High-ish of you.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: I see you often resort to name calling. How very Jr High-ish of you. I see you often resort to sophistry, deception and lies. How very grade school-ish of you

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

steen wrote: WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: I see you often resort to name calling. How very Jr High-ish of you. I see you often resort to sophistry, deception and lies. How very grade school-ish of you

Oh, dont make me go pre-school.....youll regret it :lol:

joe christian · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 282

The Underground wrote: joe christian wrote: trawick wrote: Let's be honest: this is about sex, isn't it? .....

If you're so "pro-life," you'd have a whole lot more to take issue with in this country than fetuses being aborted.
Actually, it is all about rights, and the kind of country and society we and our children are forced to live in.

It is about the religious will and rights of the majority being suppressed by the secular and atheistic will of a very small minority of pro-feminist and pro-abortion fanatics.

Minority? www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

If asked whether child-killers should have the legal right to kill off American children any time they feel like it and without their parent's knowledge or consent though, 99.9% of the US population would say no to such a radical feminist and abortionist agenda.

joe christian · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 282

steen wrote: WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: I see you often resort to name calling. How very Jr High-ish of you. I see you often resort to sophistry, deception and lies. How very grade school-ish of you
After being labeled as a misogynistic oppressor on another post, WTRR is now accused of resorting to sophistry, deception and lies when all he wants to do is save innocent human lives and restore some semblance of mental health and sanity to the AMA, the SCOTUS and the American public.

A Promise Kept · Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 93

Ok here is what humane people should be thinking.

You were all born once. I was born. Everyone is born at one point in time. But wait..if your mother got an abortion, you wouldn't be here. None of you would be here talking on this forum or living life. nope, you'd be rotting in a garbage dump...a garbage dump with no second chance at life. You only get one life, why should someone else decide if you live or die... before you even get a chance to live.

Abortion is unconstitutional because the potential baby is not having a say as his brains are s*cked out of him with a very small tube through a very small opening.

The effects on the women who have abortions would be psychological. I know someone who had an abortion and then had nightmares and basically saw their child grow up in her dreams. She is now being treated by a psyciatrist. Physical would be the possibility of never being able to have children again because doctors aren't perfect.

Don't result to abortion. If you don't want god's gift of life, sell them on ebay or adopt them or something.

A Promise Kept · Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 93

Ok here is what humane people should be thinking.

You were all born once. I was born. Everyone is born at one point in time. But wait..if your mother got an abortion, you wouldn't be here. None of you would be here talking on this forum or living life. nope, you'd be rotting in a garbage dump...a garbage dump with no second chance at life. You only get one life, why should someone else decide if you live or die... before you even get a chance to live.

Abortion is unconstitutional because the potential baby is not having a say as his brains are s*cked out of him with a very small tube through a very small opening.

The effects on the women who have abortions would be psychological. I know someone who had an abortion and then had nightmares and basically saw their child grow up in her dreams. She is now being treated by a psychiatrist. Physical would be the possibility of never being able to have children again because doctors aren't perfect.

Don't result to abortion. If you don't want god's gift of life, sell them on ebay or adopt them or something.

Also, about the death penalty, I strongly believe that criminals should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, only because they have committed a crime that harms another person (ie. rape, murder, armed robbery, kidnapping) I don't think babies have committed a crime. Unless, you think that the aborted babies were future criminals by reading their minds which is highly unlikely.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

A Promise Kept wrote: Ok here is what humane people should be thinking. A, a typical, lame, pro-life trick. Insist that you are only right if you think like pro-life misogynists do.

Quote: You were all born once. I was born. Everyone is born at one point in time. But wait..if your mother got an abortion, you wouldn't be here. And I would never have known. No different than if your mom had a headache that night you were conceived, and you wouldn't be here.

If you have no mind anyway, you would never know the difference. Think of the BILLIONS of people not born because their potential parents never had sex! :shock:

Quote: Abortion is unconstitutional Oh, presenting an outright falsehood as a "fact." Another lame, pro-life trick. The law of the land is that abortion is a constitutional right. :lm:

Quote: The effects on the women who have abortions would be psychological. I know someone who had an abortion and then had nightmares and basically saw their child grow up in her dreams. And I know somebody who didn't get a doll for Christmas at their 4th Christmas and and then had nightmares and basically saw their doll grow up in her dreams. Well, it could be. Nice emotional histrionics. In the REAL world, the VAST majority of women mainly feel relief.

Quote: She is now being treated by a psyciatrist. So are many other people.

Quote: Physical would be the possibility of never being able to have children again because doctors aren't perfect. And that is even MORE likely after giving birth. So if you truly are worried about infertility, then you should INSIST on abortions. otherwise, you are a hypocrite engaging in dishonest sophistry.

Quote: Don't result to abortion. If you don't want god's gift of life, sell them on ebay or adopt them or something. :roll:

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5633 Location: Fulton, Ks

joe christian wrote: The Underground wrote:

Minority? www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

If asked whether child-killers should have the legal right to kill off American children any time they feel like it and without their parent's knowledge or consent though, 99.9% of the US population would say no to such a radical feminist and abortionist agenda.

Without the parents consent? so are you saying doctors are sneaking into pregnant womens bedrooms and giving them abortions?

A Promise Kept · Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 93

Ok so most of you have probably never had an abortion based on the fact that many of you are guys. So most of you don't know how an abortion would affect you. How do you know what the effects on the baby are? No one can ever no for sure because you can't feel another person's pain. you can only feel your own pain.

I think that women have it hard, no doubt about it. God ( or some god or evolution crap) gave women the gift of carrying a child, why? because god chose the woman to be the nurturer and the man as the hunter. God gave the Virgin Mary a child, did she get an abortion, obviously not because then Jesus would never have existed and we would never ever celebrate Christmas or Easter.

I don't know what is more painful; giving birth or getting an abortion and i will never know. I applaud women for being able to stand such pain as giving birth cuz they know that its all worth it in the end.

If the mother wants an abortion and the father wants the child. What to do?
I think that the father should have a say in the decision. I think that the mother should have the baby, and then hold them in her arms and look them in the eye. maybe then she might think differently.
As for you pro-choice people, I have to say I believe that some cases and abortion is needed like the mother is at risk of death. I do not think teens and people who know the consequences should be allowed to get abortions. The parents should have input in the decision. For those of you who think abortion is a get out of jail free card or an easy escape from consequence may need to rethink your views.
Whats stopping someone from having 3 or 4 abortions....nothing. now thats a scary thought.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

A Promise Kept wrote: Ok so most of you have probably never had an abortion based on the fact that many of you are guys. So most of you don't know how an abortion would affect you. ourselves personally, no. But we DO know what research have found about mental and physical effects of abortions on women. This has been actually researched through scientific means. And they show no extraordinary problems with abortion, pro-life unsubstantiated claims none withstanding.

Quote: How do you know what the effects on the baby are? There is of course no baby, your pro-life revisionist linguistic hyperbole none withstanding. That aside, what we DO know is that no signal whatsoever reaches the fetus' brain's cortex until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy. So it is absolutely certain that there is not even the POSSIBILITY for sensation or awareness before this point.

Quote: No one can ever no for sure because you can't feel another person's pain. you can only feel your own pain. Are you one of those who claim, with absolutely no evidence and in direct contradiction to known medical/scientific facts, that there is a possibility for sensation and awareness without a neocortex?

Quote: I think that women have it hard, no doubt about it. God ( or some god or evolution crap) Huh? "evolution crap"? This does NOT help your credibility. You are beginning to come across as a shrill, fundie who relies on emotional histrionics. That is NOT the best way to be taken serious. If all you have is emotional fervor, then you are not doing the pro-life cause any favor by posting here.

Quote: gave women the gift of carrying a child, why? Ah, pre-destiny? Do you really believe such thing exist?

Quote: because god chose the woman to be the nurturer and the man as the hunter. Please prove that unsubstantiated claim. It sounds like some misogynistic excuse for oppressing and controlling women.

Quote: God gave the Virgin Mary a child, did she get an abortion, obviously not because then Jesus would never have existed and we would never ever celebrate Christmas or Easter. And the nearest OB/GYN wasn't exactly around the corner. But then, did anybody have the right to force her to give birth? Does women have a duty to sacrifice themselves against their will for the "good of humanity"?

Quote: I don't know what is more painful; giving birth or getting an abortion and i will never know. Well, most likely, that depends on the individual woman. That is why it is important that each individual woman gets to decide what works best for her personally. After all, SHE is the expert in her own life, you are not.

Quote: I applaud women for being able to stand such pain as giving birth cuz they know that its all worth it in the end. If that is what she want, then by all means yes that is great.

Quote: If the mother wants an abortion and the father wants the child. What to do? Well, by the pregnancy physically being carried and supported by her body, there really isn't any way around her making the decision, unless you want to promote enslavement and control of womens' bodies by men.

Quote: I think that the father should have a say in the decision. I think that the mother should have the baby, and then hold them in her arms and look them in the eye. maybe then she might think differently. And maybe not. Your speculation is not enough to enslave and oppress her.

Quote: As for you pro-choice people, I have to say I believe that some cases and abortion is needed like the mother is at risk of death. Ah, how noble of you. If she will DIE, then it is OK to have an abortion. gee, your underwhelming compassion and empathy for womens health and wellbeing is sad to witness.

Quote: I do not think teens and people who know the consequences should be allowed to get abortions. No doubt. After all, most pro-lifers relish the chance to oppress and control women, enslaving them for their theocratic misogyny.

Quote: The parents should have input in the decision. For those of you who think abortion is a get out of jail free card or an easy escape from consequence may need to rethink your views. Because you are going to MAKE them? You'll have to go through me first. I do NOT accept your Fascist goals of the State or the Church controlling and oppressing women.

Quote: Whats stopping someone from having 3 or 4 abortions....nothing. So? It is not your body. If you don't like it, help her with better sex-ed, more contraception and more support for pregnant women. Anything else is flagrant pro-life hypocrisy.

Quote: now thats a scary thought. Fascist/theocratic oppression and enslavement of women by radical fundies like you, THAT is a scary thought.

Nicholas · Joined: 14 Aug 2005 Posts: 321 Location: Rural backwater

steen wrote:
Quote: And a member here made an exceptionally valid point. To address the commonly raised point of it being the mother's body, is it acceptable to kill someone on a plot of land you own? If they are bodily threatening you, you certainly can.

Which means that, when a woman's life is not threatened, abortion should always remain illegal. It's a necessity. A vast amount of abortions are carried out predominantly to the ''inconvenience'', not life-threatening circumstances. There's a marginal difference between the two as the segment between choice (inconvenience) and compulsory (life-threatening) are quite blatant. Abortion by demand regarding health issues is mortally important than choice as it is surefire to connect with her error of judgment. Anticipating the ramifications can surprisingly save you the bother and, your dejected emotional feelings in a long run. None too many comprehend this.

Abortion is constitutional by demand, but I strongly oppose the constitution as unconstitutional. The factors in determining a woman's right and the worth of life is abundantly inconsistent and needs to be revised. You don't Steen, I do.

Quote: Obligation to give birth is disgusting, it is oppressive slavery, and nobody should ever be forced to do so solely for the potential that might reside in mindless- non-sentient, non-sensate tissue.

Your comment indicates that you show the future prospect of life as something of absolute no worth. A baby before birth is, of course, occupied by living attributes otherwise it wouldn't survive. It's a living life and deserves to live.

Quote: That is misogynistic oppression and enslavement of women. You are a shining example of what the pro-life agenda is all about. Forcing, oppressing and subduing women into slavery.

You seek to confiscate, oppress and force woman to abandon an INNOCENT life. You are a shining example of what the pro-death agenda is all about. Forcing, oppressing and subduing life into cruel terminations.

Quote: Does women have a duty to sacrifice themselves against their will for the "good of humanity"?

I think so. Having good humanity shows that you have good compassion toward life or an up and coming life. You see the opposite. You are diminishing the public confidence of women in having any faith in preserving life.

Smoke screening the failed responsibility is what you see as a way of representing her RIGHTS, nor anything else other than notwithstanding. It's a shame.

Quote: Nope, there simply is no other way of looking at it.

There is. You can't see it. Anything that excludes her rights, you attack with piffle.

Quote: And I know somebody who didn't get a doll for Christmas at their 4th Christmas and and then had nightmares and basically saw their doll grow up in her dreams. Well, it could be. Nice emotional histrionics. In the REAL world, the VAST majority of women mainly feel relief.

Balderdash. Again, your comment is of something to engulf the truth. You compare an inanimate doll to a life. I'm sorry, but that is quite absurd. There is absolutely no comparisons. Having to live with the fact that, an abortionist terminated an innocent life in a woman's body is inconceivable for us. The operation is likely to leave a negative forlorn scar on her life. You've said that, women ''mainly'' feel relief? Once again, another smoke screen to back your blanket statements. Please point out somewhere that women feel relief, Steen. A majority do SUFFER the severe consequences of abortions. There's no doubt in that.

Quote: Nonsense. YOU demanding the woman be forced into slavery is the TRUE display of lack of compassion.

Irrational. YOU are demanding the careless woman to accept obligations to have an abortion from her unwanted pregnancy, does truly display your LACK of compassion towards innocent life. Steen, you are also a hypocrite.

Quote: Ah, how noble of you. If she will DIE, then it is OK to have an abortion. gee, your underwhelming compassion and empathy for womens health and wellbeing is sad to witness.

Like I said above, you think it is OK to have an abortion in whatever the circumstances are, as long as it's choice, whether it's guilty conscience or immoral. This illustrates your underwhelming compassion for the future of a newborn not being able to live.