[Bitsy]

Originally Posted by Leviathan

Five years is a good amount of time; I would choose five years of life over no life at all any day. And way to talk shit about how you will be arguing in front of the supreme court; what are you going to say if it gets overturned and made into a states rights issue?"

It won't. It's no more a states right issue than the right to marriage or the right to contraception. Unless you believe the U.S. Supreme Court co-opted states rights when it declared that marriage was a fundamental right of man and was a right protected by the U.S. Constitution.

The case which caused them to declare that marriage was a Constitutionally-protected civil right? LOVING VS. VIRGINIA, in which the SCOTUS declared that inter-racial marriage could not be made illegal within any state, because it was a Constitutionally protected right.

There are states-rights conservatives who still rankle over that decision. Are YOU one of them? Do you think that LOVING VS. VIRGINIA needs to be overturned since it co-opts states rights? Do you think that states should be allowed to deny the right of marriage to people based on their race?

In fact, the same argument applies to all the other decisions which make up the basis for Roe Vs. Wade. Try reading it sometime. Do you feel that GRISWOLD VS. CONNECTICUT needs to be overturned because it co-opted state rights to ban contraception within their state borders? LOVING VS. VIRGINIA also covered marital privacy, as did GRISWOLD. SKINNER VS. OKLAHOMA declared that the government cannot take away a person's right of reproduction, because, according to the SCOTUS, thats a Constitutionally-protected right too, and the right to take the ability to reproduce away from somneone is not a state right.

So basically we get to choose if a persons life is worth living here? We get to decide, "well, he won't be happy anyway, so lets just go ahead and have an abortion."

Not "we", putz. Pregnant women have exactly the same rights you do - no more, no less. If you view an embryo or fetus as a person, then you must understand that a woman has an unqualified right to deny that person, or anyone else, the use of her body - just as you do.

The difference here is that a human life is not ending when the drunk man pays for his medical care.

What a moron. It's not about "paying for medical care". it's about bodily autonomy rights. Let's say you get drunk and drive through a schoolyard knocking kids down like bowling pins. Four of them go into renal failure and are going to die if they don't get kidneys. How about we take YOURS? Afterall, YOU caused the accident.

See? Your bodily integrity cannot be invaded on behalf of ANYONE ELSE: should one of those kids require a kidney or a pint of blood, even if YOU are the only match you don't have to provide it.

[Enraged Mongol]

Originally Posted by Bitsy

It won't. It's no more a states right issue than the right to marriage or the right to contraception. Unless you believe the U.S. Supreme Court co-opted states rights when it declared that marriage was a fundamental right of man and was a right protected by the U.S. Constitution.

The case which caused them to declare that marriage was a Constitutionally-protected civil right? LOVING VS. VIRGINIA, in which the SCOTUS declared that inter-racial marriage could not be made illegal within any state, because it was a Constitutionally protected right.

There are states-rights conservatives who still rankle over that decision. Are YOU one of them? Do you think that LOVING VS. VIRGINIA needs to be overturned since it co-opts states rights? Do you think that states should be allowed to deny the right of marriage to people based on their race?

In fact, the same argument applies to all the other decisions which make up the basis for Roe Vs. Wade. Try reading it sometime. Do you feel that GRISWOLD VS. CONNECTICUT needs to be overturned because it co-opted state rights to ban contraception within their state borders? LOVING VS. VIRGINIA also covered marital privacy, as did GRISWOLD. SKINNER VS. OKLAHOMA declared that the government cannot take away a person's right of reproduction, because, according to the SCOTUS, thats a Constitutionally-protected right too, and the right to take the ability to reproduce away from somneone is not a state right.



Not "we", putz. Pregnant women have exactly the same rights you do - no more, no less. If you view an embryo or fetus as a person, then you must understand that a woman has an unqualified right to deny that person, or anyone else, the use of her body - just as you do.



What a moron. It's not about "paying for medical care". it's about bodily autonomy rights. Let's say you get drunk and drive through a schoolyard knocking kids down like bowling pins. Four of them go into renal failure and are going to die if they don't get kidneys. How about we take YOURS? Afterall, YOU caused the accident.

See? Your bodily integrity cannot be invaded on behalf of ANYONE ELSE: should one of those kids require a kidney or a pint of blood, even if YOU are the only match you don't have to provide it.

What about the bodily integrity of the baby? The innocent baby that hasnt committed any sins, and doesnt sleep around like his mother.

[Enraged Mongol]

Originally Posted by bRaT

its a thread about homophobia not abortion

Okay. Homophobia is a real concern.

Homos and kids should not mix. Showing kids that it is okay to be a homo makes them grow up accepting them. This is bad. We shouldnt be allowing such ethics in this country. What has this place turned into?

[Enraged Mongol]

Originally Posted by Bitsy

Not "we", putz. Pregnant women have exactly the same rights you do - no more, no less. If you view an embryo or fetus as a person, then you must understand that a woman has an unqualified right to deny that person, or anyone else, the use of her body - just as you do.

They do have the same rights, true. But when they have sex, they are KNOWINGLY taking a risk where they understand that they may become pregnant. WHEN THAT HAPPENS, the baby has a life too. If she doesn't want anyone intruding on HER BODY, then she should CONTROL HER HORMONES and stop fucking everything in sight.

[Enraged Mongol]

Originally Posted by Bitsy

Abortion is not killing children and never has been. Obviously, you are too stupid to know the difference between an embryo and a baby. Why don't you try taking some night courses in human biology?

Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the government the authority to tell women what they can do with their bodies. If you disagree, then please cite relevant portions of the Constitution or amendments to back up your claim.

While you're at it, show me where in the Constitution is the right to marriage, self-defense, etc... I'll wait.

Actually, scientifically speaking, it is accepted that as soon as the egg is fertilized, the embryo is a living being. A LIVING BEING, with a soul and a future.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a woman has the right to kill a baby because the baby is in her stomach.

[Foulsmeller]

The left really is angry and stupid.

[Enraged Mongol]

Originally Posted by Foulsmeller

The left really is angry and stupid.

Amen brother.

They have raised a generation of stupid Americans.

[James Bomb]

Originally Posted by Enraged Mongol

Amen brother.

They have raised a generation of stupid Americans.

Your gimmick needs to be reworked.

I did almost buy it there for a second though. D+ for effort.

[Polynikes]

Every time a terrible thread gets bumped, Al Queda builds a bomb jacket.

And there needs to be some sort of suicide bombing squad that travels around the world and blows themselves up in the homes of people who resurrect these types of threads.

[Enraged Mongol]

Originally Posted by James Bomb

Your gimmick needs to be reworked.

I did almost buy it there for a second though. D+ for effort.

I revoke your life. What now?