numberthirty wrote:
Pay attention bonehead, school is about to be in session.

Most of what you are saying also applies to another living creature.

A tapeworm.



Should a woman not be able to have a tapeworm removed because removing it will end it's life?

I agree with a woman's right to choose, but this argument is downright silly dude you cannot compare a human fetus to a tapeworm. A human fetus is the same in your eyes as a tapeworm? My niece was born 3 months premature, she's five years old now, I don't care what anyone says a fetus is a human being a tiny gross slimy creature but it will one day grow up to be a walking, talking, breathing human.

Having said that, I don't think abortion is wrong nor do I think the government should have the right to prevent abortions because like marsupialized said people who want them are going to get them anyway and fucked up people are going to do horrible things like leave their babies in dumpsters.

On topic
Are we talking strictly evangelicals or are we using that term to describe right-wing Christians in general, because catholics are not evangelicals but many are pretty right-wing. if it's the latter I would say there is little chance of him getting elected without them.

Marsupialized wrote:what's it say in the bible about tapeworms?

Reminded me that there is actually nothing specifically written in the bible prohibiting abortion. The very word does not even appear within. The fundies know this and tap dance around it, tirelessly citing other vague verses.

Marsupialized wrote:Who are abortion laws protecting?

answered in the bumming a cigarette thread imo.

only here wrote:

Marsupialized wrote:Who are abortion laws protecting?

answered in the bumming a cigarette thread imo.

That same pregnant chick I wouldn't give a cigarette to, I wouldn't want a LAW passed saying she shouldn't smoke if she wanted to. That's her business. Same reason I don't run an abortion clinic out of my apartment.

eva03 wrote:

numberthirty wrote:
Pay attention bonehead, school is about to be in session.

Most of what you are saying also applies to another living creature.

A tapeworm.



Should a woman not be able to have a tapeworm removed because removing it will end it's life?

I agree with a woman's right to choose, but this argument is downright silly dude you cannot compare a human fetus to a tapeworm. A human fetus is the same in your eyes as a tapeworm? My niece was born 3 months premature, she's five years old now, I don't care what anyone says a fetus is a human being a tiny gross slimy creature but it will one day grow up to be a walking, talking, breathing human.

Having said that, I don't think abortion is wrong nor do I think the government should have the right to prevent abortions because like marsupialized said people who want them are going to get them anyway and fucked up people are going to do horrible things like leave their babies in dumpsters.

On topic
Are we talking strictly evangelicals or are we using that term to describe right-wing Christians in general, because catholics are not evangelicals but many are pretty right-wing. if it's the latter I would say there is little chance of him getting elected without them.

I can see what you are saying about there not being a comparison.

However, up to a point where there is no way you can remove a fetus and it can live. No medical treatment that can save it. On that level, to me it is the exact same as a tapeworm. It cannot survive without it's mother any more than a tapeworm could outside of it's host. That said, I can't agree with what you're saying about a fetus being a life for the entire pregnancy.

That's what my problem with the pro-life movement is. Up to a point, a fetus has no viable life outside of a womb. That being the case, I side with the right of of the person who will have to carry a fetus to the point where it will have a viable chance of living on it's own outside of the womb. Even then, there are times when a mother's health will be damaged. In that case, I'm still coming down on the side of the mother.

As for your niece, I'm glad things worked out so well. I was born in '73 a little more than a month premature. I don't even feel like I had a viable life. Without medical intervention and a month and a half under medical care, I'm certain I would have died. As I see it, I had no viable chance at life strictly under my own power.

Rick Reuben wrote:I expect few of you on the Left to see the beauty of state's rights.

unsaved wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:I expect few of you on the Left to see the beauty of state's rights.

The man may contribute his chromosomes to the potential baby but it's not his body that gets warped by the pregnancy, it's not him losing out on having a career because of the pregnancy, it's not him throwing up every morning, having severe back pain, possibly being bed-ridden for months, or bearing the c-section scar. It's not him completely changing his diet for nine months to and the following months of breast-feeding, or not being able to go out with friends because the kid needs to suckle at a set time. This isn't even taking into account the one or two decades of morphing into a pained, bloody, emotional mess for 3-5 days a month that the woman dealt with leading up to the pregnancy such that she could be fertile.

It is ultimately our body and it is ultimately our right to decide whether or not we want to keep the child, not our husbands' or our boyfriends', though as I stated before, I would certainly hope that the issue of what to do in case or pregnancy has been addressed the moment that sexual intercourse is introduced into a relationship.

Pregnancy and carrying the fetus while it forms has a profound physical and psychological effect upon the mother and not so much the father. Dad could be out carelessly banging his 19-year old secretary, playing golf, and running marathons while all this is going on. What happens if the kid is born with a disability and the father who wanted soooo badly to keep the child walks out? What happens if his wife's droopy breasts and gaping vagina disgust him and he leaves her for the secretary and does fuck-all to raise his kid? What happens if he loses his job before the birth and the couple is stuck footing a $10,000 bill for the birth or even more if there are complications? What if it's triplets?

The father contributes half of the chromosomes but it is ultimately the mother who bears the child into the world and deals with the most of the ramifications of a pregnancy. I'm not saying that good fathers don't contribute or support the mothers or that they don't get stressed out and worry. I'm saying that their contributions cannot possibly equate to what the woman goes through in carrying a child to term.

Rick Reuben wrote:

unsaved wrote:

Yeah, exactly. State's rights is useless.

In case you can't grasp this simple concept, it doesn't mean complete autonomy for each state in all matters. So no, genius- endorsement of state's rights for abortion does not mean an endorsement of slavery or Jim Crow. We already have state's rights, but the globalist sellout liberals are convinced that we shouldn't. Brainwashing will do that. 'Centralize, globalize centralize, globalize, yes Big Brother yes' is your mantra.

None of you liberals ever complain when individual states set their own marijuana laws, or when individual states pass gay marriage laws. Your brainwashing doesn't kick in then.

I must say Rick is coming out better in this argument, Jim crow aside state's right is a fundamental concept of the constitution. I don't think an endorsement of states rights is an endorsement of Jim crow that's about as silly if not sillier argument than the tapeworm = human fetus thing, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

(God that was terrible)

Rick Reuben wrote:

johnny 13 wrote:The woman owns her body

The womb is her body, not the entity within it. The entity within it is a mutual creation. Why are people so programmed to believe that a baby is part of a woman's body? It was not in her womb when she was born, so it is not. Men are essential to the creation of a baby. I don't think you can make a rule on exactly how much input a husband should have into an abortion decision, but the argument that he should have zero is bullshit.

The woman owns the embryo, and is the one building it. It is her vitality that sustains it, and it is her body that provides every resource. It is hers and of her as much as her spleen is.

The embryo has no sapience, which means there is no person. A woman with rights cannot be in thrall to a hollow cluster of cells. I maintain that the unequal burden of pregnancy has an inverse relation to the value of the desire to decide the outcome of that pregnancy.