A "save the babies" nut,who doesnt give a damn about babies,or anybody for that matter,posted this absurd rant against any and all Democrats.
It's NOT about "abortion is murder".Please! It's about busybodies trying to tell women how to live their lives.If a conservative man had a tiny cell in HIS body he wanted removed,NO-ONE could tell him what to do:
Consider:
Jim Bull$#!+
Democrats, how many babies have you eaten today?
I ate 2 so far, abortions for everyone.
Yestarday one Republican said "I'm gonna go hug some trees and
eat some babies mm".
Just as those whose want the Government to control womens bodies,the anti-choice crow is sick.This finally prooves it ???
2006-09-27 07:34:29 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
speakeasy-it shows what youre not man enough to admit.Thanks,phony.
2006-09-27 07:39:17 · update #1
"I'm gonna go hug some trees and eat some babies mm". I saw this one yesterday. It is getting quite absurd on this site. Some don't even know what their fighting for anymore. All of the vitriol they've spewed for so long has taken over their minds.
2006-09-27 07:59:28 · answer #1 · answered by MishMash [I am not one of your fans] 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
The guys you describe are wackos & the wackos on both sides drive me nuts!
The question as to whether & when abortion might be right should be a scientific question!
WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN!
Before life begins -
It is OBVIOUSLY a woman's right to have an abortion.
After life begins -
It is OBVIOUSLY killing a human to have an abortion.
Not that makes things simple, but that should be the basis of the argument.
The arguments on both side are frequently emotional and not thought out.
"Choose life; your mother did." The same logic can be applied to not using birth control.
"The baby you want to abort could be the next Albert Einstein or Martin Luther King" or maybe the next Hitler.
"It's not fair to bring an unwanted baby into the world."
Haven't you heard of how many people are on a long list for adopting a child? This goes for all races now days. This argument only applies to handicapped kids. Then I wonder, couldn't you apply the same logic to the children after they're born? What is the scientific difference between a late-term fetus and a new-born baby?
"My Body - My Choice" But the fact of the matter is (at least at some stage of the development) there is another human life IN your body. And in the vast majority of the cases, the woman had a choice before getting pregnant! Birth Control!
You may religiously believe life begins at conception, but you can't legislate by religion.
And just because it isn't fair for a woman to have to have a baby she didn't want just because she waited to long into the pregnancy to make the decision, does that mean it's fair to kill the baby?
The question, is it a lump of tissue or a human life!
So what I'd like to see is more people using SCIENTIFIC DATA to determine when life begins, & therefore, when abortion is a personal choice & when it is murder
2006-09-27 15:02:29 · answer #2 · answered by Smart Kat 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
My God... a couple of hand-picked, whacked-out comments don't illustrate the "anti-choice" position (as you put it). I'm sure you realize that.
I love the euphemism "choice" for abortion, which is the killing of a fetus in the womb. I'm not anti-choice... I am anti-abortion. The left loves to say that they too are anti-abortion, they just want women to decide for themselves whether they want to have the procedure.
But to me, that's like saying "I'm against drug abuse, but I just want to be able to decide whether to use drugs myself".
Fortunately (or unfortunately, as the case may be), we have very few personal choices that the government doesn't restrict or regulate in some way.
Some folks on the left would like even more restrictions on "choice". For example, my "choice" to own a gun might annoy some folks. And certainly, my choice kill a deer really bothers the left.
But, it's OK to "choose" to kill a viable fetus, right?
Every single human being who has ever enjoyed the blessing and opportunity of a life was once a "viable fetus". Every one of us lived because we were not killed before birth. to say that the government has no say in that decision is outrageous. Among the many responsibilities of government is to afford protection to the least among us.
Please tell me...who is more defenseless than an unborn child?
P.S. In the world of absurd arguments, nothing surpasses the comment that restrictions on abortion causes children to be born into neglect, or even abuse. Let's all remember that those who cite this "problem" are saying that the potential human being would be less neglected or abused if we kill it.
Therefore, we who defend life are accused of being heartless by not allowing the destruction of a fetus facing a potentially difficult life.
I think I can speak for most of us when I say it's better to be abused or neglected than killed. The irony and absurdity of these arguments is beyond my comprehension.
2006-09-27 08:41:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, that little rant does not explain the position of the pro-life crowd at all.
From a scientific perspective, the baby is a distinct human being as a simple genetic test will show. It is not a piece of the mother's own tissue.
The primary function of Government is to defend the Right to Life, as our Declaration of Independence spells out clearly.
Therefore, the role of Government is to defend the lives of the unborn, who are alive and are distinct human beings.
I am most intrigued by hypnotic regression sessions in which people describe memories from the womb...
2006-09-27 07:36:54 · answer #4 · answered by speakeasy 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Ruth says "happy women don't choose abortion" How ignorant, of course they don't! Maybe she lives a fairy tale life, and thinks everyone else does.
When abortions are not available, desperate women seek back alley solutions, and many die of infection and hemorrhage. Women raise unwanted children and child abuse and neglect increase.
The Supreme Court in 1973 knew the evils of the laws restricting abortions, and saw that the Constitution gave the right to choose to women. It is part of the right to liberty and privacy. Fundamentalists have pushed the notion that embryos are full fledged human beings. They are anti-science and many preach a false and hateful religion. These cold and often cruel people should not dictate our national policy.
2006-09-27 09:13:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Is abortion well being care? Whose well being is keen on unnecessary abortions? per chance you should imagine your questions via in the previous you waste factors on them. the merely justification you could make for abortion being a remember of a well being care determination is that if having the toddler heavily endangers the existence of the mum. And in case you do not choose the authorities making well being care judgements for you, then you honestly for sure do not choose accepted well being care. yet by some ability, i imagine you're being disingenuous.
2016-12-02 04:39:49 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is it me, or are all the "answerers" in your question men?
Abortion as a "woman's choice" is a bunch of propogandic crap.
Happy women don' t "choose" abortion. For Westhill, I am implying here that the "choice" is very often to help the FATHER who doesn't want to stay around and help out. I am saying abortion is BAD for women!
2006-09-27 07:44:33 · answer #7 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I always enjoy your questions for their firm downright stupidity, its called sarcasm, might I suggest you use a dictionary. Might I also suggest you further your education before you play with the big kids.
if your young and conservative you are heartless
if your an adult and liberal your brainless
2006-09-27 17:19:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes.
2006-09-27 07:38:58 · answer #9 · answered by notme 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
LMAO the government wants to control womens bodies cause its clear they cant...
2006-09-27 07:38:01 · answer #10 · answered by shut up dummy 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋