And women can kill as many babies they want......
But Michael Vick [that football player guy] can go to jail for up to 10 years for fighting dogs?!?
Whatthefuuuuck!
2007-08-29 12:48:21 · 12 answers · asked by dontouchmedontrustme 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
might i add.
that there is a beating heart the moment the baby is conceived!
abortion is murder..
so why is it such a big deal if a ******' dog dies.
and not babies?
2007-08-29 15:51:55 · update #1
Basically, dog (or "cock fighting") fighting shouldn't be illegal, because it's harmless to humans. The circumstances surrounding such venues wager a hazard to humans. Insects and viruses are attracted to flesh decay. People have been attacked (often) by ill-kept, attack trained dogs. Roosters are kept with tin razors attached to their legs; imagine your child crawling into that cage. There are a variety of social circumstances which spoil animal sports for entertainment. Additionally, the animal rights activists call that kind of entertainment barbaric and cruel--jokingly, those animals should have their opportunity to fight and watch a sore wagerer, wager.
The issue of abortion? You're right (perhaps). If the one demands jail for having a deleterious effect on life, then so should abortion. Abortion, taps a morality issue--should humans be permitted to cause human death? It's as natural as the history of the world. Should humans be permitted to force slavery to conserve for an aristocratic population? The issue of abortion can be as personal as the first time that a sibling made a poo pie. It's not my intention to equate "crap" with unborn babies; however, gambling on whether or not a woman (or family) will keep the baby is a sufficient vice. Hopefully, the activists understand that attacking people with guns, rocks, and bombs is equally deleterious to human life (that's wrong too).
2007-08-29 13:25:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not think the two can be compared.
Woman cannot kill as many babies as they like. You can read you don't just have to ask stupid questions. Second Michael Vick was not just fighting dogs he was organizing a figthing ring and executing dogs for not performing well.
I am not it favor of either, but I can say I wish you had been aborted.
2007-08-29 12:58:30 · answer #2 · answered by LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Supreme Court ruled in Roe v Wade that the right to privacy implied by the Constitution shielded women from attempts to regulate abortion.
Dog fighting rings do not enjoy the same protection, because privacy isn't a possibility - they involve enough other people that the assumption of privacy isn't really valid (unlike a procedure that can be kept between doctor and patient, only).
2007-08-29 13:06:30 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The question as to abortion is not whether it should be permitted, but whether it should be required. There are already too many people; children are starving and being slaughtered and horribly treated around the world; senseless, destructive wars are being fought over control of precious resources; human rights are in the garbage can; religious nut cases are strapping explosives to themselves and killing anyone that doesn't agree with their version of divine intent; our own government is spying on us.
It was long ago demonstrated that if you put a few rats in a cage, they get along fine. If you put a lot of rats in a cage, they begin to fight and bite.
Yours truly,
Just Another Rat
2007-08-29 12:56:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are misunderstanding the legal arguments.
A woman cannot kill any child that is OUTSIDE her body.
She can choose to stop providing life support from her body -- just like you can refuse to donate blood or refuse to give a bone marrow transplant. The fact that the unborn dies is an unfortunate side effect of her right to control what happens INSIDE her own body.
Vick was not controlling anything inside his body.
2007-08-29 12:58:10 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
women aren't allowed to kill babies. abortions don't involve babies. and what Vick did was despicable. a dog is sentient, and a dog feels the pain of flesh being torn, as well as being killed for not winning the fight. if you can't distinguish btwn a sentient animal being abused and a non-sentient fetus being aborted, then you have issues.
2007-08-29 18:57:23 · answer #6 · answered by GothicLady 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
because it is a personal choice made to ones own body, think about the little girls who get raped,it wasn't their choice to be raped but if they conceive a child out of rape they can have a choice,that is the only reason why abortion should be legal,teens that consent to having sex and conceive should be held reliable and not be aloud to abort !! as far as Micheal Vick that had nothing to do with his own body,these are animals and there is a cruelty to animals law to protect the animal and he broke the law and shall face up to it.
2007-08-29 13:22:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Women can kill as many babies as they want? Hypothetically speaking, of course, if you got your girlfriend to go shoot up a maternity ward you might see how wrong you are about that.
2007-08-29 13:00:45 · answer #8 · answered by socrates 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because when you are getting an abortion, you are killing a baby that has been born and when women kill their babies i think it is sick, but the baby isn't born yet so i guess it don't matter.
2007-08-29 12:56:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll answer this question when you can show a parallel between the two. My bad, I answered already and got the two points.
2007-08-29 12:56:46 · answer #10 · answered by Jim T 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋