Sure we would. It's not the sex of the parent, it's the life of the child.Originally Posted by Tenngal
Sure we would. It's not the sex of the parent, it's the life of the child.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Nope. #NotEveryRepublicanPolitician
Throughout the last election cycle I was a Republican. An elected Republican politician in fact. And now in my second term. Elected in the most Democratic-Party-dominated county in my state. And I'm pro-choice, and make no secret of that fact. And argued strongly for platform reforms that eliminated these sorts of "virtue-signaling" pandering to various special-interest groups.
The county's Republicans even sent me as a delegate to the previous cycle's presidential conventions.
So, you over-reach. As usual.
I've long felt the rabid anti-abortion stance taken by Republicans was mostly meant to fire up their base. It's good to get out the vote among evangelicals and men who like to keep their women barefoot and pregnant. I can't believe many of them really care about the lives of poor, unborn constituents--or their families.
Is it really so difficult for you to conceive of someone believing a fetus is a human being without ulterior motives? I can certainly agree that there are moral ciphers pontificating on both sides of this particular issue, but I think that there are genuine beliefs on both sides.
Isn't the high a pot smoker gets when smoking illegal pot punishment enough!?
No, but paying good money to make yourself stupid is. We should decriminalize pot and add it to the list of idiotic but legal things adults are free to do to themselves.
Just when you think he can't act any stupider..........
I'm really starting to think he has a personality disorder. I wonder how he was raised? Seems like something back then wasn't very healthy.
I don't think he ever wanted to be president. I think he just wanted to win the title.......just to be sure he COULD win.
I really think he's a mental case.
Uh, bae...weren't you actually a Libertarian who had to register Republican in order to get elected? Yeah, you're a republican for the ballot box...unless you have switched ideology. Which I'm guessing your neighbors don't have a problem with. Libertarians generally don't try to impose their religious ideology on everyone else. So, I'm not sure you actually count as a 'true believer'.
However, to accommodate the very small percentage of republicans who may not want this, 95% of the republicans declare that overturning roe v wade is their goal.
Oh honey, it is totally about the sex of the parent. No man would allow another one, especially a five celled one, to hi-jack and enslave his body for their own purpose. Men understand body autonomy, especially for themselves. Women, being lesser beings (according to the wishes of no-choice advocates) should gladly sacrifice their own bodies for another 'potential' human. Yeah, not even fully human, but worth more than living breathing grown women, apparently. Or more worthy.
Of course there are. I don't think anyone is denying that. The real question, or issue is though, does a woman have the right of body autonomy or not?
One body, two 'entities' if you will, to use it. The owner of the body does not want to share it with the other entity. The other entity is little more than a parasite at this stage (and by that I mean not capable of independent life outside of the host body). Yes it is a life, but unwanted by the host body. Who gets to say how the body is used? The owner of the body or the parasite?
Sure the fetus is life, but it's really a pretty simple question, with a simple answer if you believe all that stuff about freedom and your right to your own body/life (is that a god given right?)
We don't force anyone to donate blood or kidneys or bone marrow, even if it saves a life. An existing life. Heck, we don't even harvest tissue/eyes/etc... from corpses without express permission. So how is it ok to say a woman must give up her body/life for nearly a year to some other not-even-fully-human? And you can't say it's because she created it. Someone helped her, and even then we don't force biological parents to donate kidneys or bone marrow or such to their living children.
Essentially, you say the woman must give up her body/blood/tissue/life for this potential person, but after it's born we couldn't possibly force the bio father to donate a kidney to it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote