Less choice coming for New York City

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Alot of death and infection from back street abortions.

Get used to this reality, Joey: I have no right to force you to take an unwanted child that needs a father as a random result of you having sex. You have no right to force a woman to abort a child. And you have no right to force women to bear a child.

You don't want women to have abortions? Then I suggest you always wear condoms, you start adopting babies like mad, and you start providing free birth control to every girl over the age of 12.

There should be a lot of risks in carrying out a murder, don't you think? And those risks should deter the act.

I don't have to start "adopting babies like mad". Get used to this reality - when the social "safety net" (that has been instead a hammock for many people) breaks, we will return to the true nature of things, where each person bears the consequence for their own actions and is forced to take responsibility since they can't shift it elsewhere.

That is reality. The social spending and the loophole allowing for legal murder only by expectant mothers is the fabrication, the artificial state of affairs.

You've got this bass ackwards.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So what do you feel is an appropriate punishment for women who abort a pregnancy? Death? Life without parole? Twenty years? Ten? Let's get down to brass tacks, here. What do you see as appropriate punishment?

Isn't the punishment being legally responsible for 18 years of emotional and financial expense you didn't want? Bet that's a great life for that unwanted, unplanned child!

Of course, the anti-abortion folks don't care about fetuses once they breath oxygen, and they sure as hell don't want any financial support to the mother and child after the kid is born.

Thinking sex is only for procreation is ridiculous. And the new, "no birth control for you, either!" bullshi.a.t by those that want to own women and keep them barefoot, pregnant and dependent - well, that's not gonna work, fellas.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Isn't the punishment being legally responsible for 18 years of emotional and financial expense you didn't want? Bet that's a great life for that unwanted, unplanned child!

Of course, the anti-abortion folks don't care about fetuses once they breath oxygen, and they sure as hell don't want any financial support to the mother and child after the kid is born.

Thinking sex is only for procreation is ridiculous. And the new, "no birth control for you, either!" bullshi.a.t by those that want to own women and keep them barefoot, pregnant and dependent - well, that's not gonna work, fellas.

This is one of the problems with liberals: they confuse responsibility with punishment.

Whose fault is it that the child is unplanned and unwanted?

It's not up to the pro-life people to manage the situation of the irresponsible people who get pregnant without a contingency plan for becoming a parent.

Sex is not just for procreation of course - but it does always have the risk of it resulting in that. If you cannot accept the risk, don't engage in the behavior. It's that simple.

If you cannot accept the risk, however small, of a car accident, do not ride in a car as driver or passenger. If you cannot accept the risk of a loss of capital, do not invest in the stock market. If you cannot accept the risk of losing a football game, do not play for the team.

This is only "confusing" because people are letting their loins do the thinking.

Take precautions - minimize the risk - but realize that no precaution is perfect, and in light of that should a pregnancy occur, affirm that you will not murder, and instead your life will take a different course. That is the risk.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by joeydb

This is one of the problems with liberals: they confuse responsibility with punishment.

Whose fault is it that the child is unplanned and unwanted?

It's not up to the pro-life people to manage the situation of the irresponsible people who get pregnant without a contingency plan for becoming a parent.

Sex is not just for procreation of course - but it does always have the risk of it resulting in that. If you cannot accept the risk, don't engage in the behavior. It's that simple.

If you cannot accept the risk, however small, of a car accident, do not ride in a car as driver or passenger. If you cannot accept the risk of a loss of capital, do not invest in the stock market. If you cannot accept the risk of losing a football game, do not play for the team.

This is only "confusing" because people are letting their loins do the thinking.

Take precautions - minimize the risk - but realize that no precaution is perfect, and in light of that should a pregnancy occur, affirm that you will not murder, and instead your life will take a different course. That is the risk.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Where did I say I was for government intervention?

I am against the government intervention that continues to keep the massacre of babies in utero legal.Had the Supreme Court not acted in 1973, the deadlock in the case would have prevented the killing of that human being, and of course the erroneous precedent that one parent alone can order the execution of her would-be child would never have been established.

The fathers aren't off the hook either. It's wrong to set up that situation and then be nowhere to be found. Everybody should learn a little self control instead of acting mentally like children, who then don't want children.

Find a dictionary printed prior to 1973 and you may find a word : aborticide.

it removed government intervention, but nice try. and i'm figuring you're also in favor of the all the limits placed by govt since then (waiting limits, ultrasounds, etc)-you never answered the question i asked, which tells me all i need to know.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it removed government intervention, but nice try. and i'm figuring you're also in favor of the all the limits placed by govt since then (waiting limits, ultrasounds, etc)-you never answered the question i asked, which tells me all i need to know.

The intervention of the Supreme Court ruling has not been undone - unfortunately for the 40 million plus victims.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

The intervention of the Supreme Court ruling has not been undone - unfortunately for the 40 million plus victims.

you're dodging the question, because you don't want to concede you agree completely with every tactic used to thwart something you personally don't agree with.
the supreme court ruled that it's a right to privacy, and i agree with them. it's none of your business. no one is saying people should agree with the ruling, or that you can't hold your opinion. you have every right to it-but your right to your beliefs doesn't grant you leave to force others to follow your opinions.