(January 6, 2015 at 5:21 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I can hear you and your conservatard friends shrieking about the cost of those facilities, Woodie. His solution to this non-existent problem would remove your main reason for insisting on no abortions.

The continued oppression of women.

Pregancy is terminated when a child is removed from the womb. How is it that women are somehow oppressed if the child is removed and lives but not oppressed if the child is removed and dies?

It seems to me that not only do you want to grant women the right to terminate their pregnancy, you also want to give them the right to determine if a particular person will exist or not.

The pro-abortion movement is evil and their opposition to this sort of solution to the pregnancy "problem" is evidence of its evilness.

"The pro abortion movement is evil". Your idiocy and propagandistic wingnuttiness is showing again woodster.

The objective of having an abortion is not "to kill a person", it's to end a pregnancy. The bodily autonomy of the woman takes full precedent.

(January 6, 2015 at 5:34 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: "The pro abortion movement is evil". Your idiocy and propagandistic wingnuttiness is showing again woodster.

The objective of having an abortion is not "to kill a person", it's to end a pregnancy. The bodily autonomy of the woman takes full precedent.

If the objective of an abortion is to end a pregnancy, what then is the reason to be opposed to ending pregnancies in a manner which preserves the life to the child?

I am saying that the reason the pro-abortion movement seems to be against this method of ending pregnancies is because it is part of their goal to not only end an unwanted pregnancy, but also to stop a person they do not want to exist....from existing.

What does that say about the pro-abortion movement?

(January 6, 2015 at 5:33 pm)Heywood Wrote: Pregancy is terminated when a child is removed from the womb. How is it that women are somehow oppressed if the child is removed and lives but not oppressed if the child is removed and dies?

It seems to me that not only do you want to grant women the right to terminate their pregnancy, you also want to give them the right to determine if a particular person will exist or not.

The pro-abortion movement is evil and their opposition to this sort of solution to the pregnancy "problem" is evidence of its evilness.

Because, as I said, the bodily autonomy rights of the woman take priority, as she's the one whose body are being used against their will (assuming she's getting an abortion). Are you talking about time constraints, i.e. forcing the woman to wait until the fetus is viable, then perform a c-section?

So you're cool if I collect every load you fire off to develop it into a child in a lab, Heywood? You know what, I don't care if you're cool with it, I'm doing it anyway. You don't get a say.

He'd probably be fine with that Exian, as it doesn't impact him in any way. Try forcing him to be hooked up as a dialysis machine for someone else for 9 months regardless of his wishes and maybe that's a bit closer.

(January 6, 2015 at 5:42 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Because, as I said, the bodily autonomy rights of the woman take priority, as she's the one whose body are being used against their will (assuming she's getting an abortion). Are you talking about time constraints, i.e. forcing the woman to wait until the fetus is viable, then perform a c-section?

Nobody mentioned anything about making the women wait until the baby is viable and then preforming C-sections on them. I'm not sure where you are getting that idea from.

That's why I asked, sometimes theists use that as a restriction they want to put on women. So, where are you getting this "pro-abortion people are against abortion techniques that preserve the fetus' life"?