Pro abortion or not

[Bad Writer]

Nu

I started to reply to this but it degenerated into an inarticulate stream of abuse so I'll wait until my brain is not quite so full of Fuck.

Ok. Have simmered down a bit. However I've decided not to reply to your post in detail. I'm here on this forum for fun an not to rake over old scars simply to refute the asinine ramblings of an ignorant arsewipe (sorry). So I'll concede all points (unless anyone else wants a go). You win lion.

Just because he flung his dung in your face in no way means that he won anything. All those who have read your posts here know who the true victor is, especially since your views in no way attempt take away a person's right to choose. Arsehole is as arsehole does.

[WesOlsen]

[Tiberius]

[Doubting Thomas]

I would argue that the medical treatment of patients with ectopic pregnancies is a moral question of whether one or both lives can be saved.
The pro-life position would be that saving one life is better than losing two.

Except for the "pro-life" members who wanted Dr. Tiller dead.

That's right, he was performing medically necessary late-term abortions. Medically necessary. As in, both he and another doctor had to sign off on stating that the abortion was medically necessary. It's not like he was rounding up pregnant women and ripping babies from their bellies, as ex-Attorney General* Phil Kline and Bill O'Reilly always insinuated. And yet, some wonderful "pro-lifer" by the name of Scott Roeder decided to be judge, jury, and executioner and killed a doctor who was performing medically necessary abortions. Now, hardly any doctors in the country are willing to perform late-term abortions due to domestic terrorism, and women's health is at risk.

Even if they aren't medically necessary, it's still none of your fucking business who has an abortion or why.



*Phil Kline was the Attorney General of Kansas and made his sole mission upon being elected nothing more than putting Dr. Tiller in jail. However at his trial Dr. Tiller successfully showed that all the abortions he performed were medically necessary and was acquitted. Phil Kline, on the other hand, lost reelection and later lost his law license due to ethics violations regarding illegally accessed private medical records of women who had abortions.

[JohnCrichton72]

Sorry John Crichton but this subject has the the shit beaten out of it.

I notice no poll, and that the majority of posts are just rehash from other threads. over the past year or more.

For your records...I am pro-choice of the woman involved.

I just recently joined and haven't yet mastered all of the little tid bits of the site such as adding polls.


I didn't mind being wrong, but, most of the posts seemed like proselytising, rehashed propaganda.
I honestly feel completely alienated from the majority of this forums community because of the responses, I don't think I am in any way more intelligent when I say this as I know people can be dumb about certain things yet still retain innately high reasoning faculties and be extremely well read;

The universal condoning of abortion with horrible libtarb, overtly feministic to the point of sexist reasoning makes me think it's time to move on from this forum already.

[NoraBrimstone]

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

[feeling]

[Lemonvariable72]

[genkaus]

Not much. I'm aware of a lot of men who didn't/don't pay their child support.

Are they legally excused from paying it or can the mother still drag them to court.

And anyway, why shouldn't he pay child support? Oh, wait -- he WASN'T half responsible for the "consequences" of his decision to have sex?

While the woman had the CHOICE to avoid the consequences of having sex if she'd chosen to terminate the pregnancy - no such choice was available to the man.

I can't decide which side of the abortion issue you're on. Is she irresponsible if she has the baby? Or if she chooses to abort?

I'm pro-choice - through and through. The question of irresponsibility here does not matter. Whether or not they were being irresponsible, the woman gets to choose whether or not to avoid having the responsibility of the baby. The man is stuck with her choice - which as a pro-choice advocate, I find galling.

Here's the point: If the man "chooses" to stick around or if he doesn't, the woman must live with the result of an unwanted pregnancy no matter what choice he makes. She HAS no choice in the matter. Guy takes off for Bimini? She still has the baby. Don't you see that? Really?

But she does have a choice - of terminating it. And as decisions go, that one is easier to carry out that abandoning your life, your job, your friends and your family and moving to Bimini.