Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Then why do you continue to respond to posts? This is just like your argument, incongruent.Birth is terminating a pregnancy by definition. And as I said before, I'm essentially done with this topic.
Hope they tortured him first - maybe do a trans surgery?-> Isn’t the death sentence for the rape of a 14yo justice?
Incident:According to the indictment, the girl lured the taxi driver to the scene of the murder on March 24 and kept him there until the four boys arrived.
The boys had previously bought rope, masking and clothes that were used as aids in the murder, which took place by strangulation and hanging.
Their approach involved a painful death for the taxi driver and the murder had, according to the prosecutor, "the character of an execution".The day before the murder, the police have found plans to take revenge on the taxi driver in a chat where the girl mentioned that the boyfriend's brothers would meet the rapist."They are going to meet my rapist. THIHIHI", the girl writes, among other things, in internal messages.
The night before the murder, the girl sent a message to the taxi driver asking him to get vodka and arranged to meet him at the desolate place.According to the indictment, he was hanged the same day in the solitary nature reserve by the five young people.
![]()
I'm pointing out your hypocrisy in arguing bodily autonomy, while ignoring the autonomy of the baby.My entire point is literally that the baby is not her body. Am I understanding that you somehow think I thought the opposite?
You make my own point. She cannot be forced to use her body to support the baby's body, legally. Just as none of us can be forced to use a body part to save the life of any other human being, whether a child, relative, or stranger. Same rights, whether the other person has already been born or not. That is what I believe is the right of the woman, for the reasons I stated.
Hope they tortured him first - maybe do a trans surgery?
Muslims are basically cowards, or else they would not beat and rape the women and children as frequently as they would eat lunch.Heard a story from one of the Iraq 2003-2007 veterans who shoot at the Long Island range that his squad had a female NCO who had been tasked with operating the retinal scanners and other ID'ing systems at checkpoints on one of the roads leading into Baghdad. Of course, all of the Muslim men would aggressively hit on her and get into her personal space, sometimes trying to feel her up right there in front of everybody else. She had an M4 slung across her chest and would brandish it outward every time this happened, not quite pointing it at them, but in a gesture that clearly suggests she is ready to, and scream: "Back the fuck away or I will shoot you right in the dick!", in Arabic too as someone had taught her how to say it, and that had even stronger effect. That was the one thing that scared the total crap out of these mofos and made them back up QUICK.![]()
I'm not ignoring it. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. The adverse of my position is that the mother could harvest a kidney from the baby whether the baby consented or not. That would be ignoring it. If the fetus is viable, my position is to not KILL the baby if you terminate the pregnancy.I'm pointing out your hypocrisy in arguing bodily autonomy, while ignoring the autonomy of the baby.
Mom knew the activity she engaged in still carried the risk of pregnancy, regardless of any precautions she took.
Then why do you continue to respond to posts? This is just like your argument, incongruent.
I'm not ignoring it. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. The adverse of my position is that the mother could harvest a kidney from the baby whether the baby consented or not. That would be ignoring it. If the fetus is viable, my position is to not KILL the baby if you terminate the pregnancy.
No person can force another person to save their life by using the other person's body. That's the legal position that I support. The baby cannot force the mother to stay pregnant, just as the law won't force a parent to give a kidney to their child to save the child's life.
And yet no one FORCED that woman to create a new life. She CHOOSES to partake in the act that creates that life. She has a CHOICE. The baby does not. Once she has made that CHOICE, she is OBLIGED to live with the consequences. Just like someone who chooses to murder is obliged to live with the consequences.I'm not ignoring it. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. The adverse of my position is that the mother could harvest a kidney from the baby whether the baby consented or not. That would be ignoring it. If the fetus is viable, my position is to not KILL the baby if you terminate the pregnancy.
No person can force another person to save their life by using the other person's body. That's the legal position that I support. The baby cannot force the mother to stay pregnant, just as the law won't force a parent to give a kidney to their child to save the child's life.
FLINT, MICHIGAN
An argument in a classroom at a Flint, MI high school led to a female student hurling a chair at the teacher, knocking the teacher unconscious:
To go along with that I don't see issues with exceptions for rape, incest, or serious risk to the life of the mother. Personally I think you should check your decision with your Higher Power as well.And yet no one FORCED that woman to create a new life. She CHOOSES to partake in the act that creates that life. She has a CHOICE. The baby does not. Once she has made that CHOICE, she is OBLIGED to live with the consequences. Just like someone who chooses to murder is obliged to live with the consequences.
Do you think a smoker should be denied a lung transplant? Or a manufacturing worker who breathed asbestos? An obese person heart surgery?And yet no one FORCED that woman to create a new life. She CHOOSES to partake in the act that creates that life. She has a CHOICE. The baby does not. Once she has made that CHOICE, she is OBLIGED to live with the consequences. Just like someone who chooses to murder is obliged to live with the consequences.
Yep. And they are usually denied.Do you think a smoker should be denied a lung transplant? Or a manufacturing worker who breathed asbestos? An obese person heart surgery?
Yep? Yep? Should be denied?Yep. And they are usually denied.
My Dad got a lung transplant and my family was blessed with four more years with him before he passed. And if he had been a smoker I’d have said the same thing. He was in perfect health until fibrosis started attacking his lungs and slowly killing him. He waited three years for a lung after his diagnosis. If he had gotten the lung sooner, he might have lived longer. If someone CHOSE to smoke, knowing full well that it was going to kill their lungs, and then was placed on the transplant list ahead of people like my Dad, where is the justice in that?!? I’m perfectly fine with my “higher power”. Maybe you should consult with yours before casting stones…Yep? Yep?
I'm thinking it is you who should consult with your "Higher Power" brother.
My Dad got a lung transplant and my family was blessed with four more years with him before he passed. And if he had been a smoker I’d have said the same thing. He was in perfect health until fibrosis started attacking his lungs and slowly killing him. He waited three years for a lung after his diagnosis. If he had gotten the lung sooner, he might have lived longer. If someone CHOSE to smoke, knowing full well that it was going to kill their lungs, and then was placed on the transplant list ahead of people like my Dad, where is the justice in that?!? I’m perfectly fine with my “higher power”. Maybe you should consult with yours before casting stones…
Nope, just a moral compass. You are welcome to debate any way you wish and I support your right to do so. I simply believe that very few things exist in a grey area. Right and wrong and black and white. You seem to be trying to make your arguments in the gray. The gray is used by lawyers and politicians. I am neither…Bro, you have a short fucking memory.
Absolutely. Diabetics are denied new kidneys, and alcoholics new livers.Do you think a smoker should be denied a lung transplant? Or a manufacturing worker who breathed asbestos? An obese person heart surgery?
Absolutely. Diabetics are denied new kidneys, and alcoholics new livers.
I’m not sure this says what you think it says about you.Yep. And they are usually denied.
It says I'm an adult and outgrew the need to blame others for my mistakes or ask them to take the consequences of my life choices. Pity more can't claim the same.I’m not sure this says what you think it says about you.
Abraham Lincoln said………. “No man has a good enough memory to become an accomplished liar”…..Bro, you have a short fucking memory.
Please clarify why you chose to use this quote.Abraham Lincoln said………. “No man has a good enough memory to become an accomplished liar”…..
You know, there is a logic to not paying for choices people make.Do you think a smoker should be denied a lung transplant? Or a manufacturing worker who breathed asbestos? An obese person heart surgery?
LOL bud. Are you really arguing about "legal" rights. You realize there is no such thing. If a law passed to make it "legal" to dismember people who weigh over 350 lbs, that makes it OK, correct? It would be "legal". That may be an extreme example, but it is factually correct, no?What if they were forced to participate in sex? Then it's okay?
Parents of children who will die without their kidneys aren't forced to partake in sex. And there is no political issue in the mainstream discussion when those same parents don't donate a kidney to save a living, breathing child or even young adult, with friends and a life.
It's a legal issue. It's the application of the same LEGAL right to bodily autonomy respected for those who are not forced to give a kidney, applied to a pregnant woman to decide whether to stay pregnant or not.
As soon as you bring in a moral argument, we're no longer talking about the same thing. My argument is for the legal right of bodily autonomy. Violating this for a fetus or zygote is awarding special rights, not afforded living, breathing people, to a zygote or fetus. How do you justify special rights.