The New Abortion Debate

[Exterminator]

Saw this on FB, written by a pastor.

  Dave Barnhart writes,
"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.
Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

Perfect!

[Henry Hawk]

The root cause for all of this caterwauling is one side of the argument considers intercourse the duty of the woman and an absolute right of a man to impose upon the woman.

The opposing side sees it (correctly) as the expression of feelings the two parties harbor for each other, and the physical manifestation of it. The desire to bring pleasure to one another.

Pregnancy is sometimes the result of this, and more often than not it is unplanned. The decision to bring said pregnancy to full term rests solely upon those that engaged in the actions that brought the result. ( In the cases wherein one of the parties is absent, or forced said action upon the other, thereby breaking the law (s) of humankind, the decision rests solely with the woman.)

Their reasoning is theirs and theirs alone, and no one else's business. Period.

Laws based upon religious belief are a violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights. Period.

Every word you said, well ALMOST every word you said, I agree with....My comments "killing is killing" may have not been the best way to put it....but the point I am trying to make is....Abortion is KILLING.  There is NO denying this.  It can be sugar coated all you want, but the procedure is KILLING an innocent baby.  Call it a zygote or whatever you want...it is KILLING.

No Ex, I'm not lump me in to your stereotypical "religious" sector.  I know innocent inmates has been wrongly convicted and killed.......I think that is HORRIBLE....I'm not playing God.  I believe a cold-blooded murderer MUST be destroyed from our society.  Let God determine his eternal destiny....(MY OPINION ) I think Killing a baby because two people made a mistake is HORRIBLE.  However,  I respect the law.  I don't have to like it, (and I don't) but it's the law.  If it can be changed and given back to the States to decide, I think it would be even better.

[AbbyTC]

The root cause for all of this caterwauling is one side of the argument considers intercourse the duty of the woman and an absolute right of a man to impose upon the woman.

The opposing side sees it (correctly) as the expression of feelings the two parties harbor for each other, and the physical manifestation of it. The desire to bring pleasure to one another.

Pregnancy is sometimes the result of this, and more often than not it is unplanned. The decision to bring said pregnancy to full term rests solely upon those that engaged in the actions that brought the result. ( In the cases wherein one of the parties is absent, or forced said action upon the other, thereby breaking the law (s) of humankind, the decision rests solely with the woman.)

Their reasoning is theirs and theirs alone, and no one else's business. Period.

Laws based upon religious belief are a violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights. Period.

Yes! Well said PH.

[Exterminator]

Shared with permission....and permission granted for others to share.

This pretty much says it all.

"Reasonable people can disagree about when a zygote becomes a "human life" - that's a philosophical question. However, regardless of whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her bodily autonomy for another, innocent or not.

Bodily autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), McFall v. Shimp (1978), and of course Roe v. Wade (1973). Consider a scenario where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe aplastic anemia; no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for whatever reason, the state cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent. It doesn't matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the rationale for refusing is flimsy and arbitrary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else - the decision to donate must be voluntary to be constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or many lives they would save. That's the law.

Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life - it must be offered voluntarily. By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just, and refusing is morally wrong. That is a defensible philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees. But legally, it must be the woman's choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may choose to carry the baby to term. She may choose not to. Either decision could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But it must be her choice, and protecting the right of bodily autonomy means the law is on her side. Supporting that precedent is what being pro-choice means.'"

[The Troll]

 Far right Christian Republicans are yellow chicken shit cowards.  They can not make a woman carry a baby to birth by themselves.  But these chicken shit cowards will buy yellow chicken shit politicians to pass government laws that will try to make her do it.  Punish the woman for getting abortion, NO.  But punish the person who helps her get abortion.  In the 21st century these laws won't work, because the woman won't let them work.

  But before this happens there will be pain, deaths and sucides cause by these yellow chicken shit Christians, cause by the yellow asshole sticking there nose into someone else's business.   

[Henry Hawk]

A woman certainly has the right to her own body, I agree 100%.....But t's not her body being murdered. 

There are consequences to our actions, and that includes the sex act.

Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. Period.

[The Troll]

I guess with your morals, you would stop abortion and you and your ilk will take care of the fetus's with your money and time.  How about that Despicable?

  You called it and you pay for it.   

[Y]

A woman certainly has the right to her own body, I agree 100%.....But t's not her body being murdered.

There are consequences to our actions, and that includes the sex act.

Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. Period.

1. Stop lying, you certainly don't think women have the right to self-ownership. 

2. A fetus is part of her body and won't survive unaided.

3. It's not 'murder' under any sane definition.  A fetus is not a 'person' until it's born and starts breathing on it's own.

4. There certainly are consequences to our actions, but hypocrites such as yourself only want to impose them on others and not yourself.  Think about your own actions as it applies to your fiscal irresponsibility and your using bankruptcy twice to avoid paying the piper for your actions.  You RW religious nutbags are always huge hypocrites.

5. No, abortion is the removal of fetal tissue that is parasitic, part of the mother's body, and cannot survive as a separate entity.

6. As I and others have repeatedly pointed out, you RW religious cretins care about the fetus but not about human beings.