Why I'm becoming more pro-choice

Originally posted by generalissimo
without restrictions?

Without your nonsensical "there has to be a conviction for rape" restriction.

Originally posted by FMF
Without your nonsensical "there has to be a conviction for rape" restriction.

fair enough, Im glad to hear you stand up for all those brilliant women who have abortions after alcohol-fueled one night stands so that they don't have to suffer the consequences of their irresponsibility.
Its so much better when human life can be disposed for no reason whatsoever.

Originally posted by generalissimo
fair enough, Im glad to hear you stand up for all those brilliant women who have abortions after alcohol-fueled one night stands so that they don't have to suffer the consequences of their irresponsibility.
Its so much better when human life can be disposed for no reason whatsoever.

Trust me, its not without consequences. In fact, the woman who initiated Roe vs. Wade has a tremendous sense of guilt and now is prolife.

Originally posted by generalissimo
fair enough, Im glad to hear you stand up for all those brilliant women who have abortions after alcohol-fueled one night stands so that they don't have to suffer the consequences of their irresponsibility.

So you paraphrase bringing a baby into the world as "suffering the consequences"? Not very life-affirming of you. It sounds to me like these "brilliant women" you depict so sordidly, and then cite in order to make your anti-women's right to choose, would be - in some cases - exercising repsonsibility if they were to terminate the pregnancy. As for which women you think I stand up for and which ones you may think I don't stand up for, as with any human right, it's a matter of principle, not a matter of cheap debating rhetoric about "alcohol-fueled one night stands": I support a woman's right over her own body, her fertility and her right to choose. That's all women. I stand up for all women. Just as, when we advocate free speech, we advocate it for all people - even those we disagree with, for instance, Ezra Levant. I support free speech. I support a woman's right to choose. This is how principles should be argued and stated. Not mired in flippant, seedy, half-baked remarks.

Originally posted by FMF
So you paraphrase bringing a baby into the world as "suffering the consequences"? Not very life-affirming of you. It sounds to me like these "brilliant women" you depict so sordidly, and then cite in order to make your anti-women's right to choose, would be - in some cases - exercising repsonsibility if they were to terminate the pregnancy. As for which w ...[text shortened]... iples should be argued and stated. Not mired in flippant, seedy, half-baked remarks.

Life-affirming or not, its the truth, and the truth isn't always pretty (regardless of what it is like in fmf's bizarroplanet). So now you're saying abortions are a human right? since when?

not a matter of cheap debating rhetoric about "alcohol-fueled one night stands"

it happens in real life, it isn't "cheap deabating rhetoric".

I support a woman's right over her own body, her fertility and her right to choose

is it all me, me, me? no responsibility or regard for human life?

Just as, when we advocate free speech, we advocate it for all people - even those we disagree with, for instance, Ezra Levant. I support free speech. I support a woman's right to choose. This is how principles should be argued and stated. Not mired in flippant, seedy, half-baked remarks.

Ridiculous. How can you possibly compare abortions to free speech?
The two things cannot possibly be compared.
We're talking about human life, not about whether or not someone will be offended if some other guy says something.

Originally posted by generalissimo
How can you possibly compare abortions to free speech?
The two things cannot possibly be compared.

Freedom of speech and the woman's right to choose are both fundamental rights and supporting or advocating them involve the the application of political principles.

Originally posted by FMF
Freedom of speech and the woman's right to choose are both fundamental rights and supporting or advocating them involve the the application of political principles.

But not all free speech is legal. For example, you can't yell fire in a theatre nor utter obscenities on the public air waves. In fact, there is some debate as to whether free speech should be censored via the fairness doctrine. I suppose it all boils down to your agenda in terms of what you support or don't support. Currently, however, the abortion industry is big bucks, thus they must adhere to their constituents.

Originally posted by whodey
I suppose it all boils down to your agenda in terms of what you support or don't support. Currently, however, the abortion industry is big bucks, thus they must adhere to their constituents.

I support a woman's right over her own body, her fertility and her right to choose. And yet I have no stake whatsoever in the "abortion industry", nor am I one of its "constituents". Indeed, I can hardly imagine personally being involved in terminating a pregnancy, as I said earlier in this thread. But this does not affect my pro-choice stance. So your clumsy attempt to link what I support to "big bucks" is a dud, I'm afraid.

Originally posted by FMF
Freedom of speech and the woman's right to choose are both fundamental rights and supporting or advocating them involve the the application of political principles.

In that case, aren't they just as important as the right to drink orange juice?
if you're going to compare the two then you might as well include any other "right" you can think of regardless of its magnitude, right?
furthermore, how many babies are killed by freedom of speech?

Originally posted by generalissimo
In that case, aren't [Freedom of speech and the woman's right to choose] just as important as the right to drink orange juice?

No, generalissimo. They aren't.

Originally posted by generalissimo
furthermore, how many babies are killed by freedom of speech?

Ah yes, indeed, now I do see how some among us might have difficulties drawing parallels between two different rights.

Originally posted by FMF
No, generalissimo. They aren't.

why not? shouldn't I have the right to drink whatever I want? its my body, and I don't care about anything else.

Originally posted by FMF
Ah yes, indeed, now I do see how some among us might have difficulties drawing parallels between two different rights.

please explain yourself.

Originally posted by generalissimo
please explain yourself.

That would be over-egging it.

Originally posted by whodey
Your point is beyond pathetic. In essence, what you are saying is the lower the population the lower the crime rate. No kidding. In fact, show me a highly populated area and I will show you a high crime rate. I think the best way to reduce the crime rate is simply to erradicate the large populations. That would be heaven on earth for those in the hard core left.

No, that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that unwanted children have a greater chance of later becoming criminals. It is not true that densely populated areas always have high crime rates.