Yeah that rhetoric sounds very nice, but you do know that the government make decisions about what the citizens do with their bodies all the time.
Experimental Medicine, Drugs, Child Support, Forced Fatherhood, Draft. This is nothing new, and a dogshit argument. Cause i bet you're pro all those other things and will have some nice meaningless reasons for it.
@Johnny4473 We're not talking about drugs, the draft, or whatever other irrelevant, diversionary analogy you want to come up with because you don't even have an argument. We're talking about a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
Using your reasoning, if the government controls a few things, you don't seem to have a problem with them controlling a few more things, and then a few more things, and then everything. spoken like a true authoritarian fascist.
Are you retarded? Did i say anything about my opinion on abortion. And is the rest of the stuff i said not about government's control over bodily autonomy.
The reason i said it was, because you are a hypocrite. Calling every other issue as irrelevant you showed exactly what you sre and exactly what i was hoping for. You are pro government controlling bodily autonomy for monetary reasons as long as it doesn't control your body.
For your information i am pro-choice, and mever said anything about not having a conversation. I was calling your justification as dogshit, because people like you don't believe in it.
You are pro fascism, and before you go around calling people authoritarian and fascist, go learn the fucking meaning behind the word🤣🤣.
Dehumanizing people who does not strictly agree with your point of view, lol, look at yourself.
You gave your pathetic charade up with the first line. Now i know you're definitely not smart enough to understand your own shamelessness and hypocrisy. So let me dumb it down for you.
I am pro choice because no government should take away someone's right to privacy- like with experimental medicine, Forcing them to fight in a war, forcing them to father a chikd that is not their's, and yes even abortion where you kill a human life to protect your right to choose.
You are pro-choice because you don't wanna give up the option to have an abortion, but all the other issues to you are irrelevant.
That is what you are, a hypocrite fascist hiding behind a cheap mask.
@Johnny4473 No you didn't say anything about abortion which is exactly the point I made you moron. instead you spewed a bunch of irrelevant analogies.
The other issues you brought up were irrelevant to this discussion, not Irrelevant in general. Christ are you this stupid?
How the hell am I in favor of government controlling a woman’s bodily autonomy when my original point was for them not to control a woman's bodily autonomy? OMG you are so freaking stupid.
How the hell do you know what I do or don't believe in based on one sentence?
I said to keep the government out of a woman's choice. how is that authoritarian or fascist? do you even know the meaning of those words? you are Beyond stupid.
I am pro-choice because I think your mother should have aborted you.
So what your saying is only the "super" sex gets the right to life and the same "super" sex can just murder off the boys having no choice over their own bodies at all?
Yes men do have legal responsibility for the children they choose to convene for 18 years just like women. That women have the additional need to carry them for the first 9 months is no different from that more general parental responsibility shared by the father.
Were it possible and necessary the father would be just as responsible.
@monorprise the bear minimum legal responsibility for a man is to pay child support. that's far different than spending nearly every waking hour raising a baby.
@youreanidiot2 The bare minimum legal responsibility for both parents to to care for the child. If the court allows them to not be together then whom ever doesn't have the child is allowed by the goverment only to pay child support.
This is a modern goverment injustice of allowing divorce and thus partial abandonment of children. Until relatively recently in human history it didn't exist.
The only reasonable alternative is allowing the genetic father of the child to order an abortion. "It's my body" well it's his kid. The focus needs to go off of the woman who literally chose to get cummed in
No, I mean that just like you have to go through a background check and such to adopt, you should have to do the same before you can have a baby that is your own.
Well I'm legally pro-choice. At what point does being pro-choice cross the line into being pro-late-term, third-trimester abortions? In New Jersey and Oregon, you can legally get an abortion at full term (into the 39th week of pregnancy). Isn't that above and beyond being pro-choice?
Setting the choice deadline at full term is something that my common sense refuses to process. Unless there's a medical and/or legal emergency, there's no logical legitimate reason in a "normal" and "healthy" situation that anyone would need more than 23 weeks to make a decision. So we'll agree to disagree.
Of course there's a logical reason. It's the same one that pertains as a reason in most abortions. Having a baby might be really inconvenient, so this would be a way of getting rid of that problem. Never mind the fact that all of it constitutes murder.
@msc545 You're saying that people do it so they don't have to deal with the inconvenience of a baby, but I'm saying that hardly anyone sees it that way.
@msc545 Because I've talked to people who have had abortions. None of them described getting an abortion because having a child was an inconvenience. I'm not saying that nobody sees it that way, but the vast minority sees it that way.
There's definitely some truth to that. Nowhere in Europe can you get an abortion beyond 24 weeks (with certain medical and legal exceptions). Meanwhile you can get an abortion in New Jersey and Oregon into the 39th week of pregnancy.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
29Opinion
That's not a compromise, because 90% of abortions are between 6 and 12 week. It would be almost completely legal.
Well 23 weeks is 57½% of the typical full-term pregnancy. So it's more than half, but it's not "almost completely" to full-term.
Compromise means both sides suffer. Such compromise would be very one-sided.
Morally I agree. Legally it's better than late-term, third-trimester abortions.
The only ‘fair’ response to the issue on women’s bodily autonomy is fuck off🤷♀️Not your uterus not your business
Does that mean New Jersey and Oregon are correct? Abortions in those states are available into the 39th week of pregnancy.
I've got a better plan: let women decide what they want to do with their own body and keep the government out of it.
Yeah that rhetoric sounds very nice, but you do know that the government make decisions about what the citizens do with their bodies all the time.
Experimental Medicine, Drugs, Child Support, Forced Fatherhood, Draft. This is nothing new, and a dogshit argument. Cause i bet you're pro all those other things and will have some nice meaningless reasons for it.
@Johnny4473 We're not talking about drugs, the draft, or whatever other irrelevant, diversionary analogy you want to come up with because you don't even have an argument. We're talking about a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
Using your reasoning, if the government controls a few things, you don't seem to have a problem with them controlling a few more things, and then a few more things, and then everything. spoken like a true authoritarian fascist.
Are you retarded? Did i say anything about my opinion on abortion. And is the rest of the stuff i said not about government's control over bodily autonomy.
The reason i said it was, because you are a hypocrite. Calling every other issue as irrelevant you showed exactly what you sre and exactly what i was hoping for. You are pro government controlling bodily autonomy for monetary reasons as long as it doesn't control your body.
For your information i am pro-choice, and mever said anything about not having a conversation. I was calling your justification as dogshit, because people like you don't believe in it.
You are pro fascism, and before you go around calling people authoritarian and fascist, go learn the fucking meaning behind the word🤣🤣.
Dehumanizing people who does not strictly agree with your point of view, lol, look at yourself.
You gave your pathetic charade up with the first line. Now i know you're definitely not smart enough to understand your own shamelessness and hypocrisy. So let me dumb it down for you.
I am pro choice because no government should take away someone's right to privacy- like with experimental medicine, Forcing them to fight in a war, forcing them to father a chikd that is not their's, and yes even abortion where you kill a human life to protect your right to choose.
You are pro-choice because you don't wanna give up the option to have an abortion, but all the other issues to you are irrelevant.
That is what you are, a hypocrite fascist hiding behind a cheap mask.
@Johnny4473 No you didn't say anything about abortion which is exactly the point I made you moron. instead you spewed a bunch of irrelevant analogies.
The other issues you brought up were irrelevant to this discussion, not Irrelevant in general. Christ are you this stupid?
How the hell am I in favor of government controlling a woman’s bodily autonomy when my original point was for them not to control a woman's bodily autonomy? OMG you are so freaking stupid.
How the hell do you know what I do or don't believe in based on one sentence?
I said to keep the government out of a woman's choice. how is that authoritarian or fascist? do you even know the meaning of those words? you are Beyond stupid.
I am pro-choice because I think your mother should have aborted you.
So what your saying is only the "super" sex gets the right to life and the same "super" sex can just murder off the boys having no choice over their own bodies at all?
@youreanidiot2 So New Jersey, Oregon, and all of Canada have it correct? Legal abortions possible into the 39th week of pregnancy?
@monorprise i don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Why do women AKA the "Super sex" get to decide the issue of life and death for both men and women?
@NYCQuestions1976 abortion should be legal up to age 5.
@monorprise Do men get pregnant and carry babies to term and have a legal responsibility to care for the child for the next 18 years? no. so shut up.
Yes men do have legal responsibility for the children they choose to convene for 18 years just like women. That women have the additional need to carry them for the first 9 months is no different from that more general parental responsibility shared by the father.
Were it possible and necessary the father would be just as responsible.
@monorprise the bear minimum legal responsibility for a man is to pay child support. that's far different than spending nearly every waking hour raising a baby.
@youreanidiot2 Age 5? That's not very realistic.
I'm a full-time single parent. Child support is not the bare minimum responsibility for either parent.
As for "bear" minimum, I can't help you there. You're on your own with that one.
@youreanidiot2 The bare minimum legal responsibility for both parents to to care for the child. If the court allows them to not be together then whom ever doesn't have the child is allowed by the goverment only to pay child support.
This is a modern goverment injustice of allowing divorce and thus partial abandonment of children. Until relatively recently in human history it didn't exist.
We have tried that. They murder babies.
The government doesn't belong in our business
Overly-simplified, but almost always true.
No specific opinion? Did you vote?
The only reasonable alternative is allowing the genetic father of the child to order an abortion. "It's my body" well it's his kid. The focus needs to go off of the woman who literally chose to get cummed in
I'm sure there are plenty of professional athletes who would subscribe to this.
I don't think anyone should be allowed to get pregnant unless they could legally adopt.
You mean adopt out the unwanted baby?
No, I mean that just like you have to go through a background check and such to adopt, you should have to do the same before you can have a baby that is your own.
I admit that's the first time I've heard/seen this idea. Seems really intrusive to me.
More intrusive than forbidding people from seeking safe abortions?
Well I'm legally pro-choice. At what point does being pro-choice cross the line into being pro-late-term, third-trimester abortions? In New Jersey and Oregon, you can legally get an abortion at full term (into the 39th week of pregnancy). Isn't that above and beyond being pro-choice?
At the point where the fetus is not dependent upon the umbilical cord for life it is a person and given the full rights of any person
Setting the choice deadline at full term is something that my common sense refuses to process. Unless there's a medical and/or legal emergency, there's no logical legitimate reason in a "normal" and "healthy" situation that anyone would need more than 23 weeks to make a decision. So we'll agree to disagree.
Of course there's a logical reason. It's the same one that pertains as a reason in most abortions. Having a baby might be really inconvenient, so this would be a way of getting rid of that problem. Never mind the fact that all of it constitutes murder.
@msc545 most abortions aren't matters of convenience
They are inconvenient, granted, but they are done to avoid the greater inconvenience of a baby.
@msc545 You're saying that people do it so they don't have to deal with the inconvenience of a baby, but I'm saying that hardly anyone sees it that way.
how do you know that?
@msc545 Because I've talked to people who have had abortions. None of them described getting an abortion because having a child was an inconvenience. I'm not saying that nobody sees it that way, but the vast minority sees it that way.
I really doubt that anyone would admit to that.
@msc545 so you believe your own prejudice over the only evidence we have?
@Twalli You have no evidence so far. "Talking to people" as you stated is just hearsay.
@msc545 well, they're the ones which abortions affect
@Twalli Define "person" please.
@msc545 In the instance I was talking about, women who have previously had abortions. If you mean in the general sense a living breathing homosapien.
@twali just because a few women have told you things, those things do not necessarily apply to women in general.
@msc545 And I suppose you've talked to women who regret having gotten an abortion?
Many, sadly.
Most Liberals are fucking idiots. They scream about how Europe is so progressive, meanwhile they know nothing about their laws.
There's definitely some truth to that. Nowhere in Europe can you get an abortion beyond 24 weeks (with certain medical and legal exceptions). Meanwhile you can get an abortion in New Jersey and Oregon into the 39th week of pregnancy.
Stealing sperm is not illegal... somehow
Yes that happens to athletes all the time.