"The result of abortion, according to Brownback, is the complete killing of a whole class of people in America.
Between 80 percent to 90 percent of the children in America diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome will be killed in the womb simply because they have a positive genetic test which can be wrong, and is often wrong, but they would have a positive genetic test for Down’s Syndrome and they will be killed."
[quote]Juan Blanco wrote:
Down’s Syndrome and they will be killed.
He says it likes it’s a bad thing.[/quote]
If I read this correctly and you think it’s a “good” thing to kill unborn Down’s Syndrome babies, let me be the first to reveal my strong desire to kick the shit out of you.
Why are the people so aggressive about controling womens reproductive rights the first to suddenly adopt a “shit happens… not my problem!” attitude once the kid is born?
Why are the people so aggressive about controling womens reproductive rights the first to suddenly adopt a “shit happens… not my problem!” attitude once the kid is born?
[quote]derek wrote:
Juan Blanco wrote:
Down’s Syndrome and they will be killed.
He says it likes it’s a bad thing.
If I read this correctly and you think it’s a “good” thing to kill unborn Down’s Syndrome babies, let me be the first to reveal my strong desire to kick the shit out of you.
If I’m wrong about what you wrote, my appologies.[/quote]
I think he is being sarcastic. The test for Down’s syndrome is not accurate enough. I think there is over a 10% error rate. Most people with positive results end up having an abortion even though there is such a high rate of false positives.
Why are the people so aggressive about controling womens reproductive rights the first to suddenly adopt a “shit happens… not my problem!” attitude once the kid is born?
[/quote]
And for that matter, why are the people so aggressive about protecting the “rights” of individuals the first one to recommend killing a fetus if the “mother” waits until after conception to decide that she really doesn’t want to reproduce at this time?
Must be because Man, in all his wisdom and mastery of technology still hasn’t figured out a way to keep sex from resulting in conception. Damn you, overly complicated reproductive system! Damn you straight to HELL!!!
Why are the people so aggressive about controling womens reproductive rights the first to suddenly adopt a “shit happens… not my problem!” attitude once the kid is born?
And for that matter, why are the people so aggressive about protecting the “rights” of individuals the first one to recommend killing a fetus if the “mother” waits until after conception to decide that she really doesn’t want to reproduce at this time?
Must be because Man, in all his wisdom and mastery of technology still hasn’t figured out a way to keep sex from resulting in conception. Damn you, overly complicated reproductive system! Damn you straight to HELL!!![/quote]
Because a woman has the right to decide if she will be, get, or remain pregnant (yes I’m aware biological factors may exist that prevent her from becoming pregnant). She has this right from the moment she is born to the moment she dies. She has this right if she is rape, if a condom breaks, if the pull out method doesn’t work, if she has unprotected sex with 100 men everyday with each and every one of them ejaculating inside her.
If you’re more concerned with the baby/zygote/fetus/whatever-word-we’re-using-today’s right to life, why not put focus on finding a way to protect that right without infringing on a womans reproductive rights?
Why are the people so aggressive about controling womens reproductive rights the first to suddenly adopt a “shit happens… not my problem!” attitude once the kid is born?
And for that matter, why are the people so aggressive about protecting the “rights” of individuals the first one to recommend killing a fetus if the “mother” waits until after conception to decide that she really doesn’t want to reproduce at this time?
Must be because Man, in all his wisdom and mastery of technology still hasn’t figured out a way to keep sex from resulting in conception. Damn you, overly complicated reproductive system! Damn you straight to HELL!!![/quote]
Call it what it is. It is not reproductive rights in question. It is abortion.
Why are the people so aggressive about controling womens reproductive rights the first to suddenly adopt a “shit happens… not my problem!” attitude once the kid is born?
And for that matter, why are the people so aggressive about protecting the “rights” of individuals the first one to recommend killing a fetus if the “mother” waits until after conception to decide that she really doesn’t want to reproduce at this time?
Must be because Man, in all his wisdom and mastery of technology still hasn’t figured out a way to keep sex from resulting in conception. Damn you, overly complicated reproductive system! Damn you straight to HELL!!!
Call it what it is. It is not reproductive rights in question. It is abortion.
It is not “pro-choice” it is pro-abortion.[/quote]
I disagree.
Being “pro-abortion” would mean supporting that as many women as possible get abortions (or that all babies be aborted), it would mean asserting that abortion is always preferable to carrying a pregnancy to term, and trying to force women who don’t want to get an abortion to get an abortion.
Being “pro choice” simply means supporting a womans CHOICE to have an abortion when that woman makes said CHOICE.
And yes, it is womens reproductive rights in question, the same way a womans reproductive rights would be in question if a woman wanted to become pregnant and another person (not a biological factor) tried, by whatever means, to stop her.
If you’re more concerned with the baby/zygote/fetus/whatever-word-we’re-using-today’s right to life, why not put focus on finding a way to protect that right without infringing on a womans reproductive rights? [/quote]
Well, you’ve got me. I’ve been totally ninja’d by your masterful debatery. Clearly any given woman’s reproductive rights are much more strongly protected within the Constitution than any given parasites right to live inside that woman. I’m officially switching sides on the abortion issue as of right now.
We should just go ahead and make it law that no individual has the right to that Life and Liberty silliness until they are actually breathing American air. That will satisfy both the xenophobes AND the partial-birth abortion advocates. Everyone wins!
If you’re more concerned with the baby/zygote/fetus/whatever-word-we’re-using-today’s right to life, why not put focus on finding a way to protect that right without infringing on a womans reproductive rights?
Well, you’ve got me. I’ve been totally ninja’d by your masterful debatery. Clearly any given woman’s reproductive rights are much more strongly protected within the Constitution than any given parasites right to live inside that woman. I’m officially switching sides on the abortion issue as of right now.
We should just go ahead and make it law that no individual has the right to that Life and Liberty silliness until they are actually breathing American air. That will satisfy both the xenophobes AND the partial-birth abortion advocates. Everyone wins![/quote]
…and the sarcastic jackassery is for what, exactly? If you’re trying to paint me as a xenophobe or racist or some other nonsense because I support womens reproductive rights… please. GTFO, yo.
The point I was tyring to make is that it would be more optimal to figure out a way to protect both the reproductive rights of women AND the right to life of yet-to-be-born children, instead of being forced to make a choice between the two.
[quote]Juan Blanco wrote:
"The result of abortion, according to Brownback, is the complete killing of a whole class of people in America.
Between 80 percent to 90 percent of the children in America diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome will be killed in the womb simply because they have a positive genetic test which can be wrong, and is often wrong, but they would have a positive genetic test for Down’s Syndrome and they will be killed."
[/quote]
Other than reducing the McDonalds employee pool I don’t see anything wrong with this.
Being “pro-abortion” would mean supporting that as many women as possible get abortions (or that all babies be aborted), it would mean asserting that abortion is always preferable to carrying a pregnancy to term, and trying to force women who don’t want to get an abortion to get an abortion.
… [/quote]
Your position is pro-abortion.
The fictitious position you described is so ridiculous I am at a loss for words. Good job.
