Bans 'do not cut abortion rate'

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not legally it ain't.

[HAL 9000 96]

I wonder what the biological definition for 'child' is...

[Joseph & Ana 0]

None of this changes the fact that the father doesn't and shouldn't have any claim over the woman's body during gestation.

If she chooses to get an abortion, he's got to live with it.

Then I guess he should also be able to decide NOT to have the child too because then he'd have to pay child support...

There's no shortage of deadbeat dads.

She kills the child and she's excersizing her right... he doesn't pay for the child, and he's a deadbeat... interesting logic.

Yes Joe - only women can bear children, how utterly unfair and biased that is. Those bitches - how dare they! Its a liberal conspiracy is what it is.

Still doesn't change the fact that its interesting logic. She is praised for killing the child, yet he's called deadbeat if she lets it live.

Not legally it ain't.

I wonder if it were extended to 2 years old, if you'd still be saying.. Its legal so nah nah nah..

I wonder what the biological definition for 'child' is...

That depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.

[HAL 9000 96]

Joe has arrived at that point in the thread where silly language becomes a cry for attention.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The biological definition isn't really important.

The distinctions are made in law. The law takes the view that women have the right to determine whether or not they want to have a child.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

None of this changes the fact that the father doesn't and shouldn't have any claim over the woman's body during gestation.

If she chooses to get an abortion, he's got to live with it.

Then I guess he should also be able to decide NOT to have the child too because then he'd have to pay child support...

There's no shortage of deadbeat dads.

She kills the child and she's excersizing her right... he doesn't pay for the child, and he's a deadbeat... interesting logic.

Yes Joe - only women can bear children, how utterly unfair and biased that is. Those bitches - how dare they! Its a liberal conspiracy is what it is.

Still doesn't change the fact that its interesting logic. She is praised for killing the child, yet he's called deadbeat if she lets it live.

Yep - life isn't fair is it.

Not legally it ain't.

I wonder if it were extended to 2 years old, if you'd still be saying.. Its legal so nah nah nah..

Grow the ** up.

[HAL 9000 96]

The biological definition isn't really important.

The distinctions are made in law. The law takes the view that women have the right to determine whether or not they want to have a child.

They matter to people that have a 1st grade understanding of viability and how that can be misconstrued as some strange assertion of human rights from before birth.

If only these same nutjobs would stand up for the human rights of people already walking this planet...

[Peikko 1,575]

Joe is crying for attention

[Joseph & Ana 0]

The biological definition isn't really important.

The distinctions are made in law. The law takes the view that women have the right to determine whether or not they want to have a child.

When did the supreme court have the authority to make law?

None of this changes the fact that the father doesn't and shouldn't have any claim over the woman's body during gestation.

If she chooses to get an abortion, he's got to live with it.

Then I guess he should also be able to decide NOT to have the child too because then he'd have to pay child support...

There's no shortage of deadbeat dads.

She kills the child and she's excersizing her right... he doesn't pay for the child, and he's a deadbeat... interesting logic.

Yes Joe - only women can bear children, how utterly unfair and biased that is. Those bitches - how dare they! Its a liberal conspiracy is what it is.

Still doesn't change the fact that its interesting logic. She is praised for killing the child, yet he's called deadbeat if she lets it live.

Yep - life isn't fair is it.

Not legally it ain't.

I wonder if it were extended to 2 years old, if you'd still be saying.. Its legal so nah nah nah..

Grow the ** up.

Ooo he said ** again. he's gettin riled up..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The biological definition isn't really important.

The distinctions are made in law. The law takes the view that women have the right to determine whether or not they want to have a child.

When did the supreme court have the authority to make law?

I write "the law" you read "the supreme court having the authority to make law".

Interesting interpretation.

[HAL 9000 96]

So it should be easy for you to deny abortion rights to a woman.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

The biological definition isn't really important.

The distinctions are made in law. The law takes the view that women have the right to determine whether or not they want to have a child.

They matter to people that have a 1st grade understanding of viability and how that can be misconstrued as some strange assertion of human rights from before birth.

If only these same nutjobs would stand up for the human rights of people already walking this planet...

"I'm smart you're dumb" argument. Tell-tale sign you can't justify your position.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ooo he said ** again. he's gettin riled up..

Are you sure you're an adult?

I'm starting to think that there's a petulant 14 year old behind your keyboard.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

The biological definition isn't really important.

The distinctions are made in law. The law takes the view that women have the right to determine whether or not they want to have a child.

When did the supreme court have the authority to make law?

I write "the law" you read "the supreme court having the authority to make law".

Interesting interpretation.

The libs on the court used "the right to privacy" which does not allow for murdering a child. But the libs said it, so you accept it.

[HAL 9000 96]

The biological definition isn't really important.

The distinctions are made in law. The law takes the view that women have the right to determine whether or not they want to have a child.

They matter to people that have a 1st grade understanding of viability and how that can be misconstrued as some strange assertion of human rights from before birth.

If only these same nutjobs would stand up for the human rights of people already walking this planet...

"I'm smart you're dumb" argument. Tell-tale sign you can't justify your position.

Whine detected.

Plenty of justification for what position pray tell? That you have no right to impose upon others or that you're using scattered arguments since you can't get any one in particular to stick?