Teen Vogue's Pro-Abortion Assault on Underage Girls

[NM505StKate]

Why did you chime in the male masturbation thread? Who are you to chime in on that? Further, talk about dopey comparisons: you chide somebody for comparing rape to murder and then try to compare murder to viagra yourself?

No, Kate, men have every right to judge murder, doesn’t matter who does it.

There’s low hanging fruit then there’s free apples. Your arguments are free apples.

I stated an opinion or told the OP there to talk to his doctor. Also I am comparing how cis men are deciding for women what they want to do with their bodies. Men whom never will get pregnant nor know how it feels. It is regulations on bodies that I am concerned with.

Which is why I brought up Viagra, if cis men had to jump through hoops to get the little blue pill as many women whom wish to get an abortion would jump through hoops that many pro-lifers would want then the cis men would be complaining.

 

[NM505StKate]

On your first point, please read and understand scripture before referencing it.

On the second note, Viagra restores normal function to the penis. So its analogy would be female fertility treatmemts to help a woman ovulate.
If you wanted an accurate comparison, we’d have to imagine a Viagra that also poisoned the man’s sexual partner, resulting in saud partner’s death. And in that case I would fully support measures against such a drug.

Maybe the “normal function” would be to no longer get erect. My point was regulating the bodily autonomy of a person. I am sure that cis men would be upset if they needed to go in for some invasive procedure just to get the little blue pill and call for the regulation to be removed.

 

[mVitus]

The difference is that Viagra doesn’t kill another human. To go to Viagra’s real analogy, I would be against restricting access to fertility drugs that helped a woman ovulate.

And with the more accurate analogy to abortion, would you not be opposed to a Viagra that poisoned sexual partners? Or would you say, “Their body, their choice. I don’t have a penis so I can’t comment on the issue even though I can clearly demonstrate it kills other human beings.”

 

[NM505StKate]

The difference is that Viagra doesn’t kill another human. To go to Viagra’s real analogy, I would be against restricting access to fertility drugs that helped a woman ovulate.

And with the more accurate analogy to abortion, would you not be opposed to a Viagra that poisoned sexual partners? Or would you say, “Their body, their choice. I don’t have a penis so I can’t comment on the issue even though I can clearly demonstrate it kills other human beings.”

Well I would think the FCC would not have allowed such a drug to come into existence. Also by the law and by science the fetus isn’t a person. It doesn’t have rights at all.

 

[mVitus]

Well I would think the FCC would not have allowed such a drug to come into existence. Also by the law and by science the fetus isn’t a person. It doesn’t have rights at all.

Abortion drugs have been approved and they kill people. Also you didn’t answer the question so if we assume such a drug was approved, would you not be against it?

As for law: Then black people weren’t really people before the 13th amendment. Yes or no? If no, then you have acknowledged that the law does not determine what truly makes a person and is capable off upholding gravely evil laws such as in Dredd vs Scott.

As for science: The baby meets all criteria for life at conception. And if the aby is alive with human DNA, they are a human being,

 

[Rau]

…Also I am comparing how cis men are deciding for women what they want to do with their bodies. Men whom never will get pregnant nor know how it feels. It is regulations on bodies that I am concerned with.

There are 3, not 2 bodies at issue. The man, the woman and the one who is perhaps the offspring of both. And you hold that only the woman has the right to speak on the fate of the offspring?

 

[Rau]

Well I would think the FCC would not have allowed such a drug to come into existence. Also by the law and by science the fetus isn’t a person. It doesn’t have rights at all.

The rights you speak of are conferred by man.

 

[NM505StKate]

Abortion drugs have been approved and they kill people. Also you didn’t answer the question so if we assume such a drug was approved, would you not be against it?

As for law: Then black people weren’t really people before the 13th amendment. Yes or no? If no, then you have acknowledged that the law does not determine what truly makes a person and is capable off upholding gravely evil laws such as in Dredd vs Scott.

As for science: The baby meets all criteria for life at conception. And if the aby is alive with human DNA, they are a human being,

Problem is the drug wouldn’t be approved. It isn’t a likelihood. Yeah Plan B and other morning after pills are murder.

They were always people but white males didn’t think so before the 13th amendment. Though there is some tricky language in it. It is as much a human as bacteria is human.

 

[NM505StKate]

There are 3, not 2 bodies at issue. The man, the woman and the one who is perhaps the offspring of both. And you hold that only the woman has the right to speak on the fate of the offspring?

Yes I do

 

[mVitus]

Problem is the drug wouldn’t be approved. It isn’t a likelihood. Yeah Plan B and other morning after pills are murder.

They were always people but white males didn’t think so before the 13th amendment. Though there is some tricky language in it. It is as much a human as bacteria is human.

When someone takes action directly aimed at the death of another human, it is murder. So yeah.

And just as black people were always people, are people, and will always be people, so it is with unborn babies who have always been people, are people, and will always be people. Just as the law’s non-recognition of blacks as people was gravely unjust, so is the law’s non-recognition of babies as not being people.

And let’s look at the basic definition of life from biology.

Living things are organisms that display the key characteristics of life. These characteristics include the ability to grow, reproduce, take in and use energy, excrete waste, respond to the environment, and possess an organized structure more complex than that of non-living things.

Let’s see how that checks out with a newly conceived human.

Ability to grow: check
Reproduce: check, the DNA is there for reproductive organs (and I know you’re going to raise an objection to this one by saying ‘but a newly conceived baby can’t have sex’ to which I say: neither can a newborn baby).
Take in and use energy: check
Excrete waste: check
Respond to the environment: check
Posses organized structure more complex than that of non-living things: check

And if something with human DNA is alive, then they must be a human being.

 

[NM505StKate]

When someone takes action directly aimed at the death of another human, it is murder. So yeah.

And just as black people were always people, are people, and will always be people, so it is with unborn babies who have always been people, are people, and will always be people. Just as the law’s non-recognition of blacks as people was gravely unjust, so is the law’s non-recognition of babies as not being people.

And let’s look at the basic definition of life from biology.

Living things are organisms that display the key characteristics of life. These characteristics include the ability to grow, reproduce, take in and use energy, excrete waste, respond to the environment, and possess an organized structure more complex than that of non-living things.

Let’s see how that checks out with a newly conceived human.

Ability to grow: check
Reproduce: check, the DNA is there for reproductive organs (and I know you’re going to raise an objection to this one by saying ‘but a newly conceived baby can’t have sex’ to which I say: neither can a newborn baby).
Take in and use energy: check
Excrete waste: check
Respond to the environment: check
Posses organized structure more complex than that of non-living things: check

And if something with human DNA is alive, then they must be a human being.

Fine. I am still pro choice. I wouldn’t object as I would have known what you meant. The ruling stood.

 

[Rau]

Yes I do

Should you plan to marry one day, it would be imperative that you make known to your husband-to-be that you alone will decide the fate of your offspring.

 

[Rau]

Fine. I am still pro choice.

So then it is clear. The position you hold is one of pure selfishness or egotism. “My convenience is more important than your life”.

 

[RCinMT]

I stated an opinion or told the OP there to talk to his doctor. Also I am comparing how cis men are deciding for women what they want to do with their bodies. Men whom never will get pregnant nor know how it feels. It is regulations on bodies that I am concerned with.

Hmm…so should women only abort female babies?

Which is why I brought up Viagra, if cis men had to jump through hoops to get the little blue pill as many women whom wish to get an abortion would jump through hoops that many pro-lifers would want then the cis men would be complaining.

cis? There’s no such thing as cis: there are men and women. Take that up with biologists and get back to me. You’re a person with no vision, a person of the moment, a creature of the present: the highest good for women is consequence free sex. However, men should reject their biological nature (no problem with that idea on the left, obviously) and not objectify women. But the entire idea of good, according to women like you, is to be able to have sex with men without consequence.

You’re a slave to men already, Kate. You’ve just been brainwashed by misogynists to think you’re actually fighting for liberty for women. As Hugh Hefner said (Playboy was a major sponsor of Roe v. Wade) on the outcome of the ruling was that it allowed for the fullfillment of the “playboy” lifestyle (gee, what does that mean?). Here’s another brilliant comment:

In the 1950s and ’60s, there were still states that outlawed birth control, so I started funding court cases to challenge that. At the same time, I helped sponsor the lower-court cases that eventually led to Roe v. Wade. We were the amicus curiae in Roe v. Wade. I was a feminist before there was such a thing as feminism. That’s a part of history very few people know.

Haha! Tell that the suffragettes or Susan B. Anthony. So there you have it, Kate: your love of abortion and cult like devotion to its promotion and availability was funded and bankrolled by men. A man who did more to objectify women than any other person in history.

 

[Faithdancer]

I am pro-choice. Barring rape, a woman has the choice to have sex, or not to have sex. Should she choose to have sex and a pregnancy results, it is homicide to terminate the pregnancy unless her own life is in mortal peril. 'Nuff said.

 

[Faithdancer]

Hmm…so should women only abort female babies?

cis? There’s no such thing as cis: there are men and women. Take that up with biologists and get back to me. You’re a person with no vision, a person of the moment, a creature of the present: the highest good for women is consequence free sex. However, men should reject their biological nature (no problem with that idea on the left, obviously) and not objectify women. But the entire idea of good, according to women like you, is to be able to have sex with men without consequence.

You’re a slave to men already, Kate. You’ve just been brainwashed by misogynists to think you’re actually fighting for liberty for women. As Hugh Hefner said (Playboy was a major sponsor of Roe v. Wade) on the outcome of the ruling was that it allowed for the fullfillment of the “playboy” lifestyle (gee, what does that mean?). Here’s another brilliant comment:

In the 1950s and ’60s, there were still states that outlawed birth control, so I started funding court cases to challenge that. At the same time, I helped sponsor the lower-court cases that eventually led to Roe v. Wade. We were the amicus curiae in Roe v. Wade. I was a feminist before there was such a thing as feminism. That’s a part of history very few people know.

Haha! Tell that the suffragettes or Susan B. Anthony. So there you have it, Kate: your love of abortion and cult like devotion to its promotion and availability was funded and bankrolled by men. A man who did more to objectify women than any other person in history.

Yes “cis” is another of those terms like “homophobe” that the radical left is trying to force everyone to adopt. But, like the adjective “fetch” in the film Mean Girls, it’s so not happening!

 

[Rau]

I am pro-choice. Barring rape, a woman has the choice to have sex, or not to have sex. Should she choose to have sex and a pregnancy results, it is homicide to terminate the pregnancy unless her own life is in mortal peril. 'Nuff said.

There are cases where “termination” is homicide even when the woman’s life is in mortal peril. Or such is the Catholic position anyway. I note “terminate the pregnancy” is somewhat vague. A pregnancy may be terminated (indirectly) by actions which do not constitute homicide.

 

[Faithdancer]

There are cases where “termination” is homicide even when the woman’s life is in mortal peril. Or such is the Catholic position anyway. I note “terminate the pregnancy” is somewhat vague. A pregnancy may be terminated (indirectly) by actions which do not constitute homicide.

Sorry–I mean induced abortion. Euphemistically called “therapeutic abortion” in the trade. And technically, yes, self defense is still homicide–justifiable homicide is the correct term, yes?

 

[Rau]

Sorry–I mean induced abortion. Euphemistically called “therapeutic abortion” in the trade. And technically, yes, self defense is still homicide–justifiable homicide is the correct term, yes?

The Church has not ever concurred, AFAIK, that an unborn can be an aggressor, against whom one may deliver a lethal blow in self defense. If you have evidence otherwise, I’d be interested if u could provide a reference.

 

[Wedge_Antilles]

Fine. I am still pro choice. I wouldn’t object as I would have known what you meant. The ruling stood.

You could save everyone the time from now on rather than trolling the boards with the same points that have been refuted over and over and then ultimately claiming “I don’t care what the facts say, I’m still pro-choice,” after of course changing your religion from Catholic to Skeptic (do they baptize?), to just staying out of the topics where people repeatedly show the internet why you are wrong.

Especially as pointed out, topics like ones about male masturbation. Apparently, that is no business of yours as you are a woman, or so you say.