My body my rights they say. Genetic material cannot be obtained without consent, even from the deceased you need permission from next of kin. However women can steal sperm (bj, used condom) or even rape a boy and the male is legally culpable for his offspring. Courts say that a child cannot be considered a burden. How can women be equal if they are less responsible than boys who have been raped?
Questions to ask feminists on air to show hypocrisy of abortion
James Ross
Other urls found in this thread:
lifenews.com
amazon.co.uk
vox.com
jme.bmj.com
labovick.com
jamanetwork.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
bma.org.uk
legislation.gov.uk
twitter.com
William Reyes
How about we ask white feminists live on air why they want to kill all the black babies like Margaret Sanger
lifenews.com
amazon.co.uk
Grayson Moore
I want to know why none of you file a lawsuit say if a woman can pay to kill her baby thank why can't Bob craft get some love no one dies with Bobby act his body Gov get your hand off my pecker
Elijah Russell
Fuck that's some starship troopers shit right there
Gabriel Sullivan
Ethically abortion is no different to delivering a baby then giving it the old hammer toss. Let’s ask them why they are in favour of this practice:
vox.com
Logan Ramirez
Let’s list some tactics we could use to legally challenge an abortion. Could claiming you are a woman and therefore her mother, mean your womanhood is being denied if you are not allowed to carry your child to term, allbeit vicariously? Hypothetically the reverse would be more likely. A potential father could claim he is a woman and therefore mother and entitled to access to abortion...ergo no child support. We need to highlight the logical fallacies that these people ignore when playing with nature b y turning a womb into a tomb and attempting to subvert biological sex
Easton Sanchez
...this procedure sounds fucking terrifying
Jaxson Butler
I think the whole part where you're basing your logic on common law is bullshit...but anyways since I'm a lawyer I think the better 'legal' argument is that women whose children are killed incident to a tort or crime have standing to sue for the death of their children in utero and even for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress if they miscarry. The issue here is 'why would the law give weight to a woman's in-utero child only if they want to have it, but not if they don't.' Roe v. Wade is total legal bullshit btw now and SCOTUS has been saying 'b-b-but' about that case for literally decades in order to make it easier for kikes to do their ritual sacrifice I'm imagining.
Levi Howard
It is. But look up how many abortions are this late, and probably only in the US. There is no european country that allows this besides far far fetched exceptions.
Brody Martinez
u sure about that? I get the sense that many, say scandinavian countries are pretty (((progressive))) at this point, seeing as how they allow you to abort yourself at the late stage of twenty-something 'I have anxiety' thots nao
Daniel Rodriguez
About 1% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks. That is still over 8000 babies being brutally murdered.
Thomas Bennett
do y'all know any jews that don't support abortion 'rights'?
Samuel Mitchell
“I think the whole part where you're basing your logic on common law is bullshit...but anyways since I'm a lawyer I think...”
Fuck off moron. What “common law”. Im citing U.K. law. The Romanian flag is false I’m in London. Also, you didn’t even cite what specific law just claimed to be a lawyer online. Stop wasting everyone’s time and go back to your imaginary practice
Dylan Ross
how can a drunk girl claim she didnt consent to sex but a drunk girl can consent to drink and dirve?
Drinking and driving is RAPE!
Brayden Davis
The distinction here is civil and criminal. I’m talking criminal law here fuckface. Quickly google something to paraphrase so you can convince someone you have never met, nor will, that you are somebody
Charles Rogers
This has always been the crux of the matter.
why would the law give weight to a woman's in-utero child only if they want to have it, but not if they don't
The point is that the salient difference is not the protection of the law itself that has the greatest effect, but whether or not the child is deprived of life. This is not an abrstract argument. The stakes are life and death of babies who cannot speak or fight for themselves, or even run away
Carson Morales
Most of these countries give you endless gibs. Having a kid is automatically 3 years off work and all the basics met, including pre-care and shit. Thats the reason you pay 50% taxes there.
Finland needs approval of a doctor and post 20 weeks you need serious reasons
Carter Hall
I always wonder why some orgs spend millions each year for advertising instead talking to these 8000 wemen and offer them to buy the baby for 5k or something
It would probably have a much higher success rate at this point
Nathan Perez
lol you live in england and you don't know about english common law. Well whatever, but anyways yeah here's a good description of tort liability for negligent infliction of emotional distress:
labovick.com
It lists miscarriage as one example giving rise to liability.
here's a law review article that should give an overall flavor of liability for prenatal injury...
Jonathan Davis
why are you calling me a fuckface? I'm just trying to help you.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
the above article includes assault in the description. I would read it for you but I figure you're not completely retarded. Assault is a crime btw, not a civil tort.
Ethan Morales
In terms not meant to deceive.
> The Dr. delivers the infant, pierces its skull and sucks its brain out through a small tube. The infant is killed either before or by the procedure depending on the Dr's preference.
I have no remorse for abortionists who have been killed by protestors. The fact our society doesn't lynch these people in the street shows how sick we are.
Jason Clark
but yeah just to recap my argument, why would a child's life have value in the context of a hypothetical assault when the woman desires to give birth to the child, but not when she wants to abort her child? This is the fundamental contradiction that I'm getting at. I think that if some good lawyer could find a case and frame the legal issue at bar before SCOTUS, the Court would have a hard time pulling some mental gymnastics to square that circle.
Michael Walker
Again, I am talking about established criminal law, which anyone can check up on
bma.org.uk
Also I am basing my arguments on logic. The distinction between criminal and civil is not that one is based on logic but not the other, simply a different standard of proof is required for judgement. Many issues relegated to civil law should be dealt with in criminal courts. It’s down to corruption and limited resources that they aren’t.
Chase Brown
Nathan Hall
once you establish a child in utero is a child and that its rights are the same as any other child (by way of bringing up the fact that even mere injuries to the child in utero give rise to liability), then it is a clear line between that can allowing abortionists to be made liable for murder. My argument involving civil liabilities paradoxically made stronger because of the value of life being recognized even in cases when the child didn't die (i.e. were simply made retarded or whatever, by some black dude slamming her with a baseball bat or something) --and so when the child does* die, the injury is obviously worse.
Christian Perez
Obligatory message to trigger the commie bastards that hate my country and my flag on this board.
To everyone else, please ignore.