Flower, read my post pertaining to what i think should be done.

A. Courts already decide the outcome of ANYONE brought before it, those concerns you mentioned are not unique to denial of Abortion, they also carry over to Custody battles, and other Family court related concerned, thus your argument is flaw, as it pertains to Family Court, they can tell you what to do with a born child, and out of such should be trusted to do the same with unborn.
B. Banning or a NONE Regulated Abortion system is a failure all around, due to many issues I'm in NO mood to list.
C. My System is the closest thing you'll come by that will settle the dispute through compromising.
   1. You can't, and won't ever satisfy both sides of the fence, but you can take a FAIR and just standing on the issue, if people decide to take matters in their own hands, then they are criminals much like ANYTHING else in the world, your argument is flawed because i can take your point and apply them to numerous laws, that perception can play a part in.

Accept my system, or I'll unleash Man flesh eating dogs upon you and throw your baby off a cliff like classical Sparta!

SPARTANS!

HOOOOOOOOOOOOOGHSKSDFKHSKGB< WP(^*@$Y)B<

what puzzles me is that the court allows unborn humans to be killed but it does not allow gay people to have a wedding... This is [] up. Abortion should never be done because the states responsibility is to protect every humans rights and safety. Just because a woman will do an illegal abortion does not mean it is suddenly OK to have abortion.

And pro-choice is really a bad name for those who support abortion. The woman made the CHOICE when she decided to haev sex. Again she made the CHOICE to not use protection. So again she must have the choice to kill the baby??? If we allowed people to fix their mistakes by harming others then we cannot have a moral society. If this were the case we should not have prisons because we should just forgive everyones "mistakes". The bigger mistakes in life have the biggest conseqences. People have to learn of the dangers and having abortion legal only makes individuals look at sex as a "no worry" act.

I know you will say rape is a different case. But the state does not kill the rapist so why must we kill the baby? Again, the state's responsibility is to provide proper punishment and to protect everyone's rights. It is clearly not being done in this case.

Therefore abortion is immoral and we cannot have it because it infringes on another persons rights.

Like i said, Abortion Abolishers  and Pro-Choice will argue till the end of Human procreation, but in the end you guys will not come up with an agreement.

So i did it for you, closest thing you can come up to an agree.

1. Still allows for Abortions with a Court signed and issued license, award after accomplishing the "checklist", which in turn means, no drastic crap from women, going to dirty foreign clinics, or using "improvised" tools to do it themselves and risk their lives, thus shutting up Pro-Choicers.
2. The tighter restrictions on how Abortion is granted will at least shut the Abolishers up.

Ok, so when people use abortion as means to not use contraceptive, I've heard many a female getting multiple abortions.

Listen, I'm not gonna get tempted into this retarded argument, that retards get into - Why? There is no right or wrong way to end it, I'm just not gonna amuse you with an argument.

I stick by my proposed idea.

As for your point.

So if i don't feel the need to obey laws, and i don't feel that the Government has a right to tell me i can't kill the man who raped my kid (If i had one), then i can murder someone if i think it's justified? Don't tell me it's not the same thing because it is, your perception of whats right, and someone else are not the same, it's my life why must i listen to laws? It's your "Child" Why can't you murder it?

As i said no end in sight for this retarded argument.

> lmperial wrote:

> Ok, so when people use abortion as means to not use contraceptive, I've heard many a female getting multiple abortions.

Listen, I'm not gonna get tempted into this retarded argument, that retards get into - Why? There is no right or wrong way to end it, I'm just not gonna amuse you with an argument.

I stick by my proposed idea.

As for your point.

So if i don't feel the need to obey laws, and i don't feel that the Government has a right to tell me i can't kill the man who raped my kid (If i had one), then i can murder someone if i think it's justified? Don't tell me it's not the same thing because it is, your perception of whats right, and someone else are not the same, it's my life why must i listen to laws? It's your "Child" Why can't you murder it?

As i said no end in sight for this retarded argument.

your proposed idea is vague, and its vagueness is the only thing keeping either side from completely ripping on you. you didnt post something people can agree on, you posted bullshit.

"It's BS to you because your stupid, simple enough.

It's not vague, if you were American and understand how simple permits, and license for local circuit courts were handled you'd understand what I'm purposing, a Local Regulated system - Where the court sanctions and signs off on a request in which several prerequisites must be satisfied in order for the court to believe that your doing this on YOUR OWN morale beliefs, that there is a plausible PHYSICAL reason as to why you need this, and your not incompetent and you do understand what your about to undertake.

Now please, i don't even know why i entertained your crap again, but i guess your ignorance annoys me to no end, and i feel the need to break things down for you Barney style."

ok, so you're saying the government will grant abortions given certain criteria being met. now, even pro-life people support abortions given certain criteria. and you say nothing about the criteria the courts will be looking to see it meets, but the criteria is the most important aspect.... its vague. so you presented a solution to a problem, that does nothing to the problem, thats what people call bullshit... theres also the obvious problem that if the mother's life is endangered, a court decision likely wouldnt come quick enough.

"Taken directly from the post that was full of BS- According to you."

yeah, because you dont mention what counts as valid reasons.

OK- this is a formal warning for Imperial and avogadro.

Since you both can't seem to refrain yourselves from adding these catty snipes at each other in your posts (and I'm not accepting "he starting it!" etc excuses - you are both as bad as each other imo and the forums are a much improved place without this trolling), it is better that you do not post to each other at all. This means: no responding to each other's posts, no making reference to each other's posts or each other ... in any thread.

Doing so from now onwards will result in a forum ban.

Nope.

Red_Rooster wrote "The woman made the CHOICE when she decided to haev sex. Again she made the CHOICE to not use protection."

Well, in my country about 2/3rd of all abortusses being done are done on woman who did use protection, but it failed to work.

oh its all her fault, she could have totally worm metal underwear...with a huge padlock.

A woman's choice to kill a baby. Now doesn't that sound just precious. If you don't want the baby there are thousands of others who do or is it just too much of an inconvience in her life to not kill it?

Find the movie Silent Scream and watch as they suck apart a baby, ripping its limbs off because it was an inconvience.

The doctor that did that removal never did another abortion after that.