The End of Abortion in America is Coming Soon

Yes there is. It's No Child left behind and Obama's run to the top (or whatever it's called) and of course Common Core.

These programs are forced upon the states by the feds because the powerful teacher's unions want it.

 

the fact you have to resort to a secondary definition of pro-choice in order to make it fit says more about your agenda than your honesty.

From your supplied links

pro-abortion - favoring the legalization of abortion
pro-choice - believing that pregnant women should have the right to choose to have an abortion

A person can still be against abortion and be pro-choice, because even if it was something they would never do, they still feel it's a woman's right to choose to end a pregnancy.

The biggest difference is that pro-choice people advocate that the state should not be involved in creating laws that control other people's body autonomy, where as pro-life actively lobby for that very thing.

 

Umm. I quoted directly both definitions. They were exactly the same. Period.

 

No Child Left Behind - "The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills. To receive federal school funding, states must give these assessments to all students at select grade levels. The Act does not assert a national achievement standard. Each individual state develops its own standards. NCLB expanded the federal role in public education through annual testing, annual academic progress, report cards, teacher qualifications, and funding changes.

The bill passed in the U.S. Congress with bipartisan support

The legislation was proposed by President George W. Bush on January 23, 2001. It was coauthored by Representatives John Boehner (R-OH), George Miller (D-CA), and Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Judd Gregg (R-NH). The United States House of Representatives passed the bill on May 23, 2001 (voting 384–45), and the United States Senate passed it on June 14, 2001 (voting 91–. President Bush signed it into law on January 8, 2002."

participation in NCLB is optional.

Common Core State Standards Initiative is not a federal mandated program ie it cannot be enforced on the states. Forty-four of the fifty U.S. states and the District of Columbia are members of the Common Core State Standards Initiative, with the states of Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, Alaska, Nebraska and Indiana not adopting the initiative at a state level. Minnesota has adopted the English Language Arts standards but not the Mathematics standards. Several states that initially adopted Common Core have since voted to repeal or replace it, including Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and South Carolina.

Race to the Top is not a federal mandated program ie it cannot be forced onto the states, and Teachers' unions argued that state tests are an inaccurate way to measure teacher effectiveness ie they were against it.

Any more crap you want to post.

 

Nope, you decided to use a secondary definition when the very site you linked to gives the primary definition as "believing that pregnant women should have the right to choose to have an abortion"

and ignoring the rest of the post will not make it go away.

A person can still be against abortion and be pro-choice, because even if it was something they would never do, they still feel it's a woman's right to choose to end a pregnancy.

The biggest difference is that pro-choice people advocate that the state should not be involved in creating laws that control other people's body autonomy, where as pro-life actively lobby for that very thing.

 

The feds put pressure on all the states, plus they control the curriculum through what gets published in text books that all 50 state must use.

 

Even if I said you were right, which you aren't - THE definitions are the same and you acknowledge that because your claim is one is a secondary definition. Well whoop de doo. It's the same definition pro-choice & pro-abortion is the same.

 

they aren't allowed to kill another human as part of their treatment now are they

 

Logical fallacy is all you've got?

 

A woman having an abortion doesn't kill another human either.

You want the fetus to have the right to harm or maybe kill a person.


You didn't answer:
""Tell me if someone ignores your warning about smoking do you then deny them medical treatment for any lung cancer they may get?"""


An abortion is a medical procedure just like treatment for lung cancer......you want to deny one but not both?

 

It is impossible to be both pro-abortion and pro-choice. Do look up the word "choice". If a person has only one option there is no choice.

 

so you are a science denier because the unborn meet every scientific requirement and criteria to be classified as an unique individual human

and I answered your question yes people deserves treatment but that right to receive treatment stops when it violates the rights of another human and the right to life has to be the utmost sacred human right

and would like to add even the federal government in their protective species laws the unborn of that species deserves the same protection as the born. they don't make a distinction between the two. you receive the same penalty under the same law for destroying the laid eggs of a bird that is protected under as if you destroyed a hatched member of that bird species. same goes for sea turtles and their eggs

 

That is the wrong definition of "choice". We are talking about "pro-choice" which is different from being "pro-option".

 

No, a fetus isn't born so it is not a human.


YOU want it to be a human with all the rights and NO restrictions that other humans have.

You want to give it the "super" right to harm, even kill another to sustain it's life. You want the fetus to be able to violate the rights of another human and kill it and then you turn around and say ""right to life has to be the utmost sacred human right""..(unless you're a woman , then the fetus can violate your rights, has a right to harm and even kill you""".)

 

not if the women gives consent and yes she gave consent to the possibility of becoming pregnant when she gave consent for sex
when you give consent for an action you are also giving consent for the possible consequences of that action if you are informed of those consequences

If I give you consent to hit me in the face as hard as you can which you do and break my nose can I then retract that consent then kill you and claim justified self defense?

 

If you drive a car you are giving your consent to being broadsided in an intersection. Since you consented to being in an accident there is no justification for taxpayers to expend any money on ambulances or medical services.

If you go to a sporting event, you are consenting to contracting the flu. If you fly you are consenting to crashing into earth at 600 mph...

Your claim of consent to sex is consent to giving birth to a child is absurd.

 

Let me just be frank. When you're banging a chick with a condom on and you both know it doesn't feel right and the tight latex is choking the life out of the penis and preventing a rock solid erection, and you both agree to lose the condom, you know you are being bad and doing something dangerous. Later, when the girl is feeling really naughty and free spirited and tells you to come inside of her, she knows she is taking a huge chance, that's exactly why it is so appealing, because people want to feel dirty when we're having sex. But there's a price to pay for that dirty little thrill, some people are truly unlucky and the price is higher. I don't think it is fair to trade the life of the goo sack to preserve that dirty little thrill. Just wear the condom or at least try to come elsewhere. I love doing it, coming inside of the girl... I love when they tell me to. But it's risky business and we all know that. I say you don't kill the goo sack.

Ultimately, my view is that medicine should begin producing embryos for stem cell research because that has the potential to save us all. Abortion should only be legal as a means to provide for that research. This business of acting like there is no ethical dilemma here, as is the increasingly more common left argument, is patronizing.

 

So you want punishment for dirty sex?

 

What are the "scientific requirements and criteria for a unique individual human"? "Individual human" is not a scientific classification, and the unborn are not separate, independently existing beings.

It isn't simply a "right to life" that you want to give the fetus; it's a right to life sustained at the expense of someone else's body. No person has that extraordinary right.

 

Yes, the woman. You're not a woman, so it's OK by you for her to pay the price.

It isn't simply a "right to life" that you want to give the fetus; it's a right to life sustained at the expense of someone else's body. No person has that extraordinary right.

"It's wrong because I say it's wrong" isn't patronizing? Is there no ethical dilemma in forcing birth?

 

Maybe it's just none of my business. I guess I just don't understand women. Good thing for stem cell research so some of that can be put to good use.

 

Well, then let's just bring back slavery. For some, there was an ethical dilemma in forcing property owners to give up their slaves.

 

No, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy and consent can be withdrawn at any time.

If you give consent to have someone punch you, you cannot kill them using self defense if they punch you. You can withdraw consent so they can't punch you again.

NOR can anyone else punch you.

Giving consent to sex does not give a third party consent to use your body.

A boxer gives consent to fight in a match but can withdraw consent at any time.

 

You don't understand women or what sex is....it isn't "dirty"........

 

And your comparison of women to animals noted.

Sorry, no matter what you think, women aren't animals so that "argument" won't cut it.