Is Roe v. Wade at Risk???

You go ahead an tell that to a woman who has had a miscarriage.

 

I'm sure she's sad. Because she lost her baby.

Of course, to liberal pro-abortionists, she just lost a tumor.

 

Yes. Whoever is in charge of the plug that keeps the comatose patient alive can drcide when stop the payments. Tne patient's life is in their hands and it is their choice.

Volitional consciousness, yes.

Do they live inside her or not?

Yes, that is the exact definition of the term.

Pregnant women are not machines.

Only thing that is getting too much for me is you repeating the same darn comatose-question over and over and over again. I have answered it many, many, many times already. Furthermore, I am not "pretending" it is not related to abortion, it actually isn't!

No, I did not "talk about" tea bags. I used tea bags as an example when giving you the definition you asked for.

Yes, one time is fine and two times is acceptable. Three times it is getting annoying and anything above that is just aggrevating. I have answered it, now either ask me to elaborate on my answer or clarify something you do not understand or just stop asking it already.

Potential and actual are not terms exclusive to pregnancy. You asked me to define them and I used tea bags in my example because I thought that was a so simple way to explain it that even an eight year old would get it.

Well, not really. It can become ice tea, chai latte, a cocktail and even urine. Probably a few more things too.

Who has ever said that is the reason we cannot kill them?

 

Miscarriages are not abortions. Why are you anti-abortionists always dropping context?

 

So why aren't liberals correcting women sad over miscarriages? Surely you should be telling them they didn't really lose a baby, they just lost a tumor.

What's stopping you?

 

Nothing useful from you ... same old, same old.

 

First of all, this ridiculous packaging of "liberal" and "pro abortion" has to stop now. Secondly, losing a wanted child is not the same thing as aborting an unwanted one -- Context matters. Thirdly and lastly, no one has ever said a ZEF is a tumour.

 

Sorry, that refuted a dumb point made by a pro-abortionist. If it was over your head, I'm happy to explain it in shorter words.

 

No, it will continue as long as liberal=pro-abortion. Thanks.

 

Pro abortion =/= liberal.

 

BS. Sell that crap to a fertilizer factory.

 

Tjere is not difference between Cons and Libs anyways.

 

I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Are you pro-life, or "anti-choice" or perhaps "anti-women."

You try so hard...

 

Pro-choice is pro-abortion. Don't be afraid of owning your position. Thanks. You're FOR it being legal.

 

Yes and I wear that label proudly and openly. Now, when will you come out of the closet as anti-life?

 

And it is !!!

 

It is the same. Thanks for agreeing. Pro-choice is the PC term for Pro-Abortion.

Simply show me a "pro-choice" advocate who wants to make abortions illegal across the board.

 

Nope.

 

pro-choice
adjective

\ (ˌ)prō-ˈchȯis \
Definition of pro-choice
: favoring the legalization of abortion

PRO-CHOICE.

 

I know you need to grasp desperately at any point you think you may have ....but when I said """"And it is !!!"""....I was referring to it being legal...your last sentence in the post of yours I quoted...

""And it is !!!""".... legal No amount of nit-picking will ever change that....

 

We are celebrating and supporting life whereas you are celebrating misery and supporting tissue.

 

Yes, but your point is that it should not be legal to shoot the comatose patient, even though you say that they have no "volitional consciousness", just like a fetus. Pulling the plug on a comatose patient is letting nature take it's course. Killing a fetus is intervening so that nature CANNOT take it's course. If nature is allowed to take it's course, a baby will be born, or else some complication will cause it to die NATURALLY.

Okay, but you seem to be saying that it DOES have consciousness, just not volitional . So what makes a baby all of a sudden have volitional consciousness?

A fetus which is distinguishable from the mother lives inside a mother.

Women have got nothing to do with a comatose patient attached to a machine. Are you saying that a comatose patient is physically individuated, even though they are physically attached to the machines?

Whatever it becomes, that's all that it can ever be! It has reached it's MAXIMUM potential.

I didn't say that it's the REASON that we cannot kill them. I'm making the point that a baby has NOT reached their maximum potential in life. Do you agree?

 

So just because there's a chance of long term maternal morbidity, this justifies killing the unborn?

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/is-roe-v-wade-at-risk.588151/page-67#post-1072712421

 

It's your OPINION that the unborn are only a "potential life." And you're doing a terrible job trying to justify that argument!

So what do you mean then when you say that it's a potential LIFE if you also acknowledge that it IS a life?

Okay, so we both agree that it's a potential FULLY DEVELOPED life. So when do you think that it's fully developed?

Do you mean the LEGAL right to live, or the NATURAL right to live?

So as the kid is traveling down the birth canal, it is merely a "clump of cells!"

How the hell is it selfish for a parent to look after their own kid?

It's your baseless assumption that we would get boatloads of unfit parents and unwanted children.

I don't. They can give the kid up for adoption, but there's no reason to think that if abortion didn't exist, parents who have unplanned pregnancies would carry to term not wanting a child and would continue to not want a child after birth, and so they give up the child for adoption.

Who would be responsible for the situation of a woman who got pregnant via consensual sex but doesn't want to have a child but has no legal way to get an abortion in her State?