A basic question for "pro-lifers" who agree to abortion in cases of rape-

""""She engaged in sex and has to accept the risk of creating a life.""""


Why?

And even if she "accepts" the risk, she doesn't have to accept the pregnancy.

 

I said nothing about pregnant women.

YOU CLAIM that you know that a fertilized ovum (not even an embryo) is a "baby human". If I show you a photo of one.....and don't tell you if it is inside a woman's uterus (or even in a petri dish at an In Vitro Fertilization clinic)...or if it's a zoological photo....

how EXACTLY would you be able to tell if it was human...or animal?

 

Fox, have you ever notice how it always comes back around to a lot of "pro-lifers" telling us that women need to be "punished" with pregnancy....for engaging in sex?

 

Every time.

 

Because murder is a crime. How do you justify killing someone?

 

Murder is a crime, abortion isn't murder nor a crime.

 

Wrong. I claim that a baby at conception is a human being and deserves the rights and protections of any human.

If not being able to visually ID the species of a cellular object in a photo is your big arguement to show a baby at conception is not a human being, its a loser. Whether I can identify it in a photo doesnt change its status. I could show you a super close up of any animal, say the skin of a tiger, you would not be able to ID it, but that doesn't mean its not a tiger.

 

There is no "baby" at conception. It is human, it is not A human.

If it's a human being( with rights and responsibilities) than the woman has the right to remove it since it's harming her(whether YOU think so or not)

 

It may be murder in your ethical and moral viewpoint, unfortunately for you it is not murder in the eyes of the law . .that is not to say that the law is infallible, because we all know it can be .. but, as I said to you in another reply (one you haven't responded to yet) it is not in the hearts and minds of the public that any future decisions concerning abortion will be made it is in the court rooms and more specifically from SCOTUS. In order to change the current ruling you, as in pro-lifers, are going to have to show compelling reasons why the constitutionally granted right for a woman to have an abortion under privacy found in the 14th amendment needs to be revoked . .ethics and morality are not compelling reasons . .they were not enough in the original Roe vs Wade case, they have not been enough in the current same sex marriage debates so what makes you think they are enough to revoke it now?

 

Then why is abortion such a contentious issue?

 

It wouldn't be if nosy control freak busybodies would just stop trying to control everyone else. When some people are screaming it's "murder" and trying to make abortion illegal or harder to get those who are interested in Freedom, Liberty and treating women like humans have to fight back.

 

It is an issue created and perpetuated by religious leaders for their patriarchal agendas.

 

Like almost all your posts, that one was has no content.

 

I have not made a religious based argument in this thread.

If abortionists would stop and think before spouting propaganda, you might actually be able to formulate an argument for your side.

 

YOU asked a question and I answered it.....if you don't like or don't agree with the answer say so, don't COWER behind an attempted insult non-answer.

Why don't you answer your own question since you don't like my answer.


why is abortion such a contentious issue ?

 

The notion that "life begins at conception" came straight from the Pope. The term "child" applied to a zygote/embryo/fetus was revived by pro-life propagandists from the archaic and biblical term "with child.". But specifically, I was talking about Evangelical leaders who picked the abortion issue at random in the late 1970's to galvanize their base for political clout.

 

There are no abortionists. Why you can't use correct terminology is a sign of the propaganda of Anti-Choicers.


The Pro-Choice side , however, HAS formulated an excellent argument, one NO Anti-Choicer has ever countered successfully .....some of them still don't know the difference between an adjective and a noun , as in A human and being human.

 

I have, an argument you have ignored now for two days, and ALL pro-life arguments are rooted in religion, that is where the idea of person at conception originated.

 

Then why is abortion an issue with me? I have not proposed a religious reason at all. I am not Catholic. No religious leaders brought me to my opposition against abortion. Your answer sounds like an excuse.

 

My arguement is not rooted in religion. Not one single aspect involves religion. You would know that if you read (and I mean "read" as in comprehending" the posts.

 

You asked why abortion is a contentious issue. I answered that religious leaders have made it one for their own agendas, and that has nothing to do with you personally as far as I know.

 

Maybe this is the post you are referring to as the one I did not respond to.

There is no right to privacy as was used in Roe. Since Roe, people have attempted to expand that "right to privacy" in other areas and all have failed. It seems the SCOTUS regrets creating that "right" in the first place.

And what if the baby is human, what about its right to privacy, and all its other rights?

And maybe we cannot change Roe, maybe the "justice" system is as political as COngress and is entrenched with political and ideological appointees. It might take a ifetime to bring justice back to the judicial system. But in the meantime we can change peoples minds, and we are. And we can drive abortion for profit out of business, and we do. And we can provide support and options for pregnant women, and we do that also.

The tide has turned on abortion. You can go on and on about the esoteric right to privacy, but peoples eyes are opened wide when they see a photo of a baby inn utero, or hear the story of Gosnell, or hear about partial birth abortion. Once people get both sides, they turn against abortion.

 

That is their choice.

 

If your argument is person at conception then yes it is rooted in religion as that phrase (or variations of it) was first used by religious people primarily Catholics.

Even the pro-life movement was instigated by religious people circa 1968 with the National Right to Life Committee , with "pro-life" being adopted after the 1973 Roe decision. The only coordinated opposition to abortion during the early 1970s came from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Family Life Bureau, also a Catholic organization.

I do fully comprehend your posts, that does not change the fact that the pro-life movement is rooted (ie firmly implanted) in religion.

 

If a Human Egg Cell is Fertilized it still has to implant itself into the Uterine Wall.

At this point if more thsn one Sperm made it in they are CANNIBALIZED by the others and then the Fertilzed Egg Cell grows as the cells split and divide via Mitosis.

Thing is as this Fetus grows it goes through periods where it is NOT HUMAN OR MAMMALIAN!!!

It demonstrates Billions of Years of Evolution as it is for a time in grown...Fish, Amphibian, Reptilian then Mammilian but not even Primate Mamalian yet never mind Ape...as Human's are classified as an Ape.

Point beng.....termination of Fertilized cell after a Rape does not have to happen if Morning After or Plan B are administered ASAP!!!

The Fertilized egg cell...which is not guaranteed to even implant itselfin the uterine wall...cannot if these drugs are taken.

Thus....No Abortion.

AboveAlpha