Read the law, it speaks for itself. How is a fetal homicide law possible if a fetus isn't a person? Look up the definition of homicide.
I love it when a liar calls me dishonest! It is AWESOME! "child   /tʃaɪld/ Show Spelled [chahyld] Show IPA –noun, plural chil·dren. 1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children. 2. a son or daughter: All my children are married. 3. a baby or infant. EXPAND4. a human fetus. 5. a childish person: He's such a child about money. 6. a descendant: a child of an ancient breed. 7. any person or thing regarded as the product or result of particular agencies, influences, etc.: Abstract art is a child of the 20th century. 8. a person regarded as conditioned or marked by a given circumstance, situation, etc.: a child of poverty; a child of famine. 9. British Dialect Archaic . a female infant. 10. Archaic . childe. COLLAPSE—Idiom 11. with child, pregnant: She's with child. I guess you think pregnant means a woman has a born child? From your own source BTW! Also from Dictionary.com: "World English Dictionary child (tʃaɪld) — n , pl children 1. a. a boy or girl between birth and puberty b. ( as modifier ): child labour 2. a baby or infant 3. an unborn baby : Relatedpaedo- 4. with child another term for pregnant 5. a human offspring; a son or daughterRelated: filial 6. a childish or immature person 7. a member of a family or tribe; descendant: a child of Israel 8. a person or thing regarded as the product of an influence or environment: a child of nature 9. dialect ( Midland English ), ( Western English ) a female infant Related: paedo- , filial
You overlooked one tiny thing. If "child" in the definition of "person" means #3 "an unborn baby" then that leaves out all of those children #1 "between birth and puberty." The ONLY meaning that will work for "child" in the definition of "person" is "a boy or girl between birth and puberty." Context matters. Oh, and "child" in the phrase "with child"? THAT is a "human fetus."
What you believe is irrelevant, what you state only most of the time. You stated that there is a LAW, now you say it is a SCOTUS decision. The two are NOT interchangeable because they are NOT the same thing, something you clearly are clueless about. I am glad though that you declare that you know so much about laws, this further demonstrates that fact.
What you believe is irrelevant, what you state only most of the time. You stated that there is a LAW, now you say it is a SCOTUS decision. The two are NOT interchangeable because they are NOT the same thing, something you clearly are clueless about. I am glad though that you declare that you know so much about laws, this further demonstrates that fact.
really? so you are saying that is impossible that this woman might have been heavy and lost a lot of weight? How old is this woman? Could it be age? the ONLY cause for saggy skin is pregnancy? but my main point is you are judging this woman based solely on her looks. There is nothing "damaged" about this woman's body...it may not look like a twelve year olds but there is NOTHING wrong with this woman's body. It appears to function perfectly well. You are doing to her what men have done since the dawn of time, you are valuing her purely on her body. I think that is beyond appalling. How dare you judge another woman on her looks! By the way, I used Heidi Klum and the two athletes for a REASON..that is, you can actually prove those women had babies. You just find a picture of some poor woman that doesn't come up to YOUR high standard of what a woman's body is 'supposed' to look like. You dont' know this woman, she could have a hormone problem that caused weight gain, she could have had cancer...but to you, she is an object of scorn because she isn't supermodel material.
She lost a of lot of weight after her pregnancy, and no it isn't from age. It's Cindy Crawford: Other things can cause stretch marks, but they occur in about iin about 90% of all pregnancies. Wrong, stretched and torn skin is damaged skin. I am making no judgments, just acknowledging reality. Get over it; I never once said a mother's body is an "object of scorn." It is simply a fact that pregnancy causes stretched skin in a vast majority of cases. No judgment here, just the facts.
So you deny that you would prefer it if women were made to have unwanted children? Funny, I thought that was the whole point of banning abortions.
Please point to one person who has referred to pregnancy as being a disease? A third degree tear is not easily treatable. Most women who have been pregnant have stretch marks. What do you think happens when the skin stretches? It doesn't go back to where it was. Its just like a woman who has lost a lot of weight. Her tummy sags and she has bingo wings. Oh well, if that is the case, then every abortion is justifiable as self defense!
you 'get over it', the ol Progressive tactic of saying things by innuendo and parsing words is done. You may have not ever said the exact words "I hold women that choose to have babies instead of abortions, like she's SUPPOSED to, to be objects of scorn" but you sure as hell did say you do. and it is disgusting to see how desperately the morally bankrupt left scrambles to justify and excuse their behaviour. There is no depth they will not sink to to further their agenda, whether it is joining forces with people that denigrate women based on their looks or siding with the Taliban....feminazis don't want freedom for women, they just want to install themselves as overlords. Pregnancy does not 'damage' a woman's body, that is not even evolutionarily sound but you constantly harp on it, HOPING to encourage more people to have abortions. Why are you so hung up on looks? Explain how it would make sense in an evolutionary sense for an organism like humans, that only give birth to one baby every year at the most to be 'damaged' by pregnancy? Are cats 'damaged' when they give birth? Horses? Do you see other mares standing in the pasture sneering in contempt at the new mothers "Oh my GAWD, LOOK at those stretch marks! That's SOO disgusting!"? of course not. So either your whole premise is completely stupid or you just flat don't believe in evolution. I could understand the idea of defending abortion but you go beyond that to saying that all babies should be aborted, to saying 'be afraid, young women, look at the horrors, you will be castigated and judged unfit by everyone!' what a SAD, depressing world you live in. I feel so SORRY for you!!
Some women's bodies are little changed by having a baby some are changed more. To argue that having a baby does not change a womens body is like arguing that the sky is not blue. A woman may well have more than her appearance, but the emphasis she puts on her appearance is for her to decide, not you, if you agree with individual liberty.
I've been with both and I'm wondering if you have been with either. If you have been, you wouldn't be making the silly assumption that women who have had a child are somehow different looking than women who haven't.
That's a rather silly statement since your average woman won't look like a super model whether she becomes pregnant or not.
Stretch marks on skin caused by loss of a great deal of weight would also be seen on the woman thighs, upper arms, breasts. In this case the stretch marks are only on her stomach. Stretch marks are purely aesthetic, but other damage from pregnancy/childbirth, such as pelvic floor damage, loss of teeth, etc. affect the functioning of the woman's body. Our society DOES value appearance. Haven't you noticed the millions of dollars spent on cosmetics and plastic surgery? Appearance is important in our society, it affects not only the mate we attract, but our ability to get the jobs we want. You can pretend appearance is not important, just as you can pretend a woman isn't damaged by pregnancy, but it is so. There you go again, pulling things out of thin air. Nobody said the woman was an object of scorn.
The use of the word zef do name the unborn child is an example of Newspeak. newspeak ('nü-"spEk, 'nyü-), noun, Usage: often capitalized. : propagandistic language marked by euphemism, circumlocution, and the inversion of customary meanings. Etymology: Newspeak, a language "designed to diminish the range of thought," in the novel 1984 (1949) by George Orwell. Date: 1950 The term is used in a blatant attempt to dehumanize the unborn child and was coined for that sole purpose. It is used only by the pro-abortion crowd. A doctor would never describe an unborn child as a zef.
Cindy Crawford is 46 years old. 2 kids, 10 and 12. The picture you showed was from 2007. I found pictures of her shortly after and her stomach looks nothing like that. I don't know what your trying to prove with this ridiculous argument Cady, but it's beyond absurd. Fat people, when they lose weight have loose skin. I have never seen a human being try to use instances of loose skin to justify getting an abortion. That is pretty extreme. In fact, it's nuts. http://www.skinnyvscurvy.com/hollywood-moms/cindy-crawford-bikini.html
Same with stretch marks. Trying to justify abortions b/c you might, keyword, MIGHT get stretch marks, is ridiculous. But you made the OP's point very valid with your comments. I bet you don't think twice about that birth control pill though, along with the 40 seconds of side effects in a 50 seconds commercial.....lol.
Perhaps your difficulty in understanding what is being said is caused by your attempt to find "innuendo" and "parsing words" where there is none. Stop reading "evil intent" into everything and take what is said to MEAN what is said. Always seeing some evil intent in those who disagree with you just indicates your OWN evil intent. You would not automatically assume those characterisitics in others if you did not possess them yourself. . "Looks" are not the only thing damaged by pregnancy/childbirth. No one is "encouraging" abortion, pro-choicers are 'hung up' on CHOICE. True choice must be an informed choice. Your comparison of women to breeding stock is interesting, and confirms that pro-lifers see the only value of women to be in their breeding potential. There you go again, pulling stuff out of thin air. What is so hard about CHOICE to understand?
Abortion is merely stopping the process of creating a human. There are many reasons why a woman may want to stop this process in the early stages, prior to the creation of of a baby. One is as good as the next as it is her choice whether or not she would like a baby created inside her.
This is incorrect. The process of creating a human is the process of conception, everything afterwards is development, which continues even well after birth.
You have no proof for your claim that a zygote is a human. After the first mitotic division we have two clones of the parent zygote .. there then two humans ?
You have no proof that he or she isn't! You simply cannot have a "clone of a zygote" because ths definition of a human zygote is the first cell in the development of a human being. Unless two human beings result, the two miotic division cells are not zygotes.
