Elizabeth Warren to GOP: Did You Hit Your Head & Think You Woke Up in 1950s or 1890s?

No, wrong. Right to life is more important than anyone elses concerns in our society, thats why we have laws that protect it and take precedence. A "fetus" as you wish to call it, once created has that right. Once you create it, it's too late to roll back the clock.

LOL....so in this response I see my message sank in and you have moved away from claiming the "life" of the Woman...and are now pivoting to "freedom of choice" lol. .

Her body isnt in question Fox. She has the power to choose to live her life with 5 toes and 3 fingers if she likes. She can remove the ones she doesnt care for. She can get a tattoo, shave her head, emboss herself with jewelry from every piece of skin if she likes. thats all "her body"...not the other persons body she brought into being which needs to develop inside her once created.

Thats NOT her body. Fact.

Im sorry, but thats outright garbage. You are NOT standing up for "life" at all, by dehumanizing a growing human life and approving of it's destruction on a whim. Please do everyone alive a favor and do NOT stand up for any of their causes if you think this is how it's done.

No, I am not getting confused at all. As a father of 2 Kids myself, I know stretchmarks happen.

Remember YOU submitted a list of all these "horrors" that happen during the process, and which due to these reasons you found it acceptable that a Woman should be able to eliminate a baby. One of those was stretch marks.
When you put that up, as you did, you are claiming that not having stretchmarks is more important than a developing persons life. Heck you even said as much here:

Stretchmarks, as being one of those "effects" that you yourself posted, are mor eimportant to you than a human child in development. Thats pretty scary that you put such little value on life.


It's not me getting confused. It's you. The latest one to talk himself into circles in this thread.

 

Thats the real debate though isn't it? You say it's not a person, I say it is. It is human offspring, It can be nothing else.

Please stop trying to play the "i dont understand it" card. I understand evrything you do, and lots more to be frank. They are not the same thing at all, and I already gave you examples of what "freedom to choose" and "ones own body" entail.

It's not an issue at all, unless of course one might be trying to extend "ones body" to include another persons body....as you and your side are trying to do.

Admission of my statement that it is not her body. Direct conflict with your response above...seems you're..... inconsistent. of course you must realize that being "in a body" doesnt mean you "are the body" .

For example If I park my car in your garage, with your permission....you do not get to then decide you made a mistake...wreck my car and claim it was part of your garage and you own it.


Big difference between being "in" something and actually "being" that something.

heres one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights

Kinda hard to say it's not, isnt it?

No, thats me being familiar with Women who have half a dozen or more abortions. Sorry, thats simply taking advantage of convenience, which to me is the same thing. Another thing to remember is this. A woman who has multiple abortions increases her risk of death.

If you really are for a Womans Health, surely you would want to curtail the ease at which these are happening?

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/21/did-you-know-45-percent-of-abortions-are-repeat-abortions/

Couple things here. First, you do not need to be a Doctor or Scientist to see a glaring problem with abortion. Doctors and Scientists who research this publish their findings for the rest of us to read.

Secondly, please stop lying about my "denying anything does". You are making this up, I have not denied anything in that regard...I simply dont find Hormonal Imbalances..weight gain...Stretch Marks and a host of toher things "that happen" to be a justifiable trade off with the life of that child.

Again for the slow, that is NOT denying thsoe things happen...simply putting them into a proper perspective.

Never said you did. I chose to use Horrors to sarcastically describe the list of secondary concerns you tried to pretend were as important as Life and Death.

You submitted the lists. As such you offered them up in their entirety as part of your argument for exterminating unborn human beings. Were stretchmarks and hormones part of that list you submitted? or Not?

Sure, you show me a list of factors that can happen during a pregnancy, which in your mind was supposed to be sufficiently dangerous as to make the choice of exterminating the baby a viable toss up.

The list included such trivialities as stretchmarks and weight gain. (Included, not consisted of mind you, before you dishonestly try and pretend that's all I could understand on your oh so technical list .)

The only consistency of your argument is that it's been garbage from post 1 all the way to this page.

 

Elizabeth Warren just said something I've been thinking for years.

Exactly what decade ARE some of these right-wingers living in, because it certainly isn't one in this century, or the latter half of the last one. I think some of them are extremely angry that the Flux Capacitor isn't actually real, because they'd hop back to their 1800s Victorian sexist paradise in a heartbeat.

And I'd get them a going away card and see them off with genuine happiness since now, both of us would be getting what we wanted. I'd be living in the present with less folks who want to live in the past and those folks would be living in the past instead of trying to make the past into the present. Win-win.

 

The law is conflicting with itself at best. You cant charge someone for two victims, without there actually being 2 victims. And you can think things wont change...but...it's a bit early to say. It's an issue, and will be re looked at. We know alot more about these things than we did in the days of Roe v Wade.

And the argument against, is of course your opinion and nothing else.

Red Herring. Noone claimed the second person was also pregnant. 2 human lives, aka people, are involved.

If I willfully created that situation, by creating them? Of course. Such is the responsibility of making children. Oh I get it..."responsibility" thats the word, (and concept), you Liberals dont understand. makes perfects sense now.

As to giving your liver, kidney, and blood....sounds like you are babbling nonsense now. I wasnt aware the baby took those things away from you....

And noone does. Strawman argument. What she is being told is what she cannot do to the other persons body that she opted to create. Still dont really understand what a body actually is do you Fox? I even dumbed it down for you with a garabge and car analogy.

Her body, and it's body are two different bodies.

nice rewrite so you could try and make an answer. For the record the bolded parts are the parts you tried to put in there that I did not say, and then you tried to answer that.
Clearly I stated you allowed me to put it there, and then you decided to destroy it. it didnt just happen to get wrecked, and I didnt put it there without your approval. As to the end part though, we agree on something....you have to take responsibility and pay the consequences. Whether they be stretchmarks, or anythign else on your list.

Not just multiples Fox, even a single abortion increases her risk of Death.

Sounds great Fox, except that an abortion is an unhealthy...so your point here is bunk. Abortion is simply not healthy.

I see.

Pregnancy is a natural, and necessary standard of human life.....killing your offspring for convenience is not and puts Women at more risk than pregnancy. Pretty easy to choose a side.

Heh...then don't murder anyone, but your opinion shouldnt be forced on others. Sure thing Fox.

PROPER perspective. (Which also happens to be mine). Life takes precedence over everything else.

More than you do obviously, as I would never tell a Woman to undergo the risks of an abortion to counter a risk of stretch marks and/or putting on a few pounds. Good lord.

You just lied again. Nowhere have I stated those are the ONLY risks...I just found them to be so insignificant in comparison to what we are talking about. You trotted out that list as though everything on it was a valid reason to abort an human being.

Life devalued. Pretty sad statement there Fox. And just so it's not lost on you, just now you again elevated "stretch marks" to being more important than a Life....

You supplied the list as a focal point of your argument. If there were parts you wished you hadnt submitted into argument, then you should have scrutinized your post first. Science and Facts arent always convenient are they?

Spin it any way you have to. Matters little to me.

 

They still believe in TV sitcoms.

 

Strange that, never knew socially and biologically were synonymous .. care to link to the dictionary etc that states that or is it more that it suits your purpose?

Ironic indeed.

 

fine then show why you disagree.

Sorry it doesn't, unless you are suggesting that the fetus has a right no other person has?

It very well might have a right to life, though I disagree there is any such thing as a right to life, that right to life does not include the right to life at another's expense.

Care to show me where the distinction is made . show me where human life is a distinction?

Really, then you must have no problem with abortion then otherwise you are restricting the medical care she can call upon.

No it is not hypothetical, read the case decision of McFall vs Shimp and yes the process of life is controlled by man or do you think the process of life finishes ipon birth?

Actually no it is you who is wrong, pregnancy is already defined as a serious injury in some cases, and EVERY pregnancy causes injuries to the female .. I can list them if you require?

Actually again you are wrong, the equal protection clause is not just about services or products .. perhaps you should read it

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Would you care to point out where the products and services are?

no one is saying they are .. however the state does impose restrictions on the people, one of those is you cannot use another person in order to sustain your own life, there is nothing in that-that says a fetus is any different.

What the state does is give protection to people from non-consented injuries imposed by others .. IF as many pro-lifers state that the fetus is a person from conception then it MUST fall under the same rights and laws as all other people ergo it cannot impose pregnancy onto a woman without her consent.

Again I am not looking at it that way at all.

Sorry you have a strange memory, you or anyone else has NEVER dismantled this particular argument.

What BS, abortion is a medical procedure, just because you don't accept that fact does not change the reality of it .. where I come from receiving a medical procedure is part of medical attention.

no parallel, just another false attempt to side-track

IF pro-lifers get their way the fetus will certainly be a third party.

No slip at all, I knew very well what I was writing.

Yep, that is right a person or group and IF that ever becomes a reality it strengthens my argument to the degree that anything else is blown out of the water, so please do grant those rights, because with those rights come restrictions, or are you suggesting that the fetus isn't quite a person or more than any other person?

Correct, however what you don't have is the right to exist by being attached to another person, and the right to defend yourself against unconsented injury over rules the right to exist of another person .. unless you are suggesting self-defence should be made illegal?

I love the way pro-lifers try to justify themselves with this "convenience" mantra.

Sad thing is you are so delusional that you actually think you have made some big discovery that has not been raised before and equally blown away .. dismantled far from it.