I would gladly trade gay marriage and capital punishment to end abortion

All pregnancies do, though.

 

Yeah, right. Very few women die from giving birth nowadays. I don't know ANYBODY whose mother died in childbirth.

 

I do, and I know plenty of women whose health has suffered from pregnancy and childbirth. Regardless of how low the maternal death rate is, you don't have the right to force a woman to take that risk. Why do you think you do?

 

Which is completely irrelevant to the fact that every single pregnancy, wanted or not, cause injuries to the woman .. that is a medical and biological fact and in some cases also a legal fact.

however your "convenience" monotone is based on your own assumptions.

 

Do most women have abortions to save their own lives, or not? ANSWER THAT PLEASE!

 

and still that is irrelevant, just how many times do I have to post the actual laws involved in self defence before you understand that it can be used in other circumstances apart from imminent death.

- - - Updated - - -

Irrelevant.

 

Don't change the subject, please. I asked, since every pregnancy is a potential risk to a woman's health and life, why do you think you have the right to force women to take that risk?

 

Yes, I know that. But anybody who uses self defense against another person in a situation which started because of their own reckless behavior (ie, a woman that had unprotected sex and got pregnant) is a jerk. Stop appealing to the emotions to gain sympathy for people like that. Everybody keeps whining about "rights".

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, I will answer your question. Since most women aren't thinking about saving their lives from dying in childbirth when they decide to have an abortion, why is this even an issue?

 

So we are back to implied consent and as yet you or any other pro-lifer hasn't provided a single piece of legal evidence that supports consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, where as I have provided quite a few examples of where the law states that a pregnancy IS a different circumstance to sex. So please instead of repeating the same unproven comments why don't you see if you can find evidence to support them.

Implied consent is based on assumption of risk and, again, as already shown the risk involved for a woman having unprotected sex getting pregnant is 15-20% during her standard cycle .. that does not even qualify as a high risk .. you are more likely to be injured in a car accident (30%) than a woman is of getting pregnant, yet we do not refuse medical treatment to the injured person in a car crash do we, and make no mistake pregnancy more than meets the criteria as a serious injury, as has already been shown in a number of court cases.

Whining about rights .. would you "whine" if your rights were taken away, or if some group were advocating for them to be taken away?

 

It is the crux of the abortion issue. You keep forgetting that pregnancy is a risk to a woman's life and health. She is the only one who should decide if she should take that risk.

 

If somebody speeds recklessly and they get injured, then they shouldn't be denied medical support. But if that medical support causes a child to die, then no, a child should not die to prove medical support to some reckless idiot who drove their car without taking any precautions. That's the same thing with abortion. (ie, a woman that has unprotected sex and gets pregnant as a result.)

 

Once again-what does this have ANYTHING to do with the vast majority of abortions?

 

Meanwhile back in reality ....

No matter who or what causes an accident, no matter how many people are injured or die due to a reckless driver, do we refuse to treat that drivers injuries .. Yes or No?

 

By denying access to legal abortion, you are forcing a woman to risk her health and life. But you knew that...

 

What does that have anything to do with what I said?

- - - Updated - - -

Do most women die from pregnancy? Yes, or no?

 

Everything to do with your assumption of implied consent and assumption of risk.

 

I never said that a reckless driver should be denied medical care. I just said that in a hypothetical scenario, if giving him medical care required giving a child's life, then it wouldn't be right.

 

Every woman has a chance of dying. When you have surgery, your surgeon is required to detail to you any possible side effect or undesirable outcome because it is YOUR BODY, and you are the one who must assess the risks regardless of how miniscule. This is what you would take away from women. You would tell them, "eh, you probably wouldn't die from pregnancy or childbirth, so I say you must take the risk."

And you would also tell them, "regardless of the permanent body damage and complications of pregnancy and childbirth, those are just minor inconveniences, so I'm just going to force you to endure those."

 

No, I am saying that you have to make (*)(*)(*)(*) up to support an ignorant position. Nobody mentioned parties and friends and if that is the extent of your understanding of abortion it amounts to zero. First you would have to show that there is a right to life but of course like all the other drivel you post you can not support it.

 

All you say is random ad hominem nonsense. bla bla bla.

 

so if the driver kills a bus load of children you don't count that as a child giving it's life then, and you fail to recognize the elephant in the room of the zef living inside of another person.

 

A bus driver causing a car crash (which causes children to die), has nothing to do with somebody going out of their way to kill a fetus in the womb. This analogy doesn't even work. The medical care don't cause children to die when they treat that bus driver.

 

So why do you continue to use it then?

 

Good question. The analogy was perfect when I first used it, but you twisted my original words to fit your own agenda.

 

If it was perfect then no amount of your so called "twisting" would make any difference, the fact is your analogy fails because you cannot support it.