Given the pro-choice position (as shown by the published evidence) is consistent with the minimisation of abortion demand, that is an obvious fib. Your anti-choice position cannot logically be about abortion demand. It therefore must reflect some other perception. Those perceptions are typically of course 'diverse': from authoritarianism to a general hatred of women
Well we all know that the links I posted, which show actual abortion frequency and rates, prove that assertion completely wrong. You do realize that just because you want something to be true, that doesn't make it so, right? I always know I have scored a knockout when my opposition begins trying to demonize me and attributing some imaginary ulterior motive to me.
We all know that you've referred to raw data that uses incorrect definitions of abortion and cannot isolate abortion policy effects. You do that because you know your position is actually pro-abortion
Abortion is ending the life of the most innocent amongst us. It ends the life of a baby. Its murder and anyone who thinks its not is kidding themselves. If you could see the pictures of actual aborted babies you would change your mind about it. I wouldnt dare post pics here though. The leaders are too sensitive and trigger happy with the ban button. I just suggest you use google.
Those pictures are fakes. Don't be so gullible. http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/infrmdC/Ab_Pictures.htm A number of the pictures, to anybody who has actually seen fetal demise in the second or early third trimester are obviously purposely distorted. By this I mean that the head is too small and the trunk too well developed (they aren't mainly head with a very thin trunk, as they should be, but more in the proportions of a full term infant). For this reason I suspect some of them are outright fakes and a ready source of such fakes would be the manufacturer who supplies Heritage House and this model will show what I'm talking about. (check the prices on these items and you'll understand what I refer to as the Anti Abortion Propaganda Industry (AAPI). ..... That - of course - is the purpose of the pictures. Present them as if every abortion was done at that late stage and find the "best specimens" and word the captions as if there were no woman involved or if there was she was getting too big for her prom dress and decided to have an abortion instead of buying Richard Simmons tape. If you are careful how you capture them on camera the camera can lie and if actual pathology pictures are used the reasons for the abortion may never show in the final print. Also in some cases of genetic termination the reason may not be visible. Now you might not choose a termination in such circumstances but I think it cruel at times to deny such a woman an abortion. I also think she should be permitted to decide what her limits are and be compassionately permitted to recognize those limits by terminating HER pregnancy if that's her choice.
Those pictures are fakes. Don't be so gullible. http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/infrmdC/Ab_Pictures.htm A number of the pictures, to anybody who has actually seen fetal demise in the second or early third trimester are obviously purposely distorted. By this I mean that the head is too small and the trunk too well developed (they aren't mainly head with a very thin trunk, as they should be, but more in the proportions of a full term infant). For this reason I suspect some of them are outright fakes and a ready source of such fakes would be the manufacturer who supplies Heritage House and this model will show what I'm talking about. (check the prices on these items and you'll understand what I refer to as the Anti Abortion Propaganda Industry (AAPI). ..... That - of course - is the purpose of the pictures. Present them as if every abortion was done at that late stage and find the "best specimens" and word the captions as if there were no woman involved or if there was she was getting too big for her prom dress and decided to have an abortion instead of buying Richard Simmons tape. If you are careful how you capture them on camera the camera can lie and if actual pathology pictures are used the reasons for the abortion may never show in the final print. Also in some cases of genetic termination the reason may not be visible. Now you might not choose a termination in such circumstances but I think it cruel at times to deny such a woman an abortion. I also think she should be permitted to decide what her limits are and be compassionately permitted to recognize those limits by terminating HER pregnancy if that's her choice.
Oh please, spare us the emotional drivel. Have you anything intelligetn or rational to add to the discussion? It end the life of a fetus. Had you set aside ignorance in favor of education you would know that. Look up what murder is then come back. How many abortions have you witnessed?
That must be the reason why abortion is legal, because such brilliant reasoning as yours has not been able to compel change.
Slavery was once legal as well. I suppose you feel that its supporters were intellectual superiors to those who opposed it.
Yet you appeal to the law all the time. Hypocrisy much? By the way, prohibition was a constitutional amendment too, it just goes to show that ignorance and morality coercion can become the prevailing force too.
You don't seem to understand what hypocricy means. I repeatedly refer to a conflict in the laws, I have never said that legal position makes anyone smarter than anyone else, although rational thought does.
The law has a rationed basis. It is a good place to start to determine what is the most rational basis.
OK lets go with that for a bit. On what basis do you want to change the law, because there is an inconsistency perceived by you and if so why not strike down or repeal the laws that are not in line with the constitutional mandate of freedom and self determination for women? Violence is already a criminal act, there is no need to create inconsistencies with additional laws.
Because there is an inconsistency any literate person can plainly see, lets go with that. Fetal homicide laws are not to recognize the rights of women, there were already laws in place for that. They are to recognize rights for children in utero. Your failure to comprehend that fetal homicide laws are to protect fetuses (why you have trouble understanding this is beyond comprehension) is keeping you confused.
There is no inconsistency outside your opinion. Can you cite any other discussion, debate or even mentioning this as a real issue, by anyone other than yourself? You don;t really expect that what only you perceive as an inconsistency be recognized by all just because it may serve your position on an unrelated topic, do you? correct. Wrong. Rights are not established by laws but recognized and enshrined in constitutions. Protecting fetuses would consist of prenatal care ensuring proper and healthy development. fetuses can not be harmed unless the pregnant woman is harmed and there are already laws in place for that as you mentioned. That additional laws were passed does not alter that reality, nor does it create an inconsistency. Like gun control laws, some people advocate more laws when in reality the existing laws if enforced are more than adequate.
We have been through this repeatedly. There is a glaring inconsistency! An entity cannot be a person when one indicvidual kills him/her, but sub human just because a different killer is involved. Rights are recognized by laws. Please quit lying! Your dishonesty is epic. Homicide laws are routinely considered to be "protecting" the victim.
Yes we have. Clearly you haven't learned anything from that. Is there. As I asked, can you cite anyone anywhere, well someone competent in the matter, who sees it that way? Name on law that does so? No, that is strictly your area of expertise. You have not been able to show a single instance where lied. But of course you just can show where or why.
I address the topic, you on the other hand post inane drivel most of the time when not posting fallacies or outright lies. I guess that makes you the troll.
