Is there actually any optimism on the "pro-life" side for "victory"?

nope views haven't changed. Nice try though

 

Cool, so by your statement....you would NOT want Mifepristone banned...because it is a proscribed treatment for Cushing's Syndrome.

And as long as a doctor and a woman SAY it was not their "intention" of taking it to cause an abortion.....you wouldn't prosecute them.

 

why not quote me correctly first off, instead of snipping a piece of it to make it seem like i said something else. so go back to my quote and instead of cutting it off quote the entire thing, then get back to me. I specifically mentioned pregnant women and things they can't take. this applies today

 

Go back and read it .....you said "Yes there are certain drugs woman CAN not take because it would effect the pregnancy".....you didn't say you'd BAN those drugs.


But you clearly said "Anything prescribed for the intention of abortion should not be legal. And no I don't want them banned, just not prescribed for the purpose of abortion."

So which is it?

What if it's a legitimate case of a woman who has Cushing's Syndrome...and needs to take Mifepristone? Banned or not banned, under your hoped-for plan?

 

Are you aware of the fact that physical injury and unwanted intrusion are two seperate things?

 

Well, the presence of the fetus may be an "intrusion", but we can look at it the other way too. The mother has the fetus surrounded.

 

Or the fetus is a "squatter"?

 

Well, the woman was the one who invited him in...

 

Accepting your premise, if you invite me to your house for one night or a weekend....I have the right to live there rent-free and you have to feed me for nine months?

 

Thats a ridiclous comparison on so many levels. Women have moral obligations to their children. Nobody has ANY moral obligations to some random stranger. Besides, women arent stupid-they know PREGNANCY invites the fetus to stay for 9 months. However, telling a person to leave your house, doesnt harm them-UNLIKE abortion.

 

Unwanted intrusion is justification for forcible removal.. You can have an intruder forcibly removed from your property. If you have to, you can call the cops.

 

Do you believe the state has the obligation to fund abortions based on the principle they assist people in removing intruders? I disagree. Women only want to abort the fetus for controversial, morally questionable actions. Therefore, they should pay for their own abortion. Taxpayers shouldnt be forced to finance that garbage. Paying for your own abortion is not a burden-I feel sorry for those poor wittle women who want the state to pay for everything-but be responsible and pay for your own crap.

- - - Updated - - -

But its not injury.

 

Way to miss the point. You said it was an intrusion so I responded accordingly. Do you think intruders who do not actually injure you can be forcibly removed or not?

 

Do you seriously think a person defending against a home invader is comparable to a woman aborting an innocent baby for her own selfish reasons? Even more important, do you think the state paying cops to defend homes justifies the state making taxpayers pay for abortions? Even if there is some superficial similarity, you cant compare the two-honestly. Abortion is something women should pay for on her own.

 

Notice Object?....now Sam has tried to SHIFT the debate to "state funded abortions"....not just abortion in general.

This kind of subject change is his forte....or atleast his fall-back.

 

Actually they don't, the states are split evenly on the definition of viability as to the late-term abortion limit, viability is defined as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." - http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2549&context=mlr

Currently there are 21 states that abide by this definition of viability, with 21 states placing unconstitutional limits on abortion at a specific gestational age. There are 13 states that require the attendance of a second physician on ALL late term abortions and 9 states that require the approval of a second physician for late term abortions. 26 states allow abortion at anytime for the exception of life and health, 12 for life and physical health and 4 for life only.

There is no data simply because there are no elective abortions at this period, all abortions passed the 24 week gestation period are for life threats and/or fetal disability incompatible with life, add to this that as it currently stands elective abortions after 24 weeks are illegal.

When you look at Canada that has no restrictions on elective abortion at any period of gestation and see that their late-term abortion rate is lower than the US it makes me wonder what is the point in the restrictions, it is a law that effects nothing ie it is a feel good law.

 

Are you aware that I really couldn't careless for anything you say.

- - - Updated - - -

nope, not in anyway, shape or form, please prove otherwise, though I know asking you for proof of anything is like talking to a brick wall.

- - - Updated - - -

Women have no obligation to adhere to YOUR morals, just as you have no obligation to adhere to anyone else's.

 

Based on the pro-life ideology of person at conception then the state certainly does have an obligation to protect it's people from non consented intrusion of the fetus, just as it has the obligation to protect you from non consented intrusion.

It is both an intrusion and injury.

- - - Updated - - -

typical false equivalence

 

Define innocent as it relates to a fetus?
Define selfish reasons as it relates to the woman?

There is no "superficial similarity", the obligation of the state to protect it's people from intrusion and injury does not carry a disclaimer saying "does not apply to pregnant women seeking abortions to rectify the non consented intrusion of a fetus"

You cannot not compare the two honestly, if you have any understanding of the legal aspect that is, and as we are all to aware of you don't have any understanding at all.

 

At least the governments of the Middle East ban abortion and dont care what some Brit says about "womans rights".

 

The only reason the fetus is an intrusion upon the woman is because the woman doesnt want to go through the inconvenience of raising a child-how selfish. That's why the law of "state protecting people" shouldnt apply. Why cant women just understand that taxpayers dont want to pay for morally controversial procedures. Pay for your own optional garbage.

I dont see how paying for an abortion is a burden for a woman. And I dont want to give my hard earned tax dollars so a woman can abort an innocent baby. It just isnt neccesary. Women today are happy to pay for their own procedures.

 

1-The fetus did nothing wrong. The only thing its doing wrong (at worst) is making the woman's life a "burden" because she doesnt want to raise a baby. Many women these days just want to have sex for fun without consequences, and if they get pregnant-abort the thing.
2-Same as above.

 

Trolling again I see, with nothing of any relevance in your comment as such no creditability at all.

 

1 & 2. You are placing your opinions onto something that can do neither right or wrong, a fetus cannot be innocent or guilty, in order to be either of those things a level of comprehension is required which a fetus does not have and also BTW why children under 7 cannot be held accountable for any illegal acts they commit, neither can mentally incompetent people.

and as we have been through this many, many times and you have NEVER been able to mount a reasonable argument to dispute anything I have said . .you are still ignorant of the facts.