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

and why can you not understand that your personal objections have no relevance to the obligation the state has to protect its people, neither is your opinion on whether it is selfish or not relevant.

Nothing really to say to this as it is a post made from ignorance and irrelevance.

 

Im saying a fetus is innocent in the sense that its actions arent doing anything worthy of deserving abortion. Thats why you cant compare a fetus to children under 7 or mentally incompetent people.

 

on a legal aspect you are 100% wrong as usual.

 

Explain how my comment was wrong, from a legal perspective.

 

Since the topic of home invaders ad cops protecting people from them was brought up, intrusion itself doesnt justify deadly force-which proves that the fetus intruding on the woman doesnt justify the act of abortion.

People only legally have the right to use deadly force against a person breaking into their house if that person is a threat to their life. Even laws that give people the right to shoot home invaders who arent visibly armed, are based on the assumption that the person may have a weapon and thus the homeowner is justified defending themselves against a potential thread.

 

Women have ALWAYS wanted to have sex for fun with or without consequences.... And they DO have sex for fun, lots of them, lots of times!!! .... Do you?

Jealous maybe???

- - - Updated - - -

He has , numerous times....and you can't get it.

 

Well, they can get their tubes tied and knock themselves out.

Otherwise they'll just have to responsibly use contraceptives and accept the inherent risk.
Really, there are so many contraceptive options now, a woman can make her risk of pregnancy as low as she wants. It's hard to see how she has any real excuses.

 

been there, done it, cannot be bothered to repeat myself for you again ... Stop being a lazy little boy and search the numerous threads where your wash, lather, rinse, repeat ignorance has been addressed before.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh do go away and actually learn something about your own countries laws.

 

tell you what, why don't men get their tubes tied, they can even get it done now without a huge operation AND get it reversed when they (and their wife) decide they do want children .. lot less invasive, and still overcomes the issue of abortion, but of course that would not be punishing women for having sex would it.

Actually they don't have to at all and it is that-that really gets up pro-lifers noses. Women no more have to accept an inherent risk that you or any other person does, and even if they do decide to take the risk they have the same right as you do to receive medical treatment to avail any injuries the incur from taking that risk .. unless that is you are advocating for a woman to have less rights than you are that is?

Yes there are, shame that people like you want to price them out of the reach of the poorest, especially the ones that are the most effective .. even though the maths of it means it cost you poor, poor pro-lifers more tax in the long term.

Perhaps you can tell me Anders, as no other pro-lifer has ever answered this question - How much is preventing an abortion worth to you in money terms?

 

Women do NOT need excuses.

They do NOT need to accept the risks. They can accept them or not as THEY choose.

 

Pregnancy is a threat to a woman's life. And how else can she defend herself if not by removing the threat?

 

I do know about my countries laws from doing research. Show me some evidence that contradicts what I said about intrusion. Trust me, im no idiot, and i read about the law.

 

As much as you try to deny it, sex legally causes "pregnancy", the "intrusion". Thats why the state doesnt have the obligation to help the woman remove the fetus. If a woman engages in an action that results in pregnancy (use semantics to deny sex causes pregnancy all you want)-the responsibility to remove the unwanted intrusion is HER burden-not the states.

 

Based on previous experience with you I wouldn't trust you (as far as I could throw you) to know anything about anything.

People only legally have the right to use deadly force against a person breaking into their house if that person is a threat to their life. Even laws that give people the right to shoot home invaders who arent visibly armed, are based on the assumption that the person may have a weapon and thus the homeowner is justified defending themselves against a potential thread.

Pretty much all of the above is incorrect.

Look up Stand Your Ground & Castle Doctrine laws.

Castle Doctrine -“. . . a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have the duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies: He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another" and as already shown to you, pregnancy is both intrusion and injury.

 

This is a new one for Sam......endorsing Talibanism.

 

yet again you are 100% incorrect and yet again you display your complete ignorance of the law and biology. Nothing to do with semantics. I would suggest actually doing some research on how the courts come to the conclusion of what was the final and compelling act that caused the situation to be .. but that would require you removing your blinkers and we all know that is never going to happen.

Factual Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/actual-cause/
Legal Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-cause/

 

Intrusion and great bodily harm are two seperate issues, obviously. Quoting that law proves nothing with regards to unwanted "intrusion" and deadly force.

- - - Updated - - -

I obviously dont agree with the taliban. I dont think music should be illegal, nor do I think women should be told to dress in ninja robes,

 

I have never claimed they are the same issue, that is just your misrepresentation, what I have claimed and proven is that pregnancy is both intrusion and injury.

 

I give you credit for pointing out injury justifies deadly force, but any legal proof intrusion itself justifies it? The legal right to shoot an unarmed home invader (in SOME states) is based on the presumption that the homeowner thinks they may be armed-not the intrusion itself.

 

and again I have never stated anything other, so you really are just arguing for the sake of it and really don't have any relevant points to add to the discussion.

My point still stands, the state has an obligation to protect its people from non-consented intrusion and injury, and as such IF a fetus should ever be deemed a person from conception the state has the same obligation to protect a woman from the intrusion and injuries caused by the fetus in a non-consented pregnancy and despite your attempts to derail from that premise you STILL have not given anything to dispute it.

 

Which states, Sam? Name them.

 

it's not a hoped for plan, there's already drugs you can't take while rpegnant, that you can when you aren't. This isn't a new concept

 

Name one drug that a pregnant woman is banned from taking that she can otherwise take when not pregnant?

 

Answer my question.....would you ban Mifepristone....a proscribed treatment for Cushing's Syndrome?

 

I already said no, just during pregnancy