Kamala Harris says abortions are a constitutional right

I'm pro choice

 

As should anyone be that values individual freedom

You don’t value it enough for it to change your vote however

 

Being technically sound here, it is the exo-skeleton of a human taking shape. The situation with abortion is one of semantics, but let's be blunt: We know that no other organic being than human males, can impregnate a human female. We also know nothing other than a baby brought to term can be the result of a completed pregnancy.

So the idea that its not a developing life, is an argument not based in scientific facts. For the pro-abortion/pro-choice crowd, they don't realize their argument is just as emotionally charged.

 

Again, not enough.

 

An acorn is not an oak tree, it can develop into one but it is still not one.

 

Not 'can' develop into one, 'will' develop into one. If nothing stops the acorn's development, it will become an oak tree. Likewise, if nothing interferes with the pregnancy, out will come a living, breathing human.

That's the reason for the abortion in the first place, it is to be a third party(the abortionist) to what was nominally a two-party situation(the fetus and the birthing mother.)

 

Which makes it CAN.

 

I’m not a one issue voter as no one should be.

 

Said burdens, apparently, disappear after vitality, as the state may prohibit her from having an abortion.
The bodily autonomy you speak of does not really exist.

 

A living human fetus is both alive and human....so is my liver....neither are legal persons...

 

So if someone needs a new heart or kidney they can FORCE you to give them yours to sustain their life....???

OK, if I ever need a new body part I'll come calling ... remember , you just said you have no right to your own body

 

OMGAWD, not ANOTHER Super Profound statement !!!

WOW, how DEEP!! Glad we have you to expose these HIDDEN facts !!!!

Yes, actions have consequences...how many thousands of times are you going to post that tripe as your only "argument" on abortion???

(PSST, it isn't an argument and proves nothing)

Yes, is a consequence of intercourse( glad you found out).... now, explain why that is important or has meaning in the abortion debate???

 

Which is what war does....and who are the biggest hawks? Righties...

 

There are natural elements that can ruin a crop(Acorns) and there are of course natural elements that can ruin a birth(miscarriage.) but just because the natural elements exist, doesn't mean a farmer stops planting acorn seeds. And in the same breath, just because there are miscarriages does not in itself make the fetus of lesser value.

(The proof of this, and conservatives like to use it and so do I: Double murder charges. How can it be double murder if the fetus is not a human? Unless of course it has value!). What the pro-choice argument comes down to is: We decide whether that fetus is fundamentally human or not, and not to get religious or spiritual but there is indeed a sense of arrogance of that from the spiritual prospective.

 

I can't speak for republicans but I view abortion as homicide and homicide is properly banned nationwide. If you want other opinions you should ask those with the other opinions.

 

USSC is not a word. Define your acronyms if you want to be clearly understood. If you don't... duly noted.

 

You still haven't provided proof of your decapitation claim in post #142.

I never said anything remotely like that and you know it. Stop baiting, put up or shut up.

 

Huh? Proves too much? Please clarify ... proves too much of what, exactly?

 

Another brilliant retort from you. Yawn.

 

No read the Bayliss case. I know this is a different country but we do have similar laws and what was determined there I believe would play out similarly in the USA

https://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/organisational-information/legislation/queensland-abortion-law/

What is not stated here was that the search warrants were found to be invalid as they breached patient privacy under HIPAA. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/disclosures-for-law-enforcement-purposes/index.html

 

Actually no it doesn’t as sex and pregnancy are often separate. Yes sex may lead to pregnancy but it is not assured. Since sex can simply be for mutual pleasure then the “contract” should state the aim or objective. An example of this is a practice called “stealthing” where the condom is either sabotaged or removed.

 

No! Look up the term “exoskeleton”

 

I'll chalk that one up to the Sadist Contingent, things to benefit no one but deliver a significant amount of agony and misery.

 

You know it's bad when they start referring to ComiCon lingo.

 

sorry old mate but not all pregnancies end in perfect Gerber babies. A very large percentage miscarry ( if you include those that fail in the first two weeks - a number not often calculated as they are simply considered “late periods” the number become impressive. Then there are the non viable foetuses etc etc etc