Whose "common sense"? Yours? Nature certainly decided no such thing, because well over half of all fertilized eggs never implant or are miscarried later. Whatever you think of "socialists and lefters," is irrelevant. It isn't a "who" until after birth, and it is Republicans who want to make all women reproductive slaves. You have chosen conception as the magic day, and it is just as arbitrary as any. There is no consensus among scientists regarding the day "human life begins." There are many different theories. The basis for your position is not scientific, it is religious. Based on your post, you are anti-abortion because it makes you feel righteous, but ironically, the Bible does not condemn abortion.
In your perfect world, would a woman who had an abortion be prosecuted for "murder"? - - - Updated - - - Not only that, remember... God actually ENDORSES infanticide in the Bible.
Urm, do you understand biology or are you of the ilk like that republican who states that a woman's reproduction "shuts down" when raped, what makes you think a woman is in control of her reproductive organs, can she will ovulation to stop. But to answer, define reproductive organs .. the female ones are split into two types, the external and the internal . .which are you talking about .. or are you alluding to the fallacy that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy? Nope, 91% of abortions are done for what you see as convenience reasons. Not according to adoption figures - Race Distribution of Adopted Children White 37 % Black 23 % Asian 15 % Hispanic 15 % Other 9 % Source - http://www.statisticbrain.com/adoption-statistics/ Black children are disproportionally represented in the care system compared to white children. In 2000, African American/Black children represented 36% of the foster care population, even though they comprised only 15% of the general child population. Native American children represented 2.6% of the foster care population, yet only encompassed 1.2% of the general child population. I would have thought it was self-evident what is meant .. All the evidence shows that in countries that have comprehensive sex education and freely available contraception have a lower teenage pregnancy rate and lower abortion rates that countries with restrictive sex education and non free contraception. The pro-life mantra of legislation against abortion (sex education and contraception) is much like bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted, reduce the unintended pregnancies and you will reduce the abortions. Legislation does not do this. It would appear that you suffer the same misconception as the majority of pro-lifers in that you believe that pro-choice = pro-abortion, it doesn't .. both sides of the debate want to, at least, reduce abortion the difference is on how to achieve it. Personally I would rather the pregnancy never happens unless intended than place a woman's womb under state control.
No but you are trying to force them to remain pregnant. and just how many times does in need explaining to you the purpose of laws before you have the slightest idea of the fact, a law is only any good if it deters the majority from breaking it, abortion laws will be nothing more than feel good laws, just as prohibition laws were and just a laws against certain drugs are, they serve no purpose.
Sorry but consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, they are two separate acts, now if a woman got pregnant every time she had unprotected sex then you might have a point, but she doesn't and you don't. Sex creates nothing more than the risk of pregnancy, and quite a low risk at that, 15-20% of women who have unprotected sex will result in egg fertilization, from those a further 1/4 will fail to implant, at it's worse it equates to 15 out 100 women (15%) who have unprotected sex will become pregnant - and that doesn't even factor in contraception, which would reduce that percentage to approx 4% - that is a lower risk than you being involved in a car accident (30%), and your own laws state that no person is expected to suffer injury simply for taking a risk, and pregnancy is an injury in all cases, that fact has already been legally accepted in some cases, the only difference between a wanted pregnancy and an unwanted one is consent, a woman who wants to birth a baby consents to the injuries, a woman who wants an abortion doesn't consent to the injuries. Considering the fact that conception is not a wham, bang happening and that it takes pace over a number of hours then your base point is as arbitrary as birth or viability, unless of course you know EXACTLY when the two separate DNA join, and even then until the conception has passed differentiation you don't have a single 'person' you have around 200 cells of which every single one is capable of becoming a 'person' .. in fact the only time we know the exact moment is in IVF. IVF is another item that would need to be addressed if "person at conception" is adopted in law, you would have to find a way to store every single fertilized ova instead of destroying them, as that would equate to murder. Chimera twins are also another item to add to the growing list.
That's because they are trying to force the fetus to not be born. They are horrible sleazy people. They certainly aren't good mothers.
They aren't mothers at all until after the birth. Mother - a woman in relation to a child or children to whom she has given birth - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mother
"The decision to drive drunk is not the decision to cause a drunk driving accident. Maybe if every time someone drive drunk they got into an accident your point would have merit but it doesn't so you don't have to worry about the consequences when it does. ". -do you see the flaw in your logic now? Risk huh? Do you assume risks or pass them off on others when you are an adult? Not an adult Lefter, just a regular adult. She consented to the sex and assumes the risk of responsibility - just as a man does. Why do you feel men can be made responsible for sex but not women? Are they incapable of such responsibility? I don't need to clock it, I can just say when it happens. The first time that single cell replicates it is clearly alive and clearly human. Science agrees that passes the test for life. What magic day for you? Enough with chimeras. Your obsession is weird. We have gone through this. They are human, they are not the mother, therefore she has no right to kill unless to stop rape, or to save her own life. She doesn't just get to kill to prevent an "injury" as you call it that is not life threatening.
Complicity probably, and murder for hire for the abortionist. I would give out a sentence of nine months rest so they camt benefit from the crime. No he rebukes that even in the Old Testament and the child is spared. Even more so in the New Testament. How does religion come into this? - - - Updated - - - Etymological fallacy.
Natural death and artificial abortion are two different things are they not? Anyone ever get blamed for causing a natural death? No it isn't. You dehumanize to take and get what you want and believe that consequences should be born by others and no one has personal responsibility when they have an opportunity to pass it off on those you deem to have lesser rights. Like the 1%, the unborn, used to be blacks now it is succesful white men, etc...Whether it is high school drop outs smoking crack who should take from the guy who studied and worked hard, or a human life killed unnaturally you never stop to think about people accepting responsibility for their actions and that is rampant among Lefters and socialists. Dumb. Cite where republicans have argued women should be forced to have sex and be reproductive slaves. You are letting the far left extremist talking points get to your head. No magic, DNA that never existed now does. It is clearly human and not the mother. Ergo, human. Now, once the cell duplicates we know for a fact it is alive. No magic. That is scientific standard for life. And you know it. Not at all. Purely based on science. Objectively alive once the cell duplicates. Your theories are liberal science professors getti g that big tenure money and can't hack it the real world and live their abortion and socialism. Cite me otherwise. New DNA, yes or no? Don't dodge. Do dead things need to be killed? Do dead things replicate? Dont dodge Lefter. no it isnt. Yours is. You worship the supreme court and the rulers of lefterism and believe in magic human day and think rights can be greater and lesser etc... I am against abortion because killing humans is wrong. I don't care what the bible or the rig Veda or etc.. Say. Government only exists to protect life and property and in that order. 50 million humans were denied the protections of law and were killed in America in the last 40 years and that is disgusting to me and it should be to you too. But I guess you have the break down of the family in America to point to and the rise in single parent homes and say "see? The no responsibility culture is great!"
Since I will never be able to quell your blood Lust, can I at least get you to work on your stats? Your stats show more black children in the adoption system then their % in the population. It doesn't say they don't get adopted. Kids in foster care usually have parents who want them but were taken away, or in prison etc.. 91% what do you think are legitimate abortion reasons? Or non convenience abortions? I see you dodged that question. I am familiar with that Leftist tactic. I will repeat, does a women have co trol over herself when she engages in consensual sex? Does she and the man both know their is a risk of pregnancy?
Really, ok you find me a dictionary definition at any time since dictionaries have been complied that states "mother" relates to unborn children. Here let me get you started mother (n.1) Old English modor "female parent," from Proto-Germanic *mothær (cf. Old Saxon modar, Old Frisian moder, Old Norse moðir, Danish moder, Dutch moeder, Old High German muoter, German Mutter), from PIE *mater- "mother" (cf. Latin mater, Old Irish mathir, Lithuanian mote, Sanskrit matar-, Greek meter, Old Church Slavonic mati), "ased ultimately on the baby-talk form *mā- (2); with the kinship term suffix *-ter-" [Watkins]. Spelling with -th- dates from early 16c., though that pronunciation is probably older. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mother Good luck with finding ANY definition that equates "mother" to the unborn.
I'm a little dense and trying to keep up. You're of the thinking that legislation banning abortions and subsequent closing of clinics will solve the problem?
Lefters and their twisting of language to support a point when logic and newly available scientific data are smacking them in the face.... Nothing new. You guys bore me though. Unless you come up with another argument other then "people shouldn't have to accept responsibility if they can make another human pay", I will head back over to political opinions where the left is calling to steal people's money and we have a thread about the left calling for a second civil war and an ethnic cleansing that doesn't involve defenseless humans who you are succesful at killing over a million a year on average.
Yes. I define the problem as a million or so dead humans at the hands of the leftists every year. I don't even blame the mothers who do it anymore, I think they have been brainwashed by the left into thinking killing your own is perfectly fine behavior. I did for awhile, but then came to a different understanding when I see how pervasive dehumanizing campaigns can be.
You mean your flawed logic, yep I see it. We all assume risks every day, are we left to suffer the consequences of those risks should they cause injury? Please show me where I have said that "men can be made responsible for sex but not women" .. or is this just another pro-lifer putting words into anothers mouth. Yep she did, did she also consent to the injuries caused by the pregnancy? Does a man suffer injury from pregnancy? So your point is arbitrary then. We can also "say" when a fetus becomes sentient through ECG measurements. along with the other 200 or so cells until differentiation, and who has said it is not alive or human. so does a virus, should we protect them as well. A little further along than your magic day Why, does it annoy you that you can't give a logically answer to the question. Sorry but you are wrong, you really need to brush up on your own countries self defence laws before making a statement that you cannot defend.
You dodge and deflect so much, i have to go one line at a time with you. The virus In your example is it alive or dead? Why?
I define "the problem" as "abortion", and I'd like nothing better than there to never be another one. On this I think we can agree. Do you believe that passing this legislation will cause a black market to appear, or do you think that legislation will put an end to 'the problem' once and for all?
Look at both sets of stats, the first is the percentage of children adopted by race, the second is the number of children in care by race, you can clearly see that black children represent a higher proportion of children in care but are adopted less. That's just it I don't judge people .. obviously you do, your version of what is convenient will be different from mine just as mine will be different from the woman having the abortion. Actually I didn't, I asked you to render further information in order to answer the question properly, but as usual the right-wingers only want superficial answers that fit their agenda. Right-wing generalization And I repeat, control over what .. control over her ovulation, then the answer is no she doesn't. Of course they both know there is a risk of pregnancy, however no person is expected to suffer injury just because they took a risk and that risk is a low risk, typically around 15-20% for unprotected sex and around 4% for sex using contraception. If you woke up tomorrow feeling ill and went to the doctor who then told you that your base level hormones had increased by 400%, that you had chemicals in your system that were suppressing your immune system, that a new organ was growing inside of you, that your respiratory system had drastically changed, causing a 40 percent increase in cardiac volume and a 15 percent increase in blood pressure and that your entire circulatory system had been rerouted would you just shrug and accept it or do everything in your power to rectify the situation? If you would seek medical help, why should a woman be denied the same, in fact your own laws make it illegal for the government to provide something to one person that it is not prepared to provide for all people. If the government provides an abortion for a victim of rape, defining the pregnancy as a literal serious injury then it cannot deny the same to a woman who is not raped but is pregnant and wants to abort.. both are unconsented pregnancies.
Translated - I can't cope with the arguments you put forward so I'll just cherry pick the ones I think I can refute How is it relevant? You asserted that "The first time that single cell replicates it is clearly alive and clearly human. Science agrees that passes the test for life.", and a virus was probably not the best thing to use as it lies somewhere between being alive and nonliving - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-viruses-alive-2004
So defining a word correctly is "twisting of language" This newly available data, where is it, put up the links .. because so far all you have offered is your own soundbites taken straight from pro-lifer 101. Best place for you as you obviously can't stand someone who doesn't just roll over to your self important comments .. I only hope you provide better evidence in those debates than you do here.
Take any contact sport .. football, rugby, boxing are just three. A player enters the field of play knowing and consenting to the risk of injury, yet should that player be injured we do not with hold treatment based on the consent to play is implied consent to injury do we. In the same way we should not withhold treatment based on the consent to play(sex) is implied consent to injury(pregnancy)
