Read It: Here's the Supreme Court's Basis for Overruling Roe and Casey

Only if she had sex specifically for the purpose of getting pregnant.

 

Nope, their(the psycho) rights end when it intrudes upon anothers, and the castle doctrine is a thing.
How you identify a person breaking into your house is up to you. As an intruder, or a friend in need.

 

If it was her choice to get pregnant, then she would identify the fetus as such.

 

It was her choice. Unless she was raped. But I'm not speaking to that. Otherwise she had a choice, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

 

The woman knows that there is a chance she'll get pregnant, even if its slim due to BC. Therefore she made the choice to accept that risk.

 

Nor is that relevant in how a woman chooses to identify whats allowed in her body. Lemme know when we get UHC passed, then you may have an argument. Because without it, who's financing the fetus privileges you wish to give it?

If its the mother you are trying to force, then she has every right to terminate its privileges.

 

Babies inside the womb are aborted all the time.

 

No such thing as a baby inside a womb in regards to abortion.
Now you are just making up stuff. Unless you wish to give entities special privileges based on how they identify..is that your desire?

 

So she DIDN'T choose to get pregnant.

 

I'm all for UHC.

And Rights are not privileges. Indeed, out of all Rights that we hold, the Right to Life is the most important as without it we have no Rights.

 

She knew that she could, so yes, she did.

 

No definition of "baby" supports the idea that a baby is exclusively out of the womb. Simple.

 

So if you get in a car you are choosing to get in an accident. got it.

 

You do accept that risk yes. And if you do you must deal with the consequences of it.

 

Prove it.
Its a fetus till its excluded from its label.

 

Having an abortion is not 'abdicating personal responsibility"... it's exercising it.

 

A right is exercised of its free will, without dependency of another.
A fetus cannot do such a thing, it requires a womb, thus it has no rights outside of that. Meaning the mother is it, and its the mothers right to do as she pleases with her body.

A privilege is granted, which is what a fetus requires to survive. If its able to survive without the womb, its been born. Thus has rights and can no longer be aborted.

 

If you get in your car, you are choosing to RISK getting into an accident.

 

You want me to prove a negative?

 

And how is it "excluded" exactly?

 

And if you have sex you are choosing to RISK getting pregnant.

 

False, one need not act to have a Right. For instance if the police want to search your home and don't want to warn you ahead of time then they must get a warrant. Why? Because your Right to Privacy exists without you having to invoke/use free will. You can also practice religion in your home freely without first invoking the Right to do so. Same with many other Rights.

And by the by, the viability of a fetus being able to survive outside the womb is several weeks before its born. Not just when its born.

 

False. Its exactly abdicating personal responsibility. They had a choice. They knew the consequences of each choice. Getting rid of a consequence because its inconvenient instead of accepting the consequence is exactly what one does to abdicate responsibility.

 

Nope its exercising it, you just don't like that way of doing that.

 

Yep. And you must deal with those consequences.