The Basics, Abortion is a Homicide, Face that Fact

Whether "person" is a "social construct" doesn't matter. In this country one has to be born to be a person with rights, that's law and that, not

quibblingpsychoticnitpickingblather meant to screw over women's rights, rules.

And ,again, whatever YOU call it doesn't matter


Even what the law calls it doesn't really matter since if it was deemed a person, A human being, it could not be given MORE rights or less restrictions than other persons....abortion is legal either way

- - - Updated - - -

Even what the law calls it doesn't really matter since if it was deemed a person, A human being, it could not be given MORE rights or less restrictions than other persons....abortion is legal either way

 

what? Esplain how they somehow have MORE rights

 

It's like this. Abortion is legal, the fetus is not a person.

The Anti-Choicers want to make it illegal by saying the fetus is a "person" with rights.

Well, with rights comes restrictions, we all have them. One restriction is that we can't use another's body to sustain our own life without consent.
I can't force someone to give me a blood transfusion or their heart...you can't, I can't, NO one can....not even a fetus

So, if a woman does not consent to a fetus using her body, out it goes....

The Anti-Choicers think a fetus is a person with not only rights but no restrictions giving it more rights than the woman it's in.

 

your joking, right? Consent? Theyre (*)(*)(*)(*)ing pregnant, nobody forced them to get pregnant. Tell me, do you need that letter of consent signed by the baby? Should we fax it?

 

I tried to explain nicely and concisely......you obviously weren't after an explanation....

 

You didn't explain anything. You make it sound as if women are getting pregnant like its a disease. Does a baby need its mothers permission to begin living? How about after its born? Then is it suddenly wrong to argue that since you are not providing consent to provide complete care for the infant, you can kill it?

 

I did explain , concisely. You seem to be reacting without reading the post, reacting emotionally. Try reading the post again slowly without letting emotions interfere with facts.

WHERE did I say "woman are getting pregnant like it's a disease" ?

I didn't but pregnancy does damage, injure, and harm women. Therefore , they have a right, just like YOU and I, to deny consent to that harm and/or injury.


We are talking about fetuses and abortion, nothing about a child after it's born. THEN it does become a person with rights and NO where did I say or imply the woman has a right to kill it.

 

Mkay. Well are you in support of all abortion or purely abortion to save the mothers life in the event of medical complications? I believe you are condensing the entire issue into one easily defended position I happen to agree with. I should have clarified that I am speaking to the vast majority of abortion cases.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/

2.8% in 1998. Medical tech has come a long way since then. So would you like to talk about the VAST majority of abortions?

I'm referring to women who use abortion as their primary method of birth control. I know a girl on her third, she's 21 years old

 

First, I don't "support abortion" ...I support the right of women to choose child birth or abortion.

Your link only gives an opinion by an Anti-Choicer.

No matter how many abortions are done for medical reasons abortion is legal and NOT rationed.

Abortions should not be allowed only for the life or health of the woman.....they should be legal for any reason a woman doesn't want to be pregnant.

 

Actually, the link is from the position that abortion needs to be legal in some cases. Makes me wonder if you made it far enough to read the statistics at the bottom of the page which I cited above. The statistic you failed to address.
And argue semantics all you want. Doesn't bother me, it fails to prove anything other than you avoid addressing me head on

Would you like to discuss the morality of the vast majority of abortion procedures or continue to reiterate the much belabored point that its already legal?

 

Understood... abortion is still legal as it should be.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes you do. The child in utero is a human being. Abortion is homicide. Not all homicides are illegal. Abortion is legal. Face the Facts.

 

never said it wasn't legal,just want some honesty missing from the pro abortion camp.

ABORTION IS A HOMICIDE, as you said.

 

You , of course, couldn't answer my question:




Your morals shouldn't dictate what others do. Would you want someone else's morals dictating your life?


You also chose to ignore :No, I don't want to discuss the morality of abortion since, like every other moral opinion, it varies with each individual person.

You say ridiculous emotional things like : ""Are you claiming you were born with a perfect set of morals?""

...when I indicated no such thing.....makes you sound hysterical....especially when you go on to rant incoherently, ""At this point you either claim infants are born with a moral code and therefore have an understanding of right and wrong and that killing them is obviously wrong, or you concede the point that Moral codes come from outside yourself and therefore other peoples morals have credence because they are yours too. What do you choose? """

It's gibberish.


Laws are passed to preserve order in society.....they are not passed to make you feel comfortable.

 

I posited that not only do other peoples morals dictate my life, they dictate yours as well, as the moral code is shared by society.

Then you fail to acknowledge morality as having a valid place at the table and deny there effect or influence in law.

So will you admit that some laws, certainly not all but some, have a basis in morality or not?

Your very good at dodging the questions.

 

What questions did I dodge? YOU dodged the question: Would you want someone else's morals dictating your life?

You finally answered yes, you want others dictating your morals for you.......very sad....but other people can think for themselves and define their own morals.

Morals are NOT carved in stone.



So now you are admitting that some laws, certainly not all but some, have a basis in morality .

They may look like they are based on morality but are based on preventing chaos in society.

Did you know some people think war is immoral....if they told you it was then you would have to be against war. If someone said war was moral then you'd have to be for war....others think for themselves.

I say abortion is not immoral so now you have to agree that abortion isn't immoral.....that's using your "logic".

 

i gAve you an inch, you ran a mile. Are you now assuming that morals comprise of the last moral Op you hear? Where did i say that? Your right, they arent set in stone. Meaning they have to come from somewhere.....events in your life? Involving other people? Role models? Or again, were you born knowing all this? And what is chaos? Is it comprised of immoral behavior? As for war, sheesh everyone knows its immoral. But the reasons for GOING to war....

 

You KNOW you have nothing when you say silly things like "war is immoral but reasons for GOING to war aren't "".....quibbling with words to justify YOUR immorality or change your morality....sifting sands of "morals"...which is why laws aren't based on your morals



.and NO everyone does NOT believe war is immoral....

 

Ok, let's concede Abortion is murder.

What does that mean in practical reality? How do you prosecute these murders without massively invasive violations of women's rights?

Furthermore, what does this do to the principle of bodily sovereignty? If the government is using its power to force women to give up their bodies at medical risk to another person, does that mean the government can start using force to make people do organ donation?

 

YES, it does.....but don't think Anti-Choice Repub/Conservatives will ever think that far ahead.....

 

Unless, of course, you're a cop in Cleveland...

 

Is this a legitimate attempt to equate organ donation with abortion? But you just conceded that its murder? You see, if you had REALLY made the concession, you would never draw that analogy. And conceding its murder also by default concedes the victim is an individual, a human being person-whatever your preffered definition of the day is- which legitimizes the morality argument, that is, "murder is WRONG ".

 

If the government can force one person to give up their body to another person in the case of pregnancy, why not in other cases where a person's life is endangered?

If my life is dependent on one of your kidneys, why shouldn't the government force you to give me a kidney?

 

I agree 100%