The "Pro-Life-LITE" argument....how many times have you heard

you are wrong, the status of the fetus as far as personhood is concerned is almost an irrelevant factor, the real issue is can a persons right to body autonomy be removed through law . .the answer is no it cannot, there is not a single precedence where a person has been forced by law to give up their body, or parts there of, in order to sustain the life of another. In fact IMHO body autonomy is the founding right that all other rights are built upon, even your so called right to life can be removed as in executions, war and self-defence through 'legal' justifications, and yet even the most heinous murderer has their right to body autonomy .. it is the only right that extends beyond death.

 

The issue of "human beings" is irrelevant as only a "living person" that is a human being has Inalienable Rights. BTW of example from the opposite end a corpse that is a "dead human being" isn't a person and doesn't have a Right to Life or a Right of Property, or a Right of Self-Defense or a Right of Thought, or even a Right of Citizenship anymore because they're dead.

The US Constitution only addresses the Rights of the Person and all "Persons" are "human beings" but not all human beings are Persons. Prior to birth and technically after death they are no longer Persons with Inalienable Rights at least in accordance with historical legal precedent.

The Supreme Court addressed this in Roe v Wade to a significant degree so I would recommend reading the decision. They didn't address "when human life begins" because, as they noted, it's irrelevant to the issue of "personhood" which is established at birth based upon historical legal precedent.

 

If you believe abortion is murder then you better treat is as murder when it comes to punishment, too. Otherwise it is hypocritical.

Now there are some pro-life who would not hesitate to send people to long prison sentences for abortion. Those are at least consistent. However many wouldnt, even on the pro-life side. Thats another indication that abortion is not as wrong as murder.

 

you are being beyond ridiculous There are numerous pro-abortion laws, that is a fact. Pure and simple. I am being honest I have answered your question. Your refusal to admit it is true, lowers my expectations of honest debate from you in the future. It also increases my expectations that you will deny even when proven wrong. It is quite clear that laws that provide funding for the poor are pro abortion. Theres more to pro abortion then simply legalizing the act, making it easier to get one is also pro abortion. why is this so difficult for you?

 

1. That depends on how they use the source and if they are writing from an unbiased stand point .. so if you have one then please show it.

2. Yet you deem them old enough to go through a pregnancy and birth .. double standards.

The author of the report is Dr. MICHAEL J. NEW, Ph.D. - Here are his details. - http://www.40yearsafterabortion.org/michael-j-new-ph-d/

Extract - Dr. New researches and writes about the social science of pro-life issues. He gives presentations on both the positive impact of pro-laws and the gains in public support for the pro-life position. .. Dr. New has given multiple presentations at the annual convention of the National Right to Life Committee.

wow what a 'unbiased' article, and to top that the article is lifted straight from "Life News" - http://www.lifenews.com/2011/03/28/study-pro-life-parental-notification-laws-reduce-abortions-15/

now as you have used a blatantly biased pro-life source, I can do the same by using a pro-choice source;

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/MandatoryCounseling.pdf
http://ecademy.agnesscott.edu/~mzavodny/documents/jhealthecon_abortiontiming_000.pdf

In order to be a minority you have to be a person, fetuses are not persons, and it is the fetus that is violating the body autonomy of the woman.
Already debunked your transgender fallacy.

Again the same statement yet you have nothing to support it with .. Responsibility does not over rule the right to body autonomy, otherwise every parent would have to provide blood, tissue, organs etc to their child if it was required .. is that done?

 

No, because you plainly stated that there are pro-abortion laws, and still you have not produced a single law that is pro-abortion, just because you fail to understand what a 'pro-abortion law' is even though you state that there are as a fact, it would seem your facts are merely what you want them to be.

You have not proven me, or any one else, wrong on this issue .. you have consistently avoided posting a specific law that is pro-abortion and you cannot even get the fact that abortion was never made legal because it was never illegal in the first place under the constitution. As Shive_TD points out

your insistent denial of the facts does nothing but make you look dishonest.

 

WHOA! Can ya spell HEDGING!!!???? BACKPEDALING? Moving the goal posts...?

No, I haven't seen any pro-abortion laws from you...

 

That's only because an innocent fetus shouldn't have it's rights taken away, for the arbitrary reasons of a bratty teenager who should have kept their legs shut.

 

I plainly proved you wrong denying the fact does not mean it does not exist.
I suppose laws that provide abortion funding for the poor are anti abortion then?
I never once mentioned Roe V Wade, never once mentioned a law that legalized abortion, that is your assertion.
The only one being dishonest is you.

 

and here we have the TRUE feelings of a pro-lifer .. deeming someone else a "bratty teenager .. who should have kept their legs shut" .. wow .. and you say it's not about punishment and retribution.

Let us get this straight once and for all. You don't get to decide what decisions another person makes about their body. You don't get to decide who is a "bratty teenager .. who should have kept their legs shut". You don't get to decide that your interpretation of what is convenience over rules someone elses interpretation. You don't get to make laws controlling other people just because you think what they do is wrong. You don't get to violate other people rights just because of some misguided religious zealous dogma, ... and finally a fetus HAS NO RIGHTS.

 

Wow can you say you highlighted a pro abortion law. I suppose abortion funding for the poor is restrictive and anti abortion then? No didn't think so
Join the ranks of the dishonest with Fugazi.
Nobody is backpedaling at all. And yes there are dozens. State by state, heck even pro choice groups admit that. I can respect that, what you and fugazi are doing I can not

 

1-It's not about punishment and retribution. If a "bratty teenager who should have kept their legs shut" decides to go on birth control, then that's their personal business. I don't care. But it's wrong if they take away the fetus's right to life ARBITRARILY, because of their brattiness.

2-How arbitrary of them to decide what is convenience. (using your logic, )

3-Laws against prostitution and theft enforce morality.

 

no and they are not pro-abortion either

did you not say the following - "Theres more to pro abortion then simply legalizing the act", if that is not about Roe then please tell me what other 'legalization' are you talking about, even though you are plainly wrong about what Roe did.

The evidence to the contrary is in every post you have put forward in this issue.

You have gone form making a single statement about there being numerous pro-abortion laws to now saying that "making it easier to get one is also pro-abortion", making it easier to get one may be in favor of supporting a woman's right to get one but they are in no way, shape or form pro-abortion laws

The fact that you moved the goalposts shows that there is no validity or credence in your assertion that there are pro-abortion laws.

Now for the final time of asking, and in order for you to try and regain some creditability, please post here a specific (which is what you asserted at the start) law that is pro-abortion, or admit the mistake in your assertion.

 

In your opinion, and your opinion does not over rule another persons.

Yes it is, but that does not mean you get to force your opinion onto others. My opinion is that religion is a very, very bad thing, by your logic I should be able to force that opinion onto others by law .. so are you ok with that?

Ah yes Sam stock answer/question number 34 .. been here, done the answer .. here is a clue, both of the above are illegal (though I personally don't think prostitution should be) because they effect society as a whole, abortion does not .. prove otherwise.

 

making it easier is pro abortion. There is more to pro abortion then legalizing the act. Roe V Wade is very pro abortion BTW, but is not a law, otherwise it would be unconstitutional, as judges don't make laws.
Providing funding for abortions is a pro abortion law, you saying it is not, still doesn't change the fact it is. I have proven there are pro abortion and anti abortion laws. You trying to twist it into something else entirely proves em further that you are being dishonest. Nothing you say will change the fact there are pro-abortion laws on the books. You will never prove me wrong, as I have proven it to be true. Or do you not understand what pro-abortion means. You obviously do as you set a definition. Plain and simple there are pro-abortion laws on the books.

 

Abortion affects society as a whole because women and babies are members of society. Abortion harms millions of the unborn, and it affects the lives of women.

- - - Updated - - -

How does prostitution affect society as a whole?

 

It's actually irrelevant. There are women that initially imply that they might want an abortion and later choose not to based upon counseling. The only issue is whether that counseling was unbiased or whether it was used to coerce the woman into making a decision.

Always remember as well that every woman that chooses to have a baby today does so based upon "counseling" of some kind during their life generally. It's not like they just magically decide to have a baby anymore because they have the freedom to choose whether they want to have the baby or not. Of course in past history they didn't have much of an option because abortion resorted in death far to often. The fear of death coerced many women historically into having a baby even when natural maternal deaths were extremely high. It was sort of a probably die now or possibly die later decision historically.

 

Life itself harms many of those born into society as well. Of course Plan B prevents pregnancy and statistical figures go as high as 50% of pregnancies end in a miscarriage (generally within the first two weeks when the woman is unaware of the fact she's even pregnant). One thing we can state uncategorically is that over-population is the greatest threat to mankind today and having babies adds to over-population. Tens of millions of children are malnurished today and we all know that is a fact. Tens or hundreds of thousands suffer from that in the US alone.

Yes, abortion does affect women and overwhelmingly they believe that it affected them positively when compared to having the baby instead. This is a poor argument from an "anti-abortionist" because the thing women that have abortions have the most regrets about is getting pregnant in the first place. Considering the alternative of having the child the vast majority of women believe having the abortion was the best possible thing for them to do under the circumstances. They do regret having to make the choice at all but believe their choice was the correct one.

We can also note that in cases where a woman chooses to have the abortion for financial or educational reasons it is typically the best choice. It is often a choice of lifelong poverty and relying on government assistance or financial success and independence for them. Life in poverty and depending on government assistance (that Republicans are trying to eliminate) really does suck for both the woman and a child.

 

Again, you are coming at this from the perspective that the fetus is not a human being, and by "human being" I am not talking about a legal phrase but a moral term. To the pro-life proponent, the law is wrong (as the law has been before on other major issues) and legal wrangling over terms such as "personhood" is irrelevent. Slavery is the perfect analogy - the law declared a person a slave and property even though it was obvious the law was wrong no matter how much legal word wrangling was performed.

As a pro-life proponent, I see the baby as viable in the 21-25 week range and therefore a human being due all the rights and protections awarded any person. At exactly what time it becomes a human is debatable. When my eyes see a baby born at 26 weeks, and without any significant medical intervention that baby grows into a productive adult, then no amount of words placed in front of me will ever convince me that that baby at 26 weeks and moments before birth was not a human being.

And that is the issue. My own experience shows me it is not a fetus or a mass of cells, and nothing anyone can say and no law that is passed will ever convince me it is not a human being. The rights of the mother and the baby must be balanced. Pre-21 weeks, the rights of tthe mother are weighted more than the baby, post-viability the rights of the baby take priority.

 

Basically you're expressing the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade.

At natural viability, which occurs in the third trimester, the rights of the preborn take significant precedent over the rights of the woman. Only a professional medical diagnosis of potential death or serious possible harm to the woman allows for late term abortions. It is not "abortion on demand" but instead it is "abortion by necessity" based upon professional medical opinions when we address late term abortions.

 

twist and squirm, back track and moving the goalposts is all you have done since your very first comment on this was questioned, so the reality is the dishonesty is 100% from you, and I can not be bothered to debate with people who are blatantly unable to admit when they are in error. don't bother replying as you are now ignored.

 

Gonna rely anyways, since more then just you exist. The one who is wrong is you. Ignore me if you wish, but you are the one who is wrong. I proved that there are pro-abortion laws.(pro abortion laws are laws that either make it legal, or make it easier to obtain an abortion) I was not dishonest, or incorrect. Your inability to admit that pro-abortion laws exist, even when shown they do is dishonest on your part. I'm glad you ignored me, as I do not care to debate with someone who claims another is dishonest when ti is in fact them being dishonest. In this case it is you claiming I am when ti is clearly you.
The only squirming would be you in your denial of existence of laws that clearly exist.
Thank you for ignoring me and further proving me right

 

Please, there is no such thing as a law which makes something legal. Laws address the negative, IOW, they make actions illegal. If there is NO law making it illegal, by default it is legal. It's as simple as that. If it's not illegal, it's legal. Therefore there are no pro-abortion laws. There aren't even any laws making it easier to get an abortion, the right-wing would have found and demolished those long ago.

 

I have made another thread regarding this. I even posted a link and some of the laws on the books in the states. I never once stated any law made abortion legal(though California has one on the books). I started a new thread on this. Maybe there is confusion on what you and others consider pro-abortion and what I consider pro-abortion. Also would you consider providing low income women with state funding to obtain an abortion pro-abortion? I mean it clearly makes it easier for a low income woman who otherwise can't afford an abortion to get one correct?

And yes there is such a thing as laws that make things legal. Have you not followed the marijuana issue lately, or prostitution in Nevada? Or gambling laws.

 

women and babies certainly are, hence why we try to protect them .. fetuses on the other hand are not members of society regardless of how many time you repeat that fallacy.

As far as I am concerned legal prostitution doesn't, illegal prostitution does because it is run by criminals who exploit the women (& men), usually by getting them hooked on drugs and then forcing them to sell themselves in order to pay for their next fix .. illegal prostitution creates a ready made black market for criminals