But you want the law changed to reflect your opinion, which would mean imposing your views on all women.
Emotions get in the way in a lot of debates. I try to avoid it, but doesn't always work - - - Updated - - - For injuries? Never. But you said intervention, I took that as something like abortion, which doesn't require an injury, or illness to perform.
Just as the law was changed to reflect the opinions of 7 judges, who interpreted the constitution a certain way. Imposing their views on the entire land
Pregnancy causes injury to a woman's body. Pregnancy/childbirth requires a full year of recovery before a woman's body returns to "normal," and even then, there is always permanent damage to her body, in addition to a plethora of complications that can be health and life threatening.
Legalized abortion doesn't require anyone to abide by another's views. No one is forced to have abortion if she believes it kills a human being. It's a belief that has never been and never will be proven, and should not be forced on others.
The point at which one becomes a human being has never been defined, so how can that point be proven?
90% of women who have abortions aren't concerned about their health. They're concerned about what's most convenient for them.
Your stock answer, how many times have you typed it, or do you just copy and paste each time? I wasn't talking about why women have abortions. I was talking about why you can't force someone to risk their health and life in pregnancy/childbirth.
Since the point at which one becomes a human being has never been determined, who gets to determine it, and on what basis? How could that come about fairly?
What's wrong with me copying and pasting a "stock answer" each time? That's exactly what you do. Whenever I bring up the issue of woman being responsible for sustaining the fetus's life, because it only exists as a result of their choice to have sex, you always keep accusing me of "wanting to punish women for sex", which I keep saying isn't true. YOU copy and paste each time, the same answer.
Well people like to fall on scientific evidence, if one day scientists can come to the consensus that human beings are at X point that would be a fair way. If we have a definite point to go off of with data to back it up, the debate could become much more clear
What's wrong is that your answer doesn't apply to the original point, and I think you know that. No, I don't copy and paste my answers unless they come from another source, and I don't accuse you of wanting to punish women unless you claim that women should suffer the consequences of having sex. There are many reasons why pregnancy may not result from a woman's choice to have sex, other than the obvious one, rape.
Every pregnancy results in health issues, it also results in injuries to the woman - injuries that more than meet the current requirement for use of deadly force. As is consciousness, which can be easily measured using MRI, where as fertilization cannot easily be measured. consciousness makes the most sense to me as that is the true time when human(adj) life becomes a human(noun) life or a person. - - - Updated - - - Yet you are happy to allow the woman to continue to be punished.
By your logic, telling a woman that she can't kill her own baby is "punishment". No, it's punishment for a woman to abort an innocent child for the crimes of its father.
Then you don't believe in the right to be an individual and make individual decision that effect your life? Do you believe in self-defence?
I was the direct opposite of you, I started off 100% pro-life without really knowing the details. I started to change my opinion when I started to research the pro-choice stance, I came to realize that, IMO, the pro-life stance was based purely on something I liken to control. Despite what many pro-lifers here will try to tell you I am not pro-abortion and I do believe that both sides want, at least, a reduction in the number of abortions .. however I feel the greatest difference between the two sides is the way that can be achieved. Pro-lifers by the majority seem to think it can be done simply by making abortion illegal, that has plenty of evidence to show that is simply does not work, where as most pro-choicers I know and have spoken to support comprehensive sex education and free contraception, which has been proven to work. I don't believe that abortion will ever disappear completely (well until the time we invent an artificial womb that is), there will always be a requirement for it it some circumstances. Research is good, however I would offer some advice, don't confine yourself to the research that only matches your opinion .. look at the subject from all sides.
It is a continuation of the original crime against her, and therefore to force her to stay pregnant is a form pf punishment . .but as we already know you have no regard for the women who choose abortion.
Good. Worth while looking at studies that are neither pro-life or pro-choice as well. Such as The American Cancer Society on their findings for supposed links to breast cancer caused by abortion - http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/moreinformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer The APA Report on Mental Health & Abortion researching Post Abortion Syndrome - http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/mental-health.pdf Advocates For Youth - The Truth About Abstinence (The article may not be unbiased, but the links to the studies used are) - http://advocatesforyouth.org/publications/409 There are many more if you are interested.
So are embryos created during IVF So is a submissive Chimera Twin Yet you don't seem to have a problem with them being "murdered", or is it more a case of just ignoring what you cannot defend?
