There is a very simple method to have an abortion. It is an ancient elixir that has been used to induce abortion. Here's the info: http://www.liveandfeel.com/articles/teas-causing-abortion-2318 And then there's this: http://www.anniesremedy.com/chart.php?prop_ID=96 And this: http://www.botanical-online.com/english/abortiveplants.htm So what now? Do we ban these plants that you can find
That would be the pro-life ultimate goal .. basically treat all pregnant women as breeding chambers, controlled by the state.
Non pregnant women would not be controlled by the state. Pregnant women with a sense of right and wrong would not be controlled by the state. Women who already gave birth would not be controlled by the state.
Upon becoming pregnant they would be, so are you advocating that pregnant women be treated less equal than non pregnant women? Define right and wrong which is not based on your personal perspective, and why should any person (let alone a woman) be subject to what you think is right and wrong? BTW : All women would be controlled by the state when pregnant regardless of if they wanted to be pregnant or not, just as you are controlled by the state regardless of whether you want to steal or not. See response 1 above.
Laws against stealing involve the state controlling people. There's nothing wrong of the state controlling people with laws. Even if abortion was illegal, non pregnant women would still be controlled by the state, in other ways-just like how everybody is controlled by the state in some way. DUH!
I think the pro-life movement's ultimate goal isn't to ban these drugs but to make killing a fetus illegal (without exception). - - - Updated - - - Abortion is legal in the US.
and these laws apply to EVERYONE not just a group of people based on their pregnancy state, so the question remains - which you attempted to ignore - so are you advocating that pregnant women be treated less equal than non pregnant women? Name one other way a non pregnant person is controlled by the state to such a degree that their body autonomy is taken over by the state?
That same arguement could be used to justify making abortion illegal. "abortion is discriminaton because it only applies to the unborn". what a ridicilous fallacy you use in your arguements.
Go on Sam put a name to the fallacy instead of just repeating what other people write in the hope some of it will stick, lets see if you actually know anything about fallacies .. you should you use them often enough. Here I'll even help you, here is a list of the most common fallacies used - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ - now tell me which one you think I am using . .while you are at it you can see how many you use. Abortion cannot be discrimination as it does not give unjust or prejudicial treatment. It applies to ALL fetuses regardless of age, sex or race, where as the laws you want enforced discriminate against a sub section of people (pregnant woman) detrimental to what all other women have, unless you are advocating that a pregnant women is somehow different to a non pregnant one to the point that she should lose some of the rights a non pregnant woman has, are you?
That's because only pregnant women can have an abortion. Abortion legality only applies to pregnant women, and whether or not abortion should be legal is not determined by "it's discrimination to create a law that only affects a small amount of women", because that would imply that if men could get pregnant, abortion being illegal would be okay. Abortion being illegal would apply to all pregnant women regardless of race, age, ethnicity, etc. What right to an abortion does a non pregnant women have? LOL you're really jumping through hoops.
Irrelevant That is discrimination. Implies no such thing and I wonder which orifice you pulled that one out of. but it would not apply to those who are not pregnant, just as slavery laws only applied to those who didn't have white skin. EXACTLY the same right as a pregnant one does, just because she doesn't require one doesn't change the fact that she is legally entitled to one.
How is that irrelevant? By your logic, the simple fact that only pregnant women are pregnant (duh!) means that abortion should be legal. How the **** is that discrimination? What rights would a non pregnant women get, that a pregnant woman wouldn't get, if abortion was illegal? A non pregnant women can't have an abortion-that would be an oxymoron. Very brilliant of you to make such polite arguements. Slavery was discrimination because in the 1800s, blacks could be slaves, while whites had the freedom to not be a slave. WTF does that have anything to do with abortion? It's so irrrelevant it aint even funny.y If abortion was illegal, non pregnant women wouldn't legally be entitled to abortion either. I wonder if you only pretend to be so not understanding of my arguements.
Never said anything like that at all. Right back at you, what rights would the pregnant woman lose that the non pregnant woman has? Well when you talk (*)(*)(*)(*) expect it. LOL you made the argument for me . .can you see it, no of course not. By trying to make abortion illegal you are being discriminative.
The very act of trying to make abortion illegal is discrimination against pregnant women, if you cannot see that then it is pointless to continue.
You know you are right, it isn't discrimination .. just goes to show even you can get it right once in a while - do you know what else, it really doesn't matter in the slightest if it is not discrimination as discrimination is not really a major issue in abortion as far as I am concerned. Now would you like to get back to the actual OP? - - - Updated - - - Apologies.
These two groups above are not pregnant women. Sure they would, because you got your words mixed up. Allow me to state what you were saying a bit more clearly than you did. Pregnant women with MY sense of right and wrong would not be controlled by the state. So what you're basically saying is, pregnant women who think like you do would not be subject to control with the implication being that you have a superior sense of right and wrong over women who might disagree with you. Taking this into consideration, the only conclusion that can be reached is that you didn't actually address what Fugazi said at all, you just stated that people who agree with you and think like you do wouldn't feel like they were being controlled. Hooray for them! What about the rest?
You know I capitulated because I really couldn't be bothered to try and explain it to him . .thank you for doing a better job of it than I could.
