How do you know? How do you know?
ummmmmm because ectopic pregnancies are usually terminated in a hospital setting because sometimes the fallopian tube is about to rupture or has ruptured and that requires SURGERY to remove the pregnancy:smack:
Here, educate yourself.
No. They are taking the easy way out. Killing their own child is not responsible FFS.
I think the protesters would do much better to try to stop conceptions in the first place, by seeing to it that every woman of childbearing years woud have easy access to the moring after pill, and good effective birth control.
The time and money spent protesting could be better spent on the already born. For some reason the same protesters are also against paying the taxes or giving up some of their luxeries to support the already born, instead of worring about a fertile egg.
The law protects a pregnancy once the fertile egg becomes a recognizable human person. We still have separation of church and state and most protesters do so for religious reasons.
It is a fact that human life began eons ago, and even if one believes the Bible it began 5 or 6 thousand years ago.Life is in the man’s sperm and woman’s ova,life is a passed on thing. A fertile chicken egg is not a chicken, a pollenated apple blossom is not and apple and biologically it is the same for humans. It is just a religious concept that a person is a person while still in the state of the cells dividing!
One cannot prove there is a soul, so life is a whole different thing and death occurs when life leaves the body,if a soul is different, then where did life go?
Indeed it is. So are you on summer vacation from middle school yet, troll?
Except it’s not a child and endless repetition doesn’t make it so. Enough of this circular waste of time. Carry on.
Quite remarkable isn’t it. It’s also interesting that the so called pro-life folks won’t address the issue of their actions at PP can and does prevent/discourage woman/family’s from getting birth control in the first place (among other health services).
Yes it is.
You done preschool yet retard?
One cannot prove there isn’t a soul.
Great. So you realize that if an action is wrong, then the societal consequences of addressing that wrong to be immaterial to addressing that wrong. Which means that, by your own admission, arguing the effects disallowing an action would have while ignoring whether or not that argument is indeed a wrong to be nothing short of a red herring.
Except it isn’t. Murder is defined by the law. People’s personal opinions do not dictate what is and isn’t murder.
And the inevitable question is, “Why not?”. Exactly, at what point, does what that woman wants to do with her child “stop being your business” and becomes “your business”? If a woman you’ve never met has a child that you’ve never seen and she wants to kill him/her, shouldn’t that also be none of your business as it doesn’t affect you what she does?
That still doesn’t answer my question. Why shouldn’t one be held responsible for that which only exists as a result of his/her actions? It’s not, in any way, a hard question.
No, the law is inept when it doesn’t create a set of rules or guidelines by which everyone conforms to. A law which essentially let’s people do whatever they want according to their own wills isn’t much of a law, and it’s a waste of the paper its written on.
(A) No, it wouldn’t make sense and (B) it has plenty of bearing on abortion rights, since that’s precisely what you argue. That is, as long as the woman is okay with her actions, then it’s okay. That completely ignores the effects her actions have on another, in this case the unborn.
…I don’t think you know what communism is.
Here’s a challenge for you; show me where I defined choice.
Because I’ve said or implied that “abortion is evil”. You know, I’ve said this once before, but among the two sides here, only one side is taking the extreme, and that happens to be the pro-choicers.
Oh, so now you want to take into account the unborn, whereas this thread is littered with pro-choicers completely discounting the outcomes of abortion, rather focusing on the woman herself, wants she wants or her “right to bodily autonomy/integrity”? Sometimes, I feel like I’m either the only one who reads the threads, or that some of you pro-choicers don’t like to read what other pro-choicers are arguing.
I think this will be the sixth or seventh time stating this, but who defined choice?
Ummm, no. I’ve concluded that if pro-choicers can call pro-lifers ‘anti-choice’, then pro-lifers can call pro-choices ‘anti-life’. Makes sense, yes? Or do pro-choicers only get to label the opposition?
You do realize that an abortion ban will instantly have the effect of reducing the abortion rate because people are more apt to engage in an action when it’s legal than when it’s illegal, correct?
No. Most any medical professional today can do an abortion (even though the majority of them refuse to do so), even if they have no formal training in the matter.
Well, if, as pro-choicers like to assert, there were 1M+ illegal abortion in the U.S. prior to Roe v. Wade, even if abortion were made illegal tomorrow and 1M+ illegal abortions were to occur, you’d expect the death rate to be lower because medicine and technology have advanced just a take over the last 54 years. Of course, even if that number is inaccurate, you wouldn’t expect the death rate to sky rocket because of advancements in medicine and technology, both of which made abortions “safe” rather than making them legal.
And this is your problem. You perceive some individuals to be worth more than another. Exactly who decided that? If you can claim that individual X has a greater worth than individual Y, then what’s to stop you from asserting that individual Z has greater worth than individual Y? Or anyone else for that matter?
1M dead babies versus 1 dead women and 400K living babies. What kind of cost, benefit analysis are you running where the latter is better than the former?
You know an ever better way? It’s called not becoming pregnant. Yeah, startling, I know.
No, but I’ll let you believe that. I mean, I do like to make stuff up after all. Allegedly.
So, then, a woman should be allowed to throw a newborn into the Hudson, yes? If you’re going to argue that an entity who is unable to exercise self-determination, on account of not having the capacity to recognize it, doesn’t have any right to self-determination then the following action is perfectly acceptable. If you’re going to argue that the latter action isn’t okay because the newborn isn’t located inside of the woman’s body, then self-determination really isn’t important as you say.
Oh, yeah. I forgot. My argument is untrue because you found some instances in which it’s untrue, even though I explicitly said that my assertion is always 100% true, but that rather it is in general. You got me. Really. You did.
Nope. My style of posting is quite effective. It has to do with the fact that at least half of the pro-choicers in this one thread argue one way, and the other half another way, so much so to the point where they contradict one another. How many examples of this would you like?
Now what the hell have you been reading? I’ve made no such assumption, and the only times I’ve mentioned personhood is to ask why anyone should accept the definition of personhood a pro-choicer can come up with over the definition that either I or someone like Peter Singer can come up with. A question, mind you, I’ve gotten spurious answers to.
That’s precisely what you said. Again, I ask, if medical technology advances to the point where viability is pushed further back towards the start of pregnancy, then you agree that the limits on abortion would necessarily also become more limited?
Why would I assert you said something you didn’t say? I’m not you. Besides, if you were to re-read my comment, you’d see that I didn’t say you said anything. And as the saying goes, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. So thank you 
None of those actions are wrong and you know it. This is precisely where that “absolute moral wrong” argument thing that you’re still ignoring comes in to play. I can’t rape some poor woman just because it might be okay with me. I can’t beat you to an inch of your life just because it might be okay with me. I can’t rob you just because it might be okay with me. I can’t kill you just because it might be okay with me. And so on and so forth. To say that “doing wrong is pretty subjective” is, well, quite untrue.
It’s becoming quite apparent that you can’t read. I’d like point out that I said that pro- is short for proponent way back on page 1688, which occurred about two and a half days ago, way before you started on your crusade to “prove me wrong”. I’ve said this many times before, but if you’re not going to read what I write out, then don’t bother.
No, pro-abortion.
You really need to reexamine whatever it is you’re trying to argue.
And yet, it isn’t. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s ridiculous. Once you figure this out, you’ll be able to argue a lot more effectively than you are.
It’s not? Says who? Hell, even “child en utero” is a quite common phrase, even in the law.
Wal-Mart/convenience stores no longer sell condoms?
OMG you’re onto something. I totally agree with you 100% they are not pro-choicers they are anti-life.
The whole ridiculous “she can do what she wants with her own body” is false. It is not one body we are talking about it is 2 bodies.
I can’t believe I have to explain this to you (oh, wait a minute–yes, I can)…
It is impossible to predict what a pregnancy will do to some women. A friend’s DIL just gave birth, about a month early, to a girl who was lucky to survive the gestation. Her mother had a close call as well. She was a young, slender thing in quite good shape and was not anticipating any problems…but there they were anyway: gestational diabetes, cord wrapped around baby’s neck, bed rest, a severely restricted diet which got even more strict after the discovery that mom’s gallbladder was in bad shape too; they had to induce labor and ended up doing a C-section. Absolutely none of this was expected by anyone, including the OB-GYN. Mom and daughter are just lucky that they made it out alive.
This is only one of many examples.
Check out post #1710, BTW.
Abortions also have a chance of killing the woman as well as causing other complications. What the hell is your point?
Is not !
Is too.
A safe, clean first or second trimester abortion is safer for the woman than continuing a pregnancy to term in the developed world.
It is safer by several orders of magnitude than continuing a pregnancy to term in the developing world.
Women continue to choose risky abortion over risky childbirth and over 500,000 women worldwide die annually because of pregnancy and childbirth related causes. 13% of these deaths are due to unsafe abortion.
cite.
cite
Pro-Life protesters would save more lives by investing funds training traditional birth attendants, campaigning against FGM and child marriage and for education of girls and providing free birth control in the developing world than by shouting slogans outside clinics in suburban America.
Fact.
Did my post mean nothing to you? Are you incapable of treating people who differ with you (not individuals who may gave been rude, but entire swaths if people) with anything resembling respect?
I explained why that rhetoric is cruel and you do it anyway. Shame on you.
One cannot prove there isn’t an invisible dragon in my garage either, that doesn’t make it at all likely. What’s your point?
I don’t respond to losers like you.