Why are those two things mutually exclusive? 
This may really and truly be the silliest thing I’ve ever read on this board. You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of the word “expel”. While women might have the right to “expel” rapists were they to have the physical capability to do so, the fact of the matter is that even a Schwarzeneggerian vagina would very likely be incapable of such a feat. 
Were it otherwise no rape would last past the initial penetration, yes, no?
Certainly, as long as the pregnancy was terminated prior to the fetus having developed into a miniature baby. As long as it really and truly was a “shapeless mass of tissue” and had not yet developed a functioning brain and nervous system I would have no problem with it.
As long as the baby could survive and develop in good health I would have no problem with it.
Huh? They have the right to expel… that doesn’t mean they have the physical ability all by themselves. They still have the right.
So why don’t you think a non-rape victim should not have the right to end her pregnancy before the “miniature baby” point?
How many born children are you supporting around the world? What sacrifices are you making to see they have the medical care the proper diet, education and place that is warm and good to live in? Would you give your life for that? If not you are not pro-life but pro-birth. Pro-choice is also pro-life and care for the already born. Life began eons ago, and was passed on through the centuries. Like it or not there is human life in a man’s sperm.
As I stated before I had 2 miscarriages ans I saw there was no baby. I spent 10 days in the hospital trying to save the one, the other was lost on the way to the hospital.
So the “baby” has a right that nobody else in the entire country does?
Speaking of silliest posts ever….
So I hold a gun to her head, or a knife to her throat, or merely punch and beat her into insensibility, or exert any of a huge variety of more subtle coercive acts against her. At that point even a “Schwarzeneggerian vagina” isn’t going to have the volition (distinct from the capability) to expel a penetration.
You were talking about rape, remember. Sex against the will of the victim. Why do conservatives have such a hard time with that?
Determined to go down with that silly ship, eh? It’s nonsense. Stop saying it. Women can’t and don’t expel rapists, therefore no one ever thinks in terms of their having a right to do so. Again, stop it. It’s stupid.
I’ve said several times on this board and at least twice in this thread that I don’t object to early term abortions occurring before the fetus has formed into what I consider to be a small human baby, complete with functioning brain and nervous system.
Believe it or not I’m perfectly aware of that fact and had even considered it in posting my reply to iiandyiiii, but then figured why muddy the water when the point in question was a woman’s so-called right to “expel” a rapist. The very concept is ludicrous.
Well, to be more accurate, I wasn’t talking about rape, iiandyiiii was. I was merely answering him/her.
What on earth makes you think conservatives have “such a hard time” with rape?
And for that matter, what form do you think that so-called hard time takes?
Looney tunes. Women can and do expel rapists. Not always, but sometimes. Sometimes they fight back and succeed in expelling them. Sometimes they fight back and fail. Sometimes they don’t fight back, for various reasons. Whether they succeed or fail, they still have the right to stop the rape. Yes, this means ‘expelling’, if the rapist has already physically violated her body. This goes for men too – men have the right to expel anyone inside them if they don’t want them there. Everyone has this right. I’ve never even heard of someone (besides you) denying this right when it comes to rape and attempted rape.
A ‘ludicrous’ concept that has happened and does happen. And even when someone is physically incapable of doing it, they still have the right to not be raped, and to expel anyone raping them. Their rights are being violated, whether they are capable of stopping the violation (e.g. expelling their attacker) or not.
When did anyone say women don’t have a right to fight off a rapist? :rolleyes:
And no, you’re wrong. “Anyone” doesn’t (or shouldn’t) have the right to expel anyone inside them when that anyone is an innocent human being that was created by the deliberate actions of the person who now seeks to “expel” them for their own convenience. In my opinion a woman has no more right to do so than she has a right to kill them once they’re born or at any time after. It’s not a case of telling a woman what to do with her own body, it’s a case of telling her what she shouldn’t be able to do to someone else’s body - a body she’s responsible for having created in the first place.
You challenged my claim that women have the right to expel rapists from their bodies. That’s fighting off a rapist.
Says you. I feel differently. That’s okay.
No, I said it was a nonsensical concept. I stand by that assessment.
“Repel” is the word you’re looking for. It may not suit your agenda but it makes more sense.
Certainly. That’s why we have debates.
I look forward to the day when my side wins. 
So even though women have successfully expelled rapists from their bodies, it’s a nonsensical concept?
‘Repel’ works too. Women have the right to fight off attackers, to repel attackers, and to expel attackers. In my view, these rights come from the inherent right to bodily autonomy, which makes implicit the right to expel anyone from inside you that you don’t want.
I wouldn’t be holding my breath if I were you.
Your basic premise is flawed. People have the right to protect themselves from malicious bodily assault and theft of property. It has nothing to do with bodily autonomy.
But even if it did, you’re ignoring the fact that another (totally innocent) body has been interjected into the mix which has a right to its own bodily autonomy as well.
I’m optimistic that as science and technology progress, along with social and news media such as I’ve been linking to in this thread, people will come to realize that babies form much earlier than the pro-abortion crowd would have them believe, and as a result abortions will occur less often and/or be limited to early term only.
I disagree, with regards to certain crimes.
It may, but in my view, the rights of someone who is inside another person are trumped by the ‘host’ if he/she wants them out. This is true whether it’s a rapist, a fetus, or a tiny violinist.
There’s a slight difference between a rapist and a small innocent child created by the deliberate actions of the woman who is responsible for its creation.
And yet in our society it’s the small child who receives the worst punishment.
Yes there is, though I believe the actions of the mother are irrelevant. And even though they are different, in both cases I believe the mother (and anyone else) has the right to remove anything or anyone inside her that she wants out. How the thing or person got there is irrelevant.
What gives her that right? What is there about her mere physical existence that in your opinion trumps another’s right to life and exemption from what is in many cases a horrific death?
And while you may consider her actions to be irrelevant, I don’t. It goes back to that individual responsibility thing that us conservatives are so big on. People should responsible for the consequences of their own actions.
Coulda fooled me! You said:
Isn’t that you talking about rape? Next question:
Observing the news for the past decade, especially the last few years. Where have you been hiding? You may not have a TV but you obviously have internet access.
Do you really, truly need examples? Are you serious? Well, thisfor one. And – oh heck, here are eight more.
Really, SA, you should get in the habit of removing your foot from your mouth before you speak. Your assertions would perhaps come out better.
The same thing or concept that gives anyone any rights. It’s certainly different for different people.
The fact that the second individual is inside the first. If you’re inside someone, you still have rights, but they’re trumped by the person you’re inside if there’s any conflict.
Oh I’m big on individual responsibility too. I think it has nothing to do with this instance, though, because the right to bodily autonomy does not depend on prior actions.