Abortion is NOT a woman's right

Get this through your head pro-choicers, Abortion is NOT a "right".

The " It's my body " defense is a pretty pathetic one.





It's not just all about YOU, there is someone else inside there.




Abortion may not be a right, but LIFE is. The right to life cannot be taken away without due process, or in the case of self defense. Since the life in question never did anything wrong, there is no justifiable reason to revoke this innate right, the right not to be killed.

 

Do you think you're the Pope, now? For the logic impaired...if "someone else's body" is INSIDE my body, using my resources, a potential risk to my health and life, it IS my choice.

 

That's an interesting picture because in the first three frames, she's throwing an infant....infants have been born and abortion no longer applies.

You are not a someone until you stop being inside another someone. People don't live inside people.

Where did that innate right come from and what are the qualifications for it? I can think of plenty of "life" that would love to to exercise that right if they had the ability to choose. Or is it only "humans" who have a right to life? Now you're just being arbitrary. You're deciding what life has rights and what does not, same as us. Your high horse isn't as tall as you think it is.

 

Your entire argument is based upon preconceived notions, and it's a very circular argument.

The "it's my body" logic is used to justify harming the unborn, but some people may also use it to justify harming the born. Your argument is invalid.

- - - Updated - - -

Most women don't have abortions to protect their own health.

 

Every pregnancy is a potential risk to a woman's health and life, and permanently damages her body.

 

Tell me how "it's my body" applies to an argument that involves two separate people, which is what a mother and a born child are?

And what preconceived notions are we talking about here?

 

Yes, but most women don't care about that.

 

When it is a wanted pregnancy, women are willing to take the risks, but no woman should be forced to.

 

It is not somebody else's body if it feeds from yours, it is a parasite .

 

A mother and an unborn child are also two separate people.

 

You keep saying that as though it's a fact. It isn't a fact, it is something you are trying to establish. Where is it written that an "unborn child" is a person? And they are not separate, they are very much connected.

 

Once again, here we go again with these circular arguments.

 

There is no circular argument. You are simply trying to change the historical meaning of personhood without basis.

 

Here's what a circular argument is.

http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/circargterm.htm

 

Begging the question means that you state as a fact that which has to be proven. It IS a fact that historically, the meaning of person did not include the unborn. If it did, we would celebrate the day of our conception instead of birthdays. We would count the unborn as exemptions on tax returns. A woman would not say she is EXPECTING a baby, she would say she had one, and on and on. Historically, the term person has applied to the born. You are trying to change that.

And furthermore, you are trying to change the historical meaning of person for one reason only--to give a fetus the "right" to live inside a person. No person has ever had the right to use another person's body to sustain his own life.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

 

Yes, and that is what you are doing when you say a fetus is a person. I didn't say a fetus is not a person, I said the historical meaning of person applies to the born. That is a fact.

 

What you going to do about it then, bullyboy?

 

During the 1940s, Jews weren't considered persons in Nazi Germany. Just because something is legal, it doesn't make it right.

- - - Updated - - -

At least he's not a feminist.

 

Historical tradition does not mean that something is morally correct.

 

THAT's the key question. And when you ask Anders (and get an answer)...it's always one thing-

"Womb Gestapo"

- - - Updated - - -

But isn''t "historical tradition" the basis for YOUR morality, Sam???

 

Which "historical tradition" are you speaking about, Gorn?

 

There is nothing morally incorrect about the name of something.

 

What are you even talking about?