Abortion is NOT a woman's right

For women who are unable to support or care for a child, yes, that pregnancy is miserable before you even consider the physical pain and discomfort, and risk to health and life.

Yes, I have experienced pregnancy and childbirth, and no I didn't guilt my kids with the pregnancy/birth details.

You are the only poster who has mentioned telling kids about it.

 

Sex is for procreation only?

 

No. But if women have sex and get pregnant, they should deal with the consequences of their actions in a responsible way, and not treat their child like trash for convenience reasons.

 

Abortion is a responsible way, since there is no child at that point.

 

Prove that unborn humans aren't "children".

 

Prove they are.

 

They are young, living, human beings.

 

Whether they are "human beings" is a matter of opinion.

 

Always notice...until he's pressed (as he will be by my comment here)....Sam always blames the woman for the "consequences of her actions".

His FIRST instinct...always?....is to criticize the woman in the scenario.

- - - Updated - - -

Sam SAID it ...therefore to him, he "proved" it was true.

 

child n. 1) a person's natural offspring. 2) a person 14 years and under. A "child" should be distinguished from a "minor" who is anyone under 18 in almost all states.

off·spring noun \ˈȯf-ˌspriŋ\

: a person's child

: the young of an animal or plant

fe·tus


/ˈfētəs/
noun

noun: fetus; plural noun: fetuses; noun: foetus; plural noun: foetuses
1.
an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

un·born adjective \-ˈbȯrn\

: not yet born


Full Definition of UNBORN


1

: not born : not brought into life


2

: still to appear : future


3

: existing without birth

 

What are you implying about me?

 

A fetus is a woman's natural offspring.

 

According to accepted and documented definition, it is not an offspring until born.....thus we have the term unborn, and use it with the other term ie: unborn offspring.

Otherwise there would be no reason to refer to it as unborn. Just as we do with an unborn child.

You can call the fetus a child if you wish, but that does not make it such....why would we have designated it a fetus in the first place otherwise?

 

All of the above are purely informal usage of the word 'baby', in medical terms a baby is a newborn or infant - http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=9072

People call their cars 'baby', does this somehow imply they are giving their car personhood?

None of these are historical evidence, the bible, overall, is not a historical record .. more a record of beliefs. If as you are suggesting these help provide evidence that the unborn are 'persons' then the question needs to be asked why the hebrew words ben Adam (בן אד&#1501 or eesh (אי&#1513 are not used at anytime in reference to the unborn.

All of the above you have provided are open to interpretation

.

Again purely in informal usage.

Yes it is debatable, science has agreed that at conception there is human(adj) life not that there is a human(noun) life. On a pure scientific level prior to differentiation ANY of the cells have the potential to become a human being (there are around 200+ cells), the 'person at conception' ideology would have to accept that there are in fact over 200 potential persons prior to differentiation.

Absolute rubbish, no court has decided it is illegal to procure an abortion after viability, if that was the case there would be no abortions for life threats to the woman etc. If you actually read what Roe says it states that the rights of the woman have to be weighed against the interests of the states;

The Court held that, in regard to abortions during the first trimester, the decision must be left to the judgment of the pregnant woman’s doctor. In regard to second trimester pregnancies, states may promote their interests in the mother’s health by regulating abortion procedures related to the health of the mother. Regarding third trimester pregnancies, states may promote their interests in the potentiality of human life by regulating or even prohibiting abortion, except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

SCOTUS did not make any time of term for abortions to be illegal, it left it up to each of the states as to whether they would impose restrictions .. ANY of the states could in fact render abortion legal for any reason at any point during the pregnancy if they wished to do so and it would not violate Federal law.

The percentage of premature births prior to 24 weeks that have survived has changed little in the last 40 years. Less than 17% of premature babies born before 23 weeks survive despite the increases in medical care, and 95% born at 22 weeks die or have severe disabilities.

Ah yes the most valued unborn victims of violence act, which when read correctly shows that the punishment is tied more to the females loss of choice and unconsented ceasing of the pregnancy, and also includes the following section;

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—

(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

If that section had not been included the act would not have passed. This section on it's own confirms that the act is about the females consent and if removed would be unconstitutional.

The unborn are only referred to in the same way as the born in an informal way, scientifically and medically the correct terms are used to describe each of the phases involved with pregnancy.

 

You need to provide support for your consent to sex is consent to pregnancy premise, so far not a single pro-lifer has been able to do that.

consent to one act does not imply consent to another.

 

I have nothing to apologize for, the piece quoted was not your comment so I cannot 'cherry pick' your comment can I.

and I did not say it was right or wrong did I.

I know it is .. yet it has not provided any relevant evidence to what you are proposing, when (or if) it does then it will need to be included until then it is supposition.

More than happy to meet you half-way, if you actually read my response to your premise you would see that I stated that this field requires further study.

 

first link pure BS
second link pure BS

 

It is a known well documented consequence of have sex incase you didn't know
wanting to have sex but not wanting to get pregnant doesn't excuse you from the consequences of having sex. it is like wanting to go swimming but not wanting to get wet the consequences of going swimming is getting wet and you know that there for it doesn't excuse you for being wet

but what does liberals know about consequences they feel everyone should be excused from the consequences of their own decisions

 

Really .. gosh, never knew that.

Do you actually know the risk of getting pregnant from sexual intercourse?

Do we deny treatment to people for injuries incurred from taking a risk?

not if you are wearing a full body suit and breathing helmet.

For consequence read punishment, seems to be the pro-life mandate punish women for wanting non-procreational sex.

LMFAO .. I'm not a liberal, and it really shows the limited logical deductive prowess of pro-lifers to say that the decision to have sex is the same decision to become pregnant ... ludicrous

 

Does the MAN who "goes swimming" with the woman....get wet?

 

Not "implying", Sam. Saying directly.....you believe when you SAY something like "They are human beings" that by the simple act of you saying it, it "proves that it is true".

You do it all the time. You do not believe it is "your opinion"...you believe it is "proven fact".

Am I wrong?

 

You forgot, Fugazi...."pro-lifers" don't believe in the "conservative pro-choicer", not even libertarians.

They believe that anybody who is pro-choice is a "down the line lib'rul/leftist" on every other issue. Otherwise they might be hanging out with "baby haters" at the next Tea Party rally and never know it.

 

Is it OK if the swimmers towel off? Swimming ruins a hairdo, is it OK to restyle it?

 

yes and a man is just as responsible for that pregnancy as the women

 

Or if you wear a bathing cap and it develops a leak due to shoddy manufacturing....will TRF allow you go to the beauty salon? Or do you have to "take responsibility" and wear your hair as God intended it?


- - - Updated - - -

Funny, because it is so RARE that "pro-lifers" ever criticize the man....until asked to.