This idea of the "correctness" of blue (or of anti-abortion) is my attempt to understand your position. I personally find very few decision points in life that are absolutes. Would I shoot a person? No... but if they were breaking into my house, Yes. Would I (assuming an alternate universe where I am a woman) get an abortion? No... but if I already had two young children and this pregnancy put my life at risk I might... or if I learned the baby would have extreme effects from the Zika virus I would probably choose an abortion. These are personal decisions each woman should be free to make. I, unlike you, believe there are things that should be. So I would not accept the view that there is one correct color. Maybe for a given application. Red is probably the correct color to use on your sports car if you want to get more speeding tickets. Black with a hint of red is the correct color to wear at night if you are a ninja (to blend into the darkness). It all depends on what you want to accomplish. Value depends on what you want to accomplish. I am still not clear on what you would want to accomplish by a law that claims abortion is illegal (but based on earlier posts, you would not intend to have enforced). You have the right in the US (and I believe the same is true for France) to hold whatever opinion you like. Why would you need a law to reflect your personal opinion?
You have said the unborn should never have the same rights as born humans, and that you support the silly idea that as long as the baby is still attached to the mother---it should have no meaningful rights that all humans should have.
Just repeating your barbaric views on civil rights. Almost the same views as the slave owner's had on their slaves.
He said: """Nice bit of hyperbole, please do cite where I have EVER said the unborn are not human """ He did NOT say the unborn are not human. See: "BORN" and "UNBORN"....they are two different words. He may have said """the unborn should never have the same rights as born humans"" which is true but it does NOT say the unborn aren't human...
Women having equal rights is barbaric to you? I'm not surprised....but since you couldn't address what I actually wrote maybe that was just bluster.... Anti-Choicers view women as slaves, property to be controlled ....
It is no different than your "magic" of separating the umbilical cord and delivering a fetus---whereupon it become a "real" human with civil rights. Again, Pro-Choice people are the very ones who believe an unborn fetus should have about the same rights as slaves. The master/slave legal contracts in the past are about the same as what you want with the mother and her unborn baby. Feticide/abortion (the same thing) does go on, and will go on in America and around the world. Just depends on how many morally debased people are in a given state or nation. Ripping the unborn apart based upon what a woman wants at a given time isn't seen by good number of people as "just a woman's rights issue."
Why do you insist birth is "magic"? There is no "magic" . Once the fetus is separated from the woman it no longer needs her to sustain it's life, therefore it's a person. Science/biology aren't magic....really they aren't. The slave analogy would only work if slaves were inside their masters using the masters body to sustain their life....they didn't. The only true slave analogy related to abortion is the Anti-Choicers who want to enslave and control women and take away their rights, rights everyone else has. Bet you don't answer this question: Would you mind being forced to give your heart to another PERSON to sustain their life?
That's science. The blood chemistry changes immediately when the fetus is removed from the umbilical cord and it takes in more oxygen, activating its mind. It awakens and begins to incorporate its first experiences. That is the beginning of personhood. Now I invite you to explain the scientific basis for controlling what a person can or cannot do with their own body based on whether they live in Bristol, Virginia or Bristol, Tennessee. The neighbors get to decide? Maybe the neighbors should decide one woman can own a gun and the other cannot? One woman can own slaves and the other cannot. Is there any scientific basis for that position, or is it just based on what the neighbors want?
"""""Would you mind being forced to give your heart to another PERSON to sustain their life? """ Funny how I ask Anti-Choicers this question in various threads and none have EVER answered.
A woman isn't going to die over 99% of the time from having a baby in America. It will be an inconvenience and a burden---but not the same thing as giving up one's own heart to die for a transplant to someone else.
Embryo transfers in cows is already a reality. I wonder how many pro-life types will step forward when an embryo transfer is an alternative to abortion?
Just can't answer that Big Question: Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post """""Would you mind being forced to give your heart to another PERSON to sustain their life? """ A woman gives her entire body over to pregnancy , the fetus uses her circulatory system, her respiratory system, compromises her immune system along with a whole lot more temporary and permanent damage to her body. YOU want to preserve YOUR right to NOT be forced to use your body to sustain another BUT you want to take that right away from pregnant women. THIS is what an anti-Choicers considers an INCONVENIENCE (must really have no respect for women whatsoever to blow this off as INCONVENIENCE): Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy: •exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks) •altered appetite and senses of taste and smell •nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester) •heartburn and indigestion •constipation •weight gain •dizziness and light-headedness •bloating, swelling, fluid retention •hemmorhoids •abdominal cramps •yeast infections •congested, bloody nose •acne and mild skin disorders •skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen) •mild to severe backache and strain •increased headaches •difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping •increased urination and incontinence •bleeding gums •pica •breast pain and discharge •swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain •difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy •inability to take regular medications •shortness of breath •higher blood pressure •hair loss or increased facial/body hair •tendency to anemia •curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities •infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases) •extreme pain on delivery •hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression •continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover) Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy: •stretch marks (worse in younger women) •loose skin •permanent weight gain or redistribution •abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness •pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh) •changes to breasts •increased foot size •varicose veins •scarring from episiotomy or c-section •other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty) •increased proclivity for hemmorhoids •loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis) •higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's •newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates) Occasional complications and side effects: •complications of episiotomy •spousal/partner abuse •hyperemesis gravidarum •temporary and permanent injury to back •severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies) •dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele) •pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies) •eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death) •gestational diabetes •placenta previa •anemia (which can be life-threatening) •thrombocytopenic purpura •severe cramping •embolism (blood clots) •medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby) •diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles •mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication) •serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis) •hormonal imbalance •ectopic pregnancy (risk of death) •broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone") •hemorrhage and •numerous other complications of delivery •refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease •aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures) •severe post-partum depression and psychosis •research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors •research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy •research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease Less common (but serious) complications: •peripartum cardiomyopathy •cardiopulmonary arrest •magnesium toxicity •severe hypoxemia/acidosis •massive embolism •increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction •molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer) •malignant arrhythmia •circulatory collapse •placental abruption •obstetric fistula More permanent side effects: •future infertility •permanent disability •death. ALL women suffer the risk of death and serious injury with pregnancy.
Pure BS, I have never said that the unborn "should never have the same rights as born humans" .. cite where I have done that please or apologise for your attempt to misrepresent me. Again more BS, I have never said such a thing. - - - Updated - - - Actually Fox, I've never said that either ...
What bull! A women does not give up her entire body---otherwise all full term pregnancies would drain off every cell in a mothers' bodies and kill them all. Most mothers gladly take the small risks and changes to their bodies for the benefit of their children. I think your talents are being wasted where you are now. I'd suggest moving to Communist China and being part of their population control programs.
Well then, what rights DO an unborn human have---in YOUR opinion? They certainly don't have any right to live in your book if the mother and authorities in the unborn's area allow it to be killed. If an unborn fetus was harmed by their mother smoking crack cocaine during their 9 months in her body---can the adult surviving person later sue the crack dealer for their harmful product if it can be proven in court?
In general life begins well before birth, so that [from a Christian perspective] abortion should be illegal. But ... I'm damned by my status of politician ... and the pragmatic consideration about the minor damage can win in my distorted mind: there are situations in which we risk not only the fetus, but also the mum. In similar situation a clinical abortion, ensuring that the mum can be pregnant again, is the minor damage. Anyway, in this poll, so direct, I can answer only that abortion should be illegal.
IMO the same rights as any other person. They have as much right as any other person who is injuring someone without consent. What has that got to do with abortion? - - - Updated - - - no problem - - - Updated - - - Why is that then?
I guess the poll doesn't want to "leave room to move" to smart politicians like me [or like Hillary Clinton]. But ... who cares ... I'm against abortion.
It's a poll ... A poll is a poll. I don't stand who criticize the nature of a poll, so I don't do that.
A person has the right to sue those who harm them from acts of criminal negligence. This would be the same as if a medical doctor were to prescribe the cancer drug thalidomide today for a healthy pregnant woman for morning sickness, and the person born with multiple birth defects as a direct result of this, suing the doctor when he was older. He would be absolutely within his rights, even though he had no power of consent at the time of his fetal development.
You say here you're against abortion. But in another thread you said in answer to my question: Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post So you don't believe people should be forced to use their body to sustain the life of another. """""" You: """Absolutely, it has to be a personal free choice"""" Forcing women to remain pregnant IS "" be (ing) forced to use their body to sustain the life of another""
