Already proved it wrong. But you made the initial claim. The fact that you refuse to support it indicates you know it is false.
Sure you did. Yeah and I stand by it even though you "proved" it wrong. If you believe that this discussion is over. So what the hell are you doing still posting responses?
If you believe this and there's nothing left to argue about. so again what the hell are you doing posting still? Trying to convince yourself perhaps?
If you think you proved me wrong there's nothing left to discuss. Immature attempts at jabs are indicative that you aren't confident in your evidence.
You haven't countered my evidence yet. Or brought any forth of your own. You're the one making immature jabs.
I would like to give some choice to the person inside her. Abortion is the ultimate un-choice because it will permanently take away whatever choice the fetus will ever have. Imagine if we legalized sex with babies because babies are currently unable to make their own choice. What could be sillier than that? Yet this is basically the same sort of logic argument used with the "pro-choice" abortion position.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Fine, then don't try to take away their choice to have an abortion because you think it's wrong. There is NO "person" inside her. The fetus never has a choice. How would it choose? It doesn't have brain function nor life experience.... Why would anyone do something that stupid and harmful? No, it's not. As you have been told several hundred times, a baby is BORN, therefore it is a person with rights and protections.
Are you implying that (hypothetically) molesting a baby would be okay, provided it took place inside a womb, and the baby had never been on the outside? Look, I think when viewed from that perspective we can see how ridiculous your argument here actually is.
Post #92 list and cites the multiple choices and services that PP offers or provides referrals to. The evidence is there. Counter if you can, but you have yet to do that. What evidence have you produced?
With this logic, then we are required to give infants, babies, toddlers, etc, choice on all the other things. What to eat, what to wear, if they wear anything, whether they get shots, medicine, etc. Or are you a pick and choose freedom of choice type for children?
You would then have to molest the woman carrying the child as well. She will feel the effects while the fetus will not, because it doesn't have the brain developed enough to even notice such an action.
Uh, nice twist there but YOU are the one with the idea of making sex with babies legal... BTW, who is this "we" you use in your post? How many of you are there? Or do you need imaginary backup? You haven't shown how my argument is" ridiculous". Saying "what if it was legal to have sex with babies" is ridiculous.
Nothing makes it plainer than when one has no good argument they bring up ridiculous scenarios like" what if it was legal to have sex with babies"...
for pregnant women the only one is abortion. Sure counter what? I doubt your claim I don't need to provide evidence for it. Do you have to prove your claim.
I've proven the claim. The very first line in that post is a link to the page where they note that they will give counseling on, and referrals to, adoption agencies if that is the woman's choice. They also have pre-natal care which is used when the woman chooses to remain pregnant. The choices are there, and PP allows for women to make those choices. The bold is a claim. It's not just simple doubt. So support it or withdrawn it. The evidence is before you. Show how the evidence is wrong.
While I agree with your conclusion, your logic leaves something to be desired. The egg has nothing to do with it. It comes down to bodily autonomy. If something is in her body she gets the choice. If it's not in her body she doesn't. This is best illustrated with the example of a surrogate. While the offspring is gestation in the body of a woman not genetically related to the offspring, then the genetic mother has no say as to what whether or not it comes to term.
Is this some type if trying to nitpick? "Women bear eggs." What is not clear about that statement? Who, other than women, bear/carry/develop/grow/"bear" eggs? Logic states that women and eggs are inseparable, thus, women decide.
Not trying to nit pick, because the distinction is vitally important. Especially in this day and age where IVF is no longer uncommon and is becoming more and more common. Before IVF, a surrogate mother, would have been impregnated by the father, but the egg would still have been the surrogate's. Now, both the egg and the sperm can come from someone other than the surrogate. So the woman who produced the egg cannot be the one who makes the decision, because the ZEF is now inside someone else's body, not hers.
I get what you're saying but everyone has a right to bodily autonomy....and it's not based on egg production.
If that's the case the argument is over. so goodbye if you want me to admit you're right you haven't sufficiently proved your argument to me.
