Natural means with no interference by mankind, by definition pregnancy is not natural Natural - Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/natural no such thing as "God given right to life" .. unless you can provide evidence that God exists or did exist and that God gave us a set of rights .. please provide your evidence. As would we all. All the time.
By definition if you stop someone from doing something you are forcing them ergo you stop a woman from getting an abortion you are forcing her to give birth, so no strawman at all.
All of the above have a glaring difference from the last one . .all the others deal with people who are/were already born.
Okay, let me say it again, most states ban abortions after 24 weeks. After that the pregnancy takes it's natural course and the baby can be born alive. I would like to see it banned earlier so that the pregnancy can take it's natural course. Pregnancy is a natural part of life and reproduction. The miracle of life is proof enough for me that God exists.
I don't believe that preventing an abortion is using force against anyone. It is allowing the natural course of events to take place in the absence of intervening in the pregnancy. Abortion is the only use of force. It prevent the fetus from full development and forces it out of the womb before it can survive outside the womb. The child will come out eventually, the question is whether it come out dead or alive.
Correct, nothing to do with natural course though, the states can, if they so choose, restrict abortion after 24 weeks based on their interest in the potential life. At the point of viability which the Roe Court believed to be in third trimester, the State's interest in "potential life" would become compelling, and the State could regulate abortion to protect "potential life." There is no Federal ban on abortion at any time for any reason, it is up to the states discretion as to whether they impose restrictions on abortion or not, in fact any state could remove any and all restrictions on abortion and not be in violation of any Federal law. What you want in reality is a ban on ELECTIVE abortion. So is abortion, a miscarriage is a natural abortion .. sex is a "natural part of life and reproduction" and yet people are free to stop that "natural part of life and reproduction" through contraception .. by your logic contraception should also be illegal. no that is just a belief nothing more.
So if I prevent you from having heart surgery I am not using force to stop you, after all heart defects are a natural course of events and as such should be allowed to take place without intervening, same goes for the many and numerous problems human bodies face that we now stop through medical intervention . .why are those "natural course of events" treated any differently? By definition if you stop someone from doing something you are forcing them to go against their will, in the case of pregnancy, if you stop the woman having an abortion you are forcing her to give birth. By child I assume you mean fetus and the question is does the state have the right to force a woman to allow her body to be used by another in order to sustain the life of that other .. in all cases the answer to that question is no the state does not. If the state cannot force you to allow your body to be used by another, then what makes you think it can force a woman to, to do so would be a violation of the equal protection clause and discrimination based on gender.
The Pro-Life movement is about saving lives. I fail to see how stopping heart surgery is comparable. The 14th Amendment is not a catch all amendment for every liberal cause.
and this is the false ideology you tell yourself, the pro-life movement will not save a single life through banning abortion, in fact there is a good chance it will increase the loss of life .. not only will the unborn still die but so will women. I understand what pro-lifers are attempting to achieve I just feel they are going about it the wrong way, instead of addressing the core issues they address the consequences of those issues ie they are trying to bolt the stable door after the horse has gone. The only proven ways to, at least, reduce abortion is through comprehensive sex education and free at source contraception, in other words stop the pregnancy ever happening in the first place. Legislation banning abortion will do nothing but line the pockets of the criminals who will operate black market clinics, and lead to an increase in female deaths. both are natural courses are they not, and did you not say " It is allowing the natural course of events to take place", I would also add that if you believe in the natural course of things then no premature baby should have any medical help ie allow "the natural course of events to take place" I have never said it was BTW I am not a liberal, if you judge me to be a liberal on a single issue then I suggest your level of judgement is flawed.
I'm sure that many other people have pointed this out already, but at least one fully developed, viable, human in that exchange didn't have a whole lot of choice in the matter. And comparing it to abortion where a few cells are destroyed? Doesn't work. I have a question for all you pro lifers, why do you cut your hair, or wash your skin? You do know human cells get killed by the millions when you do that right? If you are so adamant about protecting human cells, then you should never shower, or cut your hair, or shave, or even use deodorant.
Your entire thesis here is completely and utterly counter-intuitive. The core issue has nothing to do with barn doors or horses. It has to do with people acting responsibly. Or maybe we can teach them to act responsibly and not have pre-marital sex. That will prevent all unwanted pregnancies. Just giving them condoms will only encourage them to misbehave. Why would you even trust them to use them at all let alone properly? How many of them are just to dumb and stupid to pay attention in sex ed classes? Most of them if you go by the rate of unwed mothers these days. Why do you want to teach children, young boys, that young girls are just sex objects for them to use and abuse and then discard like a bag of trash? Why do you want to teach young girls that it is okay to be a slut? Oh boo hoo. That is such a phony boogie man argument. Nobody is falling for that ax murderer in the ally bullcrap anymore. Nobody believes the old coat hanger in the bathroom horror stories. That's just nonsense. I believe in medicine. I believe in science. I believe that life begins at conception because science tells us so. I believe that we do provide medical care for premature babies BECAUSE WE ARE PRO-LIFE! I never said premature babies shouldn't receive medical attention. Sheesh! What kind of strawman argument is that? Haven't you learned not to pull that crap on me? You know I'm just going to call you out on it. I never said that you said that it was. I was stating my belief that the 14th Amendment is not a catch all for every liberal societal problem that they can't put into law. Are you pro-choice? Are you pro-same sex marriage? Are you pro-amnesty for dreamers? If you said yes to all three, you might be a liberal.
No, actually, those are the facts. Abortion is responsible. For thousands of years, parents have been teaching and preaching abstinence to their children, and to what avail? . You don't think married people have unwanted pregnancies? There aren't that many schools with comprehensive sex ed, thanks to the determination of right-wingers to impose abstinence-only sex ed on everyone. And you seem a little confused about the topics in sex ed. https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 womennearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher. No, you believe in life site news and you call it science. Life exists before conception, therefore it cannot "begin" at conception. We do provide medical care for premature babies provided they have a shot at life without too many disabilities, but that is not natural. Medical care is not natural! Please don't demand natural on one hand and medical care on the other.
sounds like a typical pro-life conservative who doesn't want to address the real issues, instead buries their head in the sand.
In your opinion for which you have never produced a single piece of evidence to support, where as I can and have produced numerous pieces of evidence to support mine. and you are of the delusion that banning abortion is going to make people act responsibly .. it doesn't. That is part of what comprehensive sex education does . .geesh, you don't even know what comprehensive sex education consists of. Delusional Utter rubbish. condoms are not the only contraceptive . .you do know that don't you? I don't know, do you? Unwed mothers has nothing to do with sex ed. Again you have absolutely no idea what comprehensive sex education is do you? A comprehensive sex education program includes, but is not limited to, the following; 1. Teaches that sexuality is a natural, normal, healthy part of life 2. Teaches that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the most effective method of preventing unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV 3. Provides values-based education and offers students the opportunity to explore and define their individual values as well as the values of their families and communities 4. Includes a wide variety of sexuality related topics, such as human development, relationships, interpersonal skills, sexual expression, sexual health, and society and culture 5. Includes accurate, factual information on abortion, masturbation, and sexual orientation 6. Provides positive messages about sexuality and sexual expression, including the benefits of abstinence 7. Teaches that proper use of latex condoms, along with water-based lubricants, can greatly reduce, but not eliminate, the risk of unintended pregnancy and of infection with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) including HIV 8. Teaches that consistent use of modern methods of contraception can greatly reduce a couple's risk for unintended pregnancy 9. Includes accurate medical information about STDs, including HIV; teaches that individuals can avoid STDs 10. Teaches that religious values can play an important role in an individual's decisions about sexual expression; offers students the opportunity to explore their own and their family's religious values 11. Teaches that a woman faced with an unintended pregnancy has options: carrying the pregnancy to term and raising the baby, or carrying the pregnancy to term and placing the baby for adoption, or ending the pregnancy with an abortion. I hope you learned something. As I didn't even mention any of those things ... nice attempt at a strawman. Except that life does not begin at conception .. HUMAN life begins at conception and even that is disputed in science. So using your logic of " It is allowing the natural course of events to take place" is a strawman what you really mean is you want to decide when "allowing the natural course of events to take place" happens based on your wants and desires. I never said you did. I never said it is If you think those three things make up what being a liberal is then you have a very small requirement level. I am pro-choice because I believe the state has no place in controlling peoples bodies . .that is a conservative point of view I am pro-SSM because I believe the state has no place controlling what contracts people decide to join .. that is a conservative point of view. I am NOT pro-SSM in trying to force not for profit churches to marry same sex couples. I am pro-amnesty for those who have lived in and given to the society they are members of, I am not pro-amnesty for those who live off the state. As I said you have a very low requirement level of people in order to assume they are liberals.
Pregnancy is a natural part of human reproduction. God given rights is a well known fact of the American Revolution and of The Enlightenment. It is what our system of government is based upon. It does not require proof of God's existence. We have a God given right to life and science proves that life begins at conception.
so then pregnancy has no involvement from mankind ... good grief, every woman must have been impregnated by "God" Except they are not a fact, they are a belief, already proven that beyond doubt. Nope, you need to understand what the words you use mean. God given - (1) Received from God: (2) Possessed by unquestionable right, as if by divine authority: ergo you or any other person has to provide proof that God existed or at least did exist otherwise it is nothing but a belief. and neither does science say that life begins at conception.
It's the most natural thing in the world. Without pregnancy, animals would not be able to perpetuate their species. Humans would not exist either. Do you consider the existence of humans to be unnatural?
Natural - Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind Are you asserting that pregnancies are not made or caused by mankind ... gee, God must be really busy.
If there is medical intervention, it isn't natural, and a pregnancy and childbirth without medical intervention is dangerous for both the woman and the fetus/child.
Blacks are no longer regarded as property. Laws regarding equality have changed remarkably since then.
You can disagree with me philosophically, but there is no denying my factual statements. Pregnancy is a natural part of human reproduction - fact. Our system of government is based on God given rights - fact. Science says life begins at conception - fact.
Except I have demonstrated exactly what natural means, even linked to the definition, so no it is not a philosophically disagreement, it is a factual disagreement. So then there is no involvement by humankind in pregnancy That is not what you asserted, you asserted that there ARE "God given rights" which has been totally debunked. What you system of government is based upon is irrelevant to whether there ARE "God given rights". If you system of government were based upon the man in the moon beliefs would that make the man in the moon real, or any of the things the man in the moon is supposed to have bestowed upon humans real? Nope, some scientists say human life begins at conception, some say human life begins at sentience, still others say it begins at birth. Even you own pro-life sites do not agree with your statement "life begins at conception." "Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization" - http://www.lifenews.com/2013/11/18/...n-life-begins-at-conception-or-fertilization/
