What is it?

Please provide some proof that woman have abortions because having a new organ in their body annoys them.

 

Then you have a comprehension problem, because no where in my comment does it even mention the intent is to stay inside of the woman.

already done to death, you choose to ignore them that is your choice

Which is completely irrelevant when the fetus is a unique individual, everything released by the fetus is produced by it, it creates it and releases it.

then show the law that accepts it

not in anyway, shape or form have you refuted a single thing I have put forward, you may have the opinion you have but opinion matters little in reality.

you wouldn't accept anything that does not agree with your opinion, despite the numerous facts I have presented, you are still ignorant of the reality.

 

Sam, you are trolling .. been over this so many times it's boring, and why are you trying to derail the topic.

 

But you never directly answer my question.

 

You have provided 0 facts that the unborn causes any injuries.
now you know as well as I do 50% comes from the female and 50% form the male to create a unique individual, now the enzymes are not part of the individual, they are supplied by the female and male, so it is not killed by the females body. They are the property of the unborn, as it was given to the unborn to use to protect itself.
What? where did I say changes in your body are not your own doing? What exactly are you arguing here? I'm not arguing what you are saying I am.
How can something intrude if 50% of it was already inside to begin with?
So if you consent to getting your arm cut off, that is not considered an injury? So only harm that you do not consent to is an injury?
Operations do cause injuries, like scars etc etc. consented, or not.
For the record I never said pregnancy does not cause injuries

 

Yes I have on numerous times, you choose to ignore them.

 

You have provided 0 reality, only in your own world have you provided anything to refute anything I have said.
You have shown injuries caused by pregnancy but not that the fetus actually caused
relevant in that 50% of the ability was given by the woman.
I have refuted self defense reasoning when it comes to pregnancy you have yet to refute anything I have said.
You haven't shown anything that goes against what I say, despite your assertion you have
Show you a law that protects the woman's right to abortion when her life is in danger? Are you serious

 

I have provided numerous biological facts that the unborn do cause injuries, you on the other hand have provided nothing but your opinion.

No they are not, they are produced by the zef, plain and simple, the female does not 'inject' these hormones and chemicals into the zef, nor does she provide them to it. The zef produces them itself . it is just plain stupidity to assert what you are attempting to.

Yes you are, if as you assert that the hormones etc produced solely by the zef are not the zefs but a 'gift' from the parents then that holds true no matter the age, so anything that happens in your body are not your doing but the result of the 'gifts' given to you by your parents .. and absurd notion, just as what you are trying to assert is.

That is the point, the hormones etc are NOT already inside the female, they are produced by the zef.

nope, one is a consented injury the other is not, ie it is assault causing injury, do you comprehend the difference?

nope, the scar is part of the consent applied to the operation.

Then I really don't see what you are arguing.

Question : Is an injury you do not consent to assault?

furthermore I would love to see your biological evidence that the hormones etc produced by the zef are in fact a 'gift' from the parents, if it is as obvious as you seem to think there should be plenty of peer reviewed studies to support it .. can you supply any, or will you just evade.

 

You give irrelevant answers, such as, "if roe was overturned".

 

Nope still have provided 0 facts.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/progesterone-I stand corrected it is actually the woman's body itself that releases the hormone to protect the unborn, it's not an enzyme at all
Also found where the immune system is not suppressed at all during pregnancy.
And yes the hormones are produced by the female not the unborn
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/articles/article/theimmunesystemandpregnancy/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3025805/
a scar is the result of an injury.
I never mentioned assault I said injury. You said an operation is only an injury if there is consent. That is false. You say I need comprehension lessons, lets stick to what's being said
I am well aware of what assault is.

 

If you allow arbitrary options for allowing that choice, like say "I'm not finished with school", then you will get decisions made arbitrarily. Not in all cases, but unarguably in some.

I don't see what your disagreement is with "special rights" and "women's rights", since you agree that those rights are special to a woman and allow her authority to do what nobody else has a right to do, kill an unborn human. It appears we agree, that women have special rights.

Self defense laws in the U.S. vary from state to state. We have stand your ground laws in my state but it is limited to being located only on your homestead, I believe.

 

Exactly! Pro-choicers derail the discussion by calling pro-life arguements "arbitrary", not realizing that women's choices are also very arbitrary.

 

OK, you're confusing your disciplines. "Assault" is a legal term. There is no assault in biology. Making an appeal to authority from Roe v Wade is uninformative when discussing the current science in biology. You are sounding like an ideologue who is more concerned with ideology than truth. Is there a legal precedent that rules what an unborn human is? Or do they all just abstain from making that decision?

 

Closed ~ Post Capacity