Why would age of consent prevent a child from being molested by an adult...

...but not prevent a child from being aborted by an adult?

 

Because the woman does not need consent from the invader to remove it from her body.

 

Because its a fetus, not a child?

 

Would it be okay to molest a fetus at 9 months?
What if that fetus had already been prematurely born at 7 months? Or born alive at 21 weeks in an induced labor abortion, and molested before it inevitably died, as no baby can survive for long outside the womb at such a premature age.

Why is not okay to molest, but perfectly acceptable to kill? Is it because the mother has "choice" ?
Could the mother give her consent for her baby to be molested?

What if, hypothetically, there was some way that the fetus could be sexually molested inside the mother's womb?
Would it be okay then?

I would like to hear pro-choicers try to explain away these inconsistencies.

 

Age of consent laws DON'T prevent a child from being molested by an adult. They do provide for punishment if the offender is caught. Neither age of consent laws nor anti-abortion laws prevent abortions, they can provide for punishment, but first you have to have evidence against the perpetrator.

 

They can prevent a woman from going and getting an abortion if she can't find anyone willing to do the horrible deed.
And mandatory ultrasounds can lead many women to change their minds.

 

Throughout history NOTHING has stopped women from getting abortions, not you, no one....they have the POWER and YOU don't

 

"Invader"????

I've heard the pro-death zealots use a lot of terms to dehumanize helpless innocent living human babies ("clump of cells", "parasite", etc...) but "invader" is a new one to me.

- - - Updated - - -

"Child" and "fetus" are not mutually exclusive terms.

 

That's an inherently silly argument if you want to win a debate! "Throughout history NOTHING has stopped men and women from MURDERING, not you, no one." Now, are you going to argue that they have the POWER to MURDER, so don't do anything to oppose it? That's a Losing argument!

 

Murder and abortion are only the same in YOUR mind......that doesn't count.

 

Haven't you heard of herbal abortifacients and RU-486 and misoprostol? Women don't need anyone else to perform abortions. It's just more wishful thinking to believe that ultrasounds lead women to change their minds.

http://www.livescience.com/12886-abortion-sonogram-research.html

Underpinning the debate for supporters is the assumption that women will be encouraged to keep the pregnancy after viewing the image.

"If 20 percent [of women seeking abortions] change their minds after seeing a sonogram, that's 15,000 to 20,000 lives saved," Patrick told Houston news station KHOU last week.

Abortion providers say numbers like that don't match their experiences.

"I've never seen anybody who said they were coming in to an abortion, wanted to see the ultrasound, reacted to it and then changed their mind on the basis of that," said Ellen Wiebe, an abortion provider and director of the Willow Women's Clinic in British Columbia, Canada.

 

A fetus is not yet equipped with the proper parts to molest. <<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC >>>

 

I think the point here is that your opposition is futile. Actually, as far as murder is concerned, it is likely that sure and swift punishment following the breaking of anti-murder laws IS a deterrent. But you cannot promise any sure and swift punishment following the breaking of anti-abortion laws because you can't prove a woman had an abortion.

 

What does this have to do with abortion?

 

Moral relativism is a disease.

 

I should have known that "logic" is not the domain of leftwingers. I'll try to explain again. Try to understand this time.

You said "Throughout history NOTHING has stopped women from getting abortions, not you, no one....they have the POWER and YOU don't." I replied that your comment is a silly argument. Although I believe that abortion is murder, that belief had nothing to do with my comment about your silly argument. In arguing that because abortion has existed throughout history, and nothing can be done about it, you're implying that nothing can be done to stop any evil, simply because it's existed throughout history. Should we do nothing about murder, simply because it's existed throughout history? Should we do nothing about rape because it's existed throughout history? THAT is what your silly logic implies. Get it now?????????????

 

YOU keep insisting that abortion is wrong, like rape and murder...it isn't.


And thank you for making my point!

Making a law AGAINST something doesn't work.

 

I didn't know how else to explain my point. If I had just said fetus he would not have understood. The fetus is there with her permission and she does not need it's permission to remove it from her body to begin with.

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC QUOTE AND REPLY REMOVED>>>

 

Consenting to sex = giving it your permission. At least once it reaches the fetal stage, I would say very early term abortion prior to the development of the brain isn't equivalent.

 

Prove this.

So do you find very early term abortion acceptable or at least believe it should be allowed?

 

Does it?

Does consenting to get into a car also mean giving your permission to be injured in an accident, if so then you shouldn't expect medical help if you are in an accident, after all you gave permission for your injuries via consenting to get into the car.

Then you are at odds with most pro-lifers and some here would even say you are not pro-life.

 

Because children aren't aborted.

 

I keep insisting that abortion is wrong because it is! Abortion is murder, regardless of what some immoral, letwing judge says on the subject. If a law allowed parents to kill a child up to the age of 15, that may convince some folks that it's "legal" to do so. Nevertheless, it would still be wrong, and is still murder. Pregnancies can be easily prevented by responsible human beings who wish to do so. Those who are irresponsible in their behavior should NOT be allowed to KILL the product of their irresponsibility. That's a hard concept for leftwingers to understand, since they have no sense of personal responsibility. It's always someone else's fault!
<<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC QUOTE AND REPLY REMOVED >>>

 

From the perspective of people like that, the only losing argument is the one which fails to irritate people of good will.

 

It doesn't boggle mine, because I know better than to allow myself to descend into the pit of illogic they call home sweet home.