Abortion is NOT a woman's right

Silly. The parents usually give permission to separate conjoined twins. Surgery to separate twins is typically most effective if done @ or shortly after birth. No surgeon - or these days, team of surgeons - is going to wait around for the twins to reach majority, & sign or otherwise give their permission for surgery. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjoined_twins

 

Here's where you made that statement.

 

Yes, but in this case the medical procedure is done for the children's best interests. A woman choosing to abort is never doing so in the best interests of her child.
(the only possible exception being in the case of severe fetal abnormality)

 

nope its done for the females best interests

 

Abortion is every woman's right.

 

Yes, it's done for a selfish female's best interests.

At the cost of an innocent baby's life.

 

I can respect your passion to be egalitarian in applying such rights, but I disagree. A fetus doesn't require any of these said rights simply because their is no interest to provide such rights to them. Beyond your own personal feelings, what difference would it make to the unborn whether they are aborted or not? They have never been conscious, they are not aware that they are alive and hold no ability to be emotionally attached to their life. Abortion does no harm to the unborn.

None the less, I don't see the abortion rights issue being solely focused on women's rights, but instead a public health issue. There is no net benefit of criminalizing or unreasonably restricting access to abortion providing facilities. When abortion does become illegal, far too often, it results in higher maternal morbidity and just pushes the business underground beyond the scope of government control. Furthermore, even protecting the unborn would be impossible without violating individual rights.

At best, criminalizing abortion for the sake of the unborn's supposed human rights would just be an empty gesture. It wouldn't decrease the rate of abortion, and it wouldn't save lives either.

 

Well sure, but that's not how the laws should be. It's the right of a selfish lowlife woman to have an abortion.

 

(My bold)

Quoting you from #129: "You can't just win a debate with semantics."

Semantics is all you have - your use of language & convincing others that you have the superior argument. We're not going to have trial by combat here. If you start by demonizing the people you're trying to convince; well, you're not going to get very far.

The other side - your audience - will simply quit reading, & skip to the next post. That's not what you want.

 

If fine with me - that you disagree with me but as for the rest, you may as well have written it in Japanese.

I don't see where you get the idea that our basic human rights are something which is "provided" to us by society or by the government.

About the same difference that it might make to a person killed in their sleep or the killing of someone with altzheimers, I suppose.

Why do you ask?

Doesn't death rob them of all those things?

That's all very touching but it results in children being killed and denied their right to the equal protections of our laws... so, I hope you can understand why I can't support it.

The right we all have to our lives and to the protections of our laws is not something which is contingent upon whether or not those protections are practical or convenient to others.

The rights come first.

The other challenges come there after.

 

Libs don't care about rights if it interferes with their agenda.

 

Where is it written the unborn have rights?

 

Ironic...

 

Do you really need to see it in writing to know that another human being has rights?

Very well, it's in the Constitution.

 

Not for the unborn, which may or may not be human beings.

 

Are they merely like animals then?

 

Sure. We are all "like animals."

 

Why don't women abort themselves then? If you wouldn't do something to yourself, it's probably not the right thing to do on someone else.

 

A "someone" can't be aborted.

 

The Constitution says "all persons" have a right to the equal protections of our laws.

True or False?

So, if a child in the fetal stage of their life is deemed to be a "person" they would automatically be entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

True or False?

 

There is nothing in the Constitution to indicate the unborn are persons.

 

I didn't say there is.

However, when it the Constitution does say "all persons" have a right to the equal protections of our laws....

That's pretty inclusive, isn't it.

And like we talked about earlier, the UVVA already indirectly says that a child in the womb is a human being...

So how far are we really away from Constitutionally banning abortion?

The Supreme Court even said during Roe... that the whole thing hinges on the personhood of the (human) fetus.

The UVVA brings us one major step closer towards establishing that fact.

 

The legislators who authored and supported UVVA promised it was not intended to jeopardize a woman's right to abortion. Were they lying?

 

I don't know and don't really care.

The language they used in that law is not limited to their use only.