You mean, she created her own "enemy" inside her own body, and when that poor innocent who never had any say about his conception exercised what comes naturally........oooops, I don't like this, she says.....then she kills him and claims "self-defense." That's twisted! A perfect example of dysfunctional reasoning!
Exactly. The fact that sexual intercourse, NATURALLY, can cause pregnancy......... ...........and the fact that only a moron this days wouldn't know anything about contraceptives! Added the fact that you can get STD, too, if you're not protected..... That's why I said your reasoning is dysfunctional!
Your rantings have nothing to do with my facts...you obviously are frustrated at not being able to address my post or answer the questions: Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post How is having the right to self defense "above all"....all people have the right to self defense....Anti-Choicers want to take away that basic right from women... Bodily autonomy is "above all" ? What "special license"? Women have the right to their own bodies, they don't need a special license.....YOU don't need a special license to defend yourself ...."""
You are confused. Obviously we are not talking about a 2 year old ? What on earth are you talking about. What on earth is a "human unborn baby" ? Please prove (or at least make some kind of valid argument showing) that such a thing exists at conception. The claim "a human baby exists at conception" is an assumed premise. There is no general agreement among subject matter experts (Biology-Taxonomy, Bioethics, Philosophy) that this claim is true. It is then fallacy to assume this claim is true without providing substantiation for "why" this claim is true. Glad that you agree that the term "Pro life" or "Human Life" are an obfuscation as used by anti aborts. The term " unborn human baby" is just as much of an obfuscation, misrepresentation and fallacy.
True nature does not care about consent . .however if you are asserting that pregnancy is a natural occurrence, then you cannot assert that the fetus has rights, as soon as a fetus is assigned rights then it losses the status of being natural. You choices are are as follows; 1. pregnancy is a natural occurrence and as such the fetus is natural and as such does not have any rights, after all we don't give rights to naturally occurring things. 2. pregnancy is not natural as it involves human agency, and as such falls under the same restrictions that all other humans must abide by ie consent must be given. bottom line, "sexual intercourse can cause pregnancy" is irrelevant, sexual intercourse is merely a risk, and we do not force people to suffer injury due to a risk they took. Again so what, there is no natural or legal restriction on whether a person uses contraception or not. Again irrelevant, whether the pregnancy is wanted or not has no relevance, simply because sexual intercourse is not consent to pregnancy. By your so called logic, if you don't want to be raped/mugged/murdered don't go jogging after dark, if you do it's your own fault and as such you must suffer the consequences without any aid to rectify. Typical .. blame the female all the time.
for one all humans are animals, you just happen to want to assert that all animals cannot control themselves which is pure BS, and who is saying anything about avoiding personal accountability, the female accept personal accountability by deciding not to remain pregnant. What pro-lifers harp on about is all about personal accountability and yet they want to remove that accountability from the female by making her decisions for her, like she is some sort of personal property, instead of an equal. The pro-choice arguments is perfectly coherent, just because pro-lifers cannot or refuse to understand it doesn't make it wrong, it just makes pro-lifers lazy in their research. The ignorance that so many pro-lifers display is astounding. It is NEVER a baby, regardless of whether it is wanted or not, by your logic when a woman calls her fetus her little angel it will be born as such Life in general is only has as much value as another places upon it . .even you hold true to that, do you want me to prove it?
You seem to be under some misconception that informal usage of a word makes it the correct defintion, by your logic when I call my car "my baby" it must be a person with rights Why not educate yourself and actually read a human reproduction biology book. Here is an extract from such a book; Abstract Fertilization occurs when a sperm and ovum fuse to become a zygote. The zygote then divides mitotically to form two blastomeres. These cells, in turn, divide to produce four smaller blastomeres, and so on. It has been estimated that it takes only about 42 such sets of mitotic cell divisions to produce a newborn baby! Thus, the number of cells in the developing human increases exponentially. Not only proliferation but also cell differentiation takes place so that cells become disparate in form and function: some become liver cells, some nerve cells, some muscle cells. The zygote gives rise to the embryonic part of the placenta as well as to the embryo itself. This chapter describes the process of pregnancy, or gestation, during which the mother supports a developing human to a stage at which it can exist in the outside world. - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780123821843 - Chapter 10 - Pregnancy Here are a few more, perhaps you can point out where the fetus is named as a "baby" in ANY of them; http://moira.meccahosting.com/~a0007a0f/Site/Reproduction_files/reproduction.pdf http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/raven6b/graphics/raven06b/other/raven06_59.pdf https://workspace.novacentral.ca/si...humanreproduction_development_notes_05_06.pdf or if that is a little bit to technical for you - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development
Utter rubbish as usual, where as pro-lifers want to elevate the fetus to a status that is indeed above all others, after all it is pro-lifers who want to give the fetus the right to use another persons body without consent, and even worse remove that right upon the advent of birth. One wonders why pro-lifers are so free and easy with other peoples rights.
not at all, perhaps you can point out anywhere where the UN declaration of human rights includes the unborn .. it doesn't by the way, and as far as equality is concerned it is there in spades as far as the pro-choice stance is concerned, the female has the equal right to defend herself against non-consented injuries, just as you have. Not in anyway, shape or form. Ah yes the wonderful failed slavery argument, no surprise that when on the run pro-lifers pull this one from their arse .. shame it has been blown to pieces so many times that to see it now only reflects the ignorance of the user. Oh look a two for one pile of BS .. look up Godwins law. more delusional fantasies elaborated with emotional hyperbole. Only to ignorant people. It is such a shame that you don't actually believe in the the very things you say you are supporting. I find it amazing that so many Americans would trample on their own constitution in order to effect a legal control over other people, pretty much based on nothing but their own wants and desires.
The only dysfunctional reasoning here is displayed amply in your comment. Please do yourself a favour and research what natural means. You are attempting to conflate natural with rights and the two are exclusive. Natural means "Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind" as soon as you attribute rights it is no longer natural ie it is caused, in part at least, by human agency.
Where are the links to the actual source of these quotes (I see they offer citations, but no actual links that can be checked), live action news are known for their inability to report truthfully, Lila Rose is an exposed liar with little to no creditability beyond the realms of her own zealous supporters. Neither does live action news allow any dissenting views to appear on their web-site, it is nothing more than a propaganda machine for the already brain washed followers. Just a few of the things Lila (or Liar) Rose and live action news have been caught out on - http://www.rawstory.com/2011/02/pandagon-lila_rose_big_time_liar_and_all_around_horrible_person/ http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/04/24/updated-who-is-lila-rose/184170 http://religiondispatches.org/lila-rose-targets-planned-parenthood-with-lies/ Though I doubt such a zealot as yourself will even entertain the idea that Liar Rose and Live Action News are anything other than truthful, God fearing angels.
Well, you didn't look hard enough. http://www.lifenews.com/2013/11/18/...orn-children-to-bacteria-pregnancy-to-a-cold/
Let me add number 11 to that list. 11. I've read a poster use SELF-DEFENSE as a reason for abortion! I don't know if that's an original idea by said poster.....but it belongs up there, nevertheless.
Here's the Really Dumb arguments Anti-Choicers should stop making so they don't look like they believe the earth is flat and trees are gods....."""the fetus is a BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAby.......it's murrrrrrrrrrrrrrrder!.....women should just keep their legs together!!!! Wahhhhhhhhhhhhh....""
Where does "choice" come in to play when it comes to a plane crash? Are you going to choose to fly on the plane that will crash or the one that won't? Since you can't make that choice those statistics that you just cited are utterly meaningless. A woman does have a choice to remain pregnant or have an abortion and thereby avoid the risks to her life. Too bad theists don't have a clue what the term choice actually means how it applies in real life and yet they allegedly "believe" in "free will" which is just another way of exercising choices.
I know you're batting, but somehow your swing is off-kilter. Read what it says: 1 out of every 5,862 people will die in aviation-related accidents while 1 in every 272 people will die in an automobile accident It's not about choosing what plane will crash or not. The stat says you're more likely to die in a car accident than from a plane crash. You've got the choice: what kind of transportation to use. The choice for the woman begins waaaay before getting pregnant! Ahem........and you do?
I'm pro-life (as related to abortion and the fetus)....after all, that's what the issue is all about when we use the term "pro-life," isn't it? Pro-choice just likes to muddy up the issue in an irrational way (I must add), by throwing these semantic nonsense ......because they've got nothing rational to say to justify the murder. Of course when you say, pro-life - that means you want life sentences! Now, that's an example of an irrational statement when we try to play with semantics.
A. What 'semantic nonsense'? Please be very specific. B. Abortion simply isn't murder, no matter how much you insist otherwise. C. Ironic to hear you reference rationality.
