The unborn child did not choose to be conceived But it was and that entitles it to the right to live Thats not a special right its a basic right
FoxHastings said: ↑ Ya, it was..... Are you ever going to explain how a fetus would be allowed MORE rights than any other human?? Guess NOT! No, it has no rights and no right to live. Besides YOU want to give it MORE(SPECIAL) rights than anyone else and yet YOU cannot explain why? Even IF it had a right to live it STILL would not have the right to use another's body to sustain it's life, NO one has that right... So YOU want to give it more(SPECIAL) rights than anyone else..... No, being conceived has nothing to do with rights...there is no basis for you claiming it is..... ...and you could NOT address my post so why did you quote it?? You keep claiming a fetus has rights but have NO REASON to assume that , no law, no science, no logic, nothing, nothing to back that up with... ...and you CANNOT explain how a fetus would or should be allowed MORE rights than any other human?? You 've been asked and asked and asked but can't/won't give a reason....so did you just pull it out of some dark orifice ???
You are delusional if you think an unborn child has special rights simply based on the fact that liberals may be prevented from killing it Thats just a basic human right to life
No, it doesn't. The law doesn't take effect until March. It will be struck down, just like the law in Indiana was.
No I do NOT believe a fetus has special rights based on liberals or anyone else being unable to kill it .....AND HAVE NEVER SAID SO..... YOU DO! You want the fetus to have the right to use another's body to sustain it's life....NO one else has that right, HERE IT IS IN THE POST OF MINE YOU QOTED AND YOU STILL GOT IT WRONG : """"Even IF it had a right to live it STILL would not have the right to use another's body to sustain it's life, NO one has that right... So YOU want to give it more(SPECIAL) rights than anyone else....."""" If YOU had to have a heart transplant or kidney transplant or even a blood transfusion DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE ANOTHER PERSON TO GIVE YOU THEIRS????? If you can't answer that question then you have NO argument.. You keep claiming a fetus has rights but have NO REASON to assume that , no law, no science, no logic, nothing, nothing to back that up with... ...and you CANNOT explain how a fetus would or should be allowed MORE rights than any other human?? You 've been asked and asked and asked but can't/won't give a reason....so did you just pull it out of some dark orifice ??? By not answering those questions you have shown you have no argument whatsoever.........
In soite of your increasingly hysterical arguments about fetus tresspassing in womens bodies my point has not changed The unborn child is human and entitled to live even if its liberal mom decides it must die
Hysterical? YOU are the one talking about "trespassing" which I have never mentioned.... ....and which has nothing to do with the fact that fetuses have no rights and YOU want to give them MORE rights than anyone else. ...and your insistence that only liberal women get abortions once again shows no knowledge of who gets an abortion.... You have NEVER shown at fact or law or ruling that says a fetus has a right to live....see, you just saying it doesn't make any difference to anyone anywhere ever and never will
Think of it this way. You want to have a child, but cannot due to health reasons, so you finally freeze several eggs at a gargantuan expense, --and when the time is right, you pay a fortune to have a surrogate bear your child. All seems to go well until eight months into the surrogate pregnancy, when the surrogate's missing boyfriend shows up and demands she have an immediate abortion so they can get married before he deploys to Afghanistan, and she agrees to do so. It was your last viable egg. How would you feel?
I'd feel silly if I came up with that stupid scenario.....especially since it had nothing to do with the post of mine you quoted. Abortion at 8 months is illegal. Why would she need an abortion to get married ???????????????????????????
No one has a right to life that allows them to seize ownership of another person’s body in order to preserve it. If I am injured and need a blood transfusion, I can’t even force you to give up blood (a renewable resource) and you think fetuses should have a special right to force a woman to give up their body for months at a time?
An unborn child - a fetus to you - “seizing control” of a womans body? You are getting more hysterical and ragged with every post
The fetus uses the government as a proxy in the anti-choice argument. Simple fact: my right to life does not override your right to bodily sovereignty. You want fetuses to have a right to life? Fine. Their right to life does not override their mother’s right to bodily sovereignty.
So you believe that if another person needs a heart or a kidney to keep them alive they have the right to force you to give them yours....?
You and your liberal friends are really having to handstands and backflips to just the killing of a fellow human in the womb
FoxHastings said: ↑ So you believe that if another person needs a heart or a kidney to keep them alive they have the right to force you to give them yours....? So you think pregnant women lose that right but you don't ....why shouldn't you lose it if someone else demands you give your body parts to them? Too bad for you that women can abort for any reason they choose... How asinine to think people should lose rights based on lifestyle. Are you ever going to explain how a fetus should be allowed MORE rights than any other human??
No, we have facts and law and science on our side,.....Anti-Choicers are the ones that need tricks....
