The myth that pro-life views oppress 'women'

Yes it is modernized to include killing unborn children on demand...every modern doctor wants to kill today, right?

 

"Thou shalt not kill, but need'st not strive, officiously to keep alive.

It's interesting that those who take the oath swear by three pagan gods and a god's son.

 

*sigh* Proof for your claims, again please. So tired of beating around this bush here. Where in the Hippocratic Oath does it mention killing unborn children, even in the modernized versions?

Modern day doctors are not required to take the Hippocratic Oath and even if they do it really is just part of tradition and I wouldn't be surprised if some don't take it very seriously.

 

Why don't you call them all and ask? Or can you read their minds, too?

I'll wait for your results ...

 

Could you define the process of "prove"? Or better yet, prove I cant prove Hitler wrong rather than 'stating an opinion', as you describe.

No it doesnt. It says "do no harm." Nothing about "human life". Man you are dumb.

Who is Kermit Gosnell? How did he feel the same way as I?

- - - Updated - - -

Please explain how that contravenes the values of the Hippocratic Oath.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, just fetuses that mothers no longer want.

 

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts...s-son-accused-of-killing-unborn-child/2121162

 

Murder for the purpose of this one law only, which means fetuses can be treated like persons for this one law, not that they ARE persons.

 

Ever hear of Precedence.

 

In actuality, they don't OPPRESS anyone but would be killers. If a woman has no desire to commit a homicide against her own offspring, pro life does nothing to oppress her.

- - - Updated - - -

In actuality, they don't OPPRESS anyone but would be killers. If a woman has no desire to commit a homicide against her own offspring, pro life does nothing to oppress her.

 

It's taken awhile for me to stop laughing after reading this...
It sounds an awful lot like you're saying that the pro-life position only restricts folks who have the ability to get pregnant, but that this isn't a regulation on women despite the fact that they're the only ones who can get pregnant.

It's like passing a law saying that only applies to people with penises and then claiming that it's not targetting men - despite the fact that having a penis is one of the key factors in determining the very definition of "men".

Pure idiocy.

- - - Updated - - -

Only if you believe that a embryo is an independant human life from the moment of conception, which is clearly a fallacy.

 

Unnecessary to believe that, since infants are not even independent. We all know that fetuses are human beings.

 

Pro-life shouldn't mean lack of ability to get an abortion. There are many medical reasons why an abortion is medically necessary. We all know this and the Republicans have agreed with this. But, where a women becomes pregnant and waits 3 months to decide she wants to abort the pregnancy minus any health reason; that is another story. I had an abortion after giving birth to two children. I believed I endangered the fetus because I was on diet prescription drugs and my previous to fetuses were post-mature and pre-mature. I have regretted my decision to under go an abortion ever since.

Fortunately I had the abortion on a fetus less than 35 days old and one that had no heart beat. There is some comfort there.

Never the less, prior to passage of Obama Care, the Dems agreed to banning abortion when it came to health insurance paid for by the Federal government. Now they want to change that.

If you are women who wants an abortion then do it before your fetus has a heart beat. Period.

 

You are displaying a surprisingly high level of intellectual dishonesty if you believe that equivalency isn't false. An infant can live without being physically attached to a host. When I said "independent", I clearly wasn't talking about an embryo's ability to pay a mortgage.

Imagine that, someone of the pro-life/anti-choice persuasion speaking on behalf of people he knows nothing about... how surprising.
If your argument is against late-term abortion, I can understand and agree. If you're asserting that a embryo is a human being before they've even developed a brain, I disagree.
Of course, speaking less literally, there are a number of conservatives who have done quite well in the political arena without a brain...

 

Even federal law recognizes zygotes, embryos, and fetuses as human beings and persons. Read the unborn victims of violence act. The dishonesty here isn't coming from me.

 

You are the one who needs to read it. It doesn't claim they are human beings or persons.

‘‘(d) As used in this section, the term ‘unborn child’ means
a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero’ or ‘child, who is
in utero’ means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any
stage of development, who is carried in the womb.’’

 

Your comments only make sense if you think a child is not a person. Furthermore all of the fetal homicide laws back up the recognition of children in utero as persons, because the very definition of homicide is the killing of a person. So logic is not on your side.

 

IF a fetus is declared a person then besides all the rights of a person it has all the restrictions.

It, as a " person" has no right to harm another person. The person it is harming, the woman it is in, has a right to self-defense (removal of the "person" causing her harm).


And before you go off on an ignorant "Pro-life" rant about how pregnancy doesn't harm women, look it up.

If you claim the fetus/pregnancy doesn't harm women then provide proof.

 

Silly to say that a fetus is intentionally harming another person simply by existing. Add to that the fact that the fetus came into existence by the woman taking a known risk, and abortion is horrific homicide.

 

If it were illegal, would you want it punished like homicide?

 

And those very same "fetal homicide laws" specifically exclude abortion.

‘‘(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the
prosecution—
‘‘(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for
which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized
by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for
which such consent is implied by law;
‘‘(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant
woman or her unborn child; or
‘‘(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

 

Never said it was illegal, I only said it is a homicide, which it obviously is.

- - - Updated - - -

I never said anything about abortion being illegal, only that it is an intentional homicide, which it is.

 

Prove a fetus is a person; your Unborn Victims of Violence Act doesn't do that.

 

Typical Anti-Choice side step..... I NEVER posted that a fetus is INTENTIONALLY harming another person. Whether it's intentional or not no PERSON has a right to harm another PERSON.

I take a known risk every time I drive a car, that doesn't mean that if I get hurt in an accident I won't receive medical care.

And since sexual intercourse only results in pregnancy 9% of the time it isn't a very big "risk".

Consent to sex is NOT consent to pregnancy and consent can be withdrawn at any time.

 

I clearly said IF it was illegal....would you want abortion punished as homicide? Yes or No?

- - - Updated - - -

Who was that "pro-lifer" poster who left here after a few months, and the only argument he ever gave was "The UVVA proves that a fetus is a person"???

 

Could've been any of them.........none ever bother with facts.