yes and it has nothing to do with a war on women. There is no war on women and a majority agree with me - - - Updated - - - the medical field defines person as a human being
Nice BS response. I know human and person are different. a human and a person are the same. pro-choice like to try to paint the pro-life side as these monsters who can't grasp that fact. The fact is the unborn is A human at conception, not simply human. I find it hilarious that you think most pro-life want to ban all abortions. We do not. I find it extremely hilarious that you think we also want to ban contraceptives, We do not. And the laws we present are rational and they are being passed and most held up at SCOTUS levels.
Regardless of what you call it, it is an assault on women's rights. Republicans would probably call it "liberation of women's rights."
I don't watch fox news anymore then msnbc and am not religious. I think for myself, you should try actually talking to me instead of this bashing dribble. You need to take a good hard look in the mirror my friend, before you go off on your nonsense do nothing tirades that prove your ignorance. Can't handle the facts? Stop talking to me then. Everything I said is true and not based on a stupid news channel, or some religion.
Semantics? Ok if you say so. Yes I do believe there is a person before they re born, why they meet that level of development is the disagreement.
Nope there is no assault on women's rights. She still has all her rights, to include rights over her own body and reproduction rights. liberation of women's rights? No liberation of the unborn would make more sense, but neither does any good to push an agenda. The right to kill an unborn human that is not posing a real threat to their life is not a right I want any person to have.
nope, you cannot transfer consent for one action given to a person to a separate action of another person, and as pro-lifers keep insisting a fetus is a separate individual person and as such must gain separate consent to impose upon the woman, what you are implying is either implied or informed consent both of which are reliant on the acquiescence of the female, when she, by word or action, explicitly says NO then implied and/or informed consent become moot. It is very well legally established that a consent to the risk of something is not consent to the injuries that risk may incur. The "mere fact that one is willing to incur a risk that conduct in a deliberate violent act will be committed", for example, "does not mean one is willing for such conduct to be committed" - Source : W. Page Keeton, Dan B. Dobbs, Robert E. Keeton, and David G. Owen; Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 5th Ed, Page 113 If I give you consent to hit me knowing that I may be injured then I have no legal defence against you for causing bodily injury (though even that does not stop me from seeking medical help to rectify those injuries or revoking that consent at any time for any reason), however if I give you that consent and another person then hits me I have every legal right to defend myself against them, consent be it implied or informed is only relevant to the person that consent is given to and no other, ergo in the issue of sexual intercourse and pregnancy the consent is given to the man for sexual intercourse and not to the separate entity - the fetus - for pregnancy.
Nope having Human DNA does not me you have developed enough to be considered as person, total nonsense. I go not refer to pro-lifers as monsters if you can find any post I ever said any such thing I will agree to never post on abortion again, I will wait. The Fact is there is no one home at conception so your nonsense continues to defy all logic. Maybe you should research your own movement a bit more one of the leaders of a major prolife group was even caught on tape saying as much when she thought she was no longer on tape. You do not even know what you are supporting, sad. Like making a woman have an ultrasound and making rules, supposedly for safety reasons (Lie), so that many planned parenthood clinics were closed, you guys do not give a c^*p about a woman's safety it is all about preventing abortions based on lies. The dishonesty of the radical pro-lifers is astounding.
at this present time a woman can at least in the first trimester kill an unborn human for any reason she chooses, with very little restrictions, if any and same with the second trimester, except with some restrictions. so fox you are wrong. If you are trying to say every pregnancy will result in the death of the woman if she doesn't have an abortion hence a real threat to her life, you would also be wrong.
What's sad is you have no idea what I support, if you did yet another BS response you just posted wouldn't have occured. Having human DNA makes you human, but the unborn is more then DNA at conception, the cell created is a completely new unique organism. Also it has the capability to split off and create new different cells aka turn the genes on. You say nobody is home means no person, so you are saying dead people are not people? Maybe you should research where I stand and why not all pro-life are the same. I don't lump all pro-choice together, so why would you lump me with every pro-life
and has been shown you numerous times threat to life is not the only reason deadly force in self-defence can be used.
And so forcing a woman against her will to gestate and birth a child at the risk of her health/life and permanent damage to her body has no adverse effects on a woman and leaves her rights intact... That's what you have to tell yourself to justify your agenda, but the rest of us aren't buying it. "Liberate the unborn," and they would die of natural causes. Every pregnancy carries is a real threat to the woman's life and you are dismissing that fact to justify your agenda.
I certainly wouldn't be expecting any facts nor common sense >>>MOD EDIT Flamebait Removed<<< in any event. If the best rhetorical defense you have for your position is that it is currently legal, I am not surprised. Do tell, when did someone else's body become your own body?
I would call it the states setting their own policies in accordance with the 10th Amendment given the Constitution's complete silence on the topic of abortion, which is by no means an assault on women. I would call it that because it IS precisely that, no matter what you want to call it. >>>MOD EDIT Flamebait Removed<<< That statistic is entirely faulty and completely ignores recidivism. No one "close" to me has killed an innocent human being in cold blooded aggression; if they did, I would no longer associate with such a human piece of (*)(*)(*)(*). On the contrary, since you seem to not know, protecting the human right to life by prohibiting the human rights abuse of abortion has nothing to do with making decisions about one's own body.
Not all these women are pieces of (*)(*)(*)(*). Certainly some of them, but not all. Don't get me wrong, it's a terrible choice to make. But some of these women... I just feel very sorry for them. They know what they've done, what they've allowed to happen, and have to live with their decision. Sometimes it's out of desperation, sometimes it's just pure ignorance.
When last I tried to have a conversation with some pro-choicers here, it became apparent that this was a religion to them, and any idea that wasn't directly in step with theirs was given no consideration. Much like young Earth creationists. But maybe this time will be different. Three things: 1. The issue of fetal pain is up in the air. Many doctors say it won't happen until the third trimester, but a large number say otherwise, including Maureen Condic (PhD, Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy and Adjunct Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine), Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand (MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center), just to name a couple. It's also worth mentioning that abortion doctors and Gynecological Institutes benefit from abortions monetarily, which calls the motives behind their pro-choice stances into question. This is Condic's 2013 testimony: http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/113th/05232013/Condic 05232013.pdf 2. Roe v Wade is universally considered to be a complete blunder by the modern legal community. There are tens of reasons, but I'll concentrate on one. A person's "right to privacy" is not guaranteed in writing anywhere in the US Constitution. Yet this is what the ruling was based on, deriving privacy from "individual liberties." However, privacy is regularly infringed upon legally here. Whether it's through government monitoring emails and texts, taking a DNA sample that cannot be refused and requires no reason to be taken, or any other way, an individual's privacy rights are NOT guaranteed. That is, except for women seeking abortion. Figure that one out. 3. Pro-choice advocates are very vocal that this is only the woman's decision. Nobody has a say in whether the fetus is aborted or not except her. Not even the man who impregnated her. But if she decides to keep the baby, these same people demand that the father pay child support to the mother. So having the baby is ONLY the mother's decision, yet the father is forced to pay loads of money for a child he didn't even want. How is that fair? The state is infringing on HIS privacy rights by making him give up his money. It's hypocritical to defend the privacy of women but deny the same to men.
You posted : """The right to kill an unborn human that is not posing a real threat to their life is not a right I want any person to have."" And I'm right, they don't. The key phrase is "" is not posing a real threat to their life""". But the fetus is . ALL pregnancy carries the risk of death. It also carries the certainty of harm to a woman's body whether you believe that or not. But that doesn't even matter because the fetus is not a person. Women have the right to have a legal medical procedure which is what abortion is. .....
Sure you would, problem is, most of their anti-abortion "policies" are NOT in accordance with the Constitution, and are ruled as such. Unprecedented attempts to roll back the constitutionally protected right to abortion, which is 14 times safer than childbirth IS an assault on women. Sorry, it's true: One in three American women will have an abortion in her lifetime at current rates (Jones and Kavanaugh 2011) Do you think they would tell YOU if they did? Are you so deluded as to think you are capable of "protecting" embryos/fetuses? Only women can do that The most you can do is pass laws theoretically forcing women to use their bodies against their will, risk their health/lives, permanently damage their bodies, and change the course of their lives. However, legislation doesn't work for you either, because women tend to believe they have the right to decide what happens to their own bodies, regardless of legality.
For those with no knowledge of abortion and women's rights the bottom line has to be verrrrry simple.
