Why would I not refer to the 2nd amendment as a women’s issue? Because it’s not just a women’s issue like abortion is. Are you really not getting this or are you just trolling?
As a woman's RIGHT! I think you are the one who is trolling given that you ONCE AGAIN used "issue" instead of what you actually said, which was "RIGHT!"
You're just the latest hopeless person to ungracefully bow out of debate with me claiming that I'm trolling!
You're not the only hopeless person to ungracefully bow out of debate with me claiming that I'm trolling!
Nope, I didn't say that....what is wrong with you? But, but, you seem to be able to respond to the other posts ….???? LOL...
Which is true. Then they wouldn't have the right to harm another without the other's consent. Anti-Choicers want fetuses to have super rights, the right to harm another without their consent.
I have repeated it many times....why repeat something you have never grasped....??? Will the hundredth time work? The 101st time? I doubt it.. Uh, pregnancy always harms women....now before you start debating that, go and research, don't make "mommy" do it for you, and find out what pregnancy does to women starting with the ZEF compromising their immune system from the beginning. Why do you think pregnant women lose their right to self defense? If someone is harming them they have the right to defend themselves... .....did you really think pregnant women have to let people harm them, even kill them?????
Okay, so you are for abortion all the way until birth for any reason. So then your argument of a woman being mentally ill if she asks for an abortion in the final week is pointless, because you think she should be able to have an abortion whenever she wants for whatever reason. You seem to have missed where I said, "replies of a CERTAIN LENGTH." Anyway, I replied, so why the hell are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?
No, it is only pointless to someone who doesn't understand. What I think has no bearing on the fact that mentally healthy women do not ask for an abortion after viability on a whim. I haven't seen your reply (??? where is it) That is so rich coming from YOU!!!!
FoxHastings said: ↑ Uh, pregnancy always harms women....now before you start debating that, go and research, don't make "mommy" do it for you, and find out what pregnancy does to women starting with the ZEF compromising their immune system from the beginning. So if they say it isn't harming them, it isn't? LOL! What screwed up thinking... Pregnancy harms women whether they say it or not......DUH
According to the Bible, fetuses are not persons worthy of protecting. A fetus can be killed as a punishment to a wicked woman.
Makes sense to me, but I still have a problem. You do acknowledge that it is possible that one can commit a nefarious act on the fetus prior to this brain activity which impacts not only the mindless fetus, but the sentient fetus, born child, and even into adulthood depending on what act was committed? When placing myself in the shoes of this hypothetical injured person, I find it difficult to justify any legal action vs the offender if the act occurred when I wasn't a person. Hell if I wasn't even a person, forget legal action, I couldn't even be morally justified in demanding an apology no matter how nefarious the action, or serious my injury. No, something is flawed in the logic of no unborn rights.
Even though it is not a Person - it is still someone else's property. A Cow is not a person - but - If I kill your cow I am liable for damages.
I'm putting myself in the shoes of someone who was nefariously injured prior to sentience, who lived to be an adult. At that time the injured is not anyone's "property". Let's say I'm sterile with a disfigured face. If the act was committed prior to my sentience, and the theory that the unborn have no rights is true, then I am in a strange position. I have a serious injury. I know who did it. I know he/she did it with malice. But if the theory is true, then I WOULD be the one who would be morally wrong for even holding the act against the offender, whether legally, emotionally, or otherwise. This thinking is a problem for me even though I think what you said about sentience appears about right on the surface.
