Ah, beautiful. More of the same, old package-dealing of "pro abort" and "leftist". How uttermost pathetic. I am yet to see you or any other anti-abortionist present any logical arguments. Do you think abortion is "morally apprehensible" because the Bible says so?
The perceptions of "everyone else" is completely irrelevant in deciding whether the woman has made the right or wrong choice. It would definitely be wrong of her to do something only because that is what "everyone else" thinks and an independent choice can still be the wrong one too. However, this goes back to what has already been discussed in this thread previously and that is the difference between the legal and the moral.
The undeveloped fetus has committed no crime. Neither has the mother. I have no issues agreeing that abortion is (potentially) morally reprehensible depending on a few philosophical questions as well as how the abortion is preformed. If there is no soul then even that is questionable. Forcing a woman under penalty of fines or imprisonment is morally reprehensible no matter what however. So under the idea of harm reduction (unless a soul is proven) then taking a pill to stop the development of something that has no brain and no nervous system will always be preferable.
And yet, no woman who wanted the baby, would get an abortion due to "health concerns", when there was no indication anything was wrong, even if the pregnancy was unplanned. If you are honest, you will admit that this has very little actually to do with health concerns. That's definitely not a major factor in the woman's decision-making process. Heck, half of women would be willing to suffer temporary health issues just to lose 15 pounds.
FoxHastings said: ↑ ALL pregnancies carry the risk of death and all carry permanent bodily damage. I know Anti-Choicers say, "it's only a tiny percentage" because it isn't their loved one and/or just don't care that women suffer and die.....that is misogyny in it's sickest form.. YA, SO? NOTHING to do with the post of mine you quoted. NO, I don't have to "admit" anything....YOU have NO proof if it ""has very little actually to do with health concerns"" And it does NOT matter...the decision is soley the woman's..... YOU do NOT know anything about women's decision making process.. NOW, care to address the actual words in the post you quoted???? A. You have no proof (AS USUAL) about that and.. B. It is THEIR decision, not yours. You have NEVER answered me when I ask you why you think YOU should make women's decisions for them.....is it too INCONVENIENT ?
You're basically saying women have reasons, but though they may not be very good reasons, because there are those reasons it should be her decision.
Maybe you couldn't handle the facts in post 2582 so had to say pretty much what amounted to nothing... Was the entire post to INCONVENIENT for you? Looks like it
It should be her decision because it's her body, her pregnancy.....NOT YOURS ( as you have to be constantly reminded)
Regardless of the health of the fetus, continuing a pregnancy can be a very serious threat to the health of the woman. The claim that this isn't common is absolute garbage as a justification for writing laws that threaten the lives of women. Please remember that religious zealots already lost their attempt to sacrifice the lives of women when their law against women reached the Supreme Court. Your desire for laws that cause the death and permanent injury of women is simply going to fail, however many times you try.
FoxHastings said: ↑ It should be her decision because it's her body, her pregnancy... LOL, and here we are back AGAIN at your standard "I haven't any answers, facts or rebuttals so I'll throw out the same repetitive, oft used, oft shot to pieces idea about how a fetus is a person which I've never proven but I hope no one notices..."""" BTW, YOUR body is NOT involved at all...
?? I'm talking about pregnancies. This is one of the problems you keep having. You say stuff and then you propose that everything you said only applies in certain circumstances that you an only define in some abstract way - like "normal". Plus, you keep refusing to consider the woman.
I meant, you're talking about women choosing abortion for health reasons when there are no special indicators that the pregnancy is unusual or likely to pose risk. The woman doesn't have anything telling her there might be a problem, other than the very fact itself that she is pregnant!
Now you are getting into the specifics of the law you want to write, corect? What is YOUR solution to a woman coming to a hospital and asking for an abortion on the grounds that she was raped?
That's backwards. It is YOU who wants to have government enact laws. So, its you who needs to fully define what "normal" means. Is it "normal" for a woman to get raped? Is incest "normal"? Is it "normal" for a woman to attempt suicide or have other psych issues? What level of mental competency is "normal". You can't just say "normal" and have it mean anything. If everything were rainbows and unicorns, this topic wouldn't exist.
We were talking about the issue of health. Now you want to divert the topic to rape. I told you all already, rape is the pro-choice one trick pony. When you're not doing so good in another argument, just bring up rape!
Your "normal" and your "you lose, because you mentioned the serious problem of rape" are TWO inexcusably pathetic dodges to the questions I have asked you for post after post. STOP DODGING. You can't have a legitimate direction on this issue without addressing women's health as well as issues that arise with fetuses. This is a serious real world problem, because in the absence of rational thought and slowed by the rejection of absolutist law, the religious right activists have moved instead to simply ensuring unavaiability for those with little income and victims of incest. If you can't answer these questions, then you should back off and do some listening.
