If it is not kind to bring an 'unwanted' child into the world then where is the reproach (from pro-choicers) for those that do? Seems to me they shower the irresponsible women with free medical care and the the 'gift' of an of abortion, paid for by a potential human life.
Right, and just like Dred Scot, the Supreme Court can redefine anything it desires. However, when it is all said and done, it doesn't make it right or wrong. Keep dreaming, but why does it even matter if it is reversed or not? There is still 20,000,000 illegal abortions performed under your nose. How is that a "victory" for you if the rates between legal and illegal are nearly identifical? No, I think you hapzardly checked the first website that contained Oxford and used the definition which best suited your platform. Unfortunately, in your rush to make a point, you overlooked the fact that it is the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, and not the actual Oxford English Dictionary. noun (plural children /ˈtʃɪldr(ən/) a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority: she’d been playing tennis since she was a child the film is not suitable for children a son or daughter of any age: when children leave home, parents can feel somewhat redundant an immature or irresponsible person: she’s such a child! a person who has little or no experience in a particular area:he’s a child in financial matters (children) archaic the descendants of a family or people:the children of Abraham (child of) a person regarded as the product of (a specified influence or environment):a child of the Sixties No, but I was counting on you to think there is a difference though. What differences does it make if it natural? There is still intent to harm a child in a process which can knowingly kill them. Again, and let me remind you of your own position, you believe a human zygote is protected by the Consitution and it is only fair that we protect them from those attempting to harm them, right? You just proved my point, but...yes, a debate we are having.
Only.... I'm not arguing right and wrong (morality). If you don't think it matters whether or not Roe is reversed? Let's do it. The victory for me - will be that our laws are more consistent - and the denial of the fact that an abortion violates the Constitutional rights of the children aborted will be put to an end. It may be a small victory.... but I'll take it. 1. You need to explain why your source would trump all others 2. It would be great if you would provide a link to that source 3. Not even the definition you quoted can be used to exclude a child in the womb. Especially given the LEGAL definitions and recognition we already have under the UVVA. Emphasis and link are mine. Murder is an act of malice. Where is the act of malice in the event of a natural death? You would have to prove that "intent" in order to prove there was any malice. Fair? I never said anything about fairness. As human beings (persons) they are entitled to the equal protections of our laws. (5th and 14th Amendments) I never said anything about fairness. I wish you had actually made a point. But, I can't see that you have.
What possible victory for human rights can words be when it has no effect? You mean to tell us that you are making all this effort for something entirely meaningless? Moreover, all the hyperbole about the lives of fetuses for something you don;t even care about? Is there something missing?
You don't think life is a gift...it is expendable to you. You condone even late term abortion...killing a child full term and viable. Do you think a child can be born into a home where the parents didn't want it and then change their minds? Is this possible? What you are doing is deciding that no child could be loved by anyone that is born into a less than perfect family. What right do you have to tell anyone if they will be loved or not. What right do you have to decide the future for another human being? Every child conceived in the womb...has a right to be born. It should not be up for debate...that which is in the womb is a human being. Pregnancy for you grannie is the worst of all situations...and the fact that you think abortion as you say..."helps nature along"....is one of the saddest comments about abortion I have ever heard. Killing a child in the womb on purpose for no reason....is the most unnatural of things that could ever happen.
No, I just don't see how it matters to you, that is all. Make abortion legal, and you still get the same amount of abortions performed. Make abortion illegal, and you still get the same amount of abortions performed. What is the difference? Why even bother with attempting to make a human zygote a child? And there you have it folks; it is all about you. It isn't about saving lives, but about making laws more consistent for your viewpoint at the cost of life and limb. Thank you for your honesty. 1. In college, it was the only dictionary we were allowed to use, but I'll give you a more elaborate answer. The Oxford Enlgish Dictionary is widely regarded as the authority due to containing the largest collection of British and World English words and it's definitive record. Furthermore, the Oxford English Dictionary has a long and visible history of scholarship behind it, with ongoing research both into new additions and backtracking citations for existing ones. 2. http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/child?q=child 3. It can. In addition, even the wikipedia article concerning the use of child does not back you up either. To quote: So there you have it. Not like this will change your mind or anything. You'll continue to use "child" because it is more important for you to project that you are right than to be right. And what was the legal definition of property after Scot Dred? Please, enlighten me on the subjectivity of law again. That is nice, but I don't recall mentioning anything about murder. So I take it that you are okay with people endangering the lives of "children" then because you have deemed it "natural." Did the two not knowingly partake in an activity that could hurt a child? At worst, that could be considered malice or at best, neglect. Calm down, no one said you did. I specifically asked you a question which you dodged...but that is okay since I understand the context of your indirect answer. If you'd take the blinders off, you'd know. However, at this point, I am not counting you to get my point either. To get it would effectively debunk your cause.
The fact is the pro-abort community does care if Roe is reversed. To say it does not matter makes no sense. You oppose sonograms...anything that would stand a chance of talking women out of an abortion. It certainly does matter...as whenever there is a bench seat open on SCOTUS....the first question anyone asks a possible candidate is.....how do you feel about abortion, about Roe. You better believe it matters. And if abortion numbers have never changed...which is a crock, (Guttmaucher even shows numbers going up and down) then why do you care if abortion is made illegal? The fact is...we can't get perfect statistics...before Roe or even after concerning the number of abortions and maternal death of women..also babies killed by botched abortions. The fact is many of these deaths likely weren't reported. And the botched abortions...were settled before going to court. Doctors did not want to lose their medical licenses and families did not want the communities to know what their daughters had done.
With respect, do you concern yourself with anything other than abortion? Just curious. You seem to be an activist. That is OK in my eyes even if I don't agree.
Their own statements show their love of abortions. If they simply said, "i support abortions being legal because i support a woman's right to choose", that would be one thing. It's a horrible opinion to have, but it's one thing. But to be against sonograms and counseling women to not have abortions, this shows that they want women to choose abortions. It shows their love of abortions.
If a woman wants to see her sonogram she will look at it. If she wants to get counseling then she will get counseling. If she doesn't want to do these things then she won't. Why do you believe these things must be forced on perfectly intelligent and capable adult women through the law?
Of course we care; we don't want to go back to the days of putting abortion back into the hands of black market. Yet, despite all of the statistics and facts, criminalizing abortion has shown no reduction in the rate of abortion. So if reserving Roe has no affect on the rate of abortion, then I must ask, why does it matter? You pro-"lifers" cannot even name a single country where criminalizing abortion has saved lives. You simply can't. Even when Poland criminalized abortion back in the mid-90s through a referendum, the birth rate never increased; it was obvious that Polish women were still having abortions. So without even examining the abortion rate, we can tell from the birthrate what the effects of criminalization does. On the otherhand, legalizing abortion has saved lives. We're pro-life, you have been proven to be pro-death.
It's called a compromise. If abortions are still legal (which they shouldn't be), there has to be other ways to make sure that less women have abortions, such as mandating that they get counseling or see a sonogram.
Why should the state enforce healthcare providers to buy the equipment to do a sonogram in order to talk someone out of having an abortion? Why should the state make it mandatory to talk patient out of a choice? The fact is, there is nothing which stops a woman from talking herself out of an abortion. There is nothing which restricts her from having an ultrasound or seeking a counselor. No one is against this. - - - Updated - - - LOL! A compromise for who? For a bunch of people who don't like abortion? Get over yourself. The world doesn't revolve around you.
Why do we have to compromise with anyone? We won. Women's rights won in Roe v Wade. We don't HAVE to compromise with any pro-life extremists/fanatics. That's just silly to even act or behave as if we must compromise. I will always fight totally invasive and wasteful legislation.
No grannie says the numbers have always been the same. So having abortion legal would and does not matter, it never did...so says many pro-aborts here. The back alley....happened with very few women....it is pro-abort propoganda. Even PP says that most abortions happened with doctors in offices/
No it is not. Compromising for deception never has positive outcomes. There are, methods that have been proven to be effective. Sensible people would be embracing that which works instead of imposing fell good measures that have been proven not to work.
The overall difference between legal and illegal abortion, isn't the rate of abortion, but the rate of people killed and maimed by anti-abortion laws. No, Planned Parenthood determined by the 60s that the majority of abortions performed that year were done by doctors...which made sense considering therapeutic abortions were legal since the 40s and helped develop the infrastructure for legal abortion today. Prior to the 40s, the majority of abortions were either self-performed or done by unskilled butchers.
