It is not an emotional appeal, Sam. I'm sorry you feel that way. When the town of Pacific Grove California wrote that law and used the word 'molest' in the way that they did - by making it a $1000 fine for 'molesting a butterfly in any way' - were they (in your opinion) making an appeal to emotions too? I doubt that you believe they were and neither am I. We may have to agree to disagree, Sam. Like I said (and no-one has disagreed with it yet)... "An aborted child does not escape unmolested from the womb." It's ludicrous to think that the 'molesting' of a butterfly can land you a $1000 fine - but someone opposed to abortion might be offended when the same logic is applied to a child in the womb and an abortion.
Yawn .. same old same old from the person who 'doesn't' want to control women, who 'doesn't' degrade them and who doesn't even understand the OP.
funny how the OP has nothing to do with your absurd abortion - molestation mantra, and the fact that you haven't even tried to dispute it .. one does wonder why that is. (sits back to await the usual response of "I don't think it is relevant" dodge)
anyone else notice the emotional content of those bumper stickers, the misrepresentation of using a BORN baby in association with the word abortion, projecting this image of a cute little baby being aborted .. If this were a advert for something it would be seen as false advertising. I've taken the liberty of producing a far more realistic version.
Urm, sorry does your offered definition that you so proudly pump out even suggest who is molesting who? but to offer an answer ... in the world of the 'person at conception' pro-lifer it would be the zef.
If you want me to reply to the OP - why didn't you just ask for me to reply to the OP? Why the tantrum? I'll bite. What is a 'non consented' pregnancy?
LMFAO .. you enter into a topic that is clearly defined, proceed to try and take the topic in a direction away from the premise and then have the gall to spout this ... priceless. no tantrum, just tired of pro-lifers trying to derail topics. Pregnant with the consent of the female, as you well know, causing unconsented injuries to her.
So the might Chuz doesn't male typing mistakes then. As anyone else would realise that should have said pregnant without the consent of the female...
Sex = consent "Zef" is just the pro-aborts' substitute for n-ger - - - Updated - - - Molesters are rarely given the death penalty on that conviction alone
Not in the real world it isn't, in your fantasy world it probably is though. nope, it is nothing more than shorthand for zygote/embryo/fetus, though as usual pro-forced birthers such as yourself will always try to make it something else .. it is to be expected. so perhaps you can point to the place where I say they are?
Prove that it isn't When she has sex she's doing it knowing there's a possiblity she could get pregnant - if she chooses not to use contraception, or persue early term abortion (which I'm fine with since an embryo has no brain, and therefore doesn't meet the same definition of life as a human fetus) - well that's her choice - so it's not her that's the victim of anyone but herself Just like those nasty abolitionists tried to make "negro" into "African American" to insiunate that blacks are actually... human (perish the though)
Done so on a number of occasions, like this for example - http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=342331 Still doesn't answer the questions - Does consent to one person for an action imply consent for another person for a separate action? Can consent be removed at anytime for any reason? If a woman carries a pregnancy to the point of viability then she has already shown that the pregnancy and future baby is wanted (consented to), abortion after that point are done for life threats to the woman and fetal disabilities incompatibly with life, even IF abortion were to be made illegal after viability those laws would still have exclusions built into them to cover those very things, so in effect those laws would be moot. Sorry if shorthand upsets you, I do hope you tell all those secretaries not to use it as well. BTW you do know that the word 'negro' comes from the Spanish for black don't you, so it's usage at first was merely an accurate descriptive one and did not have the same derogatory meaning it does now. Around 1442 the Portuguese first arrived in sub-Saharan Africa while trying to find a sea route to India. The term negro, literally meaning "black", was used by the Spanish and Portuguese as a simple description to refer to people. From the 18th century to the late 1960s, "negro" was considered to be the proper English-language term for certain people of sub-Saharan African origin. You do seem to have an obsession with the abortion-slavery fallacy, or is it just an obsession with people of a different colour overall.
Yes, it truly is unfortunate that some people would like to drag all women back to those dark slave days and enslave all pregnant women and force them to literally labor and birth against their wills.
Even if abortion was illegal, pregnant women wouldn't be forced to give birth. They could have an abortion if they wanted to.
Because it would discourage SOME women from having abortions, by making abortion more taboo-ish. However, if a woman really wanted to have an abortion and didn't care that it was taboo, she could easily just have an abortion anyways. Making abortion illegal doesn't force women to give birth. If women don't want to have birth and they feel like abortion is the right choice, they would just have an abortion regardless.
Good lord, so even you admit that making abortion illegal won't stop it from happening. It's like you just want to pat yourself on the back and say, "Look at us, we're so moral! We're leaving women to get maimed and injured in back alley abortions, but hey at least we don't condone it...oh and she probably deserves to get maimed and die anyways!"
