The woman did when she brought it into existence. Bringing it into existence, only to snuff it out later, how awful.
Not to me. That's where I've been for a long time. For me it is all about the brain. An egg isn't a person. A sperm isn't a person. And an egg and a sperm isn't a person. If you remove the brain from a living person and keep the body alive, it isn't a person. To say it is defaults to faith arguments and not arguments based in fact. No law intended to protect living people can be argued to protect a non-person. When a fetus becomes self-aware and can feel pain, then the idea that it has become is a person becomes logically defensible. To deny the right of choice before that isn't a legal argument. It is a religious argument. And the Constitution protects us from religion. Robert, what evidence do you have that a soul exists? Show me. Show me evidence that something without a brain is a person.
Why are you posting mindless propaganda? I call them as I see them. If you have nothing intelligent to say then post a photo!
For arguments sake, lets say abortion were outlawed in the US; that means around 600,000 more children would born then those who would normally be born. It would make common sense to assume that a vast majority of them, say 500,000 would end up in the care of the state since most people who have abortions don't want kids for whatever the reason. So, what happens to those half million babies?? The state ends up taking care of them (feeding, medical, schooling, housing, etc) the costs of which are passed on to the taxpayers. Keep in mind the number will double the following year and triple the following year and so on. Where is the money supposed to come from to pay for this?? The bottom line is this: if you don't believe in abortion, then by all means, don't have one.
if men had to carry a baby nine months to term, deal with all the difficulties, financial hardships, poverty, joblessness we wouldn't even be having this discussion...
You illustrate with your post the unconcern I mentioned for the rights of pregnant women. In Roe vs Wade, the Supreme Court focused mainly on the rights of the woman until the fetus became capable of self-sustaining its own life. Then the rights transferred to the fetus over the woman. That's not only fair, it complies with the ideal that EVERYONE has rights. Your position is that only the fetus has rights. I, and most Americans, disagree.
Murder is a crime. Someone demanding that society should allow mothers to kill babies is an opinion and their right. When that person tries to force their opinions on others this is the problem...it's called righteousness...
That remark makes no sense in context of my statement. Ergo I could not make sense of it. The conclusion for one thing.
Take a look at your posts! You can't seriously think that anyone less radical than you could possibly see value or even just rationality in what you are posting.
Freedom is not a radical concept unless one is a democrat or defend their ideology. Being called radical for trying to save human life is only a problem to you.
Is the freedom of the Mother less important than the "Freedom" of the ZEF? If not then you are a radical.
You aren't arguing for freedom. You are arguing for laws against women. In fact, you're arguing for more laws even though I pointed out that other countries have managed to have a lower rate of abortion than the US WITHOUT using such laws. You've lost contact with the real objective - an objective everyone already agrees with. You can't claim you like freedom when it is the LAWS you like.
I am arguing FOR laws for the weak, the innocent. Women also I want protected. I am no Democrat and it takes a hell of a lot for me to argue for a law. I am wanting Democrats law edifice ripped to pieces. This is not about me though it clearly is all you care about. Argue points, not me.
