I Am the 1 Percent Used to Justify 100 Percent of Abortions

Because I believe it’s against Gods will.

 

Then shouldn't she have the right to remove that "other" body from hers? You claim it is separate. Therefore - independent.

 

Yup.

And IF a "soul" is a beer, it has already been proven by science that beer exists...therefore "souls" exist...

...right?

 

You back that up how? Awareness requires sufficient brain activity to be able to process stimuli.

 

mehhh.....I don't think many people are interested in taking things to that extreme. I think the prime motivation is to protect the rights of the unborn that can not speak for themselves.

However, some States do protect the unborn in many different ways. Some States have even prosecuted the mother for drug use during pregnancy.

 

Then why are there murder or manslaughter charged to people who have killed unborn children in the womb through an accident or intentional. I have a hard time when we justified one act but then excuse another.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/us/woman-who-cut-out-fetus-gets-100-years/index.html

 

Dude....your argument does not really even make sense. I have every confidence in you that you fully understand what I am talking about. If you want to engage in a intellectually dishonest conversation, then find someone else, please.

 

I can answer that...I can answer that!

The reason there are murder or manslaughter charges lodged against people who have killed "unborn children" in the womb...

...is because we have Republicans and American hypocrites involved in the law-making process.

Oops, I mean...Republicans and American conservatives.

 

Your own link says no murder charge was pursued for the fetus as it is not considered a person.

 

Oh!

You did not like the way I dealt with your "if" hypothetical.

Yeah...that could be a problem.

 

Well, I provided a link on fetal brain activity earlier, but will post it again in case you missed it:

https://www.nibib.nih.gov/news-events/newsroom/new-technology-reveals-fetal-brain-activity

So, is your argument that a fetus does not become sentient until the exact moment of birth? If so, what about those babies that are extracted from the womb prior to contractions. Are they not sentient until their 9 months have lapsed? Whether we call it "awareness" or "a soul', at which point does an unborn fetus gain their inalienable rights? My whole point is that opinions vary in this issue....and both sides have valid points. However, science does support that sentience exists prior to birth.

 

Something that require the state knowing she’s pregnant.
Not all miscarriages are “natural causes”. If you make abortion illegal don’t you think women will start looking for ways to force a miscarriage? We’re goinf to need pad and tampon inspections to make sure women are flushing their murder victims down the toilet. So along with pregnancy registration we’ll also need period reporting to monitor the health of the child.

 

So at what point in the pregnancy will women be required to register it with the state?
I mean you can’t protect the unborn unless you know they exist right?

 

That is not my argument. I don’t believe third trimester abortions should be practiced outside of reasons pertaining to health of the mother or late discovery of birth defects that would lead to a non-viable human being.

 

I'm not in favor of making abortions illegal. I'm making the argument that at some point the fetus may have some inalienable rights to consider....though the rights of the host (mother) need to also be considered. I'm more of a moderate on the abortion issue and feel that we will get nowhere on the issue until some compromise is reached. I do not think it is unreasonable to allow abortions until a certain level of development of the fetus is reach.

 

Then is seems we actually might agree on the abortion issue.

 

its called human rights not people rights and now you will deny science and claim the unborn aren't human or that they are human without rights like slaves once were

 

I didn’t claim that fetuses aren’t human, they’re certainly not cats, they just aren’t people with all the rights that entails.

 

once again its called human rights not personhood rights
your trying to justify murder the same way slave owners justified slavery classifying a group of humans different then the rest to justify not giving then basic rights

 

And the old saying applies - your rights end where my nose begins ... and since one is inside the other, the mother's rights are paramount.

 

what part of "Human rights" do you not understand its not called people rights but Human rights

 

LMAO...What is that, trump logic?

 

the right to life is the most fundamental right of all and needs to take priority over any other right

 

Looks more like you didn’t even read the article

 

not if it kills that other body
if two people are locked in an air tight room and is running out of air does one have the right to kill the other so to conserve air?