So where did you get that idea? As I bolded above you were talking about having a 3rd CHILD....even LIEsitenews didn't mention the sex of the third CHILD. Lifesitenews, known in here as LIEsitenews is an anti-Abortion site, biased. Now I answered YOUR question why don't you answer mine ? Yes, it IS terrible when women are denied CHOICE....glad you agree...aren't you glad this country protects women's reproductive rights???
Yes.Whatever a reason a woman may have for choosing to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is good enough for me. I might not approve of her choice, but she doesn't, and shouldn't, need my approval.
If I'm anti abortion why doesn't that make you pro abortion. Being for abortion doesn't indicate that you want to force people to have an abortion, it indicates that you advocate for abortion "rights." And if defending innocent life makes me "anti choice" them so be it. - - - Updated - - - The unborn does not cause great bodily harm to the extent of the justification of deadly force.
You are unequivocally wrong. Pregnancy is already legally seen as a serious injury in some cases and codified as such in some state laws. It is classified to be equivalent to a gun shot wound. The cumulative and prolonged effect of those injuries more than meets the requirement for the justified use of deadly force and even if that were not true, which it is, the female has no other course of action , she cannot retreat - even though she has no obligation to retreat - she cannot use non deadly force, she cannot bargain to stop the injuries from occurring, her only option to cease those injuries is to use deadly force. Why do you want to deny a pregnant female the same rights you have? Why do you want to violate the equal protection clause?
Whatever YOU are does NOT define me....thank GAWD! No, you are wrong...YOU being anti-abortion (FORCING women to give birth) does NOT make ME want to force women to have abortions. There is no logic in your premise. Anti-Choice ( denying women their right to their own body and FORCING them to give birth )is exactly that and PRO -CHOICE is exactly what it says..
"""""The unborn does not cause great bodily harm to the extent of the justification of deadly force""""" Show proof.....can you back up your claim......?
In September a woman in Georgia started firing at three men who entered her home with guns in the middle of the night. Reference: http://nbc4i.com/2016/09/23/woman-kills-one-suspect-after-unloading-her-gun-during-home-invasion/ First, let me be clear... I think she did the right thing. I would have done the same thing myself. But looking at it from the "pro-life" perspective, none of those men had done her any actual harm. At the most, they did some minor property damage to enter the house. She acted because she feared that they might intend to harm her (or take some of her stuff). When she grabbed the gun and headed downstairs, she had no way of knowing if they had guns or any intention to harm her. Bottom line, you can defend yourself even if nobody has actually harmed you yet.
Okay...I'll try to make this as clear and simple as possible for you. I personally do not like the idea of Aborting pregnancy, thus I have four children and never so much as considered the possibility for me and mine. Perfect strangers to me might think differently and in this society we respect the privacy and rights of fellow citizens as a general rule which allows for the concept and practice of individual freedoms as designated in our Constitution. Each of us are also given freedom of speech and expression which allows for debates such as this to transpire and idea exchange to take place, limits on this right are designated however for public safety and societal health reasons. All os our Constitutional right become void when the impinge on the rights of others rights, and forcing any fellow citizen to use their body according to state demands is unconstitutional and wrong.
I think this is why labels do not really advance the discussion. It would be easy to assume "anti-abortion" means never allowing abortions (but that only describes about 16% of the population), and just as easy to assume "pro-abortion" means forcing abortions (but that applies primarily to Chinese government officials). The rest of us fall somewhere in the middle of those extremes. The division seems to be on the issue of choice. Should a woman be able to choose (for her own personal reasons) to terminate a pregnancy, or should abortion only be allowed if the state declares it a necessity? That makes pro-choice and anti-choice the logical terminology. I don't think "pro-lifers" are likely to accept the label "anti-choice" because their popular support depends a lot on bumper-sticker mentality, and it could be difficult to write a bumper sticker that would convince people it is a good idea to interfere with personal freedom in a country that is based on freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And in some states (if not all) if you kill both the mother and unborn child its a double murder. The law means nothing. I'm not. I'm defending the life inside. I'm not. - - - Updated - - - Me being "anti abortion" as you guys used to call us doesn't mean we want to force the woman to give birth either. - - - Updated - - - You back up yours since it was your side that made the first claim. - - - Updated - - - And that's assuming getting pregnant is equivalent to breaking in.
anti-choice or pro big government is a better term as they want the government to do the deciding for you
If a woman can shoot and kill an intruder who has not (yet) harmed her in any way, then it would be wrong to suggest that deadly force is ONLY justified when there is great bodily harm. Deadly force may be appropriate when you fear that there might be harm. After all, the intruders might only be carrying guns to scare the homeowners into submission. Maybe they had no intention of hurting anybody. Do you really think permission to enter matters? Some thieves have the mindset that you are inviting them in when you flaunt your wealth with a fancy house with a big screen TV visible from the bay window. If the intruder had tricked her into inviting him inside by wearing a utility company uniform, would that make it wrong for her to shoot him when she realizes he is really there to rob the place (and perhaps eliminate the witness)?
If you want to take away a pregnant woman's right to her own body then you want to FORCE her to give birth....there is no other option....luckily you can't You sure love going around in circles...or maybe learning isn't your thing? Because you have been shown proof...I believe Fugazi has schooled you on that many times and all you have to do is get a book on biology or physiology .. YOU are the one who keeps claiming """""""The unborn does not cause great bodily harm to the extent of the justification of deadly force""""" YOU have never shown proof but others have shown you to be wrong. You are not right because you keep asking the same thing over and over and over again....... .
Actually...that is exactly what it means. A pregnant woman has two possible choices, give birth or end the pregnancy.
Actually that law has nothing to do with abortion, that law is about protecting the consent status of the female and recognising that in situations where the fetus has her consent that any third party person who violates that consent should be punished harsher. So you are defending the person who instigates and maintains non-consented injuries onto another person, and yes you are denying a pregnant female the same rights you have, you have the right to defend yourself against any and all person who injure you without consent REGARDLESS of their mental capacity or the circumstances that led them to be where they are ie even if you invite a mentally incompetent person into your home that does not impact of your right to defend yourself should they injure you without provocation. Yes you are, the equal protection clause guarantees that the state cannot offer or provide a service that it does not offer or provide to all people, by denying the female the right to state protection (abortion) against the non-consented injuries imposed on her by the fetus (which you claim is a person) is a clear violation of that clause as the state via police, etc already provides protection from non-consented injuries to ALL non pregnant people.
Well actually it does, there are only two options open to a pregnant woman, to have an abortion or to give birth, pro-choice wants to allow the woman to make that choice, pro-life want to force her to give birth. no problem what so ever - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/363145-abortion-choice-consent.html http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/390819-choice-consent-cont.html it is, in fact it is equivalent to gun shoot wound in some cases.
