The risk the microscopically small, especially when birth control is used. You can't say with the risk being that small that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. You have a risk of being hit by a drunk driver, does that mean to consent to being hit by a drunk driver?
From the moment of conception........ You do realise of course that somewhere between 50 and 70% of conceptions fail to implant or abort naturally in the first few days
Well one huge one is that abortion is legal.....the law does not consider a fetus a person so it can't be "murdered" but it can be killed
Because once women's right start being etched away all rights can be destroyed......and it can even spread to men and their rights. When any people lose their rights we're all in danger of losing rights. But I doubt the Anti-Woman faction can make abortion illegal ....their case is so "weak to nonexistent"
How many times do posters have to say NO one said a human fetus isn't a human fetus before you quit saying that they do???? . ...and what about people who keep saying Pro-Choicers say a human fetus isn't human when NO one said it isn't human. Do they have some type of mental condition such as schizophrenia or perhaps a learning disorder or could be going through some type of breakdown that causes them delusion or fact denial ? A troll "misrepresents" and LIES about what posters said with NO proof they said it.......ring a bell? Sure! As I've always said a human fetus is human...but it is not a person with rights until it's born... That's the law, if you hate law then have it changed...
From conception a human is human....what the heck are you talking about... It has the rights of persons when it's born....that is when it becomes A human BEING as in a "person". How ridiculous to say we aren't a human being until adulthood!
It isn't....just because you're terrified of science doesn't mean a fetus isn't a fetus...it's a fetus, not a baby, not a toddler, not a teenager, not an adult....sad you can't tell the difference.....did you call your grown children fetuses?? I mean what's the difference , right?
A fertilized chicken egg is not a chicken Neither is a fertilized human egg a human being Nor are frozen embroyos used in in vitro fertilization human The fact is that inheritance law does not give any right of inheritance to a fetus Because that fetus is not considered a human being until it is born Fetus are not named until they are born There is no inquest in case of a miscarriage Imo, you are making a false dichotomy I.e. Something is either hot or cold, either black or white, When in fact, there are seldom such black or white distinctions in life outside our reductionist obsessions
You have a personal right to be a libertarian. You just do not have the right to force the rest of us to conform to your narrow ideology of life. My own idea of libertarianism is to be free of slavish adherence to any ideology. And I insist that you allow me this liberty
Actually, you did say to not have sex: Consenting to the possibility of getting pregnant is NOT agreeing to gestate and deliver. We are not talking about murdering babies, which is quite illegal. Please do stay on topic, k?
I'd be careful going there. That's a slippery slope you don't want to touch. It has nothing to do with being brain dead or otherwise. It's about the mostly black and white line delineating born and unborn. Nothing more.
I am always so surprised when I hear people that are anti-abortion discuss their pre-determined "exceptions to the rule." If something is wrong, if it is a violation against humanity, then how can there be exceptions? In your specific "special situation" with the couple from India, are you not valuing the life of the mother over the life of the child? If your argument is that a "child" has just as much agency as the mother that is carrying the "child" then their lives should be of equal value. Abortion should not be an option then, right? If both lives matter equally? Furthermore, who gets to decide what these exceptions are? I'm curious as to what check list is being considered when determining whether or not it's an appropriate decision for the woman to make? How "high risk" does the pregnancy or the labor or the delivery have to be for an abortion to be an option? Are we waiting for a 100% guarantee of a fatality before allowing an abortion? What about a 50/50 chance? While we're at it, couldn't we argue that there is always a risk of fatality during pregnancy and delivery? What one doctor might consider a pregnancy with a guaranteed fatality, another doctor might have hope for. What then? My point here is that while I understand your personal belief regarding a "child" having agency, I challenge the idea that anybody could possibly determine what is an "appropriate" situation for having an abortion, outside of the woman carrying the "child," her doctor, and possibly the father.
Actually, I didn't say you couldn't have sex. I said if you are consenting to sex, then you are consenting to the possibility of getting pregnant. it's called logic. Read my posts on "if then" statements.
I am basing my argument on choice, consent and personal responsibility. I mentioned the case that I was not apposed to an abortion being allowed, but I mentioned earlier that I am ok with an abortion in the case of rape or sexual abuse. My whole basis for my argument is that if a woman has willing adult sex with another person, and she gets pregnant as a result, then she loses the option of abortion due to the fact that she willingly took the risk and she must accept the consequences. Because from my point of view, a woman does not have the right to kill a child or fetus just because it is inconvenient for her. But, in those two cases I mentioned, the woman either dies thus the baby then dies, or she didn't consent to the sex mentioned. So from my point of view it's ok.
