I tossed 2 numbers out to simply demonstrate that there were times where you could have a chance and times you could not. The 1-20 comparison was simply an example, not to be taken as exact timeframes. As you can see however it was close. 21 weeks and the baby lived....even though many of you would have told yourselves it was a "fetus" or "clump of cells" and allowed it to be destroyed. You and yours would have destroyed that little girl.
It IS a fetus until it's born. """"""You and yours would have destroyed that little girl. """"""""""" No, NO one , not even you, should have been able to make the decision to abort or not but the woman it was in....The CHOICE was HERS alone as it should be. THAT is what Pro-CHOICE is all about...
No I would not have 'destroyed' that little girl - but we have to accept that for every 'miracle' baby that survives that premature (and are they certain that was the due date?) There are all those others that die - from brain haemorrhages or lung failure or total organ failure or sepsis or any of dozens and dozens of causes. These poor wee things have to be intubated - an uncomfortable in the extreme experience, they are fed nasogastrically, because they cannot suckle, and they have multiple lines and interventions - often the skin tears because it too is immature and fragile and they die anyway so the cost of one surviving is all those others going through pain and suffering
"Choice " is great when we're talking about watching TV at 8:00, eating a meal, or picking out what to wear. When it's a human life however....I think you need more than this "right to choose" bullcrap. Sorry, noone is born with such a "right". In the story above, that "fetus" had all the same credentials that you guys on the left regularly argue to destroy....and it lived, contrary to what the Pro Choicers present. - - - Updated - - - When the alternative is to be grinded up like hamburger, and/or sold as "parts"....I think the chance is well worth it.
No one is born with any rights, not even the right to live. . You certainly weren't born with the right to dictate what choices anyone else can make. A fetus is human , it is not A human and certainly not A human with super rights over the person it is in which you advocate for. You say we are BORN with rights yet you want to give the UNborn even more rights than the person it is in. Your " grinded" (ground) "up like hamburger"" is so ridiculously hyperbolic that it destroys any credibility.
Its nothing of the kind. The church dos not make secular law. Many of us oppose abortion on a humanitarian basis not religious There is no separation of church and state in the constitution - - - Updated - - - They are in this country
I can accept that there are non religious reasons to oppose abortion but they are no more valid than the religious ones. In the end, the woman's right to her own body is the reason abortion is valid legally. No one can have a right to occupy another person's body without permission from the person who's body you might wish to occupy. You can't get around that.
The right to live is the fundamental...and really only true right...that anyone has. Everything else..from free speech...to gun ownership...etc etc, all come in second. If you are claiming noone even posseses this right, then how could you argue against things like the Death penalty for instance? . Of course not. in a society we each have a voice, which when added to other voices becomes a percentage. When such a percentage reaches a point of majority, a society has determined what it wants for itself. I have no right to tell others anything, as you state...however I have a voice as a member of this society. The right to exist is fundamental for all living beings. Everything lese is simply a convenience right, which pales in significance. No other right matters one bit if you dont have this one. Oh sorry Teacher, you got me. Sometimes juggling work and posts, people make grammatical errors. Anyway, put that feather in your cap I guess...you finally "got me" Fox. As to credibility, we both know my description was accurate. I wont post links or pics, as they arent called for here...but you can google them up yourself if you have the stones. Hamburger.
When she opened her legs she invited the fetus in Does anyone have the right to sponge off another for 18 years?
If I open my door, I may invite an assault from whatever predator chooses to enter my house. Does that invalidate any self defense that results in the predator's death?
Are you claiming having consensual sex is like inviting a predator to your door? If your speaking of rape you may have a point.
Actually I have read pretty much everything she wrote and said and no where in any of it does she target a specific race .. much of her ideology is far from being decent on any level, that does not mean she was racist which is what you are implying. Neither can it be forgotten that she did a huge amount for women as far as birth control was concerned .. by your logic we should all be saying that some of the founding fathers were hateful prejudiced pieces of work for owning slaves.
I know what you are trying to do. You are trying to connect the idea of legal obligation to the fact of acting to bring the life of the fetus into existence. The woman had sex and therefore created that fetus and that somehow makes the fetus' life her legal obligation to sustain. But it's far more accurate to say that because she created the fetus, it belongs to her and therefore she governs it's existence by virtue of it being her possession. That makes her right to abortion stronger than even her right to self defense from assailants.
Is the man LEGALLY obligated to provide for the female (money, housing, any physical work that has to be done) while she is pregnant?
great I hope to see this being proposed to all the representatives very soon then ... I won't hold my breath though.
He is for the child. - - - Updated - - - Are you suggesting clinics and dentists that perform surgeries are not regulated?
Not for the woman though who carries the child so that is why the man is forgotten. Better learn to deal with that.
Yes b/c the man isn't the one pregnant or the one that would have to give birth. The mother is literally the only parent possessing the embryo/fetus. Donating sperm during an act of sex when the father had no intention of getting anyone pregnant isn't relevant. On the other hand, to be fair to men, they should be able to sign away all parental responsibilities (including child support) in exchange for never having any parental rights.
So child support doesnt exist got you....I dont need to "deal" with anything i live in the real world.
No. The embryo/fetus is not a child and it isn't merely dependent. It is a part of the woman's body. It is literally her possession. Once it is born, then it's a child and dependent on someone's care but it is NOT a part of anyone's body.
Not when it comes to honest discussions and/or debates about serious subjects, and as I said if your arguments are sound then you should have no reason to basterdize the English language and ignore science to make you point, and that is the pro-life problem they have to use emotional blackmail as it is all they have. Pro-death is 100% wrong, pro-choice simply means giving the individual the choice as to whether to obtain an abortion or not, unlike pro-life which is forcing the individual to maintain a pregnancy until birth .. yours is the ideology of enforcement, mine is ideology of choice.
