Dehumanizing it, typical. Can't call it a baby or else that might make the conscience decision to end its life more distasteful to you?
Dehumanizing it, typical. Can't call it a baby or else that might make the conscience decision to end its life more distasteful to you? Prove it.
You do realize we're not debating whether or not the fetus can be charged with a crime, right? That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not one can legally defend oneself from harm even if that harm is not inflicted with intent. Of course you can! What, you're trying to tell me that if someone in a state of severe psychosis, who thereby would not be legally culpable, were to lunge at you with a knife, you'd not be allowed to defend yourself? Seriously?
I guess that's why Clinton got rid of guns on military bases because the terrorist criminals had no where to go to have a "safe place" to commit mass murder. Always the best ideas for criminals comes from the minds of liberals.
The company bears no responsibility. The label doesn't say "And by using this product you consent to becoming pregnant should it fail."
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/ Only 3% of PPH expenditures have anything to do with abiortions. 97% of what they do is family planning and women's health screenings etc. And Republicans want to take that away (from low income women)
Prove that it does. PP accounting documents have to be publicly filed for them to maintain their non-profit status. You should be able to easily demonstrate that they use government money for abortion services.
Go show me. Still waiting for your proof that the government doesn't fund abortions. Also, there is the line in Obamacare that forces men to pay for birth plans, including abortions, even when they don't want to. A defacto government forced abortion program btw.
It doesn't seem you understand the difference between prophylactic and restitution. Abortion would not be restitution. Abortion would be remediation of a prophylactic failure. But then, that wasn't really the conversation. The conversation was about whether the law knew what or how to recognize biological inception of life. Obviously, biology tells us one thing, secularists deny that so they can continue their eugenics driven need.
You do realize you're not making arguments, right? Now you're just insulting people. Let's face it; you failed to make your argument. You tried to argue for banning abortions, and you failed. Don't bloody stoop to insults to deflect from that.
I am a secularist and I say fetuses are 100% alive. However that doesn't change the fact that women have bodily sovereignty.
So I take it you are pro-having the government take proxy ownership of women's bodies on behalf of a right that doesn't exist for anyone else to protect a fetus?
So then why does it's life end if its not being punished for a crime? In some states, you can't shoot a burglar who is running away from you or just in your home to steal and cause no harm. Their intent is not to harm physically, but will do so financially. So they are able to be killed no matter what? You can always defend yourself, but can you prove it was self defense when you go to court or when an officer asks you why you killed said person?
There's something extra terrifying about finally seeing a secularist confess that it's life, yet continue to support its termination. It's one thing to watch them play the ignorance game, but to see such blunt bloodlust and immorality . . . it's shaken me to my core.
When it comes to pregnancy? Not only can you, it's piss easy. "Hey, know what a pregnancy does to a woman? Yeah, that."
Yeah, youre right, it truly says . Give absolutely no hint that with a contraceptive you are preventing pregnancy. Just like a pull-out or cycle method isn't infallible. So, you take your own risks with sex, still don't see why the life you created is to be harmed for your actions?
Chicago. Baltimore.. Washington DC.. Philly. St Louis.. I mean, there's a list. Are you sure you want to air all of them out?
I don't see why a woman's body should be taken from her to ensure the life of another person when literally no one has such a right to life. If I needed a blood transfusion, and you were the only person I could get blood from, do I have the right to deprive you of your blood against your will?