If I was the least bit interested in "controlling womens sexuality" as anti abortion people are often (falsely) accused of, wouldn't it make more sense for me to advocate reinstituting the anti sodomy laws that were once common in the United States and have them enforced?
So you LIKE the idea of women's sexual freedom being restricted? WHY? I see it from the opposite view, Anti-Choicers deny the humanity of women and fight to restrict abortions so they can restrict women because they STILL think of them as slaves..../.they haven't entered the 20th century yet... BTW, I never denied the humanity of human fetuses and haven't known anyone who did... AND BTW, NO "most" people did NOT consider slaves as less than human, only slave owners and sellers. How am I "wrong" about fetuses? What? Would it? Weird. I see you took the safe route and cherry picked my post It's above if you care to face all of it....
I address only the relevant parts of your post. If you admit to the humanity of the fetus how can you endorse allowing them to be destroyed simply because you want the woman to be able to exercise her "rights"?
Translation: You couldn't address the other points What else would a human fetus be but human. Why do you want women's right to their own bodies destroyed? So they're nothing more than breeding cattle for you? BORN actual persons have rights, why do you want the unborn to have more rights? Those are all relevant points.
A women's right to their own body is not absolute (there are no absolute rights). When exercising that right destroys other human life then that right to their own bodies should be temporarily forfeited. Simple as that.
The Law of the Land is my reputable unbiased source. Are you DENYING that both Prohibition and DACA were repealed as UNSOUND policies?
Which just happen to be in conflict with the Law of the Land! But since you raised the topic of your "moral beliefs" explain exactly what is "moral" about your intention to enslave women and force them to bear your unwanted children because that is exactly what they will be?
Obviously you don't consider women to be "fully humans either" since you want to ENSLAVE them to bear YOUR unwanted children. What right do you have to enslave women to your "moral beliefs"?
Humanity does not equal the legal concept of personhood. That you don't know the difference says volumes.
No rights are "absolute". You don't have an "absolute right" to own a firearm or to vote or freedom of expression. The Law of the Land stipulates that a woman's right to her own body covers her reproductive rights throughout pregnancy since her right to life supercedes that of the fetus. You have utterly failed to make a legitimate case as to why the Law of the Land should be altered in this instance.
that should be a option, but the government can not force that option, birth control is another option, but also the gov can not force that either I would never intentionally bring a child into this world and give it up for adoption not knowing what kinda parents it would have, sex offender\abusive, you have no way of knowing, to me I would rather not have a child, but others may differ, it's a personal choice for them to make for themselves, not me or the government to make for them
If anti-abortion activists provided a free option that is no more invasive than an abortion, then I suspect a lot of women would use it.
a fetus is not a child, it's a potential child, every sperm and egg is a potential child almost every women alive will have at least one if not many abortions in their lifetime, most natural (miscarriages), some medically induced
That argument is a bottomless pit. You are up against a faith argument that life begins at conception. There is no way to defeat faith with logic and facts. By definition, faith is not based on logic or facts.
I have tried to think of it other ways, and it is difficult for me. The closest I can come is this. The issue is or seems to be the definition of life. So, if that definition says that life makes an attempt to live, then I have to believe that a fertilized egg is life, since it makes an attempt to attach to it's host's(mother's) uterus to be fed and live. There is nothing religious in those thoughts. They simply consider when life starts.
course we could point to their faith and what the bible says about it http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html
dup, That's after they are born. The first was the only one that was not and it says the opposite of what is claimed. lmao
https://www.livescience.com/43157-embryo-implant-signals-pregnancy.html A fertilized egg is life. This supports my claims and explains what scientists believe are your issues, if you can't get pregnant. One important issue is age. A woman over 35 has a more difficult time getting pregnant than younger women. Women who were taking the pill also have a more difficult time. Some don't. Those who do not take the pill have very much less difficulty. You may be in a group that simply cannot get pregnant. You may or may not have done something to thwart pregnancy. I do not know your issues, nor do I want to know them. I think this article might be of some help to you. I hope you can find some comfort in it.
a fertilized egg is life like the ingredients for a cake in a miking bowl are a cake, if the process is not aborted, it would become a cake
An Anti-Abortion activist providing something for free !!!! Ain't gonna happen, pilgrim....these are the people wo want funding cut to any entity that helps children.....
A sperm and unfertilized egg are NOT potential human life. Neither have the chromosomes that a born human have. The fertilized egg certainly does.
