Then a woman cannot be charged with murder. I never claimed that women are committing murder when they abort.. Okay, then I assume everything that you said before your edit, no longer applies. So here it is again: Clearly women don't know what they're killing, given that sane, reasonable, healthy women don't seek to get their BORN babies killed after life becomes extremely difficult as a parent, at times regretting the choice to not abort during pregnancy.
She can, but not for abortion because abortion isn't murder. So, you are not against abortion? And what does this have to do with abortion?
We're talking about the LAW valuing a fetus, to the point where the fetus is given protection by banning late term abortion unless it is to save the woman's life. Exactly. Just like if a woman doesn't value her BORN kid, even wanting to kill the kid, the law does not permit her to kill the kid. "Violation of the woman's right to be a mother" is not a crime.
I personally think timeframes are stupid because abortion is a private, medical matter that should be settled between woman and doctor. Yes, because it has been born. I have no idea what the crime is called since I am not a lawyer, but what I wrote is the only objective way of looking at it.
Yes, I didn't mean that a woman cannot be charged with murdering an alive person. Well if elective abortion was made illegal, then abortion for any reason would be considered murder. The mainstream pro-life position is that only the person performing the abortion should be charged. I am against elective abortion. It explains that women obviously see a difference between their kid before birth and after birth, and as such they shouldn't be charged with abortion because they don't have the required mens rea.
I'll take this as an acknowledgement that fetuses in late term development are deemed to have value by many laws of many countries, including the majority of States in the US.
Uh, the PROOF is that I literally haven't used religion in any of my arguments! Then how the hell can you know that I have "NO idea what women are told" and that I have "NO idea what women believe or think?" Okay, then you agree that there is a difference between how a woman sees her unborn kid to how she sees her born kid.
Fetuses don't have to be the SAME as a born person in order to be a person! There's obviously the slight difference in that born people are not in wombs!
People have protection because they have rights, don't they? And the prerequisite for having rights, is having value. And people with value but no rights, still have protection. Fetuses of a certain age, may not have rights, but they still have the same protection from being killed that people with rights have.
No, man made rights or legal rights are the product of man's reason. You seem to be unfamiliar with the difference between natural rights and legal rights. Correct. Fetuses don't have to be the SAME as a born person in order to be a person! There's obviously the slight difference in that born people are not in wombs! So if the mother dies a few months into the pregnancy, the baby survives? In your opinion.
I'm most confident that it is the case in your country, either at the national level or the state level, that late term abortion is not allowed unless it is to save the woman's life.
And that is just awful. Why? The willingly pregnant woman will value the child is baring and the one she has given birth to. The unwillingly pregnant does not value what she is carrying and there wants the pregnancy terminated.
You conveniently left out this part of my post in your quote: You said, "I think this might be somewhat true. But, not for the reasons you may think. When the Church held a tight crip on society and told people having fun is a sin that will send you to hell, I am sure many couples were both afraid and ashamed of having sex." The problem is that you weren't capable of saying how exactly would the pill have changed any of that.
Because I believe that it's murder. Yes, the difference is willingness. If a woman is willing to bare a child to birth, then she doesn't need to consider whether or not the child has equal value to a born child. Some willing women may actually admit that they see no value in the life inside them and that there will only be value once born.
Rights are not intrinsic. They are natural in the sense that they are based on the facts of reality. It is bizarre to say that we are born with rights since rights are something we learn and discover. As Ayn Rand writes in Atlas Shrugged; If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. That "slight" difference you describe is actually a major one. In order to be granted personhood, one has to hold the capacity to use think and to act independently, something a fetus cannot do as it is not part of society and physically attached to the womb. No. My opinion is based on the facts of reality.
So then a government can remove all rights for all people and then start killing them without violating their right to life? If "it is right to act on his own free judgment", then man can kill people, right? Yes, I was being sarcastic when I said "slight." Thanks for proving that it's actually a MAJOR difference! This is where I would normally use my comatose patient argument, but you've made it VERY clear that you are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of dealing with it! Clearly the argument worked! Okay, so then fetuses need the woman to live. You can't answer for people.
Well, it can and there are countless of examples of it happening throughout history. However, it is still a violation of man's rights when government decides to do so. Wrong. Rights mean freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. Proving? You mean you agree with me? I have addressed that point twelve times. Yes! Of course I can. Reality is what it is.
I never said that either.... another of your "dreams" ? You start a lot of posts with "then you agree'....why is that? Do you need people to "agree" with you? Even to the point of claiming they said things they hadn't said...Why?
FoxHastings said: ↑ NO, when I say " Sad that that had to be explained but maybe you will learn the difference between "protection" and "rights"."" I mean "protection" and "rights".. LOL.... what a garbled meaningless mess....But I did see a tiny admission that fetuses don't have rights but do have protection so MAYBE somebody learned SOMETHING...
""""gfm7175 said: ↑ Nope. As far as life of the mother, rape, and incest are concerned, abort away!! I give you those instances. Now, let's focus on the other 99% of instances...""""
So you approve of the killing of a living human who has committed no crime and has expressed no desire to die. Got it.
