Abortion is in the constitution.

Okay, I tried.

 

I meant to quote Musquat, not you. I'll have to edit it later.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
explain why you approve of killing a ZEF because the woman was raped?



So you can't explain it.

You can't explain how an abortion due to rape is different or has a different outcome than an abortion due to consensual sex?


I ask Anti-Choicers this question whenever they make an exception for rape.

They claim a fetus is an "innocent precious life" that shouldn't be killed.

So I want to know why it isn't an "innocent precious life" that can be killed if it's the product of rape.

I point out that an abortion due to rape is the same procedure and outcome as an abortion due to consensual sex.


Their making it an exception shows that Anti-Choicers really want women punished for having consensual sex...


.
Uh, ya, no one is disputing that...(why bring it up?)




Yes, and this issue, and the Anti-Choicers inability to address it, shows clearly Anti-Choicers really want women punished for having consensual sex...





It doesn't matter why Pro-Choicers want women to retain the right to their own body, it's the right thing to do.

So you think it's wrong for women to retain the right to their own bodies why? Do you hate women ?? Do ou think they are "lesser than" men so don't deserve the same rights?

Who ?

OH DO please show me who addressed it...show me the post....where is it????

Well , the topic here is "exception for rape"....but if you need to drag other things in here BECAUSE YOU COULD NOT ANSWER "WHY AN EXCEPTION FOR RAPE? " then I guess I'll address this paragraph.


The point of viability is 23-24 weeks when the fetus becomes viable, able to live on it's own outside the womb.....before that it is dependent on the woman it's in and she has NO obligation to sustain the life of another using her own body.

There is no "baby" to "murder".....you have no proof there is..

So you reiterate that you don't think women should have rights....????

WHERE ?

Yes, I can...

LOL, say someone who just posted a string of complaints ...

 

Bluesguy said: ↑
Oh geeezzz not that again, having a social security card is not the definition of a individual human being, a person.

No one ever said having a social security card was the definition a (an) individual human being....LOL do you always take the word of an Anti-Choicer s??!!!LOL

 

As a rhetorical question, I cannot help but wonder how many who object so strenuously to any sort of legal abortion also believe in or practice having children injected with the clot shots?

Now that there is evidence of some deformed and unhealthy babies being born to mothers who had taken the shot, I wonder how that is reconciled? How can someone who advocates against legal abortion also advocate for the toxic injections that don't work against a virus with a 99% survival rate?

 

As I said, 23-24 weeks.

We are discussing the UNBORN...there is a huge difference between born and unborn.

Preemies require extraordinary means to survive.

 

True. Denying that human conception is a human being is to deny ones own foundation. And that is not being in ones right mind. What gets me are those who carefully disassemble or dismember whole thoughts in advocacy of the unborn like serial killers looking for the soul of their victim and declare it nonexistent amongst the heap. Along the course of arguing that a human conception is not a human being, it is in a sense their own humanity being relegated to nothingness.

 

Hahaha! Looks like the "Right to Life" is in print. I do not see abortion anywhere.

 

What are you LOL-ing about? I just said you could complain all you like.

 

The term "anti-vaxxers" was fed to the gullible for the purpose of demonizing a large group. The vast majority have all their necessary vaccines. It is nothing more than a sweeping generalization fallacy.

My evidence of this products inferiority is the fact that those consuming this product still catch and spread Covid and must exercise the same precautions as those that did not consume the product.

Speaking of science, what is the risk of hospitalization/death for young healthy people?

 

No fair, you took your blinders off. You weren't supposed to see that.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
explain why you approve of killing a ZEF because the woman was raped?



So you can't explain it.

You can't explain how an abortion due to rape is different or has a different outcome than an abortion due to consensual sex?


I ask Anti-Choicers this question whenever they make an exception for rape.

They claim a fetus is an "innocent precious life" that shouldn't be killed.

So I want to know why it isn't an "innocent precious life" that can be killed if it's the product of rape.

I point out that an abortion due to rape is the same procedure and outcome as an abortion due to consensual sex.


Their making it an exception shows that Anti-Choicers really want women punished for having consensual sex...


.
Yes, and this issue, and the Anti-Choicers inability to address it, shows clearly Anti-Choicers really want women punished for having consensual sex...





It doesn't matter why Pro-Choicers want women to retain the right to their own body, it's the right thing to do.



So you think it's wrong for women to retain the right to their own bodies why? Do you hate women ?? Do ou think they are "lesser than" men so don't deserve the same rights?






Who ?



OH DO please show me who addressed it...show me the post....where is it????






Well , the topic here is "exception for rape"....but if you need to drag other things in here BECAUSE YOU COULD NOT ANSWER "WHY AN EXCEPTION FOR RAPE? " then I guess I'll address this paragraph.


The point of viability is 23-24 weeks when the fetus becomes viable, able to live on it's own outside the womb.....before that it is dependent on the woman it's in and she has NO obligation to sustain the life of another using her own body.

There is no "baby" to "murder".....you have no proof there is..





So you reiterate that you don't think women should have rights....????




WHERE ?




Yes, I can...



LOL, say someone who just posted a string of complaints ...

LOL, I see you STILL can't address the post of mine you quoted....LOL

 

Are you going to answer my question?

You claim a man has a "say" in pregnancy...

What if he "says" have an abortion.

Despite your attempt , you can't dazzle me with BS...

 

No one knew what kind of changes would occur from C-section vs via the birth canal. Would the lack of "birth trauma" have an effect one way or the other? What kind of contact are you thinking that won't be present with artificial womb technology?

I'm not going to say that such a technology can't be abused(what technology can be abused), but it can also do a lot of good. My sister, who had to have a hysterectomy early in life, would then have a chance of having her own child. Or a child that the parents wanted to be saved but the woman can't maintain the pregnancy. ZEF transplanting could save the offspring by moving it to a surrogate or AW.

 

So if a baby is born and placed on a table and no "artifical" means are used to support it, no one feeds it or provides it water it's all on it's own, and you come back a week later how viable would it have been?

 

I can address anything. You see nothing. Your posts are a confused, angry mess, probably because you spend more time LOL-ing AND SCREAMING!!!!!!!!@ LOL!!!!!! than thinking.

If you are able to ask one, focused, organized and coherent question, which I doubt, I'll try to answer. Unless I've already answered.

 

More LOL!!!!!!!!-ing, I see.

You know, giggling is not the same as debating. Try the latter sometime.

 

That is an implication that is being added, not held for the most part.

 

Artificial MEDICAL means... that's OBVIOUS to anyone discussing viable as opposed to premature..

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
explain why you approve of killing a ZEF because the woman was raped?



So you can't explain it.

You can't explain how an abortion due to rape is different or has a different outcome than an abortion due to consensual sex?


I ask Anti-Choicers this question whenever they make an exception for rape.

They claim a fetus is an "innocent precious life" that shouldn't be killed.

So I want to know why it isn't an "innocent precious life" that can be killed if it's the product of rape.

I point out that an abortion due to rape is the same procedure and outcome as an abortion due to consensual sex.


Their making it an exception shows that Anti-Choicers really want women punished for having consensual sex...


.
Yes, and this issue, and the Anti-Choicers inability to address it, shows clearly Anti-Choicers really want women punished for having consensual sex...





It doesn't matter why Pro-Choicers want women to retain the right to their own body, it's the right thing to do.



So you think it's wrong for women to retain the right to their own bodies why? Do you hate women ?? Do ou think they are "lesser than" men so don't deserve the same rights?






Who ?



OH DO please show me who addressed it...show me the post....where is it????






Well , the topic here is "exception for rape"....but if you need to drag other things in here BECAUSE YOU COULD NOT ANSWER "WHY AN EXCEPTION FOR RAPE? " then I guess I'll address this paragraph.


The point of viability is 23-24 weeks when the fetus becomes viable, able to live on it's own outside the womb.....before that it is dependent on the woman it's in and she has NO obligation to sustain the life of another using her own body.

There is no "baby" to "murder".....you have no proof there is..





So you reiterate that you don't think women should have rights....????




WHERE ?




Yes, I can...



LOL, say someone who just posted a string of complaints ...



LOL, I see you STILL can't address the post of mine you quoted....LOL

Here's one you missed:
Well , the topic here is "exception for rape"....but if you need to drag other things in here BECAUSE YOU COULD NOT ANSWER "WHY AN EXCEPTION FOR RAPE? "

OK. let loose the excuses for not answering it

Is this where you claim you did answer it but your answer can't be found ?

 

LOL more EXCUSES for not being able to address posts ....is that the same as debating to you???

 

Debating involves responding to succinct and clear points, not accusations of misogyny as you have been doing. If you can manage to post one -- not a torrent of 50 accusations -- I will respond here, assuming I have not already responded.

 

If what is in the constitution?

 

If you don't know the difference between no choice and choice, or rape and consensual intimacy as it applies both to conception and the woman. Then I cannot make reality any more real for you.

 

Abortion. You said it was in the Constitution did you not remember the title of your own thread?