*Sigh* So what you're saying is that the fetus is a person if the woman chose to keep it, but not otherwise.
Nope I'm not saying that at all, and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from my response.
(My bold) I don't have an opinion on self-abortions. I assume that those are rare, but I haven't looked into it. Illegal abortions are illegal, of course. But you'd have to look into each state's laws to see how those abortions are handled, who can be charged, & what the specific charges would be. It's doable, but someone else will have to review that. The problem with the feticide rulings is that - as far as I can tell - there have been NO convictions @ all for killing only the fetus.
Everybody should get equality! Oh, but it's alright to kill muggers, capital criminals, anyone who threatens you, because in these cases they've initiated force against you and invited retaliatory force. All we're proposing is that abortion is another one of those exceptions because the mother never consented to the pregnancy. I suggest you redirect your argument.
You have missed the point of my questions. Your claim is that - in order for there to be a crime committed against the prenatal child... the mother would have to be violated (assaulted or killed) as well. Laws against self induced abortions actually prove against that claim. Don't they.
The mother consented to pregnancy by having unprotected sex. She deserves no "self defense" against an innocent child's life, because it's all her fault.
The pro-choice position states.....there is no equality, because they paint a bullseye on every life in the womb. The child does not stand a change...with a position that allows for its destruction.
You make it out like we want women to have abortions. This is false. In fact I believe most average people from both sides want the need for abortion to end completely.
Not true. If you want abortion legal...what does that say? It says that you believe someone should have the legal right to kill their child...whether or not you would or not. You want killing legal. Is this anti-child? What is it? Is it pro-life for all children? No you just won't face facts...and let me ask you this. If there is nothing wrong with abortion...why do you squirm when it is described like this? And if there is something wrong with it...how could you possibly want it legal? How could you possibly want to put all children concevied and living in the womb...in jeopardy. Not all bullseyes get hit. But it is there on the heads of every unborn in the womb. The law says women can kill. So don't even go there you won't win. I have characterized your position perfectly...you just are uncomfortable about it....and hey I don't blame you.
Hi CM, thank you for the reply. Suffice to say, you and I have a difference of opinion on the characterization of the term Pro-Choice. I will however concede, that I perhaps should have written in my previous post... "Absolute mischaracterization 'in my opinion'." I appreciate your opinion CM, and fully support your choice in making and sharing it (respectfully/civilly, of course). ...funny how that works, isn't it? Regards, A.
It says the same thing most people want, that is that abortion should remain legal. No, that is what you believe and it is totally irrelevant because it is not supported by anything but religious dogma and society should not be subject to it. No, we want abortion to remain legal. It is not as no child in involved. A single cell does not a child make. More so than most conservatives hold. What facts would those be? Described like what? With lies, fake photos, and misrepresentations? No it does not, the law allows women to decide when to continue a pregnancy and when not to. It also keep other from dictating to them how to live their lives, clearly something you shun, but it most certainly does not say that anyone can kill in the sense you are attempting to garner emotional points. As far as abortion is concerned you have been loosing always. So you think, but come to think of it that is all you do characterize others since you have no rational argument against abortion. Most people do not like to be characterized. But I blame you for the miss-characterization.
Right, so if I invite you into my house (consent) and you start to injure me I can't do anything to stop you .. because that is what you are saying. and yet again you seem to forget that the cry of "innocent" means relatively little in self defense laws. Sam I need to ask you a few questions so we can move on; 1. Do you consider sexual intercourse to be the same or separate action from pregnancy? 2. Do you think a person has the right to defend themselves against injury from another person? 3. Do you think that if the injury is serious enough and you have no recourse to stop it that deadly force is justified?
Actually that is misrepresentation .. we do not force, coerce or otherwise persuade any female to have an abortion . .so please explain how we "paint a bulls eye on every life in the womb"
IMHO, the pro-choice position states no such thing. Sometimes the dramatic hyperbole stated by some does far more to hurt their cause than they realize. The ^^ is one of these cases.
