It's obvious Abortion is wrong

So all you have are complete and utter falsehoods now?

Is that what desperation does?

 

No, this is what I stated:

Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post

Yes, an unconscious woman who can't respond exactly like a fetus can't. One HUGE difference, the woman has rights and the fetus doesn't

Got that "proof " that women aren't harmed by pregnancy yet ?? You sure have said it often enough with NO proof whatsoever....what are you waiting for??"""""

 

Abortion doesn't cause harm and you have never proven it has.


You even still comment on the fetus not causing the woman harm , but you, LIKE ALL OTHER ANTI-CHOICERS, have NEVER proven that




AND neither of you realize that YOU are NOT responsible for whether women suffer harm or not. The woman decides what she will accept...the WOMAN DECIDES, THE WOMAN has the POWER....YOU have NO control of women ...none, they do as they please and YOU can't stop them ...they have more power than you do....
...and isn't that the REAL problem

 

I sure would like to see the law that says women lose their rights once they have sex or get pregnant..... Sounds more like a Anti-Choicers wet dream....so either show the law or have the decency to quit claiming women lose their rights because they have sex......have you any idea of how ridiculous that sounds..???

That's something you repeat but never have any proof.


Along with claiming that pregnancy doesn't harm women....it's an insane thing to say PLUS you say it repeatedly with NO PROOF EVER.

Do you know what that's a sign of??....



And there is no proof because pregnancy DOES harm women...

 

This is such a good example of the "a woman must be punished for choosing to have sex" mode of thinking. Pro-choicers value children and the importance of their rearing so they don't think a child should be a punishment.

(A) Being "natural" doesn't confer any special rights, it's "natural" to die from pneumonia but it doesn't have to be allowed.
(B) Since the fetus doesn't have any rights except for those given to it by the host woman, the host woman will decide whether to give or not.

All pregnancies damage women. During the pregnancy her life is endangered and she cannot continue with her normal activities in many cases, she will suffer from nausea, frequent urination, constipation, fatigue, heartburn, clumsiness. Pregnancy puts a strain on all organs of a woman's body, not JUST her uterus, so she may suffer from life-threatening eclampsia or hemorrhage during the birth. I'm sure you would consider that damage if it happened to you. After the pregnancy, her body is left with various degrees of damage from stretch marks to C-section scars to pelvic floor damage requiring surgery to repair. All of the discomfort and pain is "natural" but does not have to be allowed, and does not have to be allowed to remain IF it is possible to be surgically corrected.

 

The Anti-Choicers insistence that pregnancy does no harm to women stems from the fact that they won't ever have to experience it and women are nothing more than cattle to them so they don't really care if it injures women..





......that's one of the reasons I refrain from calling them "Pro-Life", the only "life" they care about is theirs.

 

If the woman is going to have the right to terminate her pregnancy, then procreation is tantamount to murder. She loses rights when she procreates.

 

YOU brought up the unborn not having a choice. Do try to keep up, k?

 

Prove it.

 

All I can do is smh because if I say anything, I'll get infracted......

 

What do you mean "if' ? Women DO have the right to terminate their pregnancy



I don't think you know what "procreate" means.


SHOW THE LAW THAT SAYS WOMEN LOSE THEIR RIGHTS WHEN THEY "PROCREATE" OR QUIT SAYING IT SINCE IT'S OBVIOUSLY UNTRUE..

 

Assumes factoids not in evidence in this universe or any other for that matter!

 

What you describe is a murder committed by one person against another person. Clearly you are trying to draw an analogy to a late term abortion, but an abortion (in the last few weeks) is the removal of an incomplete human body from the host. We know the human body (at the time of an abortion) is incomplete because the completion of gestation triggers the birthing process (e.g. labor pains and dilation). Then the newborn would be a person and we could discuss how wrong it would be to murder it in its crib as you described.

Murder of a person (i.e. already born)... Wrong.
Abortion... Right in some cases. Only wrong if it is done against the will of the pregnant woman.

 

One second before birth, the fetal brain cells are developing, but have not been activated. According to Scientific American, "the fetus is actively sedated by the low oxygen pressure (equivalent to that at the top of Mount Everest), the warm and cushioned uterine environment and a range of neuroinhibitory and sleep-inducing substances produced by the placenta and the fetus itself"
Ref: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/
The fetus (in the last few weeks of a normal pregnancy) still has not started becoming a person because it has not yet had its first meaningful thought.

One second after birth, the profound changes (increased oxygen levels, reduction of inhibitors) activate the mind so the newborn can begin trying to make sense of the world around it. According to some, it may not be technically sentient yet, but at least with a functional brain it can begin its journey through personhood.

Also the fetus is on the inside of the woman (and so could be considered a parasite if it was unwanted) and the newborn is on the outside of the woman... but you knew that.

 

I think it's IRRESPONSIBLE to post things that can't be backed up with facts....just sayin'

 

The child is the issue.

 

Given the power conferred to it by the constitution, would you be for the law if congress passed a law to effect blocking the woman from abortion upon procreation?

Suppose it was done as an amendment to the constitution?

 

Lousy attempt at a dodge


THIS was the issue we were discussing:

Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post

Abortion doesn't cause harm and you have never proven it has.


You even still comment on the fetus not causing the woman harm , but you, LIKE ALL OTHER ANTI-CHOICERS, have NEVER proven that




AND neither of you realize that YOU are NOT responsible for whether women suffer harm or not. The woman decides what she will accept...the WOMAN DECIDES, THE WOMAN has the POWER....YOU have NO control of women ...none, they do as they please and YOU can't stop them ...they have more power than you do....
...and isn't that the REAL problem

- - - Updated - - -

SHOW THE LAW THAT SAYS WOMEN LOSE THEIR RIGHTS WHEN THEY "PROCREATE" OR QUIT SAYING IT SINCE IT'S OBVIOUSLY UNTRUE..


...and since procreate means to bring forth a child, have a child, then there is NO abortion with PROCREATION

So what you're really saying is the moment a woman gives birth she loses her rights...

 

This is one major reason why I just do not like these little chats.

I am sick of your diversions.

You were asked a simple question. I don't mind so much you don't want to reply, but then you go off the rails entirely.

 

My diversion? YOU are the one who diverted what I was discussing with another poster to : ""The child is the issue".


Then you had no good response to subsequent posts and are whining again...

I don't mind so much you can't reply, but then you go off the rails entirely.

 

These are all great facts, but facts are not enough to establish normative action. The is-ought gap cannot be bridged with only "is".

This is just begging the question though. You have seemingly arbitrarily defined what it means to be a person in a meaningful sense.

Again, great facts. But facts are not enough to establish normative action.

This is the only pro-choice argument that makes any sense to me. But I think those who honestly make it have to also accept the argument applied to children out of the womb, that the woman or the parents have the right to stop supporting the child.

All the other arguments need to arbitrarily divide the line between personhood and non-personhood. No matter how accurately this is done, it doesn't change it's fundamental flaw.

 

You: "" But I think those who honestly make it have to also accept the argument applied to children out of the womb, that the woman or the parents have the right to stop supporting the child."""

No, Pro-Choice only applies to women's right to choose abortion or giving birth, nothing else....Pro-Choicers do not have to agree on anything else.

 

No one is forcing you to see the logical conclusions of your arguments. God forbid you ever have to wrestle with that.

 

They DO have the right to stop supporting it outside the UTERUS. They can place it for adoption.

 

What if they don't?