right, no breast should have a crease across the TOP even with a push up bra there is a slope, not a round line
exactly, not all women are supermodels even if they DON'T have babies. and tears are easily treatable, most times they use a small surgical cut to prevent tearing, it heals quicker. if you cut your arm, do you flail around and scream you are permanently damaged? do you file for disability because of the trauma? no, you move on with your life. (and not every woman has to have one) Look at the women on the site you posted, none of them are permanently disfigured, anyone of them can exercise, eat right, lose the weight and get back into shape. No, not supermodel shape, just better shape. They are not 'damaged', just DIFFERENT than they were before. and you can not tell by looking at those women if they are like that because of pregnancy OR because of lifestyle choices..did they exercise and eat right or did they figure, hey I'm pregnant, I can eat anything? I would guess that a woman that had had an abortion but still lived the same lifestyle would look about the same.
Please post a link to those posts. We all know women generally wear clothes in public and thank god for spandex and industrial strength bras. Or perhaps we should thank Dupont. Also post a link to those posts claiming women are "weaker" from pregnancy/childbirth. I won't be waiting up tonight for those links.
Pro-choicers do not consider a mother "damaged goods;" She is not anyone's "possession." However, stretched and torn skin from pregnancy is damaged. That is just reality, and it is dishonest to deny that reality.
http://www.politicalforum.com/abort...ets-abortion-mill-left-die-7.html#post4251726 just one for now, dont' worry, I'll have more time this evening and can pull more for you..
it's dishonest to hysterically cry that all women that have children get stretched and torn skin when they don't...AND not acknowledge that people in GENERAL get stretched skin and torn skin..this is not something caused exclusively by pregnancy. no the pro abortionists aim all their vitriol at mothers, hating on them for some obscure reason as if having a baby somehow devalues their view that abortions are wondrous causes for celebration. They don't seem like they'll be happy until all babies are aborted and all women meet their impossible "Stepford Wife" ideal body. Next I suppose they'll go after women that overeat...that causes stretch marks and saggy skin too. and we wonder why women's rights are not as far along as they should be...we have misogynist men trying to keep us out and women hating feminazis on the other side trying to make us feel inadequate and they BOTH put appearance as the most important thing about a woman. we are more than our appearances.
The woman in the photo has obviously had a child. You can tell. Women can cover up the damage with clothes or have plastic surgery, but for most of them, the damage is there, and you can usually tell.
I am 100% sure I can find a woman who hasn't had a child who looks very similar. Seeking out the exception to prove the rule is a weak tactic.
Not so much. I have actually never posted Heidi Kulm's name on this board. You, however, sought out the flabbiest bikini photo you could find to TRY to make a point, but you failed. BTW one copy is sufficient.
Does it always? Is that the only cause of stretch marks? Is the risk of getting stretch marks enough to justify wanton homicide?
It does in the vast majority of pregnancies. It's a woman's body and her decision if she wants to risk getting stretch marks or even death. Your claim of homicide is contingent on whether a zef is a person. You haven't proved it is.
You haven't been paying attention, I have proven this and the law has recognized a zef as a person definitively! See the FEDERAL Unborn Victims of Violence Act!!!
Why not put to the rest this once and for all? Please quote the exact part of the Act that does what you say.
"The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]" I have posted all of this before, so you either have a VERY short memory or you are among the most dishonest posters here. "(a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section." "d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act#Text_of_the_law Bring on the nonsensical reply you are so well known for. a child is not a "person" right?
All this says is that it is illegal to kill a injure a fetus (except for abortion). By what authority is a "child in utero" a person?
Where the f**k is the definition of person in there as applicable to a fetus, or anything else it is called?
Google has nothing to do with this. You stated that the Act defines fetuses as persons. Obviously that is not the case since you are unable to show even the word person in that law. But of course as usual , when you were asked to show proof you are evading by referring to Google. How pathetic can you get?
Your dictionary chicanery is blatantly dishonest. A person by definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/person A child by definition: A "child" in the definition of "person" is meaning #1: A person between birth and full growth. It is NOT # 4. Who do you think you are fooling?
