I'm a progressive I'm also pro life, abortion rights are doomed, give up the fight.

Only if it's wanted...…

 

That isn't the control issue we're talking about and you know it(or should know it)

That's not CHOICE.

.



SO WHAT!?? That hasn't got anything to do with rights or anything else...

You can ask all you want, it's still all her decision and no one else's....

 

Not all pregnancies progress well

 

So it’s natural for humans to be forced to sustain the life of another person against their will?

When can I have the government kick down your door and make you give me a kidney?

 

Let us try this again

The pregnancy is causing cardiomyopathy the only option unless she risks permanent disability is a termination

Who has the overriding right?

 

That failed long before the internet and abortion pills. One would have to be unable to think past the tip of their nose to think that abortion laws would be enforceable.

Of course, you may think that reps are anxious to hand an easy victory over to the dems by trying such a foolish move.

 

Why a rape victim?

 

Political gain.

 

It is a matter of rights.
The anti-abortion people believe the fetus has more rights than the woman from fertilized egg to birth.
The choice people say the fetus has less rights than the woman up to viability when they become equal.

 

You are correct...Anti-Choicer want to look benevolent by making an exception for rape not realizing that it blows up their premise that all "life is precious".

 

A fetus has no rights at all prior to birth.

RvW gave STATES the right to REGULATE abortions in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters but imposed the restriction regarding the health and life of the woman concerned.

 

That is true, they think the fetus should have more rights than anyone else....because THEY aren't affected.

A fetus has NO rights until birth.

At viability the fetus has " protections", not rights..

 

Semantics..giving them "protections" implies they have rights otherwise they would need no and deserve no "protections".

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
That is true, they think the fetus should have more rights than anyone else....because THEY aren't affected.

A fetus has NO rights until birth.

At viability the fetus has " protections", not rights..

No, "right" and "protection" are two different words for a reason, they mean two different things.

IF, after viability, the fetus threatens the health or life of the woman it's in, it can be killed. "Protections" can be lifted, "rights" can't.

 

Not true all. Rights can be "lifted". Rob a bank or shoot someone and see. Rights can be "lifted" if society judges the actions taken are for the greater good.
An example would be choosing to save the woman over the fetus after viability.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
That is true, they think the fetus should have more rights than anyone else....because THEY aren't affected.

A fetus has NO rights until birth.

At viability the fetus has " protections", not rights..

No, "right" and "protection" are two different words for a reason, they mean two different things.

IF, after viability, the fetus threatens the health or life of the woman it's in, it can be killed. "Protections" can be lifted, "rights" can't.

Rights can be suspended if a CRIME is committed.

And the fetus has no rights to lift….it has protections.....


Are you actually saying the word "right" and "protection" are the same word and have the same meaning?



IF a fetus had rights then it would have the same RESTRICTIONS we all have, it would not have the right to use another's body to sustain it's life.

 

Society comes up with a consensus on what rights individuals have, those rights have changed over time, but those rights are given protections by society.
A fetus has protections against feticide and especially after viability there are increased rights with protections of those rights.

 

The law, the Constitution, determines what rights we have...not "society".

A fetus has no rights.

 

Human "Society" created those social contracts that define our rights.
"A fetus has no rights" is just obstinate neigh saying without an argument.

 

No, our "society" decided (through laws, the Constitution) that fetuses have no rights. They are not BORN so have no rights.


IF they had rights then with those rights comes the RESTRICTIONS we ALL have. We cannot use another's body to sustain our life without consent.

So, since the fetus is using the woman's body to sustain it's life she only has to withdraw her consent for it to do so and out it goes...


Now , what "rights with no restrictions" did you want fetuses to have that no one else has?

 

Again, taken to its logical conclusion, pro-aborts (I refuse to call them pro-choice because that misnomer is deceiving), would want "post birth abortions" and mandated euthanasia for the "undesirables"

 

No such thing as a pro abort so your argument falls flat

 

Rights are not the same for everyone. Children for example have less rights than adults. A fetus has less rights than the woman and can suffer the ultimate "restriction".

 

There are no pro-abortioners unless they have significant issues with human kind. That's like saying I'm pro-appendectomy. They are pro-choice because the woman should decide what happens to her body. She can go to term or not. Her choice. Eugenics does not follow. It has nothing to do with control of your own body. Specious.

 

The right as a PERSON does not change. ALL children have the right to life. They do no get the privilege to drive a car until they are old enough.

The fetus has no rights. It can't because it is inside and part of and attached to the woman....it is NOT a separate person.

One has to be BORN to have rights.

"PROTECTIONS" can be applied WITHOUT granting rights....and protections are applied to viable fetuses...NOT RIGHTS.