Your position seems to be inside of the womb okay, outside of the womb not okay. It's the same human being though. You're just changing what you call it depending on where it is. "fetus" inside the womb, "baby" outside the womb
Did you ever see that sci-fi 1966 film Fantastic Voyage? They shrink down and go inside another person's body. How about The Human Centipede? http://southpark.cc.com/clips/382784/fully-interfaced-mouth-to-anus
Not everyone on the left. There are groups like Feminists for Life, New Wave Feminists, Pro-life Humanists and Feminists for life. The shrill advocates for abortion who control the democratic party do not speak for the left, or all women.
You could reduce abortions by 40% if you were willing to provide Long Acting Reversible Contraceptives to high risk groups. Are you willing to pay those additional taxes? Yes or no?
That disingenuous LifeSiteSpews disinformation has been debunked and your other source lacks any shred of credibility.
Too bad. You think that's what this is about? That you have an inherent right to have sex without any possibility of pregnancy whatsoever. (And it is very very small if you use the right precautions, though a lot of people don't)
Siamese twins are also connected. It's true the fetus is connected to the woman. But the reverse of that is also true. The woman is connected to the fetus. Why would you think that connection would take away rights from only one of them? Remember, what you're basically saying is that the fetus is less than because it's connected to someone else. Here's your original quote: So now the only other half of your argument is that it's inside her.
The fetus has no rights so they CAN'T be "taken away"! The fetus has NO RIGHTS whatsoever. Only the woman concerned can DECIDE for herself what rights she wants to SHARE with her fetus. NO ONE ELSE gets to make that decision for her. Is that supposed to mean something?
Conjoined twins are separated after being born for good reason. The fetus IS less than the Mother....just ask it....oh that's right, YOU CANT.
.....That's because we have names for things that are different...why do you insist a fetus can be called a teenager? ... because that is exactly what you are doing. Stages in life have names and calling a fetus a baby to further your cause with emotion rather than facts seems to be all you have....and that's not an argument. ....AND it is not just a matter of location....but I see you have steadfastly refused to learn what pregnancy is and the relationship of the fetus to the woman it's in. It's hard to believe in this day, the 21 st century, there are people like you who actually believes the fetus , which you believe looks exactly like the Gerber baby from conception, just floats around inside the woman for no reason whatsoever.... YOU ARE WRONG and you have NEVER proven your view is correct, never, you have never proven the fetus looks like the Gerber baby at every stage and is on inside the woman because it has an umbilical cord. You have never shown proof of anything....so you have no argument, no case.....and as usual , NO POINT.
Here we go again....the Anti-Choicer's "proof"....movies and cartoons... .. ......and the inability to know the difference between fiction and real life...... Are you ever going to explain what babies swimming have to do with a woman's right to abortion or did you forget the purpose of this thread or just want to duck pertinent but inconvenient questions ? You never could explain what Panda Gestation has to do with abortion , will this thread be the same ?
Yes, and other stupid women and men who don't realize that when some citizens (pregnant women) lose their right to their own body then WE ALL COULD EVENTUALLY LOSE THE RIGHT TO OUR OWN BODIES...
Sure. No problem. I would even pay more in taxes for a single payer healthcare system. After all, I am an old FDR kinda fellow. I left the DP when it became clear clinton was gonna help to dismantle what FDR put into place, with the democrats of his era.
Yes I do believe that if abortions were illegal, more women would die from having them. Before abortion became legal, getting an abortion was still done, but it put the mother at greater risk. And it would be so nice if making it illegal would actually stop abortions, but as with drugs, we all should know this would not ever happen. Which is why I have to assume my position, for reality dictates it. The best way to address this issue is as I have noted. Society needs to make it a bad thing for people to be irresponsible, as we make it a bad thing to sexually molest children, and incorporate that attitude towards irresponsible behavior. Yet we have made abortion acceptable, and of course when you do that you will maximize abortions instead of minimize them. Of course, this would never solve the problem completely, but making abortions illegal has never solved the problem either. We must recognize basic reality, for to ignore it doesn't work either.
Congratulations! You are the first and only person who opposes abortions who has been willing to put their money where their mouth is and make a serious attempt at reducing abortions instead of just trying to make them illegal.
I don't think this attitude is rare among the old FDR democrats. And that is what I am, at age 76. We just don't have many of them posting on political forums. Most of us are probably older people. Who voted for FDR democrats, until bill clinton went to the right on economic issues, and became a neoliberal, gilded age kinda guy. The DP followed him. Leaving us out in the cold.
forcing rape victims to have their rapists baby is a horrible thing - this should be a choice only for the women
A perfect example of the shrillness I was talking about. You don't speak for all women. And putting your comments in boldface doesn't make them more valid.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Yes, and other stupid women and men who don't realize that when some citizens (pregnant women) lose their right to their own body then WE ALL COULD EVENTUALLY LOSE THE RIGHT TO OUR OWN BODIES... . You are correct and I didn't, I spoke with my own words, I didn't speak for anyone but myself..... Doesn't make them less valid....and YOU couldn't address the content at all, just the delivery, so you must have no facts or arguments whatsoever.
Forcing any woman to have any baby is a horrible thing....that should be a choice for the woman only...
She can adopt. I really think there should be a way for the woman to get her child back if she later decides she wants to keep it. It would save her the trouble of having to get pregnant again... I agree that no woman anywhere should be forced to GET pregnant.
