More abortions = less welfare. Pick one, right wingers !

Yet you're more than happy to take people's earned wages and give them to someone else based on your beliefs, interesting.

 

Check my post history. For today, in fact. I am not religious whatsoever, I think religion is one of the dumbest things we've ever invented. The fact that you make the assumption that I am shows you aren't thinking about this.

Like I said, even of you don't like others' opinions, it is false to argue that it's a clear issue. You may not realize it but there a millions of people who don't like abortion. As I said, it's a moral quandry - right of the woman to her body vs right of a person to live (see my above post for why it's human). It can never be resolved, people will always argue about it. I'm saying, meet halfway. Average out everyone's opinion. That's the fairest way to do it. No one gets fully what they want, because if anyone did, it would come at the complete expense of the other side. And when there's no clear right answer, you can't just shut people out.

It's not a matter of telling people what to do. Anyone who knows me knows I'm the last person who wants the government telling people what to do. But murder is murder, and thus we need to determine at what point a fetus has full protection of the law.

Average it. You won't get what you want, they won't get what they want, but one will not win completely and the other lose completely.

 

If my 30 year old can be a child of mine....then I imagine the off spring in a woman's womb is a child as well.

 

I will ask again, show me the proof of such a claim.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not a child. It's a fetus which is not a person. It does not have rights over a person. Something that does not exist cannot be granted rights, especially over a living breathing woman.

 

No facts. Only your religious belief. You can go on believing what you want but you have no right to force your beliefs on others.

But next time try to honest about what you think instead of playing some game with referenda. Are you ashamed of your stance that you need to trick other people?

 

And asking a group of people to choose between those two options doesn't work either but it's being asked anyway and I stand by my statement.

 

It is a fact that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act defines a child in the womb at any stage of development as a child.

It is also a fact that the law also makes it a crime of murder to illegally kill a child in the womb.

And it is also a fact that the UVVA makes and exception to those facts - in order to keep voluntary abortions legal.

18 USC § 1841 - Protection of unborn children

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111 (murder), 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

(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.

 

It is a fact that it is not the mother making a choice in UVVA.

 

Okay.... so what about your denial of the fact that it's a child?

 

Where you are confused is that while the right-to-lifers will fight for the right of every baby to be born many of them do not care about the baby once it is born and are some of those that want all welfare programs ended. It is selective compassion.

- - - Updated - - -

It is only a child at a point when it is developed enough to qualify for that title, before that is is called a fetus, not a child.

 

One law written to find away to punish someone for not letting a mother carry to term is proper. Do you not agree?

The law was introduced by pro-life proponents and played on the sympathy for Laci and Connor Peterson. Still 163 House members and 38 Senate members voted against it. If you see this act as a victory for pro-life, it is a very sleazy method.

 

If "left to its own devices", the zygote will quickly die. Don't pretend that a woman has nothing to do with the creation of a viable human. The zef must satisfy all its requirements for life using the woman's body, and to the detriment of the woman's body. If she chooses not to allow her body to be used in that way, it's her business.

 

The SCOTUS continues to uphold convictions under the UVVA and they have yet to entertain any challenges to the law.

Do you think they are in on it?

 

The difference between a fetus and a born baby is simply time. Nothing magical happens the moment a person is born that suddenly gives them conciousness and thoughts, it already has those - but only as much as its underdeveloped brain can allow at the time.

To sit there and say that a fetus is not human, that it is something different we should just be able to execute willy nilly no matter what - that's a callous disregard for life. That's like saying that because animals aren't human we should just go around killing whatever we want because we're superior and can do so without consequence - again, callous disregard for life.

To say it doesn't exist is also stupid, it very clearly exists. It is not some growth inside a woman, it is a separate being, but one that has not yet developed enough to maintain its own life, thus the existence of the mother. It is alive, it can breathe once its lungs are developed, and furthermore it's not just some part of the woman - it's DNA is completely different!

 

Who would want to challenge a law involving a woman and her fetus? Oh, wait, the religious right has.

 

Thank you. I have been trying to tell the anti-abortion people that for years.

 

But that doesn't disprove the fact that the zygote is still a separate being, and the question is, what rights does it have, despite not being born yet?

I love how people automatically think that because I can argue both sides, that means I'm fully against which ever side you happen to be on.

 

mod edit>>>rule 2<<< I see both sides of the debate, and I see neither as better, so I propose meeting halfway - averaging opinions. That fact that you insist that - because I even RECOGNIZE the other side as having a valid point - I am some religious nut, is just stupid. Ok? mod edit>>>rule 2<<< not in the least because I'm an atheist. If you checked my post history like I told you to you'd have found that out - but you didn't because it wouldn't fit your pre-conceived notions of who I am and you don't want facts to change that.

 

Some of us non religious folks have challenged those laws too you know.

 

Actually, it is more of a presence in a woman's body. It does not become a being until it exists on its own. What rights do fetuses have in all other animals?

 

Unrealistic fairly tale BS! So you're going to convince the dumbest, poorest people to stop the most enjoyable activity that they can get for FREE ... good luck with all that! The hell with "morality", the bottom line is, nothing FEELS BETTER than fornicating and in most cases it's free! Fornicating has praying to Jesus beat by a 1000 miles on the enjoyment scale!

 

You have failed to provide proof. Simply because no such proof exists. It is established fact a fetus is not a person and does not deserve any rights.

 

The zef is not separate, it is attached. Detachment means death for it. It only has the rights that the pregnant woman gives it.

 

mod edit>>>response to deleted<<< So you gave up any argument about being unbiased when you asked for a referendum where the average sets the rules. We have Roe v Wade no matter how much people are trying to change it but it is still on the books. It was put on the books because women choose reasons to abort the fetus and they were using unhealthy procedures The law created healthier procedures, especially later in the pregnancy. I know, I know, medical procedures have gotten better on saving the early fetus expulsions but that really doesn't change the right of the woman. She should decide whether I agree with her or don't agree with her.

Yeah, I have heard that one before. Sorry, no matter how much you have tried to be an atheist, you still think a presence is a being.

Never called you a religious nut. I said "your religious beliefs". I have them too although I do not believe in religious institutions.

 

Why? Do you know more than the mother? Or did even a smidgen of religion remain?

Still what right do you have to tell someone else what they can or can not do?