so you are saying it is not its own being until birth? sorry that is wrong. It is unique and separate. It is attached by an umbilical cord which is not part of the fetus, or mother. There is no proof laws do not stop, or lessen abortions, only assumptions. No proof MORE deaths(fetus and woman combined) result from abortion laws
well look around you, they walk the street everyday. It is A human. Please if you get a chance read the White paper by Dr. Condic http://bdfund.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf
What exactly are you trying to accomplish? You want abortion made illegal so women have a harder life..Gee, good for you ...how noble. You want abortion made illegal because in some warped illusion you think that will end abortions..... You want abortions made illegal so more women will become poorer because of children they can't afford. YOU must like having lots of poor kids suffering from poverty...you enjoy that??? You must want more kids "in the system" waiting for a home which Repub/Anti-Choicers promised they'd have if women gave them up for adotion... you enjoy that? Or are you one of those who believe the more desperate poor people we have will help us lower wages and pay people dirt AND have more soldiers to ship off to our very lucrative wars ... enjoy that??? Or do you straight out think women who have consensual sexneed to be punished? What is it? Abortion will NOT go away.....NEVER.
Only thing fact you displayed is abortion will never go away, everything else is typical gibberish that you like to spew and deserves zero response. You can rant all day long, but nobody will listen to you
From your link: The fact that life is truly a continuum further complicates the question of when a new life commences. Most human beings are produced from the union of two preexisting cells: sperm and egg. Sperm and egg cells were, in turn, generated from living cells that preceded them in the testes and ovaries, and so forth, back indefi- nitely to the beginning of all life. In light of the continuous nature of living cells, defining the beginning of a new organism as the onset of zygotic transcription or the breakdown of nuclear membranes is intellectually and scientifically unsatisfying Consideration of when life begins is an interesting question but useless in regards to abortion. Women simply make their own decisions regardless of law, regardless of religious prohibitions or "shoulds". Women have been having abortions for thousands of years and aren't likely to stop until there exists a foolproof method of birth control. Even then, there will be cases when a pregnancy was begun in good faith but a change in circumstances demands a change in plans. Because women have been having abortions for so long without worrying about prosecution, they know they can continue, that law enforcement cannot secure evidence of abortions. Government cannot stop abortions, it is powerless to do so, but they can affect the numbers performed by providing comprehensive sex education and free and easily available birth control. Reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies is the ONLY way to reduce abortion.
"Gibberish" translated: "questions I can't answer honestly " Yes, abortion will not go away, so why do you want to make it illegal. And THAT is not gibberish...it's a question...why can't you answer it? AND YOU have no idea what anyone else will listen to.
so humans that require some form of assistants to live are not A human there for legal to indiscriminately kill so all those quadriplegics on ventilators can just be unplugged at will and left for dead every qualification you try to use to determine what is a human and what isn't either happens with in the womb or after birth there is none that happens they day of a humans birth so to justify killing the unborn every qualification you sight will either allow you to kill the born or wont allow you to kill the unborn so give it up and admit your killing a human when you commit abortion but you cant or wont do that because then your admitting your own inhumanity
all crimes wont go away when made illegal so why do we make them illegal see the fallacy in your argument
Banning abortions, a medical procedure which occurs entirely within a woman's body, is very much absolute control over that woman's body. You're saying she's got something inside her body and she's required by force of law to keep it there. She's not allowed to remove it, even if she does not want it. I'm not sure what false narratives you're feeding yourself but banning abortion is 100% about controlling women's bodies. Intent is abstract. Actions are what matter. It may be your intent to protect human life but in doing so, you're taking the very real action of telling a woman that her body does not belong to her. That's what you're saying and there's no getting around it no matter how carefully you word it or how many baby photos you surround it with. I never said you can't create reasonable laws that restrict abortion. I'm completely okay with compromises on it, such as a ban after a certain amount of time like 24 weeks, but even in that case I would only support it if exceptions were available for dangers to the mother's health and for the discovery of birth defects unable to be detected prior to the cutoff. My problem is that lifers are not reasonable. It's their way or the highway. And in an either/or situation, I'll always choose unrestricted access to abortion instead of the opposite. Nobody has the right to extend their control of themselves over another person. That's what murder is and why it's rightfully illegal. But this isn't happening in an abortion. There is only one real person involved and that's the mother. The fetus is just a fetus until it's born, a connected dependent thing living inside of another person(which real people don't do). So you've got the right concepts, you're just applying them in the wrong situation.
From the same link: From the moment of sperm-egg fusion, a human zygote acts as a complete whole, with all the parts of the zygote interacting in an orchestrated fashion to generate the structures and relationships required for the zygote to continue developing towards its mature state. Everything the sperm and egg do prior to their fusion is uniquely ordered towards promoting the binding of these two cells. Everything the zygote does from the point of sperm-egg fusion onward is uniquely ordered to prevent further binding of sperm and to promote the preservation and development of the zygote itself. The zygote acts immediately and decisively to initiate a program of development that will, if uninterrupted by accident, disease, or external intervention, proceed seam- lessly through formation of the definitive body, birth, childhood, adolescence, matu- rity, and aging, ending with death. This coordinated behavior is the very hallmark of an organism. Mere human cells, in contrast, are composed of human DNA and other human molecules, but they show no global organization beyond that intrinsic to cells in isolation. A human skin cell removed from a mature body and maintained in the laboratory will continue to live and will divide many times to produce a large mass of cells, but it will not re-establish the whole organism from which it was removed; it will not regenerate an entire human body in culture. Although embryogenesis begins with a single-cell zygote, the complex, integrated process of embryogenesis is the activity of an organism, not the activity of a cell Has lots of uses, especially when deciding whether, or not the unborn is a person that deserves rights. Just because it will not go away does not mean it should be legal. The government has an obligation to act in good faith to protect those under its jurisdiction to include the unborn. It has an obligation to make laws that have the intent of protection and safety. Banning abortions, except in cases where the woman's life, the fetus's life, or if the fetus is already dead accomplishes this. You can argue all day long that abortions will not go away, that abortions will not be reduced, but that does not make it so. I knwo abortions will happen anyways, but will it be 1,000,000? or closer to the 200,000 that was cited in 1967. Will the deaths be this exxagerated 5,000-10,000 number, or closer to the 200 cited in 1967. I actually believe it will be less then 200, as medical advances have come a long way since 1967 to combat injuries associated with abortions. I also feel when combined with the education and contraceptives laws and the exceptions in place will greatly reduce the number of abortions occuring in the United States and the number of deaths that occur. I also think education funding period and a learning friendly environment will help. Also parental counseling and education should be made available. this could also help prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce crime as a whole.
to many big words? to many words with more then one syllable for you? get your mother to help you sound them out The Amazing Sam's Ego doesn't have a problem reading my post
Gibberish translated into nothing factual. Anyone who does listen to it is being as dishonest as you stating them when time and time again myself and other pro lifers have refuted the statements. I have already stated why I want to make it illegal. why do you keep asking it over and over. But one more time just for you. I do not want to make abortion illegal. I think exceptions for danger to the mother, fetus and if the fetus is already dead are good. I want to overturn Roe V Wade and give the powers back to the States. This has been answered many times and this has been my answer many times.
Negative it is 0% about controlling women's bodies the statement that it is about controlling women has been refuted over and over. Negative, that is not what it is saying, it does not say her body is not her body, it is saying she can use her body as an excuse to kill, unless her life is threatened. I have shown where most pregnancies do not qualify I actually support exceptions for danger to the mother, fetus, or if the fetus is already dead. Other then that nope. Abortion is murder, and if illegal would classify as murder and fetal homicide laws would no longer be needed, as it is already law that killing a fetus is murder. The fetus is legally a person in some states, and guess what SCOTUS upholds that as constitutional. So that whole Roe V Wade argument that person does not apply to the unborn is already overruled at the federal level and is left up to the states to decide whether it applies, or not to the unborn. Yet the right to life is still infringed on, because while a state can declare the unborn a person it can not protect the unborn through banning abortion, except when the women's life is in danger, or the fetus is in danger until the second trimester and even then it is restricted what it can do until week 20-24. you are aware the gender of a fetus is known around the end of the first trimester? It is still a thing, even though it is known if it is a boy, or girl? Organs, spine, limbs etc etc start developing during the first month of development. Still just a thing?
LOL! Of course HE doesn't... Try BIG letters at the beginning of sentences...then make sentences .... then spell correctly....then organize the sentences and put a period at the end.
Overturning Roe would make abortions illegal. I do NOT believe in turning it over to states, American women are Americans and shouldn't have to run from state to state to get an abortion... WHY do YOU want it to go to the states if it isn't for making life harder for women...how nasssty....
Explain how telling women they must remain pregnant against their will is not controlling their bodies? If it's an order by law, and not just a toothless suggestion, it is controlling women. Once again you're getting intent confused with action. It may not be your intent to control a woman's body, but your actions are doing it anyway. No, if there is a point in time where control over her body is no longer hers, her body no longer belongs to her. It now belongs to someone else until such time as that person(someone like you) decides the woman is once again allowed to control her own body. That's a start. It's a law that someone else harming a fetus is illegal but that's just an extension of the mother's rights much like how vandalizing my car gets you in trouble because it's MY car, not because my car has rights. If the fetus was a person, like all born people are, abortion would be illegal as that would be murder. It's not a person. Any rulings that say it is are symbolic and/or toothless. Not even UVVA gives a fetus personhood. Thing. Fetus. Potential person. Whatever term you want to use as long as you're not pretending that a fetus is the same as a born person.
And like what you just posted is proper sentence structure. Omg man this is just some internet forum not a freaken college term paper when members resort to being a spell Nazi instead debating the content of the post you know they have nothing and willing to do anything for a distraction And many forums frown on forum members correcting others on grammar and spelling. it is distraction, off topic, and adds nothing to the debate. Also it can be insulting to members that English isn't their primary language and discourages them from participating in the forums
10th amendment Fox 10th Amendment. The loosely interpreted 14th amendment, which also is wrong took away the states rights and violated the 10th amendment. Yes how nasty of me to want SCOTUS to interpret the constitution how it was originally intended to be interpreted. The way they loosely interpret it these days they also violate the amendment clause in the constitution that states any change to the constitution requires an amendment. Lots of laws vary state to state. Are you suggesting States should not be allowed to govern their own borders? Over turning Roe V Wade would not make abortion illegal, it wasn't illegal before the ruling either
The intention of abortion laws is to protect the unborn, or protect the woman's right to choose. The actions of abortion laws protect the unborn, or protect the woman's right to choose. There is 0 abortion laws that gave 100% control of a woman's body to the states. She still had plenty of control over her body, as long as she did not have an abortion. She could exercise, eat whatever, even smoke, or drink(though I would support a ban on smoking and drinking while pregnant) She could work, cook, have sex. Plenty of control over her life and body, just as long as she didn't have an abortion. Even now women are limited on what drugs they can take while pregnant to protect the unborn. no it is not an extension of the mother's rights it is giving the fetus a whole new right to live. Stealing your car is a crime because it is your property that you paid for. Fetal homicide is a crime, because the fetus is regarded as a separate human being. It's not pretend the fetus is a person. It is 100% dependent, but so are newborns. A newborn can not survive on its own.
I've noticed a common factor with the poster you are responding to, anything that he doesn't agree with is obviously a flawed interpretation on the constitution or an incorrect law. He tends to gloss over that every single pregnancy causes injuries, even to the extent of saying they are not injuries but 'changes' instigated by the female, because of the 'gifts' given to them by the parents, even though those cumulative injuries sustained over an extended period of time more than constitute justification for the use of deadly force in self-defence, and are already deemed serious literal injuries in some case and are classified as injuries (on par with a gunshot wound) in some state laws. He lies and twists when cornered by his own statements, consistently moving the goalposts when asked directly to prove his assertions. He is more than happy to toss a pregnant woman's right to body autonomy into the trash can while he would not accept that for himself. These are just a few of the reasons I have him on ignore.
Wow fox you just love to keep fooling yourself into believing that is what the goal/purpose of anyone who opposes you isn't it? you know the goal/purpose, it is well documented and your false assertions have 0 bearing on the truth so your main goal/purpose is to give false assertions that have 0 truth? What are you afraid of? Possibly that you might be wrong. If you really believe in abortion so much why not defend it with facts and stick to the facts, rather then this needless political bashing game that dems and repubs play with each other that do nothing for the issues. I know you got it in you
I can't see the poster you are replying to posts, but it is interested that from the very paper he linked to the title is "When Does Human Life Begin?", not "When Does A Human Life Begin?", I don't think there is a single pro-choice person that disputes that at the moment of conception there is human life .. The question is when does that human life become a human life, and the author of that white paper is a avid pro-lifer, so not much bias there then
What assertions? Those little squiggle things at the end of my questions are ...QUESTION marks, that means I'm asking a question. I ask you what your goal is and you just don't want to answer so I can assume, from what you've written, that controlling women, even to the point of what they ingest, is your goal..... If it isn't why didn't you just say what it is??
