IN THAT LAW ONLY....and it is WRONG. IF a woman askes for , and gets, an illegal abortion that is the equivalent of hiring a hitman. Do you think that it should be legal for everyone to be able to hire others to commit crimes and escape persecution?
Okay, and that is your opinion. It is not an opinion that was shared by government lawyers who were involved in the introduction of that law.
Alright, well you did say that the baby wouldn't have had the right to use the mothers body, so if the mother refused breast milk when breast milk was the only way to feed a baby, then the baby would've died, right? Why can't poor people take out a loan?
I believe that the current abortion law is FACT! And I'm making a MORAL argument AGAINST it! Just like YOU would be doing with a law that YOU didn't agree with!
, , Neither fetus , nor baby, nor any other human has a right to use another's body to sustain their life....your little segue on breast feeding was slightly amusing IF breast feeding from the babies own mother was the ONLY way for a baby to survive then DUHHHH ya the baby would die....see, NO food equals death....did you know that? But here's ANOTHER thing you have no knowledge of, wet nurses, women who had babies and took on other babies and breast fed them. Then you forgot that I told you about MAMMALS who gave milk like cows and goats and other people , if they wanted to save the baby , would use that milk and GET IT INTO THE BABY ANYWAY THEY COULD and if you can't understand that AGAIN then look up the history of feeding babies.
I explained about that "law": That's because there is a clause prohibiting it. """""Prohibits the prosecution of a woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed for conspiracy to violate this Act or under provisions regarding punishment as a principal or an accessory or for concealment of a felony. """ This is wrong IF she ASKED for an illegal partial birth abortion. Again, it was a sop to those who know that banning abortion is punishing women. Repubs like Prick Santorum want to look like they care about women.""""" WHY do you think women should be excused from laws that would put anyone else in jail ???????????????????????????????????????????????????
Okay, and that is your opinion. It's not an opinion that was shared by government lawyers who were involved in the introduction of that law.
I'm just making the point again that it's your opinion. You didn't seem to understand that after the first time. I also see that you now understand that "baby" is subjective. That's good!
Shrug....so what? Maybe someday you'll have a point about the topic (which isn't me.)..…. What I seem to you doesn't really matter.... Do you?
The point is that they made the choice to risk getting pregnant and it didn't work out the way that they wanted. So if an abortion under the health system wasn't available, this wouldn't be them loosing the right to their body. If cancer treatment was removed from the health system, would you say that cancer sufferers have lost the right to their body?
I've never said that it's NOT a fetus! It's OBVIOUSLY a fetus! That is the scientific name given to that developmental stage! However, to me and other pro-lifers, IT IS A BABY! When we call it a baby, that's not us calling it NOT a fetus!
And do you think that would be worth it for the sake of bodily rights? And milk delivery technology wasn't always around.
FoxHastings said: ↑ IF breast feeding from the babies own mother was the ONLY way for a baby to survive then DUHHHH ya the baby would die.... No one has to use their physical body to sustain the life of another ...NO one.. So what you or I think it's worth doesn't matter...taking away one's right to their own body is the collapse of democracy, and slavery. So bloody what? "milk delivery technology"...LOL!! You'll have to continue this breast feeding fantasy without me... Whether it was around or not has nothing to do with one's own right to one's own body.
Renee said: ↑ Because banks won’t give it to them! Duh! WTF has that got to do with poor people getting loans ???????????? Yes, banning abortion IS denying women the right to their own bodies.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Yes, banning abortion IS denying women the right to their own bodies. I see no logical connection between the two......
Honest answer. Okay, so then why is banning abortion taking away bodily rights but banning cancer treatment isn't?
Banning abortion, for the ten thousandth time, means women have lost the right to their own bodies by being forced to gestate or face criminal charges. . The government has just confiscated their wombs.. NO one else is FORCED to sustain the life of another... Banning cancer treatment has nothing to do with it....you are just off on one of your "Mystical Segues"...
How the hell is that a strawman? It's a QUESTION! If cancer treatment was banned, you would NOT say that cancer sufferers have lost the right to their body!
