So, women are supposed to pregnancy test regularly because you don't like abortion? Why don't you just MYOB?
'YOU just did genius OMG, How disconnected would you have to be to make those two statements back to back. I would agree that is your claim since you've never even been to a center or ever spoken to an HCPC counselor. As per usual you just make up BS that you can never prove. No you haven't. All you do is spew BS which is why most don't buy into your garbage post. Your own numbers speaks for itself. You can't even find 27% of posters who find your post legitimate? Pretty sad. But not surprising.
Most conservatives could save a mint if they'd just stop trying to bash people who aren't bothering them
Do Liberal women not posses that level of intelligence to know if your going to have unprotected sex on a daily or weekly basis that the possibility of becoming pregnant is increased by 100%? Or have they become accustomed to having 9-15 abortions because they can't figure out the whole protected sex thing?
Looks like you went off script here, and on your own. I thought your handlers spoke to you about that.
state governments are a lot easier for the voter to change. if the (majority) of the voters in a state want to ban or support abortion, then they will have to votes to put state government people in power. it is up to the voters in each state. what?-----are you afraid of the voters? that they may not support your point of view. there are many states that will go against what i like. but many will do what i like. that is real democracy at work. are you afraid of (majority) rule?
Ignoring all the science I have posted. Define an "artificial document" as to a "non-artificial document" My country is founded on the principal that we are CREATED with the self-evident truth that we have a right to our life.............if that is too hard for you to understand I can't help you even with the science I have demonstrated and remains unrefuted. Too bad your country does not apply the same in order to protect your life.
Again, no where have I ever argued, or advocated that no abortions ever is the right solution. So stop flogging your dead horse here. The process, again, allows the states to legislate what they are willing to do. I cannot, nor would I advocate for stepping on the states in their choices. But what you won't even entertain is this idea that the victims of your world could do for themselves. Protect themselves. Why? Now that's a call for you to do some deep soul searching.
as i posted, and must not have read. my quote: yes! you'll bring up rape. but if or when she reports it. she can be cleaned out by the hospital before she is pregnant for the evidence needed to arrest the rapist. please read my answer this time. the women's egg ---is not----fertilized the instant the man ejects into her. so reporting the rape and going to the hospital. to collect dna evidence- they can clean her out before there is a baby involved. and she is only fertill a short time a month. so the odds are she will not get pregnant in most rapes. please read up on how a woman gets pregant before posting. thank you.
The "fetal heartbeat" .. so 8 weeks / ~ 2 months after conception - they find consistent spasms .. not a regular heartbeat - and don't think personhood applies at this point... personally. I am a "think therefor I am" adherent .. but this means that I also am morally against abortion after ~ 22 weeks. That said ..one should not conflate the moral question with the legal one .. the two are not the same. 1) "Feds taking charge of bodies" - no clue what are you talking about ? It is the Gov't that makes law banning abortion that is taking charge of women's bodies 2)" they can just go out of state" ... is preposterous nonsense as some kind of apology for oppression - "they can just leave China" 3) Law via "Simple Majority Mandate" as you suggest .. in a case of essential liberty - is an anathema to the founding principle - Constitutional Republic. So is 50+1 should a referendum be held - although slightly better than the former.. The rule is "Overwhelming Majority" at least 2/3rds majority - higher is used in the case number of states required for constitutional ammendment. Both Classical liberalism and Republicanism refer to 50+1 / Simple majority mandate as "Tyranny of the Majority" ..which is what you get in a pure democracy .. and what our system was designed to avoid.
Yes the first step of a human is conception when to gametes join to form a complete human, Biology 101 as I have cited over and over. The genome, the complete being, is formed with the two haploid cells, the gametes join and form that new human being. The start of that human life. It does not take implantation for that life to start it only requires for continuation which is regulated internally by that new human being. How many abortions occur in the first 30 hours after conception. You singularly focus on those 30 hours so how about an answer?
Yes .. horrified by "Real Democracy" - hence why both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism refer to 50+1 .. or Simple Majority Mandate (SMM) - where some politician claims a mandate on the basis of getting elected ----- as "Tyranny of the Majority" The founders were also terrified .. hence why they designed of Gov't - the purpose of which was to avoid "Tyranny of the Majority" Overwhelming majority - at least 2/3rds required for law that messes with "Essential Liberty" .. is 75% in the case of number of States required for constitutional amendment RINO's do not understand "Tyranny of the Majority" nor care not about it if they do. Dems love Tyranny of the Majority .. and fallacious utilitarianism as justification for law -- just like Red " So make your choice mate .. Thumbs up or down to TOM - and that determines which bin you go into.
When you have the facts and the science on your side they are worth repeating over and over and they remain unrefuted. As I have shown with the science and our founding document which remain unrefuted your fallacious claims about 200 zygotes, 200 cells of the new individual specializing in their functions, notwithstanding,
I have made no such distinctions. The Constitution is quite clear, when one human in a capital offense takes the life of another human being that former is subject to legal sanctions a forfeiture of their own life but only through a strict due process. What is your confusion here?
