Laws change, hence the reason abortion became legal in 1973 (thank Republican appointed SCOTUS Justices for that). If according to you: FoxHastings said: ↑ Nope, have to be born to have rights... What's to keep legislators from passing laws or SCOTUS making a ruling that says it's legal to terminate a pregnancy (i.e. snuff out a baby in the womb) up until the day of birth? After all, in order to have rights, you first have to be born, right?
That is correct now tell me why any woman would wait until the child is nearly ready to be born to “snuff it out”
Dead on accurate: ""The Anti-Choice movement reminds of Klansmen who LOVE slavery and want to destroy women's right to bodily autonomy so they will be slaves to puny pathetic white men "" ...and your only objection is it's not original enough ?! ...and you can't refute it...
It didn't. One can now if the woman's lifehealth is in danger Yes, You FINALLY have it correct!!.....how many time must I explain this to barbarian Anti-Women folks who have never come up with an ORIGINAL idea or argument about abortion....
LO, so you think that banning abortion won't reduce a country to third world status ??!!! LOLOLOLL...Uh, the countries doing the best economically have abortion... You think the more poor people that are born will help an economy ??!!! AND the question you are dodging: HOW will overturning RvW stop abortions????
Why blow a cloud of smoke over the main issue? Care to discuss again when humans have rights? Are you sure that you want to stick with your 'they have to be born in order to have rights' beliefs?
aCultureWarrior said: ↑ Laws change, If you're going to play the queen of denial role saying that the Roe v Wade SCOTUS ruling didn't overturn State laws that prohibitted abortion, and thus making abortion legal in all of the United States, then make your case how it didn't.
YES, I ALWAYS stick with FACTS... IF you think a ZEF has rights PROVE IT....and make sure those "rights" do NOT interfere with the rights of the woman it's in.... ...and your dodge of post 123 was noted Too many facts ???
aCultureWarrior said: ↑ Laws change, FoxHastings said: ↑ It didn't. As you should have known I was referring to RvW which has NOT CHANGED AS YOU CONTEND IT DID
Lack of money or health insurance, social‑psychological crises (depression), lack of knowledge about human reproduction. Why Do Women Have Late-Term Abortions? (hli.org)
According to the law (which you've stated numerous times), it's illegal to perform a partial birth abortion. Does that mean that the unborn human has "rights"?.
What does that have to do with your question I answered? https://www.invitra.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/zygote-picture-780x332.png Here is some stages of development also
RvW does NOT, and did not, GIVE FETUSES RIGHTS. You know, you maybe should have researched this topic before entering into it since you seem quite confused on all aspects of it.. IF a fetus isn't born yet WHAT RIGHTS DO YOU WANT IT TO HAVE THAT DON'T INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHTS OF THE WOMAN IT IS IN? Don't worry, I know you'll dodge that because every other Anti-Choicer has avoided it like the plague !
Absolutely NOT..... a fetus has PROTECTIONS which is a different word with a different meaning than "rights". It's "protection" is that abortions over viability (23-24 weeks ) are banned... HOW-EFFING-EVER, IF a woman's life or health is at stake then an abortion can be performed after viability because the fetus has NO RIGHTS...
Someone needs to go back to high school civics class, as protection from being murdered is the same as the "right to life". He or she was given due process. Do you understand what that means? If so, explain it.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Absolutely NOT..... a fetus has PROTECTIONS which is a different word with a different meaning than "rights". Someone needs to go back to English class...."rights" and "protections" are two different words with two different meanings. Nope, I have no idea to what you are referring to or to whom you're referring.... Gee, you sure "miss" a lot of posts