What right are you talking about ?...women have no more rights than anyone else. Anytime men can get pregnant they will have the same rights as women where abortion is concerned. The protections protect the fetus without giving it rights... rights and protection are two different things... Slaves possessed rights as BORN persons...slave owners abused those rights so your question makes no sense. And it has nothing to do with abortion.....fetuses are aborted , NOT born persons with rights So you are pro-abortion even though you argue against it..... does that make sense to anyone ??? Your insistence that pro-Choice is not for choice is equally mystifying.... Pro-Choice is about the right to have an abortion ..OR NOT, whichever the woman CHOOSES. If you can't comprehend that simple phrase I'll have to give up...
Yes, a human attains rights at it's birth....and there is no magic about it...ask someone who gave birth or better yet a scientist. Before that it has some protections but no rights. It is always a "real human". YES, it IS all about women possessing the same rights everyone else has.
Of course, women have rights that men don't have, like the right to an abortion. Which will be never... Thanks for trying to explain that to me but it still doesn't make any sense. What are we protecting if not some right? My question has to do with the arbitrary recognition of rights. It is relevant to abortion which is why we're having this conversation here and in the halls of Congress. I am pro-abortion and I never argued against it. If you're going to ask a question based on a fabrication don't expect anyone to make sense of it. I insist "pro-choice" is a euphemism for pro-abortion. I get the euphemism, and I'm okay with pro-abortion and anti-abortion people referring to themselves as "pro-choice" and "pro-life". What's good for the goose is good for the gander...
OK, I'll put it another way so even you may be able to understand it. Everyone has the right to a legal medical procedure. Of course women can't be treated to prostate cancer surgery so do you think that is unequal rights? You are just being silly.......and again, if men could be pregnant they, too , have the right to an abortion, a legal medical procedure... Now please whine about how life isn't fair because women can't have prostate surgery. Glad you figured that out Fetal protections protect fetuses although they have no right to protection. Rights are recognized when one is BORN. Did you know that with rights comes restrictions? YUP, tis true. With your rights you are restricted from using another's body to sustain your life. The SAME applies IF fetuses are ever deemed persons with rights. They will NOT have the right to use another person's body to sustain their own life, just exactly like you and I can't. No, it isn't. Slaves possessed rights as BORN persons...slave owners abused those rights so your question makes no sense. And it has nothing to do with abortion.....fetuses are aborted , NOT born persons with rights (slaves) Go ahead, it doesn't make it so.... So I was right, it didn't make sense , it was just petty tit-for-tat crap.
Such a great bumper sticker slogan for every issue in the world......too bad humans are still humans....
Sounds like you dont think women have the capacity or ability to make decisions about their own body.
Good information. Thanks. BTW in biblical times the first kick was viewed as the start of a human pregnancy. It was called quickening.
Removing consequences to bad decisions is worse? So you believe no one should ever try to reverse or fix their bad decisions? WOW, how irresponsible, impractical, illogical,, dimwitted and silly that would be...!!
No not at all. They can choose to be responsible and not get pregnant. This isn't 1617. We no longer use orange rinds as contraception devices.
So the matter of whether or not to destroy the baby's life can be determined by 'the quality of the parents relationship'? That's setting the bar rather low, isn't it?
Considering that the baby's life will be inextricably affected by the quality of the parent's relationship? No.
So you think that the government should decide what is responsible behavior? Really doubling down on that "Big Government" ideology, huh?
Not at all. Murdering a human being is illegal. It's also illegal to murder your two year old during a divorce. Now you'll have 5 months to make the life changing decision, and once it's made, you're responsible for your choice. Choose wisely.
The baby's life is being "inextricably affected" by destroying it, do you agree? What scenario do you envision about their relationship that would preclude allowing the child to be adopted by loving parents who do have a quality relationship?
That's called 'after birth abortion'. Leftists do not like the term "Execution" in these cases because it has a negative tone attached to it. They tend to be for 'after birth abortions' but against the death penalty. They have somehow resolved these two issues in their minds.
