How much that it makes it the almost singular justification? The "right wing" has not and does not fight en masse against rape kit pregnancy prevention drugs, strawman. So what? Why do you think Jesus tells me things. Do you think Jesus tells you killing unborn babies is OK even born babies that survive the abortion but the mother still wants it dead?
What the heck is a "rape kit pregnancy prevention drug"?? I've never heard of such a drug. The GOP HAS fought long and hard (and continues to fight) the availability of "morning after" drugs. This is hyperbolic nonsense. Please remember that laws against women are NOT the sole method of reducing abortions. Canada has a lower abortion rate and they have ZERO laws against abortion, and include abortion coverage in their national health care system. You don't get to blame me for "murdered babies". You're trivialing the issue and are dodging on the point that laws against women have serious problems and are NOT proven to be required to lower the abortion rate.
In WA, a rape kit is a collecion of evidence obtained in a particular fashion and preserved for analysis under conditions that allow it as evidence in a court of law. What state do YOU live in? I don't mind looking up what a rape kit is in your state.
"The current standard of care for sexual assault survivors, an exam by a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) along with its associated referrals, includes: (a) treatment of medical injuries; (b) testing and treatment of STIs; (c) pregnancy prevention including options if emergency contraception, such as Plan B, is not effective; (d) mental health care; (e) forensic data collection; (f) victim services; and (g) legal services (Ahrens et al., 2000; Campbell, Bybee, Ford, & Patterson, 2008; Campbell, Patterson, & Lichty, 2005; Department of Justice, 2013; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006). This comprehensive exam has demonstrated improved outcomes by researchers within the context of the medical, forensic, and legal domains (Campbell et al., 2005)." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4895923/ And of course Emergency Contraceptive is available over the counter now too.
Nope, what you have to realize if the woman doesn't want it inhabiting her body she has every right to have it removed even if this results in its death
Did you really red ? Obviously not, because your answer is off the mark. It seems to be a random generic crap answer. Furthermore, your definition of life is as arbitrary than the one of anti abortion. She has the "right". You seems to speak of an obvious moral right. According to what right ? If you speak of law, it's not a moral right, but a juridic right. And basing on what you consider that the value of the embryo is lesser than the one of her mother ? Against, based on nothing that you're personnal opinions.
Wrong, whether its alive is irrelevant, whether its human is irrelevant. The only relevant facts are that it's inside the woman's body and if she doesn't want it to be in her body then she has the right to have it removed.
Again, right from where ? It's easy to says, "you have no right to murder another human being, even if he is inside your body". Anyway, I was describing the position of 90 % pro abortion people, not your specific one. The first one I read that think that the mother has the right to kill a 8 month children. Furthermore, none (or almost none) country authorize abortion for late foetus. Your stance is quite extremist, even from the point of view of the less restrictive country considering abortion.
That is NOT a "rape kit". And, THAT is what i questioned. And, due to GOP legislative direction and supported by their continuing pressure, pharmacies and other health care workers may deny emergency contraception medication based on no more than personal opinion. And, that is true even if the medication was prescribed by a doctor. You have some reading to do.
It's just something you just made up. And again, my core points is what most pro and anti abortion oppose on is a definition of life that is absolutly arbitrary. I observe that there is no objective definition of life, and none of the sides could absolutly proof that their definition of life is correct and the other one not, that debate can't be solved in a subjective way. There is facts that can be objectively debated : is that economic strategy viable or not ? Is that strategy of fighting drugs is viable or not ? You could possibly solve those debates. There is other debates that can't be solved, and they're interesting because they bring fundamental philosophical questions as : when begin human life ? And that's why you're absolutly off the mark, you're starting to defend the right to abortion, despite I stated in the second sentence, that I don't oppose the right, but disapprove the act. Even more, your posts are just a series of arbitrary declarations, there is no logic, no argumentation, just blunt affirmation. What do you want I answer to that ? You have a specific and marginal definition that focus on the right of a woman to kill her baby if he is inside her body, life romans where defending the right for a father to murder his children if he wanted. You don't consider life as sacred, that's your right, but it's a marginal point of view.
Actually ALL rights are made up, and the only reason it kills the fetus is because we don't have the tech to do anything else. The only way abortion will truly end is when we have the ability to remove it alive and reimplant it.
Yup, can't base laws on "we don't know". But we DO know that born women have rights and that should solve the problem ...don't need a definition of "life" for that...
And that would only be if the woman agrees to such manipulation and SHE doesn't have to pay a cent for it to be done...
There are NO "pro-abortion " people.....there ARE those who believe women have rights and they are called Pro-CHOICE. I have NEVER seen anyone say it is OK to kill an 8 month old child!!! What ARE you going on about!!!???
We do have a definition of "person". That certainly does NOT include an embyo. And, in the US at least, a person has rights - in fact, they have rights even if they aren't citizens. You say there is no definition, but then you call an embryo a "baby". Your idea of rights of a father to murder a baby is indefensible and purely inflamatory. Also, let's remember that the main objection is to laws against women - an objection to just one possible method of reducing aortions. The effectiveness of that method is also an issue, and it is drawn into serious question by countries such as Canada that manage abortion rates lower than our own without having ANY laws restricting abortion - and in fact pay for abortions through the national healthcare system. You are touting laws that DO include harm to persons and are NOT proven to be particularly effecive. And, that IS a problem.
FoxHastings said: ↑ And that would only be if the woman agrees to such manipulation and SHE doesn't have to pay a cent for it to be done... Doubt what?
There are already LARGE numbers of fertilized human eggs that will never be implanted. There are even large numbers of these embryos for which there is no custody other than the state, frozen, but gradually decaying! So, it would take some sort of government process or perhaps even law to destroy or distribute these ownerless fertilized eggs. And, they are of no use to science, as medical ethics is good about preventing that. The supply already totally overwhelms the demand.
My guess would be GUILT......... increased by SHAME....... that is compounded by a sense of HOPELESSNESS..... but that is only a guess!? Feelings of intense Cognitive Dissonance could be another relevant factor???!!!
