Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not her body. Its the baby's body that just so happens to be inside the mother. Two bodies joined together.
Oh please, more dramatics. Guess they haven't gotten this far in freshman biology this year.
When it comes to people insisting it's a living human life, fine, but I want it out, so induce me and let me give birth and then it can keep being a person and surviving without my uterus.
... the medical term for miscarriage is in fact missed abortion. .
Just for clarification, the medical term for miscarriage is spontaneous abortion. A missed abortion is a situation in which the embryo or fetus dies but is not expelled. That requires medical intervention to empty the uterus.
Right, and it is precisely because it is completely dependent on HER and only her that it has all the legal rights of a parasite on a federal level and she is not legally beholden to it protect its life in any. There is no law on the books that says that a woman has to be the caretaker of a life even when it's OUTSIDE of her body; that is why we have safe houses.
Yes there are, and lots of them.
What is your definition of a safe house?
In the US, it's typically a place where folks hiding from the law (or those out to kill them while under protection from the law) are housed for a short period of time.
Quote:
Parasites are dependent on a specific host. Babies and infants may be dependent for survival, but not on a specific person. A fetus is therefore not a baby.
Parasites will always be parasites.
"Parasites" of the human kind grow to become conscious/thinking human beings, just like you.
Quote:
Abortion is legal. Even when you take away clean and monitored facilities, you still fail to prevent abortions.
Yes, abortion is legal in the US and that fact isn't going to change. So there is no need to have an abortion in an "unclean/unmonitored" back alley.
Quote:
Why? For a simple reason: it is her body.
Women weren't having abortions in back alleys because they felt they owned their bodies. They were having them because they weren't married, couldn't earn a living if one of their regulars knocked them up, etc. Societal pressures. It had nothing to do with "owning one's body", that is what feminists decided to call it in order to give the "movement" some "umph".
And let's not forget Maggie Sangar, the founder of PP, believed in eugenics more than she believed in "owning your own body".
Quote:
All human beings have sovereignty over their own bodies. It is a law of nature.
Apparently they do not. Not when "mommy" still has a say after birth - you've got circumcision, crazy nut job parents not vaccinating their kids... Autonomous beings that "own their own bodies" who have no other option than being breast fed b/c mommy insists...while the child is not thriving or thought to "have colic"... when "colic" is a direct result of what your mommy is force feeding you. The list can go on...
Pretty sure one of your fellow Canadian Nationals just killed their kid b/c apparently meningitis can be cured through cayenne and maple syrup. /eyeroll
Last edited by Informed Info; 03-20-2016 at 10:37 PM..
1. Causing someone to exist isn't a harm. Indeed, I likewise oppose forcing parents to pay child support for this very same reason.
2. An non-sentient embryo/fetus is no more of a person right now than I myself am a corpse right now. Indeed, potential certainly doesn't equal actuality.
I don't need to watch any video. The fact is abortion has been around since ancient times. Legalizing it meant women didn't have to be ashamed nor die by doctors who had no idea what they were doing. We can make abortion illegal again to ease the minds of those against it.....but that doesn't solve anything because there will always be abortion.
There will likewise always be child porn. Thus, should we legalize child porn?
I'm 100% pro-choice. Aren't there enough unwanted children in the world and other children who grow up in bad situations? I'd rather someone get an abortion than bring a child into the world that they're either not capable of raising properly and having them grow up to be bad people and/or not having the resources to adaquately support that child. I've always asked for everyone who's so passionately against abortion, where are they AFTER that child is born? It seems like most of them only care about making sure that baby is born and then afterwards they disappear.
I really wish that we could force all the pro-life people to pay a special tax that would go into a fund that would support all these children they've 'saved' until they reach the age of 18. If they're seriously that passionate to force people to have these kids, then they should put their money where their mouth is and help pay for the raising of these children instead of putting the burden on the rest of us to do so with our tax dollars.
Out of curiosity--do you likewise support legalizing painless elective infanticide in the event of a shortage of qualified adoptive parents?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
