False statement. Personhood is defined as ones ability to survive on there own? With this type of thinking, any human being that is not viable in any sort of way, could be considered without personhood.
Ha ha ha ha!! Hey, dumbass. We have been over this before and I’ve proven you wrong time and time again. When will you ever learn, child!!!
She chose to have sex though. She should be willing to die to birth a baby.No, she shouldn't. Part of having a child isn't dying, right? So, she should be able to make that decision, if it comes to that. Something that is not part of having a child, is just killing it for convenience. That isn't something that someone should decide.
You’re the one that’s arguing for convenience.How so?
Do you know anything about history? Death has always been a part of being pregnant. I’m sure they knew the risks back then too.
Because you’re letting a mother murder her baby when she should know the risks.
Do you know anything about history? Death has always been a part of being pregnant. I’m sure they knew the risks back then too.Death only occurred when something went wrong during the birthing process.Nature didn't intend for death, when natural processes were being created.The natural process of birth is a mother giving birth to a child, and both of them living.Death is just an error in that process, that occurs only sometimes.Back then it happened more, because we did not have the technology to help mothers dying when giving birth, but we do now.
Because you’re letting a mother murder her baby when she should know the risks.Ah Ah Ah. Not murder.Murder is killing with the intention to kill.If the mother went through the whole process of being pregnant and found out that she might die if she gives birth, then decides to let the baby go. That is not intentional. She did not mean for that to happen, whereas if a woman found out that she got pregnant, then decided to kill the baby before it has a chance to leave the womb, then that is murder. Killing with the intent to kill.
-->@amandragon01You make things illegal to try and prevent people doing them. It doesn't always work. Prohibition is evidence of this.Ok, go ahead and give me another example. It works 95% of the time, so it is a useful tool to use. To assume that abortion is one of those instances without any evidence backing that up, is a bad argument.
It doesnt matter if abortion is legal or not, that wouldn decrease the abortion rate because people do it anyway
The point is valid. Making something illegal doesn't necessarily decrease instances of it. Prohibition is a solid example of that.
“Nature” doesn’t intend anything, it just is.And death isn’t an error, it’s a natural process.The same goes for birth control. It’s all convenient.
They both knew the risks and they both chose to murder. ‘deciding to Let the baby go.’ Is that what you call it when it’s convenient.
I’ve proven you wrong here in the forum. There is no need to repeat myself on the debate side. On the abortion issue you lose. Same as others have proven you wrong on the religious topics you brought up too. Those are two areas you simply have a lot to learn.As for other topics, you appear to be holding your own. But when it comes to abortion and religion. You couldn’t carry a bedpan of piss without spilling it. So jsut give it a rest, youngling.
Name one thing that's illegal that people actually don't engage in because of that. Prisons are full of people who break laws. From minor traffic infractions, to taxes, through a variety of misdemeanors and felonies up to murder. Abortion was illegal before Roe v Wade and people still did them. Whether on their own or through doctors. To say because something is illegal nobody will engage in it is the most childish view of the world I've ever heard. You really need to admit you just hate women you fucking can't stand that they have a right to their own decision making. You have on numerous occasions excuse the male behavior in this whole equation. You have made it illegal for women and doctors to engage in the activity with while giving men a pass. You're not even willing to allow women to take a pill the day after they have sex so that they don't have the egg attached and get pregnant. You are a woman hating pig.
What lives?
By the way, abortion is not the same as in the past, specially if it's an early pregnancy. Women can choose between medication or medical procedure to abort. So, if abortion is prohibited, pregnant women would still be able to choose medication abortion. Abortion pill is available everywhere, it can be painful but effective.
But even so, women can have a abortion procedure anyway in another state where abortion is allowed, they just need a trip to do that. So, honestly I dont see the point to prohibit abortion in some states and in others not. Unless it's prohibited all over the country, women would always have choices to abort, so I don't see any change in the national abortion rate.
They're not people at three weeks or even ten weeks.
Alive and living are two different things. And I'm sorry but a tadpole is not a human being. It's a potential human being. And there's no reason you shouldn't be able to take a pill the day after you have sex to get rid of it other than your religious freak who hates women.
Considering that you hate gays and women and don't seem to have any issue with the church's past of murdering people to convert them and wiping out other religions, your view on what makes a human a human means very little to me.
Yes men are far too stupid to be in control of their own birth control. It should all fall on the woman to keep him from getting baby trapped. Women hating pigs.
