Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This fails as a false comparison fallacy.I can understand that a woman has a right to control her own body; however, there is also an issue of responsibility. If a woman were to choose not to use her body to feed her new born baby and allow the baby to simply to starve to death she would most likely be charged with murder based on neglect. The woman is expected to use that body of her's (not necessarily breastfeeding ) and take care of that baby or find someone else that will.
Yes. You might want to reread my original post because this is the second thing you missed.The woman would still have to use her body to prepare the bottle and feed the baby. It doesn't happen by magic.I can understand that a woman has a right to control her own body; however, there is also an issue of responsibility. If a woman were to choose not to use her body to feed her new born baby and allow the baby to simply to starve to death she would most likely be charged with murder based on neglect. The woman is expected to use that body of her's (not necessarily breastfeeding ) and take care of that baby or find someone else that will.
So... bottle feeding is illegal?
Could someone else use their body to do this?
It's not exactly the same situation, but there are some valid comparisons.This fails as a false comparison fallacy.I can understand that a woman has a right to control her own body; however, there is also an issue of responsibility. If a woman were to choose not to use her body to feed her new born baby and allow the baby to simply to starve to death she would most likely be charged with murder based on neglect. The woman is expected to use that body of her's (not necessarily breastfeeding ) and take care of that baby or find someone else that will.
One of the things abortion is about is the avoidance of responsibility for one's actions.
Somehow I think your definition of what is a responsible action is different than mine.One of the things abortion is about is the avoidance of responsibility for one's actions.
How about when abortion is the responsible action to take and continuing the pregnancy is the irresponsible action?
Democrats pretend to care about the poor, minorities and gays but their compassion is not real. All they want is votes and power.
The Democrats are cold-blooded murderers and sociopaths when they support legalized abortion. Unborn babies can't vote, so Democrats have no use for them.
I remember when Democrats were divided on this issue. Believe it or not, Al Gore was once pro-life.
But Al Gore became a bloody pro-abort when he was picked to be Vice-President.
No, they aren't.It's not exactly the same situation, but there are some valid comparisons.This fails as a false comparison fallacy.I can understand that a woman has a right to control her own body; however, there is also an issue of responsibility. If a woman were to choose not to use her body to feed her new born baby and allow the baby to simply to starve to death she would most likely be charged with murder based on neglect. The woman is expected to use that body of her's (not necessarily breastfeeding ) and take care of that baby or find someone else that will.
One of the things abortion is about is the avoidance of responsibility for one's actions. Yes abortion is legal, but that doesn't make the statement any less true.
When you use the word "fallacy", you rarely back up why it is a fallacy (or in this case a false comparison).
Somehow I think your definition of what is a responsible action is different than mine.One of the things abortion is about is the avoidance of responsibility for one's actions.
How about when abortion is the responsible action to take and continuing the pregnancy is the irresponsible action?
Major bullshit just as many conservatives have abortions as liberals .Democrats pretend to care about the poor, minorities and gays but their compassion is not real. All they want is votes and power.
The Democrats are cold-blooded murderers and sociopaths when they support legalized abortion. Unborn babies can't vote, so Democrats have no use for them.
I remember when Democrats were divided on this issue. Believe it or not, Al Gore was once pro-life.
But Al Gore became a bloody pro-abort when he was picked to be Vice-President.
True Dt's makes sense.Somehow I think your definition of what is a responsible action is different than mine.One of the things abortion is about is the avoidance of responsibility for one's actions.
How about when abortion is the responsible action to take and continuing the pregnancy is the irresponsible action?
An embro, fetus and a newborn are all three human life at various stages of development. This is indisputable scientifically. Legally you can dispute this because embryos and fetuses are not granted the rights of personhood that a newborn is granted. Legallities can be changed but the science cannot.No, they aren't.It's not exactly the same situation, but there are some valid comparisons.This fails as a false comparison fallacy.I can understand that a woman has a right to control her own body; however, there is also an issue of responsibility. If a woman were to choose not to use her body to feed her new born baby and allow the baby to simply to starve to death she would most likely be charged with murder based on neglect. The woman is expected to use that body of her's (not necessarily breastfeeding ) and take care of that baby or find someone else that will.
One of the things abortion is about is the avoidance of responsibility for one's actions. Yes abortion is legal, but that doesn't make the statement any less true.
When you use the word "fallacy", you rarely back up why it is a fallacy (or in this case a false comparison).
This is one of the many mistakes common to you and others on the right concerning the issue, that abortion represents an “avoidance of responsibility” on the part of the woman, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
Many women make an effort to avoid pregnancy in good faith, where those efforts fail through no fault of their own. And because you perceive women who have abortions as being 'irresponsible,' that somehow 'mitigates' their right to privacy. Indeed, for many women, having an abortion is the responsible thing to do.
Last, your argument fails as a fallacy because you compare two different and unrelated things: the embryo/fetus with that of a newborn.
That's pretentious.An embro, fetus and a newborn are all three human life at various stages of development. This is indisputable scientifically. Legally you can dispute this because embryos and fetuses are not granted the rights of personhood that a newborn is granted. Legallities can be changed but the science cannot.No, they aren't.It's not exactly the same situation, but there are some valid comparisons.This fails as a false comparison fallacy.I can understand that a woman has a right to control her own body; however, there is also an issue of responsibility. If a woman were to choose not to use her body to feed her new born baby and allow the baby to simply to starve to death she would most likely be charged with murder based on neglect. The woman is expected to use that body of her's (not necessarily breastfeeding ) and take care of that baby or find someone else that will.
One of the things abortion is about is the avoidance of responsibility for one's actions. Yes abortion is legal, but that doesn't make the statement any less true.
When you use the word "fallacy", you rarely back up why it is a fallacy (or in this case a false comparison).
This is one of the many mistakes common to you and others on the right concerning the issue, that abortion represents an “avoidance of responsibility” on the part of the woman, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
Many women make an effort to avoid pregnancy in good faith, where those efforts fail through no fault of their own. And because you perceive women who have abortions as being 'irresponsible,' that somehow 'mitigates' their right to privacy. Indeed, for many women, having an abortion is the responsible thing to do.
Last, your argument fails as a fallacy because you compare two different and unrelated things: the embryo/fetus with that of a newborn.
Now that I've established that relationship, parents of a newborn are responsible for that newborn even if they tried to use birth control to prevent the conception of the newborn. Furthermore, if they allow the newborn to die in the privacy of their own home due to neglect, privacy rights do not negate their responsibility to the newborn. Abortion is a means to avoid responsibility for a human life.
Your rational for this depends on the rational that the fetus is not yet valued as a person. Would it be responsible for the mother to sacrifice one of her children so that she can use her resources to better take care of the remaining child?Somehow I think your definition of what is a responsible action is different than mine.One of the things abortion is about is the avoidance of responsibility for one's actions.
How about when abortion is the responsible action to take and continuing the pregnancy is the irresponsible action?
How about when a woman who is already a mother to a couple of small children who is having health and/or financial problems discovers that she is pregnant again?
Is her responsibility towards those children who are already dependent upon her limited health and/or financial resources or should she jeopardize their future by bringing yet another child into the mix that drain her already limited resources even further?
Do you recall what happened with Andrea Yates?
Sometimes the responsible action is to have an abortion.
The answer is yes. Although you won't admit it.Your rational for this depends on the rational that the fetus is not yet valued as a person. Would it be responsible for the mother to sacrifice one of her children so that she can use her resources to better take care of the remaining child?Somehow I think your definition of what is a responsible action is different than mine.One of the things abortion is about is the avoidance of responsibility for one's actions.
How about when abortion is the responsible action to take and continuing the pregnancy is the irresponsible action?
How about when a woman who is already a mother to a couple of small children who is having health and/or financial problems discovers that she is pregnant again?
Is her responsibility towards those children who are already dependent upon her limited health and/or financial resources or should she jeopardize their future by bringing yet another child into the mix that drain her already limited resources even further?
Do you recall what happened with Andrea Yates?
Sometimes the responsible action is to have an abortion.
Mmmmm.......Okay. For clarification, which question did you answer? I hope it wasn't the last one I posed.The answer is yes. Although you won't admit it.Your rational for this depends on the rational that the fetus is not yet valued as a person. Would it be responsible for the mother to sacrifice one of her children so that she can use her resources to better take care of the remaining child?Somehow I think your definition of what is a responsible action is different than mine.One of the things abortion is about is the avoidance of responsibility for one's actions.
How about when abortion is the responsible action to take and continuing the pregnancy is the irresponsible action?
How about when a woman who is already a mother to a couple of small children who is having health and/or financial problems discovers that she is pregnant again?
Is her responsibility towards those children who are already dependent upon her limited health and/or financial resources or should she jeopardize their future by bringing yet another child into the mix that drain her already limited resources even further?
Do you recall what happened with Andrea Yates?
Sometimes the responsible action is to have an abortion.
It's obvious is.Mmmmm.......Okay. For clarification, which question did you answer? I hope it wasn't the last one I posed.The answer is yes. Although you won't admit it.Your rational for this depends on the rational that the fetus is not yet valued as a person. Would it be responsible for the mother to sacrifice one of her children so that she can use her resources to better take care of the remaining child?Somehow I think your definition of what is a responsible action is different than mine.How about when abortion is the responsible action to take and continuing the pregnancy is the irresponsible action?
How about when a woman who is already a mother to a couple of small children who is having health and/or financial problems discovers that she is pregnant again?
Is her responsibility towards those children who are already dependent upon her limited health and/or financial resources or should she jeopardize their future by bringing yet another child into the mix that drain her already limited resources even further?
Do you recall what happened with Andrea Yates?
Sometimes the responsible action is to have an abortion.
So you think it is okay for a mother of two to sacrifice (kill) one of her children to better use her resources to provide for the other.It's obvious is.Mmmmm.......Okay. For clarification, which question did you answer? I hope it wasn't the last one I posed.The answer is yes. Although you won't admit it.Your rational for this depends on the rational that the fetus is not yet valued as a person. Would it be responsible for the mother to sacrifice one of her children so that she can use her resources to better take care of the remaining child?Somehow I think your definition of what is a responsible action is different than mine.
How about when a woman who is already a mother to a couple of small children who is having health and/or financial problems discovers that she is pregnant again?
Is her responsibility towards those children who are already dependent upon her limited health and/or financial resources or should she jeopardize their future by bringing yet another child into the mix that drain her already limited resources even further?
Do you recall what happened with Andrea Yates?
Sometimes the responsible action is to have an abortion.
If it was necessary for the others to survive.So you think it is okay for a mother of two to sacrifice (kill) one of her children to better use her resources to provide for the other.It's obvious is.Mmmmm.......Okay. For clarification, which question did you answer? I hope it wasn't the last one I posed.The answer is yes. Although you won't admit it.Your rational for this depends on the rational that the fetus is not yet valued as a person. Would it be responsible for the mother to sacrifice one of her children so that she can use her resources to better take care of the remaining child?How about when a woman who is already a mother to a couple of small children who is having health and/or financial problems discovers that she is pregnant again?
Is her responsibility towards those children who are already dependent upon her limited health and/or financial resources or should she jeopardize their future by bringing yet another child into the mix that drain her already limited resources even further?
Do you recall what happened with Andrea Yates?
Sometimes the responsible action is to have an abortion.
