It is certainly true that those who support abortion are monsters...

[Cecilie1200]

I want to know where a pregnant woman was killed and the perp wasn’t charged for the baby as well!

Which, of course, is completely consistent with pro-choice views.

So? I say fk you to anyone ok with killing a baby

Nobody is OK with killing a baby. A fetus is not a baby.

What is it then?

It is potentially a future life
You do not get to determine what happens inside someone else

Oh? Try selling your kidney for a profit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hmm, no, not that many at all. take them away, and nobody notices. take away the religious nutballs, and the resistance disappears.

Here's just one page, but there are many other groups like this: Secular Pro-Life

That's nice.

Take them away, and nobody notices. take away the religious nutballs, and the resistance disappears.

You’re confused mankind says differently

No, it's a fact: Take away the secularists from that movement, and nobody notices. Take away the religious nutballs, and the resistance disappears.

No no the majority of the globe is religious . You just hate humans you hate yourself and that’s strange

Not really. If YOU were Fort, wouldn't YOU be less than happy with that fact?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here's just one page, but there are many other groups like this: Secular Pro-Life

That's nice.

Take them away, and nobody notices. take away the religious nutballs, and the resistance disappears.

You’re confused mankind says differently

No, it's a fact: Take away the secularists from that movement, and nobody notices. Take away the religious nutballs, and the resistance disappears.

You are simply wrong. These days, with the advancement of ultrasound technology, people you might've thought would be for abortion are pro-life, because we can clearly observe the humanity of the pre-born. It has nothing to do with religion, it is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception. That is why most of us never even bring up religion in these debates, because there's no need to.

Hmm, no, I am spot on. The anti-choice movement is almost completely comprised of religious people doing things for religious reasons.

You say that as though it's a bad thing, or somehow invalidates the wholly non-religious arguments they present. May I remind you that the anti-slavery movement was almost completely comprised of religious people doing things for religious reasons? It sure as shit wasn't atheists who decided that they needed to go against all of human history and eradicate an institution that had existed since forever because it was evil.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No no the majority of the globe is religious

Yes, I realize that. Do you have a point? You aren't really making any counter points to anything I have said.

Well it’s tough for you to say it’s about morality cause you see religious as the majority, but us christians are morally involved!

Because i don't recognize a moral that is predicated on magical hoo-ha as being a "moral". It's a logic thing.

Fortunately, you don't have to, unless you happen to meet someone who is actually making the argument, "Abortion is wrong because God says so!" without YOU saying it first and trying to make them responsible for it.

Of course, that would require you to develop the mental acuity, intellectual honesty, and intestinal fortitude to listen and respond to people's REAL arguments, and we can't have that. Without your straw man, you're helpless.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You have no objective basis for morality.

Of course I do. I can easily point out things that objectively represent better well being for humans than do other things. You simply couldn't be more wrong. Maybe you can't eke out anything like this from your brain, but don't make the mistake of thinking everyone else is so limited in their capability as you are.

No, you really can't. What you can do is take a stance you inherited by being born and raised in a society with an ingrained Judeo-Christian heritage and outlook, and then try to reverse-engineer it into something you "figured out" independently.

 

[sakinago]

I asked the most Religious zealot I know This Question "Do you believe in Ghosts" He was shocked and stated absolutely not "Ghosts don't Exist" I asked so you've never seen a ghost right. So since you've never seen one they don't exist right!!! "So how can justify your religious beliefs, have you ever seen your god. So it obviously doesn't exist either . Need less to say he went away mad as hell because I questioned his unwavering belief in something created by men to control the thoughts and actions of other men, so funny try it on your religious friends they'll make every excuse to try and ridicule. How about this? you are born you live a life then you die and life continues without you just like it has for millions of years. What about the untold millions maybe billions of humans who existed before modern religion where did they go since God didn't exist then they must have just returned to the earth like every other creature on earth does. DUH!!!!!

Or he walked away “mad as hell” because that’s a dumb false equivalency. Who actually ever claims to see God? People may believe god intervenes in unseen ways, but the percentage of religious people who claim to see god has to be in the .0001 percentile, and those people aren’t usually considered to be playing with a full deck. Christians believe in free will, while atheist do not (not the prominent ones who can make intelligent arguments at least). It would kind of throw a wrench in the whole free will thing if we could actually see or prove god. It doesn’t require a whole lotta faith to count on the sun rising every morning.

On the other hand, people claim to see ghosts all the time. Using logical fallacies to “disprove” god isn’t something to be proud of bub.

Who are the prominent atheists who do not believe in free will? Are they determinists?

How would proof of god remove free will? A person would still have the freedom to choose to follow or not god's laws, wouldn't they? Free will doesn't only exist in regards to things that one has no proof for. Free will and faith are not the same thing.

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris most notably, and pretty much any of the prominent atheist who promote atheism, spend a good bit of their focus on atheism, and actually debate these issues. Basically the ones who make the best arguments. It’s kind of determinism, but that’s not the best descriptor. It’s more like all of your actions come from a recipe made up of genetics, neurons firing in your brain, communicative chemicals in your brain, learned behaviors, and evolutionary adaptations. There’s plenty of other atheist out there who don’t spend as much time thinking about these issues who believe in free will, but I wouldn’t call them the prominent ones, even if they are famous, it’s for something outside of atheism.

And knowing god exists effectively would eliminate free will. If you were really really stupid, hardheaded, and narcissistic maybe you knowingly reject “gods commands”...but that would take one assuming they know better than the all powerful, all knowing, all seeing thing that created the universe that they only comprehend an extremely small fractional percentage of. This would be like your average person saying that they’re a better basketball player than Lebron, and then challenging Lebron to a game. Except times a couple million or billion, idk, like that but to a way worse extent. You’d have to be delusional to do so.

Whether a choice is easy or not doesn't change that it is a choice. Free will is not dependent upon the difficulty involved in the choices made.

I think there are probably quite a few people who would say they know god exists.

If someone thinks they are a better basketball player than LeBron James, that is an opinion, not a choice. Deciding to challenge him to a game would be a choice, regardless of the odds of winning that game.

This is true, but it free will would be kind of useless. A big part of the free will is the ability to believe in something or not. So you could choose not to believe in a god, but it’d be staring you back in the face. Would that be free will or just delusion?

 

[sakinago]

oh my god, just answer the question. I pretty much cited the reasons you gave about your friend getting her abortion. And so far your only answer has been, “well that’ll never happen.” Uh, yes that absolutely could happen. And stop avoiding the question. Trump is president, any ******* thing can happen at this point.

No it absolutely couldn’t. And you can’t find a single example where it did. No doctor would perform such a procedure and no woman would ask for an abortion at such a late date. These are just campfire tales to rile up stupid conservatives against abortion.

Even the late term babies born without brains are delivered normally so that their organs can be harvested for transplants. So that the parents have at comfort of knowing that other families will have a happy ending from their loss.

But not one of you anti-abortion types have given a single reason why women should be stripped of their rights to make decisions about whether or not to have a baby.

You are absolutely smoking crack. No, it's not common for women to wait that long to get an abortion, but it does happen. About 1% of all abortions in the US every year are third-trimester. Some of the reasons given are the possibility that the child has a birth defect, or a life change such as the relationship with her partner ending. Even Planned Parenthood doesn't try to pretend it never happens.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/5113/9611/5527/Abortion_After_first_trimester.pdf

And no, third-trimester abortions typically are not "delivered normally". The standard procedure is actually to euthanize the baby in utero, then induce labor so that the child is delivered stillborn.

Finally, PRO-LIFERS have given you the reasons why this so-called right should never have been invented in the first place. The fact that you refuse to listen and hear them because you don't want to deal with it and would prefer to live in this warm, fuzzy fantasy world you've made for yourself is not on us.

Its against the law in the US and no not 1% wait till the end of pg to abort. Give us a link on that.

No it isn’t illegal, in Oregon there are ZERO restrictions on abortion. That means you could literally abort before delivery just because you feel like it. New Mexico is similar, same with DC, and I think Vermont too. Y’all should be all for that though, because right to privacy, right?

No, Late-Term Abortions Don't 'Rip' Babies Out Of Wombs -- And They Exist For A Reason

educate yourself , very seldom does one get an abortion in the 3rd trimester, and its not do to want, there is usually a severe medical condition of the fetus or Mom.

The stats actually are that only 9.4% of the .02% of abortions that are late term are done for medical reasons. The rest are usually because the either didn’t know they were pregnant, had scheduling problems, or were in denial about pregnancy up until they felt the kicking and decided it was time to finally take care of it. Was trumps characterazation of late term abortions false, yes, that is up until after the ban on partial birth abortions. Those are indeed grizzly sights. Basically they did rip out the baby by its feet, pulled the entire thing out of the birth canal except the head, take a pair of scissors, jam them in the back of the skull, open the scissors still inside, twist them around a bit, then pull the rest of the now limp body out. The only reason they didn’t pull it all out, and then stab away, was because it was a little loophole of “it’s not fully out of the canal yet,” which is the equivalent of hovering ones finger millimeters away from someone’s skin saying “I’m not touching you”.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So a 13 yr old rape victim or Victim of incest would be forced to carry an unwanted fetus to term because you think your opinion actually matters to them, how about crack addicts or heroin addicts who would be forced by our govt to have children they neither planned for nor want. Oh that's right they could get welfare ADC free healthcare etc which would make every Dumbocrat ecstatic

Oh, for crying out loud. THIS crap again.

I tell you what, Sparkles. How's about I stipulate that rape, incest, life of the mother cases are exempt from abortion restrictions (as is standard with most pro-lifers), and then you agree that the other 99% of cases can be banned. Would you agree to that? Or are you - as I think everyone knows you are - just using those hard cases to hide behind and try to justify unfettered abortion at any time, for any reason?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I asked the most Religious zealot I know This Question "Do you believe in Ghosts" He was shocked and stated absolutely not "Ghosts don't Exist" I asked so you've never seen a ghost right. So since you've never seen one they don't exist right!!! "So how can justify your religious beliefs, have you ever seen your god. So it obviously doesn't exist either . Need less to say he went away mad as hell because I questioned his unwavering belief in something created by men to control the thoughts and actions of other men, so funny try it on your religious friends they'll make every excuse to try and ridicule. How about this? you are born you live a life then you die and life continues without you just like it has for millions of years. What about the untold millions maybe billions of humans who existed before modern religion where did they go since God didn't exist then they must have just returned to the earth like every other creature on earth does. DUH!!!!!

Did this become a Religion thread while I wasn't looking, Cap'n Crunch? If not, get your happy ass back on topic, and take THIS shit and go start your own thread for "I hate religion, look how smart I am for hating religion!" to put it in.

 

[Cecilie1200]

we outlawed murder it still happens everyday think about that

What, precisely, are we supposed to "think about that", Cap'n Obvious? I mean, aside from, "Duuuhhh, no shit, Sherlock".

 

[sakinago]

Nobody “supports” abortion. Some do support allowing the woman to make the decision the law allows her to make. We understand that law is fact and does not fit well with emotion driven feelings

It’s murder. The baby is alive so it’s murder.

If it were murder then it would not be legal. Once again, facts are troubling to those driven by emotion

Roe v Wade was never about whether it’s murder or human life or not, it was about it not being fair someone could get an abortion in one state but not the other (a states rights issue). Which was an unconstitutional decision anyway since the 9th or 10th amendment would bar the fed from that power. So we skipped the important part of the debate, that part that pro-choice folks want to avoid with phrases like, “if it were murder, it would not be legal.” Which is an appeal to consequence. I could say “if civil asset forfeit seizure was stealing, it would not be legal.” Even though it is clear cut theft by the government (when they see large sums of cash, they can confiscate without even charging someone with a crime, for those who aren’t familiar). This is also unconstitutional but it’s also law...so obviously the law is not infallible. As we’ve seen with slavery, gay marriage, Japanese interment, etc.

So for privacy to even become a justification of abortion, one must decide whether or not it is life. It’s well known, I shouldn’t have to keep repeating this, but your rights stop at the point of infringing on other people’s rights, obviously.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because she did not want an abortion and probably would of carried to term. Murder is killing the women and so the fetus has no chance of becoming a viable infant.

What may or may not have happened in the future doesn't matter, though. If a fetus, before a certain stage of development, is not a person, is in fact an extension of the mother's body, how can the fetus be murdered?

People it is simple, there is but one question, is a fetus alive?

All kinds of things are alive without us granting them the sort of protection and value we do with people.

Yes, but only one kind of thing is alive and a member of the human race.

And there are all kinds of things that are alive and not human which are given far more respect and protection than human fetuses, by the exact same people who want to treat fetuses like infected tonsils.

I just don't like when the argument is put so simply as whether or not a fetus is alive.

Why, precisely, given that that IS the actual point of contention here?

 

[sakinago]

Because she did not want an abortion and probably would of carried to term. Murder is killing the women and so the fetus has no chance of becoming a viable infant.

What may or may not have happened in the future doesn't matter, though. If a fetus, before a certain stage of development, is not a person, is in fact an extension of the mother's body, how can the fetus be murdered?

People it is simple, there is but one question, is a fetus alive?

All kinds of things are alive without us granting them the sort of protection and value we do with people.

Yes, but only one kind of thing is alive and a member of the human race.

And there are all kinds of things that are alive and not human which are given far more respect and protection than human fetuses, by the exact same people who want to treat fetuses like infected tonsils.

I just don't like when the argument is put so simply as whether or not a fetus is alive.

That’s the central point of contention, you can’t have the abortion debate without that question.

Is it ok for parents to separate Siamese twins, even though it’ll mean the death of one of them, and they’ll both live if there is no separation?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It is certainly true that those who oppose legal abortion are monsters, and they are stupid monsters for thinking that outlawing abortion will actually end abortion. It will only relegate abortion to the underground, unsanitary, unqualified practitioners who do not have access to proper medical facilities and equipment putting women at enormous risk.

Lets just set the debate about when life begins, whether or not it is a matter of privacy rights, and false equivalency logical fallacies comparing it to murder. The fact is that legal or not, women will have abortions for various reasons, Why not channel the energy in ways that reduce the demand and need for abortion, of which there are many?

I would really like to know how many of the people here who rail against abortion are willing to support the direction of resources to programs that prevent unwanted pregnancies and that provide supports to people who might choose to carry a child to term if they knew that help was available. That includes:

Meaningful and comprehensive sex education
Readily available and affordable birth control
Universal health care'
Affordable Housing
Nutritional programs such as food stamps'
Affordable pre school and day care
A living minimum wage
Laws against discrimination.

If you are opposed to any or all of these things but claim to be " pro life" let me tell you something . YOU ARE NOT PRO LIFE . You are a monster, and a stupid, hypocritical monster at that.

 

[Dragonlady]

Nobody “supports” abortion. Some do support allowing the woman to make the decision the law allows her to make. We understand that law is fact and does not fit well with emotion driven feelings

It’s murder. The baby is alive so it’s murder.

If it were murder then it would not be legal. Once again, facts are troubling to those driven by emotion

Roe v Wade was never about whether it’s murder or human life or not, it was about it not being fair someone could get an abortion in one state but not the other (a states rights issue). Which was an unconstitutional decision anyway since the 9th or 10th amendment would bar the fed from that power. So we skipped the important part of the debate, that part that pro-choice folks want to avoid with phrases like, “if it were murder, it would not be legal.” Which is an appeal to consequence. I could say “if civil asset forfeit seizure was stealing, it would not be legal.” Even though it is clear cut theft by the government (when they see large sums of cash, they can confiscate without even charging someone with a crime, for those who aren’t familiar). This is also unconstitutional but it’s also law...so obviously the law is not infallible. As we’ve seen with slavery, gay marriage, Japanese interment, etc.

So for privacy to even become a justification of abortion, one must decide whether or not it is life. It’s well known, I shouldn’t have to keep repeating this, but your rights stop at the point of infringing on other people’s rights, obviously.

Link on those bullshit late term stats.

Here’s mine:

No, Late-Term Abortions Don't 'Rip' Babies Out Of Wombs -- And They Exist For A Reason

Right wingers lie about abortion because there is no reasonable defence for their position. Not in law, not in biology, and not in religion.

 

[sakinago]

It is certainly true that those who oppose legal abortion are monsters, and they are stupid monsters for thinking that outlawing abortion will actually end abortion. It will only relegate abortion to the underground, unsanitary, unqualified practitioners who do not have access to proper medical facilities and equipment putting women at enormous risk.

Lets just set the debate about when life begins, whether or not it is a matter of privacy rights, and false equivalency logical fallacies comparing it to murder. The fact is that legal or not, women will have abortions for various reasons, Why not channel the energy in ways that reduce the demand and need for abortion, of which there are many?

I would really like to know how many of the people here who rail against abortion are willing to support the direction of resources to programs that prevent unwanted pregnancies and that provide supports to people who might choose to carry a child to term if they knew that help was available. That includes:

Meaningful and comprehensive sex education
Readily available and affordable birth control
Universal health care'
Affordable Housing
Nutritional programs such as food stamps'
Affordable pre school and day care
A living minimum wage
Laws against discrimination.

If you are opposed to any or all of these things but claim to be " pro life" let me tell you something . YOU ARE NOT PRO LIFE . You are a monster, and a stupid, hypocritical monster at that.

I’ve already said before in this thread, on your first period, you send a form into government, what BC you want, gets delivered to your door (or procedure paid for) automatically. Then say bye bye to abortion.

The fact that it still will happen doesn’t make it less than a crime. You could say the exact same thing for murder. But it’s not going to be driven underground to a heavy degree at all. Rare cases here and there, for people that can afford it (it’s going to be stupid expensive, this isn’t Botox injections we’re talking about) and still stupid enough to not use BC. That’s a fair compromise, no excuse for abortion (we’ll allow the .00001% cases of incest and rape). Don’t start with the BC failure shit either, we’re talking 99.9% efficacy rates outside of non-chemical IUDs that are still very effective. (which just means legal lingo for covering our ass if you did not use correctly). If you’re worried about condoms breaking, use lube...way easier problem to solve than getting an abortion. Take your pills, get mirena, use a condom, they’re free and delivered to your door when you need them.

 

[Dragonlady]

It is certainly true that those who oppose legal abortion are monsters, and they are stupid monsters for thinking that outlawing abortion will actually end abortion. It will only relegate abortion to the underground, unsanitary, unqualified practitioners who do not have access to proper medical facilities and equipment putting women at enormous risk.

Lets just set the debate about when life begins, whether or not it is a matter of privacy rights, and false equivalency logical fallacies comparing it to murder. The fact is that legal or not, women will have abortions for various reasons, Why not channel the energy in ways that reduce the demand and need for abortion, of which there are many?

I would really like to know how many of the people here who rail against abortion are willing to support the direction of resources to programs that prevent unwanted pregnancies and that provide supports to people who might choose to carry a child to term if they knew that help was available. That includes:

Meaningful and comprehensive sex education
Readily available and affordable birth control
Universal health care'
Affordable Housing
Nutritional programs such as food stamps'
Affordable pre school and day care
A living minimum wage
Laws against discrimination.

If you are opposed to any or all of these things but claim to be " pro life" let me tell you something . YOU ARE NOT PRO LIFE . You are a monster, and a stupid, hypocritical monster at that.

I’ve already said before in this thread, on your first period, you send a form into government, what BC you want, gets delivered to your door (or procedure paid for) automatically. Then say bye bye to abortion.

The fact that it still will happen doesn’t make it less than a crime. You could say the exact same thing for murder. But it’s not going to be driven underground to a heavy degree at all. Rare cases here and there, for people that can afford it (it’s going to be stupid expensive, this isn’t Botox injections we’re talking about) and still stupid enough to not use BC. That’s a fair compromise, no excuse for abortion (we’ll allow the .00001% cases of incest and rape). Don’t start with the BC failure shit either, we’re talking 99.9% efficacy rates outside of non-chemical IUDs that are still very effective. (which just means legal lingo for covering our ass if you did not use correctly). If you’re worried about condoms breaking, use lube...way easier problem to solve than getting an abortion. Take your pills, get mirena, use a condom, they’re free and delivered to your door when you need them.

You are dreaming in technicolor if you think that free birth control for all will solve your abortion problem.

BIRTH CONTROL IN THE REAL WORLD DOESN’T AS WELL AS IT DOES IN THE LAB.

More than half the women who get abortions were using birth control when they got pregnant. Every woman I know who used birth control had at least one unplanned pregnancy.

For most of us it’s a “timing issue” and we go ahead with the pregnancy, but as long as Republicans continue their war against working families, poor women will need abortions.

 

[sakinago]

Nobody “supports” abortion. Some do support allowing the woman to make the decision the law allows her to make. We understand that law is fact and does not fit well with emotion driven feelings

It’s murder. The baby is alive so it’s murder.

If it were murder then it would not be legal. Once again, facts are troubling to those driven by emotion

Roe v Wade was never about whether it’s murder or human life or not, it was about it not being fair someone could get an abortion in one state but not the other (a states rights issue). Which was an unconstitutional decision anyway since the 9th or 10th amendment would bar the fed from that power. So we skipped the important part of the debate, that part that pro-choice folks want to avoid with phrases like, “if it were murder, it would not be legal.” Which is an appeal to consequence. I could say “if civil asset forfeit seizure was stealing, it would not be legal.” Even though it is clear cut theft by the government (when they see large sums of cash, they can confiscate without even charging someone with a crime, for those who aren’t familiar). This is also unconstitutional but it’s also law...so obviously the law is not infallible. As we’ve seen with slavery, gay marriage, Japanese interment, etc.

So for privacy to even become a justification of abortion, one must decide whether or not it is life. It’s well known, I shouldn’t have to keep repeating this, but your rights stop at the point of infringing on other people’s rights, obviously.

Link on those bullshit late term stats.

Here’s mine:

No, Late-Term Abortions Don't 'Rip' Babies Out Of Wombs -- And They Exist For A Reason

Right wingers lie about abortion because there is no reasonable defence for their position. Not in law, not in biology, and not in religion.

Yea I already addressed that exact same article in a previous post. It’s referring to trumps characterization of partial birth abortions. Which I actually believe was the question to Hillary on why she voted against the PBA ban. Again read your own articles. It says 1.3% happen after 28 weeks, and from its own source cited in that article, the Guttmacher institute, it says that only 9.4% of the 1.3% after 28 weeks or for medical reasons. The rest are because they didn’t know they were pregnant or something similar.

So your assertion that these late term abortions for non medical reasons never happen is false, approximately 12,000 happen every year in the US. From your own article.

 

[sakinago]

It is certainly true that those who oppose legal abortion are monsters, and they are stupid monsters for thinking that outlawing abortion will actually end abortion. It will only relegate abortion to the underground, unsanitary, unqualified practitioners who do not have access to proper medical facilities and equipment putting women at enormous risk.

Lets just set the debate about when life begins, whether or not it is a matter of privacy rights, and false equivalency logical fallacies comparing it to murder. The fact is that legal or not, women will have abortions for various reasons, Why not channel the energy in ways that reduce the demand and need for abortion, of which there are many?

I would really like to know how many of the people here who rail against abortion are willing to support the direction of resources to programs that prevent unwanted pregnancies and that provide supports to people who might choose to carry a child to term if they knew that help was available. That includes:

Meaningful and comprehensive sex education
Readily available and affordable birth control
Universal health care'
Affordable Housing
Nutritional programs such as food stamps'
Affordable pre school and day care
A living minimum wage
Laws against discrimination.

If you are opposed to any or all of these things but claim to be " pro life" let me tell you something . YOU ARE NOT PRO LIFE . You are a monster, and a stupid, hypocritical monster at that.

I’ve already said before in this thread, on your first period, you send a form into government, what BC you want, gets delivered to your door (or procedure paid for) automatically. Then say bye bye to abortion.

The fact that it still will happen doesn’t make it less than a crime. You could say the exact same thing for murder. But it’s not going to be driven underground to a heavy degree at all. Rare cases here and there, for people that can afford it (it’s going to be stupid expensive, this isn’t Botox injections we’re talking about) and still stupid enough to not use BC. That’s a fair compromise, no excuse for abortion (we’ll allow the .00001% cases of incest and rape). Don’t start with the BC failure shit either, we’re talking 99.9% efficacy rates outside of non-chemical IUDs that are still very effective. (which just means legal lingo for covering our ass if you did not use correctly). If you’re worried about condoms breaking, use lube...way easier problem to solve than getting an abortion. Take your pills, get mirena, use a condom, they’re free and delivered to your door when you need them.

You are dreaming in technicolor if you think that free birth control for all will solve your abortion problem.

BIRTH CONTROL IN THE REAL WORLD DOESN’T AS WELL AS IT DOES IN THE LAB.

More than half the women who get abortions were using birth control when they got pregnant. Every woman I know who used birth control had at least one unplanned pregnancy.

For most of us it’s a “timing issue” and we go ahead with the pregnancy, but as long as Republicans continue their war against working families, poor women will need abortions.

That’s either BS or you got some really dumb friends. I’ve been an RN for over six years now, I know the lit on this shit. So every women you know is not in the 99.9% of people Bc is effective for?

Do you honestly believe that drug companies, who get sued for non-related claims of side effects ALL the time, would still be in business if they claimed it has 99.9% efficacy rate, but half of the 1 million women getting abortions were still getting pregnant?

 

[Montrovant]

What may or may not have happened in the future doesn't matter, though. If a fetus, before a certain stage of development, is not a person, is in fact an extension of the mother's body, how can the fetus be murdered?

People it is simple, there is but one question, is a fetus alive?

All kinds of things are alive without us granting them the sort of protection and value we do with people.

Yes, but only one kind of thing is alive and a member of the human race.

And there are all kinds of things that are alive and not human which are given far more respect and protection than human fetuses, by the exact same people who want to treat fetuses like infected tonsils.

I just don't like when the argument is put so simply as whether or not a fetus is alive.

Why, precisely, given that that IS the actual point of contention here?

That is not a point of contention. I doubt even the most ardent pro-choice advocate would argue that a fetus is not alive (or at least part of a living being). Instead, I think the points of contention would be whether a fetus is a person, or whether it is a separate being from the mother.

I would guess that the fetus being a separate living being is the point you are saying is in contention.