how do you define "conception" ?
I explained why abortion should not be restricted in the least. Thats the argument i made. You haven't explained the value of life or what biology has to do with abortion, which is the argumentyou made. Instead, you try to weasel out of explaining yourself and your assertions when challenged, which you are doing right now again, and which is both cowardly and dishonest. It's hilarious how you need to try to obviously bait someone into making your argument for you, since yours is so weak and pitiful that you can't even make or explain it yourself!
Explain what's wrong with it and wrong according to whom or what authority!
I don't remember that? it has nothing to do with legal/laws ... I've already proven that's irrelevant
all applies to you right now and has for many many pages.
we have many laws protecting the unborn - you know that
Um...that
(I have answered what asked you, many times. I have provided detailed arguments both legal and moral. You have not. Saying something is wrong is a statement, not an argument.)
How convenient for you.
Where? Cite your post! And yes, I used law to argue that position.
Still waiting on that explanation of the "value" of human life! Until you provide that, any assertion of value is meaningless!
Says who? By what authority? Innocent of what exactly? Has it been charged with a crime or something? I could easily argue more effectively that it is "guilty" rather than make some empty declaration.
They're born individuals with established constitutional rights and recognition as persons. THe unborn are not. And yes, kids are expensive. Abortion is way cheaper.
The care is also for the pregnant woman. What happens to the gestational parasite also affects her health.
We shouldn't. I disagree with those laws.
No, my questions are simple and a direct response to your assertions. Your deflection and inability to answer them is noted.
How do you define or explain value? By what measurement? You have never explaned the "value of life." What is this "value? Asked again for the umpteenth time.
So you admit neonates and children are a burden? That's the one thing you said that is true. They are a burden, on both the parent/s and possibly society. That is undeniable. It is also true that abortion is much cheaper, both in the short and long term.
That is entirely her choice to make. She does not have to have her body used for gestation against her will.
False!
False!
False!
So what?
Same flawed argument.
Explain why we should define the value of life for you when is it neither our assertion or argument? It's yours! It's like you need us to make your argument for you because you are clearly incapable of doing it yourself! This continous dancing around that fact and posed questions to your assertions only shows it is you playing games! You're fooling no one here!
I can't speak for them though, If indeed Gordy, Lursa or I personally hold value for the unborn.... it's irrelevant. The issue is the relative value a pregnant woman holds in relation to her choice to abort is the issue at hand. My value, your value nor anyone else's cannot be forced onto the fetus inside of her.
Whoa skippy.
when you said if abortion was banned tomorrow you'd not change your views to follow legal/lawful. If that's true then its also not why you are pro-abortion today
so if the laws changed that unborns were granted the same - you'd change to ?
every woman on here who's had children should be highly offended you'd say that - its a horrible thing to say IMO
Specify where i ever said that!
What's "pro-abortion?" THat's another question I asked which you avoided.
No, I did not say. I use the law to argue my position, as the law somewhat agrees with it. But it is not the only basis of my argument.
More 'what-ifs?' Is that the best you can do?
Your feelings mean nothing to me!
As I suspected, you have nothing to explain. Just typical cowardly deflections and BS!
"Value of life" is asserted by you.
It's more fact than opinion.
When they're not, or when protection fails, abortion fixes that. After al, pencils have erasers to fix mistakes.
You did bring it up first. It's the basis of your entire argument and a point you repeat ad nauseum. Yet you never explained what this "value of life" is.
You made the assertion of value. So yes, the burden is on you to explain yourself or articulate your position. The fact yo avoid doing that and try to get others to explain your argument for you only shows how weak your position truly is and how you lack any real credibility here.
I'd say because all his talk about "value of life" is nothing more than sanctimonious BS. If he really believed the tripe he spews, he would explain it or defend his assertion. But as we've seen repeatedly, it's just cowardly deflections when pressed.