Sure there is. Your stance is abortions should be legal and with only the most minimal restrictions, if any at all. You are 'pro-abortion', just as someone arguing the same position regarding firearms is called 'pro-gun'.
First of all, you have made the idiotic ASSumption that this is *my* stance. Now you get to chew on that foot you just stuck in your mouth. Enjoy, sport.
Second, the stance you are referring to is that the choice over what happens to a womans body should be hers alone. It is her choice, therefore the stance is appropriately called pro-choice.
Though, to be fair, those pro-gun peopele that DO hold that 'guns should be legal and with only the most minimal restrictions, if any at all' are usually called 'gun nuts' -- and so I think i'll just use the term 'abortion nut' from this point on.
And likewise, those who wish to strip people of rights and privacy, to enforce and punish through theft of resources are typically called Anti-American -- and so I think I will just use the term Anti-American from this point on. :mrgreen:
And the human life inside the mother is willfully ignored, because the pro-abortion crowd doesnt want have to have to deal with the idea of taking an innocent human life.
If you are a "good Christian man", then you should know that no life is innocent. Just thought I would throw that out there and watch you spin around looking for a corner in a round room. :lol:
Human life has nothing to do with personhood and right to life. At least that is what the Supreme Court decided. :mrgreen:
A bunch of hysterical babbling, but that's nothing new.
instead they prefer to argue that "personhood" -- a term they define as necessary to suit their needs -- is what's relevant.
And what are you doing? Arguing that "personhood" -- a term you define as necessary to suit your needs -- is what's relevant.
I don't have to argue a term necessary to suit my needs. Justice Blackmun already did it for me. :mrgreen:
In any case - define "person" and then compare and contrast that definition to that of "human life" -- then tell me why its Ok to take a 'human life' but not a
person'.
That's easy because it's been done a dozen times or more, johnny come lately.
Person
1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.
6. Law A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
7. Christianity Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
8. Grammar
a. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
b. Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.
9. A character or role, as in a play; a guise: "Well, in her person, I say I will not have you" Shakespeare.
You mean that which makes up your post in its entirety? You're right.[/QUOTE]
As opposed to
human beingwhich simply state:
n.
A human.
To any
person with half a brain cell still firing, the difference is more than clear. However, I won't be surprised if I have to further cater to your hysterics and dispel more of the typical pro-life dishonesty. :doh