Yes, really. After all, you're posting on a debate forum. If all you can intellectually muster is a SUGGESTION, may I suggest purchasing and affixing a relevant bumper sticker to your car. (or wheelchair)
What you've expressed here is your every right to personally choose to challenge abortion. Which is fine.
It should. Drugs should be legal and regulated anyway, like alcohol and tobacco.
There's arguments for and against. Does this hold any significance to the abortion debate for you?
Arguing bodily autonomy and relevant legal precedents would be a mire effective Argument. Regardless, there is no rational or legal basis for abortion restrictions anyway. Such laws are more emotionally driven than anything.
Yes. It was ruled at the development point of viability the state had a "compelling interest" in the unborn.
The laws were still in effect. They were simply interpreted tpo establish when they can be in effect. Thats not making up a new law.
But if you want to cite where more states are going with more restrictions...let's see it...quoted.
Why should a dead fetus not be dismembered if it's big enough to internally damage the woman on removal? It receives a lethal injection of anesthetic first, so it feels nothing. You seem to prefer she endure additional pain and harm. Why?
It's just another demonstration of how unchristian or just plain inhumane your views are...who cares about the harm to the woman?And since almost all such late abortions would be medically necessary, we're talking about a woman/couple that wanted to have a baby. You'd punish her further, grieving the loss, anyway. Disgusting.
Lordy, keep posting. Your posts become more and more monstrous as we go on. Like blaming kids waiting to be adopted for being born.
We can keep going in circles.The more we do, the more inhumane and amoral your posts become as you desperately try to justify your views without even knowing why abortion is wrong. Clearly, understanding morality is not your strong point.
Says the one whining about perceived irresponsibility and "babies" being killed
Nope. Life is a scientific issue, not a legal one. In law, personhood is the issue, of which the unborn are not.
As i said before, people are stupid and irrational.
Where is this so called "right" enumerated?
a fetus is still neither a baby or a person.
Abortion is still allowed and performed in most of the country. People's moral qualms is their own.
My brother in Christ... not only did you completely miss the point of the argument but now your basically saying looking like a baby is an argument. You're wrong on this since they pretty much do look like a baby in the early stages. No parent would walk around saying "I have a fetus growing in my stomach!" even if they believed babies and fetuses are the same or not. And no part of this proves personhood or what makes a "person" objectively.
Says the one whining about perceived irresponsibility and "babies" being killed
Nope. Life is a scientific issue, not a legal one. In law, personhood is the issue, of which the unborn are not.
As i said before, people are stupid and irrational.
Where is this so called "right" enumerated?
a fetus is still neither a baby or a person.
Abortion is still allowed and performed in most of the country. People's moral qualms is their own.
But zero foundation in reality to explain why Congress would seek out and create a fetal personhood amendment, which must be approved by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, or by a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures, and then ratified by three-fourths of the states. Definitely not happening. 