Since you started bringing up dictionary definitions, I did the same. I am alive and well, hence, I am not destroyed. If you're going to argue with dictio art definitions, then be consistent in your outrage. I am alive, hence, not destroyed.
The destruction continues... although at a quicker pace than I envisioned. Your posts are dismantled and just a shell of their former selves as you have been destroyed. Your best efforts are arguing about using a dictionary now... not even about what the words mean. This is like watching Meghan Markel look around frantically trying to see if people believe that she is a victim.
You brought up the dictionary first. I haven't been arguing about abortion for a while now because, like I said before, neither of us will change each others minds. I'm just waiting for that horrible death you keep saying you are doing to me... this horrible destruction you keep saying you are doing to me. Is it gonna happen at my job? My home? On the street? Can't kill anyone over the internet unless you're gonna transmit cancer through the computer.
If you say you are destroying my arguments, that is perfectly acceptable... but to say you are destroying a person? That is unacceptable.
Abortion does not destroy any persons. Please, you are proving him correct.
As I have ALREADY explained MANY TIMES, I believe life begins at conception. Just because the law says it doesn't, doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I still have to follow it, but not agree with it. Now, if I am consistent, and I believe that life begins at conception, then killing the unborn is the same as killing who is born.Abortion does not destroy any persons. Please, you are proving him correct.
Abortion kills the unborn. We do acknowledge that. Now why dont you explain your objections to that and why?
References:
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
and
14th Amendment - Section 1All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Life does begin at conception. For all higher animals. So? We kill other animals all the time. What distinction are you making? Species? Why?
Believe all you want...that's fine. However, morally, do you believe that you are entitled to force your beliefs on women, using force of law?
I believe that it is both the mother AND the father collectively. It takes two to make a baby. It should take two to agree to the abortion.
As far as forcing using force of law, we do that every day on many different things: taxes, how to declare war, that is what kegi
As far as forcing beliefs using force of law, that is what every person in law does. Raise taxes? Forced on us Cut taxes? Forced on us. If the public votes a person in power, they give that person the potential to force things on us using for of law. Personally, I think it should be left to the states.
Didn't mean to post that last one weird, on a bad cell phone posting.
That's a biological fact. It does not answer any of my questions. And I already posted why it's unconstitutional and immoral for the father to be able to force a woman to have an abortion OR remain pregnant.
Just stating a position and why is not 'debate.' It's supposed to be defended, supported. You address other's arguments and positions.
It still means you have posted an immoral position IMO and it goes unsupported.
I'm willing to bet it's quite reflective of your opinions. The Const. protects women...laws must be based on the Const. But feel free to explain why you believe it's acceptable to violate women's Const rights, rights such as due process, medical and reproductive privacy, bodily autonomy, personal liberty? Dont we have rights equal with men?
I bring it up again, because I never said the father should firce the mother, I said they should be in agreement. Now if the father decides he doesn't want to be in the picture, then i am willing to concede that the mother can make that choice.That's a biological fact. It does not answer any of my questions. And I already posted why it's unconstitutional and immoral for the father to be able to force a woman to have an abortion OR remain pregnant.
Why are you bringing it up again?
Just stating a position and why is not 'debate.' It's supposed to be defended, supported. You address other's arguments and positions.
Or you can act like King of the Forum, declare your opinion, and be done.
I wrote the same thing
Here you go again...YOU/MEN dont get to make that choice. It's her body, HER life. You are still writing that the man legally should be able to use force. Because if she says no and he was able to overrule it...that's immoral and unconstitutional.
You can, lol, hence my statement about 'king of the forum.' You are just reinforcing my point. You can post anything you want, just to proclaim your 'beliefs.' It's not debate and any of us are still welcome to shred your 'beliefs' and apparently, you cant or wont support them
As far as many state allowing elective abortions, that is their right to. It is not about womens rights to me. It is abut the rights of the COUPLE and THE UNBORN BABY. If men and women are equal, and the father wants to step up and be the father, then he has just as much right as the mother, and the decision should be a COUPLE decision.
It is not just her life, it is the life that the couple created as well.I wrote the same thing
Here you go again...YOU dont get to make that choice. It's her body, HER life. You are still writing that the man legally should be able to use force. Because if she says no and he was able to overrule it...that's immoral and unconstitutional.
You can, lol, hence my statement about 'king of the forum.' You are just reinforcing my point. You can post anything you want, just to proclaim your 'beliefs.' It's not debate and any of us are still welcome to shred your 'beliefs' and apparently, you cant or wont support them
There are no such things as 'couples rights'
and unborn rights. And I posted sources that proved it about the unborn.
I clearly destroyed your posts... I made that clear. Rubble. That is all that is left.
It has no rights. It's her life, her health, her future, the responsibilities that she has to her current family, kids, and other obligations that are all at risk. Why should she be forced to risk all those things when there is a safer, legal option in abortion?
www.reuters.com
There you go. Now you get it. What you just said is perfectly fine. The minute you said you destroyed me, that is when you change the argument from abortion/no abortion to talking about me personally. I bet you me and Lursa agree on other things, we just don't agree on this.
I got it all along... there is nothing wrong with saying that I destroyed you... it is also not talking about you... at all.
It isn't moral to force the woman to, and I never said the man should force the woman. If the couple is in agreement, then how is she being forced. It is called being an adult. If the father wants it and the mother doesn't, then whether I like it or not, like I said before, I believe state rights take precedence.It has no rights. It's her life, her health, her future, the responsibilities that she has to her current family, kids, and other obligations that are all at risk. Why should she be forced to risk all those things when there is a safer, legal option in abortion?
Abortion safer than giving birth: study
Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.Abortion is 14 times safer than pregnancyNEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.
The govt recognizes that it is unconstitutional to do so...thankfully. Why do you believe it is moral to force a woman to remain pregnant, take such a risk, against her will?
An acorn is alive, but it's not an oak tree. A zygote is alive, but it's not a person.
