Iowa set to ban abortions after six weeks

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Annee

Well, I dare say that the motivations that are driving women to abortions are based more on reality, better thought out, less selfish and greedy, and often times much similar to those of the masses the greedy and powerful con into supporting the destruction of entire villages and the deaths that go with them...
fear, protecting my way of life, protecting my life, protecting what is mine, protecting my family....

Oh, I know.

Abortion is in reality the unselfish choice.

While, bringing another child into this world is the selfish choice.

There is not a single reason to bring another human into this world at this time that is anything but selfish.

After every LIVING CHILD is cared for, loved, housed, fed, educated, etc - - - then talk to me.

originally posted by: Annee
After every LIVING CHILD is cared for, loved, housed, fed, educated, etc - - - then talk to me.

Well that's an unrealistic absolute.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: Bluntone22

Stupid, a woman's body doesn't belong to the state or the courts, it's her own body in which she is responsible to make her own decisions based on her own thoughts.

If authorities are allowed to continually keep stepping over the line, eventually there will be no more personal freedoms.

I'm not sure why so many people think a living baby is a part of the "woman's body". It's a separate person. You're the host.

It is not a "living baby" at 6 weeks, and the decision should still lie with the "host", not some bureaucrats who have suddenly developed some kind of wayward, misinformed conscience.

Say someone shoots a woman with a 6 week fetus in the belly.

There is no CHOICE involved here.

The fetus is taken from her by the actions of another.

So MURDER of a child is ok as long as its the CHOICE of the mother?

WOW.

so if the child is say 4 years old and the mother kills her child by your logic its ok?

its logic like this that shows the hypocrisy of pro abortion ON DEMAND supporters

Scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

pray tell.... what happens if gov't officials and law enforcement are led to believe that a mother wants to kill their 4 year old child, if they really believe it is a risk? they certainly don't force her to continue to care for the child! no, they take the child and place in a foster home that they tell us all is loving and caring.
well, a six week old embryo isn't a baby!! you can't safely separate if from it's mother if the mother poses a danger to it or it poses a danger to her. trying to separate the two will cause the death of the embryo. so, what are you gonna do? force her to take care of it when you know she doesn't want it inside her? what are you gonna watch over her every minute of the day, make sure she's eating properly, not taking drugs or drinking pints of booze everyday? are you gonna make sure she doesn't throw herself down a flight of stairs (what the heck, if a prosecutor and judge can find it believable enough to justify throwing a women in jail for a miscarriage, I can hope you will also!!!).
if someone, even your child is bothering you, you have every right to walk away from them, there's plenty of child care centers out there, plenty of babysitters, that can replace you while you take a mom's night out. if you want a more permanent respite from the little darling, there's a foster care system. and, for those pain in the butts that aren't your children, there's call blocking, do not disturb signs, even restraining orders. my point being you ain't stuck with them 24/7. a pregnant women can't decide she wants to take the morning off from the vomiting cause by morning sickness and leave it for someone else to deal with. she can't decide to take a break from the swollen feet, the back pain, or any of the other discomforts associated with a pregnancy. she is stuck with them! so quit acting like that little six week fetus is the same as a baby... IT ISN'T!! not until it becomes viable- capable of having a chance of surviving outside of the womb - and she can pass the little tyke off onto another and get a break from all that discomfort that caring for it entails.

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: Bluntone22

Stupid, a woman's body doesn't belong to the state or the courts, it's her own body in which she is responsible to make her own decisions based on her own thoughts.

If authorities are allowed to continually keep stepping over the line, eventually there will be no more personal freedoms.

I'm not sure why so many people think a living baby is a part of the "woman's body". It's a separate person. You're the host.

It is not a "living baby" at 6 weeks, and the decision should still lie with the "host", not some bureaucrats who have suddenly developed some kind of wayward, misinformed conscience.

Say someone shoots a woman with a 6 week fetus in the belly.

There is no CHOICE involved here.

The fetus is taken from her by the actions of another.

So MURDER of a child is ok as long as its the CHOICE of the mother?

WOW.

so if the child is say 4 years old and the mother kills her child by your logic its ok?

its logic like this that shows the hypocrisy of pro abortion ON DEMAND supporters

Scrounger

What part of LIVING CHILDREN have you missed in my posts?

The fetus is not a child, but has the potential to be a living human.

I support each individual woman to have the right to make the choice to terminate.

I do not support anyone else taking that right from her.

originally posted by: Annee

The fetus is not a child, but has the potential to be a living human.

This is a completely ignorant logical fallacy.

Fetus and child are stages of human development.

a reply to: dawnstar

quite a rant you have there.

In all that attempt at justification for KILLING an unborn child you missed the idea of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for one being pregnant.

Sex is NOT REQUIRED for someone to live.

If one CHOOSES to engage in sex with protection that NEVER IS 100 PERCENT effective or engage in sex without protection then there is a chance of ....PREGNANCY

Then everything in your rant is CAUSED BY SOMEONES CHOICES unless its rape (which the law does allow for an abortion).

If you want to have sex but no chance of children they have a solution for that...called STERILIZATION

So here is the cold hard FACTS.

abortion ON DEMAND supporters like you want to have your fun (SEX) and not be troubled by any discomfort that YOUR CHOICES cause.

THAT IS THE TRUTH ...OWN UP TO IT

scrounger

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: Bluntone22

Stupid, a woman's body doesn't belong to the state or the courts, it's her own body in which she is responsible to make her own decisions based on her own thoughts.

If authorities are allowed to continually keep stepping over the line, eventually there will be no more personal freedoms.

I'm not sure why so many people think a living baby is a part of the "woman's body". It's a separate person. You're the host.

It is not a "living baby" at 6 weeks, and the decision should still lie with the "host", not some bureaucrats who have suddenly developed some kind of wayward, misinformed conscience.

Say someone shoots a woman with a 6 week fetus in the belly.

There is no CHOICE involved here.

The fetus is taken from her by the actions of another.

So MURDER of a child is ok as long as its the CHOICE of the mother?

WOW.

so if the child is say 4 years old and the mother kills her child by your logic its ok?

its logic like this that shows the hypocrisy of pro abortion ON DEMAND supporters

Scrounger

What part of LIVING CHILDREN have you missed in my posts?

So whats inside of a woman is not alive ?
did you not pay attention in biology class or choose to ignore facts when does not support your views?

The fetus is not a child, but has the potential to be a living human.

So I guess all those preemie children that due to whatever reason are born and grow to adulthood dont exist?
really?

I support each individual woman to have the right to make the choice to terminate.

Kinda figured that out...thank you for restating the obvious

I do not support anyone else taking that right from her.

So following up your logic of "my body my choice" your cool with prostitution, drug abuse, suicide, self mutilation, ect?

sigh again you are choosing to ignore two points I make and keep making .

One PERSONAL RESPONCIBLITY

Sex is NOT REQUIRED for life. If one CHOOSES (not rape or incest to which the law allows abortion) to engage in that act (even with birth control) unless your STERILIZED a PREGNANCY is a possibility.
So by saying you want abortion on demand you want the "right" to be IRRESPONSIBLE with not being made to be held accountable.

You also want others to pay for the abortion as well.

Two THE LAW ON MURDER .

Again in all your (and supporters) rant of abortion on demand rights you have not even attempted to change the law that if a pregnant woman is (ex but not only one) shot by someone and the fetus (who you claim is not alive but "potential") is wounded/harmed but does not die its a charge ON IT specifically of attempted murder
If the fetus is killed its MURDER.
to which in both cases the persons involved have been charged and CONVICTED.

But if the woman CHOOSES TO kill the "potential life" for ANY REASON its ok.

Sorry but you CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS and claim some sort of right.

If it is ok for you to have it killed (yes it is KILLED be it a child or "potential" your words) being not a person then you cant then claim that if someone else though some action kills it its murder.

Again if it isnt a child then all you pro abortion ON DEMAND supporters need to change the law on murder.

otherwise (as you are doing so well) you are showing a gross hypocrisy
along with narcissism that you and you alone determine what is living and what isnt.


Scrounger

double post

a reply to: scrounger

are you married, do you plan on being married in the future?
if so, are you willing to practice what you preach when you significant other decides they don't want more children, either ever, or for a few years?
I'll tell you right now, there are some men out there who think that such a deal would be grounds for a divorce! so you tell me, if a mother of a couple children decides she would rather wait a few years before having another but the husband doesn't buy it, which is the good choice, risk getting pregnant or risk becoming a single parent??

you are right, there is no 100% effective birth control, but, depending on certain aspects of your significant other, or yours, health condition, you maybe find the doctor recommending you avoid any hormonal birth control methods, which leaves you with a pretty ineffective group of methods to chose from somewhere around the age of 30, are you willing to abstain till menopause if that happens?
doctors usually prefer doing tubal litigations after the birth of a baby if the women says that she wants no more after... it's cheaper, and safer... only if you live in some areas of the country, your baby will be born in a catholic hospital, there is no choice... and then... it won't matter if you or your significant other is a cancer patient or how strongly your doctor is recommending that you not have to go through the second operation for a tubal or impresses how important it is to avoid pregnancy... you won't get that tubal at a catholic hospital!!

really, at this point, I really wish the women would rise up in force, the rich women along with the poor, the married women along with the unmarried.... and just refuse..... unless of course, they want to have a baby... gives yous what you think yous want!! my guess is we would see more rape, more spousal rape, more divorces...

in all your ranting about "personal responsibility... you seem to miss a very important point! sometimes the demand that the little tyke is placing on the women who is carrying it is far too great, requires far too much sacrifice for her, and her family to make! and there is no good choices to be made. it's more of a balancing act between the rights of the one not yet born and the rights of a whole family who is born.

if you want to regulate abortion to the point where this law wants to take, well then you need to discuss this little aspect of the picture.. the rights of the fetus, even to life, shouldn't be held to such a high standard that it completely negates the right of the mother to physically perform her current responsibilities for her own living family, or the children's rights to the loving home that they are used to being in and their necessities of life.

a reply to: dawnstar

Again you tapped danced around my point of PERSONAL RESPONCIBLITY and LEGAL DEFINITION OF MURDER.


so a married couple one wants children and one doesn't.
so its PERSONAL RESPONCIBLITY/DECISION time

if you want kids but your partner doesn't then be an adult AND MAKE A CHOICE

A. Get another partner who wants kids

B. accept the situation, get sterilized so it cant happen and LIVE WITH IT

c. become a single mother.


as for your last part which part of either the life in you is a child WITH RIGHTS or it isn't.
you cant claim your doing it FOR PERSONAL REASONS to kill it but then say if you want it but someone else actions result in death they have to be charged with murder.

either it is a life that murder applies or it doesn't...not just because that woman gets to choose.
the law doesn't work like that...an individual doesn't decide what is legal or not.

you keep ranting but refuse to see the blatant hypocrisy

lets try one more time simple blunt facts

1 sex IS NOT NEEDED FOR LIFE....its A CHOICE (if not rape or incest)

2/ if you CHOOSE TO HAVE SEX AND NOT STERILIZED you as an ADULT accept that pregnancy may come of it.
PERSONAL RESPONCIBLITY.

3 either its a life or not.
if you want to have "the right" to CHOOSE TO END ITS LIFE then YOU CANT CLAIM ITS LIFE IF SOMEONE ELSE ENDS IT WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT.

I'm sorry if your conscience cant accept that your CHOOSING TO KILL SOMETHING that earlier and earlier medical science PROVES IS A CHILD that can (with difficulty ) LIVE IF OUTSIDE THE WOMB.

Scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

Again you tapped danced around my point of PERSONAL RESPONCIBLITY and LEGAL DEFINITION OF MURDER.

Get your definitions straight. Abortion is not murder, legally.

so a married couple one wants children and one doesn't.
so its PERSONAL RESPONCIBLITY/DECISION time

Marriage has little to nothing to do with it, regardless, sometimes the most personally responsible decision is abortion.

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: Bluntone22

Stupid, a woman's body doesn't belong to the state or the courts, it's her own body in which she is responsible to make her own decisions based on her own thoughts.

If authorities are allowed to continually keep stepping over the line, eventually there will be no more personal freedoms.

I'm not sure why so many people think a living baby is a part of the "woman's body". It's a separate person. You're the host.

It is not a "living baby" at 6 weeks, and the decision should still lie with the "host", not some bureaucrats who have suddenly developed some kind of wayward, misinformed conscience.

Say someone shoots a woman with a 6 week fetus in the belly.

There is no CHOICE involved here.

The fetus is taken from her by the actions of another.

So MURDER of a child is ok as long as its the CHOICE of the mother?

WOW.

so if the child is say 4 years old and the mother kills her child by your logic its ok?

its logic like this that shows the hypocrisy of pro abortion ON DEMAND supporters

Scrounger

What part of LIVING CHILDREN have you missed in my posts?

So whats inside of a woman is not alive ?
did you not pay attention in biology class or choose to ignore facts when does not support your views?

The fetus is not a child, but has the potential to be a living human.

So I guess all those preemie children that due to whatever reason are born and grow to adulthood dont exist?
really?

I support each individual woman to have the right to make the choice to terminate.

Kinda figured that out...thank you for restating the obvious

I do not support anyone else taking that right from her.

So following up your logic of "my body my choice" your cool with prostitution, drug abuse, suicide, self mutilation, ect?

sigh again you are choosing to ignore two points I make and keep making .

One PERSONAL RESPONCIBLITY

Sex is NOT REQUIRED for life. If one CHOOSES (not rape or incest to which the law allows abortion) to engage in that act (even with birth control) unless your STERILIZED a PREGNANCY is a possibility.
So by saying you want abortion on demand you want the "right" to be IRRESPONSIBLE with not being made to be held accountable.

You also want others to pay for the abortion as well.

Two THE LAW ON MURDER .

Again in all your (and supporters) rant of abortion on demand rights you have not even attempted to change the law that if a pregnant woman is (ex but not only one) shot by someone and the fetus (who you claim is not alive but "potential") is wounded/harmed but does not die its a charge ON IT specifically of attempted murder
If the fetus is killed its MURDER.
to which in both cases the persons involved have been charged and CONVICTED.

But if the woman CHOOSES TO kill the "potential life" for ANY REASON its ok.

Sorry but you CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS and claim some sort of right.

If it is ok for you to have it killed (yes it is KILLED be it a child or "potential" your words) being not a person then you cant then claim that if someone else though some action kills it its murder.

Again if it isnt a child then all you pro abortion ON DEMAND supporters need to change the law on murder.

otherwise (as you are doing so well) you are showing a gross hypocrisy
along with narcissism that you and you alone determine what is living and what isnt.


Scrounger

There is zero reason to complicate this. More words mean nothing.

Abortion CHOICE is the legal right of an individual carrying a potential human (not a child) to terminate the pregnancy.

Someone else taking the potential human from you via their irresponsible act - - - is on them.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: Bluntone22

Stupid, a woman's body doesn't belong to the state or the courts, it's her own body in which she is responsible to make her own decisions based on her own thoughts.

If authorities are allowed to continually keep stepping over the line, eventually there will be no more personal freedoms.

I'm not sure why so many people think a living baby is a part of the "woman's body". It's a separate person. You're the host.

It is not a "living baby" at 6 weeks, and the decision should still lie with the "host", not some bureaucrats who have suddenly developed some kind of wayward, misinformed conscience.

Say someone shoots a woman with a 6 week fetus in the belly.

There is no CHOICE involved here.

The fetus is taken from her by the actions of another.

So MURDER of a child is ok as long as its the CHOICE of the mother?

WOW.

so if the child is say 4 years old and the mother kills her child by your logic its ok?

its logic like this that shows the hypocrisy of pro abortion ON DEMAND supporters

Scrounger

What part of LIVING CHILDREN have you missed in my posts?

So whats inside of a woman is not alive ?
did you not pay attention in biology class or choose to ignore facts when does not support your views?

The fetus is not a child, but has the potential to be a living human.

So I guess all those preemie children that due to whatever reason are born and grow to adulthood dont exist?
really?

I support each individual woman to have the right to make the choice to terminate.

Kinda figured that out...thank you for restating the obvious

I do not support anyone else taking that right from her.

So following up your logic of "my body my choice" your cool with prostitution, drug abuse, suicide, self mutilation, ect?

sigh again you are choosing to ignore two points I make and keep making .

One PERSONAL RESPONCIBLITY

Sex is NOT REQUIRED for life. If one CHOOSES (not rape or incest to which the law allows abortion) to engage in that act (even with birth control) unless your STERILIZED a PREGNANCY is a possibility.
So by saying you want abortion on demand you want the "right" to be IRRESPONSIBLE with not being made to be held accountable.

You also want others to pay for the abortion as well.

Two THE LAW ON MURDER .

Again in all your (and supporters) rant of abortion on demand rights you have not even attempted to change the law that if a pregnant woman is (ex but not only one) shot by someone and the fetus (who you claim is not alive but "potential") is wounded/harmed but does not die its a charge ON IT specifically of attempted murder
If the fetus is killed its MURDER.
to which in both cases the persons involved have been charged and CONVICTED.

But if the woman CHOOSES TO kill the "potential life" for ANY REASON its ok.

Sorry but you CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS and claim some sort of right.

If it is ok for you to have it killed (yes it is KILLED be it a child or "potential" your words) being not a person then you cant then claim that if someone else though some action kills it its murder.

Again if it isnt a child then all you pro abortion ON DEMAND supporters need to change the law on murder.

otherwise (as you are doing so well) you are showing a gross hypocrisy
along with narcissism that you and you alone determine what is living and what isnt.


Scrounger

There is zero reason to complicate this. More words mean nothing.

Abortion CHOICE is the legal right of an individual carrying a potential human (not a child) to terminate the pregnancy.

Someone else taking the potential human from you via their irresponsible act - - - is on them.

Your CONTINUED attempt to deflect and ignore what LEGAL FACTS I have stated astounds me to no ends.

You are correct words UNDER THE LAW have meaning.

Under THE LAW abortion is not murder. You are correct.

But UNDER THE LAW if someone injures "potential life" (your words not legal designation) they can AND HAVE been charged with ATTEMPTED MURDER. UNDER THE LAW if that same "potential life" dies they CAN AND HAVE been charged WITH MURDER.
In BOTH CASES PEOPLE ARE IN PRISON FOR IT.

this is UNDENIABLE PROVABLE FACT.

The law outside of abortion law the "potential life" is CLASSIFIED AS A CHILD.

Which part of this either dont you get or you dont want to admit.

So as I point out the life in a womans body IS A CHILD/PERSON under part of the law.

so if you (for example only) decide to KILL (yes that what it is because of the FACT IT IS ALIVE) that life in you it isnt murder under the law but IF YOU make the choice to harm or kill a LIFE in someone else IT IS MURDER.

Hence the BLATANT HYPOCRISY of your pro abortion point
you want the right to kill if you choose and not call it a life .
But if someone else does it to you , its a life and murder.

So if you want to keep honest about your stance that its a "potential life" (IMO a way to satisfy your conscious) and not murder then you (and supporters of said view) should be pushing to declare that until it comes out of the womb it is NOT A CHILD and deserves NO PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

Funny in all your rants and all the pro abortion ON DEMAND (not rape, incest or medical deformity ) cant seem to find any support of this in any major way.

So instead of name calling, rehashing talking points , ect why not ANSWER the LEGAL FACTS I present.

Or cant your view/argument stand the LEGAL, MEDICAL, and ETHICAL factual realities.

Much less the implications.

Scounger

a reply to: scrounger

he law outside of abortion law the "potential life" is CLASSIFIED AS A CHILD.

Nope.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.

The law recognizes an embryo or a fetus as a legal victim of a crime.

The term "child in utero" is not a medical classification. It's legalese.

The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb

en.wikipedia.org...

Ultimately, the law protects a woman's choice. It does nothing to protect the unborn, it punishes perpetrators who already have usurped a woman's choice.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: scrounger

he law outside of abortion law the "potential life" is CLASSIFIED AS A CHILD.

Nope.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.

The law recognizes an embryo or a fetus as a legal victim of a crime.

The term "child in utero" is not a medical classification. It's legalese.

The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb

en.wikipedia.org...

Ultimately, the law protects a woman's choice. It does nothing to protect the unborn, it punishes perpetrators who already have usurped a woman's choice.

I will correct myself and yes as you clearly state its a embryo or fetus.
but as you even POSTED it is CHILD IN UTERO is LEGAL TERM..
NOT "POTENTIAL LIFE" as the person I was talking to was claiming and in so many words WHAT MOST pro abortion ON DEMAND claim.

So you validated one of my points. THANK YOU

Two....actually child in womb is a medical term depending on doctor and/or stage of development.
Also in fact that when a premature birth happens it is ALWAYS referred to as a "child".

so your attempt to somehow diminish what is effected / target of an abortion is at best cherry picking the term you want to justify your abortion on demand support and nulify the act that is committed.

Three.... your comment that someone who harms/kills "pick whatever term helps you sleep at night" in the women "takes away her choice" still is BLUNTLY SIDE STEPPING the point I keep showing.

That is its MURDER AND A LIVING BEING (or again pick your term) if someone else does it but if the WOMAN CHOOSES to do that same act with same results its NOT a living being with any protection.

in short your still JUSTIFYING THE HYPOCRISY of both the law and your support of ABORTION ON DEMAND.

Im sorry if it causes discomfort , shame, or negates your view its not a life but morally and medically your KILLING a living being.

the cold hard TRUTH that you and others CONTINUE TO IGNORE is that YOUR TAKING A LIFE .

just because if you call it an ABORTION ON DEMAND (for rape, incest, and medical is already an exception) does not change THIS BASIC FACT.

the only thing a woman does by getting an ABORTION JUST BECAUSE SHE WANTS TO AKA ON DEMAND making it LEGAL .

the ONLY logical reason you supporters of abortion on demand keep name calling (not saying you are to me) , cherry picking words, cherry picking medical terms, deflecting , OUTRIGHT IGNORING FACTS AND LAWS is this.

The REALITY and facts of what abortion is / does is not either palatable to supporters morality and/or if you openly admitted what your demanding as a "right" would not be acceptable to the public at large (again ABORTION JUST BECAUSE THE MOTHER WANTS IS , NOT for medical, rape or incest) .

Scrounger

Ok it seems those supporting ABORTION ON DEMAND cant or dont want to debate multiple questions and points I make in one comment.

So let me ask this ONE SIMPLE QUESTION to pro abortion on demand (not medical, rape or incest)

HOW EXACTLY does a woman CHOOSING to end a life in her vs someone else doing it change the PHYSICAL PROPERTIES of the being inside her.

Ok one point here to save the first inevitable answer or propaganda (take your pick) .
I am not talking about what LEGALLY is stated . We know that if its by womans choice (aka abortion) its legal and if its by someone else hand its murder.

Im asking what PHYSICALLY that A CHOICE (be the woman or someone else) makes that specific life form (for as neutral as I can term) in her from a living being to a lump of cells, potential life, whatever term you like?

Scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

I will correct myself and yes as you clearly state its a embryo or fetus.
but as you even POSTED it is CHILD IN UTERO is LEGAL TERM..
NOT "POTENTIAL LIFE" as the person I was talking to was claiming and in so many words WHAT MOST pro abortion ON DEMAND claim.

No, it's not a "legal term" or a medical term. Neither is "potential life", as used by The Supreme Court, in their Roe V Wade decision.

While acknowledging that the right to abortion was not unlimited, Justice Blackmun, speaking for the Court, created a trimester framework to balance the fundamental right to abortion with the government's two legitimate interests: protecting the mother's health and protecting the "potentiality of human life."

en.wikipedia.org...

Two....actually child in womb is a medical term depending on doctor and/or stage of development.

False. "child in utero" is an expression, not a legal or a medical term. Embryo and fetus are the legal and medical terms. Words have meaning.

Also in fact that when a premature birth happens it is ALWAYS referred to as a "child".

That's because children have been born.

so your attempt to somehow diminish what is effected / target of an abortion is at best cherry picking the term you want to justify your abortion on demand support and nulify the act that is committed.

I know exactly what is the target of an abortion. It matters not whether you want to call it a child, an embryo or a fetus, the target remains the same. You're the one trying to insert emotion manipulation into the discussion.

Three.... your comment that someone who harms/kills "pick whatever term helps you sleep at night" in the women "takes away her choice" still is BLUNTLY SIDE STEPPING the point I keep showing.

That is its MURDER AND A LIVING BEING (or again pick your term) if someone else does it but if the WOMAN CHOOSES to do that same act with same results its NOT a living being with any protection.

If you hate abortion so much, don't have one. But you can keep your personal moral outrage to yourself, you're not changing any minds by typing in all caps. Abortion (even abortion on demand) is legal.

in short your still JUSTIFYING THE HYPOCRISY of both the law and your support of ABORTION ON DEMAND.

The hypocrisy lies in pro-lifers in believing that punishing criminals who violate a woman's choice is somehow protecting the unborn.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

sigh.....

I see you continue to use deflection, name calling and outright laughable comments.

Example "dont like abortion dont have one"....like were talking about a haircut or buying a widget.

Also going to the "caps" argument to nullify someones responses. You do know that caps (along with italic , colors, fonts, ect) is a way in written media (to which posting qualify) is used to emphasize or draw attention to a point or comment.

Just because a modern ADDED definition of "yelling" was added due to texting and social media does not override the original use nor nullify it being used as such.

the fact you have to resort to this shows not only your ignorance of writing but also a desperation to find anything to deflect from dealing with the issue or points at hand.

Now on to the supreme court Roe v wade not only had that one definition you stated but a few others from other judges both for and against.

You cherry picked (usual tactic) one that matched your point.

But even in that you IGNORED the point that the judge not only gave protection in third trimester but that the medical evidence of viable life was limited.

thus the reason he stated "potential life" to cover his bases.
But this knowledge would involve more research instead of picking the info to support your cause.

Given the tech today and the fact that babies are surviving and thriving with younger premature births the argument its "potential life" is laughable at best, not helping your pro abortion on demand in reality.

Now your points also show HYPOCRISY in both the law and your stance due to that it is ONLY if the mother chooses to end the "pick whatever term you like" life is legal or MURDER.

If murder people have gone to prison over it. So the legal and moral term MURDER is applicable.

So let me REPEAT the basic question I keep putting and that I even had as ONLY ONE point / question in a post.

what is it about the CHOICE OF THE WOMAN that changes the PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS of what is in her from a LIVING BEING that ending its existence is MURDER (killing ) to a "potential life" , mass of cells, whatever term other than a life that is just removed .

Note I said PHYSICAL characteristics not what the wording of the law says..

IMO the only reason I can think of that this question still refuses to be answered or debated with anything other than canned propaganda, name calling , and deflection is this.

If one has to remove the hypocrisy and give one definition of life you have the end of the support of the public as a whole to the "right" of abortion on demand (demand meaning just because not for justifiable medical, rape or incest) .

A. because outside of limited justifiable exceptions (medical, rape, incest) a life would be held to same murder standards so abortion on demand is legally dead.

B. by admitting most (not all but the vast majority) of pro abortion supporters want abortion with no limits (ex I dont want the inconvenience, I just want sex without consequence, ect) and medical, rape, incest is just a convenient talking point to get what we want. This would cause them to loose support in the public as a whole.
Even alot of polls show the majority has no problem with abortion for medical, rape and incest.
but no support (as a whole) for tri mester and on demand.

Scrounger

a reply to: scrounger


I cherry picked nothing. Potential human life is a phrase that was used in the SCOTUS decision Roe V Wade. Child in utero is a phrase used in the hypocritical Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which does absolutely nothing to "protect" the in born.

This is a decided issue. Roe V Wade is the law of the land. This is about the autonomy of women's reproductive choices, regardless of your moral outrage.