I mean you don't understand women's issues related to the pregnancy which can result in them seeking a first trimester abortion. It is not all about the status of a fetus as a human being.
If people don't want to accept my opinions I am done.
No I do not understand why a woman thinks her rights over shadows her child's rights due to any reason.
But still, many women do think it's all about the status of a fetus as a human being. Why? Why do their arguments not count?I mean you don't understand women's issues related to the pregnancy which can result in them seeking a first trimester abortion. It is not all about the status of a fetus as a human being.
Hint: 1973
Yes, and it is a evil law.
What evil law? The Fourteenth Amendment was written to outlaw slavery.
Rather, the question is whether or not all human beings have human rights (yes), and whether or not the path to her recovery from the trauma of the assault can include murdering the innocent child (no).
I had a coworker who weighed 150 pounds when she got pregnant, but suffered gestational diabetes that became permanent and has weighed over 300 pounds ever since. She also almost lost her son by having a grand mal seizure (she has epilepsy) during those 9 months. Because of that seizure, she had her tubes tied.
Alabama Senate passes near-total abortion ban - CNNPolitics
The Alabama law makes abortion illegal except for three exceptions:
You'll see that of the exceptions, rape and incest are not among them. Opponents of the bill did attempt to have it amended to include rape and incest. Here is what Eric Johnson said below:
- "To avoid a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother"
- For ectopic pregnancy
- If the "unborn child has a lethal anomaly."
Eric Johnston, head of the Alabama Pro-life Coalition and the drafter of the initial legislation, told CNN "it would upend the law's legal standing.Regardless of how the conception takes place, the product is a child, and so we're saying that that unborn child is a person entitled to protection of law," he added. "So if, be it a rape or incest conception, then it would be impossible to ask a judge which of these is protected by law and which is not."
I think he's right. When it comes to the morality of abortion, the how in which a new human being comes into existence plays absolutely no role in determining their moral worth and value.
Then your position is that all human rights are mere gifts of the State, that there are none that are self-existent and unalienable and which cannot be legitimately legislated away. Your position is that we use the civil process to pass a law that says that it's not murder to kill Jews, or whites, or people under the age of five years, then that means it won't be murder in reality.But no one here is talking about murdering children. Whether you like it or not, words have meanings. Murder is an illegal killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Abortion is not illegal, hence it is not murder.
I guess the reason I struggle with that position is because we are talking about the killing of another human being. That just seems like a big deal to me.
I don’t think we should have the freedom to choose whether or not another innocent human has the right to live or not.
If I thought the unborn wasn’t as morally valuable as a newborn then I could see the argument for it. But I really believe that an unborn truly is created in God’s image and truly does possess the same inherent moral worth and value.
Therefore, I don’t see how I could hold any position other than one that says the killing of the unborn for any reason other than medical emergency is wrong and we shouldn’t allow it
Then your position is that all human rights are mere gifts of the State, that there are none that are self-existent and unalienable and which cannot be legitimately legislated away.
And I simply feel that no woman should be forced to carry the fetus of her attacker against her will. Remember, my side isn't saying that the pregnant woman should be forced to have an abortion. We are simply saying that the choice must remain with her.
As I said earlier, the bill was written this way to ensure that it gets appealed to the Supreme Court.
So then your position really is that if we use the civil process to pass a law that says that it's not murder to kill Jews, or whites, or people under the age of five years for no other reason than they are one of those things then that means it won't be murder in reality.No, my position is that you are misusing a term.