Ethics: Is Abortion Taking A Life?

[ChrisL]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child 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 defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

This only applies if a mother is wanting to keep her unborn baby. Then it has value. It is entirely up to the woman and that is why abortion is legal. It is her body, and she faces risks during pregnancy and childbirth. Nobody has a right to make her risk her own health or even life in some instances for the life of an embryo. If your post was even CLOSE to being correct, then abortion would be ILLEGAL. It is not because it is mother's choice.

People who WANT to keep their children will do so and will not be having a voluntary abortion. Get it?

And you don't see any intellectual or LEGAL inconsistencies in a LAW that says "this is a person if it is wanted and anyone who kills it in a criminal act will be charged with MURDER. . . . but if the mother doesn't want it. . . it's something less?"


Whether you (and your ilk) agree that it's a contradiction or not. . . it is an inconsistency that is going to be challenged relentlessly until it is addressed again by the courts.

What is your stance on those who are impregnated as a result of rape or incest?

 

[Chuz Life]

You would all be much better off if you could mind your OWN business, seriously. If you don't want to have an abortion, then don't. You still do not have the right to make such a choice for another person who you don't even know! Weirdos.

Do you take this same "mind your own business" approach to any other forms of molestation or violations of children? Or just abortions?

 

[ChrisL]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child 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 defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

This only applies if a mother is wanting to keep her unborn baby. Then it has value. It is entirely up to the woman and that is why abortion is legal. It is her body, and she faces risks during pregnancy and childbirth. Nobody has a right to make her risk her own health or even life in some instances for the life of an embryo. If your post was even CLOSE to being correct, then abortion would be ILLEGAL. It is not because it is mother's choice.

People who WANT to keep their children will do so and will not be having a voluntary abortion. Get it?

And you don't see any intellectual or LEGAL inconsistencies in a LAW that says "this is a person if it is wanted and anyone who kills it in a criminal act will be charged with MURDER. . . . but if the mother doesn't want it. . . it's something less?"


Whether you (and your ilk) agree that it's a contradiction or not. . . it is an inconsistency that is going to be challenged relentlessly until it is addressed again by the courts.

Yes, it is the mother's body. She is the one who is facing risks to her health, and there is also a potential for death involved. It is her decision and her's alone to make whether or not she wants to continue on with a pregnancy and take such risks. It's not up to you. Get over yourself.

Like I said, if you are against abortion and don't want one, then don't have one, but you don't have any right to make such a decision for a person that you don't know and that you have nothing to do with, don't know her situation, etc. Stop sticking your big nose into things that aren't your business.

Women who want to be mothers are not having abortions. Women who do not want to be mothers and consider the pregnancy a burden, are going to do what they feel is right for them, not for YOU.

 

[ChrisL]

You would all be much better off if you could mind your OWN business, seriously. If you don't want to have an abortion, then don't. You still do not have the right to make such a choice for another person who you don't even know! Weirdos.

Do you take this same "mind your own business" approach to any other forms of molestation or violations of children? Or just abortions?

Once the person is an entity of it's own and isn't reliant on the mother's body for nourishment and life, that is an entirely different scenario. This is a false equivalency.

 

[Chuz Life]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child 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 defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

This only applies if a mother is wanting to keep her unborn baby. Then it has value. It is entirely up to the woman and that is why abortion is legal. It is her body, and she faces risks during pregnancy and childbirth. Nobody has a right to make her risk her own health or even life in some instances for the life of an embryo. If your post was even CLOSE to being correct, then abortion would be ILLEGAL. It is not because it is mother's choice.

People who WANT to keep their children will do so and will not be having a voluntary abortion. Get it?

And you don't see any intellectual or LEGAL inconsistencies in a LAW that says "this is a person if it is wanted and anyone who kills it in a criminal act will be charged with MURDER. . . . but if the mother doesn't want it. . . it's something less?"


Whether you (and your ilk) agree that it's a contradiction or not. . . it is an inconsistency that is going to be challenged relentlessly until it is addressed again by the courts.

What is your stance on those who are impregnated as a result of rape or incest?

You would all be much better off if you could mind your OWN business, seriously. If you don't want to have an abortion, then don't. You still do not have the right to make such a choice for another person who you don't even know! Weirdos.

Do you take this same "mind your own business" approach to any other forms of molestation or violations of children? Or just abortions?

Once the person is an entity of it's own and isn't reliant on the mother's body for nourishment and life, that is an entirely different scenario. This is a false equivalency.

Whether the child is in the womb or walking around the coffee table, they are the Same child. Same faces, fingers and toes. etc.

Their location or physical relationship does not change who or what they are.

 

[ChrisL]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child 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 defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

This only applies if a mother is wanting to keep her unborn baby. Then it has value. It is entirely up to the woman and that is why abortion is legal. It is her body, and she faces risks during pregnancy and childbirth. Nobody has a right to make her risk her own health or even life in some instances for the life of an embryo. If your post was even CLOSE to being correct, then abortion would be ILLEGAL. It is not because it is mother's choice.

People who WANT to keep their children will do so and will not be having a voluntary abortion. Get it?

And you don't see any intellectual or LEGAL inconsistencies in a LAW that says "this is a person if it is wanted and anyone who kills it in a criminal act will be charged with MURDER. . . . but if the mother doesn't want it. . . it's something less?"


Whether you (and your ilk) agree that it's a contradiction or not. . . it is an inconsistency that is going to be challenged relentlessly until it is addressed again by the courts.

What is your stance on those who are impregnated as a result of rape or incest?

You would all be much better off if you could mind your OWN business, seriously. If you don't want to have an abortion, then don't. You still do not have the right to make such a choice for another person who you don't even know! Weirdos.

Do you take this same "mind your own business" approach to any other forms of molestation or violations of children? Or just abortions?

Once the person is an entity of it's own and isn't reliant on the mother's body for nourishment and life, that is an entirely different scenario. This is a false equivalency.

Whether the child is in the womb or walking around the coffee table, they are the Same child. Same faces, fingers and toes. etc.

Their location or physical relationship does not change who or what they are.

I notice that you avoid answering the question. Let me put it to you again. What is your stance when a woman is impregnated by rape or incest?

 

[ChrisL]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child 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 defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

This only applies if a mother is wanting to keep her unborn baby. Then it has value. It is entirely up to the woman and that is why abortion is legal. It is her body, and she faces risks during pregnancy and childbirth. Nobody has a right to make her risk her own health or even life in some instances for the life of an embryo. If your post was even CLOSE to being correct, then abortion would be ILLEGAL. It is not because it is mother's choice.

People who WANT to keep their children will do so and will not be having a voluntary abortion. Get it?

And you don't see any intellectual or LEGAL inconsistencies in a LAW that says "this is a person if it is wanted and anyone who kills it in a criminal act will be charged with MURDER. . . . but if the mother doesn't want it. . . it's something less?"


Whether you (and your ilk) agree that it's a contradiction or not. . . it is an inconsistency that is going to be challenged relentlessly until it is addressed again by the courts.

What is your stance on those who are impregnated as a result of rape or incest?

You would all be much better off if you could mind your OWN business, seriously. If you don't want to have an abortion, then don't. You still do not have the right to make such a choice for another person who you don't even know! Weirdos.

Do you take this same "mind your own business" approach to any other forms of molestation or violations of children? Or just abortions?

Once the person is an entity of it's own and isn't reliant on the mother's body for nourishment and life, that is an entirely different scenario. This is a false equivalency.

Whether the child is in the womb or walking around the coffee table, they are the Same child. Same faces, fingers and toes. etc.

Their location or physical relationship does not change who or what they are.

Nope. Not the same at all, since the pregnancy itself can be risky to mom's health and life. Once the child is born, that is no longer the case.

 

[Chuz Life]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child 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 defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

This only applies if a mother is wanting to keep her unborn baby. Then it has value. It is entirely up to the woman and that is why abortion is legal. It is her body, and she faces risks during pregnancy and childbirth. Nobody has a right to make her risk her own health or even life in some instances for the life of an embryo. If your post was even CLOSE to being correct, then abortion would be ILLEGAL. It is not because it is mother's choice.

People who WANT to keep their children will do so and will not be having a voluntary abortion. Get it?

And you don't see any intellectual or LEGAL inconsistencies in a LAW that says "this is a person if it is wanted and anyone who kills it in a criminal act will be charged with MURDER. . . . but if the mother doesn't want it. . . it's something less?"


Whether you (and your ilk) agree that it's a contradiction or not. . . it is an inconsistency that is going to be challenged relentlessly until it is addressed again by the courts.

Yes, it is the mother's body. She is the one who is facing risks to her health, and there is also a potential for death involved. It is her decision and her's alone to make whether or not she wants to continue on with a pregnancy and take such risks. It's not up to you. Get over yourself.

Like I said, if you are against abortion and don't want one, then don't have one, but you don't have any right to make such a decision for a person that you don't know and that you have nothing to do with, don't know her situation, etc. Stop sticking your big nose into things that aren't your business.

Women who want to be mothers are not having abortions. Women who do not want to be mothers and consider the pregnancy a burden, are going to do what they feel is right for them, not for YOU.

Your approach is no different from "If you don't like rape,. . . don't rape anyone." If you don't like child molestation. . . don't molest any"

But mind your own business.

Sorry, but when most of us see a child is being violated. . . we are going to speak up! Whether you think it is any of our business or not.

 

[Chuz Life]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child 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 defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

This only applies if a mother is wanting to keep her unborn baby. Then it has value. It is entirely up to the woman and that is why abortion is legal. It is her body, and she faces risks during pregnancy and childbirth. Nobody has a right to make her risk her own health or even life in some instances for the life of an embryo. If your post was even CLOSE to being correct, then abortion would be ILLEGAL. It is not because it is mother's choice.

People who WANT to keep their children will do so and will not be having a voluntary abortion. Get it?

And you don't see any intellectual or LEGAL inconsistencies in a LAW that says "this is a person if it is wanted and anyone who kills it in a criminal act will be charged with MURDER. . . . but if the mother doesn't want it. . . it's something less?"


Whether you (and your ilk) agree that it's a contradiction or not. . . it is an inconsistency that is going to be challenged relentlessly until it is addressed again by the courts.

What is your stance on those who are impregnated as a result of rape or incest?

You would all be much better off if you could mind your OWN business, seriously. If you don't want to have an abortion, then don't. You still do not have the right to make such a choice for another person who you don't even know! Weirdos.

Do you take this same "mind your own business" approach to any other forms of molestation or violations of children? Or just abortions?

Once the person is an entity of it's own and isn't reliant on the mother's body for nourishment and life, that is an entirely different scenario. This is a false equivalency.

Whether the child is in the womb or walking around the coffee table, they are the Same child. Same faces, fingers and toes. etc.

Their location or physical relationship does not change who or what they are.

I notice that you avoid answering the question. Let me put it to you again. What is your stance when a woman is impregnated by rape or incest?

I didn't avoid anything.

You are spamming posts so fast, I can not give the answers fast enough.

I am already on record in other threads with my views on Rape.

I suppose by incest, you mean NON- consensual incest. . . which is still rape. So, I don't know why people make that distinction.

 

[ChrisL]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child 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 defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

This only applies if a mother is wanting to keep her unborn baby. Then it has value. It is entirely up to the woman and that is why abortion is legal. It is her body, and she faces risks during pregnancy and childbirth. Nobody has a right to make her risk her own health or even life in some instances for the life of an embryo. If your post was even CLOSE to being correct, then abortion would be ILLEGAL. It is not because it is mother's choice.

People who WANT to keep their children will do so and will not be having a voluntary abortion. Get it?

And you don't see any intellectual or LEGAL inconsistencies in a LAW that says "this is a person if it is wanted and anyone who kills it in a criminal act will be charged with MURDER. . . . but if the mother doesn't want it. . . it's something less?"


Whether you (and your ilk) agree that it's a contradiction or not. . . it is an inconsistency that is going to be challenged relentlessly until it is addressed again by the courts.

Yes, it is the mother's body. She is the one who is facing risks to her health, and there is also a potential for death involved. It is her decision and her's alone to make whether or not she wants to continue on with a pregnancy and take such risks. It's not up to you. Get over yourself.

Like I said, if you are against abortion and don't want one, then don't have one, but you don't have any right to make such a decision for a person that you don't know and that you have nothing to do with, don't know her situation, etc. Stop sticking your big nose into things that aren't your business.

Women who want to be mothers are not having abortions. Women who do not want to be mothers and consider the pregnancy a burden, are going to do what they feel is right for them, not for YOU.

Your approach is no different from "If you don't like rape,. . . don't rape anyone." If you don't like child molestation. . . don't molest any"

But mind your own business.

Sorry, when most of see a child is being violated. . . we are going to speak up whether you think it is any of our business or not.

WHAT IS YOUR POSITION WHEN THE WOMAN IS IMPREGNATED BY RAPE OR INCEST?

 

[Chuz Life]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child 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 defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

This only applies if a mother is wanting to keep her unborn baby. Then it has value. It is entirely up to the woman and that is why abortion is legal. It is her body, and she faces risks during pregnancy and childbirth. Nobody has a right to make her risk her own health or even life in some instances for the life of an embryo. If your post was even CLOSE to being correct, then abortion would be ILLEGAL. It is not because it is mother's choice.

People who WANT to keep their children will do so and will not be having a voluntary abortion. Get it?

And you don't see any intellectual or LEGAL inconsistencies in a LAW that says "this is a person if it is wanted and anyone who kills it in a criminal act will be charged with MURDER. . . . but if the mother doesn't want it. . . it's something less?"


Whether you (and your ilk) agree that it's a contradiction or not. . . it is an inconsistency that is going to be challenged relentlessly until it is addressed again by the courts.

What is your stance on those who are impregnated as a result of rape or incest?

You would all be much better off if you could mind your OWN business, seriously. If you don't want to have an abortion, then don't. You still do not have the right to make such a choice for another person who you don't even know! Weirdos.

Do you take this same "mind your own business" approach to any other forms of molestation or violations of children? Or just abortions?

Once the person is an entity of it's own and isn't reliant on the mother's body for nourishment and life, that is an entirely different scenario. This is a false equivalency.

Whether the child is in the womb or walking around the coffee table, they are the Same child. Same faces, fingers and toes. etc.

Their location or physical relationship does not change who or what they are.

Nope. Not the same at all, since the pregnancy itself can be risky to mom's health and life. Once the child is born, that is no longer the case.

Same response.

 

[ChrisL]

This only applies if a mother is wanting to keep her unborn baby. Then it has value. It is entirely up to the woman and that is why abortion is legal. It is her body, and she faces risks during pregnancy and childbirth. Nobody has a right to make her risk her own health or even life in some instances for the life of an embryo. If your post was even CLOSE to being correct, then abortion would be ILLEGAL. It is not because it is mother's choice.

People who WANT to keep their children will do so and will not be having a voluntary abortion. Get it?

And you don't see any intellectual or LEGAL inconsistencies in a LAW that says "this is a person if it is wanted and anyone who kills it in a criminal act will be charged with MURDER. . . . but if the mother doesn't want it. . . it's something less?"


Whether you (and your ilk) agree that it's a contradiction or not. . . it is an inconsistency that is going to be challenged relentlessly until it is addressed again by the courts.

What is your stance on those who are impregnated as a result of rape or incest?

You would all be much better off if you could mind your OWN business, seriously. If you don't want to have an abortion, then don't. You still do not have the right to make such a choice for another person who you don't even know! Weirdos.

Do you take this same "mind your own business" approach to any other forms of molestation or violations of children? Or just abortions?

Once the person is an entity of it's own and isn't reliant on the mother's body for nourishment and life, that is an entirely different scenario. This is a false equivalency.

Whether the child is in the womb or walking around the coffee table, they are the Same child. Same faces, fingers and toes. etc.

Their location or physical relationship does not change who or what they are.

I notice that you avoid answering the question. Let me put it to you again. What is your stance when a woman is impregnated by rape or incest?

I didn't avoid anything.

You are spamming posts so fast, I can not give the answers fast enough.

I am already on record in other threads with my views on Rape.

I suppose by incest, you mean NON- consensual incest. . . which is still rape. So, I don't know why people make that distinction.

WHAT is your stance on abortion in such cases, rape and/or incest? Stop avoiding the very direct question I am posing to you.

 

[ChrisL]

This only applies if a mother is wanting to keep her unborn baby. Then it has value. It is entirely up to the woman and that is why abortion is legal. It is her body, and she faces risks during pregnancy and childbirth. Nobody has a right to make her risk her own health or even life in some instances for the life of an embryo. If your post was even CLOSE to being correct, then abortion would be ILLEGAL. It is not because it is mother's choice.

People who WANT to keep their children will do so and will not be having a voluntary abortion. Get it?

And you don't see any intellectual or LEGAL inconsistencies in a LAW that says "this is a person if it is wanted and anyone who kills it in a criminal act will be charged with MURDER. . . . but if the mother doesn't want it. . . it's something less?"


Whether you (and your ilk) agree that it's a contradiction or not. . . it is an inconsistency that is going to be challenged relentlessly until it is addressed again by the courts.

What is your stance on those who are impregnated as a result of rape or incest?

You would all be much better off if you could mind your OWN business, seriously. If you don't want to have an abortion, then don't. You still do not have the right to make such a choice for another person who you don't even know! Weirdos.

Do you take this same "mind your own business" approach to any other forms of molestation or violations of children? Or just abortions?

Once the person is an entity of it's own and isn't reliant on the mother's body for nourishment and life, that is an entirely different scenario. This is a false equivalency.

Whether the child is in the womb or walking around the coffee table, they are the Same child. Same faces, fingers and toes. etc.

Their location or physical relationship does not change who or what they are.

Nope. Not the same at all, since the pregnancy itself can be risky to mom's health and life. Once the child is born, that is no longer the case.

Same response.

Your argument is very poor. You must realize that you and your feelings are irrelevant to another person's life decisions. You don't matter.

 

[ChrisL]

This only applies if a mother is wanting to keep her unborn baby. Then it has value. It is entirely up to the woman and that is why abortion is legal. It is her body, and she faces risks during pregnancy and childbirth. Nobody has a right to make her risk her own health or even life in some instances for the life of an embryo. If your post was even CLOSE to being correct, then abortion would be ILLEGAL. It is not because it is mother's choice.

People who WANT to keep their children will do so and will not be having a voluntary abortion. Get it?

And you don't see any intellectual or LEGAL inconsistencies in a LAW that says "this is a person if it is wanted and anyone who kills it in a criminal act will be charged with MURDER. . . . but if the mother doesn't want it. . . it's something less?"


Whether you (and your ilk) agree that it's a contradiction or not. . . it is an inconsistency that is going to be challenged relentlessly until it is addressed again by the courts.

What is your stance on those who are impregnated as a result of rape or incest?

You would all be much better off if you could mind your OWN business, seriously. If you don't want to have an abortion, then don't. You still do not have the right to make such a choice for another person who you don't even know! Weirdos.

Do you take this same "mind your own business" approach to any other forms of molestation or violations of children? Or just abortions?

Once the person is an entity of it's own and isn't reliant on the mother's body for nourishment and life, that is an entirely different scenario. This is a false equivalency.

Whether the child is in the womb or walking around the coffee table, they are the Same child. Same faces, fingers and toes. etc.

Their location or physical relationship does not change who or what they are.

I notice that you avoid answering the question. Let me put it to you again. What is your stance when a woman is impregnated by rape or incest?

I didn't avoid anything.

You are spamming posts so fast, I can not give the answers fast enough.

I am already on record in other threads with my views on Rape.

I suppose by incest, you mean NON- consensual incest. . . which is still rape. So, I don't know why people make that distinction.

Answer the question please. What is your stance on abortion when it comes to pregnancy as the result of rape or incest?

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm done with this.

You are doing nothing but spamming and making personal attacks now.

If you want my views on the rape exception, you will have to find it elsewhere on the site.

I'm putting you on my list of psycho's to be ignored now.

 

[ChrisL]

I'm done with this.

You are doing nothing but spamming and making personal attacks now.

If you want my views on the rape exception, you will have to find it elsewhere on the site.

I'm putting you on my list of psycho's to be ignored now.

Personal attacks? My, my, we have another drama queen, who cannot answer a direct question. Lol. What an idiot.

 

[ChrisL]

I'm done with this.

You are doing nothing but spamming and making personal attacks now.

If you want my views on the rape exception, you will have to find it elsewhere on the site.

I'm putting you on my list of psycho's to be ignored now.

The FACT that you cannot answer that simple question tells a lot, so thanks. You've been outed.

 

[Pop23]

Let's use the following definition of "life" for discussion purposes:

the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

That being said, is it your stance that a human embryo is life ?

An embryo has none of those capacities only the potential for them

If you want to define life as any biological cell then every time you take a crap you are murdering millions of lives

Or when you pull out! All those poor sperms!

Oh the sacrifices we males make to satisfy the lovelier sex.

 

[Bonzi]

What sacrifices? Please specify

 

[ChrisL]

What sacrifices? Please specify

So, maybe you can answer the question. How do you feel about abortion in cases of rape or incest?