Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Who determines the viability though? I'm pretty sure there is no definite time period for each and every fetus. People have trouble with children carried to full term as it is.Brain waves are not a sign of life. Any ER medical personnel will tell you the same thing. The brain continues to work after you die in many cases.The problem you are having is using the phrase "human being" in place of "a life"...a blue print is not a house because it is just an idea without a physical foundation where has a fetus is the foundation for life...a blueprint is the equivalent of deciding to have or not have a baby, a foundation for a house is the equivalent a fetusTo me a fertilized egg is not yet a human being, any more than a blueprint is a house.
what about one minute before that? does a chicken or an insect have more rights than a human fetus? should they?A baby at birth is a person and has the right to live.
I believe brain waves start very early in the womb,[perhaps electronic brain waves is the correct term] and while a heartbeat may not be the same to you it is a sure sign of life...I lean pro-choice but make no phony claims of morality, it is for convenience purposes...if the law is changed then I will obey it.Somewhere between those two extremes is a line where abortions (except in very rare cases) should be banned. I'm not sure where that line is but it is our brains that make us different from any other animal, a heart is just not the same. Once that brain truly begins to function, that is a person. IMHO of course.
Life continues in the brain after people die, scientists find in shock study
"Canadian doctors in an intensive care unit appear to have observed a person's brain continuing to work even after they were declared clinically dead.
In the case, doctors confirmed their patient was dead through a range of the normal observations, including the absence of a pulse and unreactive pupils. But tests showed that the patients’ brain appeared to keep working – experiencing the same kind of brain waves that are seen during deep sleep."
IMO, viability is the line where restrictions on abortion begin.
Who determines the viability though? I'm pretty sure there is no definite time period for each and every fetus. People have trouble with children carried to full term as it is.Brain waves are not a sign of life. Any ER medical personnel will tell you the same thing. The brain continues to work after you die in many cases.The problem you are having is using the phrase "human being" in place of "a life"...a blue print is not a house because it is just an idea without a physical foundation where has a fetus is the foundation for life...a blueprint is the equivalent of deciding to have or not have a baby, a foundation for a house is the equivalent a fetusTo me a fertilized egg is not yet a human being, any more than a blueprint is a house.
what about one minute before that? does a chicken or an insect have more rights than a human fetus? should they?A baby at birth is a person and has the right to live.
I believe brain waves start very early in the womb,[perhaps electronic brain waves is the correct term] and while a heartbeat may not be the same to you it is a sure sign of life...I lean pro-choice but make no phony claims of morality, it is for convenience purposes...if the law is changed then I will obey it.Somewhere between those two extremes is a line where abortions (except in very rare cases) should be banned. I'm not sure where that line is but it is our brains that make us different from any other animal, a heart is just not the same. Once that brain truly begins to function, that is a person. IMHO of course.
Life continues in the brain after people die, scientists find in shock study
"Canadian doctors in an intensive care unit appear to have observed a person's brain continuing to work even after they were declared clinically dead.
In the case, doctors confirmed their patient was dead through a range of the normal observations, including the absence of a pulse and unreactive pupils. But tests showed that the patients’ brain appeared to keep working – experiencing the same kind of brain waves that are seen during deep sleep."
IMO, viability is the line where restrictions on abortion begin.
I go back and forth on setting a timeline. I'm not a woman so I dont really feel I have the right to restrict abortions at all even though they sicken me and I would never encourage a woman to get one.Who determines the viability though? I'm pretty sure there is no definite time period for each and every fetus. People have trouble with children carried to full term as it is.Brain waves are not a sign of life. Any ER medical personnel will tell you the same thing. The brain continues to work after you die in many cases.The problem you are having is using the phrase "human being" in place of "a life"...a blue print is not a house because it is just an idea without a physical foundation where has a fetus is the foundation for life...a blueprint is the equivalent of deciding to have or not have a baby, a foundation for a house is the equivalent a fetusTo me a fertilized egg is not yet a human being, any more than a blueprint is a house.
what about one minute before that? does a chicken or an insect have more rights than a human fetus? should they?A baby at birth is a person and has the right to live.
I believe brain waves start very early in the womb,[perhaps electronic brain waves is the correct term] and while a heartbeat may not be the same to you it is a sure sign of life...I lean pro-choice but make no phony claims of morality, it is for convenience purposes...if the law is changed then I will obey it.Somewhere between those two extremes is a line where abortions (except in very rare cases) should be banned. I'm not sure where that line is but it is our brains that make us different from any other animal, a heart is just not the same. Once that brain truly begins to function, that is a person. IMHO of course.
Life continues in the brain after people die, scientists find in shock study
"Canadian doctors in an intensive care unit appear to have observed a person's brain continuing to work even after they were declared clinically dead.
In the case, doctors confirmed their patient was dead through a range of the normal observations, including the absence of a pulse and unreactive pupils. But tests showed that the patients’ brain appeared to keep working – experiencing the same kind of brain waves that are seen during deep sleep."
IMO, viability is the line where restrictions on abortion begin.
True...but I think a reasonable assumption is good survival rates after 24 weeks? So that is third trimester. I think it's reasonable to begin restricting elective abortions at that point.
One caveat - get rid of the laws that make it difficult for women to get EARLY abortions. When you have one clinic in a huge state, with mandatory waiting periods requiring multiple visits etc - that can force a woman into an aborition later than she wanted.
I go back and forth on setting a timeline. I'm not a woman so I dont really feel I have the right to restrict abortions at all even though they sicken me and I would never encourage a woman to get one.Who determines the viability though? I'm pretty sure there is no definite time period for each and every fetus. People have trouble with children carried to full term as it is.Brain waves are not a sign of life. Any ER medical personnel will tell you the same thing. The brain continues to work after you die in many cases.The problem you are having is using the phrase "human being" in place of "a life"...a blue print is not a house because it is just an idea without a physical foundation where has a fetus is the foundation for life...a blueprint is the equivalent of deciding to have or not have a baby, a foundation for a house is the equivalent a fetus
what about one minute before that? does a chicken or an insect have more rights than a human fetus? should they?
I believe brain waves start very early in the womb,[perhaps electronic brain waves is the correct term] and while a heartbeat may not be the same to you it is a sure sign of life...I lean pro-choice but make no phony claims of morality, it is for convenience purposes...if the law is changed then I will obey it.
Life continues in the brain after people die, scientists find in shock study
"Canadian doctors in an intensive care unit appear to have observed a person's brain continuing to work even after they were declared clinically dead.
In the case, doctors confirmed their patient was dead through a range of the normal observations, including the absence of a pulse and unreactive pupils. But tests showed that the patients’ brain appeared to keep working – experiencing the same kind of brain waves that are seen during deep sleep."
IMO, viability is the line where restrictions on abortion begin.
True...but I think a reasonable assumption is good survival rates after 24 weeks? So that is third trimester. I think it's reasonable to begin restricting elective abortions at that point.
One caveat - get rid of the laws that make it difficult for women to get EARLY abortions. When you have one clinic in a huge state, with mandatory waiting periods requiring multiple visits etc - that can force a woman into an aborition later than she wanted.
We see what is perhaps your problem; you have a shaky concept of logic.There is a reason you avoided the question I asked you yesterday.
I do not know to which question you are referring, but most likely, like most things you post, it was probably not worthy of any response. If I were wise, I'd recognize that about all your postings,and not waste my time or attention. Just because I an foolish enough to waste time and attention on some of your murderous, sociopathic nonsense does not obligate me to waste time and attention on all of it.
There are many things we can pursue that would help a woman decide not to abort. UHC, more affordable access to higher education. A higher minimum wage. A better access to affordable day care.......I can continue.
I find a large percentage of those who call themselves "pro-life" argue against these things even though they would help a woman decide to not abort.
Why is that?
Again, that knife cuts both ways.
If you sincerely have empathy in all tjose situations you just lisyed. . .
Why no empathy for the childten being aborted too?
I disagree. Every individual cell in my body is "a life". Why are they treated differently from a fertilized egg? It is not for what that fertilized egg can do but for what it may become. It's DNA is unique in the universe but many things are unique without being valuable.The problem you are having is using the phrase "human being" in place of "a life"...a blue print is not a house because it is just an idea without a physical foundation where has a fetus is the foundation for life...a blueprint is the equivalent of deciding to have or not have a baby, a foundation for a house is the equivalent a fetus.To me a fertilized egg is not yet a human being, any more than a blueprint is a house.
Just about every animal has some sort of brain so it would be the higher brain functions, unique to man, that I'm talking about, not simple reflexes.I believe brain waves start very early in the womb,[perhaps electronic brain waves is the correct term] and while a heartbeat may not be the same to you it is a sure sign of life...
My post was a rebuttal of your analogy [because it was not really an analogy at all, just an attempt at one] and nothing in the above refutes my rebuttal because it does not address that rebuttal, and reading further on you make the same mistakeI disagree.
the cells in your body are "a life" in much the same way a spare tire is a car, not at all, just part of your life like a tire, that is a difference that without ideological blinders is easy to see.Every individual cell in my body is "a life". Why are they treated differently from a fertilized egg?
It is not for what that fertilized egg can do but for what it may become. It's DNA is unique in the universe but many things are unique without being valuable.
and yet the question "should chickens and insects have more rights than a human fetus?" never gets answered, btw, I asked a yes or no question and you answered in a way that has become a "simple reflex" action when posed to those holding the left wing view on abortion....Just about every animal has some sort of brain so it would be the higher brain functions, unique to man, that I'm talking about, not simple reflexes.
My post was a rebuttal of your analogy [because it was not really an analogy at all, just an attempt at one] and nothing in the above refutes my rebuttal because it does not address that rebuttal, and reading further on you make the same mistakeI disagree.and show why pretending abortion is anything but a convenience mechanism makes abortion easy to argue against
Sorry you don't like my analogy but I still do. The only thing of importance in a fertilized egg is its unique DNA. That DNA is the blueprint for that life but it is NOT that life. You may consider that fertilized egg cell to be the first brick in the foundation but, to me at least, bricks have little value. Especially when compared to a finished house.
the cells in your body are "a life" in much the same way a spare tire is a car, not at all, just part of your life like a tire, that is a difference that without ideological blinders is easy to see.Every individual cell in my body is "a life". Why are they treated differently from a fertilized egg?
It is not for what that fertilized egg can do but for what it may become. It's DNA is unique in the universe but many things are unique without being valuable.
Not my argument, not even sure why you felt the need to build this strawman
and yet the question "should chickens and insects have more rights than a human fetus?" never gets answered, btw, I asked a yes or no question and you answered in a way that has become a "simple reflex" action when posed to those holding the left wing view on abortion....Just about every animal has some sort of brain so it would be the higher brain functions, unique to man, that I'm talking about, not simple reflexes.
...and a blueprint is not the proper equivalent of a fetus/life in the "house" analogy, the foundation for the house is.
It would seem, rather, that what is suggested is that protesting against abortion obligates protesting slaughter of civilians.If you are a blind supporter of either party this is what you support also.
Civilians Killed & Wounded | Costs of War
Are you suggesting that (mostly unavoidable) war atrocities are somehow justification for an acceptance abortions?
Obligates. . .
Right.
But not the other way around?
Why doesn't your (supposed) outrage over children killed in war not also "obligate" you to fight abortion?
That knife cuts both ways.
There is no comparison between terminating a pregnancy and "murdering a child". Women have the God-given right to decide when and if, we are going to have a baby, and screw any man who would take away our right to determine when and if we are going to have a baby.
The ways and means of avoiding having an abortion, if you believe that having an abortion is wrong, including, but not limited to, keep it in your pants if you are a man, and for women who think abortion is wrong, dont have an abortion. This isn't a matter of don't steal something, because forcing a woman to parent a child she cannot afford or doesn't want, never turns out well for either the mother or the child.
You want children to exist, to what end? You don't want to pay to feed, house or educate these children, so why are you so desperate for these children to be born? If you helped women take care of these children, they would be in a better position to welcome these babies.
My youngest daughter says that many young women of her generation are refusing to have children at all. Child care and the cost of raising a child is so high, that young women feel they will never have any quality of life at all if they have a child. Many are getting their tubes tied in their 20's before ohaving children.
Biology 101 newsflash for you. . .
If a woman is pregnant, she already HAS a child.
Whether she might not want it or not. . . And guess what!?!
Children have a right to the equal protections of our laws.
and that is part of the reason the pro-life movement is having it their waySorry you don't like my analogy but I still do.
Not quite right again, unlike a blueprint the egg itself becomes the finished product as its life evolves where as a blueprint is still just a blueprint after the house is done and never amounts to anything more at allThe only thing of importance in a fertilized egg is its unique DNA. That DNA is the blueprint for that life but it is NOT that life. You may consider that fertilized egg cell to be the first brick in the foundation but, to me at least, bricks have little value. Especially when compared to a finished house.
leave them both alone and that will answer itselfIf you agree a single cell from my body is more akin to a spare tire than a car, what about a fertilized egg makes it any different from my single cell?
And if those cells were an actual human life they would produce/become a new life just as that fertilized egg does...but I am not making the argument that it is the information the egg or cell contains that qualifies it as a life, you are making it so you can make the argument against it, hence the strawman.Every cell in my body has the complete information to form a new life, just as that fertilized egg does.
It is not a semantic game. Words have e meanings. You want arbitrarily change them.Whatever absurd semantic games you try to play do not change the truth. Abortion is homicide. It is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. And absent circumstances to require it, comparable to circumstances under which homicide is otherwise justifiable, it is an evil act, that ought not ever be tolerated by any civilized society.
Infant: very young child or baby. Prior to bith it is a fetus, embryo, zygote....
It's a semantic game when you want to use colloquial terms after birth and medical terms before, and pretend the medical terms mean "not a baby".
No. It's not semantics. It's accuracy. What you call "colloquial" terms are scientific terms accurately describing phases of development. What do you fail to understand about that? You don't get to create your own definitions just because the real ones don't suit you.
You don't get to cherrrypick definitions either. . . But you keep trying to do just that.
Sweetheart - my definitions are accurate.
No child prior to birth, is called an "infant" - ever. You're false claim of infanticide is exactly that - an attempt at emotional manipulation by deliberately misusing definitions.
It would seem, rather, that what is suggested is that protesting against abortion obligates protesting slaughter of civilians.Are you suggesting that (mostly unavoidable) war atrocities are somehow justification for an acceptance abortions?
Obligates. . .
Right.
But not the other way around?
Why doesn't your (supposed) outrage over children killed in war not also "obligate" you to fight abortion?
That knife cuts both ways.
There is no comparison between terminating a pregnancy and "murdering a child". Women have the God-given right to decide when and if, we are going to have a baby, and screw any man who would take away our right to determine when and if we are going to have a baby.
The ways and means of avoiding having an abortion, if you believe that having an abortion is wrong, including, but not limited to, keep it in your pants if you are a man, and for women who think abortion is wrong, dont have an abortion. This isn't a matter of don't steal something, because forcing a woman to parent a child she cannot afford or doesn't want, never turns out well for either the mother or the child.
You want children to exist, to what end? You don't want to pay to feed, house or educate these children, so why are you so desperate for these children to be born? If you helped women take care of these children, they would be in a better position to welcome these babies.
My youngest daughter says that many young women of her generation are refusing to have children at all. Child care and the cost of raising a child is so high, that young women feel they will never have any quality of life at all if they have a child. Many are getting their tubes tied in their 20's before ohaving children.
Biology 101 newsflash for you. . .
If a woman is pregnant, she already HAS a child.
Whether she might not want it or not. . . And guess what!?!
Children have a right to the equal protections of our laws.
So do pregnant women.
There is a reason you avoided the question I asked you yesterday.
I do not know to which question you are referring, but most likely, like most things you post, it was probably not worthy of any response. If I were wise, I'd recognize that about all your postings,and not waste my time or attention. Just because I an foolish enough to waste time and attention on some of your murderous, sociopathic nonsense does not obligate me to waste time and attention on all of it.
There are many things we can pursue that would help a woman decide not to abort. UHC, more affordable access to higher education. A higher minimum wage. A better access to affordable day care.......I can continue.
I find a large percentage of those who call themselves "pro-life" argue against these things even though they would help a woman decide to not abort.
Why is that?
How do you reduce abortion rates?
One way of thinking:
Readily available contraception (gasp - even free!)
Accurate and readily available information on sex, responsibility, and pregnancy prevention.
Supporting a culture that recognizes that while personal responsibility and waiting is important - teens are not adults, their executive functions are not mature - make sure they know how to protect themselves.
Recognize that despite all that there will be woman who will find themselves in an untenable position: pregnant and unable to support a child for whatever reasons.
Provide resources and an environment that supports making a choice FOR the child's life - mentoring, support to remain in school, affordable childcare if she works, paid maternity leave, health insurance to cover her pregnancy and birth, and follow up. All of the above, which would apply, should she choose adoption. Support her choice! That is "pro-choice".
The other way of thinking:
Make abortion illegal.
Force her to have the child, and after birth label her a slut and a welfare parasite, cut the programs that help single mothers, and tell she ought to marry the father.
3. Edicate everyone on the facts about when and how a child's life begins. Educate them on the Constitutional right for all persons, to the EQUAL protections of our laws. And fix the laws of society around those two facts.
Yes. Forget the mother, her needs, her rights, the support she needs to make a choice FOR life - that is irrelevant right? SHE doesn't count. SHE doesn't matter. Nor does it matter what happens once the child is born.
Obligates. . .
Right.
But not the other way around?
Why doesn't your (supposed) outrage over children killed in war not also "obligate" you to fight abortion?
That knife cuts both ways.
There is no comparison between terminating a pregnancy and "murdering a child". Women have the God-given right to decide when and if, we are going to have a baby, and screw any man who would take away our right to determine when and if we are going to have a baby.
The ways and means of avoiding having an abortion, if you believe that having an abortion is wrong, including, but not limited to, keep it in your pants if you are a man, and for women who think abortion is wrong, dont have an abortion. This isn't a matter of don't steal something, because forcing a woman to parent a child she cannot afford or doesn't want, never turns out well for either the mother or the child.
You want children to exist, to what end? You don't want to pay to feed, house or educate these children, so why are you so desperate for these children to be born? If you helped women take care of these children, they would be in a better position to welcome these babies.
My youngest daughter says that many young women of her generation are refusing to have children at all. Child care and the cost of raising a child is so high, that young women feel they will never have any quality of life at all if they have a child. Many are getting their tubes tied in their 20's before ohaving children.
Biology 101 newsflash for you. . .
If a woman is pregnant, she already HAS a child.
Whether she might not want it or not. . . And guess what!?!
Children have a right to the equal protections of our laws.
So do pregnant women.
No duh.
Do pregnant women have the right to biplate the rights of anyone else?
They have the right to their own bodies and to choices regarding their bodies. You know. The same right you men have.
There are many things we can pursue that would help a woman decide not to abort. UHC, more affordable access to higher education. A higher minimum wage. A better access to affordable day care.......I can continue.
I find a large percentage of those who call themselves "pro-life" argue against these things even though they would help a woman decide to not abort.
Why is that?
How do you reduce abortion rates?
One way of thinking:
Readily available contraception (gasp - even free!)
Accurate and readily available information on sex, responsibility, and pregnancy prevention.
Supporting a culture that recognizes that while personal responsibility and waiting is important - teens are not adults, their executive functions are not mature - make sure they know how to protect themselves.
Recognize that despite all that there will be woman who will find themselves in an untenable position: pregnant and unable to support a child for whatever reasons.
Provide resources and an environment that supports making a choice FOR the child's life - mentoring, support to remain in school, affordable childcare if she works, paid maternity leave, health insurance to cover her pregnancy and birth, and follow up. All of the above, which would apply, should she choose adoption. Support her choice! That is "pro-choice".
The other way of thinking:
Make abortion illegal.
Force her to have the child, and after birth label her a slut and a welfare parasite, cut the programs that help single mothers, and tell she ought to marry the father.
3. Edicate everyone on the facts about when and how a child's life begins. Educate them on the Constitutional right for all persons, to the EQUAL protections of our laws. And fix the laws of society around those two facts.
Yes. Forget the mother, her needs, her rights, the support she needs to make a choice for life - that is irrelevant right? SHE doesn't count. SHE doesn't matter. Nor does it matter what happens once the child is born.
We already have sufficient laws to protect the rights of the mothers.
Contrary to your incessant whining about it, a woman's rights are not violated by laws that prohibit her from violating, molesting or murdering a child.
Why yes. They are.
She might not have health insurance.
She might have to drop out of school.
She might lose her job.
She might die.
Not that you care.
So I'm hearing you admit that greater education in scientific fact would make people disagree with your policies, and therefore, education is bad. Further, I'm hearing you admit that you want people kept as ignorant as possible so that you can achieve your agenda.
Thats correct if you dont volunteer to carry the child to term and be financially responsible for the child after its born. If youre not going to do that then the woman can tell you to fuck off and mind your own business.Yes. Forget the mother, her needs, her rights, the support she needs to make a choice for life - that is irrelevant right? SHE doesn't count. SHE doesn't matter. Nor does it matter what happens once the child is born.
We already have sufficient laws to protect the rights of the mothers.
Contrary to your incessant whining about it, a woman's rights are not violated by laws that prohibit her from violating, molesting or murdering a child.
Why yes. They are.
She might not have health insurance.
She might have to drop out of school.
She might lose her job.
She might die.
Not that you care.
You just claimed that women have a right to violate, molest and murder children to keep their jobs and stay in school.
You do realize that you are claiming that.
Correct?
His response is exactly the typical response of that type of pro-lifer. ALL that matters is that the baby is born. The mother is of ZERO value. There is no thought given to how we, as a community, might make the choice to have the child the best one. That doesn't matter. It can utterly ruin her life - she can be unemployed, on welfare (they call those women welfare parasites), drop out of school - who cares? SHE doesn't matter. SHE is a slut.
Brain waves are not a sign of life. Any ER medical personnel will tell you the same thing. The brain continues to work after you die in many cases.The problem you are having is using the phrase "human being" in place of "a life"...a blue print is not a house because it is just an idea without a physical foundation where has a fetus is the foundation for life...a blueprint is the equivalent of deciding to have or not have a baby, a foundation for a house is the equivalent a fetusTo me a fertilized egg is not yet a human being, any more than a blueprint is a house.
what about one minute before that? does a chicken or an insect have more rights than a human fetus? should they?A baby at birth is a person and has the right to live.
I believe brain waves start very early in the womb,[perhaps electronic brain waves is the correct term] and while a heartbeat may not be the same to you it is a sure sign of life...I lean pro-choice but make no phony claims of morality, it is for convenience purposes...if the law is changed then I will obey it.Somewhere between those two extremes is a line where abortions (except in very rare cases) should be banned. I'm not sure where that line is but it is our brains that make us different from any other animal, a heart is just not the same. Once that brain truly begins to function, that is a person. IMHO of course.
Life continues in the brain after people die, scientists find in shock study
"Canadian doctors in an intensive care unit appear to have observed a person's brain continuing to work even after they were declared clinically dead.
In the case, doctors confirmed their patient was dead through a range of the normal observations, including the absence of a pulse and unreactive pupils. But tests showed that the patients’ brain appeared to keep working – experiencing the same kind of brain waves that are seen during deep sleep."
IMO, viability is the line where restrictions on abortion begin.
So I'm hearing you admit that greater education in scientific fact would make people disagree with your policies, and therefore, education is bad. Further, I'm hearing you admit that you want people kept as ignorant as possible so that you can achieve your agenda.
When the clear truth is brought out into daylight,........
It would seem, rather, that what is suggested is that protesting against abortion obligates protesting slaughter of civilians.Are you suggesting that (mostly unavoidable) war atrocities are somehow justification for an acceptance abortions?
Obligates. . .
Right.
But not the other way around?
Why doesn't your (supposed) outrage over children killed in war not also "obligate" you to fight abortion?
That knife cuts both ways.
There is no comparison between terminating a pregnancy and "murdering a child". Women have the God-given right to decide when and if, we are going to have a baby, and screw any man who would take away our right to determine when and if we are going to have a baby.
The ways and means of avoiding having an abortion, if you believe that having an abortion is wrong, including, but not limited to, keep it in your pants if you are a man, and for women who think abortion is wrong, dont have an abortion. This isn't a matter of don't steal something, because forcing a woman to parent a child she cannot afford or doesn't want, never turns out well for either the mother or the child.
You want children to exist, to what end? You don't want to pay to feed, house or educate these children, so why are you so desperate for these children to be born? If you helped women take care of these children, they would be in a better position to welcome these babies.
My youngest daughter says that many young women of her generation are refusing to have children at all. Child care and the cost of raising a child is so high, that young women feel they will never have any quality of life at all if they have a child. Many are getting their tubes tied in their 20's before ohaving children.
Biology 101 newsflash for you. . .
If a woman is pregnant, she already HAS a child.
Whether she might not want it or not. . . And guess what!?!
Children have a right to the equal protections of our laws.
No she does not. A zygote is not a child. A fetus is not a child. Both are potentially children, but there are no guarantees that they will become a baby, so just stop with the lies which are at odds with both biology and reality. Denial of a woman's right to choose is denial of a woman's right to self-determination, and to determine the course of her life and that of her family.
And why do you want to do this? Don't tell me it's to preserve the rights of "innocent children" since you have voted against any and all things which would be of benefit of "innocent children" or their families. When you start voting for things for innocent children, you can get back to me, but until then, you're just another asshole who wants to use abortion to slut shame and hate on women.
