Fair point. I will heed that advice in future.
Possibly cryptic?
Are they promoting abortion? No. So they aren’t pro-abortion.
Thanks for that considered and reasoned response.
Correct. They have the choice to commit murder or not.
Having a closed circulatory system and a functioning brain capable being self-aware are two different things. Those two women weren’t those two women at the time.
I can’t believe that anyone would still use this reasoning?
It is so far from factual.
These two women are abortion survivors. Do you really think that it was a right of their mother to kill them?
Gianna Jessen
Melissa Ohden
I just found this on David Filmer’s signature
A baby’s heartbeat begins at 18 days from conception. By 21 days, the baby’s heart is pumping her own blood type through a closed circulatory system. In most cases, this happens before a mother even knows she’s pregnant.
Being self aware? So do you believe that you can kill a new born up to two years when psychology generally states self-awareness occurs?
What were they. Of course they weren’t women but they were the same human being. Nothing was different accept their age. Basically your statement is wrong they were the same person.
If she had aborted you, she would have ended your life. If she had gone to a movie, there would have been no life to end.
As a baby, you weren’t fully developed. Listen to the women I mentioned. They are grateful for their lives even though the attempt to murder them left one of them with celebi palsy.
No, just mid-to-late pregnancy.
Please note my new comment above. I hadn’t realised how late term they were. They were a lot closer to bring fully gestated than I thought. When most women have abortions, they really aren’t fully formed people yet.
She would have ended the life of something that hadn’t even mostly developed into me yet.
None of us get a choice before we were born. Personally, I wouldn’t have chosen to live.
I am not sure what you are answering here. As your answer stands you are saying that abortion should be performed mid-to-late pregnancy
You are a complete person the moment of conception. The only difference between you now and then is your growth. You are the same person your dna has not changed.
Not scientifically a fact. From the moment of conception you did not change. Your DNA is the same the only difference is your size. You didn’t develop into you. You existed from the moment of conception. If she had aborted at that time, it would have been you that was aborted not a bunch of meaningless cells.
That is the fallacy to the so called pro-choice. There is no choice but a decision to kill disguised as a choice. Even though there is two people present only one has a choice. Usually a poorly informed one.
The recent news of planned parent hood selling body parts is the result of late term abortions.
You were asking if I thought killing children up to two is acceptable. I draw the line around late term somewhere.I am not sure what you are answering here. As your answer stands you are saying that abortion should be performed mid-to-late pregnancy
I’m not my dna. I wasn’t the same person at the moment of conception. I developed into this.
Just wrong on every point. My dna is mostly the same, but I’m not my dna.
We entirely disagree.
You are pro-freedom of religion. The problem with the phrase “pro-choice” is that it uses a noun form of a verb that mandates a direct object, without defining that object. People who are pro-choice are pro-choice for a woman’s right to an abortion, not choice for other things, like a man’s right to rape or beat his wife.
You had me up until pro-abortion. People who are pro-abortion-being-a-legal-option are not pro-abortion-because-gosh-darnnit-you-can-never-have-too-many.
I was giving the terms I think are best, and that I use, and will continue to use. I would only consider pro-choice a valid term if it was expanded to pro-choice for aborting. Abortion is the issue. It must be somewhere in the term for me to see honesty.
Yep (name removed by moderator) nailed it.
Well, I gave you five terms that I found acceptable that all had abortion in them. I’d also accept pro-abortion-option, abortion-condoning, pro-right-to-abort, in favour of legal abortions, pro-freedom-to-abort, etc. I’m hardly trying to hide the fact that the choice I’m in favour of women having is the choice to abort.
The odd bit is outside of rape or incest(?), it’s logical to conclude someone became pregnant precisely by exercising their free choice, and a pregnancy is the obvious outcome of their choices.
Unfortunately, pregnancy is often the direct result of a lack of foresight and personal responsibility, it’s true. I don’t see forcing people to have kids because they showed a distinct lack of judgment is a particularly good solution.
Yes, I find arguments against it particularly unjustifiable.
It seems you base you opinion on sentient but then you say late term. It isn’t quite clear what you mean.
I don’t know what you mean you weren’t the same person. You have the same DNA. Yes you are your DNA. We are always developing but that does not mean you are not the same person. You didn’t develop into a cat or a dog but a human because that is what you were at conception.
It isn’t mostly the same it is the same and yes you are DNA that is what you make up is. You can’t change it. It determined you eye color your blood type how tall you would be etc. You also disagree with science.