Late Term Abortion

[Adrian II]

I'm of the opinion that once a woman has carried a fetus for longer than a few months, she has waivered her right to cancel.

You're saying that the law only grants rights to persons (and actually many law systems enable unborn people to inherit anyway) and because unborn are not recognised as such right now, they're not to be considered. Yet when a law system doesn't allow abortion, it's denying people unalienable rights?

I'm saying this: it does not matter whether or not you define an unborn as a person. The woman is a person. She can decide at any time to stop unwanted intrusion on her body by another person, a clump of cells, a Siamese twin, a new Adolf Hitler or a new Albert Einstein.

All the emotional appeals in this thread, both pro-choice and anti-choice, will not change that. Emotions do not define or restrict either morality or legality.

As to the anti-choice porn: imagine, for a moment, that opponents of the war in Iraq would plaster buldings and billboards with giant pictures of horribly maimed Iraqi and Afghan civilians, American and British soldiers, etcetera. Would it change your view on those wars? Not mine. The fact that people are killed as such, however, horribly, is no reason to change policy.

Morality or legality cannot be photographed.

[Strike For The South]

I'm saying this: it does not matter whether or not you define an unborn as a person. The woman is a person. She can decide at any time to stop unwanted intrusion on her body by another person, a clump of cells, a Siamese twin, a new Adolf Hitler or a new Albert Einstein.

All the emotional appeals in this thread, both pro-choice and anti-choice, will not change that. Emotions do not define or restrict either morality or legality.

As to the anti-choice porn: imagine, for a moment, that opponents of the war in Iraq would plaster buldings and billboards with giant pictures of horribly maimed Iraqi and Afghan civilians, American and British soldiers, etcetera. Would it change your view on those wars? Not mine. The fact that people are killed as such, however, horribly, is no reason to change policy.

Morality or legality cannot be photographed.

To define pregnancy as intrusion is wrong. I think thats where we split. The mircale of life is not so minor inconveince for a woman it is a child. So Adrian II when does this child obtain rights to protect it form its mother or father?

[Adrian II]

To define pregnancy as intrusion is wrong. I think thats where we split. The mircale of life is not so minor inconveince for a woman it is a child. So Adrian II when does this child obtain rights to protect it form its mother or father?

From birth.

[Strike For The South]

From birth.

well sir I must respectfully disagree.

[Adrian II]

well sir I must respectfully disagree.

That's not enough. You must also respectfully observe every woman's right to freedom. Whether the law or your God say so is not relevant. You may well regard a fetus as a miracle of life, but a woman has the right to refuse your miracle. She has the right to refuse a fetus even if that fetus were Jesus Christ the Saviour himself, come to reclaim his Kingdom.

[Strike For The South]

That's not enough. You must also respectfully observe every woman's right to freedom. Whether the law or your God say so is not relevant. You may well regard a fetus as a miracle of life, but a woman has the right to refuse your miracle. She has the right to refuse a fetus even if that fetus were Jesus Christ the Saviour himself, come to reclaim his Kingdom.

No she does not have that right. As soon as the sperm hits the egg and conception happens that baby has all the rights as any other human including protection from murder. A human mother holds just as much power of the infant when its born its just outside of herm

[Samurai Waki]

and it all comes full circle. . Ms. Waki says Strike clearly doesn't have a vagina... good news

[Adrian II]

As soon as the sperm hits the egg and conception happens that baby has all the rights as any other human including protection from murder.

That's correct, if you define it so. But just like any other human being, it does not have the right to grow in, and feed on, someone else's body.

(..) you think it's part of some Natural Law, wich I happen to think is a load of bullox.

I am so intimidated by your persuasive reasoning.

Good night.

[Kralizec]

I'm saying this: it does not matter whether or not you define an unborn as a person. The woman is a person. She can decide at any time to stop unwanted intrusion on her body by another person, a clump of cells, a Siamese twin, a new Adolf Hitler or a new Albert Einstein.

All the emotional appeals in this thread, both pro-choice and anti-choice, will not change that. Emotions do not define or restrict either morality or legality.

As to the anti-choice porn: imagine, for a moment, that opponents of the war in Iraq would plaster buldings and billboards with giant pictures of horribly maimed Iraqi and Afghan civilians, American and British soldiers, etcetera. Would it change your view on those wars? Not mine. The fact that people are killed as such, however, horribly, is no reason to change policy.

Morality or legality cannot be photographed.

It's clear enough that you think that women should have unrestricted rights to abortion. But you haven't demonstrated this to be anything other than your personal opinion. You've used the word "unalienable" wich suggests that you think it's part of some Natural Law, wich I happen to think is a load of bullox.