Take the political compass test and post your results, dammit.

[Sparkly Mary]

These are questions only a pregnant mother has the right to answer.

Exactly my point!
I don't want the government thinking they can decide these things for me.

I'm quite capable of making decisions regarding my reproductive life without their input.

[CCC]

It is entirely her property, not ours or governments. She should be at liberty to dispose of said property if she chooses. Her decision is between her and her God, not you or me or government. Claiming to have the power to remove her freedom is an affront to the inalienable rights the founders wanted to promote and the 5th amendment has nothing to do with it. Abortion was legal until 1820.

People, and that includes pre-born humans, are not property. That is the slave-owner's mentality. You contradict the idea of inalienable rights.

Abortion was legal until 1820.

Doesn't matter what was legal when. Slavery was legal in 1820. Abortion and slavery are contradictory to our founding principles of our inalienable rights.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Abortion and slavery have nothing to do with each other. Are you saying that you own every unborn child?

[Sparkly Mary]

Abortion and slavery have nothing to do with each other. Are you saying that you own every unborn child?

Unless you outlaw all abortions, then women are slaves to their uteri.
No one seems to want to stand up and say, "Yes, I'm ok with forcing women to be slaves to pregnancy".

All we get is the "sorry, should have kept your leg closed" argument, which gets so very, very old.

I really wish just one person would be honest enough to say, Yep, don't give a diddly squatting crap about what you as a free-thinking, born, rational, living, breathing woman want for yourself. If you get pregnant, we're going to force you to change around your entire life, alter your entire future and make you do what "we" think is the right thing to do, regardless of what "you" may want.
After all, "we" know best!

[Freedom&Liberty]

Personally, his is a religious argument that I agree with and would do everything I could to stop the abortion of MY child. I greatly respect CCC's opinion. But as a citizen, I don't feel that anyone has the right to push their religious beliefs onto others.

[Sparkly Mary]

Personally, his is a religious argument that I agree with and would do everything I could to stop the abortion of MY child. I greatly respect CCC's opinion. But as a citizen, I don't feel that anyone has the right to push their religious beliefs onto others.

Nor do I. I've never had an abortion. Never wanted to have one.
However I do have issues with women being forced to utilize a part of their body against their will.

I could legally stand by and watch my child die from kidney disease, needing a kidney that I was the perfect one to donate, and not face prosectuion.

If I can let my born child die because I don't want to use one of "my" body parts to sustain the life of another, why should I be "forced" into continuing a pregnancy?

Now, in the real world, if I had 2 of my kids who needed kidneys, one who needed a liver and one who needed a heart, and I could provide those to them, then I'd post here thanking everyone for a great time, and that'd be the end of Sparkly Mary so my kids could live!
However, should I be legally required to do so? No.

[BooRadley]

All we get is the "sorry, should have kept your leg closed" argument

That's a huge part of it for a lot of them. "That's what you get, slut!"

When they argue that abortion is murdering a baby, but it should be legal in the case of rape, that's basically what they're getting at. Since, in the case of rape, it's not the woman's fault, she doesn't have to carry the child. If she gave it up willingly, though, she's a tramp and deserves to have her rights taken away. "Serves ya right!"

[lily]

You don't exist until you have a Social Security number and a birth certificate.

You are joking right? For the moment, this is not about what is currently legal, but what is actually true, and right.

You really do believe that a human being does not exist until they have a social security number and a birth certificate?

Yes or no, and tell the truth.

[BooRadley]

Out of curiosity, how many women name their fetus? If it's not many, then why not?

[Sparkly Mary]

Out of curiosity, how many women name their fetus? If it's not many, then why not?

I named all of mine once I found out their gender.
I don't understand the question, but it's late in the day on Friday and it's been a long week for me so my brain is not firing on all its cylinders right now

[BooRadley]

I was just wondering how much like a baby women treat their featus. I don't have any kids, so I've never really witnessed it.

[lily]

I like this, but a libertarian or any citizen also has to look at the other side of the equation and realize that the person inside of citizen, isn't a citizen yet. The mother should have the freedom to exercise complete control over her own body and anything within it without interference from anyone including government. The federal government should have never entangled itself in this mess.

That is completely absurd. Being a citizen is not what determines our humanity or value.

Let me ask you the same question I asked neutrino. (he hasn't gotten back to the thread yet).

Please answer yes or no.

Should a woman who is 2 days away from delivery, with a full-term baby that is no different than a newborn, be allowed to slaughter the baby, simply because she changed her mind at the last minute? Yes or no?

I'll wait til you answer that, before I continue with the rest of your post.

[lily]

I was just wondering how much like a baby women treat their featus. I don't have any kids, so I've never really witnessed it.

Typically, if the baby is WANTED, the baby is considered valuable, a human being, a person, from very early on, usually the moment the woman finds out she's pregnant.

If it's NOT WANTED, then the baby (at the same age as the wanted one) is considered a "blob". The preborn is dehumanized if not wanted.

The baby itself is the same, in case A and case B. No difference in the value, just in the perception of the value.

[big steve]

I was just wondering how much like a baby women treat their featus. I don't have any kids, so I've never really witnessed it.

My gosh, you are so ignorant! Give it a rest, or talk a little more sensible!

[BooRadley]

Should a woman who is 2 days away from delivery, with a full-term baby that is no different than a newborn, be allowed to slaughter the baby, simply because she changed her mind at the last minute? Yes or no?

You're using words deceptively. A zygote IS a human being, but when we talk about abortion (the kind you go to a doctor for) we're not talking about a fertilized egg, most abortions take place between 6-12 weeks, I think most commonly around 7-9 weeks, and by that time your "fertilized egg" rhetoric flies out the window.

What is being sliced up and sucked out a tube is a baby with a beating heart, a body, a face, brain waves, arms, legs, even fingers and toes later in the first trimester.

So, I know your "fertilized egg" mantra may be a good tool for deception, but that's not what we're talking about here. Unless you are referring to the day after pill.

Most abortions aren't 2 days from delivery, but you don't mind using that to bolster your argument, yet you refused to answer the same question as directly. You're being dishonest in your arguments.

Is a fertilized egg, a second after conception, an independent human being?

Of course not.

[Sparkly Mary]

That is completely absurd. Being a citizen is not what determines our humanity or value.

Let me ask you the same question I asked neutrino. (he hasn't gotten back to the thread yet).

Please answer yes or no.

Should a woman who is 2 days away from delivery, with a full-term baby that is no different than a newborn, be allowed to slaughter the baby, simply because she changed her mind at the last minute? Yes or no?

I'll wait til you answer that, before I continue with the rest of your post.

Can I answer? Good.
"Should" she be allowed to? Morally and legally no.
When the frontal cortex of the brain boots up in the third trimester, then I believe we have 2 sentinent humans who both have almost the equal right to live. HOWEVER, if there was a situation where the pregnancy put the mother at risk, then the mother should be able to decide that her rights as a born person can still trump the rights of the unborn.
However, by that point, delivery of the pregnancy is an option that I believe 99.99% of mothers would choose over a late-term abortion.

[lily]

Most abortions aren't 2 days from delivery, but you don't mind using that to bolster your argument, yet you refused to answer the same question as directly. You're being dishonest in your arguments.

Is a fertilized egg, a second after conception, an independent human being?

Of course not.

You're totally misunderstanding. I never said most abortions take place tha late, that's not at all what that was about.

I'm trying to make a point, so bear with me so the point can be made.

[lily]

Can I answer? Good.
"Should" she be allowed to? Morally and legally no.
When the frontal cortex of the brain boots up in the third trimester, then I believe we have 2 sentinent humans who both have almost the equal right to live. HOWEVER, if there was a situation where the pregnancy put the mother at risk, then the mother should be able to decide that her rights as a born person can still trump the rights of the unborn.
However, by that point, delivery of the pregnancy is an option that I believe 99.99% of mothers would choose over a late-term abortion.

Ok, setting aside your "frontal cortex" argument for now (which I totally disagree with), you and I agree that she shouldn't be allowed to kill the baby 2 days away from delivery just because she feels like it.

The point is, this shows that the "she should have authority over her body!" argument is a BOGUS argument, it is NOT what this all hinges on. Because if ANOTHER LIFE is being callously butchered just out of reasons of convenience, then there is no "right" to do what one wants with one's body.

So the crucial matter, what this entire abortion debate hinges on is whether or not the preborn is a human being, with value.

If you really do believe the "It's my body to do as I want" argument, then a woman who is one day away from delivery should be morally and legally OK to butcher her baby. If you believe that, then you really do believe in that (false) "it's my body" argument.

If you DON'T believe that, then you can see that it's not about that, it's about whether or not the preborn is a human being, that's what this entire debate hinges on.

[Freedom&Liberty]

You are joking right? For the moment, this is not about what is currently legal, but what is actually true, and right.

You really do believe that a human being does not exist until they have a social security number and a birth certificate?

Yes or no, and tell the truth.

No, but government should.

[lily]

My gosh, you are so ignorant! Give it a rest, or talk a little more sensible!

How is his question about how mothers treat their preborns ignorant? Not everyone has been spent a lot of time around a pregnant woman.

And I'm glad he brought that up, because it allowed me to make the point that it all depends on if the baby is wanted or not.

Something as arbitrary as that should not be the determining factor in whether or not the baby is a human being with the basic right to life.