And if the fetus's rights dont supersede the woman's, then stop insisting the fetus is more important than the woman's choices.
A life is more important than a womans "choices"...
And if the fetus's rights dont supersede the woman's, then stop insisting the fetus is more important than the woman's choices.
A life is more important than a womans "choices"...
But an unborn, potential life...is it more important than a woman's life?
Equal, I'd say.
More importantly, why should YOU be able to decide that for that baby?
I cant decide. Only the woman involved can.
But as for 'equal,' if that's the case, why do most pro-lifers and laws say that abortion is 'ok' if the mother's been raped or her life is in danger? Why is that?
And if the fetus's rights dont supersede the woman's, then stop insisting the fetus is more important than the woman's choices.
But an unborn, potential life...is it more important than a woman's life?
you keep dodging.....saying the unborn's right to life does not supersede the mother's right to life does not equal saying the unborn's right to life does not supersede any of the other rights the mother might have.....a child's life is obviously more important than any woman's choice.....if you don't see that then you are beyond pity......
look.....you are doing nothing but demonstrating stupidity.....we've given you "to save the life of the mother".....we've even given you "rape and incest"......what about the other 49,900,000 dead children who had nothing to do with saving lives or rape or incest?......
Still cant answer I see: Why does the right to life of the fetus not supersede the woman's in cases or rape or when the woman's life is in danger?
It's not that hard a question, is it? And yet, it is one that most pro-lifers support.
"Given" it? Why is that? Why does your 'side' support that instead of just letting the woman die or suffer thru months of Hell carrying the spawn of violence and pain?
I have....I will agree to choice in the instance of rape and incest....now tell me.....why is your lust for death so insatiable that you have to kill them all when only a tiny percentage have anything to do with risk to life or rape or incest?.....
its a negotiation.....hopefully giving in to your blood lust in those instances will allow us to save the other 99%........
You agree, but "WHY?" That is the question. Why is the fetus's right to life less important than the woman's in those cases? Or not even the woman's right to life in the case of rape or incest?
Can you answer that question?
But it is the general concession of your people. WHY?
the way you phrase it, no.....the fact she was raped, even by her father, does not create a risk to her life by carrying the child to term versus having an abortion....and as I have already stated balancing the life of one against the life of the other in health matters creates an entirely different set of considerations......what other factors are involved?.....does the mother have a terminal illness that will take her life anyway?......is she on death row awaiting execution?......is she a liberal?.......
because it effects so very few people......we're willing to let you kill a few hundred thousand in order to save tens of millions.....
You agree, but "WHY?" That is the question. Why is the fetus's right to life less important than the woman's in those cases? Or not even the woman's right to life in the case of rape or incest?
Can you answer that question?
Exactly, share that sentiment at the NRA meeting klansmanWhy should anyone get (or want) a pass for killing another human?
You'd have to ask "most pro-lifers".