No, you are incorrect. Your other posts argue that you either
what if. Now this is crazy...
I'm noticing a strange tend in enabling the actions of those child-rapists have long term consquences on the women via a forced child lead the narrative on laws that does not actually stop them.
That's a disingenuous argument with trying to rebrand what I said. How about we argue the fact that removing the choice to abortion results in a rapists life tormenting the mother through a illegitimate child for the next 18+ years of her life? Since you know, no access to abortion, no exceptions for rape.
Honestly, I don't know what you were trying to say, because it violated every English rule. I took a stab at it, and if you aren't satisfied, then I am genuinely sorry.
Your hair and your fingernails are part of your body, a foetus is not a part of the woman’s body, it is temporarily attached to the woman’s body for the period of pregnancy. This can be verified scientifically with a simple genetic test. You own each and every part of your own body, it’s arguable whether that translates to agency over of another body, even if the two are attached to each other. That’s not to say that there are no circumstances when an abortion justifiable - that little girl should’ve been served in her hoe state because a pregnancy at 10 years old can be devastating to her health, but what you’re suggesting in this comparison is simply incorrect.
That’s the spelling commonly used in the United Kingdom and the rest of the Commonwealth, both are acceptable. If we want to be Latin purists then fetus will do.
If you keep building strawmen, then I'll argue against them.
How is the egg which grew into the fetus, not part of their body?
Do you not realize there's a direct correlation? Like idk, maybe that if a rapist, impregnates a women. That the women's recourse is you know, an abortion followed by legal recourse on the offender (suing, criminal prosecution)
Two edited sentences got conjoined funny. Here's how it's supposed to read, and paraphrase what the intent was.
"how about we argue the fact that removing the choice to an abortion results in rapists making women's lives even worse, since she no longer abortion has a recourse she can follow."
JonhathonBaxster has previous said that women should be happy about pregnancies even in cases of rape, which is completely fucked up. The problem is, nobody other than the woman and health professionals can realistically make a decision as to whether abortion would be right.
It’s a different body, by the virtue of being a separate life form - their DNA proves that. Not too dissimilar from conjoined twins which are also two separate entities joined at one or more points. More specifically, in the case of pregnancy they’re joined by the umbilical cord and, early on, the lining, both of which are disposable.
You can have multiple DNA within the same body, it doesn't prove anything.
Yeah I'm aware, it's the reason some of these people's shit is in my signature, to raise at least a level of awareness of what these people have said. the supreme court has ruled in the past through multiple cases that the constitution cannot apply to the unborn (primarily because of how dicy of a situation it is) and instead, only life that is already currently existing. Which just, gives another reason for me to suspect that Roe v Wade being overturned, was stupid, and they completely could of kept roe, but a different legal backing for it. Since those rulings go even further back.
@
KenniesNewName:
@
KenniesNewName:
