In response to skeeter20's comment:

Well, that's where you are wrong. Restrictions on abortion and obstacles designed to discourage abortions often get upheld. That shrinks the right. That's why people who agree with Roe are right to worry.

On on the other hand, courts have been actively striking laws restricting various aspects of gun ownership. That expands the right. That's why people who worry about government "outlawing guns" or anything remotely close are fools.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

No it does not. Do you have difficulty with concepts? A person can be opposed to the idea of having an abortion, yet still understand the right to personal privacy in the first trimester of pregnancy. If you are unable to comprehend that basic critical thought process, then really, you do not belong in the conversation. Back to the OP, do you think what happened to the woman was right? Just?

In response to FaolanofEssex's comment:

Seems like you are the one having difficulty.  If you support the right of someone to have an abortion, that makes you pro abortion, does it not?

I know you want to cling to the warm fuzziness of a non-descrptive phrase like pro-choice, but it means nothing.  The proper term is pro-abortion.

If it is legal, and such a moral chocie, then why shy away from supporting it with the proper term?

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

shrinking rights.  So, that brings me back to MY orgiginal question:  When do the rights for the baby begin?

I'm not surprised that the pro-abortionists are completely unwilling to stand behind proper terms and remain totally silent on the rights of the baby.  It is like they actually think that abortion presents some sort of moral hazzard, and need to maintain an arms-length relationship from actually having an opinion they can stand behind.  So far all I get is that they have no particular opinion, but it is ok if someone else wants to do it.  That to me is a non-answer.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Asked and answered.  You just don't like the answer.

Now you can answer a question: Would you force a rape victim to give birth to the rapist's child?

In response to skeeter20's comment:

LOL.

 

Refusing to accept the answers to your questions and endlessly repeating the question does not an argument win.

 

 

 

Pro-choice is accurate because there are indeed plenty of people who would never get abortion, don't like the idea of it, but place the rights of the individual above the power of government.

And Roe did provide the best answer to your question that man is capable of.

 

 

 

 

Face it: You're just frustrated that as time goes on, more and more people discover that they have the intelligence and character to lead wise, moral, and balanced lives on their own.....

....and don't need to seek shelter in what a man claims other men claimed an invisible man told them was universal law, between two and eight thousand years ago.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

Keeping in mind that believers disagree about what that "law" actually means...  Even Skeeter does not accept all the laws of the Bible.  He picks and chooses based on his moral understanding of the underlying truth.  He makes choices...

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Your evading my question. Do you think what happened to this woman is moral and just?

In response to FaolanofEssex's comment:

Not evading, your not asking as faras I can see. Your question, to the extent I can see one, was answered in my first post.  As if Ireland law has any application in the U.S.

Are you willing to admit that pro choice has no meaning, and that if you are for someone else having access to abortion, you are pro-abortion?

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

You answered?  Was that one of your cryptic answers that is so nonsensical one cannot make heads or tails out of it?  the only thing I got out of your answer is that the baby never has rights.  That's sad.  Such a low bar for a creation of god.

[/QUOTE]

Asked and answered.  You just don't like the answer.

Now you can answer a question: Would you force a rape victim to give birth to the rapist's child?

[/QUOTE]

You answered?  Was that one of your cryptic answers that is so nonsensical one cannot make heads or tails out of it?  the only thing I got out of your answer is that the baby never has rights.  That's sad.  Such a low bar for a creation of god.

[/QUOTE]

Stop it.  You ignore all the answers given to you that conflict with your your preconceived truth.  That does not mean they were not given,  You just don't like them.  Try actually thinking about what the other side has to say.  Try thinking.

Besides answers you also avoid questions.  Would you force a rape victim to bear the rapist's child?  

This post has been removed.

 

[/QUOTE]

Stop it.  You ignore all the answers given to you that conflict with your your preconceived truth.  That does not mean they were not given,  You just don't like them.  Try actually thinking about what the other side has to say.  Try thinking.

Besides answers you also avoid questions.  Would you force a rape victim to bear the rapist's child?  

[/QUOTE]

I guess this writer wonders... Would you?

[/QUOTE]

I believe in freedom of choice regardless of the cause of the pregnancy.  

The point is that many conservatives allow for an exception in the case of rape so they are partly pro-choice on the topic.  They just want to choose the choices available for others.  And that is hypocritical nonsense if you view the fetus as a human being with full rights.

Do you think a woman should bear her rapist's child?

lol skeeter is one hell of a coward!

lol skeeter is one hell of a coward!