Texas....where women's reproductive rights don't matter anymore.

[JustAlex]

There also is the question about when the baby has rights.

Is this something ALL conservatives use as their tactic?

Use words that are incorrect to blatantly make the situation sound bad?

Let me define what a "Baby" is:

Baby: A very young child, esp. one newly or recently born.

Let me say it for the 10th time in this thread....

A FETUS IS NOT A BABY!

Some say not until they are completely out of the womans womb in the terms of partial birth abortion were the baby is delivered so the head is out of the woman so its brains can be vacuumed out.

A Fetus is given "Personhood" with rights when it reaches viability.

There is no debate on that.

Although conservatives use JUNK science and blatantly lie and use buzz words like "baby" to make very bad arguments.

I dont really think a woman should ever have the right to do this. Does the baby have rights at the time it has the ability to feel pain while inside the womb? The line has to be somewhere.

The line has ALREADY been drawn.

A women's right override that of a fetus UNTIL it reaches viability.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

I have heard that there are countries that allow parents to have the child killed up to the age of three. I would need to look more into that one though.

What does that have anything to do with abortion?

Let me tell you something else that happens in other countries....

A country like Brazil for example where abortion is ILLEGAL.

http://www.businessinsider.com/illegal-abortions-2013-5

^Let me underline some of the stuff on here:

Despite its illegality, Brazil's Ministry of Health estimates that about 1 million abortions are performed in the country annually, and that about 200,000 women are hospitalized every year from infections, vaginal bleeding, and other complications from illegal abortions.


Banning and restricting women's reproductive rights DO NOT WORK!

When will conservatives EVER learn?

When the U.S becomes a hell hole for women like Brazil, Mexico, and other Latin American countries?

[duane1969]

So change the murder law, not the abortion law, if that really is your problem. I'm not arguing against that, I think you're right in what you're saying, however, using it as an anti abortion argument is misrepresenting the cause of the problem. The problem, in this case, is a terrible law regarding murder, not abortion. Though, one could argue that until the fetus is aborted, the mother has the right to change her mind and he took that from her. It still shouldn't be murder, but if a fetus is aborted during a crime as such, perhaps an extra penalty or a new law, since there was something more taken from the mother. He made the choice for her and, which ever way that goes, that is just wrong.

I am not using it as an anti-abortion argument. At no point anywhere in this discussion will you find me saying that this is grounds to reverse Roe v. Wade. I simply find it idiotic that virtually every state has laws in place that say it is a fetus with no rights if the mother chooses to have a doctor kill it, but if it is killed, either by accident or on purpose by someone other than a doctor then it is a human being with it's right to life protected by law.

[duane1969]

Incorrect sir.

Science (BIOLOGY) had defined that a fetus is not a viable person, if you don't like that....too bad.

Take it up with nature or god if you believe in him.

Neither mother nature nor God wrote anything down and defined a set of laws for us humans to go by in relation to abortion or viability. You can argue until your head pops off, Roe v. Wade is the defining law that lays out the baseline parameters that set the stage for viability discussions. I have no interest in arguing semantics.

The point has nothing to do with abortion itself, then, and is off topic. Seriously, I agree there should A) be one set of rules and B) it shouldn't be considered a murder. I'm not sure anyone disagrees with that. However, if not an anti-abortion argument or an argument to have that law changed, I fail to see anything coming from this line of discussion other than everyone arguing over something we actually agree on.

It isn't off-topic. The statement was made that it isn't a person. I was curious on people's take of how it can be murdered if it isn't a person.

[Wickabee]

I am not using it as an anti-abortion argument. At no point anywhere in this discussion will you find me saying that this is grounds to reverse Roe v. Wade. I simply find it idiotic that virtually every state has laws in place that say it is a fetus with no rights if the mother chooses to have a doctor kill it, but if it is killed, either by accident or on purpose by someone other than a doctor then it is a human being with it's right to life protected by law.

I agree. It should be illegal but it shouldn't be murder.

Again, I fail to see the point of this.

[Wickabee]

It isn't off-topic. The statement was made that it isn't a person. I was curious on people's take of how it can be murdered if it isn't a person.

And no one bit. Can we move on now?