Show of Hands

Then you choose to murder your own child. Nice choice. Just be honest about it while your out screwing around and the killing as your choice of birth control.

My body my choice kthanx

The issue is consent. Your position is extreme. Choosing when to become a mother is not "ordering a hit." If the unborn victims of violence act meant what you claim, all abortions would already be illegal.

Legally, of course.

And the status of the fetus is not irrelevant, if it is a human, then the mothers consent is tantamount to ordering a hit.

You're simply mistaken. The issue it not the mothers consent. It's called the unborn victims of violence act, not the "mother failed to consent to her fetus being harmed act"

The judge wouldn't be concerned with whether or not she wanted to have a baby. Her plans, or any details about the pregnancy would be irrelevant to the case. The issue is consent.

That's why it's double murder when a pregnant woman is killed. Her wishes may not be known. And it doesn't matter. Two PEOPLE were killed.

In every way one looks at it, it's a human being.

Nobody gets to choose whether or not a thing is a human being. It either is or isn't. It isn't worthy of protection based on its mother's determination of its classification. That's not the "choice" she's making. She's choosing whether or not to kill the thing. The question is: what's being killed?

You're fixated on the status of the fetus. The issue isn't whether or not she says it's human, the issue is whether or not she consents. I gave you the haircut analogy to help you see the difference more objectively.

What, You think the killer of a pregnant woman gets additional punishment because he failed to get her permission to kill the baby too?

My last comment must have hit home huh?

wow look at the states who voted pro life they are the ones that rank last in education . lol

@fudgy2 You choose to make personal attacks because you have nothing to contribute.

@Brrr You're not sitting still long enough for me to deconstruct your argument about the murder of a pregnant woman. If you cut someone's hair without permission, it's a crime. If they ask you to, it's not. Get it?

Devolution of the abortionista argument:

First it was: the fetus is not a human
Then it was: abortion is justified killing
Then it was: but enforcing anti-abortion law is hard!
Then it was: fetus is human only if mother wants it

I'll be waiting for the next iteration.

And I bet SakaLee is either a guy a young female who has not experienced the joy of having a baby. Either way, not in a position to speak or a killer trying to sleep at night. Any guess on which?

Ok let's vote @SakaLee's comment "Idiot of the Year" award. It's odd, sad and disturbing all mixed into one.

PROLIFE ALL THE WAY YOU THINK THE MOTHERS NEED RIGHTS WHER RHE BABY HAS NEVEN EVEN HAD ANY RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!

The mother doesn't decide it the baby is a human or not r u crazy??

It's exactly the same logic as whether or not a woman consents to a haircut. If she doesn't consent, it's a crime.

See, whether or not the fetus is a human life is determined simply by asking the mother whether or not she wishes to keep it. Simple abortionista logic.

It gets right to the issue, actually. Legally, the fetus is considered a human worth protecting. So much so that they'll punish someone that unintentionally causes it harm. Unless the mother voluntarily vacuumes it out, of course.

Abortions have been for a long time now. Whether or not it is wrong, or when life starts, is not the question. Abortions have been done for thousands of years, and it'll probably continue. This is similar to the issue on birth control. 98% of supposedly Christian women use birth control.

Great point @MDB. Concur

That's a separate issue. When anyone of any political persuasion does a head count, they only count a pregnant woman once. That's a fact. Whether you acknowledge it or dance around it is your choice.

You count two when a pregnant woman is murdered.

An enlightening quote, from conservative supreme court justice Scalia, of all people...

"When you do a head count, you don't count a pregnant woman twice."

@GrowUp Any rollback of our multitudinous theocratic laws gets the same arguments. It's not anarchy. it's respect for a woman's private decision on when to become a mother.

GrowUp: That's not anarchy (Re: StakaLee). That's the government out of people's lungs, uteruses, vaginas, penises, and wallets. If that's everything, then it's anarchy.

I am Pro-Choice because I would be arrogant to assume I know and can define the value of life for every person. Ideally, we would all be working so hard for a better quality of life that this question wouldn't be necessary.

Whether or not there is that "specialness," and what it is worth in any given circumstance, is the "choice" in Pro-Choice.

Mitwister ... So ... They say the unborn baby's heart begins to best at 21 days ... So no baby murders after 21 days, right?

If we say no to abortion because it's life, we also shouldn't take antibiotics or use hand sanitizer. If its because it's human life, then we are supposing that there is something special about human life that makes it worth preserving.

StakaLee ... You make the case for anarchy. We have laws against murder because it is deemed by society as a crime.

Should we stop prosecuting murders because people are still murdering?

As a society we are supposed to protect the weak. Killing defenseless babies is the ultimate betrayal.

There would be no forced pregnancies. If a woman is pregnant, she's not guilty of abortion. Punish the act. Just like murder.

It wouldn't stop abortion any more than prohibitions on drugs, prostitution, or gambling. It just removes the regulations and compounds the problem by adding a criminal element.

@MDB Arrest the doctors and prosecute the mothers? Have you thought that through? Forced pregnancies on a jailhouse gurney? And how many orphans would there be? It's not a pleasant subject, so I doubt too many people have really considered what a prohibition on abortion would actually mean.

Mitwister, There's a difference between being brain dead and not having a brain YET. And since when is a heartbeat a prerequisite for life? Bacteria doesn't have a heartbeat. Or brainwaves. Are they not alive? Please admit that your last comment was at the very least ill-conceived.

There is already a definition for death, just reverse it for life. Brain activity, heartbeat, or whatever it is already works for people's deaths.

Novel idea. Make the mother accountable for her mistakes? Is that even an option in the liberal world? Or should we just find someone else to blame as usual?

Prosecute the "mothers".

Like any other crime, make the punishment bad enough to deter the bad behavior.
Maybe... Just maybe the "need" for abortion will decrease.

Arrest the "doctors".

What would you suggest? Glad to see your thinking about all these innocent girls and boys.

Wouldn't a prohibition on abortion lead to monitoring and physically forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to full term? How would that work? House arrest? Shackles?

Brrrrr, You're probably right, but I think it's also a calculated effort to numb people. Say it enough times and some people will believe it. Especially young people. Everything they do and say devalues human dignity. And they don't care. If they can stick it to the man, they'll say anything.

We're all clumps of cells, if you think about it. Some are just bigger. I doubt the abortionistas really consider the fetus to be a parasitic cancer. They probably say that just to try and annoy pro lifers.

Reasonable... Change your name.
You guys have so many criteria and timelines that all contradict each other. It's pathetic!

Aww. Look at the little idiot trying to push buttons. Don't go to Vegas with that poker face.

A fetus is a parasitic cluster of cells that shows no sign of consciousness.