Yes, and words like "human life" have meaning, which your claim directly contradicts. You're claiming that X is not X, but only potentially X. Blatant logical contradiction. Science says it is human life. Quit denying the science.
You really should go back and re-read what I said, in response to your comments and the context of your comments.
Risk to her life is completely irrelevant, as there are no anti-abortion laws that do not make exceptions for immediate risk to the life of the mother.
What are you responding to, exactly?
Here is what I said:
As for your "temporary inconvenience".. For some women, being forced to give birth can cost her her life, her livelihood, her ability to have more children, it can render her disabled, traumatised, scarred, etc. Of course this is very easy for you to dismiss, because you will never be placed in a position where you could be forced to have your body play host for 9 months without your consent and against your will.
You are responding to something else entirely.
Unless of course you are trying to say that her life is irrelevant? Which given the abortion laws passed in Texas and those your ilk are trying to pass elsewhere, that's pretty much the case anyway...
Every adult has to deal with the consequences of their own actions and choices, and that includes failing to account for those other risks. A woman has already given consent, by choosing to do things that have pregnancy as a possible consequence. Again, making a special pleading that women should be less accountable for their own choices isn't very enlightened.
Except you don't have to deal with 9 months of pregnancy without your consent and against your will. Women are going to have to. This isn't acceptable and is a breach of their human rights. A woman giving consent to sex is not giving consent to 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth and all the costs associated with it.
You do understand this, yes? That consent, once given, is not a lifetime thing. And once again, a woman who elects to have an abortion because she does not wish to have a child is being accountable and responsible.
Just as you conveniently ignore the man's accountability in this. He is under no obligation to financially help her during the pregnancy, nor is he obligated to financially fund childbirth and the ridiculous costs in involved with healthcare in the US. The complete and utter burden falls solely on her.
If she does not wish to be pregnant for whatever reason, then by her human rights, she has the right to not be pregnant and terminate the pregnancy if she so chooses.
As I noted previously, your issue (and those who think like you do) is that she's having sex. That is why there are no laws or amendments in abortion legislation that would dictate the father's role in financially supporting her during the pregnancy. Just as there are no laws or amendments that would dictate financial aid being made available to women denied their fundamental human rights and access to healthcare that should be made available to her in a free society. No, the issue for you lot is that she's sexually active and thus, must pay the consequences of
her actions and choices. So only she is to be punished by being forced to remain pregnant against her will and only she has to bear the burden of the pregnancy, financially and physically. It's obscene and perverted.
The moment a gun is used illegally, it is a crime. All other guns are used to defend life from said criminals, whether in the hands of law-abiding citizens or law enforcement. Criminals are such because they do not follow the laws. They actually target "gun free zones," like schools, knowing people will be less defended. My right to own a guns is contingent upon me using it legally. If I choose to use it to harm or threaten someone, I lose that right. Only consistent for those seeking to harm the unborn as well. One doesn't rank higher than the other. They both defend life.
The continuing perversion..
You have more rights to your guns, then women have over their own bodies.
"I never attributed it as being a "human life", because it is not."And don't even try equivocating over the word "people." Slave owners also claimed they had objective reasons why their slaves weren't "people."
In the context of that discussion, you know damn well what I said, particularly given I then said it had the "potential" to be "human life". But troll gonna troll..
You obvious just don't understand how you're even continuing to say it here. Taking the extreme action of killing a human life to escape the natural consequences is not "dealing with the consequences." That you even think so demonstrates that you think women should be expected to take such extreme measures to avoid accountability for their own actions.
Ah, the hypocrisy.. You're pro-life, until you aren't really "pro-life", which I will address shortly.
What "human life" is she taking, that you see no issue with ending by taking the human after pill? As for the rest of your claptrap about accountability for her actions, that's already been addressed. You and your lot are the perverts who get off on forcing women to remain pregnant against her will.
Don't know about where you're from, but in the US all men are held financially responsible for any child he fathers, regardless of if he ever wanted it or not. Since there is no escaping that unless the woman does abort the baby, many men try to pressure women to abort (some even resorting to violence). That's sick.
Men are only required to be financially responsible when it is born. If she puts it up for adoption, he is absolved of all financial responsibility. Only she bears the burden of pregnancy, both financially and physically. She bears the sole burden of the medical costs, time away from work, if she is not insured or adequately insured, then it's even worse. If she has a complication which requires her having to take more time off work, then it's also dire for her and any responsibilities she may already have.. If she has serious complications during childbirth, which believe me, are more common than most people realise, requiring extra care, emergency care, or surgery (for childbirth and any issues that may arise from those complications), then that's even more financial hardship for her and could leave her unable to work again. That's not a "consequence". You're all about potentially damning her for life because she had sex. And you think this is acceptable? If she did not consent to this, then you are abusing her human rights and her rights over her own body. That is, by any measure, unconscionable. This is the kind of crap you see despotic states do to their populace.
You are literally treating her like a criminal for having sex, not just by the language you use, but also by the punishment you want to inflict on her.
As I said, it's perverted and twisted.
A person can be pro-life and not believe in life from the moment of conception (which science does not support). I can't help you if your thinking is too black and white to admit that possibility.
Apparently you don't understand how the morning after pill works.
I understand fully how the morning after pill works. Some forms ensure that no implantation can occur.. You know, that little sack of cells that by your definition is a "human being", is unable to implant, which ensures its death.
The issue now appears to be that you seem to be vacillating between when it becomes a "human being" and from what point you can punish the mother for having sex.
The hypocrisy is glaring really.
