Sorry, but I don't know what you mean by the bo!ded.

I believe that protecting and enriching human lives at ALL STAGES of life is a worthy endeavor.

I believe that typically "murder" refers to "wrongful killing".

Someone choosing to undergo a liposuction procedure is not likely to believe that their fat is being WRONGFULLY killed.

Hitler, for example, didnt believe that he was "murdering" Jews, because in his mind Jews were sub-human, and deserved death.

edit: Some PETA members refer to the slaughter of turkeys around Thanksgiving as a "holocaust". They would say that turkeys are being murdered, not merely killed.

I believe that consensual sex between two adults should not be interfered with.

I believe that at conception a new human life has been created, which alters the situation considerably. Falsely yelling "Fire!" In an empty theatre is fine, while yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is not fine.

Sure.

Other than your rape, incest or health exceptions, after pregnant, does a woman have any right to terminate a pregnancy without governmental interference?

Your first amendment analogy is awful.

I believe he's answered that many times in the negative. I can't remember if he's stated a position for the exceptions you listed. I'm guessing those are a negative as well, with maybe saving the mother's life as the only exception.

Without question

• most people undergoing abortion are not likely to believe their tiny clump of cells is being wrongfully killed,
• Hitler murdered Jews, and
• cool story, bro.

I actually didn't think of it as a "first amendment" analogy, which probably proves that I made a poor choice of analogies.

The point I was making is that an "absolute right" can in some cases be a "conditional right" when a third party is involved.

Here maybe is a better analogy (hopefully):

Any person with a valid driver's license has a right to drive, but not a right to drive while intoxicated. Because a third party could be adversely affected.

I believe that rape, incest, and mother's health exceptions should be considered in any law attempting to prohibit abortions.

I gotta think sitting around chatting to mostly grown dudes on a card forum is about the least effective strategy imaginable for realizing that goal.

Hell, I wonder why all those supposedly 'pro-life' boomers had so many abortions.
Not to mention how many basically ditched their kids that were born with little to no real consequences.

As a Boomer myself, I can vouch for the fact that "my" generation is one of the most degenerate generations in American history.

Maybe the very WORST generation in U.S. history.

Does a woman have any right to not take a pregnancy full term once pregnant in your world where laws should consider your three exceptions? Could they seek state approval before getting an abortion under your worldview?

Does a woman have any right to not take a pregnancy full term once pregnant in your world where laws should consider your three exceptions? Could they seek state approval before getting an abortion under your worldview?

Do women have the right to use birth control?

I believe that at any point prior to conception the woman should have a right to any form of birth control she chooses.

A woman seeking an abortion would require state approval. (A state-licensed physician could act as an agent of the state in this situation to determine if an abortion would be lawful in any given case.)

Edit: Probably a panel of physicians might be required.

Criminalize sperm imo.

Charging $500 for each orgasm makes the most sense.

I'm confused. Am I a murderer, or a fine dodger?

Allright.
I just don’t see And don’t agree how you think a woman , has less rights and freedom of choices vs the government , over her body for an organism ( embryo) that doesn’t even have a brain and no genital organs to procreate ....


I left out the term fetus cause it’s far from being the same now ....
Wouldn’t u agree a higher living form have naturally more power And freedom of choices over a «*lesser*» living form .
If you don’t agree , are u vegan ?

Ps: how do you cope with a born baby for example , who can survive with a blood transfusion or a organs transplant but end up not having it due to religion beliefs of the parents ?
Who wins in that scenario ?

would the state pay for all prenatal care, every doctors visit, transportation to and from every doctors visit, any and all lost wages from missing work for said doctors visits, every meal the mother eats during pregnancy, all hospital care for both mother and child during birth, all medical care for mother post birth, all costs associated with raising the child until they are 18 whether or not the child is put up for adoption, all current and future earning potential that may have been lost due to carrying the unwanted fetus to term, and of course any and all extra costs like mental health care, and anything else that may come up?

because if any of that is answered in the negative the state should probably shut the **** up and mind its own business mr fake libertarian.

In my opinion, a parent ought not to be allowed to deny their child life-saving medical procedures.

Please try asking a shorter question. Thanks.

About this lagtag ?

The fetus is a human life, therefore its life ought to be protected, in my opinion.

A fetus is after around 10 weeks .
I specifically said embryo .
It’s a cell without a brain , genitals, etc .
So it’s a lower form of life .

But as long you said , in your opinion it’s fine .
But state laws shouldn’t be an opinion , especially when it’s a law that would make abortion illegal and preventing the freedom of choice of the individuals About their OWN body !
Freedom of choices for the individuals , one of the highest liberty of the United states celebrated throughout the world shouldn’t be treated lightly.
Especially when an opinion has different ramifications depending on Which religions , sciences or other reasoning individuals abide to.

Better to give the freedom of choices than impose a view that is far from being consensual because thruth is very subjective !