Brain-dead woman must carry fetus to birth because of abortion ban, family says

[Lursa]

think about what you just said .... coral reef's and livestock have more value than unborn babies. How horrible is that ?

Where did I write that? Quote it. I acknowledged they're all "lives."

Why do you lie? "How horrible is that?" You fail over and over and then lie about it.

fantastic - we all can agree now the unborn is alive and abortion is killing it, right ?

I've never ever denied any of those things. What part of my posting about the Dobbs decision allowing women/their doctors to kill the unborn life hasnt been clear to you?

Why do you lie? "How horrible is that?" You fail over and over and then lie about it.

except in certain cases women get to decide to have unborn babies killed in the womb - you support that, I do not

I support their choice to do so, Yup. And you cant explain why you think that's wrong, so why shouldnt they?

it literally is specific - read the laws and why unborn babies are protected

I asked you to prove it by citing it. Quote it. We've been thru this before but feel free to fail again.

so you're agreeing with others now and saying human life has no value at anytime ?

Quote where I wrote that, ever?

Why do you lie? "How horrible is that?" You fail over and over and then lie about it.

different DNA?
different blood?
different gender?

no - its the same baby 1 day before birth as one day after. You think its different ?

THere are many other physiological things besides those. I'm sorry you are so poorly informed on basic biology.

So...factually, it's not the same. That was easy. Did you lie or post it in ignorance?

consent? you are wanting the baby to get a letter of consent to be in the pregnancy? did the woman as the baby for consent to conception ? I mean if you're asking for consent be fair

Thanks for making my point. And you still dont understand it because you were going for a cliched "gotcha."

Hey, you've "gotten" yourself dug in even deeper in ignorance.

read the fetal protection laws

For what? Prove you're right and I'm wrong. Cite, quote the proof I'm wrong. Otherwise...

Why do you lie? "How horrible is that?" You fail over and over and then lie about it.

we agree - laws don't matter when it comes to when life is and when life isn't, we agree on that, right ?

Biology makes it clear. Where has "biology" ever recognized any value for ANY life? CItation please.

"Biology" doesnt recognize humans as any more or less "important" life than a cow or paramecium or any other 'life.'

a woman's right doesn't extend to killing the unborn innocent baby in her womb -

It sure does, the federal govt has no problem with it, and the Const is clear...see Dobbs

we disagree on that

Nope, you're still just wrong. Now, where is my answer to this: When it comes to fetal "personhood," the question is...why would Congress change/amend the Constitution to recognize that?

 

[Lursa]

Another attempt to hide...please provide the quote as requested:

me doing that is when people say "well we have no laws saying an unborn baby is life" when we actually do

Who says the unborn isnt "alive?" Or "life?"

Quote where a poster wrote that the unborn isnt "life."

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

its better than killing the child - many kids escape poverty/drug families etc. Not a single killed in the womb baby escapes the death

Who says it's "better"? You?

If it's better then why do we have suicides? Drug addiction? Gang show-downs where it's guaranteed someone is going to die?

a woman doesn't decide when life begins

No. Life begins in a petri dish or inside the woman's uterus if a sperm pierces an egg and the DNA comes together.

yes to giving birth and the baby life - I can't force them to be good parents.

But you CAN wash your hands entirely of what happens to that born child, is that right?

But wait - why are you concerned for "what it would do to the fetus" ???

Because in this scenario, that fetus is going to be born. With FAS, with withdrawls, with severe issues due to drugs in its system all through the pregnancy, very early/low birthweight, or whatever might happen.

So yes, it's a concern when such a fetus is forced to be carried to term in all cases. The newborn baby has to deal with all of that, and the mother has to deal with that, all the child's growing up years (for the child, its entire life), so of course in your perfect world it's a concern.

are you for getting rid of all the people who doesn't meet your expectations for a "good life" ???

No. I am for women being able to make the decision whether or not they and a born child can have a **decent** life. One that will nurture a child the way it needs to be nurtured. Including emotionally.

but morally you'd be ok with it ?

No, it's gruesome.

But again, it wouldn't have been my call, even 20 or 30 years ago or whenever it was legal in some states.

in your opinon was that a good thing? the banning ?

I don't know enough about it one way or another. I've never researched it. I just know that involved cutting into the skull (?? I believe) and that it was made illegal. I'd have to look into the procedure to know whether or not I would think it was a "good" thing. Is the fetus given morphine first? What exactly happens?

Either way, it's been illegal for a long time now. SOMEBODY thought the banning was a good thing.

Maybe pro-choicers aren't quite so evil as you think.

we have that system - but you're right, its on the mother and father primarily


what "way"? and dead is better than growing up poor is your argument ?

No. I've made my argument as to why any given woman must choose for herself.

I have repeatedly added that it's also about the mother's maturity, the child's emotional needs, the child growing up in a safe home and so on. Why do you ignore that and focus on the poverty aspect? It's a big one in some situations, yes. But so are other considerations.

You seem to want to keep trying to make it about "you want poor fetuses to die, don't you?" because that sounds brutal and it makes a pro-choicer sound downright evil. The only problem with this is that it's never what I said.

I said it is a consideration, for some women a very big one.

It can be a big consideration for a middle- or upper-class woman, too. For instance, she's only 19 and wants to get through school so that she can one day afford to care for her child in the way she feels any child should be cared for, in a supportive and comparatively non-struggling environment. So how is my POV all about "killing" poor "babies"?

the value of an unborn baby is equal to and no less than the value of the moment its born. How's that?

Not good. I asked what the value of a human life is. What you're saying is that if there is no verifiable value the moment it's born, then there wasn't one before, either.

What is the "value" of a human life? Specifically.

if a person places no value on born life then they can say unborn has no value too

Do you place a value on born life?

What specifically is the value?

if a person DOES places value on born life, then that value must extend to the unborn because its literally the same living human life

Says who? You? They "must" place the same "value" on every living human? Why and what is the value?

 

[Lursa]

if its part of a normal pregnancy yes - if not? then debate that, I encourage you to. Its not something I debate

So you're saying that a fertilized egg in a petri dish waiting to be implanted isnt a human life? Please explain why?

 

[Gordy327]

Says who? You? They "must" place the same "value" on every living human? Why and what is the value?

Good luck getting an answer to that. That has been asked many many times all it's received is cowardly deflections. Certainly no actual answer.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Where did I write that? Quote it. I acknowledged they're all "lives."

you mentioned the value of livestock and coral reefs and endangered species ... you never mentioned the value of human life

I've never ever denied any of those things. What part of my posting about the Dobbs decision allowing women/their doctors to kill the unborn life hasnt been clear to you?

is your view the people can have different views on when an unborn baby has value and when it doesn't? and if they think it has no value that ok and nobody should be forced to put any value at all on unborn life ?

I support their choice to do so, Yup. And you cant explain why you think that's wrong, so why shouldnt they?

I thought killing innocent human life was a pretty strong "what's wrong with it" statement

Tell me ... what other examples of killing innocent human life can you think of that we're all ok with ?

I asked you to prove it by citing it. Quote it. We've been thru this before but feel free to fail again.

are you really bad at googling ?

search like this

Quote where I wrote that, ever?

do you see this symbol "?"

its a question mark - indicative of a question with a response of yes or no etc. I never indicated I was quoting you

THere are many other physiological things besides those. I'm sorry you are so poorly informed on basic biology.
So...factually, it's not the same. That was easy. Did you lie or post it in ignorance?

so if the woman went into labor the day before ... its not the same baby ? like if a baby was born on July 14th its a living baby right? what if it'd have been born on the 13th? Different baby or ??

Thanks for making my point. And you still dont understand it because you were going for a cliched "gotcha."
Hey, you've "gotten" yourself dug in even deeper in ignorance.

so a woman needs to get consent from a life that hasn't been formed yet before she gets pregnant with it and the life that isn't formed needs consent from the woman? that's your views? I've never seen anything that weird but ok ....

For what? Prove you're right and I'm wrong. Cite, quote the proof I'm wrong. Otherwise...

read so you will further understand how unborn life is protected

information like this helps

Loading…

www.politico.com

Biology makes it clear. Where has "biology" ever recognized any value for ANY life? CItation please.

biology doesn't - you're right

"Biology" doesnt recognize humans as any more or less "important" life than a cow or paramecium or any other 'life.'

you are correct, biology doesn't

now ... do you personally put more value on a human life or a chicken's life ?

It sure does, the federal govt has no problem with it, and the Const is clear...see Dobbs

today you're right

next week maybe we get abortions banned almost everywhere. Roe is dead - that was a big blow to pro-abortion

Nope, you're still just wrong. Now, where is my answer to this: When it comes to fetal "personhood," the question is...why would Congress change/amend the Constitution to recognize that?

Loading…

www.politico.com

Congress would do it, the SC would do it, society would do it .... to protect unborn life

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

you mentioned the value of livestock and coral reefs and endangered species ... you never mentioned the value of human life



is your view the people can have different views on when an unborn baby has value and when it doesn't? and if they think it has no value that ok and nobody should be forced to put any value at all on unborn life ?



I thought killing innocent human life was a pretty strong "what's wrong with it" statement

Tell me ... what other examples of killing innocent human life can you think of that we're all ok with ?


are you really bad at googling ?

search like this

do you see this symbol "?"

its a question mark - indicative of a question with a response of yes or no etc. I never indicated I was quoting you


so if the woman went into labor the day before ... its not the same baby ? like if a baby was born on July 14th its a living baby right? what if it'd have been born on the 13th? Different baby or ??


so a woman needs to get consent from a life that hasn't been formed yet before she gets pregnant with it and the life that isn't formed needs consent from the woman? that's your views? I've never seen anything that weird but ok ....


read so you will further understand how unborn life is protected

information like this helps

Loading…

www.politico.com

biology doesn't - you're right


you are correct, biology doesn't

now ... do you personally put more value on a human life or a chicken's life ?


today you're right

next week maybe we get abortions banned almost everywhere. Roe is dead - that was a big blow to pro-abortion

Loading…

www.politico.com

Congress would do it, the SC would do it, society would do it .... to protect unborn life

What "value" are you talking about?

What is the value?

 

[hecatmoggie]

Another attempt to hide...please provide the quote as requested:
Who says the unborn isnt "alive?" Or "life?"
Quote where a poster wrote that the unborn isnt "life."

great, we all agree the unborn is a living human life - fantastic !


I have a question - these are the overall abortion laws in Idaho and Vermont.

A preggo woman at, say, 16 weeks, flies from Vermont to Idaho. Did her unborn baby change in any way? My question is - the unborn baby IS what it IS .... the laws don't matter, do they ? Even though in one state she can have it killed and in the other state its protected, right ?

Idaho -

Gestation Ban:	Total ban
Exceptions:	Threat to patients life or health, and rape/incest

Vermont

Vermont​

Gestation Ban:	No cut-off
Exceptions:	N/A

How Major Abortion Laws Compare State by State: Map

Access to abortion in the U.S. depends on where you live. Increasingly, the South and Midwest are becoming complete abortion deserts.

fullerproject.org

 

[hecatmoggie]

What "value" are you talking about?

What is the value?

oh so you don't think coral reefs, endangered species, etc have any value either ? Those examples were posted - I simply asked why they had value and human life doesn't

what are your thoughts ?

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

great, we all agree the unborn is a living human life - fantastic !


I have a question - these are the overall abortion laws in Idaho and Vermont.

A preggo woman at, say, 16 weeks, flies from Vermont to Idaho. Did her unborn baby change in any way? My question is - the unborn baby IS what it IS .... the laws don't matter, do they ? Even though in one state she can have it killed and in the other state its protected, right ?

Which is why "state's rights" on a woman's bodily autonomy is a stupid concept that in the end is never going to work out well.

Idaho -

Gestation Ban:	Total ban
Exceptions:	Threat to patients life or health, and rape/incest

Vermont

Vermont​

Gestation Ban:	No cut-off
Exceptions:	N/A

How Major Abortion Laws Compare State by State: Map

Access to abortion in the U.S. depends on where you live. Increasingly, the South and Midwest are becoming complete abortion deserts.

fullerproject.org

 

[Gordy327]

you mentioned the value of livestock and coral reefs and endangered species ... you never mentioned the value of human life

Neither have you.

is your view the people can have different views on when an unborn baby has value and when it doesn't? and if they think it has no value that ok and nobody should be forced to put any value at all on unborn life ?

Anyone can have views or opinions on anything. But that's all it is.

I thought killing innocent human life was a pretty strong "what's wrong with it" statement

Innocent of what? The pregnant woman is innocent too, is she not?

Tell me ... what other examples of killing innocent human life can you think of that we're all ok with ?

military combat, self defense, withdrawal of care, euthanasia, abortion. Need I continue?

so if the woman went into labor the day before ... its not the same baby ? like if a baby was born on July 14th its a living baby right? what if it'd have been born on the 13th? Different baby or ??

Until it's born, it's still a fetus.

so a woman needs to get consent from a life that hasn't been formed yet before she gets pregnant with it and the life that isn't formed needs consent from the woman? that's your views? I've never seen anything that weird but ok ....

Does the gestational contents have consent to occupy and feed off the woman's body?

read so you will further understand how unborn life is protected

information like this helps

Loading…

www.politico.com

Fetal personhood only applies within the context of abortion, nothing more.

biology doesn't - you're right


you are correct, biology doesn't

Biology is irrelevant to the abortion issue.

now ... do you personally put more value on a human life or a chicken's life ?

I can find skinless chicken breast for $2.99/lb and I like chicken. What's the value of human life? Is it like veal?

today you're right

And everyday day too. Which makes you wrong on a daily basis.

next week maybe we get abortions banned almost everywhere. Roe is dead - that was a big blow to pro-abortion

Funny how many states expanded abortion rights, with some even enshrining it in their state constitutions. Seems like it wasn't the big blow you hoped for.

Loading…

www.politico.com

Congress would do it, the SC would do it, society would do it .... to protect unborn life

An empty assertion.

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

oh so you don't think coral reefs, endangered species, etc have any value either ? Those examples were posted - I simply asked why they had value and human life doesn't

what are your thoughts ?

What inherent "value" do they have? Are you talking about for calcium for human use? Or what?

As for endangered species, I've always thought that species evolve, die out or continue. I'm not sure we should ever meddle in that. There have been disastrous consequences in the past, like one species being introduced in an environment to "control the population" of another and then that new species becomes invasive.

What type of value are we talking about here? Until you clarify that, there's no way to say people "value" or "don't value" a fetus.

 

[Gordy327]

oh so you don't think coral reefs, endangered species, etc have any value either ? Those examples were posted - I simply asked why they had value and human life doesn't

what are your thoughts ?

I simply asked what's the valiue of human life or the unborn. Very telling how you cannot seem to answer that!

 

[Gordy327]

No. What inherent "value" do they have? Are ;you talking about for calcium for human use? Or what?

What type of value are we talking about here? Until you clarify that, there's no way to say people "value" or "don't value" a fetus.

I assume the minerals of the body, sodium, calcium, potassium, iron, and such would have similar values as their vitamin counterparts on pharmacy shelves. Most of the body is water, so I suppose it would have similar prices as bottled water. A fetus might have some value battered and fried and served as a delicacy, fried fetal fritters.

 

[Gordy327]

great, we all agree the unborn is a living human life - fantastic !


I have a question - these are the overall abortion laws in Idaho and Vermont.

A preggo woman at, say, 16 weeks, flies from Vermont to Idaho. Did her unborn baby change in any way? My question is - the unborn baby IS what it IS .... the laws don't matter, do they ? Even though in one state she can have it killed and in the other state its protected, right ?

Idaho -

Gestation Ban:	Total ban
Exceptions:	Threat to patients life or health, and rape/incest

Vermont

Vermont​

Gestation Ban:	No cut-off
Exceptions:	N/A

How Major Abortion Laws Compare State by State: Map

Access to abortion in the U.S. depends on where you live. Increasingly, the South and Midwest are becoming complete abortion deserts.

fullerproject.org

Why are you complaining? The states can now set their own limits, just as you wanted. If 1 state has restrictions while another has none, what's the issue? You wanted abortion as a state's issue, correct? Is the the "big blow" you hoped overturning Roe is?

 

[Lursa]

you mentioned the value of livestock and coral reefs and endangered species ... you never mentioned the value of human life

I did not, I said they were all life.

Why do you lie? "How horrible is that?" You fail over and over and then lie about it.

is your view the people can have different views on when an unborn baby has value and when it doesn't? and if they think it has no value that ok and nobody should be forced to put any value at all on unborn life ?

Answer my questions before asking more of your own.

"Re: women killing their unborn" I support their choice to do so, Yup. And you cant explain why you think that's wrong, so why shouldnt they?​

​

When it comes to fetal "personhood," the question is...why would Congress change/amend the Constitution to recognize that?​

And of course you owe bunch of quotes to prove your claims, so let's see those before moving forward.

I thought killing innocent human life was a pretty strong "what's wrong with it" statement

Tell me ... what other examples of killing innocent human life can you think of that we're all ok with ?

Answer my questions before asking more of your own.

"Re: women killing their unborn" I support their choice to do so, Yup. And you cant explain why you think that's wrong, so why shouldnt they?​

​

When it comes to fetal "personhood," the question is...why would Congress change/amend the Constitution to recognize that?​

And of course you owe bunch of quotes to prove your claims, so let's see those before moving forward.

are you really bad at googling ?

search like this

do you see this symbol "?"

its a question mark - indicative of a question with a response of yes or no etc. I never indicated I was quoting you

OK then, answer my questions before asking more of your own.

"Re: women killing their unborn" I support their choice to do so, Yup. And you cant explain why you think that's wrong, so why shouldnt they?​

​

When it comes to fetal "personhood," the question is...why would Congress change/amend the Constitution to recognize that?​

so if the woman went into labor the day before ... its not the same baby ? like if a baby was born on July 14th its a living baby right? what if it'd have been born on the 13th? Different baby or ??

It wasnt a baby before it was born, it was a fetus, and had many physiological differences...so there's your answer

See? You like to use inaccurate language to try and hide and to manipulate emotions...and then it just bites you in the

so a woman needs to get consent from a life that hasn't been formed yet before she gets pregnant with it and the life that isn't formed needs consent from the woman? that's your views? I've never seen anything that weird but ok ....

Answer my questions before asking more of your own.

"Re: women killing their unborn" I support their choice to do so, Yup. And you cant explain why you think that's wrong, so why shouldnt they?​

​

When it comes to fetal "personhood," the question is...why would Congress change/amend the Constitution to recognize that?​

And of course you owe bunch of quotes to prove your claims, so let's see those before moving forward.

read so you will further understand how unborn life is protected

information like this helps

Loading…

www.politico.com

Nope...quote exactly what proves your point. You've tried and failed over and over, so waste your own time, not mine. Quote it.

 

[Lursa]

biology doesn't - you're right


you are correct, biology doesn't

now ... do you personally put more value on a human life or a chicken's life ?

Answer my questions before asking more of your own.

"Re: women killing their unborn" I support their choice to do so, Yup. And you cant explain why you think that's wrong, so why shouldnt they?​

​

When it comes to fetal "personhood," the question is...why would Congress change/amend the Constitution to recognize that?​

And of course you owe bunch of quotes to prove your claims, so let's see those before moving forward.

today you're right

next week maybe we get abortions banned almost everywhere. Roe is dead - that was a big blow to pro-abortion

And then it gets changed back again I'm good with Dobbs anyway since it makes it clear the federal govt supports the Const and recognizes no rights for the unborn

Loading…

www.politico.com

Yes but even they dont charge women with murder for having abortions...so they know they cant supersede federal law. And the Dobbs decision supports that. Women in AL can still legally take pills to kill it, or go to another state and have it killed....they cant legally do that with a child or toddler can they?

Congress would do it, the SC would do it, society would do it .... to protect unborn life

Why arent they? That's the question. Please answer it.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Which is why "state's rights" on a woman's bodily autonomy is a stupid concept that in the end is never going to work out well.

my point is ... the unborn doesn't change. State laws change - but the unborn baby doesn't, correct ?

and its also true people's views doesn't change what an unborn baby is or isn't, correct?

 

[hecatmoggie]

What inherent "value" do they have? Are you talking about for calcium for human use? Or what?

I assume the poster that mentioned them meant they have "value" as in needing protection/having worth

what did you think they meant ?

As for endangered species, I've always thought that species evolve, die out or continue. I'm not sure we should ever meddle in that. There have been disastrous consequences in the past, like one species being introduced in an environment to "control the population" of another and then that new species becomes invasive.

What type of value are we talking about here? Until you clarify that, there's no way to say people "value" or "don't value" a fetus.

so if I break some bald eagle eggs and scramble them for breaskfast .... illegal yes, but morally it'd be ok (or roast a bald eagle for Thanksgiving) and really we should have no laws against that, right?

 

[hecatmoggie]

I simply asked what's the valiue of human life or the unborn. Very telling how you cannot seem to answer that!

the same as after its born - that value extends to the unborn because its literally the same living human life

 

[hecatmoggie]

Why are you complaining? The states can now set their own limits, just as you wanted. If 1 state has restrictions while another has none, what's the issue? You wanted abortion as a state's issue, correct? Is the the "big blow" you hoped overturning Roe is?

I'm happy Roe is dead, I'd be happy with abortion highly restricted nationwide and very few every done, that's ideal

My point is .... the unborn baby doesn't change from one state to another does it ?

Laws change yes - the unborn is what it is though ... isn't it ?

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

my point is ... the unborn doesn't change. State laws change - but the unborn baby doesn't, correct ?

My point is, what "value" are you placing? I can't answer what the fetus's value "status" is unless you can tell me what you're talking about.

and its also true people's views doesn't change what an unborn baby is or isn't, correct?

People's views of another's value change all during that person's life, actually. And on what the person does that those judging that life believe are good, bad, helpful, a "waste of government resources" or whatever.

Sure their views can change as to "what" an unborn baby is or isn't...someone might be a fundie one day and believe a fetus is a spark of God, then later be an atheist and no longer think that's "what" a fetus is.

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

the same as after its born - that value

Oh for the love of ova.

What value are you speaking about?

extends to the unborn because its literally the same living human life

 

[Lursa]

I'm happy Roe is dead, I'd be happy with abortion highly restricted nationwide and very few every done, that's ideal

My point is .... the unborn baby doesn't change from one state to another does it ?

Laws change yes - the unborn is what it is though ... isn't it ?

Yes it does. Biologically. And also in how its "regulation and protection" affects a woman's consent, legal status, rights, and moral agency. Yes laws change...but do you think that women's status as equal to men will change? I hope not. It's Constitutional.

So yes it changes both of those (it's not "all" about the unborn...you so easily dismiss the woman in the equation )...so your point is...again...wrong.

When do you think you'll be honest enough to stop asking?

 

[hecatmoggie]

I did not, I said they were all life.

you said "Who says the unborn isnt "alive?" Or "life?" Coral reefs, wildlife, and livestock, etc are "life" and protected by laws. "

why are your examples "protected" if there is no value in them ?

Answer my questions before asking more of your own.

"Re: women killing their unborn" I support their choice to do so, Yup. And you cant explain why you think that's wrong, so why shouldnt they?​

​

When it comes to fetal "personhood," the question is...why would Congress change/amend the Constitution to recognize that?​

And of course you owe bunch of quotes to prove your claims, so let's see those before moving forward.

Who says the unborn isnt "alive?" Or "life?" Coral reefs, wildlife, and livestock, etc are "life" and protected by laws.

Answer my questions before asking more of your own.

"Re: women killing their unborn" I support their choice to do so, Yup. And you cant explain why you think that's wrong, so why shouldnt they?​

​

When it comes to fetal "personhood," the question is...why would Congress change/amend the Constitution to recognize that?​

And of course you owe bunch of quotes to prove your claims, so let's see those before moving forward.

see above

OK then, answer my questions before asking more of your own.

"Re: women killing their unborn" I support their choice to do so, Yup. And you cant explain why you think that's wrong, so why shouldnt they?​

​

When it comes to fetal "personhood," the question is...why would Congress change/amend the Constitution to recognize that?​

see above

It wasnt a baby before it was born, it was a fetus, and had many physiological differences...so there's your answer

why does it matter what word is used? I'm serious - words don't make things what they are, things ARE what they are regardless.

remember the story on that in 1770 Captain Cook asked the natives in Queensland, Australia, for the name of this strange, leaping quadruped he had spotted in his travels. He wanted to know what they were called, what they were. Their reply was "kangaroo," which supposedly meant, "I don't understand you."

Cook thought it was literally the name of the animal.

See? WORDS don't matter ... the kangaroo was what it was, regardless of the words used.

an unborn living human is .... and you can call it a kitten, a puppy, a fetus or a baby, doesn't change what it is and 1 day before birth its the same as 1 day after except born into the world

Answer my questions before asking more of your own.

"Re: women killing their unborn" I support their choice to do so, Yup. And you cant explain why you think that's wrong, so why shouldnt they?​

​

When it comes to fetal "personhood," the question is...why would Congress change/amend the Constitution to recognize that?​

And of course you owe bunch of quotes to prove your claims, so let's see those before moving forward.

I'm not playing all the stupid "answer me answer me answer me" games - sorry