was using a false equivalency going on about his example was actually something unwillingly forced upon the (get this) care taker (the tards on words) and unborn child(again the tards own words) and not a choice made by the could be care taker ... Or most probably just a skank .
So I commented this below. Let me know if I made sense.
""Remove contradictory statements and you are one step closer to the truth.
If it is true that...
-
a "clump of cells" is considered an unborn child and is rightfully and lawfully afforded a Right to life and full legal protections under the constitution WHEN a violent criminal act causing harm or death has been committed upon it. And it is also true that...
-
The mother is afforded the same Right and protections but WHO is ALSO lawfully charged with guardianship and is attributed the title of care taker which binds her with Duties and responsibilities with lawfully applicable fines and or penalties including incarceration if she we're to be found guilty of criminal offense causing harm or death of ANY LIFE including an unborn child. Then it must be true that...
-
The "unborn child" is lawfully protected and afforded certain Rights wether or not a violent act has been "unwillingly forced" upon it or not.
The contradiction here is that some people think the unborn child's legal rights and protections are non existent until the (soon to be) mother has had a violent criminal act "unwillingly forced" upon her. ""
No. You haven't understood the liberal perspective at all. You see, from their point of view, the mother has the absolute authority to arbitrarily and capriciously reclassify the "thing" inside her as a life or a parasite/clump of cells at a whim. The fetus is afforded no definition or classification at all. If the mother chooses to call it a baby, it becomes a baby for that moment. The mother can then reclassify it as a parasite in the next breath, and there is no issue. They can do this as often as they like during pregnancy, and for no reason at all. It is simply whatever they feel like and whatever is convenient.
It isn't the violent crime that imparts a status of human to the fetus. It is the mother's decision (or the D.A. acting as a proxy for the mother in the case of death of the mother).
Yes. They really are this evil and twisted.
I know and agree with all that Monomial. I just saw that others had commented as such and felt I didn't need to "say"all of that again.
Believe me I understand the liberal mind . I'm Canadian from a Liberal dominated area and still in recovery of having had one myself
So according to liberal logic, a woman is headed to the clinic for an abortion. While enroute, the woman gets into an auto accident but lives along with the clump of cells (baby). But then it is discovered that the clump of cells is going to be one month early as there was a slight injury to the womb, and that injury caused the water to break. A 6.5 lbs clump of cells called a boy is delivered nice and healthy.
right, that's 2 counts of murder. the same people will insist that bird eggs be protected by federal law, and even that we shouldn't go to other planets that have microbes on them already. the entire medical community agrees that life ends when a heartbeat stops but many of them wimp out when asked if a heartbeat is when it starts too. I love watching the leftards twist themselves into knots over utterly stupid talking points.
The legal status of the unborn is indisputable and it is just a matter of states formalizing it without Roe.