Very rare for an innocent man to be executed. Abortion executes 100% innocent lives!

Dee

@MichaelElpers

****  Yes im saying the permission cant be withdrawn because the consequences are known.

Yes the consequences are known that’s why she’s aborting with full knowledge of the why’s , you have no right to interfere 

****  I consider it like a verbal contract, if you entered into a bad agreement that is your fault.

But it’s nothing  like a verbal contract if I give you permission say as a homeless person to stay in my house can I not withdraw that permission? 

Many women choose to abort because their circumstances change 

****I deny her choice to so something I believe has justification of being extremely immoral.  

I believe to deny her is extremely immoral 

****Just like society does with lots of things.

I don’t believe in the right to bear arms but I get the reason why Americans do it’s all subjective opinions nothing more , I don’t care either way about abortion what I care about is this assumed right that a woman must give birth against her will that’s tyranny 

****Back when we had no way to remove tattoos would the woman be able to sue a tattoo artist if she no longer wanted it on her body.

No she wouldn’t because she paid to have a tattoo and no doubt read their terms and conditions beforehand and realized that to take a case she would lose 

MayCaesar

There are two things I will never understand about humanity: humans' fascination with unborn people, and humans' fascination with dead people. People will talk about both with reverence, partake in rituals, strongly advocate for their rights... while the people the rights of which they are talking about do not even exist yet/anymore!

Makes one think that teenagers in Japan talking about the rights of anime characters half-jokingly, perhaps, are not that unhinged, in comparison to what all cultures talk about routinely.

MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot

Im done arguing on the home thing, because i think it is more similar to signing a contract.

Just because it didnt exist doesnt mean the mother didnt consent to it.

Harm and pain are 2 different concepts.  There are people that cant feel pain, you can still harm them.

MichaelElpers

@Dee. just because you have full knowledge of consequences doesnt mean that decision cant still be bad and immoral.

Thats fine, but the mothers choice created and now she is killing it.  That seems to be the most immoral.

Just like thr tattoo case, the mother knows the terms and conditions of having unprotected sex/ sex in general...you can create a human life.

Happy_Killbot

@MichaelElpers Even when you consider it a contract we run into the same problems:

• Who owns the contract, since the fetus was physically incapable of consenting to it
• Why should having sex automatically constitute agreement to this contract
• Why should there be no stipulations present to breach or nullify the contract

Consider this: If the parents hold responsibility for the fetus, then they should own the contract, meaning they hold the decision to breach the contract.

MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot. Again the fetuds doesnt have to consent to the contract.  Just like a baby is protected even though it cant consent.

Why should sex nake you consent.  Because the human life being created doesnt have a choice, the parents are the only ones that do.

Because the contract is to protect the life you created, breaching this contract nullifies the ebtire purpose.  One cannot just decide to breach a contract...that has legal consequences.

Happy_Killbot

@MichaelElpers If the parent's have the choice to make the life why should they not have the choice to end that life, provided it is not a US citizen?

You realize your body creates life all the time, and likewise it kills life all the time, some of it is your own life that it created itself.

There is no contract which doesn't have legal provisions for breaking that contract. If the person who made the contract or the person who entered into it have a disagreement, they can breach the contract. Since the person making and the person entering are the same due to proxy, then these parties both have the right to do so, i.e. the mother has the right to breach contract if she decides she doesn't want the person in her body, or the mother has the right to breach contract on the fetus's behalf.

ZeusAres42

We_are_accountable said:

@ZeusAres42

Here is your proof, but I am sure you could not care less!

https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

@We_are_accountable

Can you actually cite exactly where in that post it states life begins at conception? Nonetheless, speaking in terms of scientific accuracy, depending on how life is being defined then yes, the life of a new human entity may have begun at conception and I emphasize the word "may" as there is currently no strong scientific consensus on this. However, you said that life begins at conception which is scientifically inaccurate. Sperm is alive, eggs are alive, cells are alive and so forth. In fact, these things need to be alive in the first place in order to created new living entities.

Furthermore, scientists are still debating when life begins. In fact, they're still debating the definition of life let alone the actual start of life. http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf With that being said, many scientists do agree on the viability aspect.

The following are a list of the current different scientific views about when human life begins:

• Metabolic View
• Genetic View
• Embryological View
• Neurological View
• Ecological / Technological View

Genetic View:

Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no "moment of fertilization" at all.

The most popular argument against the idea that life begins at the moment of fertilization has been dubbed the "twinning argument." The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization. Even though the chances of twinning are not very great, as long as there is the potential for it to occur the zygote has not completed the process of individuation and is not an ontological individual.

http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf

References: http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf

Dee

@MichaelElpers

**** just because you have full knowledge of consequences doesnt mean that decision cant still be bad and immoral.

But bad or immoral is only from your position it’s purely subjective

****Thats fine, but the mothers choice created and now she is killing it.  That seems to be the most immoral.

Most immoral ? Not from the woman’s point of view which you don’t consider at all , who do you value the unborn more than th born?

****Just like thr tattoo case, the mother knows the terms and conditions of having unprotected sex/ sex in general...you can create a human life.

You can create a human life yes , but there are no set terms and conditions attached to pregnancy 

MayCaesar

MichaelElpers said:

Because the contract is to protect the life you created, breaching this contract nullifies the ebtire purpose.  One cannot just decide to breach a contract...that has legal consequences.

When two people have sexual intercourse, they do not have to sign such a contract. They can, in which case, indeed, choosing to perform abortion will be punishable by law - but they do not have to.

The contract based on a verbal agreement alone is simple: "You can do some things to me, and I can do some things to you." That is it. The notion of a potential child does not enter the equation.

In case of conception with no pre-existing contract, there is absolutely no obligation on either party to protect the created life, and it can be terminated at any point with no consequences, up until it becomes an autonomous human being, which does not happen until after the act of giving birth.

MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot. Why would it matter if they are a citizen or not.

My body doesnt create and kill human life daily.

They may be able to breach it, but there are consequences for doing so.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

I think the argument you make, the contract analogy and pre-birth personhood, could be used by anti-natalists... How can this be a contract when the baby has no say in the matter? You work under the premise that existence is a choice everyone would make regardless of the conditions of that existence. That if one had the choice to exist or not exist, one should always chose to exist no matter what. I disagree. 

How would you handle this hypothetical case... Someone is born with some physical condition that seriously diminish their quality of life, whether it's physical malformation, genetic disease, etc. Now say that this condition was detected early in the pregnancy, that it was known early that the child would have serious limitations and whose existence would be painful, could that person sue their parents for giving birth knowing this?

There is actually someone trying that now in India, he's perfectly healthy though and I don't know about laws in India but I wonder how would the system handle this in America. I doubt any court would accept to actually hear the case but it would be an interesting exercise nonetheless imo... His case should fall because I doubt there is a rational explanation as to how someone could have sought his consent to be born, but it could serve as a platform to demonstrate the immorality of intentional procreation...

SkepticalOne

@We_are_accountable

“First of all, I make exceptions for life of mother abortions because when a woman's life is in imminent danger, she has a right to save her life.”

I accept your reasoning, but it stops short.  After all, I’m sure you would accept a defensive killing of a would-be rapist even though rape isn’t highly correlated with death of the victim. You have set your standard unreasonably high where abortion is concerned.  Pregnancy affects body, ability to earn a living, and future. Just like rape, enduring these things without consent is a threat to life even if it may not cause death. Be consistent. 

“If we are going to continue this conversation, you need to stop using first trimester abortion excuses and examples. I want to focus on what the Democrat Party supports which is all abortions for any reason!”

Abortion has existed long before Democrats or Republicans, and your attempt to limit the discussion to what (presumably) your political opponents may or may not hold is unwarranted.  The fact is that most abortions occur before 13 weeks of pregnancy. If you don’t want to address the majority of abortions then you haven’t much of an argument.  Additionally, abortions late in the pregnancy are not done for “any and all reasons”, and most especially not for convenience. You are misinformed, sir.

“I also want you to stop talking about severe fetal abnormalities in late term abortions and be honest about Special Need's babies, who compete in Special Olympics, as being the babies most often aborted in late term.. These Down Syndrome babies make up the biggest percentage of of late term abortions, and do not have some severe fetal abnormalities. They are happy loving children who deserve the right to life, no matter their Special Needs.”

I’m not certain why you’ve assumed I would be referring to “Down Syndrome babies”. If you don’t understand my position, I would be happy to answer questions rather than have you jump to faulty conclusions. By “severe fetal abnormalities”, I would be referring to conditions which make a fetus inviable.   

MichaelElpers

@Dee. I value the unborn persons life more than the inconvience she created by her own volition.

There should be set terms and conditions to the pregnancy, that is my point.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

*****  I value the unborn persons life more than the inconvience she created by her own volition.

But you do not know nor can you know the individual reasons why women abort it’s almost as if those against think they do it as an act of spite or on a whim the opposite most likely is the case 


****There should be set terms and conditions to the pregnancy, that is my point.

I would not to live in a country where that was law how would one even word such a document?

Happy_Killbot

@MichaelElpers The consequence of breaching contract is the fetus dies, that should be all.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen. Not everyone may, but they get to make that choice.  I dont get to decide for someone else that they dont want to exist.

It easy, unless someone told you they dont want to live or exist you assume they want to and let them make the decision later.

If someone doesnt have a do not resuscitate signature, and theyre in a bad wreck, you dont let them die because later on the hardships may make them wish they were dead.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar. The notion of a potential child doesnt enter the equation?  Why not, it is objectively part of the equation.

The baby doesnt have much autonomous action either.  A baby inside the womb reacts to sounds, ect.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

But would someone be able to make a case in court against their parents for giving them birth?

MichaelElpers

@Dee. I can know the reasons for most women because there stats on why they get them.

How would you word such a document.  You are required to take care of your offspring from conception until adulthood, unless a doctor finds that it creates a health hazard to the mother.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen. No.

MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot

Which makes zero since because when someone breaches a contract they are the ones that recieve the penalty not the opposing party.

Plaffelvohfen

MichaelElpers said:

@Plaffelvohfen. No.

On what grounds?

Dee

****The reasons for most women because there stats on why they do 

Relating to what countries ? 

Regards the U S the reasons seem most reasonable to me .....

Having a baby would dramatically interfere with their education, work or ability to care for their dependents, or they could not afford a baby at the time. In addition, qualitative data from in-depth interviews portrayed women who had had an abortion as typically feeling that they had no other choice, given their limited resources and existing responsibilities to others. 

Guttmacher Institute 

****How would you word such a document.  You are required to take care of your offspring from conception until adulthood, unless a doctor finds that it creates a health hazard to the mother.

That's a pretty deft move but invalid how is a fetus "offspring " ?

You neatly attempted to introduce offspring to include conception which is incorrect ....

offspring

/ˈɒfsprɪŋ/

Learn to pronounce

noun

1. a person's child or children.

   
   

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen. You cant be charged for creating/ keeping someone alive unless that person explicity had stated that beforehand.  You dont assume someone wants to die.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen. You cant be charged for creating/ keeping someone alive unless that person explicity had stated that beforehand.  You dont assume someone wants to die.

MayCaesar

MichaelElpers said:

You dont assume someone wants to die.

Why not? There are people who actually want to die. What makes you think that the person the fetus would potentially grow into would not?

I have heard quite a few times people saying something along the lines of, "I wish I had never been born". I think it is a terrible outlook on life that indicates some deep psychological issues, but nonetheless such a position is held by some people. Some people even commit suicide, in order to undo the actions of their parents.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

You dont assume someone wants to die.

Of course, but by the same, why should we assume someone wants to live? 

I'm asking, if someone sued their parent for giving them birth knowing early in the pregnancy, that there was a serious medical condition present, what would be the grounds for refusing to even hear the case, if any? 

ZeusAres42

We_are_accountable said:

Since 1973, there has been an approximate average of 33 executions per year in America. For all the people on death row, there are quite a few exoneration's from the death penalty due to possible mistakes and appeals. They have no idea how many actual innocent people have been executed in that time frame, but it is rare. Do you know how many innocent unborn babies have been executed in that same time frame? Approximately 50 MILLION innocent babies have been executed since 1973 and Roe V Wade.

Now, time to evaluate these claims starting with this one above. I guess we could say that a lot of us make use of different definitions when it comes to ethical and moral issues like this. If the baby is viable but will die a cruel death if allowed to be born then abortion in this sense could be construed as Euthanasia. If however, it's only at the fertilization stage then according to pro-lifers abortion in this sense might be construed as execution or murder based only on the premise that they're pro-life. If on the other hand there is now a viable baby capable of personhood then the ending of life for no valid reason in this sense might be construed by some radical pro-choicers/pro-abortionists as a justified act based purely on the premise that they're pro-choice.

Nonetheless, the above claim is making a blanket statement implying all abortion cases as are acts of execution.

Do the math! For all you Pro abortion Democrats who worry so about the very rare chance of an innocent man getting the death penalty, why do you say nothing while viable babies are being executed? Where are your midnite vigils outside the abortion clinics? Tell us why 50 MILLION innocent babies, even viable babies, executed since Roe V Wade does not bother you in the least?

The first part of this claim assumes that all Democrats are pro-abortionists which is not accurate. As for viability that depends on how you are defining viability and at what state. Also, the reasons for the end of life of an unborn at and after the point of viability needs to be taken into consideration.

 You gleefully vote for Politicians who keep No Restriction abortions legal.

This actually depends on what state and country you're living in. The UK for incidence which by the way is a very liberal country does have restrictions on abortion at and after the stage viability.

What kind of compassion and humanity is that to care so little for innocent unborn lives, while fighting to stop the execution of mass murderers!

Again, this is basically the Definist Fallacy. Claiming and/or implying that all cases of abortion is mass murder, is not only inaccurate but also incorrect by definition of what abortion and murder actually mean.

Do you now understand why Conservatives get nauseated when trying to have an intelligent conversation with people whose priorities are so misplaced?

This claim here assumes that all Conservatives are pro-lifers when this is actually inaccurate.

Look in the mirror and ask yourself why you care so for a mass murderer, or the rare chance of an innocent person being executed, while caring nothing for 50 MILLION innocent lives? Why not try fighting to make sure the death penalty is only given out when there is 100% assurance of guilt?

The Defininist Fallacy again.

Ok, now start talking about zygotes, and masses of cells, to try and deflect the fact that you support aborting viable babies for any reason when voting Democrat.

This can only be deflection if you actually started talking about the point of viability. For example, if you are claiming that viability is at the point of fertilization then that is scientifically incorrect and so the other's response is sound.

I MEAN COME ON!

This is just appealing to anger.

John_C_87

xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

Avoiding 
I am trying to avoid getting caught up in the scientific minutia here. My point is that an embryo is not a valid human being.

Point taken and we have already be drawn in the science does science or you expect a different animal can be born from a egg ovulated form a woman? the validity is that Roe vs Wade may have described a possibility of malpractice, be it law or medical may be a risk in how privacy was lost by woman in Texas legislation.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen. Because the only other option is to assume people want to be dead, and everyone knows that is ridiculous 

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Why are you evading my question?

If someone sued their parent for giving them birth knowing early in the pregnancy, that there was a serious medical condition present, what would be the grounds for refusing to even hear the case, if any? 

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

First, there are more possible states for a given person than "this person wants to live" and "this person wants to be dead". There is an infinity of points in between, such as "this person is impartial towards living/dying", or "this person overall wants to live, but would not particularly mind being dead either".

Second, what the person wants and what they can get are two different things. Someone wanting something does not magically give them the privilege to have that something.

Third, a person who has not even been born yet cannot "want" anything. "Wants" emerge at a much later stage.

Finally, why is assuming that someone wants to be dead ridiculous? There are people who want to be dead, and you cannot prove that a given person (let alone, a being who is not a person yet) does not want to be dead without actually looking at how they are going to act.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

And considering the suicide rates (assisted or not), I don't think it's that ridiculous to consider the option... 

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

Do you know how many innocent bacteria you execute every day just by breathing, walking and eating? More than innocent: some of those bacteria are actually extremely altruistic beings, the whole point of whose lives is to merge into a different living being and make it a little bit healthier!

Makes one think about the circle of life, does it not?

@MayCaesar What exactly are you concluding by making this claim here?

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42 ;

Roe Vs Wade found abortion legislation in Texas to be unconstitutional as the wrong was found to be a cause of a breech of privacy and trust, then the legislation was documented as having broken all woman's basic medical right to privacy and trust. The united state that acts on all woman as creator is their ovulation and the introduction of human embryo, egg. The use of lethal force by a woman in relationship with birth may not require the same legal requirements that a Capital Punishments' from crime require.

A person who is not the mother, and is other then the father has no powers of emancipation of a minor at this stage, the fathers powers of emancipation are in truth greatly limited, the Nations powers of emancipation of minor are very limited. What was not limited by neglect? At this point it may be vital to examine if the law makers behind this legislation had been state licensed lawyers. As it does not take a medical doctor to identify the malpractice pointed out in Roe Vs Wade.

Keep in mind a common defense to the general welfares by constitutional separations made by order of American United States Constitution is female specific amputation. 

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers ;
Because the only other option is to assume people want to be dead, and everyone knows that is ridiculous .

No MichaelElpers abolishing pregnancy abortion as it had been found to be a cause to a violation of privacy over 50 years ago is on the table. The creator in your state of the union address is lethal force not death, and it is without prejudice, nor  is it ridiculous to believe any woman may find a greater necessity to apply a lethal force in this matter over other woman. 

Do to the inability to declare female constitutional right in this matter I must ask. Do I make my self clear? 

We_are_accountable

If you think for one second I could care less about what Debra says about any debate, you would be wrong.

People know when we are right or wrong, and we both know who is wasting our time with ludicrous analogies.

That drunk driver NEVER gets the death penalty you support for all innocent unborn aborted babies.

The death penalty that you support, for a so called intruder who never asked to intrude, is truly barbaric!@Happy_Killbot

ZeusAres42

John_C_87 said:

@ZeusAres42 ;

Roe Vs Wade found abortion legislation in Texas to be unconstitutional as the wrong was found to be a cause of a breech of privacy and trust, then the legislation was documented as having broken all woman's basic medical right to privacy and trust. The united state that acts on all woman as creator is their ovulation and the introduction of human embryo, egg. The use of lethal force by a woman in relationship with birth may not require the same legal requirements that a Capital Punishments' from crime require.

A person who is not the mother, and is other then the father has no powers of emancipation of a minor at this stage, the fathers powers of emancipation are in truth greatly limited, the Nations powers of emancipation of minor are very limited. What was not limited by neglect? At this point it may be vital to examine if the law makers behind this legislation had been state licensed lawyers. As it does not take a medical doctor to identify the malpractice pointed out in Roe Vs Wade.

Keep in mind a common defense to the general welfares by constitutional separations made by order of American United States Constitution is female specific amputation. 

@John_C_87 there's a web-based app called Grammarly which might be of great help to you. In addition to that remembering that if scientific geniuses can make complex things sound simple and speak in laymen terms then you should ideally have no trouble doing the same. Unless, of course, you're using an argument from gibberish to avoid having to engage any discussions that actually oppose your arguments and/or make you feel uncomfortable. The argument from gibberish is not a win on your part by the way; it's actually a failure on your part.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen If they want to die then cant they choose to commit suicide.  If is far more dangerous to assume someone wants to be dead and be wrong.

Happy_Killbot

We_are_accountable said:

If you think for one second I could care less about what Debra says about any debate, you would be wrong.

People know when we are right or wrong, and we both know who is wasting our time with ludicrous analogies.

That drunk driver NEVER gets the death penalty you support for all innocent unborn aborted babies.

The death penalty that you support, for a so called intruder who never asked to intrude, is truly barbaric!@Happy_Killbot

You should get therapy or something for that low self esteem, and stop wasting both our time with non-arguments.

You can get the death penalty if you are in El Salvador:
https://www.lifesafer.com/blog/drinking-driving-outside-us/

I'm not supporting the death penalty, I'm supporting removal by force. You can do something about intruders in your home, and if they happen to die as soon as they are outside?

Not your problem.

Plaffelvohfen

MichaelElpers said:

@Plaffelvohfen If they want to die then cant they choose to commit suicide. 

Why do you assume they want to die, when you say that it's dangerous to do so....

Why do you assume that death is what they want, from the fact that they would sue their parents for giving them birth?? Couldn't admission of wrongdoing and maybe compensation be enough?

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42 ;
The point is your off the question raised by Roe Vs Wade ruling, the description focus is on Texas legislation not pregnancy's abortion as a state found legal or criminal. This is with the word abortion and written law directly. My argument isn't gibberish it is unexpected, unprepared for, and on target of the ruling made in 1976 as it does not fit the limitation set with any legal malpractice, gibberish that is just an excuse.  

Is female specific amputation abortion?
If so, prove it? Please.

Is female specific amputation a legal malpractice if so provide a United state Constitutional common defense? Please.


The simplest question to ask any medical doctor or lawyer of when life begins is easy. What came first the human fertilized egg or the human egg? Which do you believe cam first?

John_C_87

MichaelElpers said:

@Plaffelvohfen If they want to die then cant they choose to commit suicide.  If is far more dangerous to assume someone wants to be dead and be wrong.

Keep in mind it is without doubt both Plaffelvohfen and Happy_Killbot support a prejudice to continue between woman. You are being directed off topic. All woman are to be created equal by their creator.

John_C_87

Only a person who supports prejudice between woman would find no relevance in a woman should be held accountable to hold all woman as equal in legislation by thier creator. 

SkepticalOne

@MichaelElpers @We_are_accountable
...or any other pro-life advocate:

If either of you guys are interested in a formal debate, I would be willing to view the unborn as persons and argue pro-choice. I think your position discounts the rights of women and human rights in general, and personhood is ultimately irrelevant to my argumentation. I prefer to debate at debateart and need longer round time limits since I work a lot. Let me know - I would love to give it a go.

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne. Im fine with debating, i do not have an account on debateart. But can there if thats what it takes. 

We_are_accountable

@SkepticalOne

We are not the ones trying to kill a woman of personhood. You are the one discounting the rights of a living unborn baby, even when the baby is viable! There is no need to continue a conversation with someone so blatantly one sided on the issue.

ZeusAres42

@John_C_87 By stating your argument is from gibberish I saying that it is incomprehensible not only to the average reader but by almost anyone. And it is incomprehensible not because the stuff you are talking about is complex but due to the way in which you have jumbled up a bunch of words together to make sentences. Also, these sentences of yours are lacking basic English Grammar and punctuation.

If English is not your native language then I sympathize. However, I am not going to try and reconstruct your posts to make sense of them if that even is possible, before I even evaluate the arguments. However, I think English is your native language.

PS: see here for argument by gibberish: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-by-Gibberish

In addition to the above there might be some helpful resources for you:

• https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/grammar
• https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/media_wysiwyg/University of Oxford Style Guide.pdf
• https://app.grammarly.com/
  

John_C_87

We_are_accountable said:

@SkepticalOne

We are not the ones trying to kill a woman of personhood. You are the one discounting the rights of a living unborn baby, even when the baby is viable! There is no need to continue a conversation with someone so blatantly one sided on the issue.

All sides of Pro-choice and Pro-life are by ruling of Roe Vs Wade violating the right of both mother and minor by use of prejudice. The grievance in abortion is not made on behalf of just pregnant woman who are raped, not made on behalf of just a pregnant woman who have life threating illness or disease. The grievance of prejudice is made as it effects all woman and their medical privacy. A woman's person desire to want to brag about kill a person under a specific condition does not offset the argument of violating all right of woman to medical privacy. 

So yes, you are the one, and guess what else ? You are not the only one ?  Who is forced to accursing a minor of murder ? You asking that a minor be emancipated the released to your care? Female specific amputation would describe the removal of a minor can be made on your behalf of any woman. Unlike the accusation of incompetency shown by some with the desire to self-incriminate others, supporting prejudice between woman for what ever reason. It is your action, and your action alone, by female specific ampuation that would grant the ordering for any woman to turn over the minor to your care, immediately apron the legal intervention of your emancipation.

Obviously you can give birth better then many other woman and this is why with abuses set in licensed medical practice you work so hard to emancipator the minor into your care? Even though you know medical advancements, procedures had not advance enough to insure that life of the minor when transplanted by your request? Be careful in what is asked form impartial support of interpretations on emancipation of minors from parent you might just receive it.