This topic really shows the "double mindedness" of man. In abortion-speak, there is no entity but tissue. No big deal. However, If a pregnant woman is shot and her "fetus tissue" "dies" (?) as well, the assailant is charged with a double homicide. Go figure. Our inconsistency for defining a living being shows how morally bankrupt we really are. Life is life and it starts at conception. How about, as a first step, we require abortion clinics/Planned Parenthood to show a video presentation of the abortion procedure to be performed to potential "customers"... clients. We could see, to some extent, the effect this might have on those women seeking to terminate their unborn children. My guess is that it would have a dramatic affect on the number of abortions each year because mothers are basically nurturing. Left to ourselves, we can rationalize anything.

IF you cannot understand the differance between an abortion at 2 weeks(90%of them)and some stranger murdering a pregnant women and thus killing her embryo then you are either intellectually dihonest or ignorant.

There is no inconsistency in what you highlight:

1. The fetal murder law was passed by conservative legislators explicitly as a back-door way of trying to make the case that fetuses are "legal persons" - except that they are not.
2. If I kill a woman while driving drunk I'm charged with manslaughter. If I cause a miscarriage, I'm charged with assault of the woman and am guilty of a tort harming the woman. IOW you need to learn more about this particular set of laws

So you don't get to cite the brain-dead laws that anti-choice individuals like you have gotten passed via minority activism as evidence of any sort of inconsistency.

Furthermore it doesn't matter if a fetus is a human being from conception forwards, because THE Government is forbidden by the Constitution from compelling involuntary servitude by the host woman. IOW it cannot compell a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will.

But if you want to be honest about things, how about we also require that all women who get pregnant be compelled to watch a video of a bloody natural delivery?

And afterwards every pregnant woman is told the facts about pregnancy - that carrying to term:

• is THREE TIMES MORE FATAL than abortions
• often results in post-partnum depression
• increases her chance of divorce
• dramatically increases her chance of life-long incontinence
• increases her chance of having major hip and pelvic damage
• has a good chance of adversely affecting her ability to enjoy sex.

After all, if you are all about factual disclosure - these are facts about carrying to term.

"But if you want to be honest about things, how about we also require that all women who get pregnant be compelled to watch a video of a bloody natural delivery?"

Good suggestion, a bloody delivery that ends in death would help to make the point that carrying a pregnancy to term is much more likely to result in the woman's death than an abortion.

Pro-lifers don't like to face the fact that they want the State to require a woman to engage in indentured servitude for nine months that could result in her death. Women still die in childbirth every day.

Anti-choice activists are like those slimy Abolitionists from 150 years ago, trying to use back door laws to get slaves recognized as "legal persons."

Another way that THE Government violates the 13th Amendment is by forcing men to paid child support to the golddigging jezabels that seduce them.

That stat about births being three times more fatal is one I hadn't heard before. But you might have to explain the math to me (I'm a bit brain-dead). For each abortion performed, roughly 50% of the participants die. If three times more die in carrying to term, that means 50% of the total PLUS 3X50% of the total, which comes out to 200%. 200% of the participants in a birth die, on average? I've been to two of these things and, while it was kinda gross at times, neither I nor the doctors were killed. In fact, no one died either time. I should be thanking my lucky stars, I guess.

Overall, though, you make a good case why children should be considered chronic diseases. It's a good thing they have a pill for it.

Ever heard of this thing called A Court Of Law? Child support is a tort claim filed agaisnt the alleged father. The father gets his day in court, and if he loses, then he has to satisfy the tort just like Exxon does. Or the father can choose not to have any income. And if he has no income, there is no income to garnish and yet The Government cannot compel him to work to satisfy that tort.

Nope, no "involuntary servitude" there at all. You need to read up on this thing called The Court.

As for your "math". I recognize that you believe that a "unborn child" dies, but that has no bearing on the impact on the WOMAN'S likelihood of death. And a woman that carries a fetus to term, is TRHEE TIMES more likely to die than one who gets an abortion. That's just medical fact.

So if you want to inform a pregnant woman that an aborition kills an "unborn human being" - you also have to inform her that SHE is THREE TIMES MORE LIKELY TO DIE if she carries to term rather than gets an abortion.

Either its about "informed consent" ir its propoganda. And if it is propoganda, then it is illegal.