Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Funny how abortion lovers love to comment on pro-life comments but hate to comment on the supposed compassionate and enlightened progressive and her love of killing fetuses. """
Haven't seen anyone post that they "love killing fetuses" Lie much?
Why is it o.k. to kill a fetus, advanced progressive thinker?""
Removing a fetus or "killing" a fetus is legal....and a woman's right.
Isn't life sacred?"""
To whom? YOU? So?
(someday a progressive will offer direct answers to those questions...someday.)
There's your direct answers but you won't acknowledge them because you don't agree.
Geez, it isn't those mother's lives that are at risk that the topic is about. It is about women who just want to rid themselves of a human life thru abortion because it is incovenient for them. You're not getting that this is what the objection is?
A woman puts her life at risk with every pregnancy. There are MANY potentially life-threatening issues that can arise throughout the 40 weeks and at birth, and we have no crystal ball to see them coming. Google preeclampsia- it happened to me in my 37th week as a healthy, 25 year old woman. For a much sadder story, look to Michelle Duggar and Josie (or women who have lost their babies or their own lives to full-blown eclampsia). And we had good, consistent medical care. Some women are not so lucky.
Can I assume you're okay with abortion if the mother's life is at risk? What about in the case of incest? Rape? What if the child has a deformity/syndrome not compatible with life that will cause pain and death within a few hours of birth? Because not all pro-lifers are on the same page- some oppose abortion in each and every case I just mentioned. What then?
A woman puts her life at risk with every pregnancy. There are MANY potentially life-threatening issues that can arise throughout the 40 weeks and at birth, and we have no crystal ball to see them coming. Google preeclampsia- it happened to me in my 37th week as a healthy, 25 year old woman. For a much sadder story, look to Michelle Duggar and Josie (or women who have lost their babies or their own lives to full-blown eclampsia). And we had good, consistent medical care. Some women are not so lucky.
Can I assume you're okay with abortion if the mother's life is at risk? What about in the case of incest? Rape? What if the child has a deformity/syndrome not compatible with life that will cause pain and death within a few hours of birth? Because not all pro-lifers are on the same page- some oppose abortion in each and every case I just mentioned. What then?
Oh, puggal, this is where the Anti-Choice/anti-women faction gets all discombobulated...
They INSIST abortion is "murder" but will turn around(the hypocrits!) and say it's OK in the circumstances you mentioned.
That proves that they only want to punish women who enjoyed the sex...guess it's jealousy or some other mental illness that makes them feel that way.
They also do not have any objection to blowing up babies in war,,,in fact most like war and support it wholeheartedly...
What is life? Henretta Lacks died of cancer over half a century ago but her tissue in the form a HeLa cells is alive and well in thousands of medical research labs worldwide. The combined weight of HeLa tissue is enough to make a hundred Henretta's but this is absurd her spirit, soul or consciousness is long gone. We have the technology to keep a part of each and everyone of us alive indefinitely! But that is not life. The same thing is true about the beginning of life it does not begine at conception and it is not clear that it begines until their is enough brain tissue to hold a simple thought. Until then how are we any different than those HeLa cells in tissue cultures made by researchers studying cancer? HeLa cells have all the DNA code that was Ms Lacks and someday a smart researcher might be able to make a new Lacks identical to the first by cloning. When the researchers dispose of their HeLa cultures when the experiment is over committing murder? No they are not. The idea that life begines at conception is a religous doctrine that has no basis in law ay any level of US government and an honest thinking Supreme Court should strike it down as a violation of the First Ammendnet of the Bill of Rights which makes it unconstitutional to use the power of law to impose or enforce Church doctrine or teaching on the American people.
A person has a choice and personal freedom to kill another person but they must pay the consquences for doing so. When an egg is fertilized by a sperm that isn't a human life?
Well actually no it isn't.
It certainly does not meet the legal definition for personhood.
It also doesn't meet the biological definition of "alive" (lacking the ability to maintain homeostasis jumps out as a non-alive characteristic).
And if you BELIEVE (since you have failed to prove) that life begins at fertilization I take it you are against oral contraceptives as well?
So enhanced murder charges for pregnant women who are murdered - what's your take?
One murder charge or two?
One PERSON was murdered. A person, and a fetus) aka a potential but not yet realized person).
I might be willing to entertain the idea of personhood for fetuses able to live outside the womb, last trimester or so. If that is the point at which a person is alive than murder (which requires premediation) of a 8 or 9 month pregnant woman might result in manslaughter.
chicagonut, women get pregnant from the introduction of sperm.
There is no other way.
Basic biology. Really!
You should try reading it.
clb10, playing purposely obtuse is ridiculous.
I assume it's all you've got.
The right to life until birthers would be laughable were they not so tragic and dangerous.
Last edited by chielgirl; 05-06-2012 at 10:31 PM..
Geez, it isn't those mother's lives that are at risk that the topic is about. It is about women who just want to rid themselves of a human life thru abortion because it is incovenient for them. You're not getting that this is what the objection is?
No it's not, at least not always. You can't make an abortion law that only allows "abortion where the woman has a good reason" - it's either legal or it isn't, regardless of the woman's intent. How would you determine that, anyway? Should we have judging panels who interview the potential candidate, and vote on whether their reasons are selfish? Sorry, but things just don't work that way! Abortion is legal as of today, and nobody but the woman can truly judge whether it's needed in her case. Period.
I mean, how do YOU know if a woman is merely getting one because it's "inconvenient?" For all you know she has an abusive husband, who will likely continue beating her while she's pregnant... or maybe she's a teenager from a strictly religious home, who will be thrown out on the streets if she reveals her pregnancy. You also have those with medical (either physical or emotional) concerns, which might not even be evident to the doctor right away. For example, I've heard of women who chose either abortion or tubal ligation because of mental illness, family history of mental illnesses/abuse, genetic disorders, etc. So how can you make such a blanketed statement, and pretend you know why any woman chooses abortion?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
