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.
If that's your wish then SOCIETY will be finaicially responsibile. There is no other alternative one someone is born.
No, you assume that the female is incapable of supporting the fetus. If that is indeed the case, you have a rather definitive answer as to what course she should take. The externalities may indeed result from many of these cases, but that still doesn't address the utter incongruence of claiming that men should have no say in the choice to not abort, but shall be held financially responsible.
My contention is that if the law were ever amended in the way I propose, there would be a marked decrease in the number of females who carry to term in the circumstance you imply. And that would be a good thing, from my point of view.
The life begins at menstruation law goes into effect in 90 days:
It sets the gestational age as beginning on the first day of a woman’s last period, rather than at fertilization. Which, in practice, means that a virgin can get pregnant and instead of barring abortions after 20 weeks as the law states, actually cuts the time to 18 weeks.
How did Arizona vote for such a witch as Brewer?
The Republicans are going to lose BIG!
LIE!
I would suggest you get your face out of the Web pages of the "Daily Kos," because you are being lied to.
Here is the truth:
Quote:
“This legislation is consistent with my strong track record of supporting common sense measures to protect the health of women and safeguard our most vulnerable population – the unborn,” said Governor Brewer. “Knowing that abortions become riskier the later they are performed in pregnancy, it only makes sense to prohibit these procedures past twenty weeks.”
Arizona now joins seven states with similar regulations prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Secondly, since we are now even begining to talk about "sex selection abortion" in this country (at least on the left), with more girls than boys being aborted, I suggest that it is the "left" that is waging a "war on women."
I would suggest you get your face out of the Web pages of the "Daily Kos," because you are being lied to.
Here is the truth:
Secondly, since we are now even begining to talk about "sex selection abortion" in this country (at least on the left), with more girls than boys being aborted, I suggest that it is the "left" that is waging a "war on women."
The lefties in my neighborhood have even started a sex selection club. These people never stop thinking of ways to undermine wholesome American values.
AZ has completely gone off their rocker with their radical right wing agenda as of late.
"Life begins at menstruation?" That is what the OP said. Where's that in this bill?
Perhaps a little of your own research would be wise before making a fool of yourself along with the OP:
Quote:
“This legislation is consistent with my strong track record of supporting common sense measures to protect the health of women and safeguard our most vulnerable population – the unborn,” said Governor Brewer. “Knowing that abortions become riskier the later they are performed in pregnancy, it only makes sense to prohibit these procedures past twenty weeks.” Arizona now joins seven states with similar regulations prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Twenty weeks is almost FIVE MONTHS! Do you realize the stage of development that the baby is in at this point?
No, you assume that the female is incapable of supporting the fetus. If that is indeed the case, you have a rather definitive answer as to what course she should take. The externalities may indeed result from many of these cases, but that still doesn't address the utter incongruence of claiming that men should have no say in the choice to not abort, but shall be held financially responsible.
My contention is that if the law were ever amended in the way I propose, there would be a marked decrease in the number of females who carry to term in the circumstance you imply. And that would be a good thing, from my point of view.
With men knowing they will be financially responsible shouldn't there be a marked decrease in the number of men who impregnate random women?
Arizona should make masturbation a crime too, talk about genocide.
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.
"Draconian?" A twenty week limit?
