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.
Unless the poster was using bumper sticker hyperbole, I got her point. Her body, her choice.
A 100% choicer.
A 100% right to make the choice -er.
Since the biology and human sexuality doesn't seem of any interest... on to the politics involved:
Take a look at the 2A arguments going on.
Why are the 2A rights advocates so adamant about conceding *anything* ??
Is it because they secretly hope that one of these VERY rare events will happen?
Or is maybe, just maybe, something more subtle going on?
Many people at pro-life rallies would like to make abortion illegal again (good luck) due to their own personal views. They're trying to impose their views and morality on everyone else.
Like I said, gay pride parades are not about impeding other people's rights,
but about gaining the fundamental rights that they're denied. Massive difference.
Too bad your prejudices won't allow you to see that.
They don't want to see.
Maybe said in their own frame of reference will help:
Sorry - pro-life people care about morality and protecting innocent human life.
I am sorry that you don't feel the same.
Gay pride parades, like any other march or parade, have the intent of calling attention to a cause. It is wrong to think that they don't. I believe in equal rights for all human beings, and gays are not an exception to that. Gays have had to endure injustices for too long - economic, social, and freedom rights have been reserved for straights too long, thanks to religious beliefs. It's time gays had all the same rights.
On the other hand, "pro-life" marches and parades are about DENYING the rights of women , not about promoting them.
Easiest way to ensure a lifelong career fighting for something that you KNOW will never go away in this country, yet you'll have job security as long as the anti-abortion lemmings stay in line: "Anti abortion lobbyist."
If you are ANTI ABORTION, consider channeling resources to DISCOURAGE women from having abortions:
1) Economic assistance for single mothers
2) After and child care assistance
3) Adoption service expansion
Etc. Etc.
These things would go FAR to provide women with real alternatives.
(And by the way, geniuses, if you make abortion illegal in one or two states, women of means will easily be able to go to the next state that DOES have abortion and get the procedure done. Poor women, of course, will likely not have those means and then there'll be more poor kids you don't want to help support!)
But no, MUCH easier to attend rallies that amount to a hill of beans. When it comes time to put their money where their mouths are, anti-abortion activists prove themselves to often hollow --- every bit as hollow as their leaderships efforts to make abortion illegal.
Gay pride parades, like any other march or parade, have the intent of calling attention to a cause. It is wrong to think that they don't. I believe in equal rights for all human beings, and gays are not an exception to that. Gays have had to endure injustices for too long - economic, social, and freedom rights have been reserved for straights too long, thanks to religious beliefs. It's time gays had all the same rights.
On the other hand, "pro-life" marches and parades are about DENYING the rights of women , not about promoting them.
Well and truly spoken, but I fear it will fall on deaf ears.
Ok, good. Here's my take on it, dismissing entirely with religion. As long as something is inside my body, it's inside my body. Nobody has a right to anything inside my body. That evolution chose to make pregnancy be internal, well, that's the way it is, isn't it? All humans, men and women, have a right to their body. As long as it's their body, they have full and complete say over what goes on in it. IF men are upset with this (as some are lol) they can get themselves to a shrink. The conclusion is, if it's my body, or inside my body, it's MY SAY.
It's almost something straight out of some sicko sci-fi movie about some authoritarian govt that anyone should have the right to say what goes on inside a person's body.
I understand that perspective. Given that a baby remains inside the mother's body until birth, is there any point in a pregnancy where you would say that it's too late for an abortion or do you think it should be okay up until childbirth?
I have a suggestion. Stay away from this topic. A person's body is his/her own. Any topic that involves wondering if someone else should be allowed to have domain over his/her body, is a sick, sick topic. The moment someone begins to think that perhaps a person should not be allowed to do this or that to his/her own body, I get incensed. I don't care if it's an early stage, a late stage, an in-between stage, or a theater stage. If it's inside a person's body, nobody else has the right to ANYTHING.
Just to be clear, are you saying that it's okay up until birth? The point people debate is not about it being the mother's body; everyone gets that. The debate is over when does the baby's body beome a consideration.
I understand that perspective. Given that a baby remains inside the mother's body until birth, is there any point in a pregnancy where you would say that it's too late for an abortion or do you think it should be okay up until childbirth?
already addressed an answered through the many abortion threads on this forum. The law says that viability is when one should not or cannot have an abortion. Many states say have laws that prohibit abortion after 22 weeks; and if an abortion is NEEDED (for good reason : example Life of mother and signed off by two doctors), that procedures must be in place to help the fetus should it be born alive.
After 22 weeks, the mother has no choice but to go through with the pregnancy to full term unless the fetus endangers her life (another example is if the fetus has died within her womb)
already addressed an answered through the many abortion threads on this forum. The law says that viability is when one should not or cannot have an abortion. Many states say have laws that prohibit abortion after 22 weeks; and if an abortion is NEEDED (for good reason : example Life of mother and signed off by two doctors), that procedures must be in place to help the fetus should it be born alive.
After 22 weeks, the mother has no choice but to go through with the pregnancy to full term unless the fetus endangers her life (another example is if the fetus has died within her womb)
I understand what the law says. Most of this discussion is in the absence of any recognition of what the law says and is a continual philosophical debate. Both sides have people that act as though Roe v Wade never happened or is going to be overturned tomorrow - both are wrong - yet it remains a central debate in politics.
My point is simply that it is a life and that it's genetically a human life; it's up to society to determine at what point it's okay to end it or it's too late. You correctly stated the standard that has been set on that question. I'm just saying it's on a continuum of human development. For example, we use the term viability. We correctly say that at 2 weeks, the baby (or whatever term you wish to insert) is not viable because it needs it's mother to provide nourishment etc. At one year old, a baby in infinitely more capable of life but still would not survive without someone providing food etc. I don't say that to equate the two at all; they're obviously very different. I say that point out the continuum of development versus a line that of species that's drawn by science. That mark on the calendar is a decision made by government to resolve a dispute.
I understand what the law says. Most of this discussion is in the absence of any recognition of what the law says and is a continual philosophical debate. Both sides have people that act as though Roe v Wade never happened or is going to be overturned tomorrow - both are wrong - yet it remains a central debate in politics.
My point is simply that it is a life and that it's genetically a human life; it's up to society to determine at what point it's okay to end it or it's too late. You correctly stated the standard that has been set on that question. I'm just saying it's on a continuum of human development. For example, we use the term viability. We correctly say that at 2 weeks, the baby (or whatever term you wish to insert) is not viable because it needs it's mother to provide nourishment etc. At one year old, a baby in infinitely more capable of life but still would not survive without someone providing food etc. I don't say that to equate the two at all; they're obviously very different. I say that point out the continuum of development versus a line that of species that's drawn by science. That mark on the calendar is a decision made by government to resolve a dispute.
there may be a "continuum" but the difference is the womb. is the baby/fetus in or out? once born anyone who wants the job can take care of a newborn or toddler. not so when it is in the womb. a woman has the right to control her own reproductive organs. the law defines when it is acceptable.
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.
