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.
Same here. I find it much less offensive than the thought of what this country would have been like with an additional 55 million people, many of whom would have been disregarded by parents/mothers who didn't want them. Most abortions happen due to economic issues; imagine how big the ghettos would be and how much more of a problem poverty would be?
Especially considering that pro-life conservatives are usually the first people who will say it's not their social/fiscal responsibility to help pay for the education, healthcare, or feeding of others' children via tax dollars, I don't think that they really have a leg to stand on when it comes to how "horrible" things are.
Here are a few links from today's news about people who seriously shouldn't have been able to breed:
Nevada #1 in Child Deaths Due to Child Abuse - 8 News NOW Those recent cases of child abuse reflect a sad statistic in Nevada--our state tops the list when it comes to child deaths per capita due to child abuse.
<snip> Child Deaths In America*
I think Ms. Williams would point out, as I've been doing, that the woman's 'choice' ends at an artificial date that many so-called choicers treat as a 'magic moment' ---
'When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: ... Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb?'
If the choice rationale comes down to, 'the Supreme Court said I can, so nahnah, stuff it,' ok. If choicers' answer to why it's a disposable blob at 21 weeks and worth giving up your choice and privacy at 24 weeks is, 'the Supreme Court said it's life, so I can, stuff it,' you're platitude about privacy and choice is just what Ms Williams called it --- "When we on the pro-choice side get cagey around the life question, it makes us illogically contradictory."
The law of the US is very clear. You have no standing on my uterus.
Period.
yes, it is limited. late term abortion has rules and restrictions apply.
most 23, 24 week pregnant woman, don't suddenly changed their minds and want to abort. there is no rush to the abortionist by droves of women well into their pregnancies. late term abortion for convenience is an anti choice lie.
'late term abortion for convenience' is your phrase, not mine. I don't think many women would seek post-viability abortion for 'convenience.' But that's not the point.
When something's illegal, we don't know how many people would engage in the act if it wasn't illegal. Since post-viability abortions are generally illegal except for health-related issues, we don't really know how many women would abort for the same types of non-health reasons as women abort earlier in pregnancy.
Besides, does the number really matter ? If it's 10 or 10,000, you still support the state entering the woman's womb and forcing her to give birth.
Tiller did it all the time, he was the late term abortionist. I don't know why these women decided to abort so late, many with perfectly healthy babies. How do you think we have people who are alive that were victims of late term abortions? It was a botched abortion but they are here with all their limbs thank God and telling us about being brought into the world this way. They do have disabilities but only caused by the botched abortion.
I sincerely hope you read this article (but doubt you will):
'late term abortion for convenience' is your phrase, not mine. I don't think many women would seek post-viability abortion for 'convenience.' But that's not the point.
When something's illegal, we don't know how many people would engage in the act if it wasn't illegal. Since post-viability abortions are generally illegal except for health-related issues, we don't really know how many women would abort for the same types of non-health reasons as women abort earlier in pregnancy.
Besides, does the number really matter ? If it's 10 or 10,000, you still support the state entering the woman's womb and forcing her to give birth.
you are making a convoluted theory that is an impossibility. legal or illegal, the "state" does not "enter the woman's womb and force her to give birth". a late term abortion is the woman's choice to abort based on medical findings.
I am glad you agree that late term abortions are not done just for convenience.
you are making a convoluted theory that is an impossibility. legal or illegal. the "state enter the woman's womb and force her to give birth". in trying to understand what you saying in a late term abortion it is the woman's choice to abort based on medical findings. I am glad you agree that late term abortions are not done just for convenience.
Boy oh boy, you're doing everything you can to avoid saying the words that make you closer to a lifer than a choicer.
I think we agree that a woman can choose an abortion for any reason pre-viability. According to the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, the most frequent reasons women cite for having an abortion are ---
* 75% cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals;
* 75% say they cannot afford a child;
* 75% say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents;
* 50% say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
Can we agree that any or all of those reasons can develop quickly or over a period of during any stage of pregnancy ? If we can agree on that...
It's a fact that the Supreme Court allows but does Not Require states to ban non-health related abortions post-viability And that almost all states have Chosen to ban non-health abortions.
You support banning non-health abortions after viability. Just say it --- You choose to enter her womb, subject her body, privacy, freedom, and future to state control and Your values Even Though her reasons for wanting an abortion are exactly the same as a woman's whose rights you'd so vehemently defend and protect.
Boy oh boy, you're doing everything you can to avoid saying the words that make you closer to a lifer than a choicer.
I think we agree that a woman can choose an abortion for any reason pre-viability. According to the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, the most frequent reasons women cite for having an abortion are ---
* 75% cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals;
* 75% say they cannot afford a child;
* 75% say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents;
* 50% say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
Can we agree that any or all of those reasons can develop quickly or over a period of during any stage of pregnancy ? If we can agree on that...
It's a fact that the Supreme Court allows but does Not Require states to ban non-health related abortions post-viability And that almost all states have Chosen to ban non-health abortions.
You support banning non-health abortions after viability. Just say it --- You choose to enter her womb, subject her body, privacy, freedom, and future to state control and Your values Even Though her reasons for wanting an abortion are exactly the same as a woman's whose rights you'd so vehemently defend and protect.
I understand now what you are trying to get at. sure, you want to "level" the debate field by saying, even though extreme and rare (as health of the mother in late term abortions) not being able to abort a healthy fetus late in pregnancy for no reason makes me a pro lifer in some sense.
this would ignore all the in between stages of pregnancy that pro choice covers. you want to put pro choice folks feet to the fire. you want us to have an all or nothing choice. I'll play, if the choice is no abortion for all women at any stage along the way, with no reason as justifiable for abortion vs abortion on demand, when ever and for what ever reason. then I still vote pro choice.
so no, I would not be strictly pro life/anti choice. I would be pro "choice"
choice means there are three options only one is abortion. it is up to the pregnant woman to figure out her own choice for her own life.
If you're pregnant, I through state law, am pretty much in your uterus after 23, 24, weeks.
I'd abort way before then.
Duh.
I love the purposefully obtuse.
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.
