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.
Trying to understand your point here. Genetic defiencies validate abortions? I get that you are saying that not all pregnancies result in a fully functional human being. But it almost seems as though you would advocate ending those pregnancies first?
I have never really understood how the abortion issue is so divisive. There seem to be some really clear principles.
1) The forceful taking of human life is called murder.
2) Murder is wrong.
Pretty simple. I suppose it comes down to what point it is called a human life. The heartbeat? The joining of the cells? Birth?
I would be much more accepting of the morning after pill in a situation where someone made a mistake than I would a partial birth abortion, as long as the same person did not continue to make the same mistake over and over agian.. Partial birth is unacceptable. Too late, you obviously are carrying another human being that you took part in creating. Your body is on loan due to your own choices.
This issue is so polarized that niether side will give ground. It will be impossible to ever reach a consensus until people look at the issue reasonably. There has to be a certain point in the progression of life that a person is considered such. I personally think it's pretty early.
Trying to understand your point here. Genetic defiencies validate abortions? I get that you are saying that not all pregnancies result in a fully functional human being. But it almost seems as though you would advocate ending those pregnancies first?
I have never really understood how the abortion issue is so divisive. There seem to be some really clear principles.
1) The forceful taking of human life is called murder.
2) Murder is wrong.
Pretty simple. I suppose it comes down to what point it is called a human life. The heartbeat? The joining of the cells? Birth?
I would be much more accepting of the morning after pill in a situation where someone made a mistake than I would a partial birth abortion, as long as the same person did not continue to make the same mistake over and over agian.. Partial birth is unacceptable. Too late, you obviously are carrying another human being that you took part in creating. Your body is on loan due to your own choices.
This issue is so polarized that niether side will give ground. It will be impossible to ever reach a consensus until people look at the issue reasonably. There has to be a certain point in the progression of life that a person is considered such. I personally think it's pretty early.
Only about 1000 late term abortions are performed in the US per year. Almost all of those were because of severe abnormalities where the fetus would not have lived anyway.
Trying to understand your point here. Genetic defiencies validate abortions? I get that you are saying that not all pregnancies result in a fully functional human being. But it almost seems as though you would advocate ending those pregnancies first?
I have never really understood how the abortion issue is so divisive. There seem to be some really clear principles.
1) The forceful taking of human life is called murder.
2) Murder is wrong.
Pretty simple. I suppose it comes down to what point it is called a human life. The heartbeat? The joining of the cells? Birth?
I would be much more accepting of the morning after pill in a situation where someone made a mistake than I would a partial birth abortion, as long as the same person did not continue to make the same mistake over and over agian.. Partial birth is unacceptable. Too late, you obviously are carrying another human being that you took part in creating. Your body is on loan due to your own choices.
This issue is so polarized that niether side will give ground. It will be impossible to ever reach a consensus until people look at the issue reasonably. There has to be a certain point in the progression of life that a person is considered such. I personally think it's pretty early.
My point is that some pregnancies are so genetically defective, they die within hours of birth anyway. Why does a woman need to go through the risks and costs of carrying a defective baby that will die after birth?
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.
