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 you think that ANY doctor in the USA would perform an abortion on a HEALTHY baby at 9 months if the life of the mother was not at stake then you, my friend, have been watching too much Fox news.
This may be a regular practice in China, however. Their religion is millenia older than ours and yet they realize that a blob of cells is a blob of cells. They don't want more children in their country who are starving and/or unwanted. It's curious that they are surpassing us as a super power.... I'm sure one reason is that they reproduce and abort more responsibly and put their time to more "productive" use than saving every blob of cells.
If you think that ANY doctor in the USA would perform an abortion on a HEALTHY baby at 9 months if the life of the mother was not at stake then you, my friend, have been watching too much Fox news.
This may be a regular practice in China, however. Their religion is millenia older than ours and yet they realize that a blob of cells is a blob of cells. They don't want more children in their country who are starving and/or unwanted. It's curious that they are surpassing us as a super power.... I'm sure one reason is that they reproduce and abort more responsibly and put their time to more "productive" use than saving every blob of cells.
Did that photo I posted look like a "blob of cells" to you? Looks like a baby, to me (though small).
Didn't we just have a doctor (his name slips me) convicted recently for performing abortions on near term mothers? Or wasn't he a "real doctor?" This was a huge scandal, and his crimes very grisly.
People get stuck on timing. Obviously a 6 week fetus is not the same as a 6 month fetus. And we do have regulations about abortion now that cover this very thing. There is nothing to fight about yet people want to continue fighting. They like fighting, it makes them feel good. It's psychological.
sound like the old saying "you made your bed..." saying yes to sex is not saying yes to pregnancy. not in this day and age. a woman has every right not to take a pregnancy to term if she doesn't want to.
you don't want women aborting, you don't want poor women on the dole, in a perfect world maybe, but not the way of the world in reality.
It is if you have unprotected sex. You are essentially saying yes to pregnancy then. Yes, it is unfortunate that killing the unborn is legal. It doesn't take a perfect world for humans to act responsibly. It's mixing apples with oranges to claim that being opposed to abortion is in conflict with also being opposed to the taxpayer having to support them. Adoption is always a viable option.
I would disagree. a great deal of folks would never tell a woman what she should do with her own body and her own life. it is no ones business what betty from the drug store does with her life except betty.
She should have worried about and protected her own body before allowing herself to become pregnant. By not doing so and creating a new life there are two to consider here. It's not just about her. WTH does your last sentence even mean?
I am pro choice and also pro life. I am pro choice for one main reason...that it is PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE for a man to FORCE a woman to become pregnant against her will. Rape is a thing that happens. So women should have a last form of recourse to protect them from having to breed for a rapist. Otherwise women are simply breeding stock. That is unacceptable. It should be available to women.
However I am pro life in that I find it generally repugnant to me. Therefore the two times I got pregnant it was not an option to me. I am not, however, the uterus police. Nor will I tell another woman what she should or shouldn't think or feel about well...much of anything really. I had a choice. I made it. I had two sons. Me saying that abortion should be legal (in my opinion) doesn't mean that I think it should be sought as a solution, in a majority of cases.
As a mother of sons, it also troubles me that the fathers of fetuses have little agency in what choices are made. A man might be heartbroken that a child of his was conceived and killed. Which is why I am very, very glad that the product Vasalgel is on its way to the market. If you're not familiar, look it up. Or RISUG, a similar thing. Effective birth control for guys. Awesome! It should not be a woman's job alone to prevent pregnancy.
Honestly though, I am not religious. I don't believe in the literal truth of scripture or God as described by those of most religions, certainly not the Christian version. I don't believe that humans have a soul and animals don't. I think that life is life, and as such it's no more or less sacred. Sentience makes a difference. But we kill animals that are more intelligent and sentient than a human fetus, FOR FOOD, every single day in the millions. I don't think an unborn human is more sacred than a livestock animal raised for the table, regardless of its potential. (And I eat meat.) In that moment...it has not begun to realize any part of that potential. If one were so concerned that any fetus could become the scientist that cured cancer, one would advocate for women to be locked in breeding facilities to be endlessly impregnated and make as many humans as possible, because ANY ONE OF THEM MIGHT DO GREAT THINGS. Foolishness. There are plenty of humans here. If a cure to cancer is to be found, one day one of them will figure it out. Maybe if they spent less time on Rogaine and Viagra we might get there a little quicker.
But I imagine I differ on many "sanctity of life" issues from some of the posters on this thread. I am also all for physician assisted suicides and other forms of euthanasia, for the terminally ill and suffering. In fact I think we each own our own life and have a right to end it, or should. I also support the death penalty, especially for repeat offenders of some of the worst crimes. Not just murder. Rape, pedophelia. One conviction could be a mistake by the courts. Two...not likely! Put 'em down. The basic concept that human life is sacred simply because it's human life...I don't agree.
I am pro choice and also pro life. I am pro choice for one main reason...that it is PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE for a man to FORCE a woman to become pregnant against her will. Rape is a thing that happens. So women should have a last form of recourse to protect them from having to breed for a rapist. Otherwise women are simply breeding stock. That is unacceptable. It should be available to women.
However I am pro life in that I find it generally repugnant to me. Therefore the two times I got pregnant it was not an option to me. I am not, however, the uterus police. Nor will I tell another woman what she should or shouldn't think or feel about well...much of anything really. I had a choice. I made it. I had two sons. Me saying that abortion should be legal (in my opinion) doesn't mean that I think it should be sought as a solution, in a majority of cases.
As a mother of sons, it also troubles me that the fathers of fetuses have little agency in what choices are made. A man might be heartbroken that a child of his was conceived and killed. Which is why I am very, very glad that the product Vasalgel is on its way to the market. If you're not familiar, look it up. Or RISUG, a similar thing. Effective birth control for guys. Awesome! It should not be a woman's job alone to prevent pregnancy.
Honestly though, I am not religious. I don't believe in the literal truth of scripture or God as described by those of most religions, certainly not the Christian version. I don't believe that humans have a soul and animals don't. I think that life is life, and as such it's no more or less sacred. Sentience makes a difference. But we kill animals that are more intelligent and sentient than a human fetus, FOR FOOD, every single day in the millions. I don't think an unborn human is more sacred than a livestock animal raised for the table, regardless of its potential. (And I eat meat.) In that moment...it has not begun to realize any part of that potential. If one were so concerned that any fetus could become the scientist that cured cancer, one would advocate for women to be locked in breeding facilities to be endlessly impregnated and make as many humans as possible, because ANY ONE OF THEM MIGHT DO GREAT THINGS. Foolishness. There are plenty of humans here. If a cure to cancer is to be found, one day one of them will figure it out. Maybe if they spent less time on Rogaine and Viagra we might get there a little quicker.
But I imagine I differ on many "sanctity of life" issues from some of the posters on this thread. I am also all for physician assisted suicides and other forms of euthanasia, for the terminally ill and suffering. In fact I think we each own our own life and have a right to end it, or should. I also support the death penalty, especially for repeat offenders of some of the worst crimes. Not just murder. Rape, pedophelia. One conviction could be a mistake by the courts. Two...not likely! Put 'em down. The basic concept that human life is sacred simply because it's human life...I don't agree.
That's nice, but I read a blog once recently written by a woman who was the product of rape. She thanked her mother for not aborting her.
You see, there is another side to the story.
In life, "**** happens." It is often tragic. But it is not a reason to take the life of another. Making another victim out of a crime is not right. A life is a life. We do not have the right to take the life of the innocent for the convenience of the mother. Adoption is always an option.
It is if you have unprotected sex. You are essentially saying yes to pregnancy then. Yes, it is unfortunate that killing the unborn is legal. It doesn't take a perfect world for humans to act responsibly. It's mixing apples with oranges to claim that being opposed to abortion is in conflict with also being opposed to the taxpayer having to support them. Adoption is always a viable option.
So you want another child to enter the adoption pool which already has about 400,000 kids waiting for homes. Some never get adopted especially the special need kids. And I guess you are saying that women who can't afford to raise a child should have them anyway so they can get on welfare and let the rest of us pay for them.
So you want another child to enter the adoption pool which already has about 400,000 kids waiting for homes. Some never get adopted especially the special need kids. And I guess you are saying that women who can't afford to raise a child should have them anyway so they can get on welfare and let the rest of us pay for them.
It beats killing them, IMO. No, what I am saying is don't have unprotected sex in the first place. If you can't afford to raise them then any sensible person wouldn't take that chance. It's about responsibility up front. That is such a simple concept.
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.
Are you really that naïve?
