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.
I think part of the problem is those who support abortion are driven by emotion instead of logic.
Logically you cannot be for the woman's right to an abortion AND believe that right stops at viability.
A woman has the right to her own body or she doesn't.
If you believe she does you then MUST be in favor of permitting third trimester abortions up to the due date.
It is odd how adamant pro-abortion supporters except when it comes to some hazy cut off date that is constantly being pushed back by medical advancement.
As it stands right now, viability stands at around 24 weeks(168 days),the human gestation period is 40 weeks(280 days).
Each trimester is just over 93 days.
Abortions should then be restricted(using the idea of viability) well into the second trimester.
What is odd is you continuing to define what I mean when I say what I mean and what my position is.
Sir,
You can't have it both ways.
George Bush would not have been president of the US in 2000 were it not for SCOTUS. How do you feel about that.
Roe v. Wade was taken to the higher court because it could not be decided at the state level. It was a big enough issue that it warranted a higher level review. It was reviewed, now it is the law of the land.
Sorry you don't agree with it, but there it is. It is the law of the land.
Your viewpoint is based on your religious convictions. When does your viewpoint become religious tyranny?
Again you show your weakness in the argument by making assumptions.
I am not a Republican, nor did I vote for Bush. I disagree with the overreaching powers of the SCOTUS in all cases. Row v Wade was just one of a large number of cases... and it's not even close to the top of my list.
I am not a Christian, nor are my beliefs based upon religion any more than my distaste for one person maliciously harming another.
I could extend your logic and assume that since you are a proponent of murder, when are your views considered propaganda for genocide? Looks just as silly from the other side, doesn't it?
It doesn't have to fly with you.
It is the law of the land.
Are you saying that you want to change the law of the land to meet your definition, your religious definition? That would end liberty. It would then become religious oppression.
Define and live your life as you choose.
Please respect my choice and decision to live how I choose.
No one is asking you to look at the world as I do.
Please provide me the same respect.
I love how people want to keep calling this a religious issue!! It's not- it's a human rights issue!! An unborn baby is a human being, as it's impossible for two human beings to create something that is not human! The law of the land is wrong and to offer protection to all human life is not religious oppression! In fact, to fail to offer protection to all humans is "oppression!" Need I remind you that it was once "the law of the land" that allowed for slavery! The law of the land deemed African Americans to be "non-persons" and property of white men to be dealt with anyway they deemed appropriate.
With all due repect I don't think you've proven anything. Saying something is human is simply not the same as saying something is a human being. A blastocyst or an embryo is no doubt human but I have yet to see a reaoned, logical argument that establishes it as a human being anymore than an acorn is an oak tree. Potential beings and beings are vastly different entities.
Well, also with all due respect --I don't think you've proven anything, either. Saying something is a blastocyst or an embryo is not the same thing as saying something is not human. It's an attempt to use biological terminology to depersonalize the unborn.
One can believe in the sanctity of life and not be affiliated with a religion. This isn't a religious issue, this is a human rights issue. Need I remind you that just b/c something is the law of the land doesn't mean it is right! The law of the land once deemed African Americans nothing but white mans property, a non-person. The popular slogans were "don't like slavery, don't own a slave." Sounds pretty similiar to "don't like abortion, don't have one."
Abortion is a stain on American culture. The intentional elimination of our defenseless children is repulsive, self-serving and a horrible solution to poverty, women's liberation, child abuse, etc.....
Ok, so you seem to feel passionately with heart and soul in forced birth for women. So how should this be enforced, so that every precious unborned baby gets saved? Should every pregnant woman be required to be monitored 24 hours a day? If she shows any signs of taking steps to get an abortion, she would be arrested and confined to prison, closely monitored until she gives birth. I bet most people wanting abortion banned would love such an arrangement and be fully supportive of it.
Or maybe we just need those who claim to be for less government to live up to their claims and work at keeping government's nose out of places it doesn't belong.
As a Libertarian, one who advocates less government, I am very consistent in this respect. I believe that once human brain waves are recognized in the fetus, its only measurable distinction from an animal at this point in technology, it should be afforded the same right to life, liberty, and property rights as any other human. The pro-choice strawman argument is not consistent in that to truly be pro-choice one must advocate the right of the woman to kill the fetus/baby, for ANY reason, up until the umbilical cord is cut.
I think what gets lost in the argument is that so many people equate right to choose with pro abortion.
I am pro choice.. but that doesn't mean that I am for abortion.
HOwever.. I do not believe that it's my right to push my belief on another human being.
That being said..
If you believe that a zygote (that's what it's called at conception right?) is a human life and therefor you abort it , you feel it's wrong.. than you are against having an abortion.. ..
However. someone who faces that decision for themselves may not believe that same way you do and so for them that zygote is NOT yet a life, therefore they abort it...
At some piont that zygote becomes other things.. and I believe it's up to the person who is in the situation to make the choice that they feel is right for them and in line with THEIR own personal beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be.
I for one would NOT have an abortion. NEVER.. but then Im' at a different stage of my life. My cousins 19 year old daughter was faced with that dlima herself.. she had a choice, either abort or have the baby and keep it or have the baby and give it up for adoptin. She had to choose what she felt her concience could bear. It was a HARD decision.. BUT.. she HAD a choice.. something that is so great about this country. She ultimate chose to have the baby AND keep it.. but she also has a strong support system in her/our family that it was the best decision for her.. one that she could live with. It may not be right for all facing that decision. Who is anyone to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do.
Ok, so you seem to feel passionately with heart and soul in forced birth for women. So how should this be enforced, so that every precious unborned baby gets saved? Should every pregnant woman be required to be monitored 24 hours a day? If she shows any signs of taking steps to get an abortion, she would be arrested and confined to prison, closely monitored until she gives birth. I bet most people wanting abortion banned would love such an arrangement and be fully supportive of it.
Way to take it to the extreme!! It's impossible to debate with someone who spews such ridiculousness!
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
Well, also with all due respect --I don't think you've proven anything, either. Saying something is a blastocyst or an embryo is not the same thing as saying something is not human. It's an attempt to use biological terminology to depersonalize the unborn.
A lame attempt at twisting my words, I never sad a blastocyst/embryo was not human, I said it was not a human being.
And with the law standing as it currently does I'd say it's up to the Pro-Life people to prove logically that a fertilized egg is a human being, until then I'll continue to agree with things the way they are.
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.
