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'm not anti-abortion but pro-property rights. At what point do you believe the government should step in and protect the child's life? I will ask you as I've asked many who have failed to answer: Would you support a woman's right to choose to have the child aborted/killed once it has been removed from her womb but is still attached to her body via the umbilical cord, for any reason she chooses?
No, as the current law says, if a baby is viable, meaning it can survive outside the woman's womb, it should not be aborted.
We have answered your question repeatedly - no, a woman cannot abort a child after she has already given birth to it. I'm pretty sure I speak for all pro-choice individuals on that one.
I'm not anti-abortion but pro-property rights. At what point do you believe the government should step in and protect the child's life? I will ask you as I've asked many who have failed to answer: Would you support a woman's right to choose to have the child aborted/killed once it has been removed from her womb but is still attached to her body via the umbilical cord, for any reason she chooses?
the govt usually steps in around age 18, or they use to, send the kid off to war, and THEY kill him, and send him back to the Mom in a box, whats the difference, she never gets a say as long as you keep making the govt more and more powerful...
No, as the current law says, if a baby is viable, meaning it can survive outside the woman's womb, it should not be aborted.
We have answered your question repeatedly - no, a woman cannot abort a child after she has already given birth to it. I'm pretty sure I speak for all pro-choice individuals on that one.
I'm glad you cleared that up. However, after the baby is viable you are then taking away her right to choose what to do with her body aren't you? What do you feel should be done to ensure a third trimester abortion doesn't occur?
Seriously, thank you for your answering the question. Really, only you and one other person on this forum have done so. Others have shucked and jived their way around it.
BTW, the other person who answered it DOES support the woman's right to abort the baby up until the umbilical cord is cut, for ANY reason, including sex selection and/or convenience. So, not all of those who consider themselves pro-choice feel the same.
Last edited by Amaznjohn; 02-13-2008 at 02:17 PM..
the govt usually steps in around age 18, or they use to, send the kid off to war, and THEY kill him, and send him back to the Mom in a box, whats the difference, she never gets a say as long as you keep making the govt more and more powerful...
The government actually steps in after the umbilical cord is cut and, in many states prior to the possibility of a partial-birth abortion, prosecuting those who might harm it.
If you'll become familiar with my other posts you'll realize that I am one of the biggest advocate of smaller government on the forum, except when individual rights are being violated.
The government actually steps in after the umbilical cord is cut and, in many states prior to the possibility of a partial-birth abortion, prosecuting those who might harm it.
If you'll become familiar with my other posts you'll realize that I am one of the biggest advocate of smaller government on the forum, except when individual rights are being violated.
I know you are, AJ, I dont read 18 pages tho, I went thru this mess personally, and I can say with all honesty, theres no worse authority than the govt who should be involved with it, at least I think the more power people want to give them to take away INDIVIDUAL rights, the next thing we will have to answer to them for is how much unprotected sex they will allow, AND THE PRESIDENT IS THE WORST ROLE MODEL AROUND FOR THAT TASK!!.. if we elect a purist, lets at least make sure he/she acts on the same ideals they are trying to steal from the people who put them in office...
I know you are, AJ, I dont read 18 pages tho, I went thru this mess personally, and I can say with all honesty, theres no worse authority than the govt who should be involved with it, at least I think the more power people want to give them to take away INDIVIDUAL rights, the next thing we will have to answer to them for is how much unprotected sex they will allow, AND THE PRESIDENT IS THE WORST ROLE MODEL AROUND FOR THAT TASK!!.. if we elect a purist, lets at least make sure he/she acts on the same ideals they are trying to steal from the people who put them in office...
So, do you think the government is overstepping its bounds and taking away individual rights when it preveints partial birth abortion?
So, do you think the government is overstepping its bounds and taking away individual rights when it preveints partial birth abortion?
I do. I think the whole thing is an over-hyped attempt to get the government more involved in my family's decisions than it already is. What, there cannot be more than a dozen cases of PBA per year, and it's some kind of whiny human-rights crusade? Bah!
Why would I get all sentimental about this issue at the risk of jeapordizing my liberty, again?
Smart people will generally make ethical decisions that further their offspring's futures.
Stupid ones will bash their equally dull offspring in the skull. I'm not enough of a universalist to care about the latter at my own cost, TYVM.
So, do you think the government is overstepping its bounds and taking away individual rights when it preveints partial birth abortion?
I find it hard to buy in to decisions by govt officials who behave like the way some teen mothers have been accused of in this thread, just that they didnt get caught, didnt get someone pregnant (that we know of) but yet their behavior was so sexually deviant they had to apologize on national tv for it, I dont feel someone like that should be making decisions for me or my body when they cant even behave their own...that was my point, and not only that, obstetrics and gynelcology have a better idea what is best for a pregnant women that political figures, the supreme court has better things to do I would hope.
No, as the current law says, if a baby is viable, meaning it can survive outside the woman's womb, it should not be aborted. We have answered your question repeatedly - no, a woman cannot abort a child after she has already given birth to it. I'm pretty sure I speak for all pro-choice individuals on that one.
The right exercised by a woman is that not to be pregnant anymore. Once a fetus has been delivered, the woman is not pregnant anymore. One would have thought this to be fairly obvious...
I'm glad you cleared that up. However, after the baby is viable you are then taking away her right to choose what to do with her body aren't you?
That choice was made long before viability. No woman goes through six months of pregnancy just to think it over. The point of viability is merely that at which the previously unencumbered rights of the woman begin to be encumbered by the interests of the state. This is not a difficult concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
What do you feel should be done to ensure a third trimester abortion doesn't occur?
Nothing beyond assuring that the reasons already typical are in fact the ones at hand. Women do not seek and doctors do not perform third trimester abortions except under extraordinary circumstances. The usual life and health of the mother issues come into play here, as does the fact that the fetus itself may already have died. Contrary to your apparent belief, the process of gestation is hardly an error-free one. Like most natural processes, it is fraught with opportunites for things to go entirely awry, and they sometimes do. What sort of human being would force any woman to carry a fetus for two more agonizing months, knowing full well that it was already dead? Would that person be a human being at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
Seriously, thank you for your answering the question. Really, only you and one other person on this forum have done so. Others have shucked and jived their way around it.
Oh, please. It isn't even a serious question.
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.
