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.
Today I read an article about two young parents who overdosed and died at home - leaving their 5 month old baby to starve to death in the crib. Which - she did.
The world AND that suffering baby - would have been better off IF these two morons had aborted this child.
I cannot imagine. Ugh.
Agreed. But I also question where is their family or friends. I am 38 and my mother would be flipping out if she did not talk to me twice a day. She would be alarmed if I went 24 hours without speaking to her.
When my youngest was an infant, I woke with a migraine and was out of it. 12 hours later I woke up and my 7 year old had stayed home from School, changed her brother and fed him. Both kids were fine, but it was still scary. She could have called my mom who lived right around the corner, but she felt she had it under control, and she did.
Sure, I am against laws making abortions fully illegal, or laws impractically restricting access, or producing impractical and illogical overhead on the process(like requiring aborted fetuses to be buried or other dumb stuff like that), I don't really have a moral problem with them being privately funded at all.
Neither do I. It's an individual choice.
Quote:
There are some utilitarian rather than moral concerns with that idea though as the people who are the most likely to raise social failures that are drags on society as a whole are also the same people that are often the least likely to be able to afford to abort an unintentional pregnancy.
That's where the private charitable foundation comes in. Those who support abortion can donate. Should be no problem raising enough funding. Many people support abortion. They can out their money where their mouths are.
That's where the private charitable foundation comes in. Those who support abortion can donate.Should be no problem raising enough funding. Many people support abortion. They can out their money where their mouths are.
The idealist in me wants to believe this is true.
The pragmatist in me wants me to hedge my bets.
And the pessimist in me calls bullsh*t.
I'm referring to the movement as a whole which fights against any and all restrictions on abortion rights . The individual beliefs of pro choicers is irrelevant when the main pro choice groups want unrestricted abortions as a fundamental right.
No, your whole argument is the "viability" of a fetus, meaning it can't survive on its own. Neither can a newborn just out of the womb. Not my problem if that doesn't fit your preferred view . A baby is no more " viable" than a fetus . Both require care. Don't pretend that a baby is somehow more human and able to function simply by passing through the birth canal. That passage doesn't transform the fetus into something it wasn't before the exit . A fetus is a human in the womb . A baby just out of the womb is a human . A 6 yr old is a human 6 yrs out of the womb. A 20 yr old is a human 20 yrs out of the womb. All are human, just different developmental stages . But none changed suddenly from "non alive non human" to "alive human " simply by exiting the birth canal. They were before the exit what they were after the exit , an alive human being .
the restrictions on abortion now are about as good as they can get. LTA are done because the baby is no longer viable, it will either die in utero where the mother will have to deliver a dead baby or the baby is so seriously ill the life will be short and painful resulting in death. these are medical issues only to be the concern of the parent and her doctor. pro choice advocates for late term abortion on the basis of medical necessity. only a rare radical person advocates late term abortion for convenience. most problems in pregnancies like this can not be detected till late in the pregnancy. I support the woman no matter what choice she has to make for herself and her family.
a newborn can be taken care of by anyone that wants the responsibility. that is not the case in utero. two complete and totally different concepts.
It's a First Amendment issue. Both FGM and male circumcision are exercises of religion.
Same reason why Santeria priests/priestesses are permitted to perform live animal sacrifices in jurisdictions in which such is otherwise legally prohibited. First Amendment right.
the restrictions on abortion now are about as good as they can get. LTA are done because the baby is no longer viable, it will either die in utero where the mother will have to deliver a dead baby or the baby is so seriously ill the life will be short and painful resulting in death. these are medical issues only to be the concern of the parent and her doctor. pro choice advocates for late term abortion on the basis of medical necessity. only a rare radical person advocates late term abortion for convenience. most problems in pregnancies like this can not be detected till late in the pregnancy. I support the woman no matter what choice she has to make for herself and her family.
I have no issues with certain necessary abortions, such as this, danger to the mothers life , or rape, or severe deformity that will make life misery for fetus and parents .
But would these restrictions except in the cases you mention be in place voluntarily if it weren't for pro lifers? I see no evidence of this .
Quote:
a newborn can be taken care of by anyone that wants the responsibility. that is not the case in utero. two complete and totally different concepts.
The point is not whether someone can and would take care of a newborn. The point is the NEED to . Much is made by pro choicers about viability, as if upon exiting the womb the newborn is self sufficient . A fetus is no less viable in terms of survival outside the womb without care than a newborn . Viability is often twisted into a bogus concept that tries to pretend there is a vast difference in terms of self sufficiency and dependency between a fetus and a newborn , created to try to explain the rationale of being willing to end a healthy fetus at the mothers request vs killing a newborn , or even aborting a healthy late term fetus . There is certainly a difference in viability between delivering and trying to save a 12 week fetus and doing so for a 28 week fetus, but this concept is improperly extended to debating all fetuses vs born babies .
I'm referring to the movement as a whole which fights against any and all restrictions on abortion rights . The individual beliefs of pro choicers is irrelevant when the main pro choice groups want unrestricted abortions as a fundamental right.
No, your whole argument is the "viability" of a fetus, meaning it can't survive on its own. Neither can a newborn just out of the womb. Not my problem if that doesn't fit your preferred view . A baby is no more " viable" than a fetus . Both require care. Don't pretend that a baby is somehow more human and able to function simply by passing through the birth canal. That passage doesn't transform the fetus into something it wasn't before the exit . A fetus is a human in the womb . A baby just out of the womb is a human . A 6 yr old is a human 6 yrs out of the womb. A 20 yr old is a human 20 yrs out of the womb. All are human, just different developmental stages . But none changed suddenly from "non alive non human" to "alive human " simply by exiting the birth canal. They were before the exit what they were after the exit , an alive human being .
You appear to not know what viable means. Viability is the ability to preform the functions of life, that is literally the etymology of the word.
A newborn, is viable, meaning it can live on its own. It can breathe, maintain its body temperature, metabolize food, etc. A fetus cannot live because it cannot breathe, it cannot maintain its body temperature, and it cannot digest/metabolize food, and a whole bunch more.
The fact that you think something that needs care is not viable (as in the case of a baby) is not the meaning of the word, and it isn't even logical.
A fetus pre-viability (aka able to maintain the functions of life) is not a person. You do not get to change the meanings of words just to try to make a point. A fetus is as much a human as a sperm or ovum is, which is to say not at all.
Oh, please. 'Poor immigrants?' Where are they getting the $$$$$ to travel overseas to immigrate? Price transatlantic flight tickets for a family of 4 recently?
Most families who immigrate from countries that practice FGM are from central Africa. Most immigrate here by being sponsored by family members who save for months or more to meet the costs of immigration, the least of which are the plane ticket. Many especially from countries like Sudan, are here as war refugees from the 90s.
For someone who seems to have such a strong opinion about FGM you seem to know very little about it or the people's who practice it. Knowledge is vital to changing things like FGM.
Are you capable of having a disagreement without being so childish ? Grow up and discuss like an adult please .
I can quote as many definitions as you. Some define alive as I wrote. What we DO know is that a fetus emerges alive . What we don't know, and what YOU do not know, is when this "being alive" takes place . At conception? At some point after conception? If after conception, please point out the stage at which a fetus moves from " not alive" to " alive" , with supporting scientific fact and not opinion. That normal fetuses emerge alive is beyond doubt , so show the precise point previous to this emergence as a living being in which the fetus is not alive .
Your definition would make viruses alive and you did not provide a link to a scientific source for your definition, because you know that it would include the other criteria which preclude fetuses.
To be alive it needs to maintain homeostasis at a minimum. Literally every living organism on the planet maintains homeostasis. Fetuses do not do so until they are viable.
And you have no business demanding scientific support when you have provided exactly ZERO. Google is your friend too, go look up when homeostasis can occur.
I disagree. I've frequently said that it's a woman's choice to make, but it's a violation of the First Amendment to force any taxpayer via threat of imprisonment to fund it when it violates their religious belief.
You don't get it or are being willful obtuse.
I belong to a religion which says women should not be educated. I pay taxes. As an american some of my taxes is used to fund the education of women. My religious beliefs are being violated.
I belong to a religion which says women should not have abortions. I pay taxes. As an american some of my taxes is used to fund the abortions of women. My religious beliefs are being violated.
What is the difference? The correct answer is none, because in both, a religious belief is being used to pretend that you get to decide how tax money is used.
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.
'Poor immigrants?' Where are they getting the $$$$$ to travel overseas to immigrate? Price transatlantic flight tickets for a family of 4 recently?
