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.
ALL their tactics rest on the premise that women are too immoral, too irresponsible or too stupid to be trusted with decisions about their own bodies. Every argument is based on this premise.
Agreed. Except these immoral irresponsible idiots are then trusted to either raise a child or gestate a baby for infertile people. If you think someone is an immoral, irresponsible idiot....how much do you trust their personal prenatal care or child-rearing skills?
It's not like the seat belt argument at all, except in your twisted version of reality.
The FACT is that birth control, even sterilization, doesn't always work. And your assumptions about people who have unplanned pregnancies based on your insistence that birth control failure doesn't matter makes those assumptions wrong.
The instances of failure don't justify legalizing late term abortions.
Just like the instances of people being thrown from a car don't justify not wearing a seatbelt.
But....what do your anecdotes have to do with the fact that unintended pregnancies happen to other people even though it has not happened to you? It's not hard to avoid slicing your finger when cutting a bagel--I've never done it--yet people end up in the ER with this specific injury. So?
ALL their tactics rest on the premise that women are too immoral, too irresponsible or too stupid to be trusted with decisions about their own bodies. Every argument is based on this premise.
No.
The argument is that after a certain amount of time, it's not just their bodies.
Pro abortion types used to use the "it's just a clump of cells" argument......
Kind of throwing that out the window when you're endorsing abortion up until the moment of birth.....
The instances of failure don't justify legalizing late term abortions.
Just like the instances of people being thrown from a car don't justify not wearing a seatbelt.
The instances of fetal abnormalities which preclude the child surviving long after birth, such birth adversely affecting the health of the mother, do justify legalizing late-term abortions.
Interestingly, though, for many "conservatives" restricting access to birth control is the "right thing". Reducing any leg up programs so that kids don't live in poverty is the "right thing".
"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."
Sister Joan Chittister
Who is endorsing restricting access to birth control?
Are Conservatives standing outside CVS, knocking BC out of women's hands?
Not wanting to pay for your birth control is not the same thing as restricting access to it.
The argument is that after a certain amount of time, it's not just their bodies.
Pro abortion types used to use the "it's just a clump of cells" argument......
Kind of throwing that out the window when you're endorsing abortion up until the moment of birth.....
It's not just their bodies. And they are just too stupid to understand that. Or too immoral. Or just plain irresponsible.
Those stupid women who are evidently really rich, too, because they actually decide to go through with the pregnancy for nine months, and THEN decide they would rather kill the healthy fetus (at a premium cost of $25,000 to $30,000) rather than just have the baby at a fraction of the cost. Convenience, right?
The instances of fetal abnormalities which preclude the child surviving long after birth, such birth adversely affecting the health of the mother, do justify legalizing late-term abortions.
Those type of abnormalities are apparent long before dialation.
It's not just their bodies. And they are just too stupid to understand that. Or too immoral. Or just plain irresponsible.
Those stupid women who are evidently really rich, too, because they actually decide to go through with the pregnancy for nine months, and THEN decide they would rather kill the healthy fetus (at a premium cost of $25,000 to $30,000) rather than just have the baby at a fraction of the cost. Convenience, right?
Other than saving the life of the mother, there is no moral justification for late term abortions.
It's not just their bodies. And they are just too stupid to understand that. Or too immoral. Or just plain irresponsible.
Those stupid women who are evidently really rich, too, because they actually decide to go through with the pregnancy for nine months, and THEN decide they would rather kill the healthy fetus (at a premium cost of $25,000 to $30,000) rather than just have the baby at a fraction of the cost. Convenience, right?
Oh C'mon. That is an assumption that a woman would end a viable pregnancy carelessly or without a reason. The facts don’t bear this out. Most abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Late abortions are virtually always performed for the most serious medical and health reasons, including saving the woman’s life.
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.
