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 am neutral on abortion. I am no fan of it but as long as tax dollars don't pay for it I consider it none of my business. That is with the exception of partial birth abortions which is a cruel procedure.
It is actually not cruel at all, and is safer, cheaper, and less physcially and emotionally demanding than other available late-term procedures. Banning the procedure is nothing more than poorly informed, Terry Schiavo-like, political intervention into the making of medical decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01
I do have a question.
If a man murders a pregnant woman he can be charged for a double homicide.
Laws vary from state to state, but in general, no. The usual situation would be one charge of homicide and one of what is often termed fetal homicide. Fetal homicide laws are typically representations of a woman's property interest in her fetus, and are thus often conditioned on things such as a woman's expressed or implied interest in continuing her pregnancy, or upon the woman herself not being the actor bringing about fetal death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01
Tax funded abortions??? Then its my business and I would like to know what the woman intends to do to prevent reoccurance.
Federal taxes at least fund only a handful of abortions per year. These would be those performed on indigent women in cases where life or serious health issues are threatened. Though states are obligated by law to make payment out of Medicaid funds in such cases, providers see actual payment rates that run around 50%. The rest, the states just walk away from.
Last edited by saganista; 11-01-2008 at 08:09 PM..
Lord knows what was meant by The majority are done because the mother doesn't feel "ready." All abortions are performed because a woman is pregnant and does not want to be. So far at least, we do not have programs in this country that compel women to bear children against their wishes.
No, not just the lord. If you read the post, they are not ready because it will impede on their social(time lost on raising) and or economic life... Very little for health(theirs or the babies) reasons. Very little for rape or incest...
It is actually not cruel at all, and is safer, cheaper, and less physcially and emotionally demanding than other available late-term procedures. Banning the procedure is nothing more than poorly informed political intervention into the making of medical decisions.
Laws vary from state to state, but in general, no. The usual situation would be one charge of homicide and one of what is often termed fetal homicide. Fetal homicide laws are typically representations of a woman's property interest in her fetus, and are thus often conditioned on things such as a woman's expressed or implied interest in continuing her pregnancy, or upon the woman herself not being the actor bringing about fetal death.
Federal taxes at least fund only a handful of abortions per year. These would be those performed on indigent women in cases where life or serious health issues are threatened. Though states are obligated by law to make payment out of Medicaid funds in such cases, providers see actual payment rates that run around 50%. The rest, the states just walk away from.
I would argue that it is cruel to the fetus who very much feels the pain.
My argument against partial birth resides in that some if not many are not done as a procedure to save a mother at risk. There needs to be more oversight regarding this procedure.
No argument with the rest of your post.
Ouch!!! facts are facts and sometimes they hurt. But listen its okay to love your parasite and to even name it.
Absolutely. But the tendency to do so seems to vary quite considerably depending upon whether we are talking about a wanted or an unwanted pregnancy. One is a welcome blessing, the other an uninvited curse. These are not at all similar circumstances. Many people's experiences (luckily for them) are only with the former, and it shows in their general rhetoric...
Like it or not, and whether wanted or unwanted, the biological nature of a zygote-blastocyst-embryo-fetus does not extend beyond what would be covered by the definition of a parasite. This is a simple fact. Covering one's eyes and wishing it away isn't a very useful strategy.
parasite:
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return
Just because a fetus is a parasite doesn't mean it should be aborted or treated in the same way OTHER parasites will/would be treated.
So special consideration should be given to certain types of cancers as well???
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.
Or is it a question? 
