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.
How is it NOT insane to assume that you and others who may think like you have some right to step in and guide or determine the reproductive histories of other actual human beings? This would appear to me to be some sort of grandiose, invasive, self-aggrandizing mania or psychosis to me.
Otherwise, in the absence of positive action by a woman, she might expect to conceive and bear 18 to 20 children over the course of a normal reproductive lifetime. Perhaps a few more in some cases. Are women constrained to compliance with that biological maximum, or are they within their legitimate rights in choosing to constrain that number. If they do have such a right of constraint, is it exercisable for reasons of simple convenience, such as whether they want or can afford to support a child at any particular point in time?
And this is why I try my hardest not to respond to you. The stuff you post is just not rational, so it's hard for me to really relate and try and form a legitimate response.
When the "health" of the mother is at risk...which basically can mean anything.
Do you deny that the health of the mother can be in serious jeopardy? Like, including death?
If death is possible in late pregnancy or delivery, and you don't approve of a woman and her doctor deciding upon abortion, then any other standard you impose means one of two things:
either you favor the death of women in that situation, or
that you want bureaucratic intervention between a woman and her doctor because you think some reasons won't be serious enough.
The pro-abortion lobby is pushing this bill which will knock down every single restriction on abortion in this country. Effects of this bill include:
There's no such thing as "pro-abortion" - I never heard of any popular movement encouraging abortions for fun, which would obviously be one of the most troubling and unhealthy hobbies I can think of.
The abortion debate is an issue of human self-ownership - either the mother owns her body, upon which the fetus clearly depends for survival, or she is a slave of some other force, i.e. government. You can be as pro-life as you want, but that doesn't give you the right to enslave the mother!
Quote:
1. Partial-birth abortion, or the dismembering of babies as they are being born, will now be legal.
Agree (with the bill). The fetus is not an autonomous human being at any point during this procedure, so the words "birth" and "baby" are not appropriate. A fetus is a fetus no matter how old it is. The "right to life" comes from the capacity of being protected from murder, which with current technology cannot be done without violating the mother's rights over her body.
Quote:
2. Parental consent laws for minors will no longer be in effect. Although a seventeen-year-old girl has to have her parents present in order to get acne medicine, a thirteen-year-old can get an abortion without her parents knowing. Think of the injury done to these young women, as well as to their children!
Disagree. Parents' rights should be absolute, with only exceptions being the child's right to life (from the point of physical autonomy, i.e. birth), right to sue for emancipation / adoption, and that's pretty much it.
Quote:
3. Laws prohibiting public funding of abortion will be struck down. The American taxpayer will now have to fund something many of us know to be murder.
Disagree. There shouldn't be public funding of anything (that's morally speaking, though in reality it would take quite a bit of time to phase out things like national defense).
Quote:
4. Laws requiring women to be shown information about (including being shown ultrasounds) and alternatives to abortion will be struck down. Think about any other surgery that's performed: you are bombarded with information. And yet, in one of the most invasive medical procedures, women would be kept ignorant of the facts.
Agree. If/how a woman has an abortion is between her and her doctor, the government has no right to interfere.
Quote:
5. Laws allowing medical staff and hospitals to refuse to perform abortion on grounds of conscience will be struck down. (Where's the freedom of choice here?)
Disagree - doctors and other medical staff are not slaves of any woman that happens to want an abortion. All interactions between human beings should be voluntary, which includes any medical procedures that a doctor and a patient might agree upon.
Quote:
6. Laws prohibiting medical personnel other than licensed physicians from performing abortions would be invalidated because they may "interfere with" access to abortion. (Talk about protection for women!)
Agree - government should not regulate medicine, or anything else. Or exist.
You pulled that one out of your asse. The bill doesnt say anything about requiring funding for abortions.
In my world when you deliberately leave out important parts of information, or simply make crap up, we call that lying.
But why would I expect anything from people that have been supporting a habitual liar for the last 8 years. Just wanted to identify them for what they really are.
How is it NOT insane to assume that you and others who may think like you have some right to step in and guide or determine the reproductive histories of other actual human beings? This would appear to me to be some sort of grandiose, invasive, self-aggrandizing mania or psychosis to me.
Otherwise, in the absence of positive action by a woman, she might expect to conceive and bear 18 to 20 children over the course of a normal reproductive lifetime. Perhaps a few more in some cases. Are women constrained to compliance with that biological maximum, or are they within their legitimate rights in choosing to constrain that number. If they do have such a right of constraint, is it exercisable for reasons of simple convenience, such as whether they want or can afford to support a child at any particular point in time?
Do you deny that the health of the mother can be in serious jeopardy? Like, including death?
If death is possible in late pregnancy or delivery, and you don't approve of a woman and her doctor deciding upon abortion, then any other standard you impose means one of two things:
either you favor the death of women in that situation, or
that you want bureaucratic intervention between a woman and her doctor because you think some reasons won't be serious enough.
Which is it?
Sure, that happens...in an extremely rare number of cases. Any law that includes "health of the mother" exceptions just needs to be worded carefully to make sure it really means "health of the mother" and not "mommy is feeling a little blue" or "I got a doctor to sign off that my ingrown toenail is a danger to my health" kind of thing.
When the "health" of the mother is at risk...which basically can mean anything.
Now how in hell did you confuse the world "life" with health? Does your level of desperation so impair your ability to read, or is it that truth tastes way too bitter to deal with?
is ever going to know that "moment" of conception. In fact, up to 50% of those "moments of conception" get flushed away in the next period. Is it human? Of course, it certainly isn't a DOG, but is it going to last 9 months to become a baby? In most cases, NO.
Ask any woman, if she has EVER had a late period, even only a couple of days.
Yes, several million times a year. Off to the landfill or into the sewage system with them. Human reproduction, while complex and near-miraculous in some ways, is an incongruously primitive, random, and haphazard process in others.
And this is why I try my hardest not to respond to you. The stuff you post is just not rational, so it's hard for me to really relate and try and form a legitimate response.
AKA: "You've got me. My argument is absurd, and I cannot form a legitimate response to logical, rational analysis."
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.
