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.
Obama's science advisor John Holdren has a scary history promoting forced abortion.
" Holdren and the Ehrlichs maintained "there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated." Hiding behind the passive voice, they note, "it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." (Emphasis added.) To underscore they mean business, they conclude, "If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" (pp. 837-838). Moreover, if the United States government refuses to take proper measures, they authorize the United Nations to take compelling force."
Hey I'm all for birth control, and more of it should be used by these women popping out 4-5 kids while drawing a welfare check, mandatory birthcontrol for those on welfare, sure. Take the birth control or give up your check. Not to mention this so called paper or mag is as far conspiracy theory and right winged(or ignorant) as you can get!
Hey I'm all for birth control, and more of it should be used by these women popping out 4-5 kids while drawing a welfare check, mandatory birthcontrol for those on welfare, sure. Take the birth control or give up your check. Not to mention this so called paper or mag is as far conspiracy theory and right winged(or ignorant) as you can get!
So at EXACTLY what point in the gestational period is the unborn a living human being who deserves legal protection of his/her life?
When they are able to live outside of a host body with little to no medical help. Until then, my rights are the only rights. If you don't like that answer I am sorry. That's the way I feel and apparently the supreme court agrees with me.
No one is saying that they are not human. We all know they are, and living yes. To what degree, that differs with age and who you ask. I personally don't care if the day before delivery someone decides to abort. I understand why the supreme court made the ruling about late term abortions. From 24 wks and up alot of fetus' are developed enough to live outside the mothers body.
As for abortion being population control, GOOD! This planet is already crowded enough. If everyone aborted since RVW was alive and we continued to outlaw it, we would have used up our earth. Every species known to man has natural selection, this is just one form of ours.
No one is saying that they are not human. We all know they are, and living yes......I personally don't care if the day before delivery someone decides to abort.
So why is it unacceptable to kill them a day after birth if it's ok to kill them the day before birth?
What magic has bestowed on them any more human quality than they had a day prior?
I am honestly trying to understand how someone who claims to be a medical professional can be so disregarding of human life.
I'm almost afraid to ask, but I have to know:
If the baby is born, and they find unexpectedly that he/she is severely handicapped, are you ok with them killing it at that point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trmihall01
If everyone aborted since RVW was alive and we continued to outlaw it, we would have used up our earth.
That's inaccurate, I think most would agree.
If all of the babies aborted in the USA since Roe V Wade had lived, it would've added less than 1% to the world population. Are you seriously going to tell me that would have 'used up our earth'? Honestly, what kind of green propaganda have you listened to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trmihall01
Every species known to man has natural selection, this is just one form of ours
Most species do not intentionally kill their young.
I'd like to understand what you are saying about natural selection here.
So is evolution the justification for abortion, in your view? Do you basically view humans as just an animal?
The unwanted clump of cells could develop into a human. however, it is not a human yet. Stating that it is wrong to kill a clump of cells of fetus before it is recognized as a human is like saying it is wrong to kill the dead. Yes, it was once a human, but it is dead, it is not living, it does not feel pain or have active thought.
This sure doesn't look like a clump of cells to me. Funny, it looks more like a "human" hand and hey -- look at that, it's only in the first trimester of growth. Picture, BABY IN THE WOMB.
This sure doesn't look like a clump of cells to me. Funny, it looks more like a "human" hand and hey -- look at that, it's only in the first trimester of growth. Picture, BABY IN THE WOMB.
Now.
How about you show us some pictures of what a fetus looks like at the time of most abortions? Let me give you a hint. After the abortion is done at the time where most abortions take place, you won't be able to tell the fetus from any other tissue expelled with the abortion.
Not to say that the fetus isn't human. It's very foolhardy to make that statement. I just don't consider it to have equal say and equal standing on the person it's sucking the nutrients out of.
How about you show us some pictures of what a fetus looks like at the time of most abortions? Let me give you a hint. After the abortion is done at the time where most abortions take place, you won't be able to tell the fetus from any other tissue expelled with the abortion.
Not to say that the fetus isn't human. It's very foolhardy to make that statement. I just don't consider it to have equal say and equal standing on the person it's sucking the nutrients out of.
That's pretty sick... sucking the nutrients out of? How heartless! It's a baby for crying out loud not a slug!
As for pictures to compare a clump of cells to an aborted baby... trust me, if you haven't already seen them... you DON'T WANT TO. If you have a heart at all, you would be horrified to see what an aborted baby looks like. It's truly awful. Truly!
That's pretty sick... sucking the nutrients out of? How heartless! It's a baby for crying out loud not a slug!
As for pictures to compare a clump of cells to an aborted baby... trust me, if you haven't already seen them... you DON'T WANT TO. If you have a heart at all, you would be horrified to see what an aborted baby looks like. It's truly awful. Truly!
I've seen a picture of what a fetus looks like when aborted at the time when most abortions happen.
You can't even tell where the fetus is. You cannot tell it apart from other tissue that is aborted. I don't see how that's awful.
And it's heartless to say that a fetus sucks the nutrients from its host? I didn't know that stating facts were "heartless". What is "heartless" to me is to force a woman to go through pregnancy.
I've seen with my own eyes at 9ish weeks. Goop. Fetus is less than 1 inch long at that point.
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.
It is human right?
