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.
yes, how sad for you. you may want to consider the life of the babies you are so willing to take, or are you still stuck on that "clump of cells" theory?
they are not babies till they are born. The 20 week discussion makes the most sense to me. After that it's just not a good idea to abort.
It seems a fundamental conflict of the abortion debate is when a "baby" exists. The 20 week argument makes a lot of sense to me but might not to you. If the moment fertilization occurs is called a baby, then any abortion is "killing a baby". For me 20 weeks seems very reasonable and would still give women the right to control their body up to that point. After 20 weeks having an abortion for anything other than medical reasons is very irresponsible imo. One opinion.
This whole nonsense about aborting babies days before they are born is complete BS and only serves to artificially inflame people. Bottom line is the government has no business telling a woman what they can and can't do with their own body. There are already laws that limit abortion and the late term stuff is almost exclusively for mother's life or catastrophic defect that would result in a horrific "life" for the child. No one is killing a 8 month old fetus because they don't feel like being a mother anymore..
Kind funny how there's so much care for the unborn, but once you're born, pick yourself by the bootstraps and get a job, you moocher! Not gonna pay for your healthcare!
That's the thing, At that point it's not just the woman's body. There's another human in there. Once they're born nobody seems to care the government dictates that you have to take care of the baby or face charges of neglect.
There's a difference between killing somebody and encouraging self sufficiency.
That's the thing, At that point it's not just the woman's body. There's another human in there. Once they're born nobody seems to care the government dictates that you have to take care of the baby or face charges of neglect.
There's a difference between killing somebody and encouraging self sufficiency.
Not really. Not giving a crap if a family can't get/afford healthcare for a kid dying from cancer is the same as killing the kid.
The law as written severely restricts abortion after the fetus is developed enough to have functioning organs/brain. Anything else is only in extreme circumstances, and really should be the mother's decision. No one is taking advantage of late term for selfish purposes.
Not really. Not giving a crap if a family can't get/afford healthcare for a kid dying from cancer is the same as killing the kid.
The law as written severely restricts abortion after the fetus is developed enough to have functioning organs/brain. Anything else is only in extreme circumstances, and really should be the mother's decision. No one is taking advantage of late term for selfish purposes.
Sounds like you're just arguing over an arbitrary definition of a "person". The government is typically involved if somebody wants to kill their kid.
Equating funding Medicaid with abortion is a stretch. At the very least an incredibly weak argument.
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.
