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 have not said that the rape/incest issue should be neglected. The problem is that so many pro-choice people want to make it seem as though rape & incest is the NORM regarding reasons for abortion. But it simply isn't.
That said, your assertion that "babies who survive abortion" should be ignored means we should also ignore the "rape & incest" cause for abortion too, right? After all, the number is inconsequential.
Or is that not the case? Are you arguing that one should be ignored, and the other paid attention to?
In those cases I don't think there's even a question as to whether or not abortion should be legal.
But to answer your question: No, I don't think those rare (though not nearly as rare as what you're referring to) cases should be the deciding factor when debating abortion.
If that's supposed to be serious, which I don't think it is, because for the first trimester (at least) the "child" is completely dependent on the host body, and considering what a pregnancy does to a woman, and the duration of it, it should be entirely her choice whether or not she wants to terminate that pregnancy.
No, I'm dead serious. I think it's ironic how people say "terminate the pregnancy." Call it what it is, killing a baby. No need to sugar coat it. Also, let's not forget that the courts have decided a mothers intent determines whether the baby should be granted rights or not. In cases where prenant mothers are murdered, often the murderer is charged with two counts of murder. They are basically saying the intent of the mother was to keep the child, so the baby is considerd human at point. Once they have come to the conclusion of the mother planning to keep the baby, all of a sudden it should be afforded rights as a human.
Also, these same people using a single mother, who doesn't want the baby and will not care for it, have a weak argument in that respect. If my dogs mother left my dog for dead, and I killed my dog because nature couldn't provide for him, these same people would be crying for animal rights.
I have gone to numerous doctors trying to find one who will permanently sterilize me; but because I am 22 they say I am "too young" and could "change my mind" despite the risk that being pregnant poses to my life.
This is a off topic, but you need a new doctor. I have a friend who had her tubes tied at 23 because she has severe diabetes, and it sounds like her chance at death was a lot lower than yours. I know some doctors are weird about it, but I have to believe someone would do this for you if your condition is truly life threatening.
abortion is a private matter between a woman, her doctor and her god if she has one. to call it murder is a way anti choice people have trying to make a woman feel guilty about her choice. a woman's can and does have the right to reproductive freedom. she should not live her life by anyones moral value but her own.
abortion is a private matter between a woman, her doctor and her god if she has one. to call it murder is a way anti choice people have trying to make a woman feel guilty about her choice. a woman's can and does have the right to reproductive freedom. she should not live her life by anyones moral value but her own.
Quite correct!
People like "Omaha" are incapable of supporting their positions with logic. It's far easier to attack, no matter how disgusting, than to intelligently and rationally discuss the issues.
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.