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.
Wrong, you act like the state is forcing a woman to have sex against her will and have a child, like in the handmaid's tale.. The state is PREVENTING her from unnaturally terminating a natural process.
Actually, about 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Miscarriage is a natural process, with abortion it's simply induced knowingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by betamanlet
Oh, so women are beyond being expected to obey laws? Should rape and murder be legalized becuase they'll just do it anyways?
Many people break laws if they find the law robs them of their rights. Even when abortion was illegal, women still received them. They just did it under the guise of treating 'stomach issues' or 'women problems'. Rape and murder hurt another sentient being... how can you compare those two to having an induced miscarriage?
Gee, what gave it away, the name? We've established yo uare a woman. Please tell me your user name doesn't mean you are a fighter pilot.
Quote:
Do you have any idea how pregnancy affects the body for the rest of a woman's life? Not just aesthetically, but internally? You're asking a woman to go through a pregnancy, possibly die during childbirth all to make you feel warm and fuzzy that you 'saved' a child? Now what if that mother asks for WIC, or welfare, or section 8? I'm sure that because she was forced to incubate and have that child that you're more than happy to support her and her 'little miracle', right?
First, in the US (which is the scope we are talking about) it is far more lifethrreatening to have an abortion than a live birth. Complications from an abortion are greater than from a live birth as well. So, if yo uwant to argue the affects to the mother's body (an extremely sefish argument if there ever was one) then you're argument is dead in the water on the facts.
WIC, welfare, section 8 are poorly implemented programs designed to breed dependence. Those and other solutions need to be looked into and better solutions made. However, you are missing one very important point. Nowhere did I ever assume that the woman would be allowed to KEEP the baby that she didn't want and, in your scenario, can't afford.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtoli
It remains legal as you cannot force a woman to transplant her fetus.
Why not? The government uses child protective services to take children away from parents who endanger their wellfare all the time. I'd say attempting to kill them in the womb certainly counts as 'endangering their wellfare'.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,353 posts, read 54,549,829 times
Reputation: 40820
Quote:
Originally Posted by betamanlet
If they weren't raped, then there are consequences for actions, are they not, or should everyone be able to kill things that are not convient to them?
You enable irresponsibility. I'm not one of those people who thinks abortion shouldn't be allowed for rape or the life of the mother. I have a problem with it being used as a form of birth contorl, which just enables irresponsible behavior.
What's truly irresponsible is wanting to put what should be a personal medical/moral decison in the hands of goverment.
Just the typical hypocrisy of the right who despite claims of favoring less government are right on the front lines beating the drums for more when it suits their agenda.
I hope the remaining medical community in NJ can pick up the slack. PP has quite a cilent base that has nothing to do with abortions and those people will be going elsewhere and needing free and/or reduced care now.
Oh, so women are beyond being expected to obey laws? Should rape and murder be legalized becuase they'll just do it anyways?
Back in the days when abortion was illegal, I had one. I didn't want to have it, but my husband forced me to.
Guess where I had the abortion?
Washington, D.C. I think it was on J Street.
Prostitutes were going in and out like the place had a revolving door.
The abortionist was a man. The doctor in my home state who gave us the information was a man. So, I think you should amend your statement to read "Oh, so women and men are beyond..."
I am not against abortion if a woman chooses to have one, however, needless to say, my marriage didn't last too long after that experience.
What's truly irresponsible is wanting to put what should be a personal medical/moral decison in the hands of goverment.
Just the typical hypocrisy of the right who despite claims of favoring less government are right on the front lines beating the drums for more when it suits their agenda.
You can't donate an organ to just anyone.
You cannot sell an organ
So why should you be able to kill your child because it's not convenient to you?
I have to sing a log book just to buy sinus medicine, yet you can kill your child?
A 13 year old boy cannot even get stitches in a hospital without parent CONSENT, yet a 13 year old girl can get an abortion without even parential notification, let alone CONSENT.
Back in the days when abortion was illegal, I had one. I didn't want to have it, but my husband forced me to.
Guess where I had the abortion?
Washington, D.C. I think it was on J Street.
Prostitutes were going in and out like the place had a revolving door.
The abortionist was a man. The doctor in my home state who gave us the information was a man. So, I think you should amend your statement to read "Oh, so women and men are beyond..."
I am not against abortion if a woman chooses to have one, however, needless to say, my marriage didn't last too long after that experience.
There is no J Street in DC other than a lobbyist group with that name.
Just the typical hypocrisy of the right who despite claims of favoring less government are right on the front lines beating the drums for more when it suits their agenda.
We (conservatives) DO believe in less and a more limited government but that doesn't mean we are for NO government. There are still some roles for government and I think protecting the lives of all its citizens (not convited of a major crime) is one of those roles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier
Back in the days when abortion was illegal, I had one. I didn't want to have it, but my husband forced me to.
I am truely sorry to hear of your experience. It most have been terrible. The position of pro-/against abortion does not fall along gender lines. As your case shows selfish men have as much to gain from abortions as selfish women.
So why should you be able to kill your child because it's not convenient to you?
I have to sing a log book just to buy sinus medicine, yet you can kill your child?
A 13 year old boy cannot even get stitches in a hospital without parent CONSENT, yet a 13 year old girl can get an abortion without even parential notification, let alone CONSENT.
Why the huge double standards?
Well said. Add to that list that there are more regulations on animal clinics than there re for abortion mills. I guess the animals have beeter lobbists than the unborn babies do.
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.
