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've stated this before and I'll say it again......I AM NOT AGAINST ABORTIONS. First 3 1/2-4 months: I am OK with abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever. At that stage I see the embryo/fetus as something with potential but not a baby. So the woman gets that long to "think it over", which I think is reasonable. At some point along the way, that amorphous mass of cells does take on humanity and women who put off abortions until a much later point do not have my sympathy.
I can agree with your thinking. I would also say that some women don't know they are pregnant till much later, they are not just ignoring the pregnancy so they have to undergo a more costly and more difficult abortions.
A pregnancy in the middle trimester may be a threat to the mother's health or the baby may have serious (and heartbreaking) genetic problems. I'm fine with abortions but for medical reasons only in the mid-trimester. Almost all problems with the baby are known by the 6th month and while sad, abortions for medical reasons get my blessing.
I can agree with this as well
By the time the 7th month comes along, the baby is developed enough to live outside the uterus so if the woman cannot carry the pregnancy any longer, fine, go ahead and induce labor or do a C-section but try and save the baby--don't suck its brains out this far along and throw it away just because some woman has decided at this point that she really doesn't want a baby after all.
in the 7th month women don't get to have abortions on demand, by that stage in pregnancy abortions are done for medical reasons
The most conservative on the right are against abortion-on-demand for the sake of ending an unwanted pregnancy but even those will recognize there are valid medical reasons for ending a pregnancy. The left seems to think that conservatives think a woman should always continue a risky pregnancy regardless of the consequences to mother and baby but that simply is not true.
abortion is a difficult subject for sure. this is why abortion should be left between a woman and her doctor.
You have every right to do any of the following:
1.) Go participate in a wild -- fully consensual -- sex orgy.
2.) Go horseback riding through the Colorado Rocky Mountains.
3.) Go get drunk and act like a complete idiot for hours on end.
4.) Go rock climbing.
5.) Run a marathon.
6.) Run up $30,000 in credit card debt mostly buying new shoes.
7.) Post naked pictures of yourself on the Internet.
-- And IMHO, you should have the right to go get high as a kite on heroine or any other illicit drug you prefer.
Why do you have a right to do all of these things? Because if there is a victim, then the only victim is yourself.
Things we don't have a right to do:
1.) Kick the dog to death because you had a stressful day.
2.) Beat our children into unconsciousness when they annoy you.
3.) Beat the crap out of your spouse for not having dinner ready when you wanted.
4.) Rape anyone you find extremely attractive.
5.) Kidnap somebody else's child and raise it as your own because you didn't have any children.
6.) Mug somebody on the street everything of value they have.
none of the above has anything to do with abortion
Good rule to live by: Your right to swing your fist around ends when it comes into contact with somebody else's nose. Abortion does not fit that category because there is definitely a victim: The unborn child. That victim pays the ultimate price in being killed in order to satisfy the needs/wants/complexities of life of the mother who aborts her child -- all of which happens whether he/she (the unborn baby) wants to live or not.
the "victim" is a blob of cells most of the time without thought or pain sensors, it can not sustain life outside of the womans womb. the woman's body trumps that of a fetus.
Excellent thought and I'd like to expand upon it! I think that doctor assisted suicide should be a standard required part of the process of getting your medical licence. If you don't know how to competently help somebody kill themselves, then you don't get to be a medical doctor. Hey, let's open assisted suicide clinics while we're at it!
assisted suicide has nothing to do with abortion.
While we're at it, we need more doctors who are willing to train parents in the fine art of using sedatives and stimulants to get their young children to be calm when they want them calm and energetic when wanted. And a little training and materials would go a long ways for husbands who want to off their good for nothing nagging wives -- via impossible to trace poisoning. Wives should likewise be able to get rid of good for nothing lazy husbands in the same way. We're all about making people's lives better! Everyone wins!
you can't make rational argument that you have to make outrageous scenarios that have nothing to do with abortions to back your opinions
Answer to both points is simple. If the notion of procreation is so utterly offensive and horrible. If you feel like you are now forced to become breeding stock, there's a good ol' farmer's solution for you! It's a solution that really and truly involves your choice that is about your body, only your body and absolutely will not hurt anyone else: GET A HYSTERECTOMY!! Hell, push the government to provide them free of charge to any woman who wants one!
a woman can have a baby when she wants. just because she may not want one at twenty or 30 doesn't mean that at 35 she feels ready to have a child. women get their tubes tied all the time, women use birth control it fails. women plan pregnancies with their mates only to be left by them to raise a child on their own. circumstances change.
I get that there are a lot of the extenuating circumstances and agree that abortion should be an option in cases of rape, incest, severe deformity, when the mother's life/health is in danger, etc. But if women can act like idiots and not bother to use birth control and then force the government to pay for it -- then men should be able to get a penis enlargement and do it on the US Government's dime. After all, "it's my body, it's nobody's business but mine. I have a right to an enlargement!"
again women do use birth control and sometimes it fails. should she have to raise a child even when she did all she could to avoid getting pregnant. or would you rather she just didn't have sex at all? men have sex all the time without worry of pregnancy. women are equal and have the right to the same.
While I do disagree with abortion in most cases, if the majority voice of the people has spoken and abortion is made legal then I'll just have to live with that. What irritates me is the Supreme Court hijacking the issue with no shred of Constitutional basis to speak of. The US Constitution does not mention pregnancy. It doesn't define when life officially begins. It does not explain when and how human rights are gained. The Constitution is quite explicit about what you do next: Any power not granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution reverts to the States. That's where it always should have been anyways.
all americans have the right to privacy. a woman's medical issues are private and protected.
the "victim" is a blob of cells most of the time without thought or pain sensors, it can not sustain life outside of the womans womb. the woman's body trumps that of a fetus. "
A.) You to are a blob of cells. What specific characteristic of the blob of cells that is you gives you the blob of cells any rights? What specific things does a fetus lack that causes them to lose their rights? If we can find a person who somehow lacks in those same areas to any degree, can we really call it murder if I just shoot them? How long of a list of characteristics do we need and WHERE ON EARTH is the list of "it's alive!" qualifiers come from? Is it written down somewhere? Where?
B.) A two year old child also cannot sustain their own life outside the womb unassisted. I think you have to get to about 8 or 10 years old before a child really has a chance of survival without any assistance whatsoever. Does this mean we can abort everyone under the age of 8 too?
C.) Your statement: "the woman's body trumps that of the fetus." ... I'm afraid you have a very poor understanding of how pregnancy works. You see, the growing fetus does not kill the mother and then consume her flesh in order to survive. Actually in the vast vast majority of cases, both mother and child will surivive the process. So it's not a choice between the woman's body and the baby's body at all. They both get to live! I'm kinda surprised you didn't know that.
Quote:
assisted suicide has nothing to do with abortion.
Sure it does! Three words for you: CONTROVERSIAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE. If you get to legalize one controversial procedure, then what's wrong with legalizing all other controversial procedures? What right do we have to tell Aunt Bertha that she can't go over to her family doctor's office and kill herself? It's her body! It's strictly between her and her doctor! It's nobody else's business!
Quote:
you can't make rational argument that you have to make outrageous scenarios that have nothing to do with abortions to back your opinions
I should have explained better. You mentioned that if abortion were to be made illegal, all women who want one will just grab the nearest coat hanger, shove it in and go for the do-it-yourself option.
I'm saying this is an unbelievably stupid thing to do. And yet, people do stupid things all the time for stupid reasons. Men murder their wives. Women murder their husbands. People abuse their pets, children and other family members. If the ultimate solution is, "Stop them from being an idiot by legalizing the stupid thing they're about to do and sell them a safer way to do that same stupid thing," then why discriminate?? Help one spouse murder the other more cleanly and efficiently. Help parents control their children's behavior. Come up with professional services that help people beat their children more efficiently. Etc, etc, etc.
Or ... you might want to concede that stupid behavior -- even stupid behavior often done by similar demographics of people -- isn't grounds for legalizing anything.
Quote:
a woman can have a baby when she wants. just because she may not want one at twenty or 30 doesn't mean that at 35 she feels ready to have a child.
Right and a histerectomy would ruin that. Gotcha. But doesn't going from "being the victim of a forced human breeding program and being treated like lifestock!" to "I want a baby to love and raise for my very own!" ... doesn't that logical progression seem completely insane?? Or is it just me?
Quote:
women get their tubes tied all the time, women use birth control it fails. women plan pregnancies with their mates only to be left by them to raise a child on their own. circumstances change.
A.) Use of birth control methods -- condoms, pills, the works -- would at least help matters. Not foolproof certainly, but generally pretty reliable nonetheless. The USA is number one in the world for teenage pregnancy because too many Americans aren't bothering to use some form of birth control.
B.) Clearly, the widespread occurance of men leaving their wives and disappearing for the rest of their children's lives -- surely this merits retroactive abortion rights. If a single mother's ex isn't paying child support and has disappeared with out a trace, it's only common sense that mother has a right to kill her children! She'd have aborted them from the start if she'd only known that her hubby would ditch her!
Seriously though, there are hundreds of thousands of childless couples out there who would dearly love to raise a baby for their very own! Unfortunately, they'll never get a chance. Adoption is ridiculously expensive -- average price is $30,000! Part of the problem is abortion -- the babies they would have adopted normally are being killed at an alarming rate before they are born. This creates scarcity. Scarcity creates high demand for low supply and economics drives the price way up. That plus all the legal hurdles you have to deal lead to some seriously outrageous lawyer fees.
Quote:
all americans have the right to privacy. a woman's medical issues are private and protected.
And all Americans have an even greater right to not have their life terminated on the whim or life agenda of another person. That right trumps the living crap out of a woman's right to privacy!
What you do behind closed doors is nobody's business -- ONLY IF NOONE AND NOTHING IS HURT IN THE PROCESS! Well, I'd say terminating a life qualifies as doing harm. The Supreme Court ruled in Roe v Wade on the grounds of right to privacy, but they forgot something very important: If a man kills his wife and kids in the privacy of his own home, his right to privacy is pretty irrelevant, right? If they were strinking down an anti-mastrabation law, then "right to privacy" would at least make some kind of sense.
A.) Use of birth control methods -- condoms, pills, the works -- would at least help matters. Not foolproof certainly, but generally pretty reliable nonetheless. The USA is number one in the world for teenage pregnancy because too many Americans aren't bothering to use some form of birth control.
Of course you're overlooking, or wilfully ignoring , the fact that the rabid anti-abortionists would outlaw birth control if they had the chance.
The reason they can't at present is the same line of Supreme Court precedents that protect abortion rights. Get rid of one and the same principle supports prohibiting contraception. Then be prepared to pay for the results of abstinence only.
A.) You to are a blob of cells. What specific characteristic of the blob of cells that is you gives you the blob of cells any rights? I live outside of a womb and do not need it to continue to live. huge difference
What specific things does a fetus lack that causes them to lose their rights? a fetus is unable to live outside the womb, without rights. once born it has rights
If we can find a person who somehow lacks in those same areas to any degree, can we really call it murder if I just shoot them? How long of a list of characteristics do we need and WHERE ON EARTH is the list of "it's alive!" qualifiers come from? Is it written down somewhere? Where?
yes, it is alive once it is born and able to live outside the womb
B.) A two year old child also cannot sustain their own life outside the womb unassisted. I think you have to get to about 8 or 10 years old before a child really has a chance of survival without any assistance whatsoever. Does this mean we can abort everyone under the age of 8 too? anyone can take care of a baby the minute it is born, it does not require the womb of the person pregnant. once born anyone who wants to "Parent" it can. huge differnce
C.) Your statement: "the woman's body trumps that of the fetus." ... I'm afraid you have a very poor understanding of how pregnancy works. You see, the growing fetus does not kill the mother and then consume her flesh in order to survive. if you want to use dramatic words that go to the extreme. then let me use the medical term of parasite. the fetus is a parasite. sure the woman mostly survives that doesn't mean she should be forced to endure the process if she doesn't want to. Actually in the vast vast majority of cases, both mother and child will surivive the process. So it's not a choice between the woman's body and the baby's body at all. They both get to live! I'm kinda surprised you didn't know that.
that choice belongs to the individual woman
Sure it does! Three words for you: CONTROVERSIAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE. If you get to legalize one controversial procedure, then what's wrong with legalizing all other controversial procedures? What right do we have to tell Aunt Bertha that she can't go over to her family doctor's office and kill herself? It's her body! It's strictly between her and her doctor! It's nobody else's business! I would be ok with assisted suicide if the law was regulated with limits just like abortion is now.
I should have explained better. You mentioned that if abortion were to be made illegal, all women who want one will just grab the nearest coat hanger, shove it in and go for the do-it-yourself option.
I'm saying this is an unbelievably stupid thing to do. And yet, people do stupid things all the time for stupid reasons. Men murder their wives. Women murder their husbands. People abuse their pets, children and other family members. If the ultimate solution is, "Stop them from being an idiot by legalizing the stupid thing they're about to do and sell them a safer way to do that same stupid thing," then why discriminate?? Help one spouse murder the other more cleanly and efficiently. Help parents control their children's behavior. Come up with professional services that help people beat their children more efficiently. Etc, etc, etc.
again you bring in "stupid" things people do that have nothing to do with abortion. giving a man or woman permission to murder their spouse is not like abortion in any way.
Or ... you might want to concede that stupid behavior -- even stupid behavior often done by similar demographics of people -- isn't grounds for legalizing anything.
abortion was legalized because it is none of your business what I do with my body or my medical choices.
Right and a histerectomy would ruin that. Gotcha. so to you if at 18 you don't want children you should get a hysterectomy so you can't have kids. if you change your mind when you mature a bit more, you are just SOL? But doesn't going from "being the victim of a forced human breeding program and being treated like lifestock!" to "I want a baby to love and raise for my very own!" ... doesn't that logical progression seem completely insane?? Or is it just me? yes, it is just you and a few others. want to make sure no one has an abortion...that means women are forced to give birth if they want to or not. yes that is being treated like livestock. life changes and so does the ability to want and care for children, just because at 25 you don't want a child doesn't mean you won't someday change your mind. so yes, you can want not to be treated like breeding stock and still someday want your own baby to love and care for.
A.) Use of birth control methods -- condoms, pills, the works -- would at least help matters. Not foolproof certainly, but generally pretty reliable nonetheless. The USA is number one in the world for teenage pregnancy because too many Americans aren't bothering to use some form of birth control. birth control should be free and have easy access along with sex education so we can lower teen pregnancy. most pro life folks want none of it.
B.) Clearly, the widespread occurance of men leaving their wives and disappearing for the rest of their children's lives -- surely this merits retroactive abortion rights. If a single mother's ex isn't paying child support and has disappeared with out a trace, it's only common sense that mother has a right to kill her children! She'd have aborted them from the start if she'd only known that her hubby would ditch her!
this rhetoric is hateful and inflammatory and complete and utter bullsh*t.
you want to ignore all reason thats on you. however I know the difference between a full grown adult. a baby that is born and living to that of a 1 inch fetus that looks like a small shrimp, that can't live outside of the good graces of it's womb.
Seriously though, there are hundreds of thousands of childless couples out there who would dearly love to raise a baby for their very own! Unfortunately, they'll never get a chance. Adoption is ridiculously expensive -- average price is $30,000! Part of the problem is abortion -- the babies they would have adopted normally are being killed at an alarming rate before they are born. This creates scarcity. Scarcity creates high demand for low supply and economics drives the price way up. That plus all the legal hurdles you have to deal lead to some seriously outrageous lawyer fees. I agree we need easier ways to adopt. however adoption isn't the answer in all unwanted pregnancies. many children go unadopted and spend their lives in foster care. many get adopted by parents who are indifferent or cruel. yes, lots and lots of great adoptive parents out there but it is not the case all the time.
And all Americans have an even greater right to not have their life terminated on the whim or life agenda of another person. That right trumps the living crap out of a woman's right to privacy! sorry until that "life" is a real life it doesn't trump the woman's right to be in control of her own reproductive system.
What you do behind closed doors is nobody's business -- ONLY IF NOONE AND NOTHING IS HURT IN THE PROCESS! Well, I'd say terminating a life qualifies as doing harm. The Supreme Court ruled in Roe v Wade on the grounds of right to privacy, but they forgot something very important: If a man kills his wife and kids in the privacy of his own home, his right to privacy is pretty irrelevant, right? If they were strinking down an anti-mastrabation law, then "right to privacy" would at least make some kind of sense.
argue abortion with abortion and not abortion to murder of a living full on adult or other person. you might think because in both cases something "dies" it makes sense, it doesn't because dang it...that fetus is a parasite and needs a receptive womb
Roe v. Wade states, that not even a congressional law can ban abortions.
The big lie and talking point of the corrupt Progressive left.
Skew the truth, for the uneducated. Say it enough and idiots will believe you and the evidence is abundant here.
Privately funded abortions are no problem what so ever.
Government funded abortions, using taxes is not going to fly with any Conservative mind.
That is why there is the Hyde Amendment. Government funded abortions do not exist except in rare cases (rape, incest, life/severe health of mother) problem solved. That was passed in the 1970s. The source is a rightwinger website.
don't like abortion don't have one. a woman can make up her own mind if she wants to have one or not and it is no one's business but the woman who finds herself needing to make the choice. taxpayers don't pay for abortions, even if they did the taxpayer doesn't get to opt out of taxes they don't like. if that was the case we would not be at war.
You idiot, Neocons or the religion party has only done social issues that are designed to make it as hard or impossible for women to get an abortion. They are even hoping for a case to go back to the supreme court and with its one vote toward the religious right they could over turn RVW. What have they done since 2010 but try to restrict abortion and cut taxes for the rich? You gun nuts will say the most simple law that restricts a criminal from getting an assault rifle is an attempt to ban all guns but when the right passes laws to restrict access to abortion its just common sense regulation. You idiots love regulation when its for you biblical pushing agenda but if its for clean water or air its GOVERNMENT INTRUSION ON OUR FREEDOM!!!!!!!!
You don't have the freedom to kill, government is the only one that gets to do that! That was a joke, but it's a deadly serious one.
Women are not getting as many abortions as in the past - and if they had to pay for them, and get parental consent - we could reduce them further. That's in everyone's interest, is it not?
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.
