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.
Some women do, but it doesn't matter. As a whole we have recognized that children born into poverty or without financial support isn't appropriate. The only alternative to the government is the people who created it...the woman and the man. We all know this and can't claim ignorance. This is also where freedom and personal responsibility come in and why, if you'd rather be doing something else with your tongues besides talk to the person you are about to inseminate, you might just have to deal with things you don't like later on.
But you ignore a valid point.
The woman has a choice, the man doesn't.
I think both partners should have a choice, not just one.
Both parties got a say in the sexual encounter - equal
One party gets a say in what happens from that night forward.
Can a fetus inside the first three months live without the mother?
No
Its not living
A heart beat does not mean its alive. Lots of brain dead people with beating hearts in ICU's
So why are they in ICU's and not in graveyards? Because they are still considered living? Or is it just a technicality allowing hospitals to continue billing dead people?
More specifically to your statement, a two week old infant cannot survive on it's own either, and will certainly die within 7-10 days without feeding ... more likely sooner, therefore such an argument is intellectually bankrupt, if not morally so. Medically, the presence of brain activity and a heartbeat is the definition of life as that applies to human beings, with the absence thereof being required for the legal pronouncement of certifiable death. Therefore the presence of both would logically and legally define "living".
We've always had people that claim other people really aren't human beings, and therefore don't really deserve consideration as human beings. That's what you are doing here, whether you realize it or not.
And, case in point .... numerous accounts of people being charged with TWO counts of murder or manslaughter when the victim is a pregnant mother.
If the mother is count 1, who is count 2 ? Oh yes, that would be the unborn living baby.
So why are they in ICU's and not in graveyards? Because they are still considered living? Or is it just a technicality allowing hospitals to continue billing dead people?
More specifically to your statement, a two week old infant cannot survive on it's own either, and will certainly die within 7-10 days without feeding ... more likely sooner, therefore such an argument is intellectually bankrupt, if not morally so. Medically, the presence of brain activity and a heartbeat is the definition of life as that applies to human beings, with the absence thereof being required for the legal pronouncement of certifiable death. Therefore the presence of both would logically and legally define "living".
We've always had people that claim other people really aren't human beings, and therefore don't really deserve consideration as human beings. That's what you are doing here, whether you realize it or not.
And, case in point .... numerous accounts of people being charged with TWO counts of murder or manslaughter when the victim is a pregnant mother.
If the mother is count 1, who is count 2 ? Oh yes, that would be the unborn living baby.
Because some humans irrationally cling to the belief that a human body has a spirit, and others don't.
Yes indeed. And that seems to be one of the big dichotomies in the realm of "freedom".
Personally, I'm a libertarian minded type person who rejects the idea that morality can be legislated, or forced. Yet there is an endless list of items for which we do indeed "force" behavior to conform to a certain standard. We have innumerable laws that punish individuals if they inflict harm, or even risk inflicting harm on others ... from laws prohibiting violence against others, to laws that prohibit drinking alcohol and driving an automobile, which is purely preventative in nature. After all, just drinking and driving hurts no one unless there is an accident. So this is a form of demanding certain behavior to prevent the potential situation of risking harm to others.
With the issue of abortion, the question is pretty clear. Either the developing baby is a human being who deserves protection from being harmed by others, or it is not a human being that is due such protection. It really is as simple as that. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the "right" of the mother, or individual choice, or "none of your business" crap .... because no one in a civil society has the right to inflict harm on another human being, unless it is an act of self defense.
So one could consider an abortion in the case of a pregnancy that poses a risk to the mother's life ... or those cases occurring from rape or incest as an act of self defense .. and I would agree with that. But for the 90% of abortions that are had for the reasons of "convenience" ... the question seems clear ... is that baby a human being that has the right of being protected from harm or not. None of the other arguments are legitimate.
So this business about us living in a "free country" is total BS. You are never free to inflict harm on, or end the life of another human being simply for your personal convenience. And we have numerous laws that support that philosophy, and rightly so.
So, if an unborn baby is indeed a living human being, then you DO NOT have the right to choose to kill it simply for convenience. You can use a simple example as a comparison scenario. Once a baby is born, let's say it's two weeks old, the mother has the lawful responsibility to feed and care for that infant, and can be prosecuted for neglect, or intentionally harming it. And I think most people would agree that if a mother took her infant child and drown it in the bathtub because she just didn't want the responsibility of caring for the infant, most would agree that the mother committed a heinous act, and deserves to be punished.
So what is the real difference between that and aborting the child a few weeks before it was born? The only answer to that can be that the unborn child is not a living human being. Of course, by most reasonable definitions .... pro-choice advocates would lose the argument, if the issue were to be decided by that criteria. That's because we have pretty strong evidence that suggests that unborn babies display the same generally accepted signs of being a living human being very early on ... heartbeat and brain activity being the major two signs of life.
NOW, what say you about "none of your business"? Should we all adopt the same mentality if someone finds it convenient to break into your home tonight and end your life? Should we just say ... "well, it's none of our business"? Is that the "Free Country" you want to live in?
Heartbeat, maybe, but meaningful brain activity doesn't take place until sometime in the third trimester.
Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States
Please note that almost 90% of all abortions take place in the first trimester, well before one of the essential (as determined by you) signs of life develop.
So, to answer your question, YES - it is most certainly none of your business.
They've been asked to show their records and refuse to be audited, that's a crime.
That's funny.
I googled "planned parenthood independent audit" and came up with about a dozen or so links to independent audits of different chapters. And Planned Parenthood's 990 is on its website, along with annual reports. In the annual reports, you'll see audited figures and an address of the auditing firm.
Please inform yourself -- or at least attempt to -- before you make uneducated statements.
Your view about men is pretty shameful. Not all men, think this way and your hate for the opposite sex is a little worrisome.
Plenty of women are "sluts" and go out on men also, while the men are at sitting home with the kids.
After all the posts about irresponsible women who should just "close their legs" and their mothers, who didn't teach them to do so, you're getting hacked off about a joke about MEN? Gimme a break!
Once again an anti-choicer PROVES that punishment of women is what they're really all about.
When abortions were illegal women still got abortions...but you can take great delight in the fact that many died from them....is that punishment enough for YOU????
Just because you have not an iota of base level human compassion or respect for life doesn't mean others suffer the same psychological defect.
Roughly 80% of those that become pregnant each year don't view it as a punishment for having sex. They view it as a natural byproduct of sex, and as much of a shock as this might be for you, a lot of them actually consider it to be a cause for celebration.
Then we have you and others of your mindset that get all tingly and warm over the idea of abortion on demand, with each instance of legal action securing that right, a champagne moment.
It's no wonder you consider the label "Pro-Life" a derogatory.
I find it funny that many people who are pro choice, aren't pro choice for the male as well as the female.
Now you sound like you are only defending the woman, and not the men also.
When they can take the embryo out of the woman and put it into the man for him to carry, he can have a say. But after he's impregnated a woman. he loses his choice. Why should he have a say over someone else's body?
And when you answer with the inevitable "why should the woman have a say over the embryo's body?" the answer would be, if the embryo can live on it's own...fine. Let it. But a person gets to choose what she wants to do with her body.
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.
