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.
Just a thought, this entire dicussion is moot, since we know that the SC will strike down the stupidity of the AZ Legislature and their moonbat crazy Governor. Personally I think they do this sort of crap because they want attention, makes me wonder if she is not planning on running for the Whitehouse in 2016, she could be the next Bauchmann
Are you for real? If the mother dies then so does her baby. Therefore, the mother must be saved if both cannot. Now you are going off on more strawman arguments again, geesh. You are getting ridiculous now and calling me a hypocrite is an insult and against the forum rules. I am done with people like you that can't debate with civility. Bye.
Actually in many cases there are circumstances where the mother will survive long enough to give birth to the fetus. For example, if the mother gets diagnosed with cancer while pregnant. Or a diagnosis that happened to a family member of mine, pregnancy induced kidney failure.
My cousin likely would have been able to carry that fetus to term due to dialysis and other techniques. And then she would have faced life and death on the transplant list.
So, answer the question. In your opinion, was it MURDER for my cousin to terminate her pregnancy to preserve her health and potentially her life? You think life begins at conception, therefore based on your beliefs you should be claiming abortion should be illegal in every circumstance regardless of the consequences to the woman. The fact that you don't means you dont think a fetus is the exact equivalent of a human. So all you are quibbling about is WHEN life begins.
And FYI, the secondary or backup effect of many oral contraceptives is by preventing implantation AFTER CONCEPTION. Should these contraceptives be outlawed as well since based on your personal beliefs they result in murder?
I oppose abortion except when necessary to protect the life of the mother.
Why?
Because it is murder? Because a fetus is a person?
If you think a fetus is a person than you are hypocrite in claiming that it should be allowed to protect the life of the mother. You wouldn't think it was morally or legally acceptable to harvest organs from a two year old to save the life of it mother correct?
Maybe because one takes place much earlier in a pregnany?
I didn't read his post, but that would be a difference right?
You know, early term vs late term?
I actually agree with this stance in the abstract at least but most of the anti-abortion camp believe life begins at conception. If that is the case, and the belief system involves a fetus as equivalent to a baby than there is no legal or moral ground where any abortion in any case is every legal.
Not in cases of rape, or incest. Not even if the "woman" is a 10 yr old. Not in the case of saving the life and health of the mother.
But, if a woman has a man's child...in the event of a divorce she is entitled to dig in a man's pockets at the tune of half....even if what he earned was prior to the existence of their relationship.
A woman is also entitled to property and has, barring extreme circumstances, unquestionable rights to the children....
All because she carried and delivered.
A woman can use the state to totally ruin a man's life in the event she decides she no longer wants to deal with him anymore..
Yea... REAL ATTACK ON WOMEN...there needs to be MORE attacks on women if you ask me.
But, if a woman has a man's child...in the event of a divorce she is entitled to dig in a man's pockets at the tune of half....even if what he earned was prior to the existence of their relationship.
A woman is also entitled to property and has, barring extreme circumstances, unquestionable rights to the children....
All because she carried and delivered.
A woman can use the state to totally ruin a man's life in the event she decides she no longer wants to deal with him anymore..
Yea... REAL ATTACK ON WOMEN...there needs to be MORE attacks on women if you ask me.
Huge thread hijack here bub.
That being said, I agree with the idea. Due to basic biology women should be allowed to control their reproductive rights. That also means they should have more reproductive responsibility.
Additionally, I do not think mothers should automatically get preference in a divorce case and in many states that is no longer the case.
Aside from that I think the rest of the post is histrionics. Women are no more in a position to "ruin" anyone's life then men.
it is a war on women and their right to privacy and health care. women who can get pregnant does not make them the breeders for women who can't have children. a woman has the right to control her own reproductive live.
There is a difference between a woman who can get pregnant and a woman who does get pregnant. Abortion is NOT health care. There are actually health concerns and risks associated with abortion too. But we won't talk about those because it's not politically correct.
Migee & Guamanians, you wanted to know why we don't come forward. That's it, right there. Thanks for the example, clb.
You have to decide what is right. Life is too short to worry about what other people might say or do. If life gives you a second chance then we should make the most of it.
I wholeheartedly agree with your last couple of sentences, and I respect you for walking the walk when so many can only talk the talk.
well this topic can get pretty ugly especially in a message type format. I'm just trying to discuss w/o offending.
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.