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.
No, I don't believe human life needs to be protected at its earliest stages. That does not mean it ain't human life. This ain't that complicated.
Life begins at conception. Case closed.
A little hypocritical and contradictory of you, isn't it, to say that life begins at conception but you don't believe that the early stages of life need to be protected? If they don't need protecting then why object to abortion in the early stages? At what point do they need protecting in your opinion? And why don't you think abortions should be preformed before that point if you truly believe that life begins at conception?
A little hypocritical and contradictory of you, isn't it, to say that life begins at conception but you don't believe that the early stages of life need to be protected? If they don't need protecting then why object to abortion in the early stages? At what point do they need protecting in your opinion? And why don't you think abortions should be preformed before that point if you truly believe that life begins at conception?
I believe it is perfectly OK to destroy human life at its ealiest stages. So do you. You just won't admit it.
I believe it is perfectly OK to destroy human life at its ealiest stages. So do you. You just won't admit it.
Don't make assumptions and don't put words in other people's mouths. I don't believe that life begins at conception and therefore an abortion performed in the early stage is not destroying human life in my opinion. You are welcome to your opinion....BUT I am the expert on what I think.
Don't make assumptions and don't put words in other people's mouths. I don't believe that life begins at conception and therefore an abortion performed in the early stage is not destroying human life in my opinion. You are welcome to your opinion....BUT I am the expert on what I think.
It's not up to men or government to tell a woman what to do but it is the governments job to ensure the safety of others.
In situations like abortion, someone has to get cut loose, whether it's...
The fetus that's being aborted
The emotional, physical, and financial factors of the mother
The medical/judicial safety of the mother
how about some facts?
The fetus being aborted: no choice in the matter.
The emotional, physical and financial factors of the mother: well, don't get pregnant then. There is always adoption, you guys like to overlook that, and also like to throw out nonsensical "facts" about "orphanages" and "overburdened systems."
The medical safety of the mother: I would like to know what circumstances you believe warrant aborting a child to save the mother.
I noticed you did not say for the child's benefit in the case of birth defects or chromosomal abnormalities. How nice. Shows where your true intentions lie, and they are not with the child.
ANYWAY, as to the OP, yes, I agree both are ignorant, but one is only worse than the other b/c the media portrays it to be, and b/c it's new. The first option has been said a thousand times over, so while most of us are still offended by it, we know how to respond relatively calmly.
The emotional, physical and financial factors of the mother: well, don't get pregnant then. There is always adoption, you guys like to overlook that, and also like to throw out nonsensical "facts" about "orphanages" and "overburdened systems."
The medical safety of the mother: I would like to know what circumstances you believe warrant aborting a child to save the mother.
I noticed you did not say for the child's benefit in the case of birth defects or chromosomal abnormalities. How nice. Shows where your true intentions lie, and they are not with the child.
ANYWAY, as to the OP, yes, I agree both are ignorant, but one is only worse than the other b/c the media portrays it to be, and b/c it's new. The first option has been said a thousand times over, so while most of us are still offended by it, we know how to respond relatively calmly.
I had a shirt-tail relative who gave birth to two sons born without legs. If that had happened after ultrasound was invented and the parents could have been given a choice whether or not they were up to the extreme challenges those births brought into their lives, I don't think anyone else has the right to judge them if they had aborted.
Still not the choice the government should be making of a woman's body. Deciding what to do with a fetus is one of the hardest choices a woman has to make, but it should be her choice to decide if she is ready for a baby or not, unless you are saying the government should take care of all babies until they are adults, which I doubt is the case, and I would still stand by my point of view that the government should not be in control of a woman's body like this.
I had a shirt-tail relative who gave birth to two sons born without legs. If that had happened after ultrasound was invented and the parents could have been given a choice whether or not they were up to the extreme challenges those births brought into their lives, I don't think anyone else has the right to judge them if they had aborted.
Personally, I would have had them killed.
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.
