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.
To answer your question: a fetus has the potential for life the same as an acorn has the potential to be an oak tree. To many people a fetus is not a human life until it is viable outside the womb. That IS a fact that people disagree on when life begins.
Back when I was in school in biology class we were taught life began at conception. This was before Roe v. Wade politicized the issue. Funny, I see liberalr condemning conservatives for being anti-science when they do the same thing on this issue.
Coservatives---CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Liberals---life begins at conception. If it is two humans that did the mating it is a human life that begins.
Back when I was in school in biology class we were taught life began at conception. This was before Roe v. Wade politicized the issue. Funny, I see liberalr condemning conservatives for being anti-science when they do the same thing on this issue.
Coservatives---CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Liberals---life begins at conception. If it is two humans that did the mating it is a human life that begins.
Not to mention the case itself (Roe v. Wade) was predicated on a lie.
Maybe reading comprehension is not your strong suit because I have seen others tell you this, but pro-abortion would mean that everyone who got pregnant would have an abortion, that clearly is not the case.
It does not logically follow that if one is pro-abortion, everyone who gets pregnant would have one!
Quote:
Originally Posted by plates
On the other hand, you are anti-choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by plates
Like I said in my above post, and another fine example of your inability to put together small ideas, if you aren't born you can't die.
What's that you say? A baby cannot die until she is born? How does that work? Are you saying a baby in the womb is not alive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by plates
It also sounds like you support those who rape other people by what you are saying.
Now that's an interesting conclusion. Who has the problem with reading comprehension?
I was responding to your post, not talking about rape here. Read what you posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by plates
You can't kill something that has never been born. What's your excuse for not knowing you need to be born to die?
It is beyond my comprehension how someone would make such an ignorant statement as this.
I guess that's how you people justify what is called "partial birth abortion," in that because the baby's head has not fully emerged, it is okay to shove a sharp object into the back of her skull and suck out her brain.
That is so sick, and one who practices such a grisly procedure should herself be put to death by the same method.
The time to "choose" was prior to becoming pregnant.
Once pregnant, another human life is involved, and it's not just "your body" anymore. A child in the womb is not part of "your body." It is only receiving nourishment from you. It's flesh is different from your flesh. It's DNA is different from your DNA. It's blood is different from your blood.
So, what about the baby's right to life? What would the baby choose, if she could? Irrelevent?
Once again, it is not a "child in the womb" and it is not a "baby." It is a clump of cells. A fetus. Not a human being. It isn't infused with some magical spirit that gives it legal rights surpassing those of the woman whose uterus it is in.
What about self described pro-choicers who become anti-choice at a magic point in fetal development, such as 'viability.' Sure, there are some choicers who'd have no limits on choice in the late stages of pregnancy, but imo many, if not most, accept limits on abortion-at-will at roughly 5-6+ months. What are they ? Proanti-choice ?
They are still Pro-Choice. Being Pro-Choice means that person respects other people's right to choose to get or NOT get an abortion. Many Pro-Choice women would not and/or have never had abortions but we still recognize the societal need to keep the choice safe and legal. Most Pro-Choicers, like myself, accept limits on abortion-at-will for 3rd semester except for extremely medical reasons.
Back when I was in school in biology class we were taught life began at conception. This was before Roe v. Wade politicized the issue. Funny, I see liberalr condemning conservatives for being anti-science when they do the same thing on this issue.
Coservatives---CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Liberals---life begins at conception. If it is two humans that did the mating it is a human life that begins.
Let me guess. You went to Catholic school. In case you don't remember, the Supreme Court Roe vs Wade covered in extreme depth and detail the issue of when life begins. The religious leaders from the various denominations, scientists, the law and medical communities that testified before the court could not come to an agreement on when life begins. Through modern search many of us have come to agree that visibility works for many of us BUT other than that religious leaders, scientists and the medical community STILL don't agree. (To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.) And the pro-choicers are working hard to change laws to reflect their narrow view of when life begins with their pushing of things like the Personhood bills. Paul Ryan supports that narrow view of the topic and that makes him dangerous to many women/couples/fathers/mothers/men who believe abortion needs to be kept legal and safe.
Last edited by Wayland Woman; 08-26-2012 at 08:33 AM..
Todd Akin believed a medical myth:
The female body has the ability to "shut that thing down."
Both of these are equally ignorant.
Each seeks to escape the truth of a violent act.
Why is one worse than the other?
The view that is overwhelmingly worst and easily the most ignorant of views in the history of mankind is that held by Conservatives. No man should EVER tell a woman what she can do with her body.
As an Independent, I also don't care for how such issues are framed by Conservatives either, as you illustrate here.
They are still Pro-Choice. Being Pro-Choice means that person respects other people's right to choose to get or NOT get an abortion. Many Pro-Choice women would not and/or have never had abortions but we still recognize the societal need to keep the choice safe and legal. Most Pro-Choicers, like myself, accept limits on abortion-at-will for 3rd semester except for extremely medical reasons.
That's what I said. You're 100% 'pro-choice' up to a certain point in fetal development, then you're 99% 'anti-choice' for a woman who wants to abort for whatever reason she chooses. Unless you define pro-choice as leaving abortion up to the woman until you decide the state should impose restrictions on choice.
Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
64.4% of all abortions are performed on never-married women
Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)
That would be about 800,000 new children of single moms every year. How many of those would be on some form of government assistance? YOUR taxes will go up to pay for these children.
About half of ALL women who have abortions would qualify with just one child.
Victims of rape would be financially responsible for a decision that they didn't make. If that woman has no insurance she may get state aid. The cost of prenatal care, labor and delivery is FAR more expensive than abortion. If she doesn't qualify that is easily $10,000 out of her pocket for something she had no choice in.
Of those women who give birth say half choose to keep their children. There would be about 800,000 new children put into the adoption/foster care system. The government pays for foster care, so your taxes will be going up to pay for those children. It also adds more children to a system that is already over taxed. There are around 600,000 children currently in the system, and most of them will age out without ever being adopted. Many of those that age out have no support system. They end up on the streets, in jails, using drugs. Not all, but many. There goes more money to house those that become criminals just to survive.
In the case of the health of the mother, who pays the ADDITIONAL medical expenses? How many of those women will die?
Don't forget property taxes to pay for new schools for those extra million+ kids a year.
It sounds all nice and fluffy to say you are pro-life, but what happens to those lives after they are no longer a fetus?
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.
Conservatives have the worst view
