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.
There is something radical ideological liberals like yourself don't realize about Roe v Wade. In the unlikely event it ever gets overturned that won't ban abortion. It will send the issue back to the states in which the states would probably vote to either allow or ban it. You would therefore be able to kill your baby in California but you could not in Mississippi. The only way abortion will ever be banned nationally is if a constitutional amendment gets passed banning it, which is pretty much impossible given the divisiveness of this issue.
Why don't you research these issues instead of just spouting liberal talking points...
The problem with the states rights thing on this issue is that you'd be allowing states to ban a RIGHT. A person's body is their own property and they can do with it what they choose.
I believe in states rights, but for tax and healthcare issues, not individual rights. Those are granted to us by the fact that we are human beings. Our constitution cannot take away rights, it merely serves as a safeguard from the idiots we elect to our government.
Legal abortion helps a country in many ways. Abortion is a horrible thing, but illegal abortion is worse.
Do you people not remember the idiocy of the Volstead Act? When you prohibit something which is a significant activity in the lives of the citizens, all it does is increase the damage associated with that activity. It creates a black market and it increases danger. If you vote to make Abortion illegal and a girl dies from a back-alley abortion after the law goes into effect, you are guilty of murder.
What biblical brainwashing. Where does the bible say don't get an abortion?
All religion is based in brainwashing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie
Where does the Bible say, "Thou shalt not commit abortion"?
It doesn't. Most religious wackadoos equate abortion with murder, and therefore use that commandment to justify forcing women to endure the pain and mental anguish of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.
Plus, eliminate religion from the country and abortion is a complete non-issue. The anti-abortion crowd is OVERWHELMINGLY Christian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim
Then how do you explain this to the 46% of women who are pro-life?
I happen to know a highly educated female health care professional who has given birth a few times ... let me ask her and I'll get back to you.
More than half the women of actual child-birthing age are pro-choice.
Who cares what a 55+ year old woman has to say on the subject? She's barren and should have no say in the reproductive issues relating to women who actually have the ability to have children.
Only women who have the physical capabilities should really have a say in this issue. Women who are post-menopause have as little right to decide this issue as men do. They're not voting to restrict their own rights, they're voting to restrict the rights of others.
Then again, you will never look at any issue logically. You have been brainwashed by a completely insane cult and you will never be able to think rationally until you are no longer under-the-influence of such insanity.
There are over 300 maternity homes in the United States, serving some 6,000 mothers. And it's ABSOLUTELY FALSE that Catholic maternity homes limit their services to Catholics.
A whole 6,000? That's definitely going to handle the 1,500,000 aborted pregnancies every year
Just keep your silly superstitions to yourself and your fellow cultists. If they wish to excommunicate women who have abortions, so be it, but stop trying to force your primitive religious beliefs on those of us who actually evolved.
A whole 6,000? That's definitely going to handle the 1,500,000 aborted pregnancies every year
It meets the present need. Rest assured that more of these places would arise to meet increased demand. As mentioned previously, most abortions are not performed on the babies of destitute women with no families or support. More than half of women obtaining abortions have incomes over $30,000 per year. The majority over age 20 have attended college. Furthermore the kind of pro-life society that would fully restrict abortion is not going to have as immense a problem with out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
It meets the present need. Rest assured that more of these places would arise to meet increased demand. As mentioned previously, most abortions are not performed on the babies of destitute women with no families or support. More than half of women obtaining abortions have incomes over $30,000 per year. The majority over age 20 have attended college. Furthermore the kind of pro-life society that would fully restrict abortion is not going to have as immense a problem with out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
A whole $30,000? That will definitely cover medical costs for an uninsured part-time worker.
"Kind of pro-life society"...does that mean you want a theocracy where women don't have any rights?
Should women always have to have a male family member chaperone them when they go outside?
Should they have to cover all their lady parts and faces to keep from tempting men?
Should we stone them for adultery?
Seriously, you want Saudi America. Just move to Saudi Arabia if you want to live somewhere that treats women like slaves instead of human beings.
And a fetus is not a human until it can survive without its host. If technology develops where a woman does not have to carry the fetus for it to become a living, breathing human, then we will just ban all abortions after that point in a pregnancy in favor of being transported to the device that will assist them in becoming viable humans.
Wonder why this country is in such a mess? "Values" voters like this one...they spent years putting religious wackadoos on the ballot, lowering the collective IQ of our congress by huge margins. Instead of having a congress full of the country's best and brightest, we have one full of morons who think that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that Jesus was really a Zombie and that men know better than women on what to do with their bodies. Stop the cultists from voting for their silly superstitions and this country has a much more mature, intelligent and moderate Congress.
A whole $30,000? That will definitely cover medical costs for an uninsured part-time worker.
Whether it does or it doesn't, the medical costs associated with giving birth and raising a child are more than compensated for over the lifespan of the child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinkBeforeYouVote
And a fetus is not a human until it can survive without its host.
Says you. Just because it works for you.
Lots of already born people can't survive on their own. I suppose they're not human either.
Despite the desperation of the Romney camp to avoid talking about social issues, the fact remains that this election is primarily about those social issues and not about the economy. Other posters have noted that, for young people, social issues far outrank economic issues in importance.
maybe in your book or based on Micheal Voris, but the economy is number one; haven't you paid any attention, with security being next. Socail issues, like abortion are way down the list for most voters..Remember, because an issue is foremost does not mean people will actually walk into the voting booth and vote because of a single social issue...polls show the economy is far and above what people will be basing their vote on...You mention young people, you also are talking about a UTube. Utubes serve one purpose: they can alter the facts to meet an indivicuals views; that is all. Young people are not the voters that decide elections. Why, because many of them have views but do not vote.
Whether it does or it doesn't, the medical costs associated with giving birth and raising a child are more than compensated for over the lifespan of the child.
How are they "more than compensated for"?
Quote:
Says you. Just because it works for you.
Lots of already born people can't survive on their own. I suppose they're not human either.
No. Says science.
Tell me, what's the earliest a child has been born premature and lived to be a viable human?
I'll help you...it's 21 weeks and 6 days. All who were delivered earlier than that have died.
And there's a difference between "survival on their own" and viability
It's an astounding lack of logic that you can't differentiate between viability and independence.
And there's a difference between "survival on their own" and viability It's an astounding lack of logic that you can't differentiate between viability and independence.
It's an astounding lack of logic that you can't tell me why it matters.
"Viability determines the beginning of human life because ____________________." (Please fill in the blank.)
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.
