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.
In Hitler's Germany, the laws were to imprison Jews to concentration camps and eventually kill them. Is that a law where you just go: The End. Or do you challenge it on moral principles?
Btw, Hitler outlawed abortion for German women but allowed it for Jews and other eastern european women. Should tell you something.
In Hitler's Germany, the laws were to imprison Jews to concentration camps and eventually kill them. Is that a law where you just go: The End. Or do you challenge it on moral principles?
Btw, Hitler outlawed abortion for German women but allowed it for Jews and other eastern european women. Should tell you something.
Hitler was also an animal rights supporter, so what.
Making a point that just because it's the law it could be wrong, wicked, unjust, immoral.
As to you, who cares what you think is your business? You think your "bold" procalmation says much?
You are correct, laws don't determine whether something is moral or not, but I don't think the poster was arguing morality, he was arguing legality. Abortion is legal and all this ranting is not going to make a difference. 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, people will continue to legally own guns in spite of all the ranting on Fox News and talk radio .
Rare by means of far better education and use of contraception than we have today.
Aside from the million conceptions lamented so thoroughly in this thread...
there are probably another million similarly ill considered conceptions to be avoided... that aren't.
Prompt because once the diligent, educated try to avoid conception line has been crossed...
and the choice to exercise the right has been made... NO ONE gains from delay.
Free because dealing with the costs are the single largest hindrance to prompt...
(and it's the best use of public funds if/when even available HI won't pay)
The right to make the choice without the ability to exercise it... isn't much of a choice at all.
The only people who need to be involved in ANY aspect of the decision are the woman and her doctor
^^ Excellent post! Rational, indeed, and sure to be dissed (or ignored) by the knee jerkers.
You are correct, laws don't determine whether something is moral or not, but I don't think the poster was arguing morality, he was arguing legality. Abortion is legal and all this ranting is not going to make a difference. 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, people will continue to legally own guns in spite of all the ranting on Fox News and talk radio .
Well we're having a talk right now about adding regulation to existing gun laws. So changing the laws. I was just pointing out that the 24 week cutoff is too late. 15 weeks is more appropriate.
Well we're having a talk right now about adding regulation to existing gun laws. So changing the laws. I was just pointing out that the 24 week cutoff is too late. 15 weeks is more appropriate.
If a baby can survive at 20-21 weeks then 24 is too late. So is 20. Push it back 5 weeks when we definitely know the fetus isn't viable and under developed.
If a baby can survive at 20-21 weeks then 24 is too late. So is 20. Push it back 5 weeks when we definitely know the fetus isn't viable and under developed.
"We" - who's we? Are you a doctor? No? Then leave the decisions to the professionals.
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.