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.
I don't know why you persist on posting this known lie.
Bolded is NOT true in many states.
1) Many states only have laws that cover viability of the fetus/child in the case of a murder or accident (meaning they will only charge the suspect with 2 homicides/murder only if the child/fetus is at the point of viability (usually 22 weeks).
2) Many states that treat a fetus as being killed due to the mother being murdered or killed in an accident, as a FORCED abortion. Meaning that the woman didn't have a choice, and was forced to have an abortion and falls under those laws.
3) you will find that no state considers any fetus before 3 months as being the victim of Homicide or murder, in the result of a pregnant mother's death due to murder or accident.
Oh dear. If you're going to accuse me of lying, you may want to refrain from lying yourself.
FACT: 36 states have laws that protect an unborn fetus.
FACT: Most of those protect the fetus at "any stage" or "from fertilization to birth". I only found one state (AK) that states an age - 12 weeks.
I understand that but different state have different provisions to go along with that law. Why are you all avoiding my question? Are you in favor of having abortion at any time during pregnancy or do you think it should be limited?
I understand that but different state have different provisions to go along with that law. Why are you all avoiding my question? Are you in favor of having abortion at any time during pregnancy or do you think it should be limited?
The poster above already answered you. I believe in the law as it is written. I think abortion is a private matter between a women and her physician. Abortion in the 3rd trimester is only allowed now under specific circumstances.
The "morning after pill" - is still an extreme and intrusive thing...who knows what harm a chemical or artificial hormone or what ever it is could do? If you have conceived and all you have is a fertilized egg...getting rid of that egg is technically an abortion....Why are the pro-choice people so interested in a clinic that is pro-life? It's really not any of their business...Pro-choicers have enough people in their ranks...They do not need to convince or recruit any more.
What do you think women do who are already taking BC Pill forget to take them? They run out and get the Morning After Pill? No, they double or triple up on their regular pills. That is what the Morning After Pill is; double or triple dosage. Women have been doing this for decades. I did it myself back in the 70s and 80s, even when MARRIED. Oh, my. Married and didn't want kids? The Morning After Pill was just a marketing decision by the pharms to make more money.
Illegal false advertising by these places. Let them say in their ads that they are PROBIRTH and do not perform or advocate abortions.
As far as "getting rid of fertilized eggs", you do know that even breastfeeding a newborn can get rid of a fertilized egg by preventing implantation because of the lactation hormones thining the uterine lining? Who do you think is more important? An already born newborn or it's embryo sibling? Apparently, god/nature thinks the newborn is. I agree as the mother of that newborn, which did not to me.
Trying to adopt a 10-week embryo would obviously not work because the embryo would not survive. That is obvious, but you are playing on the same field, different sport. Your logic is faulty and irrelevant to my point. The only thing that I have positioned is that both an embryo and a baby are dependent on care from some other being. Is that not true?
The embryo is dependent on a SPECIFIC person - its mother, or host. The infant can be cared for by any reasonably responsible person, male or female. By elevating a non-viable blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus to status above that of its mother, you relegate all females to ambulatory incubators, a nonhuman status.
The embryo is dependent on a SPECIFIC person - its mother, or host. The infant can be cared for by any reasonably responsible person, male or female. By elevating a non-viable blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus to status above that of its mother, you relegate all females to ambulatory incubators, a nonhuman status.
The point is, regardless if an embryo or a child is dependent on a specific person, he/she is still DEPENDENT on a PERSON. Which in essence doesn't hold up the argument that embryo's can't survive. It's an argument that has holes in it. Even when the fetus is capable of surviving on his/her own, we still have places that are making abortion legal for those times. If the premise of your argument is that an embryo/fetus can't survive without being in the womb at a certain stage, then you are essentially saying at the least that there should be a limit to the times that people are able to get an abortion. Are you not?
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.
