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.
Because you aren't looking at the PERSON but the party instead.
You only see "Republican" or "Democrat" and don't seem to care about the person themselves.
Your ASSumptions are incorrect. I can't stand Rick Perry; I don't care what party he is in.
Actually a 20 week ban would fall right in line with RvW which is why they are concerned. RvW granted that the state has an interest at viability. That line has receded since 1973.
It has, but not to 20 weeks generally. It's also important to note that RvW didn't set the limit at viability. It set the limit between the second and third trimesters. SCOTUS modified the limit to viability in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services in 1989.
It has, but not to 20 weeks generally. It's also important to note that RvW didn't set the limit at viability. It set the limit between the second and third trimesters. SCOTUS modified the limit to viability in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services in 1989.
It set it between the second and third trimester because at the time that was generally considered the level of viability.
The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."
Yes, and saying Yes to sex does not equal saying Yes to paying child support for 18/21 years either, but males are still forced to pay.
Hence, my point here is that while consent to A does not necessarily equal consent to B, if one consents to A, one can (and should) be held responsible for B (in certain cases) if B is a consequence of A.
don't like abortion don't have one. choice is up to the individual. that's why it's called choice and is a woman's right.
If one considers abortion to be morally unjustifiable, then you saying this would be similar to telling anti-infanticide people: "Don't like infanticide? Don't do it."
women are able to control their reproductive lives as they see fit.
You want to prevent reproduction? Fine. Have you and/or your sexual partner(s) take measures to prevent reproduction before reproduction actually occurs--at the point of conception/fertilization.
If one considers abortion to be morally unjustifiable, then you saying this would be similar to telling anti-infanticide people: "Don't like infanticide? Don't do it."
abortion and infanticide are two different things but I suspect you know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110
You want to prevent reproduction? Fine. Have you and/or your sexual partner(s) take measures to prevent reproduction before reproduction actually occurs--at the point of conception/fertilization.
how a woman controls her reproduction is none of your business, abortion is legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrench409
If the wind would stop blowing, Wendy could make up her mind.....
wendy still supports and always has the right to choice for women.
how a woman controls her reproduction is none of your business, abortion is legal.
If I'm party to that reproduction process it sure as hell is my business.
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.
