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.
THIS thread is clear on the point. we are not talking about taking access away from a woman who will be harmed by continuing a pregnancy. NOT AT ALL.
don't make false accusations.
there are a million abortions a year in the US. The VAST majority of these have nothing at all to do with rape, incest of the life of the mother. They are by and large late term birth control.
That is wrong.
Then what are we talking about? You are aware that 90% of ALL abortions happen within the first 12 weeks, and 2/3 happens within the first 6 weeks. After 12 weeks, the women who are having abortions are because it could be a danger to their life or the fetus has an abnormality. I would never force a woman to give birth to a baby if the doctors found that it didn't have a brain developing or had signs of deformities or whatever.
im not going to call you a liar. that wouldn't be nice.
But ive been in this thread from the beginning and what you said in suggesting that we are looking to take safty away from women in trouble is in fact the opposite of what this thread is about.
either you have not read the thread and are just making your generalizations based on what you perceive to be reality, or you have read the thread and you are doing your best to play at the margins.
the number of abortions that are related to serious medical issues are minimal almost statistically irrelevant. I am not going to have a statistically irrelevant argument.
now lets get back to the 980,000 abortions per year that are NOT related to a medical need.
So you are upset about early term abortions that happen when the fetus or embryo is less that 12 weeks in development.....if that is the case, then I will side against you because it is ALWAYS going to be the woman's right if she wishes to have that embryo grow inside her, no one else should have that control.
not even close. I mean you aren't even in the same continent of my logic.
Ive posted it. You have read and commented on my logic.
INNOCENCE is the key. There is no innocence in an unfertile egg. there is no innocence in a sperm.
Come on at least be intellectually honest here.
We can discuss this sentience argument without that nonsense.
I agree that a person who is brain dead is in fact dead, regardless of our scientific ability to keep the body alive.
I am very happy you bring this up.
IF you take a needle and stick the person laying on the hospital bed with no brain function, they wont move. they wont act as if they have been hurt at all
evidently your reading for comprehension is a bit off. go back and try again.
Ok, please, by all means than, explain this.
"there are a million abortions a year in the US. The VAST majority of these have nothing at all to do with rape, incest of the life of the mother. They are by and large late term birth control. "
Because that clearly says they are by and large late term birth control. Go ahead, explain.
Cite an argument. And see for yourself. Either the woman is immoral, irresponsible or stupid.
I am not one who feels, any of those, but I do think aborting except in rare situations is selfish. Why can these women not carry their babies and place them for adoption? Do most of you have any idea how many couples or even singles are waiting for infants to adopt and the cost of adoption today? With that I think. I will just bow out of this converstation. I think there really isn't much more to say. the subject has been discussed over and over for years.
I am not one who feels, any of those, but I do think aborting except in rare situations is selfish. Why can these women not carry their babies and place them for adoption? Do most of you have any idea how many couples or even singles are waiting for infants to adopt and the cost of adoption today? With that I think. I will just bow out of this converstation. I think there really isn't much more to say. the subject has been discussed over and over for years.
I think the selfish argument falls under the immoral umbrella. Selflessness is a moral characteristic, isn't it?
I'm trying to see where people who use this excuse draw the line.
What about medically induced comas?
What about when no brain waves indicating "thought" are occurring?
Brain dead does not equal "medically induced comas". In any way, shape or form.
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.
