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.
Wrong. If you think ALL Democrats think you can abort a baby the day before the mother is set to induce, (Yes, that would be rare of course, but if you don't get what I mean...) you are either very dense, or very naïve. Stop watching Fox News.
LOL. Fox news doesn't say anything about this.
However, the actual party platform of the democrat party in fact is very clear. I have posted both links to the platform, and the actual verbiage of the party platform position.
I agree that not every democrat feels that way, but the entire party votes on its platform, and that platform is the guiding principle of the majority. Therefore it is the working position of the entire party.
The democrat party position is (and you can read DC at the Ridge in this thread) States that it is completely the right of the woman to discuss with her doctor and religious leaders and to come to her own decision and there is no room for government involvement. The party is utterly CLEAR on its position.
What I have said as it relates to that is based NOT on fox news. Rather, it is based on what the party itself has stated as its party position on the matter.
we can argue opinions all day. its fun. This thread has been intellectually stimulating and valuable because we have been able to weed thru all kinds of arguments and determine the value of each.
like when you are pregnant and you make the choice to have a baby that might cause you financial harm... but you have the baby anyway. very very very moral.
And thus, the woman who chooses abortion is very very very immoral?
How dare she think about her own well-being and the well-being of those dependent on her?!?! Because, remember, most women who have abortions already have children they are raising.
Um, no, quite the opposite, I am saying women should be able to speak for themselves and make their own decisions without having to be told what they can and cannot do with their own bodies by everyone else.
You seem to be the one trying to speak for everyone else....
well. you are the one that suggested Pro-Life people want to stop women who would be harmed by continuing a pregnancy form having abortions.
you said that.
What I have said is that I believe in protecting the innocent. What I have said is babies in the womb are often innocents deserving of protection.
that may very well be speaking for others. But not putting words in their mouths as you have.
And thus, the woman who chooses abortion is very very very immoral?
How dare she think about her own well-being and the well-being of those dependent on her?!?! Because, remember, most women who have abortions already have children they are raising.
stop projecting.
you made a comment. I agreed. I gave a good example.
As it relates to abortion, we are in fact talking about morality. There are times when the moral imperative is to have the abortion. I think I have been repeatedly clear on that.
There are far more times when the moral imperative is to not have the abortion. That is what this discussion is about.
your inability to grasp this is based on your commitment to not viewing the fetus as a person. my inability to grasp your view is based on my view that the fetus is a person.
all the rest of our discussions are debates that determine if an argument is a valid one. THIS one is central. It is the core of the issue. It is as I have pointed out why we have an impasse.
See, there is one of the issues. You have couples looking for INFANTS. On top of that, they only want certain race or gender INFANTS. What about the thousands and thousands of kids that are no longer infants? The non-white kids who tend to get looked over? Also, the cost. Make it to where a family doesn't have to sell an organ to adopt, and you would have a lot more kids adopted. Without abortion, you could add another million to the system who will never get adopted. Does that make it right? Not necessarily, but it is still the woman's choice.
Good points.
It is so easy for people to shout "adopt, adopt" but there are record numbers of kids right now in foster systems in states across this country, many of whom will age out of the system without ever being adopted.
The fact remains that people would rather adopt from third world countries than consider a child from this country so who is going to adopt all of these babies should abortion no longer be an option?
And what makes these children so undesirable after they are born but so worth "protecting" prior?
These questions never get answered.
As for the OP, I am very happy for this family as it is clear that this child was wanted and that they have the wherewithal to deal with the challenges the early delivery created.
That being said, the number of abortions that occur at this gestation are incredibly small. Many that do occur are the result of medical issues faced either by the mother or the fetus.
I am constantly appalled by the lack of empathy shown by those who never consider the feelings of those families who have had to make the choice to abort a late term pregnancy particularly when they offer no solutions for those who may have to make that choice.
I suppose I shouldn't expect much more from those who would use this family's trials to make a political point.
However, the actual party platform of the democrat party in fact is very clear. I have posted both links to the platform, and the actual verbiage of the party platform position.
I agree that not every democrat feels that way, but the entire party votes on its platform, and that platform is the guiding principle of the majority. Therefore it is the working position of the entire party.
The democrat party position is (and you can read DC at the Ridge in this thread) States that it is completely the right of the woman to discuss with her doctor and religious leaders and to come to her own decision and there is no room for government involvement. The party is utterly CLEAR on its position.
What I have said as it relates to that is based NOT on fox news. Rather, it is based on what the party itself has stated as its party position on the matter.
we can argue opinions all day. its fun. This thread has been intellectually stimulating and valuable because we have been able to weed thru all kinds of arguments and determine the value of each.
What you cannot do is argue facts are not facts.
So, " the entire party votes on its platform, and that platform is the guiding principle of the majority."
Does this mean Republicans working position is "a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion with no explicit exceptions for cases of rape or incest."? (That comes from the Rep platform) Sounds like you have one side saying no way no how, unless it's rape or incest, while the other says, "that it is completely the right of the woman to discuss with her doctor and religious leaders and to come to her own decision and there is no room for government involvement" Where does it say that it should be allowed until day of delivery? Hell, Republicans ought to like the Dem view, as it calls for LESS government, while theirs calls for MORE government!
Also, saying it the way you said it, is still sounding like you mean all Dems. You basically say, "All Dems may not feel that way, but since they are Dems they do."
Disclaimer: Not saying you mean it that way, just saying that is how it sounds. You can't have it both ways. You can't say all Dems think this way, then say ok they don't but they do because the party does.
It is so easy for people to shout "adopt, adopt" but there are record numbers of kids right now in foster systems in states across this country, many of whom will age out of the system without ever being adopted.
The fact remains that people would rather adopt from third world countries than consider a child from this country so who is going to adopt all of these babies should abortion no longer be an option?
And what these children so undesirable after they are born but so worth "protecting" prior?
These questions never get answered.
As for the OP, I am very happy for this family as it is clear that this child was wanted and that they have the wherewithal to deal with the challenges the early delivery created.
That being said, the number of abortions that occur at this gestation are incredibly small. Many that do occur are the result of medical issues faced either by the mother or the fetus.
I am constantly appalled by the lack of empathy shown by those who never consider the feelings of those families who have had to make the choice to abort a late term pregnancy particularly when they offer no solutions for those who may have to make that choice.
I suppose I shouldn't expect much more from those who would use this family's trials to make a political point.
Exactly. The majority of those so greatly opposed to abortion do not have any adopted kids. If you care for these kids so much, go out and adopt a few, or foster a few. Donate money to help women out who are thinking of abortion. Stop complaining about women being on welfare to support their kids. Do something other than whine on a message board.
well. you are the one that suggested Pro-Life people want to stop women who would be harmed by continuing a pregnancy form having abortions.
you said that.
What I have said is that I believe in protecting the innocent. What I have said is babies in the womb are often innocents deserving of protection.
that may very well be speaking for others. But not putting words in their mouths as you have.
Yes I said that.....not sure what about that confuses you.....when someone wishes to ban abortions past 20 weeks, which is why many anti-choice people on here have said, that is what they want to do. All I did was say what they were trying to skate around.
In an embryo or fetus is in the womb, then it is the woman's choice if she wishes it to grow inside her and be birthed by her.....this isn't about who is innocent or guilty, this is about a woman being able to make her own choices without the government or a bunch of nanny anti-choice people trying to tell women what they can and cannot do.
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.
