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.
So I think maybe there should also be graphic billboards of women who have resorted to knitting needles and back street abortionists , of women who have hung themselves because they couldn't face having an unwanted child. The reality of giving birth to unwanted kids is pretty grim too. For the child as well as the mother.
It we are going to paly this blame game, fair enough but let's show a balanced argument with BOTH sides represented.
....but that's my point. You wouldn't be able to if Roe V Wade was overturned.
Not so fast. If Roe V Wade were overturned, it would make abortion a state issue. Therefore, if you lived in most states on the coast and more liberal states such as Illinois and Minnesota, you would still be able to get an abortion more than likely. If you lived in Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina it might be a different story. This would not prevent a woman from crossing state lines to obtain an abortion. One could argue Roe V Wade should be overturned anyways as abortion should be out of the hands of the federal government and up to local citizens to decide. If you were a resident of a state that voted to outlaw abortion yet you were extremely pro-choice, perhaps that state isn't for you in the first place.
No. It might be concidered property of the placenta until the umbilical cord is cut.
It seems we're starting to fall into the semantics trap here. The placenta is still part of the mother, so, in effect the baby is still "property" of the mother and should therefore be considered part of the mother's body still, until the placenta is removed or the umbilical cord is cut.
There's not much wiggle room here. If one believes in a woman's right to choose what she should do with her body, without interference from the government, then one must also support the woman's right to choose an abortion up until the umbilical cord is cut, for ANY reason, even sex selection and/or the convenience of not having to raise a handicapped child.
I find those billboards a tad too patronising and think it will upset a lot of women who are still suffering from the stress of having aborted. They are an over-simplification of far deeper issue than is ever discussed.
So I think maybe there should also be graphic billboards of women who have resorted to knitting needles and back street abortionists , of women who have hung themselves because they couldn't face having an unwanted child. The reality of giving birth to unwanted kids is pretty grim too. For the child as well as the mother.
It we are going to paly this blame game, fair enough but let's show a balanced argument with BOTH sides represented.
I would certainly support your right to rent a billboard and put your graphics as you see fit, within reason, according to the local laws of decency.
WHY do you think the viability of the baby matters in deciding the woman's rights?
Because it has been accepted that the point of viability is “when life begins†prior to, it is not a life but part of the woman, she has the right to it, after this time it has its own life and own rights which may or may not be equal to the rights of the woman.
I think viability dose matter.
Here is how I see it.
A parasites existence is at the mercy of its host. Once that parasite can live without the host (the hazy cut off date) it is then considered a life within its own right and should be given consideration. Now if I were king, at this point to appease the pro-life folks the fetus should be removed from the un-wanting host and sustained in the NICU until such time it can be placed with the unselfish, compassionate people (pro-life) who are all I’m sure more than willing to care for financially and emotionally all the unwanted fetuses.
how do they do it in england?
here it would seem, my rights stop
where yours begin?
civil liberties have limits?
Which is why I said the crux of the issue is defining when life begins.
In defining it we should further define when it ends. If we based it on brain activity, then I should be able to put a bullet in the head of a person in a vegetative state without repercussion.
We should also think about what other rights are extended to a human to do with their "body parts". If I can abort a fetus, shouldn't I be able to sell a kidney on the open market?
Maybe these are best answered in another thread... I hate to go too far off-topic.
I find those billboards a tad too patronising and think it will upset a lot of women who are still suffering from the stress of having aborted. They are an over-simplification of far deeper issue than is ever discussed.
If you read this thread, the question has been answered many times.
Anyone who has responded has indicated that until the fetus is viable.
I want to make sure you understand that, in over 1/2 of the states, if someone harms the pregnant female, causing the death of the unborn, the perpertrator can be charged with murder. If someone kills the pregnant female, resulting in the death of the unborn, the perp can be charged with 2 murders - not one.
I am aware of the two for one charges but I think they are absurd and simply ear wash making the DA seem more "heroic". Handy when he runs for governor.
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.
