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.
It's about the responsibility to prevent a pregnancy.
There's a woman who has 3 kids under 5 years old.
She drives them around in her car. A lot.
She doesn't use car seats, they just hang out together in the back, not one of them protected by a car seat.
She gets in an accident and 2 of them are killed.
Is the issue her driving? Or the fact that she was completely irresponsible because she refused to use car seats?
What is the actual problem?
Are you going to argue about her driving record (sex)? Or about how irresponsible she was in her behavior (lack of use/improper use of BC)?
The problem is the lack of responsibility. Her total irresponsibility when it came to ensuring the lives of her children.
It's still very much about having sex. If a couple doesn't want to take responsibility for birth control when a baby isn't desired, how to you or the law go about making their irresponsible sex lives your business? Even if they know about how to use birth control, they may refuse to use it. At least there is a law that young kids have to have a proper car seat. But what do you want government to do about couples not using birth control when a baby isn't wanted? Make it a felony?
Once again, those laws set no precedent at all. They could be repealed tomorrow. Precedents are set by judges rulings, not by writing laws. WHAT about that are you FAILING to comprehend? Go talk to an attorney, and get some lessons on the law, because it sure ain't what you think it is.
That doesn't make fetal homicide laws not set a precedent. All that precedent means is an event or action that sets an example to be considered for similar situations. That a precedent can be repealed or overturned doesn't make it not a precedent. Fetal homicide laws are certainly precedents, especially as the prevalence of such laws (I believe) has only increased over time.
If the unborn are ever granted 14th Amendment rights, no woman would be safe from incarceration during the term of her pregnancy. She would stand accused whether true or not of in dangering the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the child, because people are just mean that way. That's the bottom line and I firmly believe it is the reason roe v wade exists.
The “tone” comes from both sides. The pro life side sounds lacking in humanity and compassion when it rejects abortion for the victims of rape or incest. Rejects any genuine medical reasoning for need of a late term abortion. No compassion or understanding woman taking birth control to avoid pregnancy and it fails. Turns a blind eye preferring a child is born to a woman that doesn’t really want it. No care the woman is a drug addict or hooker the baby should be born. Tells women to go thru the pregnancy and adopt out her child like that’s no big deal. No care a pregnancy and parenthood derails many who are going to school or trying to maintain a job. No care a teenager got carried away one day and is now expected to put her future on hold and try to parent when she has no income and hadn’t finished school. Or the sex was consensual you have no choice, you should of kept your legs closed. Which is shaming someone for engaging in sex.
All of these have exceptions. Some women do carry a rape baby, teenagers do become decent parents as do single women. Each pregnancy is unique to the situation of the individual, which is why she gets to decide what she does. Most pro choice people including myself wish all babies were wanted. There were no unplanned pregnancy. Birth control wouldn’t fail be it human error or not. Wish a pregnancy and parenthood didn’t derail a teenagers or career minded woman’s future. Want all women to have support from the father. That isn’t real life. Just like expecting people to be celibate. It isn’t my place to tell anyone how to live their life.
I'm not talking about "sides." You asked me a question about what I understand about YOUR posts and I'm answering it, specifically to YOUR posts.
And the post above is exactly what I mean by no sense of care in the words you use.
I can be upset by someone's decision and still care. I can watch someone make wrong choices and still care, love them and even, oh, HELP them after they have made horrible mistakes or in heartbreaking situations. I can care enough to listen and discuss hard topics, and still be a human being.
There is no sense of that at all in the words that are in your posts. They are devoid of humanity, care, empathy, or support involved at all in the opinion that you post.
The tone is that it doesn't matter what choices anyone makes, so there is no point in caring at all about any of it.
If a women came to you and asked what she should do regarding birth control, sex, and/or abortion, the image that you portray in your posts is that you would respond: "Why are you telling me? It's not my place. I don't care at all what you do. Use birth control, or don't, or go have an abortion. Doesn't matter to me."
If a teenager was talking to you about how excited she was to go have sex with a deadbeat loser with 4 kids by 4 women, would the response be: "That sounds fine. Go do whatever you want. Not my place."
???
That is how your posts come across. Which is probably why I keep engaging you, I'm just trying to find that glimmer of care in there, somewhere. I keep hoping it's there.
It's still very much about having sex. If a couple doesn't want to take responsibility for birth control when a baby isn't desired, how to you or the law go about making their irresponsible sex lives your business? Even if they know about how to use birth control, they may refuse to use it. At least there is a law that young kids have to have a proper car seat. But what do you want government to do about couples not using birth control when a baby isn't wanted? Make it a felony?
No.
It's about responsibility.
And until you understand that, you will NEVER change the issue of unwanted pregnancies.
No matter how many times you want to arrest women for getting pregnant. It's your go-to argument, that you double down on whenever the subject of responsibility appears. And it's an idiotic argument.
Would you want to ban abortion for those 5% of women for whom birth control failed? Simple question.
Just for examples. Failure could be an IUD became dislodged or the woman got a bad batch of birth control pills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Says the poster who has never cracked open an egg over a skillet to scramble it only to find a baby chick inside instead. Just so you know it that dead baby chick doesn't scramble up in a skillet worth a damn. With that said, what do you think they are sucking out of the womb of a woman? (if my mother saw one drop of blood on the egg yoke, she'd throw it out, because it's chick in the making)
Actually, I have a picture in my kitchen of just that scenario... egg being cracked over a frying pan and a baby chick running away.
But seriously, I do not see a fertilized egg as being a person. It has the potential to become a person, but it can just as easily be flushed out of the woman's system during her next period. Or it can be flushed out in a miscarriage or by a Plan B pill or whatever other meds the doctors use for a medical abortion. It is not viable for many weeks, and only if it manages to implant itself in the uterine wall.
I believe abortion should remain available to any woman who wants or needs it.
Not let them kill any human life that results from such just because they themselves made the deliberate choice to be irresponsible about controlling their own fertility. Do we live in an uncivilized society that lets one human kill another solely for the sake of convenience? That's pretty ugly, and quite barbaric.
I can't imagine how you or the law would force a woman to give birth against her will. But anyway, if abortion is banned and the woman continues to act sexually irresponsible and gets an abortion, should she be charged with murder? If so, and found guilty, how long should she have to spend in prison? Would several years be enough or much longer than that? If she has children at home, is it really a good idea to deny the children their mother? If the father approved and helped her get an abortion, should he be in trouble? Also, if a doctor was involved, how long should the doctor have to spend in prison? What if the boyfriend paid for all the abortion expenses? Should he be charged with murder, or as an accomplice to it? So, you're just asking for more problems if you want all or nearly all abortion banned. If you're not pleased enough that the abortion rate is dropping, then that is just too bad.
The egg hasn't come in contact with a rooster, thus the reason it is still just an egg. The one's that have come in contact with a rooster have a baby chick inside of it. just saying ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ansible90
A fertilized chicken egg is still not a chicken. A fertilized human egg is still not a child or baby.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Says the poster who has never cracked open an egg over a skillet to scramble it only to find a baby chick inside instead. Just so you know it that dead baby chick doesn't scramble up in a skillet worth a damn. With that said, what do you think they are sucking out of the womb of a woman? (if my mother saw one drop of blood on the egg yoke, she'd throw it out, because it's chick in the making)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ansible90
Actually, I have a picture in my kitchen of just that scenario... egg being cracked over a frying pan and a baby chick running away.
But seriously, I do not see a fertilized egg as being a person. It has the potential to become a person, but it can just as easily be flushed out of the woman's system during her next period. Or it can be flushed out in a miscarriage or by a Plan B pill or whatever other meds the doctors use for a medical abortion. It is not viable for many weeks, and only if it manages to implant itself in the uterine wall.
I believe abortion should remain available to any woman who wants or needs it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ansible90
Actually, I have a picture in my kitchen of just that scenario... egg being cracked over a frying pan and a baby chick running away.
But seriously, it's actually quite gross ... see what happens is, the rooster fertilized the egg; a baby chick begins developing, but the egg gets removed from under the hen laying it, too soon. So what you get when you crack the egg open, is a dead chick in the skillet, rather than the yoke of an egg that's expected. (you laugh, because you're not seeing it and it's never happened to you)
When a woman passes her egg and the man fertilizes it a baby begins to form, just like that of the baby chick ... for you to not see it as a person idk what to tell you, but that this is 2021, we all should know better by now. If not, there is something seriously wrong.
People have been evolving on this planet for 4000 years and it seems we are no less barbaric (or educated) now than we were in the beginning. Even with the medical technology that we have today; sonograms able to peer inside a woman's womb and see the humanity inside her and still we insist it isn't a person. Who does that? and Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ansible90
I believe abortion should remain available to any woman who wants or needs it.
It's not that the child doesn't deserve a life, but because, if the unborn are ever granted 14th Amendment rights, no woman would be safe from incarceration during the term of her pregnancy. She would stand accused whether true or not of endangering the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the child, because people are just mean that way.
So they gave the woman a choice, so that she would have a life. What she does with that choice is up to her, but if she is making that choice because she believes the life inside her is not a person --- then we are no better off today than were were 4000 years ago. And we deserve what ever ill fate would deal to us, for being ignorant.
1.79 fertility rate --- 2.4 globally and falling. One good disease would wipe us all off the face of this earth and it will be because of our own doing. And it's just as well since we can't do better and our government(s) can't create an economic sound and viable situation where decisions like killing the unborn, doesn't have to be made.
To be honest and quite frank --- those that were aborted, even if in pain, their pain has ended and ours continues on ... from cradle to grave we are made slave to a system that doesn't give a rats butt about us. Yet, we fight (each other) as if it does.
Says the poster who has never cracked open an egg over a skillet to scramble it only to find a baby chick inside instead. Just so you know it that dead baby chick doesn't scramble up in a skillet worth a damn. With that said, what do you think they are sucking out of the womb of a woman? (if my mother saw one drop of blood on the egg yoke, she'd throw it out, because it's chick in the making)
I had a friend who had chickens.
She was making egg salad, they mixed up the eggs, and she boiled half a dozen chicks. Devastated her.
I think some people could use 6 months on a working farm to re-learn the basics of biology.
But seriously, it's actually quite gross ... see what happens is, the rooster fertilized the egg; a baby chick begins developing, but the egg gets removed from under the hen laying it, too soon. So what you get when you crack the egg open, is a dead chick in the skillet, rather than the yoke of an egg that's expected. (you laugh, because you're not seeing it and it's never happened to you)
When a woman passes her egg and the man fertilizes it a baby begins to form, just like that of the baby chick ... for you to not see it as a person idk what to tell you, but that this is 2021, we all should know better by now. If not, there is something seriously wrong.
People have been evolving on this planet for 4000 years and it seems we are no less barbaric (or educated) now than we were in the beginning. Even with the medical technology that we have today; sonograms able to peer inside a woman's womb and see the humanity inside her and still we insist it isn't a person. Who does that? and Why?
Exactly. What are physicians looking at since it's not a baby and apparently isn't even human?
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.
