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.
The problem is that liberals think "others" include the mother, but not the child inside the mother.
A woman who has an abortion certainly imposed her will on the child she was carrying.
Still, I think abortion should be allowed until six weeks. That is reasonable given the realities of unprotected sex in this country.
How many times do people need to be told that many women do not even know they are pregnant by 6 weeks. Not everyone gets a period every 28 days. Some can go 3 months in a cycle. One missed period does not equal pregnant.
The list of pregnancy complications that are either immediately life threatening, or lead to long term disability, or result in surgical intervention like hysterectomy, are long and varied and very real. Although rare compared to heathy outcomes, one does not know in advance if any of these complications are going to arise.
Therefore, you roll the dice with every pregnancy.
Of course it’s better to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. But if wishes were horses I’d have a pony in my backyard.
I support as much sex Ed and contraceptive education etc as humanly possible. However if that ship has sailed and someone has a pregnancy they don’t want, it should be entirely up to them whether to roll that dice. Especially if they are going to take the adoption option.
Although rare, it’s entirely possible that in the process of delivering a child for another person, that woman can suffer infection that will render them infertile and they will never be able to have wanted children. That’s not a risk anyone should decide for you. There are plenty of other dire consequences that could arise.
They are incredibly rare. Your post is nothing more than abortion fear porn.
In fact: Most women derive health benefits from pregnancy and breastfeeding.
Benefits from pregnancy include:
Benefits following a healthy delivery include a reduction in risks for cancers of the reproductive system, including ovarian and uterine cancers. Hormonal balance changes during pregnancy, shifting toward more progesterone to oppose estrogen levels. The reduced levels of estrogen mean that women who have delivered a child have a lower risk of developing endometrial cancer compared to women who have not.
If a woman’s first pregnancy happens before the age of 30, her risk of developing breast cancer after menopause decreases. Women who have children before the age of 20 also have a lower lifetime risk of breast cancer. Mothers with five full-term pregnancies are about 50% less likely to develop breast cancer than women who have not delivered a child.
The problem is that liberals think "others" include the mother, but not the child inside the mother.
A woman who has an abortion certainly imposed her will on the child she was carrying.
It’s none of your business whether a mother is carrying a child. None. If they don’t wish to take the risk of pregnancy, or of labour and delivery, that’s their prerogative.
When I was pregnant I was considered of advanced maternal age at 41. It was highly recommended to me at 13 weeks to have a rather invasive test that collected amniotic fluid through the cervix to determine if the foetus had and genetic or chromosomal abnormalities, as it was at higher risk for such.
It would have been none of your business that I was pregnant in the first place or what my decision would have been had there indeed been serious issues. I would not have that option under many of these new laws.
Not only is the mothers body at risk but their entire life could be due to having a child with very serious health issues.
You don’t get to decide those risks for me OR MY HUSBAND.
He has a science youtube channel, which I enjoy watching. I thought he made a good point in this tweet.
For those of you who can't read the tweet, this is what it says:
Quite possibly one of the stupidest tweets I've ever seen.
Doesn't matter if they're 5? Apparently the whole "nobody has the right to use your body against your will" thing requires a sense of self centeredness of Hollywood proportions.
The problem is that liberals think "others" include the mother, but not the child inside the mother.
A woman who has an abortion certainly imposed her will on the child she was carrying.
Still, I think abortion should be allowed until six weeks. That is reasonable given the realities of unprotected sex in this country.
You know a woman might not even know she was pregnant at 6 weeks?
To me it's cells, not a "child".
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
If pregnancies are contagious I AM getting that vaccine!
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
He has a science youtube channel, which I enjoy watching. I thought he made a good point in this tweet.
For those of you who can't read the tweet, this is what it says:
Quote:
Quote:
Here's the thing, guys. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter when life begins. It doesn't matter whether a fetus is a human being or not.
That entire argument is a red herring, a distraction, a subjective and unwinnable argument that could not matter less. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about a fertilized egg, or a fetus, or a baby, or a 5 year old, or a Nobel Peace Price winning pediatric oncologist.
NOBODY has the right to use your body against your will, even to save their life, or the life of another person. That's it. That's the argument.
You cannot be forced to donate blood, or marrow, or organs, even thought thousands die every year on waiting lists. They cannot even harvest your organs after your death without your explicit, written, pre-mortem permission.
Denying women the right to abortion means we have less bodily autonomy than a corpse.
so even though it took TWO people to create that baby, who could grow up to be a Nobel Peace Price winning pediatric oncologist...that ONE person has the right to kill/murder that baby???
and if NOBODY has the right to use your body against your will, then you would agree that NOBODY (individual person or government ) has the right to force/mandate you to get an inoculation... or to get registered for selective service..or get registered for Social security, or mandated to get health insurance
giving "women" only the right to kill, is one of the most outrageous atrocities we could allow, as it takes two to create that child...and you can bet the farm if she chooses to keep it, the FIRST thing she will do is go after the "male" for child support.... I have no problem with abortions... but as it took two to create...it should take two to destroy that life too
as I said in another thread where a poster (not to be named) typed this..so I gave my response:
Quote:
Originally Posted by_____________
No, I do not support a six-week abortion ban, period.
I support women making their own choices up through the 22nd week of pregnancy, and I support abortions after that period if the mother's life is in danger or if the fetus is dead or would be born dead, or if there is a more than 50% chance that the child, if born, would require 24/7 care for his/her entire life.
Quote:
{Originally Posted by workingclasshero}
I agree...
that said, I would add one thing (added in bold)
I support women making their own choices up through the 22nd week of pregnancy, but it not be federally/state/ insurance funded at all (if you choose to have the abortion, you (or the baby daddy(since he would be paying child support if she decided to keep it)) pays for it), and I support abortions after that period if the mother's life is in danger or if the fetus is dead or would be born dead, or if there is a more than 50% chance that the child, if born, would require 24/7 care for his/her entire life.
Do you know what most of the babies will become? Criminals. You don't get super healthy humans by making someone keep a kid they don't want.
You get more crime, more poverty. And don't be deceived, rich people will still be getting them, just the poor won't be able to.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
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.
