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.
Keep in mind that MANY woman, who also live in the "real world" strongly oppose abortion.
Which is their perfect right. But don't come over to my house and try to push that schlock on me. That's where you step over the line. Let God be The Decider of your reproductive history if you like. But don't think that your decision in the matter is binding upon others in any way at all.
The means by which Norma McCorvey became pregnant was not an issue in Roe. At issue was the right of the state of Texas to preclude her from terminating a pregnancy she did not wish to continue. The decision in Roe -- finding that there is no power created that permits violation of a woman's right to decide when or whether to procreate -- makes no reference at all to either the rights or the legal status of embryos or fetuses, since neither one of them had any of either to start out with.
The means by which she bacame pregnant was important enough that the attorneys who took it to the Supreme Court told her to lie.
The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [n51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [n52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.
Abortion is killing; it is not murder. Yes, these are two different things.
I'm pro-choice and I never try to deny that the embryo or fetus is a life. It absolutely is a life. I have to be prepared to stand behind my beliefs that sometimes, the taking of a life is justified or at least understandable. I've have professional experience with abortion and even at very early stages, there are little body parts that have to be laid out on a surgical towel for the doctor to count. No sense pretending otherwise. It is not a blob of blood and mucous.
But as long as it is part of a woman's body, she takes precedence. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
Why? By your own admission abortion is murder and the taking of a life, so why is the life of the mother more worthy than the life of the pre born baby?
You know what? Don't talk to me about the Holocaust. My family is German and I grew up over there, and the immense GUILT that plagued my grandfather and grandmother was immeasurable and to compare it to abortion is an absolutely ridiculous and illogical argument.
The minute someone enacts Godwin's Law is the minute I start ignoring. Have fun with your nonsensical arguments.
I am Jewish and I want to thank you for this post. I, too, am appalled at the comparison between abortion and either the Holocaust or slavery.
Why? By your own admission abortion is murder and the taking of a life, so why is the life of the mother more worthy than the life of the pre born baby?
No, read my post again. You obviousy misunderstood.
Okay, it's comments like these that ensure your side will never win. Come to the debate table with at least a modicum of logic, or stay home. Anti-abortion proponents have many good arguments, as do pro-choice proponents. This just isn't one of them.
For those who are attacking my position on the basis of legality vs. morality -- don't get me and my argument confused with others'. I have never supported abortion on the basis of its current legality. We all know that "legal" is not equivalent to "moral" and those who choose to make that argument are misguided and as illogical as their opponents who make similarly stupid statements.
I also have never supported, and in fact, I've been quite clear on this, abortion used as birth control. I find that practice completely repugnant in every way.
Abortion is a multi-faceted and complex issue that can be discussed from many angles and inspires all kinds of responses. If you want to have a serious discussion, you must make an attempt to know what you are saying and to hear what your opponent is saying, so that you don't wind up lost on the wrong battlefield.
Is that what this is to you; a competition? This is a matter of life and death we're talking about here, not some game.
Why? By your own admission abortion is murder and the taking of a life, so why is the life of the mother more worthy than the life of the pre born baby?
Because she is HERE right now. She is physically here. She has relatives and might have other children,friends, spouse, parents and more who would be lost without her. the pregnancy takes place in her body.
There no argument, no doubt that the woman's life should ALWAYS come first.
Ps-Hello Sonrise. Good Afternoon!!!!
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.
