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.
What if a couple already has two children with birth defects? They want a normal, healthy child. They love their two children, but they also are keenly aware of the extra costs and responsibilities of caring for children who are not 100% healthy. In fact, perhaps one of the reasons they want another child is to ensure that their two existing children will continue to be cared for after they die.
If they share their fears and concerns with their doctor, and have the medical tests done, and those tests reveal that this baby, too, has birth defects, should they be compelled to have the baby, anyway?
Their reason is stupid. They have places for disabled people. And what's to say the healthy child would want to care of the sick ones? Does that child have no say?
I understand the reason the left does not like the law. Some mothers might choose not to destroy their unborn and the left just can not stand it when woman choose not to destroy their unborn
So this would be opinion or fact? If it is fact you will have a reputable source to back up this claim that "the left just can not stand it when woman choose not to destroy their unborn".
I had 2 unborns that are now post-borns, and I never once had "the desire to destroy my unborn". I am about as far left as you can get. So there is one case-study against your claim. Please provide the data.
No, YOU seem to think women are so weak and ignorant that they have to be manipulated like children....
The "left" is not "scared" of letting women see both sides , I feel that, UNLIKE REPUBLICANS and you, the government should NOT come between a woman and her doctor.
But, in your case , I think the government should be consulted with each time you visit your doctor....you seem to like that....
No i think if they see what they are destroying they can make the best decicion of rthemselves.
You think they should make a decision without full knowedge.
You do not want to let them see both sides, just kill kill kill.
woman are alot more bright then you seem to think.
Actually, it does change a woman's right to choose abortion, by driving up the costs, and by delaying her access. In a state where abortion providers are virtually non-existent. She may be free to choose, but making one choice more and more difficult is a strategy to prevent abortions.
The basic right to the abortion has not been infringed. Her right to abortion is as legal as ever
Okay libs, how about this. Given that apparently it's a fundamental right for women to have abortions, why not have each mother explain to the children she chose to not kill, that they were choices, and mom decided to not kill them. Little kids should be made aware that they are just choices, and if mommy wanted to make a choice, Connor or Madison could have been killed before they were born. Let them know they are choices.
So this would be opinion or fact? If it is fact you will have a reputable source to back up this claim that "the left just can not stand it when woman choose not to destroy their unborn".
I had 2 unborns that are now post-borns, and I never once had "the desire destroy my unborn". I am about as far left as you can get. So there is one case-study against your claim. Please provide the data.
read the threads on abortion and you will see the left wants abortions to save money. the kids might be poorso lets abort them.
My opinion is based on what is said in defense of abortion
Their reason is stupid. They have places for disabled people. And what's to say the healthy child would want to care of the sick ones? Does that child have no say?
So, you're all for saving every child, but if it's disabled, put in in a place for disabled people and forget about it? If you say that's not what you meant, then you are saying that that the parents' reason in that scenario is not stupid. Because most parents of disabled children don't institutionalize them, and even if they do, they don't stop caring for those children, visiting them, consulting with their doctors, making medical decisions for them, arranging for therapies, and most parents of such children would be very concerned for the welfare of those children after the parents die.
Okay libs, how about this. Given that apparently it's a fundamental right for women to have abortions, why not have each mother explain to the children she chose to not kill, that they were choices, and mom decided to not kill them. Little kids should be made aware that they are just choices, and if mommy wanted to make a choice, Connor or Madison could have been killed before they were born. Let them know they are choices.
When kids are old enough to understand what abortion is, then duh, it's obvious to them
No i think if they see what they are destroying they can make the best decicion of rthemselves.
You think they should make a decision without full knowedge.
You do not want to let them see both sides, just kill kill kill.
woman are alot more bright then you seem to think.
So, you agree that the government should come between YOU and your doctor on medical decisions...OK, I think that's stupid but if it's your thing .....
You are saying that women need to see a cluster of cells to know what "pregnant" means...... YOU think they're too stupid to know what "pregnant" means.
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.
