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.
From a purely humanistic standpoint, I also look at this whole issue as so barbaric a practice as to bring massive shame on any society that condones it. Killing the weakest of our own kind just because we can, and NOT because they're not fit to survive. From a utilitarian view, the "unworthy" fetus should be proven to be defective, diseased, deformed, etc. Otherwise, it should be protected with all legal force the law can afford.
While my views are mostly libertarian, this is one thing I cannot stomach. That we allow as a society any member to be killed in a horrifically manner just "because we can" or "just because it's been adjudicated to fall under a woman's control because the developing sentient being resides inside the walls of her abdominal area".
It is my view that it's equal to murdering one's own offspring. And for that matter, it doesn't require a leap in logic here (although I understand what our laws say in statute of course but I'm making a philosophical point). It's MY kid that MY wife and I made and WE want to kill it. But society says that child has rights...well....I just happen to think those rights start before that baby makes its grand entrance to society from what SHOULD be the mother's protective area.
You can color it any way you like, and by any religion you like or lack thereof, it's still a barbaric act that any person who desires to have any shred of social dignity should understand is taking away from our collective value as a group of beings that "deserve" to continue to live.
What's next? ....fast forward 300 years....now because of a federal court precedent, it's OK to murder your children until age 2.5 because they have not yet started pre-school and achieved the newly-defined "age of infantile viability" (cannot yet pee or **** without help) and thus it's the mother and father's legal discretion if they live or die? Don't tell me it couldn't happen with a couple hundred years of societal decay...
The point is, that even in the absence of a moral absolute, there is rightly a line where society recoils in disgust at certain practices...and abortion is certainly the benchmark of this arena.
Exactly, "all men were created equal" ment white christian male, land owners. It did not even include white women, and children.
We have come a very long way since then only a little more to go.
I find it strange that when a baby kicks in the womb most women say "Oh my baby just kicked" I wonder if she didn't want it if she would say "Darn my glob of tissues just undulated.
At minimum common sense should dictate that if a baby could feasably survive outside womb like the example in my prior post then it should be protected by the government in or out of the womb.
By the time a baby "kicks in the womb", an abortion would be illegal except in the case of endangering the mothers life or serious health issues. A 8 or 9 week old fetus doesn't kick....and would have no chance of surviving outside of the mothers womb.
By the time a baby "kicks in the womb", an abortion would be illegal except in the case of endangering the mothers life or serious health issues. A 8 or 9 week old fetus doesn't kick....and would have no chance of surviving outside of the mothers womb.
So there is a federal law that protects late term fetus with exceptions for the health of the mother? That is great news! Would you be kind enough to tell more about it and post some links.
I thought there no abortion restrictions in Vermont ? Then there is Dr. Tiller or Tiller the baby killer in Kansas who has performed thousans of late term abortions.
If you go to Wikipedia and check out late term abortion it will tell you that first of all abortions performed only 1.4 % are done after 21 weeks. Also 36 states ban late term abortions, the supreme court did rule that there would be an exception in the case of the woman's physical health or life being at risk.
If you go to Wikipedia and check out late term abortion it will tell you that first of all abortions performed only 1.4 % are done after 21 weeks. Also 36 states ban late term abortions, the supreme court did rule that there would be an exception in the case of the woman's physical health or life being at risk.
So I guess I only have to worry about the other 14 states.
Also you refer to this "The United States Supreme Court decisions on abortion, including Roe v. Wade, allow states to impose more restrictions on post-viability abortions than during the earlier stages of pregnancy."
"13 states prohibit abortion after a certain number of weeks' gestation (usually 24 weeks)." Amillia from my article was only 21 weeks along.
And then there is Vermont.
Some say abortion some say murder. I say the unborn need to be protected just like the rest of us.
My question is- after the crack addicted runaway has her baby- and why shouldn't that baby have the right to live - who's responsibility is it to raise that child as a productive member of society until they are 18? Should that child be allowed to use public funds (another welfare child, ick) to survive? Or does that baby just need to pull itself up by the bootstraps and get ahead "on its own merit"?
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.
