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.
I'm not religious, and I think the world would be a better place if we didn't have most of the major religions.
However, I am anti-abortion, as well...in terms of using it as birth control. If something is wrong with the fetus or there is great risk to the mother (including rape), I am more in the gray area. But that's not the majority of abortions that I have encountered. I frankly see no difference between abortion and murder.
By that logic Seeker...NO "institution of higher learning deserves that appellation".
Certainly no schools like Fordham, Notre Dame, etc.
Because, I'm SURE, not one single college anywhere doesn't have members of the faculty that they know have theological viewpoints that persuade them to view homosexuality as negative. So, ALL colleges should be discredited, according to you?
I don't view homosexuality negatively...but I wouldn't dismiss EVERYTHING a person had to say because their theological convictions moved them to do so. That is just plain ignorant.
The science I cite isn't "woo science"...MOF it is the near UNIVERSAL CONSENSUS of ALL embryologists, biologists, geneticists, etc...that an individual human life begins at conception. To dispute that is to deny reality...which for some reason you keep doing.
And you keep citing your countries' 1997 law.
In my country a law dated August 2010 says life begins at conception: Section 1-205 Life begins at conception--unborn child
Since you are going by "laws"...why not go by THAT one?...it's MUCH more recent.
You came into this debate citing my answer to another poster. It asked about SA particularly.
Your USA law is redundant as it delves away from the real science of what constitutes a human being. I challenge you to show me anywhere in the world where a pregnancy has to be registered and you cannot. You then go on the defensive citing laws change and use slavery as a construct.
Every angle you have tried I have shot down in flames, you bring up a 20 question, I read it and then googled the alleged professor and found what he was about. Not a scientist or a MD.
Now you offer a state specific law and even here you fail. Our is a national law an no province (our equiv of your states) can override it.
I am quoting the whole thing as it is short.
Quote:
Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 1
Laws in Force and Construction of Statutes
Section 1.205
August 28, 2010 (Date of publication not date of law)
1.205. 1. The general assembly of this state finds that:
(1) The life of each human being begins at conception;
(2) Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being;
(3) The natural parents of unborn children have protectable interests in the life, health, and well-being of their unborn child.
2. Effective January 1, 1988, the laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and decisional interpretations thereof by the United States Supreme Court and specific provisions to the contrary in the statutes and constitution of this state.
Quote:
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S.113 (1973),[1] was a landmark, controversial decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. The Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother's health. Saying that these state interests become stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the mother's current trimester of pregnancy.
The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion up until viability.[2] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[3]
In disallowing many state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States,[4]Roe v. Wade prompted a national debate that continues today, about issues including whether and to what extent abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the nation into pro-choice and pro-life camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides.
3. As used in this section, the term "unborn children" or "unborn child" shall include all unborn child or children or the offspring of human beings from the moment of conception until birth at every stage of biological development.
4. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care.
This law is overridden by the decision of the SCOTUS and USC. Plus it was enacted in 1988, at that time SA probably had similar leanings.
You fail again.
The medical fraternity define what these terms are as you can see the law you cited, speaks of an UNBORN CHILD. There is no such term in medical science.
Has this EVER been challenged in court? I doubt it. You look it up. The lawmakers here are usually not medically literate and are moved by religious convictions rather than medical science. I assume Missouri is GOP controlled.
Been doing some more research and most articles I find suggest the problem of teen pregnancies are higher in the red states where ironically is the place where all this pro life gets traction.
Overview The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world. The Center for Disease control says that one-third of girls get pregnant before the age of 20. Teenpregnancy.org, a site managed by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, states that there are "750,000 teen pregnancies annually. Eight in ten of these pregnancies are unintended and 81 percent are to unmarried teens."
By Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY
The newest and most detailed data on teen birth rates shows significant increases in 26 states and represents most regions of the USA.
"To see 26 states with statistically significant increases is fairly remarkable," says Paul Sutton, a demographer with the National Center for Health Statistics, which released the data Wednesday. "We're seeing increases in both the number of teens having births and also the rate at which they are having births. Both of them are going up."
Teitler's figures, 2005-06 vital statistics and birth data from a dozen countries will update a study he conducted on 1960-95 data published in 2002 in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Other new international data come from Advocates for Youth, which supports comprehensive sex education. Its not-yet-released report on adolescent sexuality in the USA, France, Germany and the Netherlands shows more contraceptive and condom use in Europe, and higher rates of sexually transmitted disease, abortion, pregnancy and births in the USA. Teen birth rates here are more than four times higher than France or Germany.
Obviously, the root of the problem is either not being addressed properly or where prevention measures are being defunded.
Here is where the USA could take a page out of SA's legislation. Condoms have been available free from vending machines at almost every conceivable outlet like filling stations, latrines at businesses, in the ladies and gents and hotels. This all funded by govt primarily in the fight against AIDS but has also had the added benefit of the reduction of teen pregnancies.
Studies in the US has shown that the abstinence only program getting more funding is proportional or linked to the increased number of pregnancies.
80% of teen pregnancies in the US are unplanned, meaning they are doing it for pleasure rather than planning it. White females in this demographic have the highest abortion rates and abortions tend to increase the younger they are when they get pregnant.
You cannot mandate when the kids will have sex unless you lock them up until they are 18.
When I went to school, they essentially had boys only and girls only schools and the only one in the town where I attended high school was both sexes. That was in Zimbabwe pre independence. Still teen pregnancies were not uncommon when these schools had their proms needing to invite the opposite sex from other schools. It does not matter what you try and mandate, kids will have sex, it is a natural drive. This was the 70's and back then pregnancies were usually hushed up and the girl was forced to leave school and invariably forced into marriage.
In SA however, the schools do tend to be mixed as a whole barring certain exclusive private colleges as they are known here. With the sex ed here the numbers are far lower than the US and on the decline.
The disagreement of the two posters above would appear to me not to be legal, moral or philosophical but linguistic in nature.
Is the zygote at conception “Human”? Yes it very much is…. For a given definition of “human”. Then again the sperm is also human for a given definition of “human”. So are cancer cells and the gunk you pull out when you pick your nose. So, for that matter, are corpses.
Clearly the issue therefore is that the two posters are using the same word (human) but are operating on different definitions of that word. Clearly therefore it is important to define and defends ones use of terms and definitions, and ensure that the definition we are operating with is relevant to the discussion actually being had.
What the discussion of abortion comes down to at the end of the day is a discussion of “human rights” and I do not think a watered down generalized definition of “human” which incorporates anything with a diploid string of human DNA is relevant. I see absolutely no applicable definition of “human” which allows us to meaningfully assign rights to a Zygote that would not also force the intellectually honest to assign rights to cancer, nose dirt, or corpses.
In terms of human rights our definition of “human” should be tied to actual “humanity”… the aspects of us as a species that give us the notion of “rights” in the first place. Animals do not have the concept of rights, only we do. I think it important to realize that if our rights and our concepts of rights comes from Human Consciousness… what those rights are also decided by Human Consciousness…. How to apply them and enforce them also done by Human Consciousness… then it is hardly a leap to say that it is TO human consciousness that we are assigning them. What else are we applying them to if not this? We do not apply them to rocks, plants or animals.
What one very quickly realizes then is that not only does the fetus at certain stages of development not have the faculty of human consciousness at all… it does not even have the pre-requisite structures to produce it. I have often analogized this to radio. If Human Consciousness is likened to Radio waves, then there are certain stages in the fetal development where not only are those radio waves not being broadcast…. The broadcasting tower has not even been built yet!
Once this has been realised, it simply becomes non-sensical at certain stages of development in the fetus to consider abortion in any way morally wrong.
Nozz I agree with your post. In SA after 20 weeks which is half-way, to get an abortion then becomes progressively difficult and IMO by this stage, the expectant mother has gone through hormonal changes and unless there are complications will go the distance.
I would imagine most abortions occur within the first 8 weeks and from there on less as they have to be surgically done. However, a teen would likely hide the fact of pregnancy for as long as possible from her parents meaning that these would likely be further along than 20 weeks. At this time, even here in SA, an abortion would be difficult to obtain.
A friend of mine's sister concealed it from her parents for 6 months. The legal ramifications require doctors to inform parents when they are still considered minors. In SA this is 18 yet age of consent is 16.
Better sex ed and liberal availability of condoms would make much of the abortion issue negligible.
This has always struck me as a very good question. If I'm putting on my atheism hat, I still can't comprehend the logic of abortion.
The choice is as simple as this: Should human life be preserved and protected by the law? The obvious answer for most people is a resounding, "Yes!" Obviously we don't want to open up a Pandora's Box where everyone is free to kill anyone they please anytime they want.
So if preserving human life is a something we should require of our governments, what makes an unborn human any less protected? All the back and forth debate on the issue seeks to blur and distort things. Courts and governments try to draw a line where an embryo/fetus crosses over from being "an alien amoeba-like thing that has no species" to becoming a human being. It all gets pretty ridiculous: Every human fetus and every human embryo isn't going to auto-magically end up as a goat or a jellyfish. It's going to be a human being.
In the end, the legalization of abortion is the legalization of exterminating human life under certain specified conditions. If abortion is okay up to a certain point during pregnancy, why not open things up a bit and allow a woman to "abort" her child at any point before they turn 18 years old? Who gets to draw the line and say, "you can only terminate before X certain time" and what gives them the right to make that decision? So just allow parents to kill their children up until the child becomes and adult and is no longer subject to their parents.
This has always struck me as a very good question. If I'm putting on my atheism hat, I still can't comprehend the logic of abortion.
The choice is as simple as this: Should human life be preserved and protected by the law? The obvious answer for most people is a resounding, "Yes!" Obviously we don't want to open up a Pandora's Box where everyone is free to kill anyone they please anytime they want.
This is a logical fallacy suggestion that abortion will lead to infanticide becoming legal based on precedent of abortion being legal. In SA that has never happened and anyone killing someone that is registered at live birth is dealt with by the applicable laws. Abortion law was passed in 1997 and there have been no appeals for infanticide to be made legal. All murderers if caught are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Quote:
So if preserving human life is a something we should require of our governments, what makes an unborn human any less protected?
There is no such thing as an unborn human. The unborn are either an embryo, a zygote or fetus based on duration of gestation.
Quote:
All the back and forth debate on the issue seeks to blur and distort things. Courts and governments try to draw a line where an embryo/fetus crosses over from being "an alien amoeba-like thing that has no species" to becoming a human being. It all gets pretty ridiculous:
No, this has been the norm for some time now in the field of medical science.
A doctor may say to a woman after a positive test, congratulations, you are pregnant or congratulations, you are going to have a baby or congratulations you are going to be a mother. He/she does not say you have a human growing inside of you neither will they say you have a zygote or fetus in you.
The doctor will record the fact on his medical records but is in no way required to register this with the authorities. If the doctor will do the delivery, he/she does not even have to register the birth. A hospital note is given to the parent(s) and the parents are responsible for registering the birth with th registrar. That is how it was with both my kids and both were born pre-1994. (Much like a doctor's death certificate, that is not the official document and has to be registered with the registrar of births and deaths.)
Quote:
Every human fetus and every human embryo isn't going to auto-magically end up as a goat or a jellyfish. It's going to be a human being.
No argument here but no one has inferred otherwise.
Quote:
In the end, the legalization of abortion is the legalization of exterminating human life under certain specified conditions. If abortion is okay up to a certain point during pregnancy, why not open things up a bit and allow a woman to "abort" her child at any point before they turn 18 years old?
A child by definition of the law is protected by its right to life. The unborn have no such protection as there are just too many variables, stuff that can go wrong like ectopic pregnancies that have to be aborted to save the woman's life. There are also cases of anencephaly where the fetus has no brain. We now have the technology to detect this and going full term is a waste of time as the child will not survive the birth. There are many more anomalies and hence life cannot be defined as anything post birth.
In most countries, miscarriages do not require any registration of the event. 90% of them go undetected, possibly just a skipped period. Still births also need not be registered as such in most countries.
Quote:
Who gets to draw the line and say, "you can only terminate before X certain time" and what gives them the right to make that decision?
Medical science provide the facts and based on that, the termination is restricted to a certain number of weeks. Laws are passed taking these factors into consideration.
Quote:
So just allow parents to kill their children up until the child becomes and adult and is no longer subject to their parents.
That is stupid and you know it - apples and chainsaws
Using your logic we can just as well deny all women the rights they have accomplished and reduce them to baby making machines, barefoot and in the kitchen and preferably pregnant. We should also ban all forms of contraception as that too is unnatural.
This will no doubt be hunky dory as having more than two extra mouths to feed and educate which most folk can afford, you will have families of 10-15 kids. Pretty awesome for this booming economy don't you think?
When I was younger, if there was a "mistake" or unplanned pregnancy with my wife, I doubt we would have elected for an abortion. However, the choice was there if it was needed.
In most countries, govt health care provides not only abortions but primarily BCP and condoms for those unable to procure it themselves. When stuff in the US start denying funding to these, all it does is drive the practice underground as far as abortions are concerned and that is usually fatal.
SA abortion stats since 2005 are showing a declining trend. That can only mean contraception and sex ed is working.
Based on this chart SA has had 916,049 (1975-2006) whereas America has had 52,301,056 (1926-2004) abortions. This is not really comparative as SA is about a sixth of the USA population.
According to this chart the USA ranks at 22.6% over SA which is ranked at 7.7%.
That should tell you clearly, legal govt funded abortion does not lead to more abortions.
This matter has always been available for the wealthy in the form of D&C which is really a secret term for abortion and medical aids pay for it.
There is no such thing as an unborn human. The unborn are either an embryo, a zygote or fetus based on duration of gestation.
Scientific word definitions just became the ultimate guide for truth and right? Wow, when did that happen?
The fact of the matter is simple: It IS an unborn human. It's not going to be a zebra. It's not going to be a gorilla. It's going to be a human. But this is exactly what I was referring to earlier: The pro-abortion crowd likes to dither and nit pick -- all to make it all seem a lot more complicated than it is. Abortion is the termination of a human life. Want proof? Okay, try this experiment. Take 100 women who are about to get an abortion and get them (through whatever means you like) to agree to carry the baby full-term. Out these 100 pregnancies, how many result in a human life?
100% of those pregnancies will result in a human life if they go full-term.
And this is the real crux of the matter. You can call it prevention of human life and I'll call it termination of human life. Either way, it results in one less living, breathing human being. It ends a life every bit as reliably as shooting somebody dead with a gun does. Abortion and murder both result in one less human life.
Quote:
A child by definition of the law is protected by its right to life. The unborn have no such protection
The justice system has recently made a big ugly mess of this one. Murderers who kill a woman that is pregnant are tried and successfully convicted of double murder. Pregnant women can be beaten up by a guy, miscarry, take the guy to court for murder and win. If it ain't a life, then how does that work exactly?
I take no issue with abortion that saves the mother's life. That's an odd twist on killing in self defense, isn't it? And miscarriages happen just as accidental deaths of acknowledged bonifide human beings happens. Nobody is prosecuted when a man accidentally slips and falls off a cliff and dies on impact. His death was not the result of anyone actively trying to kill him. Accidental death isn't murder and miscarriage falls into the same category -- a tragedy but not a crime.
Victims of rape are in a grey area as far as I'm concerned. If they choose to go through with the pregnancy, God bless them. If they choose not to, it's a very sad thing indeed but understandable.
Whether or not a death certificate or anything like that is or is not issued is completely irrelevant. Official recognition or lack thereof is not grounds for defining something as right or wrong. The government of Germany determined that it was not only acceptable but absolutely necessary to exterminate all Jews. Their official sanction of the holocaust while it was happening doesn't make it right.
Quote:
This will no doubt be hunky dory as having more than two extra mouths to feed and educate which most folk can afford, you will have families of 10-15 kids. Pretty awesome for this booming economy don't you think?
Um ... nice. Actually, you know nothing about my situation. My wife and I wanted to have children but were unable -- for 10 years. Thanks to modern medicine's intervention we finally were able to have our first child this year. So for 10 years, abortion meant something very different for me and my wife. We knew that girls out there were having abortions -- and each one was a child we would have happily adopted and raised as our own, given the chance. But instead, that woman/girl kills it. So in a very big way, abortion just pisses me off.
There are many, many, many couples in the same situation: Wanting children but unable to have them. Abortion has created a scarcity of adoptable babies, so if you want one the going rate is $35,000+.
Quote:
"So just allow parents to kill their children up until the child becomes and adult and is no longer subject to their parents."
That is stupid and you know it - apples and chainsaws
Yes and it was also in the spirit of A Modest Proposal: Suggesting something even more ridiculous in order to make the already ridiculous thing more apparent. Jonathan Swift - A Modest Proposal
"I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout ... Infant's flesh will be in season throughout the year, but more plentiful in March ..."
OF COURSE I'm not serious and you know it very well. The point is that a human life is being stopped. In that same facetious spirit of things, I would point out that a child under the age of 18 is not a full-fledged human. They don't have the full measure of rights, responsibility nor capabilities of a full-grown adult. So if we can arbitrarily terminate the life of child before birth but we're basing it on what some supposed expert says is legit -- I say scratch that. Let's just take the already well established age of becoming a full-fledged human being and use that as the cutoff for when you can or cannot abort. Under 18 = abortion's okay. Over 18, killing your child becomes murder and is no longer acceptable. The point is that we all KNOW that killing a 12 year old child is wrong. So when did killing an unborn child become okay?
And the point I'm driving at is quite intentional. If "experts" get to decide where the dividing line is, what are they basing that upon? A heartbeat? Looking more humanlike in shape? Size? Able to survive outside the womb? The supposed experts can't seem to agree on when a human becomes human, so why is the already official age of "now old enough to provide the necessities of life for yourself yet and make your own decisions" any worse of a dividing line? It already divides between the fully-recognized bonifide human beings and those that are something less.
Ultimately, it remains to be proven conclusively that unborn humans are not humans. As such, the rights of the innocent SHOULD BE protected but aren't.
You will note that I'm not bringing God and the ten commandments or anything like that in to make my point. That's because it's not a "religion vs non-religion" issue at all. It's just sense vs nonsense.
Scientific word definitions just became the ultimate guide for truth and right? Wow, when did that happen?
Been around for awhile now and as afar back as I can remember looking at medical books and the science/biology I was taught in the 70's. It is not a new thing.
Quote:
The fact of the matter is simple: It IS an unborn human. It's not going to be a zebra. It's not going to be a gorilla. It's going to be a human. But this is exactly what I was referring to earlier: The pro-abortion crowd likes to dither and nit pick -- all to make it all seem a lot more complicated than it is.
I agreed with you unless you missed it. the term unborn human does not exist as a medical term.
Quote:
Abortion is the termination of a human life.
No it is not. Human life is defined post live birth, hence birth certificates.
Quote:
Want proof? Okay, try this experiment. Take 100 women who are about to get an abortion and get them (through whatever means you like) to agree to carry the baby full-term. Out these 100 pregnancies, how many result in a human life?
100% of those pregnancies will result in a human life if they go full-term.
No arguments here but that does not validate your case.
Quote:
And this is the real crux of the matter. You can call it prevention of human life and I'll call it termination of human life. Either way, it results in one less living, breathing human being. It ends a life every bit as reliably as shooting somebody dead with a gun does. Abortion and murder both result in one less human life.
First part: It is the termination of a pregnancy and I would say the termination of a potential human life. All geared to the future when the baby is actually born.
Second Part:This is not the same as shooting someone. A human has the right to life and is protected by the law.
Quote:
The justice system has recently made a big ugly mess of this one. Murderers who kill a woman that is pregnant are tried and successfully convicted of double murder. Pregnant women can be beaten up by a guy, miscarry, take the guy to court for murder and win. If it ain't a life, then how does that work exactly?
See how the slippery slope works? When lawmakers choose to redefine stuff they are not qualified to do, they make stupid laws like these. I do not think we have laws like that here.
Quote:
I take no issue with abortion that saves the mother's life. That's an odd twist on killing in self defense, isn't it? And miscarriages happen just as accidental deaths of acknowledged bonifide human beings happens. Nobody is prosecuted when a man accidentally slips and falls off a cliff and dies on impact. His death was not the result of anyone actively trying to kill him. Accidental death isn't murder and miscarriage falls into the same category -- a tragedy but not a crime.
When you start making exceptions, I ask you then who draws the line? In SA after 20 weeks, the law swivels to pro life as far as the unborn are concerned.
Quote:
Victims of rape are in a grey area as far as I'm concerned. If they choose to go through with the pregnancy, God bless them. If they choose not to, it's a very sad thing indeed but understandable.
Another exception, well then all a women has to do is say she was forcibly done whether married of not, that then has to open the door to allowing in a grey area. IMO it is this grey area that make it worse. At least having it defined as we have it makes for semi rigid guidelines.
Quote:
Whether or not a death certificate or anything like that is or is not issued is completely irrelevant. Official recognition or lack thereof is not grounds for defining something as right or wrong.
It has been around for a long long time. B&D records record only births and deaths. Even the definitions of human growth are pretty standard.
Baby -> child -> adolescent -> adult, all part of the human "experience"
Quote:
The government of Germany determined that it was not only acceptable but absolutely necessary to exterminate all Jews. Their official sanction of the holocaust while it was happening doesn't make it right.
Um ... nice. Actually, you know nothing about my situation.
I was not targeting you specifically, I was talking in generics.
Quote:
My wife and I wanted to have children but were unable -- for 10 years. Thanks to modern medicine's intervention we finally were able to have our first child this year. So for 10 years, abortion meant something very different for me and my wife. We knew that girls out there were having abortions -- and each one was a child we would have happily adopted and raised as our own, given the chance. But instead, that woman/girl kills it. So in a very big way, abortion just pisses me off.
I Understand, but did you advertise this fact with various clinics?
I was lucky that my situation was such that we were able to plan with BCP and my wife got pregnant both times the month she stopped the BCP's
Quote:
There are many, many, many couples in the same situation: Wanting children but unable to have them. Abortion has created a scarcity of adoptable babies, so if you want one the going rate is $35,000+.
Yes and it was also in the spirit of A Modest Proposal: Suggesting something even more ridiculous in order to make the already ridiculous thing more apparent. Jonathan Swift - A Modest Proposal
"I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout ... Infant's flesh will be in season throughout the year, but more plentiful in March ..."
OF COURSE I'm not serious and you know it very well. The point is that a human life is being stopped. In that same facetious spirit of things, I would point out that a child under the age of 18 is not a full-fledged human. They don't have the full measure of rights, responsibility nor capabilities of a full-grown adult. So if we can arbitrarily terminate the life of child before birth but we're basing it on what some supposed expert says is legit -- I say scratch that. Let's just take the already well established age of becoming a full-fledged human being and use that as the cutoff for when you can or cannot abort. Under 18 = abortion's okay. Over 18, killing your child becomes murder and is no longer acceptable. The point is that we all KNOW that killing a 12 year old child is wrong. So when did killing an unborn child become okay?
These laws have been in place for a long time and you wishing to redefine the terms make you look silly. The right to life is determined 0-death not -9 months to death. Laws within this time frame protect the living.
Quote:
And the point I'm driving at is quite intentional. If "experts" get to decide where the dividing line is, what are they basing that upon? A heartbeat? Looking more humanlike in shape? Size? Able to survive outside the womb? The supposed experts can't seem to agree on when a human becomes human, so why is the already official age of "now old enough to provide the necessities of life for yourself yet and make your own decisions" any worse of a dividing line? It already divides between the fully-recognized bonifide human beings and those that are something less.
Here it is 20 weeks and even at that period of gestation, it is not able to survive a premature birth, see there is another definition that is global.
Quote:
Ultimately, it remains to be proven conclusively that unborn humans are not humans. As such, the rights of the innocent SHOULD BE protected but aren't.
You will note that I'm not bringing God and the ten commandments or anything like that in to make my point. That's because it's not a "religion vs non-religion" issue at all. It's just sense vs nonsense.
No I realise this is more than a religious concept, you have an emotional stake in it which I do not. I am however not pro abortion as you infer, I am simply pro choice.
To put it in perspective, my daughter started dating a boy when she was 15 and at close to 19 is still with her 1st boyfriend. If she got pregnant at 15 I would have elected for abortion as her father. At nearly 19, it would be her choice. I have already told her I have no objections if she now wants to use BCP. That said, the lad is very decent but I have no illusions that he or she are angels. Some parents here in the town where I stay actually had their daughter on BCP while still at school. My wife would not allow that. I simply told my kids, there are measures, use them, I do not want unplanned babies.
To me this abortion issue runs parallel to teen pregnancies and I have seen how this devastates young girls first hand. My brother's 1st wife was 15 when she got knocked up and he is now on wife 3. Neither of them were ready to become parents and were not really compatible. He was stupid not using protection.
I know I am arguing this purely from a legal and medical scientific POV but the case by case basis are all unique. I just do not believe that an unwanted pregnancy should be forced on a girl that made a mistake or who was not properly educated in the birds and the bees.
Women in their twenties should be on BCP if sexually active or preferably use condoms. Abortions in these cases cannot simply be seen as oops mistake. Any woman in her 20's should know better.
If you look at all the stats, these are higher with teens.
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.
Red light district err I mean Red states
