Reply With Quote
And you know this because of how it felt that time you had to terminate a pregnancy?
That's an excellent point. Now the die hards will say her body her choice aNd they make no wiggle room for anything else. God bless
And you know this because of how it felt that time you had to terminate a pregnancy?
It's a human life deserving legal protections that don't include living inside of an unwilling person for 9 months.
We already went through the legal aspect. As it stands, an unborn is not a person or a child, it's a separate class named the unborn.
But there's a specific reason for that: the fetus is wholly dependent on the mother. Thus if the mother decides she doesn't want to continue with the pregnancy, it's well within her rights to abort.
Yonivore, champion of absolutely equal rights for all living beings.
Except for gays, women, non-Christians, minorities, immigrants, and anyone suspected of a crime.
If even a significant number of the 1.21 million women who get abortions, were agonizing over the choice, there'd be fewer abortions.
Still waiting for an answer on this one:
Or maybe it's not 3 million because women are agonizing over the choice.
The point is that it's a human life growing inside of another human life. The mother, and her control over her own human body, is also deserving of legal protections.
I and the other people who support women's agency in their reproductive decisions are pretty unapologetic about the fact we see the rights of adult (or, at least, biologically adult) women as superseding those of an unborn fetus. It would be nice if people on your side of the argument were equally honest about making the opposite decision.
The SCOTUS said that through an informed decision... those die hards!
Why are you waiting? Your question didn't make any sense.
1.21 million is nonchalant. It isn't 10 or 100.
I like to schedule my abortions on the same days as my mani/pedi.
It's obvious why they made that decision. Im surprised you of all people agree with every decision SCOTUS makes. God bless
Of course it makes sense. You're building your strawman over an arbitrary amount. I'm asking you what other arbitrary amount would make it OK.
Is 10 or 100 nonchalant? What's the 'acceptable' number?
And, the child deserves legal protection, as well.
Well, since the choice is rarely between the life of the mother and the life of the child, I'm pretty unapologetic about standing up for the innocent life that has absolutely no voice in the matter.
Tasteful and classy. God bless
What do you know about the decision? Did you know that an abortion in the 1st trimester carries less health risk for the mother than actually delivering?
Do you only have one narrow viewpoints of libertarianism?
1.2 Personal Privacy
Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.
That's not an arbitrary amount. There are actually 1.21 million abortions a year, in the United States.
Give me the number of pregnancies that result from incest and rape, subtract that from 1.21 million, and you have your number.
All of this discussion brought to mind a show I saw years ago. I think it was Phil Donahue. That tells you how long ago it was. A woman came on there because she wanted help in figuring out how to tell her son he was the result of a rape. She had decided that now that he was an adult that he should know that she had decided to keep the baby that had resulted from this rape, especially because family members knew. The worst part for her was that he looked just like the man who had raped her. Everyday she said she looked at her son and saw the man who did this to her. I just can not imagine what that was like for her.
Just tell me this is actually what you think should be the law of the land:
Women, within 24 hours of being raped, should make it a point to seek medication to terminate a *possible* pregnancy, or else they have to complete the pregnancy or face criminal punishment.
It's an arbitrary amount when it comes to describing it as non-chalant.
Fair enough.
Something along those lines, but the finer details need worked out. The abortion provider need to go to prison.
Still, it should be a states rights issue, without the federals telling everyone how to do it. My idea wouldn't be right for all 50 states, and I wouldn't expect it to be.
The argument could be made that the expenses and physical limitations that come with a nine month pregnancy can often have an irreversible (and not always positive) effect on a woman's life. Especially a woman for whom a lack of financial and emotional support contribute to their decision to abort.
But it's an argument you're not open to, so I won't bother.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
