Reply With Quote
There's no slippery slope to this. Just admit you're wrong and you are not for murdering infants.
As already stated, a fetus does not have the protection of personhood... so, no.
There's no slippery slope to this. Just admit you're wrong and you are not for murdering infants.
At what point is it not a fetus? Are all premies fetus's?
I made my position clear. I stand by it. I think Roe makes it pretty clear who's allowed to makes decisions and when, and I agree with it.
Much like when does life 'begins', there's no scientific answer to that. We can exchange opinions for 20 posts and not only it doesn't matter, it won't answer the question either.
That's what the SCOTUS faced back in Roe vs Wade. And the reality is that a fairly balanced compromise was reached. It gives 1/3 of the pregnancy decision-making solely to the mother and doctor, and 2/3 to the State.
I think it's a reasonable compromise. I think the mother should have that decision-making power for some time after pregnancy is detected.
What's the logic behind this? If a baby survives an abortion and is alive outside of the womb, and someone kills it, how is that not murder? I want some abortion lovers to explain that to me. Step up and explain it to me.
hence new law in FLA apparently addressing that. legal personhood is not just whatever it means for purposes of morality, it is a definable legal custom that varies from state to state.What's the logic behind this? If a baby survives an abortion and is alive outside of the womb, and someone kills it, how is that not murder?
change the custom, and you change the moral calculus. short of outlawing abortion the state can make it very inconvenient for providers.
Rick Santorum and his wife did.
Not all of the women who have an abortion have been irresponsible. And not all of the people who have made the irresponsible decisions that can lead to unwanted/unexpected pregnancy are woman.
Vitriolic rambling about "tens of thousands of irresponsible cunts" does nothing to help your argument.
"I think it is really sad when tens of thousands of irresponsible kunts"
typical right winger, blaming exclusively the vaginas, not the penises.
When the father has no say and is automatically on the hook for 18 years of mandatory "child support" (which is really a wealth transfer to the mother) if she decided to keep the baby, that isn't "fairly balanced" at all. Just saying.
I don't think economics had anything to do with Roe vs Wade's decision. It's all about the mother's safety. The fact that health-wise it's less risky to abort in the first trimester than actually give birth was a major driver on the decision. The father economic concerns don't enter that picture.
I know that women hate hearing this but abortion is sexist. It clearly favors the woman and s the guy over big time. And don't give me this of "every guy will leave his baby momma or that every guy wants his woman to abort". Where is the outrage on this? I thought there was suppose to be gender equality. It takes a man and a woman to make a baby.
poor little men, always powerless, always there with lifetime $$$ commitment to their spawn.
Is it equal rights when the woman has a choice, and the man doesn't?
Pro-choice should be women's choice since the man has no choice or say in the matter.
Typical hypocrisy.
What health issues does the man faces during the woman's pregnancy, doctors?
I'll bet health concerns of the woman are less than 1% of abortions. Women more often have an abortion for financial reasons. The sperm donor has no say in such matters, but is legally responsible.
You're conflating two different things:
A) Why do women do it
vs
B) Why women get to decide at all (regardless of what the decision is or what's the motive)
This thread is discussing B. You're ing about A.
Do you have a transcript for that hearing?
Listened to it and it was quite clear that it was edited in places.
Abortion foes' tend to lie a lot in their propaganda, so I would not care to take this for anything other than pablum for the converted without it.
I would further point out that no few peoples defintion of "baby" is any fertilized egg. Kind of blurs the issue when one person tries to talk about "breathing" babies, when babies can't actually breathe until after 25 weeks or so.
http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnanc...fresh-air.aspx
For someone whose party claps at the thought of poor people without health insurance dying because they can't pay, you seem awfully eager to have $1,000,000 "babies" kept alive.
That is about how much the average premature infant costs the health care system, just in the first year or so, to my expert understanding.
I bet you are too lazy to actually find the real percentage.
Sounds like your issue is with the child support structure then. That's probably a better route to go with your argument, vs. the idea that the man should have equal say in determining whether or not a woman has to endure 40 weeks of pregnancy.
Insofar as babies who are born are people... and killing people is a crime... it seems like this is an altogether unnecessary piece of legislation designed to rile folks up over nothing. Looks like it worked.
Or maybe there is a rampant baby-slaughtering issue in Florida... in which case... fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck
On this topic, yes. I have no desire to find the real number, but with modern medicine like it is...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
