there have been enough full term babies flushed down the toilet, and thrown away in trash bags to prove your hypothesis as incorrect. Sure most women choose too carry regardless of the law. But there are those few simply ready to kill it. You can not speak for all women out there on what is a choice and what is done (forced)because of the law.
Those dumpster babies you mention are generally because an early term abortion wasn't available, or....parental permission or notification was required in order to get the early term abortion. When abortion is available, accessible, and affordable, women will choose to have them early term. Who would be crazy enough to endure pregnancy one more day than absolutely necessary? So now that early term abortion is available to most women in this country (some exceptions), no woman is FORCED to gestate late term.
If only one percent of, say, bank transactions are robberies, does that automatically make bank robbery no big deal? An abortion for reasons concerning the physical health of the mother-to-be is certainly understandable. If, however, it is for the reason of her "mental" health--a term so vague that it may mean that she would simply be distressed to have to look after a newborn--well, that is quite another matter... Actually, birth control is quite inexpensive: http://bedsider.org/features/78 These "poor women" might do well to re-order their priorities, and put birth control near the top of the list--ahead of, say, a monthly cell-phone contract. Either that, or abstain altogether; for the moment, anyway.
Do you believe that it is illogical for society to have (and enforce) laws against rape, murder, and armed robbery? If you sincerely believe that "personhood" is acquired, rather than being innate, then we begin with fundamentally different worldviews. As stated in post #73 in this thread (which, by the way, was a reiteration of the same question in a previous post), it is this:
Oh, ya, the old, "if humans just quit having sex " advice....take note : it does NOT work. Never in the history of humans have humans quit having sex.... WHAT makes you think they will now because YOU think they SHOULD? And why should they? If BC fails, as it often does, then they can get a safe, legal abortion....just like rich women, christian women, Catholic women, liberal women, conservative women, white women, black women, Hispanic women, all do....
True, though the question was meant to mean using any other examples besides abortion. My fault there for not being specific enough, and as such my failing. If I may, can I ask the same question but add; Find one single instance, other than abortion/pregnancy where a person has been forced by law to allow the use of their body, or parts there of, to sustain the life of another. Though I don't want to be accused of creating a fallacy by adding items to the original question.
no, but I do not believe those laws have to be based on morality either, they can be based on the 'common good' factor . .so in the respect of those laws being logical, yes because it is logical to not to allow detrimental actions that effect society as whole, as far as morality is concerned then all of the above can and have been morally accepted at some point. Doesn't that make it all the more interesting. I can if you wish provide evidence to support my view that there is very little that is innate, can you do the same to show the opposite? Not fundamental to me as I believe there are no moral underpinnings for any of the items mentioned.
But NOT before her, and her families, rights were reflexively violated by fiat from State Law. We can throw you in jail for a month and then let you go because it was a mistake. But that month was still unrightfully taken from you.
Are you saying abortion to save the life of the woman is wrong, like a bank robbery? What about an abortion because of fetal abnormality incompatible with life, that's wrong? Like a bank robbery? Virtually all late term abortions are done for extreme medical reasons. They are tragic for the woman who is forced to terminate a wanted pregnancy and they are anything but criminal or immoral. Reasons for a mental health exception are varied-- a rape victim who has repeatedly attempted suicide, or a woman carrying a dead or anencephalic fetus, for example. No woman, however, will suffer months of misery in pregnancy to abort in the final weeks for trivial reasons. Why not leave these medical decisions to the professionals? "Inexpensive" is in the eyes of the beholder. Abstinence is the least effective form of birth control when rated for typical use.
Somewhat conveniently, you have simply ignored the first part of my advice, viz.: "These 'poor women' might do well to...put birth control...ahead of, say, a monthly cell phone contract." As for your characterization--no, your mischaracterization--of my latter suggestion, it was not to simply "quit having sex," as you have described it--not forever, anyway--but to merely abstain "for the moment," if they do not feel able to pay the few dollars a month necessary for contraception. If you wish to debate what I really said, then we may have a reasoned discussion. But if you would prefer to erect a strawman and then set it ablaze--well, that is really not very useful...
I think you may be (unnecessarily) imbuing the word, "morality," with a religious connotation. For society to determine, collectively, that it is not in society's best interest to allow certain acts to go unpunished--in other words, for society to decide to deter these acts, to the greatest extent possible--is, indeed, for society to make a collective moral decision. What "evidence," exactly, do you suppose might establish the theory that an unborn child is not really human, in any meaningful sense of the word--even after, say, six or seven months of gestation? And how do you define "personhood," anyway?
The question was: Find one single instance where a person has been forced by law to allow the use of their body, or parts there of, to sustain the life of another. We have laws forcing women to have their babies even when they don't want to. And...in this day and age we have women birthing babies and killing them because they were forced to nurture them until they were born. I think I answered the question.
Proof, please? (Preferably, from a neutral source.) I suppose I do not care, very much, for the idea of our society's imbuing "professionals" (or anyone else, for that matter) with the authority to administer death... Well, I am guessing that many of these "poor women" either have cell-phone plans, or purchase fuel for more than just going to and from work. So it is really just a matter of priorities... What is that old joke I once heard? Oh, yeah. It goes something like this: Question: What is the most effective method of birth control? Answer: An aspirin--held firmly between the knees.
So people should only ever have sex with their partners if they are trying to become pregnant? Do you only have sex when you want to make babies? By the way, I don't know if you know this, but it is possible to penetrate a woman with her legs closed. So your advice is rather silly.
totally agree .. though this has nothing to do with what I originally asked, in the end the woman's rights were upheld.
Has nothing to do with religion for me in anyway, shape or form. There are many things that a society has decided to allow or deter that has not been based on morality, but on the collective interest of the society. Which has nothing to do with whether something is 'innate' or not, please stay on subject. innate = inborn, natural Now do you have any evidence to show that there is anything that is inborn, natural?
Yes, I think you proved women are the ONLY people who have been forced by law to allow the use of their bodies, or parts there of, to sustain the life of another. Thank you. That was the point being made.
Ya, that "brilliant " piece of stupidity was told by some pig Republican and even some Republicans were embarrassed !!!. It was almost as stupid as the REPUBLICAN who said when women are raped their "system" shuts down so they can't REALLY get pregnant...all the Stupid was said by old Republican white men..
Only 1.4% of abortions are done after 20 weeks. In 1997, only about 0.08% of abortions were performed after 24 weeks, at a time when the fetus may be viable... Very few abortions after 20 weeks are elective; almost all are done for medical reasons. All or essentially all medial associations in U.S. states and Canadian provinces have a gestational time limit beyond which elective abortions cannot be performed. This is typically 20 or 21 weeks. The individual associations have different rules. However, in most areas of North America, medical associations allow D&X procedures only if there is a very severe and serious threat to the woman's health, or a threat to the woman's life, or when the fetus is very severely malformed. http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_why.htm# Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children). http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html Ha. Ha. Ha.
Poor women...sad victims because they can't kill their children sometimes. I don't think I need a napkin to sob into..
Yes, the next time a woman stuffs her newborn child into a trash bag and tosses it into the dumpster....I will try to remember that pro-abortionists cry for her. Poor thing.
WOW, so you think that we would "cry" for a murderer do you .. is there no gutter level a pro-lifer will not stoop to .. obviously not. Oh and let me know when you actually find a "pro-abortionist" won't you, never met one you see.
