However that is just you trying to inflict your will on others. Abortion has always happened. I knew people who had back street abortions and for this reason I will always support the right to abortion because I do believe in the right to life and many of these women died from back street abortions. I don't think anyone thinks abortion is a cool thing to do. Most people know immediately if it is the right thing for them to do and for that reason http://contraception.about.com/od/contraceptionfailure/a/aboutabortion.htm That lets you know that most people know it is what they should do and most abortions are indeed done when it is just a collection of cells. The woman arranges the abortion as soon as possible. It is only in special circumstances that she has the abortion later and that is usually due to illness with her or the baby. You like to pile on as if all abortions were murder of viable babies whereas abortion of viable babies, that is after 20-24 weeks unless some severe medical problem is not allowed in Scotland. I have thought of reducing the time but it is seen to be the best time at the moment to allow for people who for instance find out at their twenty week scan that there are serious problems or need cancer treatment or what not. Most abortions as you can see are very early - 88% of them in the first trimester and 54% in the first 8 weeks. These are the US times and I think ours are similar. This looks like women are being responsible. We quite simply could not move back into an authoritarian society where it was banned and women died in back street ones. Whether I could attend would depend on the person and the circumstances.
Because Churchmouse is a sick control freak? Why yes, that would be it. She's got mental issues. Bad ones. Her cult worked hard to destroy her sanity and ethics, and now she's on a quest to pass that on. Don't engage the crazy woman, just smile and move along.
Some of us, in serving our country, have deliberately killed adult people. Real, mature, thinking, legal adults. And watched people next to us doing the same thing. And being happy with every death we dealt, because we did this for our country, we did our duty, and we were proud of it. And I'll bet that of churchmouse were obliged to defend her country the same way, by killing people, she'd do it and she'd be just as proud of the opportunity to serve. She might even be annoyed at being told she was somehow sick or immoral for doing it. The issue here, obviously, has nothing to do with killing. Everybody dies. The issue here is POWER - who gets to live, and who gets to DECIDE who lives. What churchmouse craves is the POWER to tell others how to live and how to act, while NOT letting them tell HER the same thing. And for the power-hungry, individual liberty is the enemy, and even the most transparent fictions seem good enough excuses to make sure OTHER people don't have it.
I very much respect YOUR point of view! At least, you are not just interested in forcing women to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term, you want to see a child live and thrive, and you are willing to make sacrifices (such as allowing some of your taxes to be used) to support those children to their full potential. I absolutely respect that, even though I still believe that a woman should continue to have access to EARLY term abortion if that is the difficult decision that she feels she must make. But, if more people were, like you are, willing to HELP, not just the fetus, but the mother during her pregnancy, and the child after his/her birth, and until he/she can fend for him/herself, maybe less women would feel they don't have a choice but to terminate a pregnancy. Also, I believe that, instead of fighting against birth control and sex education, the "pro-lifers" would push for easier/cheaper access to birth control and sex education, it would also greatly reduce the number of early term abortion. But thank you for a fair and balanced post, and for being willing to "walk the talk!"
I could not watch someone chop of their leg because of infection, but I would not want the procedure banned because of that
"Since you pro-choice/aborts believe" pro lifers\rapists (you do want to force a women to have her rapists baby right?) do not need to worry, the pro-science crowd will eventually be able to create a baby outside the womb... problem solved course then we have to decide what to do when a mad scientists tries to create a million coppies of himself or someone else... do we HAVE to let them finish being created?
Could someone who is against welfare payments stand and watch a poor person die? Could someone watch a heart transplant even though they have a fear of blood? Could a person in favor of the death penalty administer that lethal injection? Your OP fails a million times over.
not all pregnancies go well, there are risks http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Parenting/flesh-eating-bacteria-costs-mom-arms-legs/story?id=10646649 this can only be the potential mothers choice to bring a pregnancy to completion or not .
This issue was specifically addressed in depth in the US Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade but "anti-abortionists" while condemning this decision have either never read or attempted to understand it. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html The United States was founded upon the political ideal that the primary purpose of government was to protect the inalienable Rights of the People (persons). While the US Constitution does establish many criteria for the establishment of our federal government it is also the supreme law of the land in protection of our inalienable Rights. All inalienable Rights relate to the People (or persons) and they do not extend to non-persons. In the arguments before the Supreme Court both the sides of the legal arguments, pro and con abortion laws, admitted that there was no legal or historical precedent establishing that the "pre-born" were persons. Since the protection of inalienable Rights only addresses people or persons and there was no historical precedent for establishing the "pre-born" as people or persons they have no protected inalienable Rights such as the Right to Life. The woman is a person, established at birth, and the Consitutional protections of her inalienable Rights was (and is) applicable. Her Rights had to be protected by the Supreme Court in it's decision. The US Supreme Court did recognize that at birth the child becomes a person and the Right to Life, an inalienable Right protected by the US Constitution, is established and that a fetus at viability could live outside of the womb unassisted and would be a child with protected inalienable Rights if/when that occurred. As a fetus it had no inalienable Rights but as a child it would. Recognizing that the difference between a viable fetus and a child was only a question of "in or out" of the womb the Supreme Court logically determined that a fetus at viability deserved the virtual protections that a child would secure because of birth. The only exception was if the woman's life or health were in serious medical jeoprady in which case the established Rights of the Woman would take precedent over the potential Rights of the fetus at viability. The Supreme Court's decision was, in fact, a very wise decision by the Court as it addressed the legal issue of the protections of the Rights of the woman while also addressing the potential rights of a viable fetus based upon historical precedent. We can understand the beliefs of the anti-abortionists that choose to believe that the pre-born are persons but they lack the historical or legal precedent to establish that. Fortunately for them new legal precedent can be established in the United States but the only way that can be done is by changing the US Constitution as it is the Supreme Law of the Land. The pathway for those that oppose abortion is clear and direct. They need to draft and have ratified a Constitutional Amendment that establishess the "personhood" of the pre-born. That is the only legal means they have for establishing legal precedent for their political beliefs related to the personhood of the pre-born. There is no other ligitimate way to accomplish their goal. Until the "personhood" of the pre-born is established by Constitutional Amendment the decision on Roe v Wade will stand as it was based upon our Constitution as written. To change the decision requires a change to the Constitution. This is not rocket science. Their pathway is clear and lies before them if they want their beliefs to become incorporated into the laws of America. Until they address this under the Constitution they're really blowing smoke in the wind. Their opinions don't matter unless they're supported by law and they can only be supported by law if the US Constitution is changed.
Cady said, Ya did not answer, period. No, apples and oranges. The questions are not the same. How many women denied an abortion die? Only those who kill themselves because they don't want to have the child. And? What does that have to do with the simple darn question I asked. Start another thread about it .this one is about watching an abortion, watching an abortionist kill a living child.
One thing should be clarified related to the title of this thread. Just because a person is opposed to laws restricting the abortion rights of a woman does not imply that they are pro-abortion. By way of analogy I oppose the laws prohibiting the possession or use of heroin but I don't advocate that people should do heroin. I oppose laws that restrict the liberty of the American People when no other "person's" rights are being violated. I accept the definative determination of the US Supreme Court that there is no legal or historical precedent for establishing the "personhood" of the "pre-born" because it wasn't even disputed by the attorneys representing the abortion laws in Roe v Wade. I am willing to address a Constitutional Amendment that establishes legal precedent for "personhood" of the pre-born but no one has offered such an amendment for consideration to my knowledge. We can only review an amendment if it's proposed and I can't comment on that which I haven't seen.
Shiva_TD said, What does watching an abortion have to do with this? All I asked the pro-abort is….COULD YOU STAND NEXT TO AN ABORTIONIST AND WATCH AN ABORTION. I know the Constitution. I took the Hillsdale online class and gained a thorough understanding of it. You should do it…you might learn something. I am not off base at all. Our rights as citizens were raped by the Supreme Court then when the decision this week came down about health care. They did not protect individual rights. It was about forcing people to do something they did not want to do. The Constitution does not say that the unborn is not a person. Where does it say this? The unborn in in a living mother/woman….it is human, it is living and growing. How can it not be a person. Is it a rock? Is it a tree? Is it a book? No. It's heart is beating and it is growing. And during an abortion the abortionist has to stop the heart…which means kill it. Is he killing a rock? A tree? A book? What is the difference between a living human and rock, tree, book? If one of these were in the womb…would an abortionist be needed? Where in the Constitution does it specifically say the unborn is not included in these rights? There are cases all the time where our laws give the unborn personhood. In the case of Scott Peterson when he killed his wife Laci and son Connor. They did not find him guilty just on one charge. And the courts worded it such that they even called Connor a person. Is it legal for someone to self abort at eight months? Can someone assist killing an unborn for the mother? NO. If that which is in the womb is not a person….then why is abortion not legal the entire nine months? Why are all these late term abortion mills being shut down? The evidence that the courts heard were lies…that has been established. The entire case was brought before the court because of the lie told by Norman McCorvey. The court stated that it did not care or need to prove when life even begins. They were not presented the truth. That is why this case needs to be reheard because new facts concerning scientific knowledge provides evidence about unborns in the womb…from the time of conception. Also what damage abortion causes on the mothers physical and mental body. Why is late term abortion against the law? If the Court said it gains personhood at birth…then shouldn't abortion be legal throughout the woman's entire pregnancy? What child at birth can live without intervention? Absurd reasoning by the court. If the court had the knowledge today…there 1973 logic would be thrown out the window. That is why pro-aborts do not want this to ever appear before the courts. That is why there is a fight between Democrats and Republicans every time a seat is open on the bench. Because once the courts give the child personhood….abortion legally becomes murder. And its funny…and our laws are so wishy washy on this…the courts do hold people accountable for killing the unborn. Their legal ruling says….you killed a nonperson….therefore you are guilty. How can someone be guilty of killing a nonperson? I would think all you who champion and get off on the idea of abortion would be trying to make abortion legal throughout the entire pregnancy. Why don't you? If that which is in the womb is not a person…then watching an abortion is nothing because nothing is being killed. Yet I made this thread and you see what happened. We have pro-aborts dancing around the issue, padding their answers….squirming…because they know deep down it is a person and while they might want abortion legal….they want to look away. Their decision has killed over 55 million unborn living children. This decision was tragic and the worst decision they have ever made. The court needs to take a look again at the scientific evidence. Our Constitution says nothing about rights only being for those today lucky enough to have been born. Those who value life and honor God and country see the inhumanity of all this. Those who do not…are sad, lost and empty in my opinion. If history mattered abortion would not be legal…because before 1973 it was illegal and considered immoral. Today women don't talk about their abortions. Why? Because they know it is immoral and they know what they did. Pro-aborts say, hey we know its a tough decision. That there speaks volumes. If that which is in the womb is not alive, a person….the decision would not be hard, nor an embarrassing one to make. As I said…we have both history….and science on our side. I do not need to bring religion into this because both these speak for themselves. You ignore the past…the time when abortion was illegal. You also ignore what science today says about the unborn. All you care about is the power the woman has over her child….that living entity in the womb that you condone to be slaughtered. Could you watch an abortion at nine months….a few seconds from being viable from receiving rights from our government? This case needs to be heard again. Not that it would matter because even the court justices rule with bias. They did in this case and they do others. The Constitution speaks volumes. It does not say that all living persons do not get personhood. It says all living beings should get personhood. Why should that which is living in the womb be singled out? Its human….its in a human body….its alive….. It is an alive human being. That is what science says and the Constitution backs that up. It is a sad human being that does not grasp the value of life in the womb.
Shiva_TD said, You are wrong. If you do not want the unborn to have protection…which all pro-choicers agree on…then that is not being pro-life for the unborn. That means even though you might not get one yourself….you don't care of someone else kills…that means that you look the other way. You are pro-abortion. There is no difference. And if you are pro-abortion based on the woman's rights to her own body…then you would also have to be pro-late term abortion, since you could not in good conscience take her bodily rights away. You brought up drugs. Why is it not a persons right to take drugs? It is their body, right? And at least in this case they would not be killing a second party should they die. It is self inflicted. I would think that based on the same logic you have for abortion…it would apply to prostitution…drugs….or anything a person could inflict on himself without hurting someone else. Why aren't you fighting to make these all legal?
Could land……..ya can't anwer it either can ya. LMAO You pro-aborts are a trip. A simple question…..yes or no….and look at the eggs scramble. LMAO
I started this thread for one reason to call pro-aborts to the table the abortion table. My reasoning for doing so worked because no one but I believe on person has really addressed it and said yes. The question is a simple one. Yes or no. This is not about heart surgery, or any other surgery its about abortion that kills a human being. Why is this so tough to answer guys? And look at what happened all sorts of excuses as to why they won't answer. The fact that this is happening speaks volumes and proves the point I was trying to make at least to myself.
Hey start a thread on those I would be happen to debate them….THIS ONE HOWEVER IS ABOUT ABORTION….DID YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION?
Obviously we don't know how many women were denied abortion die but we do have a good estimate of the number of women that wouldn't have died if they would have had an abortion. In 2005 there were 11 deaths related to childbirth per 100,000 births. There were approximately 4 million births in 2005 so about 440 women's lives would have been saved if they would have had an abortion for 2005 alone. http://www.chacha.com/question/what-percentage-of-women-die-in-childbirth http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/babyboom_2.htm We also don't know how many women's lives were save because they were allowed to have an abortion. It would be logical to assume, because abortion is legal and women can learn if their life is in danger, that far more than the 440 in 2005 were saved because they didn't have to experience child birth.
As my post directly addressed this the pre-born are not legally "persons" and only the unlawful killing of a person is at issue. Many things can be "killed" such as sheep, goats and cancer cells but that does not imply that "murder" is being committed and, in fact, it has not. Many anti-abortionists like to believe that "murder" is being committed but before they can make that claim first they need to establish "personhood" of the pre-born because currently the pre-born are not persons and cannot be murdered.
ARE you pro-choice? If you are then you condone abortion and want no protection for the unborn .despite what you say here. What you want is socialism. You want to force people to do what you want them to do. No one should be forced to buy health insurance they don't want. And no one should be forced to buy someone else a house or a car or health insurance. This thread however is not about Obama Care .this asks a simple question ..could you stand next to an abortionist and watch an abortion. Yes or no. And I am not talking about children already born .this is about THE CHILD IN THE WOMB. AND IF YOU WERE SUCH A GENUINE PRO-LIFER YOU WOULD REALIZE IT. Could you watch a live abortion .THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD.
OK THANKS FOR EXPLAINING. What I don't get is that the doctors did not even determine how far along she was. This is not hard to do with ultrasound. And in later term abortion an ultrasound is always done. Nevertheless she was a product of a botched abortion not sure how they were trying to kill her but she lived. Praise God. This child was always a child from conception.
While I can't answer for others I could watch it. Not a problem at all. Why should it be? Then again I know people that get queezy just cleaning a fish......
Prior to birth it is either a zygote, embryo or fetus and it is not a child. Childhood begins at birth.
This question is so hard for some to answer .wow. I am not asking for an essay a long response. Just a yes or no. You don't need to elaborate ..just yes or no will do. It only involves no more than three keys on your keyboards. LOL
I'm really not sure why you think that getting someone pro-choice to admit they wouldn't want to witness an abortion means you've achieved some kind of "game changer". I don't particularly want to view ANY medical procedures. Why would an abortion be any different? On the flip side, because I DON'T want to view someone getting a colonoscopy, should we outlaw those too because they must be immoral since I don't want to view one? You know what, I just had an epiphany. I don't like "viewing" my bills. Can we outlaw bills? Please? I don't like viewing myself giving my money to someone else for something I am purchasing because then that money is no longer mine. Lets outlaw having to pay for stuff too.
