I'm not angry, just pointing out that trying to debate anything with a liberal is a total waste of time.
Please use the term I prefer for me, and I'll use the term you prefer for you. It's called civil discourse. Please refer to me as anti-abortion or pro-life (as I am also against the death penalty and euthanasia), and I'll refer to you as pro-choice. That's called being civil. I prefer it to you using pejoratives, and me using pejoratives. You believe pregnancy is a disease? No wonder you want to stop it. It's not a disease, it's a necessity for human life. Yes, being pregnant isn't easy, but women who are too poor to afford an abortion can get free medical care for a pregnancy. If they are that poor, they don't have a job, much less a career. The issue was women who can't afford an abortion, not middle class people who's future prospects would be effected. - - - Updated - - - Wow, can't defend your views, so you want to kick him out.
YOU: """You believe pregnancy is a disease? No wonder you want to stop it. It's not a disease, it's a necessity for human life. Yes, being pregnant isn't easy, but women who are too poor to afford an abortion can get free medical care for a pregnancy. If they are that poor, they don't have a job, much less a career. The issue was women who can't afford an abortion, not middle class people who's future prospects would be effected."" YOU claimed pregnancy and child birth for adoption was free. It is NOT free...... Giving up 9 months of your life whether poor or wealthy is not "free". It costs, it costs in medical bills. It costs in time off work and possible job loss. Not all poor women are jobless......that is a FACT. Pregnancy has detrimental effects on a woman, it can even kill her (Not that Anti-Choicers care).. ..UNLESS YOU HAVE PROOF THAT PREGNANCY HAS ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON A WOMAN"S BODY give up that STUPID baseless argument.... Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy: •exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks) •altered appetite and senses of taste and smell •nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester) •heartburn and indigestion •constipation •weight gain •dizziness and light-headedness •bloating, swelling, fluid retention •hemmorhoids •abdominal cramps •yeast infections •congested, bloody nose •acne and mild skin disorders •skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen) •mild to severe backache and strain •increased headaches •difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping •increased urination and incontinence •bleeding gums •pica •breast pain and discharge •swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain •difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy •inability to take regular medications •shortness of breath •higher blood pressure •hair loss or increased facial/body hair •tendency to anemia •curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities •infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases) •extreme pain on delivery •hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression •continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover) Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy: •stretch marks (worse in younger women) •loose skin •permanent weight gain or redistribution •abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness •pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh) •changes to breasts •increased foot size •varicose veins •scarring from episiotomy or c-section •other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty) •increased proclivity for hemmorhoids •loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis) •higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's •newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates) Occasional complications and side effects: •complications of episiotomy •spousal/partner abuse •hyperemesis gravidarum •temporary and permanent injury to back •severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies) •dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele) •pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies) •eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death) •gestational diabetes •placenta previa •anemia (which can be life-threatening) •thrombocytopenic purpura •severe cramping •embolism (blood clots) •medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby) •diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles •mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication) •serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis) •hormonal imbalance •ectopic pregnancy (risk of death) •broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone") •hemorrhage and •numerous other complications of delivery •refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease •aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures) •severe post-partum depression and psychosis •research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors •research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy •research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease Less common (but serious) complications: •peripartum cardiomyopathy •cardiopulmonary arrest •magnesium toxicity •severe hypoxemia/acidosis •massive embolism •increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction •molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer) •malignant arrhythmia •circulatory collapse •placental abruption •obstetric fistula More permanent side effects: •future infertility •permanent disability •death. That's a BIG price to pay to give someone else a kid......
And...there it is, the reason you are referred to as Anti-Choice. Here would be the crux of this from the perspective of those in opposition to you. It is simply wrong in free society to tell others what to do with the bodies and lives they have. To do so is an extremely selfish and egotistical mentality and goes against EVERYTHING our society stands for an has fought very hard to achieve.
The only non-arbitrary point is actual birth. That is the guideline that has been used for many centuries in cultures all over the world. You could argue that the brain is developed enough for meaningful thought sometime in the third trimester, now that we have a better understanding of the physiology of the brain of the developing fetus: Reference: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/ From that article, I have confidence that the fetus (prior to this point) cannot be inhabited by a sentient mind (or spirit or soul if you prefer): Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. Can you provide any evidence to suggest that the fertilized egg has sentience, or is inhabited by a spirit or a soul? If not, then an abortion early in the pregnancy cannot possibly interfere with another person, spirit, or soul. The body is forming, and is not yet inhabited.
Peaceful prayer in that context is used as a form of intimidation (bullying) by some groups (I have only had experience with Operation Rescue in the Binghamton, New York area and that was about 30 years ago). They did not just pray, they also intercepted and tried to detain young women headed in the direction of the abortion clinic (even if they were actually going to the credit union located in the same building). They were actually pretty clever about it - not physically detaining women but forming an arc so the woman would have to enter their personal space to break through (psychological intimidation). Unless you have evidence to support your position, your preference would be to force a rape victim to carry a baby to full term based on the myth that it has a spirit or soul from the moment of conception. What purpose would that serve except to make you feel better that no pregnancy would ever be (legally) terminated?
I guess you failed basic logic. Just because something has a purpose does not mean there is no choice as to use that something or not. - - - Updated - - - If you have a point to make then make it instead of attempting to demean your opponents in every comment you make. - - - Updated - - - When you actually engage in an honest debate without the attempts to demean others let me know.
In other words you are not confident that your so called proof can stand up to scrutiny, if you are sure your proof is enough then have the balls to produce it and defend it, as to trolling, the only person doing that so far on this thread is you.
lol the classic coward syndrome, when you cannot defend your own statements you run away. Never mind I'll continue to point out the basic flaws in your so called evidence.
Before you can do that, I'll have to post some evidence which I have not done, nor will I because you are nothing but a troll.
as I said, classic coward syndrome and trolling, make some unsupported fantasy assertion and then refuse to defend it by attempting (and failing) to demean others .. your pathetic attempts to derail and evade have absolutely no effect on me. I've seen your type far to many times, in the end they all fade away.
When a fetus becomes a person is irrelevant, a red herring, reality is it doesn't matter at all if it was deemed that a person exists from conception .. in fact it makes the case so much stronger for elective abortion at any time, for any reason and the state having to pay for it .. be careful what you wish for. Wrong, Roe vs Wade allows states to impose restrictions after the second trimester IF they wish, there is actually no Federal restriction on elective abortion at all, so rather than suggesting others read it, perhaps you should. There are plenty of cases of women not knowing they were pregnant right up until the go into labour, and no some of them were not "mentally ill." please do your research. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93U7q505WWo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEVMgFGh7TI Like all pro-lifers you forget the most important thing, no person can force another person to use their body without consent. So what, you cannot force a person to allow their body to be used by another, that is a direct violation of the equal protection clause.
Before I read the rest of the responses, can you tell me which presidential politicians have stated that rape victims should not be allowed to get an abortion?
Here are the stances of all the candidates - https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_abortion
Surely you realize most people will interpret that as "I don't have any proof but I'm not going to admit it to you." If you have some basis for your assertion, why not present it so readers can evaluate both sides?
Ted Cruz for one (he wants to eliminate the exceptions for rape and incest), and he has been popular with Republicans.
In 99+ of all pregnancies, the woman consented to the possibility of a pregnancy. With rape and incest comprising maybe 1% of all pregnancies--even that much is questionable--all the rest are due to the woman consenting to having sex. It is the same as leaving your door open to your home or business with the attitude that you hope nobody comes in who is not invited, but knowing that the open door is an invitation for people to do so. And if they accept the invitation of that open door, you don't have the right to kill them for no other reason than they came in. You can't kill them just because it is inconvenient to have to deal with them. As for those who force their way in--rape or incest--I leave that to the conscience of the woman and her doctor as I do in the case of birth defects or issues with the life and health of the mother or with siblings in case of multiple births. I would hope such decisions were made with compassion and love and for all the right reasons. I would want no laws that would prohibit those processes. But to say that the developing human should be killed at anytime it is unable to live on its own is absurd. We would be killing people up to a year of age or more because the infant cannot live on its own--it is totally and wholly dependent on other humans for its life for quite some time. If the mother is in a situation where she unable to give here child the care that he/she needs, then the mother may have to make the terrible heart wrenching decision to give her child to others to raise. But that too can be a noble decision and there are hundreds of thousands of childless couples who desperately want a child to love and help grow up. The embryo is a human being. None of us exist without going through that stage of human development. And to destroy it because it is inconvenient? That should be completely morally and culturally unacceptable. And no doctor should do it. And local laws should be able to prohibit it. The federal government is given absolutely no constitutional authority to regulate or dictate how or whether it should be done.
Choosing a course of action knowing that a pregnancy may occur is quite different from being forced to continue that pregnancy. There is really no reason that society should force a continuance of pregnancy on a woman. An open door is NOT an invitation to come in. One should still knock or announce one's presence, in other words, ask for permission to enter, before entering private property. How generous of you. There is a difference between physical dependency (being attached to and dependent upon that attachment for survival) and social dependency (dependent upon anyone in society for support and care, such care is provided voluntarily). No woman EVER should be forced into a situation where she has to make the terrible heart wrenching decision to give up her child for others to raise. If it were possible to end abortion, the demand for babies for adoptive couples would soon be fulfilled and then there would be a surplus of babies. An embryo is no more than a potential human being, it is not a human being before a functioning brain is formed. Local laws prohibiting abortion have been proven to be ineffective, they are impossible to enforce. They only work to make abortion more dangerous and expensive for women, making the provision of abortion services the province of organized crime. Nor is any other level of government. All levels of government are forbidden to interfere with a woman's right to privacy however.
