Should mothers be required by law to bury their fetuses?

I noticed a few vocal abortion proponents saying that they believed the Boston Marathon terrorist was obligated to a proper burial, so I wonder if they'll be willing to extent the same rights to a human fetus? Why should an unborn baby's body be treated with less dignity than that of a terrorist and child killer?

 

Will they be allowed to declare the fetus as a dependent and get a deduction for that tax year?

 

The clinics ought to sell in-utero D&C DVDs. Something nice for the aborter to share with her Facebook friends, along with pictures of her trip to England and the cool group shots of all her friends with nameless guys they (*)(*)(*)(*)ed while drunk.

Be proud ladies!

 

Do pro-lifers ever run out of things to force women to do when they can't force them to give birth?

 

It's not men's fault that they can't give birth - blame it on evolution.

 

Why? Are people required by law currently to bury someone else?

 

You would like to force women to give birth. Since you can't, you make up all kinds of hoops for aborting women to jump through--waiting periods, transvaginal ultrasounds, mandated counseling, etc. Now you want women required to bury the fetus, even though it is, in most cases, no bigger than a jelly bean.

 

I am almost certain, that the heirs of deceased are required to dispose of their kin. Besides, I think it would be nice. You see so many engagement parties and baby showers, someone ought to start a new trend of Abortion Watches. Like a tornado watch. PARTY CITY could develop a whole ad campaign for it and sell streamers in the design of umbilical cords, pinatas in the shaped of a womb and when you bust it open all these candy fetuses fall to the floor.

I see a cottage industry in this. Yes.

 

I don't think so, unless a death certificate has been issued.

 

Well, I am almost certain that your assertion lacks a factual basis.

This proposal is nonsense. How an doctor opts to dispose of the remnants of an abortion as long as it is in accordance with health laws is no business of an overly intrusive right wing wet dream.

 

But then your position enslaves the woman too doesn't it?

 

I'm glad you included the word "too" acknowledging that you believe in enslaving women.

Since we're off topic, have you decided to denounce your fellow Anti-Choicer who advocates shoving sandpaper up women's vaginas?

And , please, don't mention "Obssessed" without looking in your Late term abortion off topic mirror.

 

yes, most states will lock you up for improper disposal of a corpse.

 

Well, that appears to not be the case here.

What this looks like to me is yet another bit of right wing masturbatory fodder, with a hope to both intrude n the private life of an individual and inflict maximum emotional pain.

 

creamation is allowed. you'd think that would be the minium for any human remains. it would lessen the fuss for law enforcement search landfills.

 

How???????

 

A fetus is not a person, but if the parents of a miscarriage want to bury the 'remains' they should be entitled to - if there are any remains, that is.

 

Well, just to clarify, I dont believe anyone is entitled to a burial. If one wants to be buried at death one should pay for it out of their own pocket.

Come to think of it, it would be funny if a fetus did that anytime soon.

 

Well, at least these fetuses got a burial...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz3aCvrrvyA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWwvIIqB9m8

 

What's wrong with women being required to have counseling? I thought pro-choicers wanted to reduce abortion rates. You are just upset that women that have counseling may chose not to have an abortion. Since criminalizing abortions is not happening anytime soon (and according to you it won't reduce abortions), what's wrong with mandated counseling? Women can make more informed decisions if they can have somebody to talk to about their problems.

Pro-choicers don't just want to give women the supposed "rights" to an abortion. They are way more politically correct than i had previously thought.

 

Biology textbooks state that the fetus is a living human organism (when the sperm combines with the egg, it creates a new life, a genetically separate being). So yes, it is a person, contrary to pro-choice myths.

Pro choicers value political correctness towards women more than science.

 

That is a fallacy that has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, so why don't you actually produce your peer reviewed evidence to support it .. simple reason you cannot.

a fetus (especially in early terms) meets only 1 of the 4 main criteria to be a human organism, that is growth, and that is without having to go into detail of the full requirements to be classified as a human organism.

and you value high-school biology over subject experts in the field.

 

Newborns only meet 3 out of the 4 criteria for an organism.

Besides, fetuses have metabolism and they respond to stimuli. Especially second and third trimester fetuses.

 

Now go into more detail of what an organism is .. have a look at the actual criteria, not the school textbook version, tell me is 75% closer to being an human organism than 25%

and second and third trimester abortions are RESTRICTED are they not, which only adds further credence to the current abortion law .. that the state has a vested interest in the fetus the longer the pregnancy continues and may choose to impose restrictions on 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions .. there are no such restrictions by choice or not for the 1st term.

Roe was a very conservative law, SCOTUS could just have easily stated that abortion was a right at anytime for any reasons and stopped any state imposing any restrictions if they had wanted to, but no they listened to the conservatives and made a compromise.

You seem to have adopted the mantra of some other posters here of accusing me of "loving" abortion, despite requesting anything that supports that accusation not one of you have ever been able to produce anything and despite the fact that I have on numerous occasions stated that I would like to see abortion as a thing only required in the most desperate circumstances .. the only difference between me and a pro-lifer is the method to achieve that. I use what the evidence shows me and that evidence proves that decent sex education and freely available contraception reduces abortions, on the other hand abstinence only sex ed and restrictions on contraception have no effect on abortion rates. The same goes for making abortion illegal, Canada is a prime example of a country with no restrictions on abortion, yet their rates are lower than the USA, a country that does impose restrictions.

I don't expect that you or the others will accept these things, so I will just keep asking all of you to provide ANY evidecne to support the lie you keep producing.

 

We can discuss this later tonight. I am going out today and I don't have time to post online until later tonight.