I have yet to see any issue as Ego driven as this one. Those on the Pro-Life side seem to feel that all females must bow down to their personal opinion and live their lives according to the choices of others, this seems to me an extremely self important and anti-freedom position which I do not note in ANY other topic. The only issue remotely similar would be contraceptives and the new "People" created by the supreme court, these "People" obviously have far more important opinions than the rest of us. My question would be~ Do any of you know of a debate topic as narcissistic as this one?
Well, ya...anyone where Repub/Conservatives take part....they always view everything from their myopic "me/my" view of life...the abortion issue is no different...( if THEY don't need an abortion then nobody needs an abortion) ( if they're not poor than nobody needs to be poor)
It should not and is not legal......nor did I indicate in any way that it should, Nice attempt at a hijack (SIC), though it did not work. Care to actually address my commentary?
Another Generalization of Republicans and Conservatives and one that is simply not true. Not all Republicans are against abortion for one thing. And, many are not against abortion in the early stage of pregnancy. But, once the fetus has a heart beat, scientifically and medically, they are a living being. Specifically, aborting a fetus that has a heart beat is what many oppose, including members of the left. And when some think aborting a 3 month old fetus is a constitutional right, I must oppose that whole heartedly. So specifically at what point would you think it should be illegal to abort a fetus where the mothers life was not at risk? And isn't both the woman and her partner that should use appropriate birth control if they don't want to conceive? And, should abortion be a form of birth control? There are too many inexpensive products to inhibit conception. One fails to use them and becomes pregnant and allows the pregnancy to reach the stage where the fetus has a heart beat; then one should legally be responsible for caring for and delivering the fetus, IMO. However at any time should the mothers life be threatening as determined by a medical doctor and abortion is suggested by the doctor then it should be up to the mother whether to undergo the abortion or not.
I am conservative (but not Republican - I am not in the US) and pro-choice. Yep, doctors make medical decisions here, not the govt. As it should be.
Nope, the people who want it to be legal to kill outright babies immediately after delivery simply by declaring them non-persons ignoring their biology (which is barely any different than declaring negroes 2/3 of a person) seem to be the epitome of sociopathic narcissism. They make Ayn Rand look like Mother Teresa.
I was referring to actual issues...you know the ones that exist outside of your imagination. Or perhaps....you don't know and this IS your reality.
This in my opinion, is a simple fix. Those who want to kill babies, enlist in a program kind of like a donor. For those that are enlisted, they can share each other's money to kill the babies. Those that are not enlisted, don't pay a dime. Even for contraceptives, and the whole list that pertains to it. I also feel the same way about entitlements, why can't we just do it this way. Where if you don't pay in you don't get. But you do get your hard earned money.
. . .The goal would need to not be 85-90% but 99.99615% to make deaths from lightning strikes in the United States as likely as abortions of gestation done without respecting the dignity of the human species as a whole. . . .Advances in medical technology made abortions of gestation more accessible and safer while revealing a living fetus generally has a detectable heartbeat by the end of the first trimester when the fetus is a wholly new individual. Much has been learned about the development of new lives since Roe. The early presence of individual circulatory differentiation is a singularly profound realization. The presence of a fetal heartbeat after 12-weeks should now serve as a line properly balancing the right to terminate pregnancy and the States profound interest in protecting and promoting dignity for individual fetal lives at or after 12-weeks gestation. . . .Complete development of the placenta make abortions after 12-weeks far more dangerous. Arkansas legislature struck a more proper balance between the different controlling interests and authority should remain with elected representatives of the people, as long as women have a reasonable time to terminate unwanted pregnancies. e.g. 12-weeks. . . . Arkansas legislature began respecting human dignity of the fetus and decided respect for an individual unborn human life outweighs the fundamental human right to an elective abortion of gestation after detection of heartbeats at the end of the first trimester when complete placenta development makes abortion of gestation far less safe and elective abortion of gestation kills a new individual human fetus. < 4 >
Because there is no rational excuse for depriving women of their right to abortion based on their stage of gestation. And because the later the stage of gestation the better the baby's chance of survival. It's not late term abortion that should be banned, it's the harmful abortion techniques that doctors have been using to kill babies.
Partial birth abortions ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL. The obvious reason for limiting the time-length for the right to abort gestation is based on the stage of gestation. Sorry, This is obvious to MOST of humanity. When an individual human begins fetal life and has a four-chamber heart pumping blood to a placenta after 12-weeks, - the right of the State to protect fetal human dignity is clear.
