Trump call to punish women for abortions

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
a reply to: mOjOm

None of it is play. It is all real. You may brush it away, in your mind. But I will stand firm. And so will science.

Frankly, your opinion on the matter - - can blow in the wind. That's how much I care about you trying to take some moral high ground.

If its not OK with you, don't do it.

Just stay out of my way.

You sound like Trump. Bravo.

I am woman, hear me roar.

In a real life decision I had to make the choice.

I don't hear much of a roar, just some strange stuff about the selfishness of people wanting babies and the unselfishness of those that abort babies (regardless of the circumstances) in the name of 'choice'. You don't represent all women.

Give me one unselfish reason to bring a child into this world.

I represent Right of Choice, that does represent all women.

Believe me you don't represent all women.

What is selfish about creating a loving family unit? What is selfish about a couple who have an unplanned child and despite not really wanting children at that time still give everything they have to make that child's life as good as it can be.

I am sorry if you experienced a bad life, but your views simply are not representative of loving families.

Right of Choice represents all women. Whether they want to believe that or not.

I did not experience a bad life.

I can say with 100% certainty that your views do not represent all woman.

Right of choice is supported by current law, but a change in the law takes away that right of choice. It's a legal argument, not a universal women's perspective.

You might like to think you speak for all women, but the millions of women who fight against the 'Right of Choice' argument for murdering unborn babies and want to remove it by making abortion illegal should make it clear to you that you only speak for those that want the right to murder unborn babies.

I feel physically ill speaking with you, so will bow out there.

a reply to: Annee

Whats the difference in deciding between the right of a death row inmate and a baby to live?

Does a mothers right not to have her life set back beat another persons right to life?

Should a mother be allowed to kill her kid if he changes her plans? How about a todler? He is born the way many healthy babies are capable of being born.

Would killing your kid be ok? Since his life WILL cause changes to your body. Ask a parent.

Ask anyone if they can live in a world where you can decide if your kids die and the only distinction between those who exist to be peotected by law is age.

Be responsible and end sex for fun with no consequences for REPRODUCTION OF A HUMAN PERSON , where they can somehow out value his life.....

There should be exceptions. Like death row has them.

We are a society. Dont like people deciding for you? Move to the wilderness. Here everyone has a give and take that makes democracy awesome since its best at governing that give and take.

You cant just kill people without good reason. Thats a rule of thumb.

a reply to: windword

or a serious problem is found with the fetus....
still waiting for an explanation from someone why it's so evil to step in when a miscarriage is taking place when a non-viable fetus is involved and induce the labor.. something which is happening in many hospitals now in the US.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Annee

Whats the difference in deciding between the right of a death row inmate and a baby to live?

I support LIVING CHILDREN - - repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat.

Have you rescued any LIVING CHILDREN lately?

Death row inmate is a living person.

a reply to: Annee

Who decides when they are living?

Thats the freaking problem

Use birth control and dont have vaginal intercourse like it is not HUMAN MAKING!

If its healthy, there is no risk to a mothers health and no one FORCED YOU TO MAKE A HUMAN....then there is no viable excuse to kill a human.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Annee

Who decides when they are living?

Thats the freaking problem

Use birth control and dont have sex like it is not HUMAN MAKING!

If its healthy, there is no risk to a mothers health....there is no excuse to kill a human.

Abortion is legal.

Question answered.

a reply to: Annee

And this whole subject is what?

This is the argumemt to laws not set in stone.

I take it you are done trying to convince people of its merit?

Now its just legal so shut up?

No

Its muder. Neither yours nor any generation will end this conversation.

It is an unjust law to many....hence the conversation about the young law we are still working out.

So by that logic this question doesnt apply to Trump because it is not legal to punish women since it is legal to have abortions.

Does that mean we are done here?

a reply to: tadaman

You cant just kill people without good reason. Thats a rule of thumb.

There should be exceptions. Like death row has them.

these two statements kind of indicates to me that you are trying to provide a different set of rules when it comes to abortion than there is for when someone just shoots a person. since you are saying a person who aborts a fetus, regardless of the reason, should be considered guilty of murder, but the person who shoots some who is attacking them, well the law usually considers them not guilty, it was self defense. oh yes, women, you should be willing to die for that .00000000000000009001 chance that 17 week old fetus you are miscarrying might just be able to withstand the pressure of being miscarried a few more weeks and surive as a premie!!!!

but as far as your idea that one should be having sex unless they want kids, well, you need to talk to the court systems about that one, since in many states, it's considered grounds for divorce!

a reply to: UKTruth

This is a cultist and ancient attitude, why religion must die. Women are not here to fill birth quotas.

"Given this it makes sense that if less children were aborted then we could continue to meet the demand of parents desperate for children. The drivers are less important than the fact there is a shortage".

a reply to: dawnstar

Yet it is the same rule of thumb. Life is protected under our laws. Human life is important to our laws.

A fetus is at some point ,not very long after creation, a person.....and the mother doesnt have the right to kill her kid. Seperate person with seperate rights.


Death row lets the state make a case to kill a person.

I think a mother should have a court make the choice since she decides for 2 people, not just herself.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Annee

And this whole subject is what?

This is the argumemt to laws not set in stone.

I take it you are done trying to convince people of its merit?

Now its just legal so shut up?

No

Its muder. Neither yours nor any generation will end this conversation.

It is an unjust law to many....hence the conversation about the young law we are still working out.

So by that logic this question doesnt apply to Trump because it is not legal to punish women since it is legal to have abortions.

Does that mean we are done here?

I support LIVING CHILDREN - - repeat, repeat, repeat

I support RIGHT OF CHOICE (which also means a woman can not be forced to have an abortion) - - repeat, repeat, repeat

Am I going to be baited and drawn into your emotional and sanctimonious moral rhetoric? NO

a reply to: tadaman

Ok. Let's repeal the 2nd amendment cause it gives the right to kill real living people.

a reply to: Annee

Repeat, repeat....who decides when that person is living?

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Annee

Repeat, repeat....who decides when that person is living?

Already answered

I know this game. You don't like the answer so you keep repeating the question.

a reply to: tadaman

The law and the doctor:

Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 case legalizing abortion, made fetal viability an important legal concept. The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot put the interests of a fetus ahead of the interests of the pregnant woman until the fetus is "viable." The court defined viable to mean capable of prolonged life outside the mother's womb. It said this included fetuses that doctors expected to be sustained by respirators. The court accepted the conventional medical wisdom that a fetus becomes viable at the start of the last third of a pregnancy, the third trimester, sometime between the 24th and 28th week (a pregnancy usually lasts 38 weeks). Because the point of viability varies, the court ruled, it could only be determined case by case and by the woman's own doctor. Even if the fetus is viable, the court said, states could not outlaw an abortion if the woman's life or health was at stake.

a reply to: MOMof3

Maybe, you can make a case and ask for a constitutional convention.

So far we havent had one since the argument for its merit is well made and convinces a majority.

Here states and our whole country is still trying to figure out when a mother can kill her kid?

I agree both sides have an argument.

Blind right to kill kids trapped in your body is new and not very convincing as far as arguments go.

If you werent forced, and everyone is healthy...ADOPTION.

Abortion should be a last case scenario like death row is....since we value HUMAN LIFE and our laws protect HUMAN LIFE.

Dont make human life and you wont have to kill it when its stuck in your body.

a reply to: tadaman

There is no argument. You are just trying to justify having control over a woman and take a right given to her by law and much debate.

a reply to: MOMof3

No not I.

I SAY A COURT of peers SHOULD DECIDE.

So far one woman can kill a person stuck inside her who didnt ask to be here.

a reply to: tadaman

"stuck inside her" oh boy, Good bye.

a reply to: tadaman

oh yes, I can see it now, someone comes up behind your girlfriend with a knife, you have a clear shot you can take him out safely, but well, hold that thought, freeze time, you all need to go to court and let them decide weather or not you can pull that trigger!!

A 31-year-old woman admitted to a hospital in Galway, Ireland, late last month with severe back pain was revealed to be miscarrying, but doctors repeatedly refused to abort the fetus.

Savita Halappanavar, who was 17 weeks pregnant at the time, eventually developed a life-threatening infection to which she succumbed a week later.

According to Halappanavar's husband Praveen, his wife asked doctors at University Hospital Galway on multiple occasions over the course of three days to terminate the pregnancy after being told she was miscarrying and the fetus had no chance of survival.

However, as a fetal heartbeat remained present, doctors refused to perform an abortion.

"The consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country," Halappanavar told the Irish Times. "Savita [a Hindu] said: ‘I am neither Irish nor Catholic' but they said there was nothing they could do."

Abortions are illegal in Ireland except in cases where the mother's life might be at risk.

The fetal heartbeat ceased on the third day, and the dead fetus was finally extracted, but by then it was too late.
Savita's health deteriorated rapidly, and by Saturday evening she suffered extensive organ failure and passed away a short time later.

gawker.com...

she died a week after her problem started...
gee, can our wheels of justice turn that fast? or would the women be dead and buried before the court had time to hear the case???

as it is now in this country, the catholic policy of just sitting on their arse until the fetal heartbead has stopped has been taken to court several times, and well, they have a right to practice their religious beliefs...