It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Catholic Nun Perfectly Explains the Hypocrisy of the "Pro-Life" Argument

page: 17
127
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Ok so a foreign visitor to the U.S. can be murdered at whim, right?


LOL, who's conflating issues? I wasn't aware that was legal!



Of you say no you can't kill them because other laws that aren't in the constitution, why wouldn't those laws apply to a 9 month term baby?


Sigh........because Roe V Wade.



You are trying to cloud the issue.
The issue is it is immoral to suggest that 9 month term babies should be allowed to be aborted on a whim if they are considered a life.


LOL. I'm throwing shade on your faux outrage at your imaginary made up issue. Nobody is aborting babies at 9 months on a whim.




posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: windword

Ok so a foreign visitor to the U.S. can be murdered at whim, right?

Of you say no you can't kill them because other laws that aren't in the constitution, why wouldn't those laws apply to a 9 month term baby?

You are trying to cloud the issue.

The issue is it is immoral to suggest that 9 month term babies should be allowed to be aborted on a whim if they are considered a life.

All science says it is a life.

You are defending people saying they have the right to take a life for convenience.

You can attempt all of the mental gymnastics you want, but that's what you are doing.



A 9 month term fetus/baby in the womb is viable to survive outside the womb, therefore it is illegal to abort it. If there are no laws regulating such abortion, do i think its immoral to do so, yes (excluding complication) IMHO.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Grambler

It is illegal to abort a healthy fetus past the point of viability. Obviously a 9 month "abortion" of a healthy child is illegal.

There may be mitigating circumstances for severe medical conditions and deformities where a fetus will not survive after birth due to missing organs or being brain-dead in the womb, etc.

NO ONE is suggesting true infanticide that I have ever seen or heard. No doctor would do that and it is just as illegal as murder.

That is the law.



Read this thread, that is exactly what Annee is suggesting, and people are defending. Start on like page 3. I even asked


The second point is I would ask Annee if she can right here say she would be against allowing a mother to terminate a 9 month old for non life threatening reasons, even if it was legal?


She replied.


No one should have the right to legislate a woman's body or her choice to abort. Period!

Good enough for you?


Is that clear enough for you?

Not only did people star this post, but not one person on the pro life side was willing to say to call out this extreme position.

Would you be willing to call this out?


I think its an emotional response to a moral issue....I believe that most women would not do so ( abortion at 9 months) but the thought that it is a legislation issue just infuriates them


It's not an emotional response.

He could have also included.

Legislating a woman's body is the same as slavery. "We own your body". Slavery is illegal. Owning a person is illegal.

A doctor performing an abortion late term is where the ethics comes in. No legitimate doctor except in cases of saving the mother should do an abortion if the child is viable outside the womb.

But, no one ever asks that question. It's always solely focused on the woman. Blame the woman.

Hormones go crazy when you're pregnant. They don't always work in a positive way. And science of animals have found nurturing is greatly learned from involvement with "family". It is not necessarily inherent.

Nature, natural instincts are what they are. They are NOT what man has romanticized.







Agreed, except for the slight difference between slavery and pregnancy as it concerns another 'potential life' IMHO.....what I meant by that is not so much as legislating a woman's body as slavery, but more so in that protection of another 'potential life' that is in the woman's body.
edit on 5-2-2017 by JD163 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Annee

At what month (1-9) is an abortion cutoff acceptable to (any of) you?


I'd say about 1.5 months or 48 days, since it has been said (according to ancient wisdom) that on the 49th day, the soul enters via the formation of the pineal gland or something like that.

Once the fetus becomes a living human being with a soul diving into it, then it would be certainly wrong to kill that person in formation just because of a "choice" not to have a baby.

That said I'm pro life-choice, meaning that the woman must have the choice ie: control over her body, but, that absolutely every effort ought to be made to encourage her to bring the baby to term, even if to put it up for adoption.

But if a line were to be drawn I think it should be before the 49th day.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

You claim the constitution only applies to people born or naturalized in the U.S..

Therefore a federal law making murder of a person not born or naturalized in the US would be unconstitutional.

Again though, I don't care about the law, it's clearly illegal.

I care about the fact that people are suggesting that there should be no law and women should be allowed to abort a 9 month term baby for any reason.

You say it faux outrage but two points.

I already showed you Kermit gosnell helped many women do severely late term and post birth abortions, so people do do it and suggested it shouldn't be illegal is sick.

Secondly, this is a discussion board. People discuss all sorts of ideas that aren't actually happening. Should we not be allowed to respond to offensive suggestions?

No one has slaves in the US. But if some racist scrum bag on says says he thinks whites should be allowed to have slaves, I would be outraged and condemn it. You not only woulnt apoarently, you would claim I was just pretending to be outraged for criticizing it.

People on this thread have suggested there should be no law in any resticting a woman's right to an abortion. They specifically mentioned even a nine month term baby should be allowed to be aborted for any reason the mom may have.

I will call this disgusting, and you can continue to criticize me for doing it and deflect.


edit on 5-2-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: windword

Ok so a foreign visitor to the U.S. can be murdered at whim, right?

Of you say no you can't kill them because other laws that aren't in the constitution, why wouldn't those laws apply to a 9 month term baby?

You are trying to cloud the issue.

The issue is it is immoral to suggest that 9 month term babies should be allowed to be aborted on a whim if they are considered a life.

All science says it is a life.

You are defending people saying they have the right to take a life for convenience.

You can attempt all of the mental gymnastics you want, but that's what you are doing.



A 9 month term fetus/baby in the womb is viable to survive outside the womb, therefore it is illegal to abort it. If there are no laws regulating such abortion, do i think its immoral to do so, yes (excluding complication) IMHO.


Thank you.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Grambler

It is illegal to abort a healthy fetus past the point of viability. Obviously a 9 month "abortion" of a healthy child is illegal.

There may be mitigating circumstances for severe medical conditions and deformities where a fetus will not survive after birth due to missing organs or being brain-dead in the womb, etc.

NO ONE is suggesting true infanticide that I have ever seen or heard. No doctor would do that and it is just as illegal as murder.

That is the law.



Read this thread, that is exactly what Annee is suggesting, and people are defending. Start on like page 3. I even asked


The second point is I would ask Annee if she can right here say she would be against allowing a mother to terminate a 9 month old for non life threatening reasons, even if it was legal?


She replied.


No one should have the right to legislate a woman's body or her choice to abort. Period!

Good enough for you?


Is that clear enough for you?

Not only did people star this post, but not one person on the pro life side was willing to say to call out this extreme position.

Would you be willing to call this out?


I think its an emotional response to a moral issue....I believe that most women would not do so ( abortion at 9 months) but the thought that it is a legislation issue just infuriates them


It's not an emotional response.

He could have also included.

Legislating a woman's body is the same as slavery. "We own your body". Slavery is illegal. Owning a person is illegal.

A doctor performing an abortion late term is where the ethics comes in. No legitimate doctor except in cases of saving the mother should do an abortion if the child is viable outside the womb.

But, no one ever asks that question. It's always solely focused on the woman. Blame the woman.

Hormones go crazy when you're pregnant. They don't always work in a positive way. And science of animals have found nurturing is greatly learned from involvement with "family". It is not necessarily inherent.

Nature, natural instincts are what they are. They are NOT what man has romanticized.







Agreed, except for the slight difference between slavery and pregnancy as it concerns another 'potential life' IMHO.....what I meant by that is not so much as legislating a woman's body as slavery, but more so in that protection of another 'potential life' that is in the woman's body.


The Constitution protects the living not the unborn or "potential life".

Slavery, owning another person is illegal.

Personal emotions, belief are not relevant - - - except to the person having them.

No one has the right to legislate a woman's body.

edit on 5-2-2017 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Annee

At what month (1-9) is an abortion cutoff acceptable to (any of) you?


I'd say about 1.5 months or 48 days, since it has been said (according to ancient wisdom) that on the 49th day, the soul enters via the formation of the pineal gland or something like that.


As long as abortions are 100% free and covered by the government.

Then no woman in poverty needs to take extra time in finding a way to pay for it.


edit on 5-2-2017 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee



Sums up the hypocrisy practiced by many surrounding this issue.

They may be correct on the issue - up to a point - but unless those that espouse these views own up to their own hypocrisy and moral failings, I and many others simply refuse to listen to their nonsense.

I only pay attention to those that are honest and present at least a semi-well reasoned point of view.

All else is noise.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Grambler

It is illegal to abort a healthy fetus past the point of viability. Obviously a 9 month "abortion" of a healthy child is illegal.

There may be mitigating circumstances for severe medical conditions and deformities where a fetus will not survive after birth due to missing organs or being brain-dead in the womb, etc.

NO ONE is suggesting true infanticide that I have ever seen or heard. No doctor would do that and it is just as illegal as murder.

That is the law.



Read this thread, that is exactly what Annee is suggesting, and people are defending. Start on like page 3. I even asked


The second point is I would ask Annee if she can right here say she would be against allowing a mother to terminate a 9 month old for non life threatening reasons, even if it was legal?


She replied.


No one should have the right to legislate a woman's body or her choice to abort. Period!

Good enough for you?


Is that clear enough for you?

Not only did people star this post, but not one person on the pro life side was willing to say to call out this extreme position.

Would you be willing to call this out?


I think its an emotional response to a moral issue....I believe that most women would not do so ( abortion at 9 months) but the thought that it is a legislation issue just infuriates them


It's not an emotional response.

He could have also included.

Legislating a woman's body is the same as slavery. "We own your body". Slavery is illegal. Owning a person is illegal.

A doctor performing an abortion late term is where the ethics comes in. No legitimate doctor except in cases of saving the mother should do an abortion if the child is viable outside the womb.

But, no one ever asks that question. It's always solely focused on the woman. Blame the woman.

Hormones go crazy when you're pregnant. They don't always work in a positive way. And science of animals have found nurturing is greatly learned from involvement with "family". It is not necessarily inherent.

Nature, natural instincts are what they are. They are NOT what man has romanticized.







Agreed, except for the slight difference between slavery and pregnancy as it concerns another 'potential life' IMHO.....what I meant by that is not so much as legislating a woman's body as slavery, but more so in that protection of another 'potential life' that is in the woman's body.


The Constitution protects the living not the unborn or "potential life".

Slavery, owning another person is illegal.

Personal emotions, belief are not relevant - - - except to the person having them.

No one has the right to legislate a woman's body.


Agreed regarding the constitution and slavery.....but the law does offer some protection to the unborn

Unborn victims of violence



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

Not really sure what your point is.

It can be read in more then one way.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Grambler

It is illegal to abort a healthy fetus past the point of viability. Obviously a 9 month "abortion" of a healthy child is illegal.

There may be mitigating circumstances for severe medical conditions and deformities where a fetus will not survive after birth due to missing organs or being brain-dead in the womb, etc.

NO ONE is suggesting true infanticide that I have ever seen or heard. No doctor would do that and it is just as illegal as murder.

That is the law.



Read this thread, that is exactly what Annee is suggesting, and people are defending. Start on like page 3. I even asked


The second point is I would ask Annee if she can right here say she would be against allowing a mother to terminate a 9 month old for non life threatening reasons, even if it was legal?


She replied.


No one should have the right to legislate a woman's body or her choice to abort. Period!

Good enough for you?


Is that clear enough for you?

Not only did people star this post, but not one person on the pro life side was willing to say to call out this extreme position.

Would you be willing to call this out?


I think its an emotional response to a moral issue....I believe that most women would not do so ( abortion at 9 months) but the thought that it is a legislation issue just infuriates them


It's not an emotional response.

He could have also included.

Legislating a woman's body is the same as slavery. "We own your body". Slavery is illegal. Owning a person is illegal.

A doctor performing an abortion late term is where the ethics comes in. No legitimate doctor except in cases of saving the mother should do an abortion if the child is viable outside the womb.

But, no one ever asks that question. It's always solely focused on the woman. Blame the woman.

Hormones go crazy when you're pregnant. They don't always work in a positive way. And science of animals have found nurturing is greatly learned from involvement with "family". It is not necessarily inherent.

Nature, natural instincts are what they are. They are NOT what man has romanticized.







Agreed, except for the slight difference between slavery and pregnancy as it concerns another 'potential life' IMHO.....what I meant by that is not so much as legislating a woman's body as slavery, but more so in that protection of another 'potential life' that is in the woman's body.


The Constitution protects the living not the unborn or "potential life".

Slavery, owning another person is illegal.

Personal emotions, belief are not relevant - - - except to the person having them.

No one has the right to legislate a woman's body.


Agreed regarding the constitution and slavery.....but the law does offer some protection to the unborn

Unborn victims of violence


Is that law really Constitutional? A lot of laws have been shot down or changed over the last 20 years as being unconstitutional.

But, that law addresses injury or death by accident at the hands of someone else.

No choice involved.

edit on 5-2-2017 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



You claim the constitution only applies to people born on naturalized in the U.S..


I said no such thing. Constitutional rights extend to all person's born that happen to be within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Constitution doesn't allow people to indiscriminately kill foreigners.



I already showed you Kermit Roswell helped many women do severely late term and post birth abortions, so people do do it and suggested it shouldn't be illegal is sick.


Perhaps Dr. Gosnell was a lazy abortionist, I don't know, but he wasn't convicted of performing illegal abortions. Kermit Gosnell was euthanizing new borns that survived botched late term abortions, legal abortions of fetuses with dire prognosis's due to fetal anomalies in which the fetus was "incompatible with life". When this happens in a hospital, because the situation is so dire that the women would die while waiting for her fetus to die, so a life birth happens before fetal death occurs, those infant are left to languish until they die naturally. Euthanasia is illegal.

Kermit Gosnell was not offering late term abortions to women who changed their mind at 9 months. It's easier and safer to give birth then to abort at that stage. No doctor would do it. No hospital would approve it. No insurance would cover it.



People on this thread have suggested there should be no law in any resticting a woman's right to an abortion.


Not by my reckoning. People are saying that government shouldn't come between a woman, her doctor and/or her family'.

ETA:



No one has slaves in the US. But if some racist scrum bag on says says he thinks whites should be allowed to have slaves, I would be outraged and condemn it. You not only woulnt apoarently, you would claim I was just pretending to be outraged for criticizing it.


This is off topic, but slavery is alive and well in the United States under the 13th Amendment, through our prison system.


edit on 5-2-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Grambler

It is illegal to abort a healthy fetus past the point of viability. Obviously a 9 month "abortion" of a healthy child is illegal.

There may be mitigating circumstances for severe medical conditions and deformities where a fetus will not survive after birth due to missing organs or being brain-dead in the womb, etc.

NO ONE is suggesting true infanticide that I have ever seen or heard. No doctor would do that and it is just as illegal as murder.

That is the law.



Read this thread, that is exactly what Annee is suggesting, and people are defending. Start on like page 3. I even asked


The second point is I would ask Annee if she can right here say she would be against allowing a mother to terminate a 9 month old for non life threatening reasons, even if it was legal?


She replied.


No one should have the right to legislate a woman's body or her choice to abort. Period!

Good enough for you?


Is that clear enough for you?

Not only did people star this post, but not one person on the pro life side was willing to say to call out this extreme position.

Would you be willing to call this out?


I think its an emotional response to a moral issue....I believe that most women would not do so ( abortion at 9 months) but the thought that it is a legislation issue just infuriates them


It's not an emotional response.

He could have also included.

Legislating a woman's body is the same as slavery. "We own your body". Slavery is illegal. Owning a person is illegal.

A doctor performing an abortion late term is where the ethics comes in. No legitimate doctor except in cases of saving the mother should do an abortion if the child is viable outside the womb.

But, no one ever asks that question. It's always solely focused on the woman. Blame the woman.

Hormones go crazy when you're pregnant. They don't always work in a positive way. And science of animals have found nurturing is greatly learned from involvement with "family". It is not necessarily inherent.

Nature, natural instincts are what they are. They are NOT what man has romanticized.







Agreed, except for the slight difference between slavery and pregnancy as it concerns another 'potential life' IMHO.....what I meant by that is not so much as legislating a woman's body as slavery, but more so in that protection of another 'potential life' that is in the woman's body.


The Constitution protects the living not the unborn or "potential life".

Slavery, owning another person is illegal.

Personal emotions, belief are not relevant - - - except to the person having them.

No one has the right to legislate a woman's body.


Agreed regarding the constitution and slavery.....but the law does offer some protection to the unborn

Unborn victims of violence


Is that law really Constitutional? A lot of laws have been shot down or changed over the last 20 years as being unconstitutional.

But, that law addresses injury or death by accident at the hands of someone else.

No choice involved.


Thats a question best left to the experts,....I can't really say one way or another...



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sheye
But whatever happened to equal rights ? The men get no choice .. in whatever way the women decides the future of that fetus. It isn't the womens right to make decisions for three.. just because it is her body. The only reason she has a body to make a decision about is because she was actually given birth to. Just sayin'😕 It is not always solely about the woman.


Sadly it is true that men have no input and if a woman wants to have an abortion they don't need the (alleged) father to consent. It is a moral decision, not legal. I could never do it myself but, like I've said before, we don't walk in other women's shoes and therefore who are we to judged why they made the decision to terminate the pregnancy (even if the father disagreed).

Let me ask you something: if a woman is pregnant and she decides to go ahead and have the baby but the father wants her to have a termination: should the father be allowed to force her to have an abortion?

A (alleged) father cannot force a woman to have an abortion just as he cannot force her to have a baby, as the woman is the host to the foetus, the woman is the one who will suffer body changes, the woman is the one who will affect her career negatively to have the child. So the woman is the one who should decide what happens with her body and her future.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: Sheye
But whatever happened to equal rights ? The men get no choice .. in whatever way the women decides the future of that fetus. It isn't the womens right to make decisions for three.. just because it is her body. The only reason she has a body to make a decision about is because she was actually given birth to. Just sayin'😕 It is not always solely about the woman.


Sadly it is true that men have no input and if a woman wants to have an abortion they don't need the (alleged) father to consent.


As I've said before, for eons, unscheduled pregnancy has been the woman's fault.

In many (probably most) cases the man abandons her. She's still told it's her fault by choosing the wrong man.

There are men today raising children that the woman agreed to have and turn over to the father.

So, there's your answer men. Choose the right woman. If you don't, its your fault.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Grambler

It is illegal to abort a healthy fetus past the point of viability. Obviously a 9 month "abortion" of a healthy child is illegal.

There may be mitigating circumstances for severe medical conditions and deformities where a fetus will not survive after birth due to missing organs or being brain-dead in the womb, etc.

NO ONE is suggesting true infanticide that I have ever seen or heard. No doctor would do that and it is just as illegal as murder.

That is the law.



Read this thread, that is exactly what Annee is suggesting, and people are defending. Start on like page 3. I even asked


The second point is I would ask Annee if she can right here say she would be against allowing a mother to terminate a 9 month old for non life threatening reasons, even if it was legal?


She replied.


No one should have the right to legislate a woman's body or her choice to abort. Period!

Good enough for you?


Is that clear enough for you?

Not only did people star this post, but not one person on the pro life side was willing to say to call out this extreme position.

Would you be willing to call this out?


I think its an emotional response to a moral issue....I believe that most women would not do so ( abortion at 9 months) but the thought that it is a legislation issue just infuriates them


It's not an emotional response.

He could have also included.

Legislating a woman's body is the same as slavery. "We own your body". Slavery is illegal. Owning a person is illegal.

A doctor performing an abortion late term is where the ethics comes in. No legitimate doctor except in cases of saving the mother should do an abortion if the child is viable outside the womb.

But, no one ever asks that question. It's always solely focused on the woman. Blame the woman.

Hormones go crazy when you're pregnant. They don't always work in a positive way. And science of animals have found nurturing is greatly learned from involvement with "family". It is not necessarily inherent.

Nature, natural instincts are what they are. They are NOT what man has romanticized.







Agreed, except for the slight difference between slavery and pregnancy as it concerns another 'potential life' IMHO.....what I meant by that is not so much as legislating a woman's body as slavery, but more so in that protection of another 'potential life' that is in the woman's body.


The Constitution protects the living not the unborn or "potential life".

Slavery, owning another person is illegal.

Personal emotions, belief are not relevant - - - except to the person having them.

No one has the right to legislate a woman's body.


Agreed regarding the constitution and slavery.....but the law does offer some protection to the unborn

Unborn victims of violence


Is that law really Constitutional? A lot of laws have been shot down or changed over the last 20 years as being unconstitutional.

But, that law addresses injury or death by accident at the hands of someone else.

No choice involved.


Thats a question best left to the experts,....I can't really say one way or another...


If you are injured or killed by an outside force.

It is not your choice. It is their fault. They have taken life from you.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Annee

At what month (1-9) is an abortion cutoff acceptable to (any of) you?


I'd say about 1.5 months or 48 days, since it has been said (according to ancient wisdom) that on the 49th day, the soul enters via the formation of the pineal gland or something like that.


As long as abortions are 100% free and covered by the government.

Then no woman in poverty needs to take extra time in finding a way to pay for it.



Sounds fair enough.

But the idea that the unborn should have no rights is absurd.

There should also be free contraceptives. That way she cannot claim that she didn't exercise choice in getting pregnant.

I agree with another poster above though that the idea that a woman should have the right to freely choose to abort the pregnancy at any time right up to term is abhorrent.

And at some point it's not just her own body, but two bodies, two people.

To protect the unborn, it would have to be legislated.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

A (alleged) father cannot force a woman to have an abortion just as he cannot force her to have a baby, as the woman is the host to the foetus, the woman is the one who will suffer body changes, the woman is the one who will affect her career negatively to have the child. So the woman is the one who should decide what happens with her body and her future.

I'm generally pro-choice. I say "generally" because I don't think the issue is as simple as "it's the woman's choice to do what she wants with her body...

However, in response to your statement "So the woman is the one who should decide what happens with her body and her future", it could be argued that she made the decision about her future when she allowed herself to become pregnant (or didn't try hard enough to prevent pregnancy in the first place).


edit on 2017-2-5 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Grambler

It is illegal to abort a healthy fetus past the point of viability. Obviously a 9 month "abortion" of a healthy child is illegal.

There may be mitigating circumstances for severe medical conditions and deformities where a fetus will not survive after birth due to missing organs or being brain-dead in the womb, etc.

NO ONE is suggesting true infanticide that I have ever seen or heard. No doctor would do that and it is just as illegal as murder.

That is the law.



Read this thread, that is exactly what Annee is suggesting, and people are defending. Start on like page 3. I even asked


The second point is I would ask Annee if she can right here say she would be against allowing a mother to terminate a 9 month old for non life threatening reasons, even if it was legal?


She replied.


No one should have the right to legislate a woman's body or her choice to abort. Period!

Good enough for you?


Is that clear enough for you?

Not only did people star this post, but not one person on the pro life side was willing to say to call out this extreme position.

Would you be willing to call this out?


I think its an emotional response to a moral issue....I believe that most women would not do so ( abortion at 9 months) but the thought that it is a legislation issue just infuriates them


It's not an emotional response.

He could have also included.

Legislating a woman's body is the same as slavery. "We own your body". Slavery is illegal. Owning a person is illegal.

A doctor performing an abortion late term is where the ethics comes in. No legitimate doctor except in cases of saving the mother should do an abortion if the child is viable outside the womb.

But, no one ever asks that question. It's always solely focused on the woman. Blame the woman.

Hormones go crazy when you're pregnant. They don't always work in a positive way. And science of animals have found nurturing is greatly learned from involvement with "family". It is not necessarily inherent.

Nature, natural instincts are what they are. They are NOT what man has romanticized.







Agreed, except for the slight difference between slavery and pregnancy as it concerns another 'potential life' IMHO.....what I meant by that is not so much as legislating a woman's body as slavery, but more so in that protection of another 'potential life' that is in the woman's body.


The Constitution protects the living not the unborn or "potential life".

Slavery, owning another person is illegal.

Personal emotions, belief are not relevant - - - except to the person having them.

No one has the right to legislate a woman's body.


Agreed regarding the constitution and slavery.....but the law does offer some protection to the unborn

Unborn victims of violence


Is that law really Constitutional? A lot of laws have been shot down or changed over the last 20 years as being unconstitutional.

But, that law addresses injury or death by accident at the hands of someone else.

No choice involved.


Thats a question best left to the experts,....I can't really say one way or another...


If you are injured or killed by an outside force.

It is not your choice. It is their fault. They have taken life from you.



Yes, true,...but we are talking about the constitutionality of said law and the protection for the unborn, not whose fault it is.....anyways that law specifically exclude legal abortion




top topics



 
127
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join