I don't understand this "Rights at the time of conception" Deal

[racolvin]

1) Men of any ethnicity, nationality, or religious persuasion should NEVER have a voice in this discussion - WE (i'm male) don't have to carry the "child" in our bodies; we don't have to worry about our life being in danger during birth; we don't have to endure the possibility of incest, rape that leads to conception, etc, etc

2) No person or government should EVER be permitted to force the decision to carry to term or to terminate on a woman because a) see reasons listed in #1 above and b) WE/THEY aren't the ones who have to raise that child, pay its bills, love it, nurture it, educate it, etc, etc - that is for the PARENTS of that "child" to do.

In one of my many "If I were king ..." daydreams (c'mon, you know you have them too), I see myself passing a law that states any member of a legislature, state or federal, that passes a law REQUIRING a woman to carry a "child" to term, must consent to be legally appointed guardian and financially/legally PERSONALLY responsible for its upkeep, education, and its actions until the child reaches 18.

Let's face it, if every one of those folks screaming to not let a woman CHOOSE FOR HERSELF how to handle her pregnancy were to be told "fine, then when I have this baby he/she is YOURS to care for, pay for, raise, love, etc" they'd be heading for the exits after the first few thousand were born and handed over to them.

 

[hellokeith]

Liberals and "I personally do not support abortion but believe a woman should have the choice"-ians all come together under the pro-abortion flag because none will stand up for even partial birth/late term/3rd term federal restrictions, let alone anything remotely sooner based on viability or development.

What is depressing is how many people fall into the 2nd category yet continue allowing nearly-born babies be murdered because they are afraid of being called "pro life". I would much rather be labeled than have blood on my hands.

edit: removed political party reference

 

[Carmen813]

I support a woman's right to choose for a lot of reasons, and I was raised Catholic. I look at it this way, if my wife was pregnant and it was up to me to pick my unborn child, or my wife, I would pick my wife. That's assuming it was up to me, which it wouldn't be.

I think people are to quick to think that a pregnant woman "wants" to get an abortion and they never put themselves in their shoes. I would wager that the vast majority of abortions are gut-wrenching decisions that can affect the woman's mental health for a long time.

My main problem with the conservative/republican stance is this: they are about "freedom" yet they want to take away someones control over their own body. They want to out-law abortion, but do not want to fund the public programs, such as free healthcare, pre-natal care, and free daycare (that almost all other civilized countries have) in order to reduce the number of abortions. They insist on teaching abstinence only, which has been proven over and over to be ineffective at reducing unwanted pregnancy. All because of a religious portion of their base. They would rather attack the women who are forced to make these decisions than offer or support real solutions. They humanize what is essentially a clump of cells for a very long time while dehumanizing the person who is pregnant.

I think our society has to many abortions, but I don't think the solution is outlawing them.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Liberals and "I personally do not support abortion but believe a woman should have the choice"-ians all come together under the pro-abortion flag because none will stand up for even partial birth/late term/3rd term federal restrictions, let alone anything remotely sooner based on viability or development.

What is depressing is how many people fall into the 2nd category yet continue allowing nearly-born babies be murdered because they are afraid of being called "pro life". I would much rather be labeled than have blood on my hands.

edit: removed political party reference

If you are not a liberal then per definition you are a fascist, that's the way that definition goes and i will not argue at all that you're not a fascist, if it was up to you women would be strapped up because they COULD be pregnant, if it was up to you womens body would be a state issue or a federal issu, or even a church issue or all three since your kind loves that.

Grown ups are trying to have a discussion here, go away.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I support a woman's right to choose for a lot of reasons, and I was raised Catholic. I look at it this way, if my wife was pregnant and it was up to me to pick my unborn child, or my wife, I would pick my wife. That's assuming it was up to me, which it wouldn't be.

I think people are to quick to think that a pregnant woman "wants" to get an abortion and they never put themselves in their shoes. I would wager that the vast majority of abortions are gut-wrenching decisions that can affect the woman's mental health for a long time.

My main problem with the conservative/republican stance is this: they are about "freedom" yet they want to take away someones control over their own body. They want to out-law abortion, but do not want to fund the public programs, such as free healthcare, pre-natal care, and free daycare (that almost all other civilized countries have) in order to reduce the number of abortions. They insist on teaching abstinence only, which has been proven over and over to be ineffective at reducing unwanted pregnancy. All because of a religious portion of their base. They would rather attack the women who are forced to make these decisions than offer or support real solutions. They humanize what is essentially a clump of cells for a very long time while dehumanizing the person who is pregnant.

I think our society has to many abortions, but I don't think the solution is outlawing them.

You're going about this the wrong way, what is alive can be killed, but how do you kill a human being that isn't alive?

We REALLY need to change the western society and pay at least 900% to keep all the clinically dead alive, there would be millions by now, but we settled on this because when your brain shuts down, you are gone, so that is how life ends.

Can we all agree on that life is dependant on the brain functions? If not, there are millions every day, in fact thousands of millions every day that they just burn because they are just as alive as a pre 25 week fetus, i mean if this is going to be a consistant fight, let's stick to that point because it can be scientifically validated, has been for over 50 years now.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
In my opinion, and by my own conscience given to me by God, a human is a human when it has all the DNA of a human and given a reasonable chance, will be born one. Destroying the fetus at any point for any reason when it's expected to be born and live is murder and barbaric.

You may believe anything you want, just don't try to enact them as law. I see the use of abortion as a case of human intellect overcoming the animal reproductive urge.

 

[deftron]

Pregnant women get to drive in the HOV lane ?

 

[manowar821]

arrggg

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Liberals and "I personally do not support abortion but believe a woman should have the choice"-ians all come together under the pro-abortion flag because none will stand up for even partial birth/late term/3rd term federal restrictions, let alone anything remotely sooner based on viability or development.

What is depressing is how many people fall into the 2nd category yet continue allowing nearly-born babies be murdered because they are afraid of being called "pro life". I would much rather be labeled than have blood on my hands.

Rather a sweeping generality. Are you sure of what you claim? For the record?

Good, because you're wrong.

I'm extremely liberal, and I'm certainly in favor of restrictions on post-viability abortions. I would never absolutely, positively outlaw ALL abortions at some specific late stage of fetal development, because there will always be special circumstances where a late-term abortion is warranted.

I'd address your second paragraph, which is also almost completely wrong, except that I find your posts to be extremely tiresome: You spout this ignorant nonsense, are presented with information that refutes what you say, and then in the next thread on the same subject you're back to spouting the same crap.

But maybe you have early-onset Alzheimers. In any event, I pity you your deficient brain.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Duwelon
In my opinion, and by my own conscience given to me by God, a human is a human when it has all the DNA of a human and given a reasonable chance, will be born one. Destroying the fetus at any point for any reason when it's expected to be born and live is murder and barbaric.

Based on your disertation, there should be a license, registration, insurance and government permission to fcvk with medical and religious staff present to issue Social Security number and religious rites (such as baptism etc) on the spot.

Most of that, minus the paperwork of course, can and does already happen via the mother.

At the time of fcvking?

Sex != conception.

Then all the crap you are spewing is 110% bullspit spewage.

You don't even believe the crap you are spewing.

Either the swimmers reaching their target are what you call a living human or not.

You can't have it both ways.