Sorry to say

smr wrote:Daryl is it right to murder a baby outside the womb than why should we allow the murder of a bay inside the womb. That's my basic reasoning for views and stances on abortion. However, I understand a woman wanting an abortion due to rape and incest. Second, their certain medical reasons that make it hard for me to ban abortion. For it to be used as way to get rid of unwanted pregnancy that should be illegal. Tubal ligation is very effective birth control method and their are certain pills that will kill off the fetus (baby) with 10 days of pregnancy. (the last point I personally hate but it is legal.) For the most part, the democrats do not want PP to be d-funded because they lose 20 million dollars of campaign funds. That's an extreme conflict of interest.

An acorn is not an oak tree. A fertilized egg is not a person. Do you intend to lead us in a chorus of "Every Sperm Is Sacred"?

If so, that puts several activities into the no go area, including homosexual sex......

Imaginos1892 wrote:An acorn is not an oak tree. A fertilized egg is not a person. Do you intend to lead us in a chorus of "Every Sperm Is Sacred"?

My view that abortion should be illegal when they they can survive outside the womb. We have variety of ways to terminate unwanted pregancy early! Second, we do have Birth Control.

As a result, I believe in putting stipulations on having an abortion. Under 18, a parent's permission should be obtained. View the developing baby on a sonogram or ultrasound and 3 day cooling off period before the procedure can take place. I believe if we assign rights to the baby outside the womb then the fetus (baby) has rights in the womb.

smr wrote:My view that abortion should be illegal when they they can survive outside the womb.

So.... somewhere in the neighborhood of 99% of all abortions should be *legal* then since they are performed before viability? Well that's a start.

But you do understand for that very small number of abortions performed past that point the vast majority of them are done because medical complications cause the doctors to deem them necessary. So... are you going to require women to die rather than follow medical advice and abort? Or throw them in prison if they do follow that advice to preserve their own health and life?

We have variety of ways to terminate unwanted pregancy early!

Also known as... abortion. So, yes! We do!

Second, we do have Birth Control.

Which is not 100% effective... but yes.

As a result, I believe in putting stipulations on having an abortion. Under 18, a parent's permission should be obtained.

Parents of minors should *maybe* be notified depending on the circumstances... but are you honestly arguing a 17 year old girl should be *forced* to undergo a pregnancy and birth if her parents decide to make her? What possible justification could you have for that position?

View the developing baby on a sonogram or ultrasound and 3 day cooling off period before the procedure can take place.

Why? What is your justification for this?

I believe if we assign rights to the baby outside the womb then the fetus (baby) has rights in the womb.

Let's for a moment ignore the incredibly questionable attempt to equate a fetus and a baby... and pretend this was an actual valid argument.

Hell, let's grant fetuses, from the moment of conception, 100% of the rights a born baby has.


Abortion would still be legal. Because you know what right a baby, or ANY OTHER LIVING PERSON, does NOT have?


The right to use other people's bodies against their will. Even to preserve their own life. That right does not exist. I can't do it. You can't do it. No babies can do it. And a fetus can't do it either.

So if the mother doesn't want to undergo a pregnancy, she can refuse to undergo a pregnancy. Period. Anything else is defining women's bodies as the property of others and forcing them to put their bodies to uses they do not wish to. Want to go down that road? Because we have a word for that, and it's not a pretty word.

smr wrote:... we do have Birth Control.

I wonder why the people who argue against abortion are the same people who argue against realistic sex education, who insist on "abstinence only"? Abortion is the least desirable method of birth control, but if we're not going to teach every child the safer methods, it will still be necessary. By the time a child is physically mature enough to become a parent (and that's actually about age 12 - 14), they should know how to prevent it until they're ready. They should know the costs and consequences. They should have access to whatever means they choose.

Control. persuade them that their sexual feelings and probable experimentation is wrong and immoral, make them feel as if they have sinned, and that the only way they can succeed in life and to have a chance of going to heaven is to follow your rules and abstain, and then watch as they feel so guilty going through puberty, while being peer pressured by fellow church members, and they either break and 'sin', in which case it drives a wedge between them and their family, and binds the family closer to the church who helps them in their time of betrayal from their child having sexual experiencs/getting pregnant, or it fully brainwashes the child into belief, in which case they now have to go to the church to avoid sinning. either way, it helps bind people closer to the church by straining or helping prevent bonds forming with those outside the church who have a different viewpoint on this. plus, a lack of birth control helps ensure that the next generation will be plentiful for the church.

dscott8 wrote:

smr wrote:... we do have Birth Control.

I wonder why the people who argue against abortion are the same people who argue against realistic sex education, who insist on "abstinence only"? Abortion is the least desirable method of birth control, but if we're not going to teach every child the safer methods, it will still be necessary. By the time a child is physically mature enough to become a parent (and that's actually about age 12 - 14), they should know how to prevent it until they're ready. They should know the costs and consequences. They should have access to whatever means they choose.

I do not have that problem so stereotyping people is your problem not mine. I would rather have BC rather than abortions. The BC depends on your religion/sect!

dscott8 wrote:

smr wrote:... we do have Birth Control.

I wonder why the people who argue against abortion are the same people who argue against realistic sex education, who insist on "abstinence only"? Abortion is the least desirable method of birth control, but if we're not going to teach every child the safer methods, it will still be necessary. By the time a child is physically mature enough to become a parent (and that's actually about age 12 - 14), they should know how to prevent it until they're ready. They should know the costs and consequences. They should have access to whatever means they choose.

smr wrote:I do not have that problem so stereotyping people is your problem not mine. I would rather have BC rather than abortions. The BC depends on your religion/sect!

...technically speaking, abortion does fall (albeit barely) under the umbrella of Birth Control.

In order to prevent the need for abortions, you need to control the usage of sexual organs, especially the womb. The two ways of doing this are either controlling the organs themselves (implants, pills etc) or controlling the woman within whom said organs reside (legal/social/religious pressure).
History has suggested that the latter works only to a specific point (and can in fact lead to unfortunate side-effects such as the Rotherham Grooming Scandal) whereas research into the former is constantly ongoing.

Playing devils advocate here ---- Abortions Vs Murder....

When a pregnant women is killed I have seen where the killer is charged with two murders and goes to trial and convicted of two murders and lands in jail. I have also seen where a pregnant women was involved in a car crash and the person who caused the accident and killed the unborn child was charged and convicted of homicide and spent time in jail for that murder. So with that being said.....

Why is the government allowing (doctors)to murder the unborn and get away with it while at the same time convicting others who murder the unborn during the commission of a crime or accident go to jail.

Seems to me we have confusing laws.... Murder is murder...

Senior Chief wrote:Playing devils advocate here ---- Abortions Vs Murder....

When a pregnant women is killed I have seen where the killer is charged with two murders and goes to trial and convicted of two murders and lands in jail. I have also seen where a pregnant women was involved in a car crash and the person who caused the accident and killed the unborn child was charged and convicted of homicide and spent time in jail for that murder. So with that being said.....

Why is the government allowing (doctors)to murder the unborn and get away with it while at the same time convicting others who murder the unborn during the commission of a crime or accident go to jail.

Seems to me we have confusing laws.... Murder is murder...

Unborn Crime Victim laws were passed by politicians sucking up to religious pressure groups who use this as a stealth tactic to establish a theoretical legal "personhood" of a fetus. Yes, the law is an ass.