Nonsense, that is your side of the argument, forcing your immorality, and disregard for life on the rest of society.See you like BIG GOVERNMENT to tell a women
And you probably think that all acts of sex are rape too don't you?to tell a women she should be FORCED to carry to term a baby
And women don't know that their bodies go through these changes during pregnancy? This is all new to them until they find out they are pregnant?and go through mental and physical changes
I am all for the fathers of these unborn children stepping up to support the mother during the pregnancy. Many would, except for the woman shutting them out completely.while you apply NOTHING of the sort to the man involved during the same 9 months.
I do what I can, for example, right now I am talking to you.Until you and others can do that
A tad bit emotional there eh? I don't hold such contempt for those that support your position, I just am saddened that they can so devalue life that they are willing to discard it like trash. Congratulations, You have effectively laid out the worst parts of the pro abortion crowd.**** pro-lifers.
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville
"Though no one can go back and make a brand new start, anyone can start from now and make a brand new ending."
I think it should be allowed but also believe it to be immoral. There is no conflict there at all. It's the same with prostitution. Some feel it should be legal even while finding it immoral. There are many such laws.You either allow abortion or you don't -
The the direct opposite of the "A woman should have control over her own body' argument. Suddenly, after a required number of months, she no longer has control over her body and it now belongs to the State.. This 'viability' thing just doesn't stand because a baby, even after its born, is not completely 'viable' until many years later. We are still dealing with human life whether it is 'viable' or not.if you allow it then you have to set limits based on certain facts which aren't changing (for a long while yet) such as when the fetus is viable outside the womb because then you are harming someone who can survive unaided outside the womb.
Much like the unwillingness to call it a baby, a person, or a potential human being. Those who want to control the language feel they control the debate.I have never had any qualms about calling the bunch of cells created by an egg and sperm a human being because the "personhood" or "human beingness" argument is simply a sideshow to whether that person can survive unaided and if so - whether that survival will harm them or not.
It is not black and white. Women should be made completely aware that they are taking a human life and that there is help available if they decide to give it up after the baby is born. But many pro abortionists are against even this counseling.Studies show that for those born between 20 - 24 weeks, early preterms survival rate after birth is about 9 in 100 at best and even then there is a high chance of serious disability. The only anti abortion argument that can be made in reality is to abolish it altogether but then you simply go back to the old days of *back-room / back alley / back yard / back street abortion with coathangers and similar.
I don't think you're getting much argument on this 'viability' thing. Whether it is 'viable' or not it is still the taking of a human life.The reality as I see it is that anyone who is anti 24 weeks is simply trying to bring the limit down piecemeal (They realise a sudden drop to 0 weeks is unlikely to it has to be an incremental process over time.) to a wholesale ban because that is the ultimate end game for those who refuse to acknowledge the facts of viability.
Are you arguing that this is a 'citizenship' issue?
Actually the government does already 'interfere'.Thank you for your admittal that a CITIZEN of the U.S. should be able to determine whether or not they should go through with a 9 month pregnancy which is biological, mental, and physical changes to her body without GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.
Yeah. It's all about citizenship. Stick with that unconfused position.Seems YOU are the one confused here like most pro-lifers.
And you along with other conservatives support BIG GOVERNMENT doing that.
The man responsible was not mentioned. And it is illegal to carry out an abortion after the baby is 'viable' or BIG GOVERNMENT will step in and she will be FORCED to carry the baby to term..See you like BIG GOVERNMENT to tell a women she should be FORCED to carry to term a baby and go through mental and physical changes while you apply NOTHING of the sort to the man involved during the same 9 months. Until you and others can do that, **** pro-lifers.