Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
22 weeks a fetus has a possibility of living independent of the woman, with medical intervention. I am against abortion past the point of viability except in the case of maternal health, of serious fetal issues.
When you get a terminal disease and need medical assistance to live, do we get to kill you because you can't live independently?
Again, anyone can care for a person once born. Any doctor can care for someone with a terminal illness, not ONE specific doctor, but any doctor. And I am paying them to provide a service.
I thought we had moved beyond the concept of people owning other people. Apparently not. The pro-abortion crowd believes that mothers own their children until birth, and until birth have the absolute right to kill them.
The science proves that the fetus is not the mother. Its DNA is different.
And where does your idiotic logic end? A six month old baby needs its mother to live too. Should she have the right to kill her six month old baby because its an inconvenience? There's no difference between that and abortion.
you want to use the words own then fine. women do "own" their own body just as a man does. we do have the right to not be pregnant if we don't want to be. we have the absolute right to "kill" a fetus if that is our choice.
trying to be dramatic and asking if we support the right to kill a baby born, six months old is beyond the scope of the topic. again a born child is far different than one in the womb. but you knew that.
So, in your twisted far left liberal extremist mind, if someone is keeping someone else alive, then they have the right to kill the person if they don't want to do it.
Can't wait till your crowd gets in charge of health care. Then we can start putting down all those elderly people and developmentally disabled folks who can't take care of themselves.
I see nothing wrong with this comment. Most if not all women are on the pill AND a women can only get pregnant at a certain time of the month.
What may be considered ignorant is not the mathamatical percentages of pregnacies occurring by rape; It is the implication that... since the rate of pregnacies casued by rape is low enough not to justify using rape as an arguent for legalized, safe abortions.
I'm done talking to these ghouls, what a depressing way to start the weekend. People in our country are so incredibly and totally immoral it's just depressing.
what is immoral is wanting women to be forced into giving birth against their will
In their religion it is a person. As that is the base assumption of their faith it cannot be argued against. It can only be denied and should be as another form of religious absurdity.
None of the people arguing for the Freedom to Choose what to have done to your own body have ever suggested that someone that believes a fetus is a child should be forced to have an abortion. The Freedom to Choose people would let anyone that wanted to carry a pregnancy to term would support the pregnant woman and the child.
Most of the anti-choice supporters would not support either the pregnant woman of her child as, even if conceived in a sanctified marriage, the child is the woman's punishment for having sex and diverting a man from worshipping god.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
