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.
Well, comparing the Peterson case with this subject seems off-topic to me. I am not a member of any jurisprudence team, had no knowledge nor did I follow this trial, and have no idea whatsoever how it was determined to include the unborn child in the case. My only reference to this was in response to MoMark's viability data. Is this sufficient for you; it is for me!
Point being, the courts ran into some trouble here while they charged Scott with the murder of an unborn child.
There is no difference between a 1 month old child in the womb and a 9 month old. Its a human, and if given the opportunity, will be as human as you and I. I was once a 1 month old in the womb, I would certainly consider myself as much a living creature then as I do now.
Everyone is entitled to their POV, and in this case, my POV differs somewhat between and/or among viability and choice notions.
I have consistently stated that while I don't like the idea of abortions, and certainly those that may fall into certain categories of severe misconduct are aborrhent, I do advocate "choice."
No argument about murder, viability, hell, damnation or otherwise will get me off this position and I am not attempting to change anyone else's POV but ask that mine be respected.
We are certainly free to voice our personal opinions on topics on these forums. However, I cannot "respect" someones opinion that abortion is OK. I respect your right to voice your opinion, but I cannot condone nor respect someones opinion that murdering a human life is acceptable.
We are certainly free to voice our personal opinions on topics on these forums. However, I cannot "respect" someones opinion that abortion is OK. I respect your right to voice your opinion, but I cannot condone nor respect someones opinion that murdering a human life is acceptable.
I think the word "choice" is part of what makes this debate difficult. The choice is usually made before the unwanted conception arises. A couple makes a choice to have sex or not. Once made, they should be accountable, in my opinion. So in my terms I am pro-choice/pro-accountability. In the context of the usual way these words are used, I am anti-abortion.*
Clearly in a case of rape, there has been no choice, so abortion can be justified imho. But what if the woman was coerced, or pressured in some way? That would seem to be fairly common, and also pretty much impossible to judge, let alone prove. This just underscores the need for education and equal status for women as decision makers and unfortunately that is a long way off in many areas, and is what makes this debate so difficult.
*I do not think abortion should be used as birth control, because I think that the more man takes control of the creation of life (and death) the more life becomes de-valued. Let it be a "miracle".
I think the word "choice" is part of what makes this debate difficult. The choice is usually made before the unwanted conception arises. A couple makes a choice to have sex or not. Once made, they should be accountable, in my opinion. So in my terms I am pro-choice/pro-accountability. In the context of the usual way these words are used, I am anti-abortion.*
Clearly in a case of rape, there has been no choice, so abortion can be justified imho. But what if the woman was coerced, or pressured in some way? That would seem to be fairly common, and also pretty much impossible to judge, let alone prove. This just underscores the need for education and equal status for women as decision makers and unfortunately that is a long way off in many areas, and is what makes this debate so difficult.
*I do not think abortion should be used as birth control, because I think that the more man takes control of the creation of life (and death) the more life becomes de-valued. Let it be a "miracle".
Nice post. I agree about the choice is made when you choose to have sex. And you assume the responsiblities that come with it. To take a life because it is inconvenient is barbaric. And convenience is really at the root of the issue isn't it? Because one can give up the child if they are not in a position to raise it. So they might be inconvenienced for 9 months and they may not want society to know they are pregnant and giving the child up.
Cities and towns should fund abortions to save money on schools, childcare and juvinile justice. And we pro choice people should RELOCATE to those towns after finding out here which ones they are. NYC already does it, but they are far too crowded (not enough abortions). What roomier and cheaper municipalities fund abortions.
Smart taxpayers hit the jackpot when we fund abortions because they save in local childcare taxes 50 times over.
See https://www.city-data.com/forum/polit...it-cities.html
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.
Municipal abortion funding
