Should fathers be allowed to sue over abortion?
Replies
-
I can't imagine that there are that many women who decide to have an abortion *after* the fetus reaches viability.
No. BUT abortions past viability should be performed only if the mother's life or physical health are at serious risk or in the case of fetal abnormalities.No, because my god says that fetuses are part of a woman's body, just like a leg. So the only person being theoretically injured here is the woman, and she's the one making the decision.
I'm calling bullsh*t on that one. Other that the fictional "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, It takes two people to create a child. Both persons should be involved in the decisions regarding that child or the termination of that child.
Besides, if you're going to throw God into the mix, isn't abortion frowned upon?
I'm going to with this. Just because they can't carry the child, doesn't make it any less his child. Woo hoo, lucky female, the baby sits in your belly. Well, quite frankly, the baby wouldn't be there without a man's sperm.
When men start carrying babies instead of women, then I'll change my stance and say the man has the final say so. It doesn't matter if it takes 50 people to make a child--whoever it is carrying it has the final say. Would you, in all honesty, want someone else, no matter who it is, to have control over YOUR body like that?
And, in all of this, we forget that the fetus itself has its own body.
Are you okay with the abortion of late term fetus'?
Har harrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. A zygote has its own body? really?
If it can survive outside the womb on its own, then no, I don't support it. I'd really like to see a percentage on how many women wait that long to get an abortion, anyway...I'd bet money that it's extremely low.
What, exactly, do you think of when you hear the word "abortion?" Do you think of women lying on desks while mean doctors pull a newborn baby out of them and then throw in the garbage or something?
In your opinion, should late term abortions be banned?
^This. If it's possible for the fetus to survive on it's own outside of the womb, then really, what is the difference in performing a c-section and an abortion, at that point? Just do the c-section and the mother can be on her way, if she still chooses to not want the baby.
And I also agree with bathsheba. I do not believe that nonsense for a second. Maybe somewhere, at some point, some lunatic "doctor" did that...but unless I see some unbiased sources to prove otherwise, I'm calling extreme bull**** on that one.
By the way, viable and healthy are not the same thing, so even if it were the case that women were having late-term abortions for non-medical reasons, I'm not sure that your C-section suggestion is a medically sound one.0 -
I can't imagine that there are that many women who decide to have an abortion *after* the fetus reaches viability.
No. BUT abortions past viability should be performed only if the mother's life or physical health are at serious risk or in the case of fetal abnormalities.No, because my god says that fetuses are part of a woman's body, just like a leg. So the only person being theoretically injured here is the woman, and she's the one making the decision.
I'm calling bullsh*t on that one. Other that the fictional "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, It takes two people to create a child. Both persons should be involved in the decisions regarding that child or the termination of that child.
Besides, if you're going to throw God into the mix, isn't abortion frowned upon?
I'm going to with this. Just because they can't carry the child, doesn't make it any less his child. Woo hoo, lucky female, the baby sits in your belly. Well, quite frankly, the baby wouldn't be there without a man's sperm.
When men start carrying babies instead of women, then I'll change my stance and say the man has the final say so. It doesn't matter if it takes 50 people to make a child--whoever it is carrying it has the final say. Would you, in all honesty, want someone else, no matter who it is, to have control over YOUR body like that?
And, in all of this, we forget that the fetus itself has its own body.
Are you okay with the abortion of late term fetus'?
Har harrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. A zygote has its own body? really?
If it can survive outside the womb on its own, then no, I don't support it. I'd really like to see a percentage on how many women wait that long to get an abortion, anyway...I'd bet money that it's extremely low.
What, exactly, do you think of when you hear the word "abortion?" Do you think of women lying on desks while mean doctors pull a newborn baby out of them and then throw in the garbage or something?
In your opinion, should late term abortions be banned?
^This. If it's possible for the fetus to survive on it's own outside of the womb, then really, what is the difference in performing a c-section and an abortion, at that point? Just do the c-section and the mother can be on her way, if she still chooses to not want the baby.
And I also agree with bathsheba. I do not believe that nonsense for a second. Maybe somewhere, at some point, some lunatic "doctor" did that...but unless I see some unbiased sources to prove otherwise, I'm calling extreme bull**** on that one.
By the way, viable and healthy are not the same thing, so even if it were the case that women were having late-term abortions for non-medical reasons, I'm not sure that your C-section suggestion is a medically sound one.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, there were 1.2 Million abortions in 2008 of which 1.5% were performed after 21 weeks of gestation. That is in the order of 15,000 babies.
Just for reference, the most premature baby to live was born at 21 weeks 6 days in 2010.0 -
until a man has the ability to incubate for 9 months, then no, he doesn't get a say until a child is born & separated from the mothers body. Simples.0
-
According to the Guttmacher Institute, there were 1.2 Million abortions in 2008 of which 1.5% were performed after 21 weeks of gestation. That is in the order of 15,000 babies.
Just for reference, the most premature baby to live was born at 21 weeks 6 days in 2010.
And presumably, it had a LOT of medical assistance/intervention. Late-term abortion is pretty strictly controlled in most western countries, so that 1.5% is likely to represent a lot of medically-necessary abortions rather than those that are about maternal choice. I can't see why anyone should have the power to force a woman to carry a dead or fatally malformed fetus to term, or a live fetus that places her own health or life at risk.0 -
According to the Guttmacher Institute, there were 1.2 Million abortions in 2008 of which 1.5% were performed after 21 weeks of gestation. That is in the order of 15,000 babies.
Just for reference, the most premature baby to live was born at 21 weeks 6 days in 2010.
And presumably, it had a LOT of medical assistance/intervention. Late-term abortion is pretty strictly controlled in most western countries, so that 1.5% is likely to represent a lot of medically-necessary abortions rather than those that are about maternal choice. I can't see why anyone should have the power to force a woman to carry a dead or fatally malformed fetus to term, or a live fetus that places her own health or life at risk.
You're always so eloquent and say what I think better than I say it, lol. :flowerforyou:0 -
According to the Guttmacher Institute, there were 1.2 Million abortions in 2008 of which 1.5% were performed after 21 weeks of gestation. That is in the order of 15,000 babies.
Just for reference, the most premature baby to live was born at 21 weeks 6 days in 2010.
And presumably, it had a LOT of medical assistance/intervention. Late-term abortion is pretty strictly controlled in most western countries, so that 1.5% is likely to represent a lot of medically-necessary abortions rather than those that are about maternal choice. I can't see why anyone should have the power to force a woman to carry a dead or fatally malformed fetus to term, or a live fetus that places her own health or life at risk.
You're always so eloquent and say what I think better than I say it, lol. :flowerforyou:
Glad I can help, and thanks. That was very well-timed positive reinforcement! :happy: :flowerforyou:0 -
According to the Guttmacher Institute, there were 1.2 Million abortions in 2008 of which 1.5% were performed after 21 weeks of gestation. That is in the order of 15,000 babies.
Just for reference, the most premature baby to live was born at 21 weeks 6 days in 2010.
And presumably, it had a LOT of medical assistance/intervention. Late-term abortion is pretty strictly controlled in most western countries, so that 1.5% is likely to represent a lot of medically-necessary abortions rather than those that are about maternal choice. I can't see why anyone should have the power to force a woman to carry a dead or fatally malformed fetus to term, or a live fetus that places her own health or life at risk.
Can you point me to statistics that support your claim that the majority of these late term abortions were medically necessary?0 -
There is a bit of a double standard.
If a mother does not want a baby she can get an abortion. If a father does not want a baby he has no rights and is at the mercy of what the mother wants to do. If the mother chooses to have the baby the father is legally responsible to provide for the baby. More proof women have all the power.0 -
According to the Guttmacher Institute, there were 1.2 Million abortions in 2008 of which 1.5% were performed after 21 weeks of gestation. That is in the order of 15,000 babies.
Just for reference, the most premature baby to live was born at 21 weeks 6 days in 2010.
And presumably, it had a LOT of medical assistance/intervention. Late-term abortion is pretty strictly controlled in most western countries, so that 1.5% is likely to represent a lot of medically-necessary abortions rather than those that are about maternal choice. I can't see why anyone should have the power to force a woman to carry a dead or fatally malformed fetus to term, or a live fetus that places her own health or life at risk.
I am against a man having the say to a certain point. I think once that baby has arms and legs and can kick you in the ribs and you feel it, it's a person. But I ask this. What if it weren't medically needed. Or if the baby is perfectly fine and so is mom, and mom was trying to get back at the father for some reason and wanted to abort the baby to spite him. Would that still be OK?0 -
According to the Guttmacher Institute, there were 1.2 Million abortions in 2008 of which 1.5% were performed after 21 weeks of gestation. That is in the order of 15,000 babies.
Just for reference, the most premature baby to live was born at 21 weeks 6 days in 2010.
And presumably, it had a LOT of medical assistance/intervention. Late-term abortion is pretty strictly controlled in most western countries, so that 1.5% is likely to represent a lot of medically-necessary abortions rather than those that are about maternal choice. I can't see why anyone should have the power to force a woman to carry a dead or fatally malformed fetus to term, or a live fetus that places her own health or life at risk.
Can you point me to statistics that support your claim that the majority of these late term abortions were medically necessary?
If you read my post carefully you will see that I used the phrase "likely to represent". It was a common-sense assertion of what I believe to be probable based on the prevalence of controls on late-term abortions in the majority of Western countries, rather than an absolute statement of fact. Nonetheless, I shall see what I can find for you tomorrow, as I am just about to sign off for the day.0 -
No, because my god says that fetuses are part of a woman's body, just like a leg. So the only person being theoretically injured here is the woman, and she's the one making the decision.
I'm calling bullsh*t on that one. Other that the fictional "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, It takes two people to create a child. Both persons should be involved in the decisions regarding that child or the termination of that child.
Besides, if you're going to throw God into the mix, isn't abortion frowned upon?
I'm going to with this. Just because they can't carry the child, doesn't make it any less his child. Woo hoo, lucky female, the baby sits in your belly. Well, quite frankly, the baby wouldn't be there without a man's sperm.
When men start carrying babies instead of women, then I'll change my stance and say the man has the final say so. It doesn't matter if it takes 50 people to make a child--whoever it is carrying it has the final say. Would you, in all honesty, want someone else, no matter who it is, to have control over YOUR body like that?
I find this to be a very arrogant response. So because men cannot physically carry a child, means they have no say? That's bogus. If I did not want the child, but some man I decided to open my legs to and not use proper protection with, wanted said child, then yes. I would carry that child.0 -
I guess it all depends on if you believe it's a life or not. People call it a mass of cells, but masses of cells don't suck thumbs, kick, roll or have a heartbeat. It amazes me that in today's day and age with how much we now, there are people that still buy this lie.
I guess people are only human, if they can fend for themselves. I find it funny that people who say there is no God, love to play the part over others right to live.0 -
I'm fortunate to not have dealt with this issue.
Yes, I believe that there is a right to sue. The baby is his as well as hers. Biology being what it is, he is not equipped to carry the child, but that doesn't make it any less his.
I agree. It takes two to make the baby, then two should be responsible and have a choice.
As long as there is no abnormal health risk to the mother by carrying the child, the father should get to choose if he wants it also.
My problem with this is that the negative impact of a pregnancy, wanted or otherwise, on a woman goes far beyond 'abnormal health risks'. Men do not biologically suffer the physical, mental and emotional changes of pregnancy, nor the negative impact on career and related opportunities. At the end of the day, the 'cost' to the mother is infinitely higher - surely her wishes should consequently have more weight, ideally whilst acknowledging the wishes of the father also?
Yeah, career is way more important than someone's right to live....0 -
No, because my god says that fetuses are part of a woman's body, just like a leg. So the only person being theoretically injured here is the woman, and she's the one making the decision.
I'm calling bullsh*t on that one. Other that the fictional "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, It takes two people to create a child. Both persons should be involved in the decisions regarding that child or the termination of that child.
Besides, if you're going to throw God into the mix, isn't abortion frowned upon?
I'm going to with this. Just because they can't carry the child, doesn't make it any less his child. Woo hoo, lucky female, the baby sits in your belly. Well, quite frankly, the baby wouldn't be there without a man's sperm.
When men start carrying babies instead of women, then I'll change my stance and say the man has the final say so. It doesn't matter if it takes 50 people to make a child--whoever it is carrying it has the final say. Would you, in all honesty, want someone else, no matter who it is, to have control over YOUR body like that?
And, in all of this, we forget that the fetus itself has its own body.
Are you okay with the abortion of late term fetus'?
Har harrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. A zygote has its own body? really?
If it can survive outside the womb on its own, then no, I don't support it. I'd really like to see a percentage on how many women wait that long to get an abortion, anyway...I'd bet money that it's extremely low.
What, exactly, do you think of when you hear the word "abortion?" Do you think of women lying on desks while mean doctors pull a newborn baby out of them and then throw in the garbage or something?
Treated as medical waste doesn't count as garbage? Where do you think they go?
There are people that can't live without assistance outside the womb. Many can't speak or communicate like we can, yet we take care of them. Seeing that they are not self-sufficient, would it matter if we end their life?0 -
Treated as medical waste doesn't count as garbage? Where do you think they go?
There are people that can't live without assistance outside the womb. Many can't speak or communicate like we can, yet we take care of them. Seeing that they are not self-sufficient, would it matter if we end their life?
ANYONE can care for a born person who cannot live without assistance. That person does not rely solely on one specific person.
You seem to exemplify your user name. You are ranting about people who don't believe in God playing that role over someone else as if God has anything to do with it. If I have an abortion I'm not playing God over someone else. I'm making a medical decision that's best for myself and my family. If you don't like it then don't have an abortion or impregnante someone who would have one. But if you believe in God then why do you think you get to play His role over someone else? Since He exists, isn't that His job, not yours?
I assume since you are all in favor of life that you are also in favor of universal health care too right? And increasing funding to welfare, food stamps, Headstart, public schools, etc? Or is that life only important until it's born at which point it becomes a burden to society and a welfare leech? I'm always amazed at the number of adamant "pro lifers" who are really only pro fetus because once it is absolutely without a doubt and universally agreed upon that it is most definitely a life they hold it and its mother in contempt and no longer give a damn about it. Those people should either put their money where their mouth is and either be pro life or just admit that they are pro fetus and not at all about the actual life.0 -
There is a bit of a double standard.
If a mother does not want a baby she can get an abortion. If a father does not want a baby he has no rights and is at the mercy of what the mother wants to do. If the mother chooses to have the baby the father is legally responsible to provide for the baby. More proof women have all the power.
LMAO!!!!!!!!! :drinker:0 -
Treated as medical waste doesn't count as garbage? Where do you think they go?
There are people that can't live without assistance outside the womb. Many can't speak or communicate like we can, yet we take care of them. Seeing that they are not self-sufficient, would it matter if we end their life?
ANYONE can care for a born person who cannot live without assistance. That person does not rely solely on one specific person.
You seem to exemplify your user name. You are ranting about people who don't believe in God playing that role over someone else as if God has anything to do with it. If I have an abortion I'm not playing God over someone else. I'm making a medical decision that's best for myself and my family. If you don't like it then don't have an abortion or impregnante someone who would have one. But if you believe in God then why do you think you get to play His role over someone else? Since He exists, isn't that His job, not yours?
I assume since you are all in favor of life that you are also in favor of universal health care too right? And increasing funding to welfare, food stamps, Headstart, public schools, etc? Or is that life only important until it's born at which point it becomes a burden to society and a welfare leech? I'm always amazed at the number of adamant "pro lifers" who are really only pro fetus because once it is absolutely without a doubt and universally agreed upon that it is most definitely a life they hold it and its mother in contempt and no longer give a damn about it. Those people should either put their money where their mouth is and either be pro life or just admit that they are pro fetus and not at all about the actual life.
What does have more people available to take care of a person have to do with it's ability to survive on it's own outside the womb? Makes no sense, and it's a weak answer to be honest. Pro abortionists say the baby cannot survive on it's own outside the womb and therefore it is not a human, how are the mentally ill any different than a fetus? Why do they have more of a right to live than the unborn? If the ability to take care of one's self is the criteria for determining whether or not it's human, then you have to acknowledge the mentally ill are indeed subhuman and do not have a right to live. It doesn't matter if a person needs paid help or not, if he/she cannot live on their own due to their physical state, how are they any different than an unborn child? The reality is, you cannot answer that honestly without discrediting your argument.
Don't tell me you wouldn't be playing God, you are making the decision to take an innocent life and not allowing it the opportunity to live any longer. That is playing God. Trying to tell someone to not murder the weakest among us is not playing God. You want to tell me not to create a baby with someone who would abort, I can say the reverse. Don't get pregnant when you are not ready, don't ever be alone so you don't get raped etc.
Please, this topic is not about healthcare, or welfare programs, it's about whether or not a baby is human or not.
Prove to me that it's not human.0 -
There is a bit of a double standard.
If a mother does not want a baby she can get an abortion. If a father does not want a baby he has no rights and is at the mercy of what the mother wants to do. If the mother chooses to have the baby the father is legally responsible to provide for the baby. More proof women have all the power.
Maybe it varies state by state, but men can legally give up their parental rights to a child, and then not have to pay anything.0 -
No, because my god says that fetuses are part of a woman's body, just like a leg. So the only person being theoretically injured here is the woman, and she's the one making the decision.
I'm calling bullsh*t on that one. Other that the fictional "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, It takes two people to create a child. Both persons should be involved in the decisions regarding that child or the termination of that child.
Besides, if you're going to throw God into the mix, isn't abortion frowned upon?
I'm going to with this. Just because they can't carry the child, doesn't make it any less his child. Woo hoo, lucky female, the baby sits in your belly. Well, quite frankly, the baby wouldn't be there without a man's sperm.
When men start carrying babies instead of women, then I'll change my stance and say the man has the final say so. It doesn't matter if it takes 50 people to make a child--whoever it is carrying it has the final say. Would you, in all honesty, want someone else, no matter who it is, to have control over YOUR body like that?
I find this to be a very arrogant response. So because men cannot physically carry a child, means they have no say? That's bogus. If I did not want the child, but some man I decided to open my legs to and not use proper protection with, wanted said child, then yes. I would carry that child.
I find others thinking they have a say in another's body to be arrogant. Your point?0 -
Treated as medical waste doesn't count as garbage? Where do you think they go?
There are people that can't live without assistance outside the womb. Many can't speak or communicate like we can, yet we take care of them. Seeing that they are not self-sufficient, would it matter if we end their life?
ANYONE can care for a born person who cannot live without assistance. That person does not rely solely on one specific person.
You seem to exemplify your user name. You are ranting about people who don't believe in God playing that role over someone else as if God has anything to do with it. If I have an abortion I'm not playing God over someone else. I'm making a medical decision that's best for myself and my family. If you don't like it then don't have an abortion or impregnante someone who would have one. But if you believe in God then why do you think you get to play His role over someone else? Since He exists, isn't that His job, not yours?
I assume since you are all in favor of life that you are also in favor of universal health care too right? And increasing funding to welfare, food stamps, Headstart, public schools, etc? Or is that life only important until it's born at which point it becomes a burden to society and a welfare leech? I'm always amazed at the number of adamant "pro lifers" who are really only pro fetus because once it is absolutely without a doubt and universally agreed upon that it is most definitely a life they hold it and its mother in contempt and no longer give a damn about it. Those people should either put their money where their mouth is and either be pro life or just admit that they are pro fetus and not at all about the actual life.
What does have more people available to take care of a person have to do with it's ability to survive on it's own outside the womb? Makes no sense, and it's a weak answer to be honest. Pro abortionists say the baby cannot survive on it's own outside the womb and therefore it is not a human, how are the mentally ill any different than a fetus? Why do they have more of a right to live than the unborn? If the ability to take care of one's self is the criteria for determining whether or not it's human, then you have to acknowledge the mentally ill are indeed subhuman and do not have a right to live. It doesn't matter if a person needs paid help or not, if he/she cannot live on their own due to their physical state, how are they any different than an unborn child? The reality is, you cannot answer that honestly without discrediting your argument.
Don't tell me you wouldn't be playing God, you are making the decision to take an innocent life and not allowing it the opportunity to live any longer. That is playing God. Trying to tell someone to not murder the weakest among us is not playing God. You want to tell me not to create a baby with someone who would abort, I can say the reverse. Don't get pregnant when you are not ready, don't ever be alone so you don't get raped etc.
Please, this topic is not about healthcare, or welfare programs, it's about whether or not a baby is human or not.
Prove to me that it's not human.
Abortion is legal therefore the fetus is not a human according to the government. If the government considered a fetus human then abortion would be murder and you would not need special laws to govern how to deal with it. If you don't approve of abortion the burden of proof of humanity is on you. Good luck with that
0 -
I guess it all depends on if you believe it's a life or not. People call it a mass of cells, but masses of cells don't suck thumbs, kick, roll or have a heartbeat. It amazes me that in today's day and age with how much we now, there are people that still buy this lie.
I guess people are only human, if they can fend for themselves. I find it funny that people who say there is no God, love to play the part over others right to live.
I'll be real gross here, and let you know what happens during most abortions these days. This is not going to include late-term abortion, or anything to do with the mother's life being at risk.
You get a pack of pills. Sorta like birth control pills, though not as many. You take them at certain times. Then you have a period, probably with some cramping because hey, period cramps + cramps induced by BC-esque pills.
I'm pretty sure the contents of a tampon/maxi pad don't cry or suck their thumbs, kick, roll, or have heartbeats.0 -
No, because my god says that fetuses are part of a woman's body, just like a leg. So the only person being theoretically injured here is the woman, and she's the one making the decision.
I'm calling bullsh*t on that one. Other that the fictional "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, It takes two people to create a child. Both persons should be involved in the decisions regarding that child or the termination of that child.
Besides, if you're going to throw God into the mix, isn't abortion frowned upon?
I'm going to with this. Just because they can't carry the child, doesn't make it any less his child. Woo hoo, lucky female, the baby sits in your belly. Well, quite frankly, the baby wouldn't be there without a man's sperm.
When men start carrying babies instead of women, then I'll change my stance and say the man has the final say so. It doesn't matter if it takes 50 people to make a child--whoever it is carrying it has the final say. Would you, in all honesty, want someone else, no matter who it is, to have control over YOUR body like that?
I find this to be a very arrogant response. So because men cannot physically carry a child, means they have no say? That's bogus. If I did not want the child, but some man I decided to open my legs to and not use proper protection with, wanted said child, then yes. I would carry that child.
I find others thinking they have a say in another's body to be arrogant. Your point?
How exactly is the baby inside you "your body"? You carry it inside, but it's not your body. I don't understand that logic.0 -
No, because my god says that fetuses are part of a woman's body, just like a leg. So the only person being theoretically injured here is the woman, and she's the one making the decision.
I'm calling bullsh*t on that one. Other that the fictional "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, It takes two people to create a child. Both persons should be involved in the decisions regarding that child or the termination of that child.
Besides, if you're going to throw God into the mix, isn't abortion frowned upon?
I'm going to with this. Just because they can't carry the child, doesn't make it any less his child. Woo hoo, lucky female, the baby sits in your belly. Well, quite frankly, the baby wouldn't be there without a man's sperm.
When men start carrying babies instead of women, then I'll change my stance and say the man has the final say so. It doesn't matter if it takes 50 people to make a child--whoever it is carrying it has the final say. Would you, in all honesty, want someone else, no matter who it is, to have control over YOUR body like that?
And, in all of this, we forget that the fetus itself has its own body.
Are you okay with the abortion of late term fetus'?
Har harrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. A zygote has its own body? really?
If it can survive outside the womb on its own, then no, I don't support it. I'd really like to see a percentage on how many women wait that long to get an abortion, anyway...I'd bet money that it's extremely low.
What, exactly, do you think of when you hear the word "abortion?" Do you think of women lying on desks while mean doctors pull a newborn baby out of them and then throw in the garbage or something?
Treated as medical waste doesn't count as garbage? Where do you think they go?
There are people that can't live without assistance outside the womb. Many can't speak or communicate like we can, yet we take care of them. Seeing that they are not self-sufficient, would it matter if we end their life?
Yes. I'm sure your traditional garbage can at a fast food place is waiting for dead babies. Seriously?
As for PEOPLE (aka: living outside of another human being's body) that are not self-sufficient, they are completely different. Therefore, how can you even compare them?0 -
Treated as medical waste doesn't count as garbage? Where do you think they go?
There are people that can't live without assistance outside the womb. Many can't speak or communicate like we can, yet we take care of them. Seeing that they are not self-sufficient, would it matter if we end their life?
ANYONE can care for a born person who cannot live without assistance. That person does not rely solely on one specific person.
You seem to exemplify your user name. You are ranting about people who don't believe in God playing that role over someone else as if God has anything to do with it. If I have an abortion I'm not playing God over someone else. I'm making a medical decision that's best for myself and my family. If you don't like it then don't have an abortion or impregnante someone who would have one. But if you believe in God then why do you think you get to play His role over someone else? Since He exists, isn't that His job, not yours?
I assume since you are all in favor of life that you are also in favor of universal health care too right? And increasing funding to welfare, food stamps, Headstart, public schools, etc? Or is that life only important until it's born at which point it becomes a burden to society and a welfare leech? I'm always amazed at the number of adamant "pro lifers" who are really only pro fetus because once it is absolutely without a doubt and universally agreed upon that it is most definitely a life they hold it and its mother in contempt and no longer give a damn about it. Those people should either put their money where their mouth is and either be pro life or just admit that they are pro fetus and not at all about the actual life.
What does have more people available to take care of a person have to do with it's ability to survive on it's own outside the womb? Makes no sense, and it's a weak answer to be honest. Pro abortionists say the baby cannot survive on it's own outside the womb and therefore it is not a human, how are the mentally ill any different than a fetus? Why do they have more of a right to live than the unborn? If the ability to take care of one's self is the criteria for determining whether or not it's human, then you have to acknowledge the mentally ill are indeed subhuman and do not have a right to live. It doesn't matter if a person needs paid help or not, if he/she cannot live on their own due to their physical state, how are they any different than an unborn child? The reality is, you cannot answer that honestly without discrediting your argument.
Don't tell me you wouldn't be playing God, you are making the decision to take an innocent life and not allowing it the opportunity to live any longer. That is playing God. Trying to tell someone to not murder the weakest among us is not playing God. You want to tell me not to create a baby with someone who would abort, I can say the reverse. Don't get pregnant when you are not ready, don't ever be alone so you don't get raped etc.
Please, this topic is not about healthcare, or welfare programs, it's about whether or not a baby is human or not.
Prove to me that it's not human.
Abortion is legal therefore the fetus is not a human according to the government. If the government considered a fetus human then abortion would be murder and you would not need special laws to govern how to deal with it. If you don't approve of abortion the burden of proof of humanity is on you. Good luck with that
The gov in Germany also had a different view on who was human and who was not at one time. How did that work out again?
Btw, many state governments will charge a person with double homicide if they murder a pregnant woman. Seems to me the government can't make up its mind. Our gov once said slaves only constituted 1/3 of a person. Was that right just because it was the law? Let me guess, it's just different, right?0 -
No, because my god says that fetuses are part of a woman's body, just like a leg. So the only person being theoretically injured here is the woman, and she's the one making the decision.
I'm calling bullsh*t on that one. Other that the fictional "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, It takes two people to create a child. Both persons should be involved in the decisions regarding that child or the termination of that child.
Besides, if you're going to throw God into the mix, isn't abortion frowned upon?
I'm going to with this. Just because they can't carry the child, doesn't make it any less his child. Woo hoo, lucky female, the baby sits in your belly. Well, quite frankly, the baby wouldn't be there without a man's sperm.
When men start carrying babies instead of women, then I'll change my stance and say the man has the final say so. It doesn't matter if it takes 50 people to make a child--whoever it is carrying it has the final say. Would you, in all honesty, want someone else, no matter who it is, to have control over YOUR body like that?
And, in all of this, we forget that the fetus itself has its own body.
Are you okay with the abortion of late term fetus'?
Har harrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. A zygote has its own body? really?
If it can survive outside the womb on its own, then no, I don't support it. I'd really like to see a percentage on how many women wait that long to get an abortion, anyway...I'd bet money that it's extremely low.
What, exactly, do you think of when you hear the word "abortion?" Do you think of women lying on desks while mean doctors pull a newborn baby out of them and then throw in the garbage or something?
Treated as medical waste doesn't count as garbage? Where do you think they go?
There are people that can't live without assistance outside the womb. Many can't speak or communicate like we can, yet we take care of them. Seeing that they are not self-sufficient, would it matter if we end their life?
Yes. I'm sure your traditional garbage can at a fast food place is waiting for dead babies. Seriously?
As for PEOPLE (aka: living outside of another human being's body) that are not self-sufficient, they are completely different. Therefore, how can you even compare them?
How are they different? They both can't survive on their own and are not fully developed. I fail to see the difference.0 -
Treated as medical waste doesn't count as garbage? Where do you think they go?
There are people that can't live without assistance outside the womb. Many can't speak or communicate like we can, yet we take care of them. Seeing that they are not self-sufficient, would it matter if we end their life?
ANYONE can care for a born person who cannot live without assistance. That person does not rely solely on one specific person.
You seem to exemplify your user name. You are ranting about people who don't believe in God playing that role over someone else as if God has anything to do with it. If I have an abortion I'm not playing God over someone else. I'm making a medical decision that's best for myself and my family. If you don't like it then don't have an abortion or impregnante someone who would have one. But if you believe in God then why do you think you get to play His role over someone else? Since He exists, isn't that His job, not yours?
I assume since you are all in favor of life that you are also in favor of universal health care too right? And increasing funding to welfare, food stamps, Headstart, public schools, etc? Or is that life only important until it's born at which point it becomes a burden to society and a welfare leech? I'm always amazed at the number of adamant "pro lifers" who are really only pro fetus because once it is absolutely without a doubt and universally agreed upon that it is most definitely a life they hold it and its mother in contempt and no longer give a damn about it. Those people should either put their money where their mouth is and either be pro life or just admit that they are pro fetus and not at all about the actual life.
What does have more people available to take care of a person have to do with it's ability to survive on it's own outside the womb? Makes no sense, and it's a weak answer to be honest. Pro abortionists say the baby cannot survive on it's own outside the womb and therefore it is not a human, how are the mentally ill any different than a fetus? Why do they have more of a right to live than the unborn? If the ability to take care of one's self is the criteria for determining whether or not it's human, then you have to acknowledge the mentally ill are indeed subhuman and do not have a right to live. It doesn't matter if a person needs paid help or not, if he/she cannot live on their own due to their physical state, how are they any different than an unborn child? The reality is, you cannot answer that honestly without discrediting your argument.
Don't tell me you wouldn't be playing God, you are making the decision to take an innocent life and not allowing it the opportunity to live any longer. That is playing God. Trying to tell someone to not murder the weakest among us is not playing God. You want to tell me not to create a baby with someone who would abort, I can say the reverse. Don't get pregnant when you are not ready, don't ever be alone so you don't get raped etc.
Please, this topic is not about healthcare, or welfare programs, it's about whether or not a baby is human or not.
Prove to me that it's not human.
Abortion is legal therefore the fetus is not a human according to the government. If the government considered a fetus human then abortion would be murder and you would not need special laws to govern how to deal with it. If you don't approve of abortion the burden of proof of humanity is on you. Good luck with that
dp0 -
don't ever be alone so you don't get raped etc.
Are you serious?0 -
don't ever be alone so you don't get raped etc.
Are you serious?
Reading comp please. You know I'm not blaming women for rape. I'm making a ridiculous suggestion like "don't have sex with a woman who will get an abortion". I'll fight absurdity with absurdity to make a point.
Good to know that this doctor is performing abortions for the right reasons:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RH0QT_p481o0 -
No, because my god says that fetuses are part of a woman's body, just like a leg. So the only person being theoretically injured here is the woman, and she's the one making the decision.
I'm calling bullsh*t on that one. Other that the fictional "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, It takes two people to create a child. Both persons should be involved in the decisions regarding that child or the termination of that child.
Besides, if you're going to throw God into the mix, isn't abortion frowned upon?
I'm going to with this. Just because they can't carry the child, doesn't make it any less his child. Woo hoo, lucky female, the baby sits in your belly. Well, quite frankly, the baby wouldn't be there without a man's sperm.
When men start carrying babies instead of women, then I'll change my stance and say the man has the final say so. It doesn't matter if it takes 50 people to make a child--whoever it is carrying it has the final say. Would you, in all honesty, want someone else, no matter who it is, to have control over YOUR body like that?
I find this to be a very arrogant response. So because men cannot physically carry a child, means they have no say? That's bogus. If I did not want the child, but some man I decided to open my legs to and not use proper protection with, wanted said child, then yes. I would carry that child.
I find others thinking they have a say in another's body to be arrogant. Your point?
How exactly is the baby inside you "your body"? You carry it inside, but it's not your body. I don't understand that logic.
"How exactly is the baby inside "your body"? You answered it already. "You carry it inside."0 -
Treated as medical waste doesn't count as garbage? Where do you think they go?
There are people that can't live without assistance outside the womb. Many can't speak or communicate like we can, yet we take care of them. Seeing that they are not self-sufficient, would it matter if we end their life?
ANYONE can care for a born person who cannot live without assistance. That person does not rely solely on one specific person.
You seem to exemplify your user name. You are ranting about people who don't believe in God playing that role over someone else as if God has anything to do with it. If I have an abortion I'm not playing God over someone else. I'm making a medical decision that's best for myself and my family. If you don't like it then don't have an abortion or impregnante someone who would have one. But if you believe in God then why do you think you get to play His role over someone else? Since He exists, isn't that His job, not yours?
I assume since you are all in favor of life that you are also in favor of universal health care too right? And increasing funding to welfare, food stamps, Headstart, public schools, etc? Or is that life only important until it's born at which point it becomes a burden to society and a welfare leech? I'm always amazed at the number of adamant "pro lifers" who are really only pro fetus because once it is absolutely without a doubt and universally agreed upon that it is most definitely a life they hold it and its mother in contempt and no longer give a damn about it. Those people should either put their money where their mouth is and either be pro life or just admit that they are pro fetus and not at all about the actual life.
What does have more people available to take care of a person have to do with it's ability to survive on it's own outside the womb? Makes no sense, and it's a weak answer to be honest. Pro abortionists say the baby cannot survive on it's own outside the womb and therefore it is not a human, how are the mentally ill any different than a fetus? Why do they have more of a right to live than the unborn? If the ability to take care of one's self is the criteria for determining whether or not it's human, then you have to acknowledge the mentally ill are indeed subhuman and do not have a right to live. It doesn't matter if a person needs paid help or not, if he/she cannot live on their own due to their physical state, how are they any different than an unborn child? The reality is, you cannot answer that honestly without discrediting your argument.
Don't tell me you wouldn't be playing God, you are making the decision to take an innocent life and not allowing it the opportunity to live any longer. That is playing God. Trying to tell someone to not murder the weakest among us is not playing God. You want to tell me not to create a baby with someone who would abort, I can say the reverse. Don't get pregnant when you are not ready, don't ever be alone so you don't get raped etc.
Please, this topic is not about healthcare, or welfare programs, it's about whether or not a baby is human or not.
Prove to me that it's not human.
Abortion is legal therefore the fetus is not a human according to the government. If the government considered a fetus human then abortion would be murder and you would not need special laws to govern how to deal with it. If you don't approve of abortion the burden of proof of humanity is on you. Good luck with that
The gov in Germany also had a different view on who was human and who was not at one time. How did that work out again?
Btw, many state governments will charge a person with double homicide if they murder a pregnant woman. Seems to me the government can't make up its mind. Our gov once said slaves only constituted 1/3 of a person. Was that right just because it was the law? Let me guess, it's just different, right?
Still waiting for your proof.
Congrats on mentioning Nazi Germany and Slavery in the same post though. Bravo.0
