Woman Has 15 Abortions In 17 Years

"Funny, the people that are for abortions dont have to worry about it happening to them"
-Ronald Reagen
 
What about what is right for the unborn baby? I guess that does not matter

I addressed that in an earlier post. It is a question of weighing the rights and liberties of the mother and the unborn baby. It is not an easy question to answer and I simply do not have the answers.
 
because IMO it's not a viable life at that point. To call it a human being so early in the process is wrong.

So if you can crush a skull and suck out a brain what is that?

Also if viable is the ability to grow, develop or physically fitted to live shouldn't we terminate hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people who can't grow, develop and aren't physically fit to live?

What is the difference?
 
It is our fouinding and original document.

But yes the one about the money and the other examples I had with God being in there.
because the people who drew our original laws couldn't have cared less about trivial things of that nature, and rightfully so.

Tell me what we use the Declaration of Independence for these days. Does anyone refer to it for any reason?
 
I don't call the slaughter of millions of babies liberty? Maybe our holocaust.

you do realize there are more babies aborted by "nature" than man could ever achieve. Maybe you should be mad at God for not giving those lives a chance too
 
The question there is how do you weigh the potential freedoms and liberties of the fetus with those of the woman.

What muddies the issue is the lack of a clearly defined point at which a fetus is a human being. I don't pretend to know the answers. I know what my opinions are but opinions are just that. Science has a lot of work to do on this issue. The problem is that the science is being politicized by both sides making it even more difficult.

What gives a woman the right to kill a baby? I don't get why people talk about the woman's right but disregard those of the child.
 
So the issue is when the government takes control of the relationship between the woman and the living organism inside her body?

What I mean I guess is that essentially there is no punishment for her actions against the pregnancy until a certain date at which point she can be punished by the government.

What is it about (essentially what is it lacking to have rights to life) the forming being that the host (mother) has all rights over it's future on day 89 but on day 90 the fetus has rights?
at issue is when the rights of an unborn fetus surpass those of a living mother. Someone had to make a ruling because the issue is that contentious.
 
have you seen the effects of FAS?


for the DBAG parent to not be punished for doing that to the kid would be wrong, plain and simple.

I agree they should be punished.

What I was curious about was the language of the law. There is a problem as I see it with the laws we have now not being very consistent. If you murder a pregnant woman you can be charged with the murder of her unborn baby, yet the same mother could abort that baby and not be charged with a crime.

As I said the whole issue is muddied by both sides and I don't pretend to have all the answers.
 
What gives a woman the right to kill a baby? I don't get why people talk about the woman's right but disregard those of the child.
a baby is a child the day it enters the world and takes breath. Until then, the mother is the life giver.
 
you do realize there are more babies aborted by "nature" than man could ever achieve. Maybe you should be mad at God for not giving those lives a chance too[/QUOT

You have got to be kidding me? So that justifies man killing them.
 
So if you can crush a skull and suck out a brain what is that?

Also if viable is the ability to grow, develop or physically fitted to live shouldn't we terminate hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people who can't grow, develop and aren't physically fit to live?

What is the difference?
one set of them is still getting all sustenance from mommy's blood and can't live apart from it.
 
a baby is a child the day it enters the world and takes breath. Until then, the mother is the life giver.

So if I walk up and kick a pregnant lady in her stomach today and the baby dies through my act then I am ok? Should I face criminal charges?

By the way its a person way before the child enters the world.
 
at issue is when the rights of an unborn fetus surpass those of a living mother. Someone had to make a ruling because the issue is that contentious.

Why couldn't they have equal rights?

You are prejudice against unborn babies!!
 
What gives a woman the right to kill a baby? I don't get why people talk about the woman's right but disregard those of the child.


How do you decide which ones rights are to be protected and which ones rights are to be ignored?
 
Why couldn't they have equal rights?

You are prejudice against unborn babies!!

In a perfect world you would be correct, problem is we don't live in one. I honestly wish the unborn baby and the mother could have equal rights. As it pertains to the reality in cases where women want abortions it is impossible.
 
I agree they should be punished.

What I was curious about was the language of the law. There is a problem as I see it with the laws we have now not being very consistent. If you murder a pregnant woman you can be charged with the murder of her unborn baby, yet the same mother could abort that baby and not be charged with a crime.

As I said the whole issue is muddied by both sides and I don't pretend to have all the answers.

BINGO!!! in that case, then it is a life, however when the mom wants to be lazy and kill her offspring then its kosher? The duality of our legal system is getting absurd.
 
Why couldn't they have equal rights?

You are prejudice against unborn babies!!
because one is alive and clearly warranted the rights provided by our constitution. For one, that is definitely up for debate. Until someone can provide sufficient evidence of survivability without the mother, seems to me the mother has right to decide how to handle her body.
 
BINGO!!! in that case, then it is a life, however when the mom wants to be lazy and kill her offspring then its kosher? The duality of our legal system is getting absurd.

I believe in those cases the baby has to be viable outside the womb. For the record I am against late term abortions where this law for killing an unborn child would apply anyway.
 
BINGO!!! in that case, then it is a life, however when the mom wants to be lazy and kill her offspring then its kosher? The duality of our legal system is getting absurd.

not really since one is actually keeping it alive and one did nothing but end it. The person responsible for it had no choice
 
No one has the right to kill an innocent person.

What about the father's rights? He may have wanted the baby

If he was carrying the unborn child his decision would be the deciding factor.

What about grandparents rights? What if they wanted to raise the child and agreed to do so without help from the mother or father?

That argument is circular, the issue at hand must be debated, that issue is a woman's right's under the law as it pertains to her pregnancy and body.
 

VN Store



Back
Top