Who can predict? Can you? Does it really matter? If no one adopts, the state will foot the bill somehow. I guess you are trying to trap me, but any shot at a Life is better than none at all.
No it is not. I revived this thread by sharing a surprise discovery at what the original Latin translation for fetus was.
1. There's a profound reason her rights are abridged. All of us have our rights abridged by laws every day. In principle there is nothing askew about that. 2. You're beating the "religious beliefs" thing with a dead horse.... see what Swoly-D said. 3. You do know that women can be convicted for various kinds of fetal abuse during pregnancy (drugs and alcohol). Why is that? Is it not HER body and, according to your logic, THAT baby is hers to do with as she pleases. Funny that the law doesn't side with that view... until it comes to Choice. So the truth would appear to be that this one aspect runs counter to the way that the rest of the laws treat that innocent child in utero. Why is that?
There is no sanctity of life on this planet. It's just a myth we tell ourselves make us feel special. The same people who fight to have us care and respect the potential of an unborn life can't wait to deport the children on the border. Every person that lives dies, it's just the duration you're talking about. If a lump of cells doesn't really perceive life, and doesn't really perceive death, what difference does it make? There are another 7 billion taking the full ride. Abortion is a really bad approach to birth control though; I imagine it's very psychologically bad for the mother. It would be much better to have real contraceptive information taught matter of factly and provided freely and openly so that every teenage boy thinking about having sex would carry a condom or two and every teenaged girl using The Pill, because abstinence is a weak option given the hormone driven, natural human desire. The Supreme Court dealt with the issue rationally and democratically. If you care that much for the unborn you should support free prenatal care, social support for unwed mothers and adoption services. Make all the other alternatives more attractive rather than criminalizing the abortion option.
You should probably read the cases subsequent to Roe. The Court has made it abundantly clear that the state has more ability to bar abortion as the pregnancy progresses. Once you enter the second trimester, it becomes much more difficult to get an abortion in many states. Once you enter the third trimester...good luck. Make no mistake. It isn't the woman that decides when it is life, legally it is the state that decides.
I get what you are saying but we are surrendering before the first move by creating a culture in which we are encouraging the mother herself to not value the life of her own child. How whacked is that? Read Ghandi #2. People are not slaves to their sex drive. I'm all for education but your attitude is that society has to absorb all the responsibility. Individuals must step up and assume responsibility. Society needs be responsible for the abject failures not the lazy, careless, don't-give-a-**** ones...
...in your opinion, based on your moral beliefs. She doesn't share your moral beliefs and you don't get to force yours on her.
I'm perfectly OK with that. As the fetus approaches viability, it should have more rights. If a woman is to have an abortion, IMO, that choice should be made as early as possible.
Sure there is, when you weight the competing interests of half the population of the country against the minority that believes abortion should be banned based on their own moral convictions. No, I'm beating the "moral beliefs" thing as if it were a dead horse because you're so dense that you seem to believe that everyone should share your moral code. These cases generally happen after birth, after the woman has chosen to bring the fetus to term and bear it. Because the law is trying to balance competing interests.
So whacked that you actually believe a woman who doesn't value the fetus inside her should have that value driven into them and be forced to bring it to term and bear it. Whacked describes YOUR opinion here. I certainly wouldn't say "slave," but the punishment for a contraception failure should not be being forced to bring a pregnancy to term. The woman is taking responsibility, for her own life. She doesn't want to bring a life into the world and you don't get to force her to do so.
Really? http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...bortion-in-all-or-most-circumstances-n1806283 58% in this CNN/TownHall poll were against (most) abortion with some 38% holding firm to the "almost never" view. We all manage to agree about rape and murder, don't we? So? Isn't she free to do with her body and her baby as she wishes? This answer of yours just dodges the question. One thing you will notice: I don't dodge your questions like you do mine! The law ignores the primary interested party: THE BABY. Save it, I know what you are going to say now... You know, we have had bad laws/rulings before.
I'm surprised by this. It is not consistent with your whole "my body, my baby" approach. Please explain...
To a degree, it does. Supreme Court decisions, or rulings, are based on a plurality of SC judges, not on a decision of one (or to a degree, an oligarchy). Each Supreme Court justice has equal power in their vote. I reckon you could also compare the SC to a representative democracy, since the people elect a President who then has the ability to nominate a SC judge (who gets approved by congress) and thus represents the people's interests. This is perhaps a bit more of a stretched definition, but you can see where it can apply. addendum, I hope I was correct in using the term "plurality" versus "majority" since I am guessing there could be situations where judges are recused and thus a decision might happen via plurality?
Gandhi was wrong, a human being, without outside medical assistance, cannot control their internal organic hormonal production. We have evolved to have strong sexual, procreative desires, beginning at and strongest for males, shortly after puberty, +/- 15. Thinking that you can overcome that with social or moral training is a denial of biologic fact. The idea that we should keep sexuality somehow reserved, private or for adults as a way of limiting sexuality in young people wayward thinking. Information, truth, acceptance and proactive measure would be the rational approach, but somehow we have let the irrational (religious) take control with measures from a time before we had the science to deal with it. You want the US to quit murdering babies, take steps so kids don't make unwanted babies. Because right now you are raising generations of ill-informed, ill equipped f**k puppets.
