If I remember my history correctly, there was a pretty overwhelming concensus in the North that both slavery AND civil rights needed changes. It was a small minority of people concentrated in the south who did not want either issue addressed. Besides, the number of people who want abortion outlawed is EXTREMELY small when compared to the numbers who supported emancipation and the granting of civil rights. I would say to that person that drugs are dangerous and as such should be regulated, much as abortion should since it is a procedure that has definite risks. People should have a right to do what they want with their bodies given reasonable regulations.
Are you telling me that a mother goes into the doctors office and the doc say's "Hey you're 4 weeks pregnant. With your medical history we know that you will not survive the pregnancy. If we remove fetus now you are sure to survive, but you chances of survival reduce the longer you wait. What do you want to do?" If she were to say ok remove the fetus now that they really think they are going to save the child? I'm not a doctor, but the shortest gestation time I think that I have ever seen was something like 3-4 month's, and if I recall the baby died after a year. Since I'm on a hypothetical line here how about this one? What if a woman is impregnated by her rapist? What about an 11 year old who was molested by her step father? Would you make these women or girls go through the hell of taking the b*stard children of their assailants to term. And then what happens to the baby? They are surely going to be put up for adoption. And don't try to give me the same old tline about the millions of people who are want children that can't. If every child was wanted there would be no need for foster care.
What percentage of abortions performed are done for this reason? I'd be willing to bet a very small minority of them.
PieEatinFattie -- I hear ya. But what you need to know is that the vast majority of abortions, even outside of the first trimester, are not at all performed because the woman's life is in jeopardy. Not even close. According to Congressional testimony by abortion clinic operators, even, it's a very small percentage of abortions performed in this country.
I agree, if given the time, the fetus will grow into a living creature, but until the mother DECIDES to use her body to nourish the fetus, bring it to term, and bear it, it is not a "life." If it cannot survive outside the womb, then it is nothing more than a growth that exists at the discretion of the mother.
so it comes down to polling??? "well...more people supported emancipation (which is probably unfounded, andy)...so it shouldn't be changed." deprivation of life requires more than polling data, andy. these are weighty constitutional issues that aren't left to the whim of the common voter.
ok....fine.....so then there should be no restrictions at all on abortion if what you're saying is true. overturn roe v. wade, andy. no restrictions at all. is that really the logic you want to rest on? to the left of roe v. wade?
There are the guilty and then there are the innocent. Into which group does an unborn child fall quite naturally?
how about a sick relative who requires constant care and is on breathing machines? can we just pull the plug on him too without some form of consent? i mean...he's such a drain on us all...financially...and against our personal liberties. it's such a burden. adolf hitler used to call the mentally r****ded "mindless eaters." because they were so dependent on society for their care, he advocated killing them all first. they were the guinea pigs for the nazi gas chambers.
I suspect that the fetus achieves consciousness rather late in pregnancy, probably close to the time that it could survive without her. Happy now?
WHat does it mean to be not wanted? I don't get this? Ok, my girlfriends mom was told she couldn't have more than one kid. My girlfriend is the 14th out of 14 kids. This line gets tossed around a lot, and really should be known before a couple tries to get pregnant if they don't want to take that chance. Now, let's deal with the rapist issue. Some prolifers will grant this one. I'm not in that category but I see the appeal. I don't see why one violent crime has to neccessitate another against the child. If the argument holds water and the child is a person, why do we make another crime against humanity?
Yes, and the biggest constitutional issue is freedom of religion. You do not have the right to decide what my wife does with her body because YOUR RELIGION sees it as murder. That is the consitutional issue and you are on the wrong side of it.
Not distinct? Would you have any unborn child and any mother undergo DNA testing. You pick the pair. I'll pay for the testing. We'll see about this lack of distinction. What does survival outside of the womb have to do with anything important. It is just a place of leverage for your argument. Without such artifice, your argument sinks.
No, as I have said, when the fetus can survive outside the womb, the woman's choice should end. If the woman does not want the responsibility at that point, she needs to adopt out the child (since, as a being that can survive outside the womb, it is a child at that point).
NOBODY has MADE a SINGLE religious ARGUMENT!!!!!!! Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For some? Or for all?
