Abortion up until birth is law in MA
- Thread starter TigerRagRob
- Start date
Good news here is that planned parenthood likely won't be doing any of these abortions and selling the body parts afterwards. Fingers crossed that they are completely bankrupted.
Why support abortion up to 12 weeks? If you're so passionate about the issue, shouldn't it be zero abortions? The end results are the same for the fetus?
the passion is against late-term. I rather there were no abortions. The compromise has been 12 weeks for decades, thats the fair moderate position. Leftist that support late-term are even more extreme than the Bible thumpers that dont even want birth control. At least the Bible thumpers beliefs dont end in certain death of a person...
You said it’s her body so if a baby is causing he
You’re saying it’s her body so she can kill the baby growing inside of it. It’s her body. So why wouldn’t she be able to kill someone that may have abused her or raped her. It’s her body, she should be able to eliminate the person that did something to her body.
Why should she be able to murder someone that was a result of an action she most likely agrees with?
if you really want to get all theoretical about it, how is it different than self defense?
if someone is threatening your life, you're allowed to kill them...do you disagree with that?
(to be clear, i don't think this is a compelling argument...but you seem insistent on going down this road, so let's do it)
I'm pro choice, but I do think that a woman has a responsibility to manage her procreational talent in a reasonable fashion,.. Birth control is always the first line of defense, and 16 weeks is more than enough time to know that you are pregnant and what you want to do about it.
Thanks for helping prove my point. Others have said it’s her body so she can do what she wants. Yet that’s not true, as we have both agreed, something can happen to her body and after the self defense portion of being raped or abused, she can’t do anything about it.
Let’s go another way with this and put the entire situation on the mother and child.
It’s ok to murder a baby if it’s causing harm inside her body but it’s not ok to murder a child if it is causing harm to her when it is outside the body. How does that make any sense? I’ve seen plenty of situations where a child beats or kills his or her own mother, shouldn’t we be aborting all of these kids?
This does not change or clarify the connection between my statement and your question. We do not allow people to kill people for revenge in our society. At no point have I suggested otherwise. We do allow people to act in self defense to stop a person from harming them.
My stance is that a woman’s right to decide what happens to her body is sacrosanct. That is unrelated to your questions. A woman does not lose this right when she is pregnant. We do not get to impose our beliefs, regardless of what they may be, on a woman’s body against her will or without her consent.
i have no idea what you think all of this means
But that’s basically what this is. They got pregnant and possible don’t like/want to be pregnant and they kill the baby.
Again, why is it ok to kill the child inside the womb that causes or could cause harm to her body. But it is illegal to do so once the child is outside the body? How is it any different?
Thanks for clarifying that you think it is ok to murder an unborn child but it is not ok to murder a child after birth.
Why is that? A child can still cause harm to a mother after birth, why shouldn’t we be able to have them murdered outside the womb?
you're making it really hard to maintain my "don't insult people" rule
if an adult is posing immediate life threatening danger to a person, they ARE allowed to defend themselves, through deadly force if necessary/under certain circumstances (depending on the state)
i don't know the legal precedent or standard, but i imagine if a minor or child or even (hypothetically) a baby was posing a legitimate life threatening danger to a person, the same basic concept would apply - or at least be reviewed from a legal perspective
yes, this is a hyperbolic, ridiculous theoretical argument to consider. but that's what you seemed to saying. interestingly enough, the only plausible, realistic way a baby could potentially pose a life-threatening danger to a person would probably be while still in utero.
He's seen plenty of situations where the child murders the mother, keep up.
and that mother would be well within her rights to put that baby down, if necessary
in the free state of florida, at least
You literally answered your own question: It is different because the child is outside of the woman’s body.
A woman has the right to determine what happens to her body, just like we all do. A pregnancy is happening within her body, and she retains the right to end that pregnancy because she retains the right to determine what happens to her body. A woman can withdraw consent to something happening to her body whenever she chooses to withdraw consent. We should respect that.
Her womb is inside her body, she has the right to decide what happens within her womb because she retains the right to determine what happens to her body. We should not strip a woman of her right to decide what happens to her body.
I believe that women do and should have the right to decide what happens to their own bodies. I am not certain how I can be more clear on this point.
When a child is not inside a woman’s body, then the child is literally not inside a woman’s body. That situation is completely unrelated to what I have been posting.
If a child is causing harm to a mother after birth, she has the right to self-defense, just like we all do. We typically do not call killing somebody in self-defense murder.
True he wouldnt , but Im no Charlie Kirk. Charlie would turn the cheek and pray for you. I would do the opposite of him. Thus the reason I said he was a better man than me....
I support a woman's right to choose but I hate hypocrites almost as much as I hate people who charge up the aisle when the airplane lands....almost.
As a person of whiteness who only dates/marries women's of color, I agree.
Native American, West Saharan African, Portuguese, Irish, African American. More Native than the rest..
That's your racial\ethnic makeup, TRR?!! You realize, don't you, that many of the people who share your political viewpoint would consider you a "mongrel?" That's where the resurgence of white nationalism has taken us these days.
Latest
-
01
Tiger Illustrated
Additional insight behind the messaging out of Clemson this month
-
02
Tiger Illustrated
CLEMSON FOOTBALL AUGUST CAMP: What we are hearing on transfer back Chris Johnson
-
03
Tiger Illustrated
CLEMSON FOOTBALL AUGUST CAMP: Our Wednesday update on true freshman QB Tait Reynolds
-
04
Tiger Illustrated
CLEMSON FOOTBALL AUGUST CAMP: Tuesday evening scrimmage nuggets
-
05
Tiger Illustrated
Our early August camp stock risers in Clemson - Part 2