Indiana's new abortion law won't save babies. It will only make my patients suffer.

Legion Troll said:
Did I say it was?

A seed is not a plant.

A fetus is not a child.


Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.
Click to expand...

A seed is a plant and a fetus is a child
 
Legion Troll said:
o-muslin-gop-2.jpg

I'm amused when cons profess their hatred for Muslim extremists, since they hold many of the same views, don't they?
Click to expand...
Gee, you're right. They're exactly alike. The American right wing and ISIS handle these issues the same way! Maybe it was BUSH who was the muslim!
 
Cowgirl Tuff said:
I understand why people would consider having an abortion if they know that their baby is going to be sick or have something abnormal or have a short life but I believe that God challenges each of us and from those challenges learns about us and we learn about ourselves. Do you have an abortion because the pregnancy is not ideal or is not as easy or perfect as your friend's pregnancy was or do you love that child with all of your heart for as long as its on this Earth no matter how unperfected the situation may be? People also have perfectly healthy babies that die of SIDS every single day and so it's not about how easy the moment is it's about spending that precious time that you have on this Earth with the ones that you love. If the child dies before birth or even after birth then it's how God wanted it in my opinion, and while I'd have a ton of grief at that moment I can be happy knowing that he or she is in peace and with God. I've met people before at church that have a kid with diseases like downs syndrome and things like that and i'm sure that it's hard and it's obvious but they love those kids and want the best for those kids just as much as the parent whose kid is the captain of the football team. There is no doubt that they would have preferred the perfect situation and the perfect pregnancy and perfectly healthy kids but that doesn't mean you end their life because it's not what you expected in my opinion. Regardless I know it's a hard choice for people and that many people don't share my opinion but in the future when i'm married and want to have kids I am going to have that child even if he or she may have problems that I would need to take care and i'd also give my own life to see that they are born and given a chance at life.
Click to expand...

I can respect this viewpoint. It's sort of how I look at life. A lot of life is about those unexpected challenges, and rising to the occasion of whatever circumstances you find yourself saddled with, whether planned or not.

But I just can't impose that view on others (not suggesting that you are). Ultimately, I just have to defer to the individual when it comes to making a decision about their own body, and whether or not to see a pregnancy through to term. I think efforts would be better spent on support for unwanted pregnancies and educating women on their options, with the goal of making abortion more rare and more of a last resort. I can't see an America where we go back to making it a legal issue.
 
callinectes said:
Gee, you're right. They're exactly alike. The American right wing and ISIS handle these issues the same way! Maybe it was BUSH who was the muslim!
Click to expand...

Did I say they're exactly alike?

Which of the issues listed in my post do you claim not to be in harmony with the jihadists on?

I'll understand if you can't name any.


Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.
 
Thing1 said:
I can respect this viewpoint. It's sort of how I look at life. A lot of life is about those unexpected challenges, and rising to the occasion of whatever circumstances you find yourself saddled with, whether planned or not.

But I just can't impose that view on others (not suggesting that you are). Ultimately, I just have to defer to the individual when it comes to making a decision about their own body, and whether or not to see a pregnancy through to term. I think efforts would be better spent on support for unwanted pregnancies and educating women on their options, with the goal of making abortion more rare and more of a last resort. I can't see an America where we go back to making it a legal issue.
Click to expand...

its not JUST a woman's own body in the abortion debate. It's now about the woman's body, and the unborn child's body.
 
Legion Troll said:
If they were the same thing, they'd be called the same thing.


Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.
Click to expand...

They are by millions of people. If I wanted to plant some cucumbers i'm not going to say that i'm planting seeds that will one day become a cucumber I would say that i'm planting cucumbers, as most people with a garden or farm would say. If I were to see a pregnant woman at Wal-Mart i'm not going to ask her when her fetus is due i'm going to ask her when her baby is due, and she would say "my baby is due in May", not "my fetus will be a baby in May".
 
J Craft said:
its not JUST a woman's own body in the abortion debate. It's now about the woman's body, and the unborn child's body.
Click to expand...

I agree there are competing interests, but ultimately, it's the woman's body and her choice. I don't see how the state can force her to carry a fetus to term.
 
Legion Troll said:
If they were the same thing, they'd be called the same thing.


Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.
Click to expand...

You and Leon are the same person yet you call yourself two different names. So much for your argument. You lose.
 
Cowgirl Tuff said:
They are by millions of people. If I wanted to plant some cucumbers i'm not going to say that i'm planting seeds that will one day become a cucumber I would say that i'm planting cucumbers, as most people with a garden or farm would say. If I were to see a pregnant woman at Wal-Mart i'm not going to ask her when her fetus is due i'm going to ask her when her baby is due, and she would say "my baby is due in May", not "my fetus will be a baby in May".
Click to expand...

I have heard countless people say they've given their hearts to Jesus. They were still alive after they said they'd done it, so they must have been speaking figuratively.

Etymology may help you understand that consistent misuse of words does not change legal or medical definitions.


Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.
 
Thing1 said:
I agree there are competing interests, but ultimately, it's the woman's body and her choice. I don't see how the state can force her to carry a fetus to term.
Click to expand...


The state of Texas recently forced a woman to carry a dead fetus to term, didn't it? "Right to life" doesn't seem apropos.


Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.
 
Thing1 said:
I agree there are competing interests, but ultimately, it's the woman's body and her choice. I don't see how the state can force her to carry a fetus to term.
Click to expand...

By again making it illegal to kill an unborn child. Because her rights end at the door to the unborn child's right to life. Her body is not doomed or taken because of pregnancy.

Less than 1% of pregnancies pose a life or death health risk to a woman.
 
J Craft said:
By again making it illegal to kill an unborn child. Because her rights end at the door to the unborn child's right to life. Her body is not doomed or taken because of pregnancy.

Less than 1% of pregnancies pose a life or death health risk to a woman.
Click to expand...

That's a Draconian view. Her rights don't "end at the door," because the fetus needs her body.

For theoretical purposes, consider a scenario where someone was able to implant a fetus into your body without your knowledge. Do you think the state could then compel you to carry that to term? It's somewhat preposterous to consider that, and even crazier to agree that the state could compel something like that. It's your body, and your choice.
 
Thing1 said:
That's a Draconian view. Her rights don't "end at the door," because the fetus needs her body.

For theoretical purposes, consider a scenario where someone was able to implant a fetus into your body without your knowledge. Do you think the state could then compel you to carry that to term? It's somewhat preposterous to consider that, and even crazier to agree that the state could compel something like that. It's your body, and your choice.
Click to expand...

No one has implanted a fetus in the woman's body. Even so, the fetus has its own life and body. It's not draconian to protect life- what's draconian is to pretend a right to kill an unborn child is OK.

The state has always intervened to protect life. That's actually the first priority of the state. A woman's right over her body as regards to preventing pregnancy is sacrosanct- but pregnancy is life. No person, male or female, should be given carte blanc over another's life because it's an inconvenience to themselves. AND THAT is what an unwanted pregnancy is.
 
J Craft said:
No one has implanted a fetus in the woman's body. Even so, the fetus has its own life and body. It's not draconian to protect life- what's draconian is to pretend a right to kill an unborn child is OK.

The state has always intervened to protect life. That's actually the first priority of the state. A woman's right over her body as regards to preventing pregnancy is sacrosanct- but pregnancy is life. No person, male or female, should be given carte blanc over another's life because it's an inconvenience to themselves. AND THAT is what an unwanted pregnancy is.
Click to expand...

I am aware of the bolded - that's why I called the scenario theoretical. While it's purely theoretical, it's important to the logic being used here.

Do you think the state should compel you to carry that fetus to term in the scenario?
 
Thing1 said:
That's a Draconian view. Her rights don't "end at the door," because the fetus needs her body.

For theoretical purposes, consider a scenario where someone was able to implant a fetus into your body without your knowledge. Do you think the state could then compel you to carry that to term? It's somewhat preposterous to consider that, and even crazier to agree that the state could compel something like that. It's your body, and your choice.
Click to expand...

When women who can't afford to support the children they CHOOSE to have, do you believe they have a right to expect others to pay for a personal decision they said was no one else's business when the choice was being made? If it's her body, it's her responsibility. If she can't pay for her choices, not my problem.
 
Thing1 said:
I am aware of the bolded - that's why I called the scenario theoretical. While it's purely theoretical, it's important to the logic being used here.

Do you think the state should compel you to carry that fetus to term in the scenario?
Click to expand...

Its a bogus argument. If you have some case law where this has happened I'll entertain it. Right now the state has not EVER imposed its will upon a hapless woman impregnated without her knowledge.

Meanwhile, back at the abortion argument ranch where ALL abortions happen due to sex, I am against a woman getting to kill another child because it's inconvenient to her life.
 
Conservatards are dying to lose another election by millions.
Enjoy your midterm jv win toe tappers
The boom is coming down on you big government fascist
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top