SmarterthanYou
rebel
since lawmaking is the purview of congress, can we then assume that the roe v. wade decision is an unbinding one?
Indiana's new abortion law won't save babies. It will only make my patients suffer.
- Thread starter christiefan915
- Start date
since lawmaking is the purview of congress, can we then assume that the roe v. wade decision is an unbinding one?
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
I'm amused when cons profess their hatred for Muslim extremists, since they hold many of the same views, don't they?
Because we do not believe in enforcing them through force idiot!
Most religious nuts aren't very rational especially Christians
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
You don't?
Are you claiming that none of these issues have been the subject of legislation that's been pushed by Christian conservatives?
Which ones?
Make a list.
I'll understand if you can't.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Roe is a really good compromise between the 2 sides, imo.
People are too dug in on their positions on this one; they choose to see the issue as very simplistic and black & white (for the most part), when in fact, it's pretty complex with a whole range of factors that should be considered.
In my opinion, you have to be pretty hardcore to look at the microscopic combination of cells that is there in the 1st few days and say it's "murder" to terminate the development of that. There is no sentience whatsoever - no consciousness, no human characteristics, no viability, no awareness, no development.
Conversely, you have to be pretty hardcore on the other extreme if you look at a fetus a few days before birth and don't conclude that it's basically a baby - fully developed and viable.
Something obviously happens along the way. "Human-ness" comes into the equation, and fairly early on. Giving a woman the 1st trimester is probably as good a compromise as we're going to get, which respects the right of the woman & her control over her body, as well as the rights and considerations of a fetus as it develops into a being that most would agree should have rights.
People are too dug in on their positions on this one; they choose to see the issue as very simplistic and black & white (for the most part), when in fact, it's pretty complex with a whole range of factors that should be considered.
In my opinion, you have to be pretty hardcore to look at the microscopic combination of cells that is there in the 1st few days and say it's "murder" to terminate the development of that. There is no sentience whatsoever - no consciousness, no human characteristics, no viability, no awareness, no development.
Conversely, you have to be pretty hardcore on the other extreme if you look at a fetus a few days before birth and don't conclude that it's basically a baby - fully developed and viable.
Something obviously happens along the way. "Human-ness" comes into the equation, and fairly early on. Giving a woman the 1st trimester is probably as good a compromise as we're going to get, which respects the right of the woman & her control over her body, as well as the rights and considerations of a fetus as it develops into a being that most would agree should have rights.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you have no opinion?
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I would prefer that they chose life, but I do not believe in denying other choices
You are denying a right to life of the unborn child within.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
no, I am not. the expectant mother is the one denying that.
Yes, but you support laws that deny the right of the unborn child's right to life. This in essence binds you to the act itself.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you mean the same way that I support racism because I don't go out and denounce everyone I see as racist?????????
I'm saying that since this is such a hot button issue with such opposition, it would be a good idea to firmly entrench it in law because it is for the good of society that we do so. Should a mother be forced to bring to term a child conceived in the ways we have discussed and then either not be able to provide for the child or give it up for adoption, then society will bear the direct financial obligation to ensure the child's welfare until it is either adopted or above the age of majority.
It would also protect those women who become pregnant in such a manner, ensuring that they have the access to the procedures to terminate such a pregnancy.
The Medical University of South Carolina, in a 1996 study, found that 5% of women who are raped become pregnant. At the time, that was around 32,000 women per year.
University of California, San Francisco did another study in 2000 which found that there were an estimated 25,000 rape-induced pregnancies per year.
That study also found that somewhere around 20,000 women have an abortion in order to terminate a pregnancy induced by rape.
(Access to these full studies would require me to give you my Elsevier login. As you can imagine, I'm not willing to do so.)
And these are the rapes we know about - because you have to remember that rape is a vastly under-reported crime.
That makes it more than your suggested, "to a single individual."
Statistically, the freer the access there is to firearms, the more deaths by firearms there are. In fact, if one pays attention to the statistics, banning firearms would be more in the interest of the common welfare.
Utter nonsense.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
sounds to me like the nation would be better off using general welfare as a means of executing said rapists instead. no parental rights or visitation to worry about then.
seeing how gun ownership and possession has increased dramatically over the last couple of years, combined with the crime rates dropping almost all over.....i'd say this study is a bit off the mark.
you mean the same way that I support racism because I don't go out and denounce everyone I see as racist?????????
Espousing a racist opinion is equal to taking life?
No, its not.