Pro-Life

[eddy1]

And if they are not? If the rapist fled? Should that victim have to carry and raise that child?

Even if the rapist didn't flee and get away the victim should not have to raise the child.

 

[libby]

You didn't do your homework before having your abortion, did you.

Or, maybe I just know people who have had abortions that say the same thing. My response was based on the suggestion that I need to walk in someone else's shoes. Is that really necessary to know the truth? Do I really need to have an abortion myself to have an opinion on the subject?
The OP was told he couldn't have an opinon because he doesn't have a vagina. I'm told not to opine because I haven't walked in a pregnant woman's shoes.
Sheesh...looks like only pro-choicers are allowed to have an opinion about abortion around here.

 

[sockgirl77]

Even if the rapist didn't flee and get away the victim should not have to raise the child.

Thank you. You cannot be both pro-life and pro-choice. The choice has to be there for circumstances like this.

 

[Baja28]

I've said many times on this forum that, while I am pro-life, I think reasonable people can disagree about the morality of abortion in the first trimester. That is not the same as thinking it is still an objective wrong.

Where are the shock and awe pictures of first trimester abortions?

 

[eddy1]

Thank you. You cannot be both pro-life and pro-choice. The choice has to be there for circumstances like this.

Oh, but I am pro-life. That doesn't mean I am blind to circumstances where abortion may be appropriate. I'm not buying into the labels that people would associate with different movements. I firmly believe in the sanctity of life. I believe a responsible woman should have a child when she has willingly conceived one. I also believe if circumstances would make that life miserable for a child, then before it becomes viable it should be terminated. I don't believe a woman should have an abortion without the consent of the man who helped conceive that child providing the decision is one of convenience not for medical reasons.

I also believe a life for a life. If a person commits a capital crime, I believe they should be executed. That doesn't make me any less pro-life.

 

[sockgirl77]

Oh, but I am pro-life. That doesn't mean I am blind to circumstances where abortion may be appropriate. I'm not buying into the labels that people would associate with different movements. I firmly believe in the sanctity of life. I believe a responsible woman should have a child when she has willingly conceived one. I also believe if circumstances would make that life miserable for a child, then before it becomes viable it should be terminated. I don't believe a woman should have an abortion without the consent of the man who helped conceive that child providing the decision is one of convenience not for medical reasons.

I also believe a life for a life. If a person commits a capital crime, I believe they should be executed. That doesn't make me any less pro-life.

Then you are not pro-life. You are pro-choice. You cannot be both.

 

[eddy1]

Then you are not pro-life. You are pro-choice. You cannot be both.

That's your label, not mine. I am both.

 

[libertytyranny]

Oh, but I am pro-life. That doesn't mean I am blind to circumstances where abortion may be appropriate. I'm not buying into the labels that people would associate with different movements. I firmly believe in the sanctity of life. I believe a responsible woman should have a child when she has willingly conceived one. I also believe if circumstances would make that life miserable for a child, then before it becomes viable it should be terminated. I don't believe a woman should have an abortion without the consent of the man who helped conceive that child providing the decision is one of convenience not for medical reasons.
I also believe a life for a life. If a person commits a capital crime, I believe they should be executed. That doesn't make me any less pro-life.

actually that does put you squarely in the pro-choice camp. Pro-life = no abortions, ever. and certainly not for "convenience"

 

[sockgirl77]

That's your label, not mine. I am both.

Do you often confuse yourself?

actually that does put you squarely in the pro-choice camp. Pro-life = no abortions, ever. and certainly not for "convenience"

Thank you.

 

[eddy1]

actually that does put you squarely in the pro-choice camp. Pro-life = no abortions, ever. and certainly not for "convenience"

No, that is a label people in this debate have made up.

 

[sockgirl77]

No, that is a label people in this debate have made up.

Jesus. A label? You said that you were pro-life. Let me go and quote exactly what you said.

 

[eddy1]

Do you often confuse yourself?

Thank you.

I'm not confused at all. I know what my feelings on the subject are. If you want to label yourself because you can't think for yourself about the complicated issues associated with this, and you have to take a label to put yourself on one side or the other, that's on you. I know where I stand.

 

[sockgirl77]

Oh, but I am pro-life.

That's your label, not mine. I am both.

See. You are confused.

 

[RoseRed]

Or, maybe I just know people who have had abortions that say the same thing. My response was based on the suggestion that I need to walk in someone else's shoes. Is that really necessary to know the truth? Do I really need to have an abortion myself to have an opinion on the subject?
The OP was told he couldn't have an opinon because he doesn't have a vagina. I'm told not to opine because I haven't walked in a pregnant woman's shoes.
Sheesh...looks like only pro-choicers are allowed to have an opinion about abortion around here.

You exude a lot of anger.

 

[Baja28]

biologically its not that different than the menustration a woman experiences during her monthly visit.

Some who are anti-abortion, are only so up to a degree. Many justify their desire to ban abortion by claiming the lump of cells is an innocent life, yet are willing to overlook this in the case of Rape or the safety of the mother.

Really that makes no sense, the "innocent life" doesnt change just because the Mother was forced into the sex, and its still innocent even if the Mothers life is in jeopardy.

Some of the argument seems to be when the "innocent life" begins.

 

[Baja28]

My feeling? At the point the life is viable and able to survive outside of the Mothers womb.

Otherwise its no different than a highly developed Parasite.

Agreed.

 

[eddy1]

See. You are confused.

No, you are confused, i'm fine!

 

[pixiegirl]

No, you are confused, i'm fine!

I'm a pretty pretty princess!

 

[libby]

Where are the shock and awe pictures of first trimester abortions?

That's one reason I can say that reasonable people can disagree. But my opinion on the first trimester is that it is still innocent life (to borrow from what others are saying), and I believe that the unborn baby is a separate human being from the first moment of conception. If I am wrong, I would rather err on that side than choosing abortion and being mistaken about the what was actually done.

When Roe v. Wade was decided we knew a lot less than we know now. As technology has advanced we have been able to see the miracle of life at earlier and earlier stages. I believe it was you who said that as long as a baby can live outside of the womb then it should be protected. Well, 10 and 20 years ago we couldn't take care of the babies we do now. Did that make it okay to kill 23 wk. preborn babies 25 years ago, but not now?

 

[Animal]

That's one reason I can say that reasonable people can disagree. But my opinion on the first trimester is that it is still innocent life (to borrow from what others are saying), and I believe that the unborn baby is a separate human being from the first moment of conception. If I am wrong, I would rather err on that side than choosing abortion and being mistaken about the what was actually done.

When Roe v. Wade was decided we knew a lot less than we know now. As technology has advanced we have been able to see the miracle of life at earlier and earlier stages. I believe it was you who said that as long as a baby can live outside of the womb then it should be protected. Well, 10 and 20 years ago we couldn't take care of the babies we do now. Did that make it okay to kill 23 wk. preborn babies 25 years ago, but not now?

And what was it that Roe v Wade decided?

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.