. . ."when does life begin"?
About 3.5 billion years ago.
Let me ask you this. "In your opinion, when does life begin"?
Your first Allman Brothers concert, duh
The question is right on track with the thread title and is absolutely germane to the topic......
Let me ask you this. "In your opinion, when does life begin"?
Your first Allman Brothers concert, duh
The question is right on track with the thread title and is absolutely germane to the topic......
Sorry, is this Germane enough?
"When does life begin" is an interesting puzzler for metaphysical discussion, but a dead end in the abortion rights debate. If you follow this line of reasoning you end up at the Vatican with contraception a sin.
If someone has the right to choose then that is simply it, end of the matter - the rest is just personal philosophy.
Attempting to pinpoint the beginning of a human life turns the whole question into a philosohical fishbowl that can only benefit anti-abortion forces. A compulsion to focus on this shows a shallow regard and understanding of a "pro choice" stance.
Why is it in most states when a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman and her child he can held responsible for two deaths, but if that same woman went to an abortion clinic and had her baby terminated it is a choice? It is a tough issue but you can't ignore the "when life begins" question.
Why is it in most states when a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman and her child he can held responsible for two deaths, but if that same woman went to an abortion clinic and had her baby terminated it is a choice? It is a tough issue but you can't ignore the "when life begins" question.
In 1 case the woman has chosen to take the fetus to term, in the other she has chosen not to. We have yet to, and may never, answer the "when does life begin" question, but we can allow women to control their own body. Certainly doing a better job of it than manslaughtering drunk drivers are.
That is a good point. When someone chooses to end a pregnancy it is their decision. If the pregnancy is ended involuntarily it is not by choice.
Look at places like China, where abortion is mandatory after the limit of allowable children is exceeded - that is an example of pro-abortion being anti-choice.
We don't have to ignore the question of when life begins, but it is a separate matter for personal consideration. Pro-choice does not have to mean pro-abortion.
We forget that every day all the time the choice is being freely made to have kids.
[Edited on 5/16/2019 by BrerRabbit]
Why is it in most states when a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman and her child he can held responsible for two deaths, but if that same woman went to an abortion clinic and had her baby terminated it is a choice? It is a tough issue but you can't ignore the "when life begins" question.
In 1 case the woman has chosen to take the fetus to term, in the other she has chosen not to. We have yet to, and may never, answer the "when does life begin" question, but we can allow women to control their own body. Certainly doing a better job of it than manslaughtering drunk drivers are.
How do we know what the woman's intensions are? Perhaps the accident occurred as she was on her way to the clinic to terminate. The Law is the law. The drunk driver is still guilty regardless of the woman's intentions.
There are many good faith arguments for and against - you just gotta own your position, no need to bandy words.
How do we know what the woman's intensions are? Perhaps the accident occurred as she was on her way to the clinic to terminate. The Law is the law. The drunk driver is still guilty regardless of the woman's intentions.
There are indeed pro-choice advocates who are against the law (signed by GWB, and specifically excludes abortion). Investigators can usually figure out a woman's intentions, especially if she's in her first trimester and on her way to an abortion clinic, but this is such an unlikely hypothetical that I'm thinking maybe just FECK THE DRUNK DRIVER, he killed a lady. That isn't the law's intent nor it's application.
Yeah really, the d*ckhead is going to the slammer anyway.
How do we know what the woman's intensions are? Perhaps the accident occurred as she was on her way to the clinic to terminate. The Law is the law. The drunk driver is still guilty regardless of the woman's intentions.
There are indeed pro-choice advocates who are against the law (signed by GWB, and specifically excludes abortion). Investigators can usually figure out a woman's intentions, especially if she's in her first trimester and on her way to an abortion clinic, but this is such an unlikely hypothetical that I'm thinking maybe just FECK THE DRUNK DRIVER, he killed a lady. That isn't the law's intent nor it's application.
The point is ONE LAW recognizes the value of the young life, ONE does not. You can be pro life AND pro choice you know. You have to chose not to get pregnant until you are prepared to raise a child. That may sound over simplified but it isn't. It really is that simple in most cases. We have the right to chose but our choices have consequences. Chose to have sex you might get pregnant. I understand accidents/mistakes happen. It certainly isn't the babies fault. Just like the hypothetical one above. Dude chose to drive drunk, kills some people and has to suffer the consequences. The time to chose is BEFORE you get pregnant not after (or drink & drive).
Let's say, hypothetically, that the above drunk driver only cripples the pregnant woman in the accident. He made a mistake, had an accident which has consequences. Should one of his choices be to terminate the lady to avoid punishment?
Well, you want abortion outlawed sounds like. Ok, how about mandatory castration for guys who knock up girls and don't support them? Heck, lets play hardball.
You know it really is a tough one. As you so keenly observed I do value the life of the unborn. But it is tough. And while your suggestion is not completely meritless it may be tough to get all the "OLD WHITE GUYS" in Washington to agree on. My girlfriend and I went through this in High School. 1978 we took the easy route and I do regret it to this day. It didn't mean near as much to me at the time but I was also a dumba$$ teenager at the time. I don't want to control what women do with their bodies. But the whole "consequences of our choices" thing CANNOT be overstated on this subject. I live in Alabama. I am pro life. And I am uncomfortable with the law as is and the strategy behind it. But I am also uncomfortable with abortion on demand. Don't get started on late term and "after birth" abortions. THAT'S MURDER.
I poked around in the interweb and found this
Out of 195 countries there are 125 that either don't allow abortion at all or only under pretty extreme circumstances.
You can be pro life AND pro choice you know.
Yes, there is no such thing as "anti-life", pro-choice advocates do indeed support life.
You have to chose not to get pregnant until you are prepared to raise a child. That may sound over simplified but it isn't. It really is that simple in most cases.
Well, except RAPE. And women have the choice to terminate a pregnancy in their body before it develops. Life is full of choices.
Let's say, hypothetically, that the above drunk driver only cripples the pregnant woman in the accident. He made a mistake, had an accident which has consequences. Should one of his choices be to terminate the lady to avoid punishment?
Uh, sorry what? You're talking about a grown woman who no one argues isn't now a person. Can we stop torturing this poor woman and trying to get this sh1thead drunk driver a pass?
One strike rule, you lose procreation privilege if you dont follow through.
You know it really is a tough one. As you so keenly observed I do value the life of the unborn. But it is tough. And while your suggestion is not completely meritless it may be tough to get all the "OLD WHITE GUYS" in Washington to agree on. My girlfriend and I went through this in High School. 1978 we took the easy route and I do regret it to this day. It didn't mean near as much to me at the time but I was also a dumba$$ teenager at the time. I don't want to control what women do with their bodies. But the whole "consequences of our choices" thing CANNOT be overstated on this subject. I live in Alabama. I am pro life. And I am uncomfortable with the law as is and the strategy behind it. But I am also uncomfortable with abortion on demand. Don't get started on late term and "after birth" abortions. THAT'S MURDER
I appreciate your candor. I don't think anyone takes the decision lightly but I believe the option should be available.
One thing, there is no such thing as "after birth" abortions. Trump has recently mischaracterized and sensationalized a legitimate, rare yet tragic medical situation.
Less than 1% of abortions occur in the third trimester, or after 28 weeks, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Many of those abortions, the college wrote, involve problems that are "incompatible with life," such as a baby without a brain or organs that form outside the body.
"In these cases, where death is likely before or shortly after birth, patients may decide whether to continue the pregnancy and deliver a nonviable fetus or have an abortion," the college wrote.
[Edited on 5/16/2019 by porkchopbob]
Well, except RAPE. And women have the choice to terminate a pregnancy in their body before it develops. Life is full of choices.
I did say in MOST cases it is that simple.
Uh, sorry what? You're talking about a grown woman who no one argues isn't now a person. Can we stop torturing this poor woman and trying to get this sh1thead drunk driver a pass?
Exactly and why should a woman who get's drunk, isn't careful, makes bad choices have a choice that terminates a life in order to avoid the consequences? The drunk driver sure doesn't have that choice. Nor does the rapist, the murderer or the embezzler. Life is full of choices and they all have consequences.
One thing, there is no such thing as "after birth" abortions. Trump has recently mischaracterized and sensationalized a legitimate, rare yet tragic medical situation.
You been watching the news? The Governor of VA explained it so even I could understand.
I appreciate your candor. I don't think anyone takes the decision lightly but I believe the option should be available.
The problem is some people do take it lightly. How about these women that are "Proud to have had abortions"? There are some that want to treat it as just a choice and it is not just a choice. It's a big deal and if the choice is going to be available it shouldn't be so easy to make that choice.
[Edited on 5/16/2019 by KCJimmy]
Man, in 99.9999999999% of cases it is the male who pushes for sex - looks to me like women are being flat out enslaved and forced to have kids. We give such a huge sh!t about kids then why are we making life so tough for women? It is bullsh!t. How about nipping these spermspewin punks in the bud, get their sterilization reversed after they pass a social functioning test with contract to marry?
Not so easy to digest when it is men being controlled is it? Well see thats what its like for a woman to have her body controlled by law.
Its that "she got drunk" stuff, man you are blaming them.
I am right there with you Brer on the consequences for the mans choices. 99.9999% of our countries problems can be traced back to a MAN that made bad choices.
Its that "she got drunk" stuff, man you are blaming them.
It's an example. Maybe she wasn't drunk maybe she was just horny. Or maybe she was pressured. The dude is definitely 50% responsible no doubt. Point is MOST of the time is poor choices.
[Edited on 5/16/2019 by KCJimmy]
Exactly and why should a woman who get's drunk, isn't careful, makes bad choices have a choice that terminates a life in order to avoid the consequences? The drunk driver sure doesn't have that choice. Nor does the rapist, the murderer or the embezzler. Life is full of choices and they all have consequences.
You're comparing unprotected sex with violent felony crimes. Then it's a crystal-clear yes, she gets a do-over.
So choices have consequences unless you are a female that got pregnant by mistake?
You been watching the news? The Governor of VA explained it so even I could understand.
Well, you don't understand it then. Northam was referring to exactly the type of case I mentioned:
in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-northam-abortion-execute/
Trump (and others) then went on to bizarrely mischaracterize this situation as infanticide. I know someone who went through this, the baby's organs were growing outside of it's own body and could not survive, possibly to term. For the mother's health, the baby was terminated before it could die inside of her. They wanted a child, it was not what they desired or a decision that was made lightly (they name her and celebrate her birthday even after two healthy kids). But it was a choice they made. And it's complete bullshit the way it has been falsely characterized.
Hmmmmm, not a single female comment in this thread.
Well Hemp, you asked. I think adoption is better than abortion. If the ladies find themselves pregnant and do not want to be, or are unable to take care of a child, they can allow others who really want one to adopt the child. If the mass of protoplasm would become a child if they did not abort it, then it already is one, so they need to think differently about it. In abortion, they rip the parts off the fetus it is gross, and they put a bucket at the bottom the table where the woman's body drains into. They do not just go in with a medical dust buster vacuum suction device and take it out all nicely.
Some of the legislation would put women in prison for having abortions. I don't think that is the answer either. I think Georgia just passed or is trying to pass something like that. Adoption hurts no one. Isn't that a better alternative to this problem? The women who are having abortions are killing something that is alive inside them, they do not have a right to kill, if they killed a regular person who was walking around, it would be considered murder. Just because the fetus doesn't talk, walk doesn't mean it is nothing or has no right. If it doesn't want to come into this world, it will miscarry or God has mercy on it and says okay you don't have to go there into that cold, cruel world. The decision should rest with God, not pharmaceutical companies making abortion pills for women who need one. IF THEY DON"T WANT THE CHILD, ADOPTION WILL TAKE CARE OF IT AND HARM NO ONE. BETTER SOLUTION.
Thank you Gina
So choices have consequences unless you are a female that got pregnant by mistake?
I'm not sure why are equating "mistakenly" getting pregnant, which is not a crime, with VIOLENT FELONEY CRIME. Rape and murder are not "mistakes".
[Edited on 5/16/2019 by porkchopbob]
Hmmmmm, not a single female comment in this thread.
You hadn't noticed the WP has been a sausage fest for maybe the last three or four years by now? We are like those POWs who have to play both roles when we put on plays.
