Pro Choice?????

[Pigu 0]

I just shot a load of half-babies into my hand. I hope I manage to get them all fertilised before you guys call me a murderer! :energetic:

[Karen_L 1]

This hypothetical woman chose to have sex. The government would be choosing for her to give birth.

No, this hypothetical woman chose to have sex which carries a rish of pregnancies... the govt would choose not to allow her to commit murder... much in the same way it would if I had a gun to your head right now.

The primary difference in these two examples -- a woman having an abortion and your shooting me -- is this: I am not living and growing inside of your abdomen.

So then by that logic you could say that it's ok to kill a fetus moments before it's born, while it's still living and growing inside your abdomen.

Once a baby is ready to be born, it's no longer "living and growing" inside the woman.

Also, I think that the government should have to right to regulate this freedom, as it does with other freedoms. But absolutely denying this option is wrong, imo.

[mybackpages 0]

The logic behind Roe v Wade is this is a privacy issue. The Court never ruled on the issue of life, but rather to what extent a woman has a right to privacy without interference from the state.

Overturning Roe will not only allow bans on abortion but challenge the idea that privacy exists at all in the Constitution.

Don't be so dramatic... the right to privacy has it's limits like any other right.

Killing an innocent person is reason enough to lose that right.

In the case of Roe v. Wade, there is truth in that the issue was argued on "privacy"--but it did lead to the logic that it was ok to kill a even a viable unborn foetus.

While it was previously stated that the "majority" of abortions were done before 12 weeks, the sheer number makes a horrific scale. A SINGLE "clinic" in NJ performed 1500 partial-birth abortions each year (FOUR PER DAY averaged on 7/24/365 basis)--binning BillyBubba's claim that it was "rare".

And, in fact, abortions were regulated by each state--and this decision was an infringement on states' rights which was also in the constitution (which mybackpages obfuscates on!)

obfuscates??? the 10th amendment protects the rights of the states, but only when their right is not prohibited at the national level. Abortions are still regulated by the states only they are stop short when such actions violate the Constitution or national law.

Dramatic? Many Constitutional scholars argue the Roe decision was wrong because it extended a pright of privacy that does not exist. There is a serious legitimate debate (unlike like most posts on this thread) whether or not privacy is a constitutional right.

[Veiled Princess 1]

Also, I think that the government should have to right to regulate this freedom, as it does with other freedoms. But absolutely denying this option is wrong, imo.

Murder is not a freedom it's a crime.

[Karen_L 1]

living and growing

Ok, you said it...baby is living and growing! So I guess we can accept now that it really IS killing-taking the life of a "living and growing" thing.

I never said it wasn't living and growing -- in fact, I directly said "a fetus is living" a few posts back. All's I said is that the government shouldn't force someone to have a child when they don't want to have.

Again... who's forcing? All the govt should be doing is preventing the crime of murder.... it is up to the woman whether or not she'll put herself at risk of being in a situation that could possibly cause her to become pregnant.

Ladies!!!! If you don't want babies don't have sex!!!! You know this is a possible effect of having sex. It's no one's fault but your own if it happens.

The mere act of being a woman does NOT give you the right to murder an innocent human being!

Who's forcing? If a woman is pregnant is doesn't want to have this child, for whatever reason, and there is a medical way to terminate the pregnancy and the government won't permit her to use this method, then the government is forcing her to carry through with a pregnancy she doesn't want.

I agree though -- morally speaking, people should consider the potential consequences of their actions.

[mybackpages 0]

I believe abortion is murder. But I am still pro-choice.

I don't see how this issue is as cut and dried as many of you present it.

That's because you are thinking..see how confusing thinking can be

[irishgirl73 0]

living and growing

Ok, you said it...baby is living and growing! So I guess we can accept now that it really IS killing-taking the life of a "living and growing" thing.

I never said it wasn't living and growing -- in fact, I directly said "a fetus is living" a few posts back. All's I said is that the government shouldn't force someone to have a child when they don't want to have.

Again... who's forcing? All the govt should be doing is preventing the crime of murder.... it is up to the woman whether or not she'll put herself at risk of being in a situation that could possibly cause her to become pregnant.

Ladies!!!! If you don't want babies don't have sex!!!! You know this is a possible effect of having sex. It's no one's fault but your own if it happens.

The mere act of being a woman does NOT give you the right to murder an innocent human being!

Who's forcing? If a woman is pregnant is doesn't want to have this child, for whatever reason, and there is a medical way to terminate the pregnancy and the government won't permit her to use this method, then the government is forcing her to carry through with a pregnancy she doesn't want.

I agree though -- morally speaking, people should consider the potential consequences of their actions.

you hit the nail on the head "morally" it may be a bad decision, but it is "legal"

[Karen_L 1]

Also, I think that the government should have to right to regulate this freedom, as it does with other freedoms. But absolutely denying this option is wrong, imo.

Murder is not a freedom it's a crime.

You think it's murder. Many people don't agree.

[Jenn! 918]

I believe abortion is murder. But I am still pro-choice.

I don't see how this issue is as cut and dried as many of you present it.

That's because you are thinking..see how confusing thinking can be

My head hurts again!

[Karen_L 1]

living and growing

Ok, you said it...baby is living and growing! So I guess we can accept now that it really IS killing-taking the life of a "living and growing" thing.

I never said it wasn't living and growing -- in fact, I directly said "a fetus is living" a few posts back. All's I said is that the government shouldn't force someone to have a child when they don't want to have.

Again... who's forcing? All the govt should be doing is preventing the crime of murder.... it is up to the woman whether or not she'll put herself at risk of being in a situation that could possibly cause her to become pregnant.

Ladies!!!! If you don't want babies don't have sex!!!! You know this is a possible effect of having sex. It's no one's fault but your own if it happens.

The mere act of being a woman does NOT give you the right to murder an innocent human being!

Who's forcing? If a woman is pregnant is doesn't want to have this child, for whatever reason, and there is a medical way to terminate the pregnancy and the government won't permit her to use this method, then the government is forcing her to carry through with a pregnancy she doesn't want.

I agree though -- morally speaking, people should consider the potential consequences of their actions.

you hit the nail on the head "morally" it may be a bad decision, but it is "legal"

Exactly. Not everything that is "immoral" should be or is illegal.

[mybackpages 0]

I believe abortion is murder. But I am still pro-choice.

I don't see how this issue is as cut and dried as many of you present it.

That's because you are thinking..see how confusing thinking can be

My head hurts again!

me too!

[VirginMary 0]

I just shot a load of half-babies into my hand. I hope I manage to get them all fertilised before you guys call me a murderer! :energetic:

You are on your own mister. My eggs are pre-fertilized so I can do it without the wrigglers.

[almaty 19]

I just shot a load of half-babies into my hand. I hope I manage to get them all fertilised before you guys call me a murderer! :energetic:

You are on your own mister. My eggs are pre-fertilized so I can do it without the wrigglers.

Hey, i think i saw you this morning on my eggo!

[Veiled Princess 1]

Who's forcing? If a woman is pregnant is doesn't want to have this child, for whatever reason, and there is a medical way to terminate the pregnancy and the government won't permit her to use this method, then the government is forcing her to carry through with a pregnancy she doesn't want.

No, it's not forcing a pregnancy it's preventing a crime.

You think it's murder. Many people don't agree.

That doesn't make it right.

[garya505 2]

This hypothetical woman chose to have sex. The government would be choosing for her to give birth.

No, this hypothetical woman chose to have sex which carries a rish of pregnancies... the govt would choose not to allow her to commit murder... much in the same way it would if I had a gun to your head right now.

The primary difference in these two examples -- a woman having an abortion and your shooting me -- is this: I am not living and growing inside of your abdomen.

So then by that logic you could say that it's ok to kill a fetus moments before it's born, while it's still living and growing inside your abdomen.

Once a baby is ready to be born, it's no longer "living and growing" inside the woman.

Also, I think that the government should have to right to regulate this freedom, as it does with other freedoms. But absolutely denying this option is wrong, imo.

OK, can you define "ready to be born" then?