Most abortions are done between 12 and 18 weeks...you could look that up and LEARN something. A decision can take more than 3 months since all women are individuals and not drones/cattle as Righties think they are.... Women have until viability (23 weeks) to have an elective abortion, as it should be...
Yes I am aware of the law. 23 weeks. The law also said that slavery was correct as were poll taxes. I am talking about ethics and you choose to insult me! I care about sentient human beings and you do not. I wish you the best but I can’t further engage anyone who is more interested in ad hominems than a reasonable discourse. It is not fair to my time.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Most abortions are done between 12 and 18 weeks...you could look that up and LEARN something. A decision can take more than 3 months since all women are individuals and not drones/cattle as Righties think they are.... Women have until viability (23 weeks) to have an elective abortion, as it should be... Uh, science is correct about viability. I have no idea what poll tax or slavery have to do with it except that banning abortion makes women slaves. No, I didn't. IF you felt insulted , that's on you. Yet another statement based on nothing. Well, when ya can't address the issue maybe it's good to just not discuss it....
The exercise was to determine what percentage of women were using abortion as a remedy for either rape, life of the mother, or contraceptive failure. If, as the evidence suggests, less than 6% of abortions meet any of those criteria, the remainders are for purely superficial reasons. No? So 94% or so of abortions are performed on demand, and absent a mitigating reason for them.
WTF do you mean by "superficial" reasons? And DO note: Women don't need any more of a reason than they want to ...
Since only about 20% of rapes are reported, you have no idea of the actual number except that it is higher than what you think. You are also discounting any economic or mental health issues as well as age ( on the high end or low end). It’s like all you want to see is a number, yet you will never, ever have be to in their shoes because you will never, ever have any possibilities of sharing their experience. Women are not made in a factory where every part is perfectly designed to carry a child.
Possibly. But here's the thing. If so many are so effected, why do you suppose that we find ourselves living it over and over again? Why do you suppose that it is the liberal or progressive teachings that always seem to exacerbate folks finding themselves in the condition that requires their active assault on their own bodies? It just doesn't make sense. When you take away the concept of personal responsibility, tie that to permissive policy on drug use, or create a climate that suggests that there are no limits, isn't that both creating and then promoting the idea that non consequential remedies must also then be available?
That's the "human being" part...they are flawed, if there's a complaint, take it to the manufacturer, THEY created a flawed product. LOL, because it isn't "progressive or liberal teachings " that do anything.....it's being human....your assertion that conservatives and regressives never have abortions is rather hilarious.....they ARE humans even if they may not act humanely WTF do you mean by "superficial" reasons? And DO note: Women don't need any more of a reason than they want to ...
Abortion numbers have been dropping over the last decade BECAUSE of the liberal policies of education and reduced cost prenatal care. Numbers are LOWER than they were in 1973. In fact, they have been dropping for the last 30 years. So I'm going to call bull crap on your post.
So, "kill them in the womb, before they can be used as cannon fodder", is that your philosophy? I think this was talked about a little in a past thread: Pregnancy not anywhere near as painful as fighting in a war
Banning her right to carry a firearm as Dems have done in Los Angeles also takes away her right to bodily autonomy making her a slave to anyone with more strength than her. Why is that okay?
As someone who is pro life, this is a very bad take. Women aren't any more obligated to raise children than men. If they want children, then have them. If they don't, then they're free to do so. I think the main gripe the pro choice crowd has against the pro life movement is we generally don't offer any viable alternatives to abortion. We more or less say "if you have sex and get pregnant then tough luck, you're stuck. Also don't expect a handout or aid once the baby is born." What we need, as a pro life movement, is to make it to where abortion is unnecessary through obsoletion. This is where comprehensive sex education, safe and affordable birth control (that doesn't abort the unborn), and government assistance comes into play.
Good thoughts except even using birth control can produce an unwanted pregnancy. No one is obligated to use birth control. Some women can't use it and some don't want drugs or foreign objects in their bodies. And abortion has been around for thousands of years despite humans best efforts so there will always be a need for it.
Which is why we should invest in research to make non-abortion based birth control as close to 100% effective as possible. Ok but doesn't an abortion requires one or both of those things? For thousands of years we didn't had smart phones either. 40 years ago we still didn't had smart phones in fact. I wouldn't be too sure about women always needing an abortion.
Gee, we have smart phones so why why hasn't research come up with 100% effective, non-invasive, drug free birth control... No IUDs in abortion ....and if women want an abortion they obvioulsy have to adapt to a ONE time thing. That doesn't mean they should be denied abortion. Yet we still communicated !!! No, they may not in the distant future ......but right now they do....
I see your point. But I do not really see how that helps your overall argument. Whether there should be a law that requires people to do something or not is not ultimately based upon what that law is. (That would kind of be circular logic, of course) What I think you might be attempting to do, saying "we should wear seat belts because it's the law, and it should be the law because we should wear them" would be either circular logic or an equivocation fallacy, since the phrase "we should wear seat belts" could carry two subtly different meanings, whether it's talking about whether there should be a law that requires people to do it. Of course, I'm not going to try to play the guessing game, guessing what point you are trying to get at, because I am usually wrong. There are numerous possibilities, so if you have a point you'll just have to say it plainly.
It wasn't intended to. ...and what you IMAGINE is, as usual , wrong....you have NO idea what I meant with my comments on seat belts. YUP so why don't you quit guessing. Post #140
