They have no problems placing cute white children who have been born of non-addicted well nourished mothers But if the baby has a severe disability or is born addicted to cocaine then they are not so easily adopted out Not everyone has full control of their own lives
What should be the proper punishment for a mother who is so careless and cruel as to have their unborn baby savaged by cocaine? I say execute her after taking her baby away from her. - - - Updated - - -
It wasn't directed to you anyway. First off the risk of dying from pregnancy has been dramatically reduced. Second, its not to make me happy (though I would be happy) its to save the baby from murder. Actually. Ireland has laws against abortion so there goes your second point. First off if it means the saving of human life from murder then yeah, they should be forced. - - - Updated - - - I was saying YOU would and we do. Our taxes goes to the murder of unborn children through third parties and such. None so far but only because I don't have money. I gave to other charities and organizations and my money can only go so far. It's even crueler to tell someone with that defect that he should be dead.
I'm just confused by your last statement. How was my post irrevelant? The bold was I reffering to. Most jobs have a coverage program and the pain isn't enough for an abortion. . You said she CAN'T. I show'd you that in some places she IS. The right to life is protected in the constitution and a human rights. You're the one against both. Here's the proof. http://m.aclj.org/obamacare/how-obamacare-uses-taxpayer-money-pay-abortions How is that a non answer? I explain that I don't give money (as of now) and I explained why. What more do you ask for. I support the NRA but I don't give money to it. You're the one who's confused. By saying we should abort unborn children with defects you are telling those already born that they should be dead. It's not to make me happy its to save the child's life.
False, even by legal standards. Late term pregnancies do not involve a born person yet that child in utero has a right to life by law.
No, dodge....because you want to be BOTH "pro-life" on late-term abortions AND a devoted Trump supporter. The answer was...of course....Elizabeth Trump Grau voted to overturn New Jersey's late-term abortion ban. But you couldn't be honest to say that...and THEN try to resolve the contradiction.
Yes, after 23 weeks the fetus has some protection because it is viable IF it was born then. Women have a right to life..
So, answer the only pertinent question here. Is the President able to secure legal at will abortion for the future???? As far as I know, lower court judge Grau isn't running.
"Poll: Which of the following women should not have an abortion?" only the one that doesn't want an abortion, it's not my place to decide for them.. all of the above should be allowed to choose for themselves .
Ever heard of personal responsibility? I guess you haven't. But just so you know, kids don't come out of nowhere, it takes the choice of sex to produce. These women you listed in your poll have no business having unprotected sex. And if they DECIDE to have unprotected sex, they need to own up to their responsibilities and take care of the child, or put the child up for adoption.
It is a poorly worded poll as it asks if the woman "should" have an abortion. To answer "none of the above" is to claim that the woman SHOULD have an abortion is to deny her the right to decide the same as answering all of the above. What is MISSING from the poll with the option of "it's the woman's decision." It only allowed telling her what to do, one way or the other. There is NO pro-choice option.
That's a lie. The poll asks what a woman "should" do. You are trying to dictate that she SHOULD abort in all those situations because of your male control-freak attitude about women. What she should do is not give a DAMN about what YOU say she should do. NEVER PRETEND you are prochoice. You are pro-control freak.