PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
its already in that situation.....killing it isn't a solution......letting a family that wants the child raise it is a solution.....
Supercandy afraid of reality puts those who speak truth on Ignore...zygote not child!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
its already in that situation.....killing it isn't a solution......letting a family that wants the child raise it is a solution.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
so society should not be concerned that we kill nearly a million children a year?.......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
unless you're in the womb you have no right to make that decision.......
Yes it is. It just isn't the solution you would choose. However, it is the solution chosen 1.5 million times a year, so yes it is a solution.
Good thing you don't get to decide for anyone but yourself, otherwise there would be 1.5 million unwanted children born every year.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
/shrugs.....and I will work to change that until the day I die or until the law changes......no matter how much you like killing children, it's wrong and it should stop......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
actually, I think any rational person would realize that if abortion was not condoned or acceptable, far fewer women would find themselves in the situation where they needed one.......so long as some people think killing the child is an acceptable method of birth control, they won't properly utilize the other methods that are out there......
Society is concerned. I'm concerned. I think it's horrific that so many young women in horrible situations can't afford birth control. Or that it's inaccessible due to some backwards-thinking religious nutball pharmacist who refuses to sell it. Or that poverty and disenfranchisment make the notion of raising a healthy family an unattainable goal. Or that drug addiction, rape, a highly sexualized, violent society results in irresponsible behaviour by youth, resulting in unwanted pregnancies in girls completely ill-equipped and far too young for motherhood.
For all of the reasons I am grateful that abortion is safe and legal in this country.
Yes I do. As a mother, I have 100% dominion over what happens in my womb. And if I don't want to be pregnant, I will take measures to eradicate it if I am, if I choose.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
a buck to fuck is too expensive?.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
if we can kill children because they are dependent on their mothers, why can't the government kill people on welfare?......
Knock yourself out, busy-body. Good luck. You whack jobs will continue to make it more difficult, but that's just to placate the other hysterical crazies like you. The joke's on you. The GOP uses this as a wedge issue to ensure the christ-y nutball voter gets out on election day and votes. They count on the zealot vote, and ramping up pro-life hysteria works every time.
Explain.
Because people on welfare are already born, moron. Unborn children in utero are 100% dependent on their mothers. Are you still too stupid to make this distinction? Want me to draw a picture for you?
christiefan915
Catalyst
Partial Birth Abortion: President Clinton's Veto Message
I am returning herewith without any approval H.R. 1833, which would prohibit doctors from performing a certain kind of abortion. I do so because the bill does not allow women to protect themselves from serious threats to their health. By refusing to permit women, in reliance on their doctors' best medical judgment, to use their [sic] procedure when their lives are threatened or when their health is put in serious jeopardy, the Congress has fashioned a bill that is consistent neither with the Constitution nor with sound public policy.
I have always believed that the decision to have an abortion generally should be between a woman, her doctor, her conscience, and her God. I support the decision in Roe v. Wade protecting a woman's right to choose, and I believe that the abortions protected by that decision should be safe and rare. Consistent with that decision, I have long opposed late-term abortions except where necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. In fact, as Governor of Arkansas, I signed into law a bill that barred third trimester abortions, with an appropriate exception for life or health.
The procedure described in H.R. 1833 has troubled me deeply, as it has many people. I cannot support use of that procedure on an elective basis, where the abortion is being performed for non-health related reasons and there are equally safe medical procedures available.
There are, however, rare and tragic situations that can occur in a woman's pregnancy in which, in a doctor's medical judgment, the use of this procedure may be necessary to save a woman's life or to protect her against serious injury to her health. In these situations, in which a woman and her family must make an awful choice, the Constitution requires, as it should, that the ability to choose this procedure be protected.
In the past several months, I have heard from women who desperately wanted to have their babies, who were devastated to learn that their babies had fatal conditions and would not live, who wanted anything other than an abortion, but who were advised by their doctors that this procedure was their best chance to avert the risk of death or grave harm which, in some cases, would have included an inability to ever bear children again. For these women, this was not about choice--not about deciding against having a child. These babies were certain to perish before, during or shortly after birth, and the only question was how much grave damage was going to be done to the woman.
I cannot sign H.R. 1833, as passed, because it fails to protect women in such dire circumstances -- because by treating doctors who perform the procedure in these tragic cases as criminals, the bill poses a danger of serious harm to women. This bill, in curtailing the ability of women and their doctors to choose the procedure for sound medical reasons, violates the constitutional command that any law regulating abortion protect both the life and the health of the woman. The bill's overbroad criminal prohibition risks that women will suffer serious injury.
That is why I implored Congress to add an exemption for the small number of compelling cases where selection of the procedure, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, was necessary to preserve the life of the woman or avert serious adverse consequences to her health. The life exception in the current bill only covers cases where the doctor believes that the woman will die. It fails to cover cases where, absent the procedure, serious physical harm, often including losing the ability to have more children, is very likely to occur. I told Congress that I would sign H.R. 1833 if it were amended to add an exception for serious health consequences. A bill amended in this way would strike a proper balance, remedying the constitutional and human defect of H.R. 1833. If such a bill were presented to me, I would sign it now.
I understand the desire to eliminate the use of a procedure that appears inhumane. But to eliminate it without taking into consideration the rare and tragic circumstances in which its use may be necessary would be even more inhumane.
The Congress chose not to adopt the sensible and constitutionally appropriate proposal I made, instead leaving women unprotected against serious health risks. As a result of this Congressional indifference to women's health, I cannot, in good conscience and consistent with my responsibility to uphold the law, sign this legislation.
The White House, April 10, 1996.
http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/partveto.htm
What an asinine statement. The same idiots who want to criminalize it also want to criminalize birth control. Why don't all you retards make up the one mind you share and choose one or the other? Criminalizing both is what will ensure that the number of unwanted pregnancies and births will go up, as will the numbers of dead babies in dumpsters, and put unsafe abortionists back in business.
Abortions will continue. They'll just be done by butchers with coat hangers.
Idiot.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Let's negotiate. If we give the man veto power over an abortion, we give the woman the right to make the man get a vasectomy so there are no more accidents.
christiefan915
Catalyst
The foolish one is you. Foolish and clueless. The bill has very narrow wording: "to save the LIFE of a mother, etc." It doesn't address any HEALTH issues that may occur but not result in the mother's death. It was a sneaky and meaningless way of paying lip service to the mother's condition. They could have worded the bill to read "This paragraph shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life or protect the health of a mother, etc." Why do you suppose they didn't? I know what I think, and it ain't pretty.
You are so correct, the joke is on them, because this is exactly what the Republicans do! They hold the carrot out, but ont ever change the laws because then hat would they use to get the one issue voters to the polls?
Yes, ma'am, because it has been what, 40+ years since Roe vs Wade, and they aren't any closer to getting it overturned, for the very reason you stated.
It is collateral damage, isn't that the word they like to use?
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Do you have a womb?
And yet you presume to tell those WITH a womb what they can and cannot do with it.
How about we let the women, whose body that womb IS A PART OF make the decisions concerning that which is a PART OF THEIR BODIES.