Once a child is born it is now a member of society and that is no longer the woman’s choice, she has alredy made it, that is a big difference than a not formed human person.
That is a totally differnent situation, and by freeing a slave (ususally) an adult you are freeing them to get a better life and many did. They did find jobs. Yes, there were and still are bigots who look at a person’s skin color or something else and don’t hire them because of that, and society does step in to help them. since Martin Luther King had the courage (and backing) to step up to the challange of equal rights for all people,as it should, many have made a big improvement in many lives. There are still bigots who like to call them selves Christian that send me emails putting down our president and his wife,and are angry that a man with black skin won the election they spend a great deal of time looking for things to critize him for, and were acting so from the day he won the election!
What an obsurb response. You are talking about a member of society already born, now with it’s own legal rights. You however are responsible to see to his safety,his care,education etc. for at least 18 years. The mother of your child has already made the choice to have a child for you. Your duty now is to see that it is cared for and raised in a good manner so it can grow to a good adult, and part of society!
Well, monavis, it was you who said you
Extrapolating on this, isn’t it wrong for you to force me to keep my thumbs out of junior’s eyes? Remember, I am his guardian, I am his ‘steward’ (and you are not mine).
And by the way, that’s an absurd way to spell absurd.
mmm
It’s not on point. It’s not even coherent.
Age and age cohort? Are you suggesting that younger women are less pro-choice? That requires a great big heaping helping of CITE.
And that is not an answer to the question. I will state it again and give you another opportunity to answer it.
What is the *scientific *support for forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies?
See, the important word in that sentence is scientific. Not religious, not rhetorical, not political, scientific. This is the point at which, if you’re going to provide some kind of quote it needs to come from an actual scientific text, not some pro-life piffle. Something peer-reviewed would be best, because that’s how actual science is done.
And when fetuses are persons, with a right to life that supersedes the rights of all other people, then that would be meaningful. Until that day, however it’s just more rhetorical wankery. It’s opinion, it’s not fact, it means nothing.
That 1 in 3 women have abortions when you consider the numbers involved there are extremely significant. And more importantly, that number is where it is in no small part to the fact that 99% of women use contraceptives. In combination both absolutely speak to an overwhelming belief that we should determine for ourselves when we do or do not become and remain pregnant.
Again: CITE. A reputable study, because I’ve got my own ready to go.
You’re the one who introduced the concept of “under any circumstance” which a poorly framed phrase for polling to begin with.
That you cannot, or will not, understand how removal of abortion access is oppressive and harmful is your own problem. You might want to sit and cogitate on it for a little. Maybe a sliver of light will penetrate the density, though I won’t hold my breath.
It is the qualities of motherhood inherent in the person being expressed that is the highest calling, not necessarily the having physical children, though having such a child would be a ideal use of such a gifting.
The qualities of motherhood are to me the qualities of angel-hood, as they (the angels) care for humanity, so does a mother care for, perhaps a smaller segment of humanity, but it is the same. It is a level of spiritual evolution to a higher level.
This is a non-answer. There’s no point in me giving you cites if you’re simply going to refuse to read and/or acknowledge them.
Yes, that’s precisely what I’m “suggesting”, though it’s really not a suggestion as an established fact. Does the phrase “menopausal militia” mean anything to you? It should.
Cite (you ignored this one before, though)
(Let it be known, I don’t really like that cite, because it aggregates from different sources and comes to some weird conclusions-- like watching ‘16 and Pregnant’ makes one more likely to support abortion-- but it’s still helpful nonetheless.)
I think that will suffice for the moment.
Indeed, it was an answer to your question. If the unborn are humans-- and they are-- much like any other human, they should not be arbitrarily deprived of their lives.
For what? To know that the unborn are humans? It’s 6th grade biology. Why should I waste my time looking up something for you which is-- and has been-- common knowledge for at least 150 years?
…Actually, never mind. Knock yourself out, though it probably won’t make a lick of difference.
I find this ironic. You’re the one engaging in, as you put it, rhetorical wankery, for you have yet to define, explain or even qualify personhood. Not that I’d imagine you’re really aching to do so, but it’s worth pointing out nevertheless.
Is it any more significant than the 67% of women who DON’T have abortions?
All right, look. You’re not making any sense. 99% of women use contraceptives. That does not mean that 99% of women believe that women should be able to decide whether or not they want to become pregnant if and when they become pregnant. Rather, it means that 99% of women believe that women should be able to decide when and if they become pregnant; not whether or not they remain pregnant once they are pregnant.
If that’s the case, you would wonder why you didn’t post them in the first place. In any case:
I’d love to see where you’re getting your information from.
“Legal under any circumstance” is a lot less nebulous than “on demand”. Of course, that doesn’t really matter anyway, as your claim that 3/5 of women support abortion on demand is prima facie false since (1) 60% of women in the U.S. don’t support abortions at any period of time throughout pregnancy and (2) some restrictions on abortion garner more than 60% approval from women.
That’s a non-answer if I ever did read one. I’m going to take it, then, that you don’t actually have any real reasoning as to how you came to such a-- dare I say?-- absurd conclusion.
I don’t want to speak for OMGABC, but I will certainly answer this from my own perspective.
I do not care whether there is scientific support for forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies. My opposition to abortion is neither scientific, religious nor political; it is moral.
mmm
Yes, I realized I had mis-spelled absurd but it was too late to correct. looking for the speck are you?
I am sure you are smart enough to know that I was making the distinction between an already born person (or persons for that matter). Laws protect the already born. If you were so crazy as to poke out the eye of your child you would be punished by the laws on the books for child abuse, that is a whole different thing.
That is your idea of what is moral or not,it doesn’t mean it is moral for others!
The “punish the sluts” motivation, in other words.
Well, you have a right to your opinion, but the law cannot be based on opinion. It is based on facts.
I believe in obeying the law, and working to change it if you think it’s wrong. I do not and will not ever support harassing people who obey the law.
While laws of nature can be stated as based on fact, laws of man are certainly not, but opinions of lawmakers influenced by politicians (opinions), lobbying groups (more opinions) and interpretations (even more opinions) of statistics.
No; quite a lot of the law and morality are based on fact. In this case, the fact that a woman is a fully aware and intelligent being, while a fetus is not.
Besides getting into issues about people in comas and locked in syndrome and people with dementia etc., this (in bold) is a opinion, not a fact, it is a belief that you are free to believe in but has no basis in fact.
We do not understand the human brain enough to make such a statement as you made, and things like organ transplant memories from the donors stand in contrast that we understand how the brain works when it comes consciousness.
I’ve never quite understood this argument. Presumably, such a line stems from the idea that sex isn’t a content to parenthood and that just because you’re having sex doesn’t mean you’re agreeing to be a parent or provide any kind of assistance to that which results from it. Unfortunately, you seldom to never (usually never) see the people who use the above line come out and rail against “forcing” a guy to pay child support for a kid he didn’t want when he was only consenting to sex. In fact, if a guy were ever to argue that he was just consenting to sex and nothing more, he would probably be called irresponsible, a deadbeat and all other less than flattering names by the same people talking about “slut punishment”. Which, by the way, is about as laughable a straw man as you could ever hope to set up.
That is, quite frankly, ridiculous. It’d be like arguing the following: “Well, the law is based on the fact that he’s White and he’s Black” in order to rationalize slavery. That is, the “fact”-- and, really, what you typed out is about as far removed from a fact as you can get-- is wholly irrelevant to the actual issue.
To the OP and costs, this is putting the cart before the horse. It is addressing a symptom instead of the problem and therefore doesn’t have a answer.
We need to reestablish (or establish if you prefer) the role and importance of woman in society, to this extent it would be needed to reestablish the role and importance of children in society, in short the role and importance of every person of humanity in society, or to use the OP’s wording the sacred nature of life.
By diminishing the role of the baby/fetus you automatically diminish the role of women, the two are not separable.
Our society treats children as a burden, and as being to be factory farmed in schools until they may be productive when they are grown up enough to no longer be a child. For women to gain their point of prominence children must be viewed as a valuable and contributing member of society. The earlier we value the life of a child, and if we can do that into the womb, the role of women is greatly elevated for who she is naturally, which is what we want, a natural acceptance for who a person is.
This will cause a great change in socially structure where we can start to address the cost issues if they still exist as expressed in the OP.
Shit, the Supreme Court of Tennesee has ruled that a guy who helped create frozen embryos cannot be forced into fatherhood.
If life begins at conception, these embryos were “preborn babies.” The mother wanted them implanted in her or another woman’s womb. The father, now that he and the mother had split up, said “No.”
I want to know whether or not you’re looking for a serious response. Because I really can’t tell if you’re being serious or facetious.
Then surely those qualities aren’t harmed by abortion? Just as an actual mother could well exhibit no motherliness.