I was wrong... the health of the mother is not valid for an abortion.

Watching Schumer threaten SCOTUS judges if they rule against Roe VS Wade made me wonder about my own knowledge regarding my position... abortion OK only in case of health of money, rape or incest.
I am wrong!
Even in 1981, former Surgeon General of the United States Dr. C. Everett Koop said, “The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be nonexistent.”

But as former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino has affirmed on the record:
During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by “terminating” pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.
What Percentage of Abortions Are Medically Necessary?

But the biased MSM has never shared that with us.
Consequently since 1973 over 61,781,054 lives were destroyed.
Think about that...what baby among those 62 million could have discovered cures for cancer? Or made other fantastic contributions...all because a woman wasn't responsible enough.
Number of Abortions in US & Worldwide - Number of abortions since 1973

Just consider that: 46% of all abortions were performed on women who had one or more abortions before!
Think about it... There is an excuse for first timers... but 2nd, or 3 or more previous abortions?

Planned Parenthood Turns 99 Today: Has Killed 7 Million Babies in Abortions
What libs mean is protect the anything-goes life-STYLE of drunken party girls
 
As a Christian I'm in favor of getting rid of it and replacing it with a contract.

That makes my head spin. Tell me about couples having to register with the government in the Bible or God doesn't recognize their marriage, that wasn't what I read.

Give to God what is God's and Caesar what is Caesar's ....
 
It caus s nothing but problems. If we don't get rid of it we should be teaching to wait until alot lot later in life to find a mate. Get financially independent. Staying single until alot later would solve many problems and create zero new ones.
 
Here's another thought, it's not up to you, it's up to the woman. You had your say when you impregnated her. She's got the ball from here because it's in her body. You should have picked a woman who shares your values. You made your choice
Um...wow...we agree.

I short circuited the issue by marrying into a family with a young boy and baby girl. Almost managed to skip diaper duty!😇
 
You mean as a government function, or you're completely missing the discussion. Marriage is a religious and social construct. Government distorts it, like they do everything else

Marriage is entirely a social construct. The religious side of marriage is simply to "bless the union". But the legal contract is very specific and quite binding, and the law is based on society's needs, not that of the individuals involved.

First and foremost the law requires that your family unit is financially supported and not a burden on the public purse, which is the real reason for spousal and child support, and the division of assets.

Government hasn't "distorted marriage". Government attached financial and social responsibilities to marriage, to the benefit of the general public. If women and children are impoverished by the breakdown of a marriage, society as a whole suffers, and at the time these laws were passed, women couldn't vote, own property in their own name, or function independent of the men in their lives.

If a woman lost her husband, there were few jobs open to her, and while things have changed for women, they're still not making as much as men, and are most often the primary care parent for their children.
 
It caus s nothing but problems. If we don't get rid of it we should be teaching to wait until alot lot later in life to find a mate. Get financially independent. Staying single until alot later would solve many problems and create zero new ones.
It definitely would reduce the population by waiting until 40ish to marry. Biological clocks stop in the mid thirties for many women.
 
It caus s nothing but problems. If we don't get rid of it we should be teaching to wait until alot lot later in life to find a mate. Get financially independent. Staying single until alot later would solve many problems and create zero new ones.

Student debt is keeping young adults living in their parents' basements, and a whole slew of problems are resulting.

Women can't wait a "lot, lot, later in life" to have children. The prime child bearing years are in your 20's. The 40's are dicey at best. Any over 40 pregnancy is considered "high risk". I was 25 when my son was born, and the nurses were referring to me as a "geriatric pregnancy" because I was so much older than most of the women having babies in our small town hospital.

My youngest daughter had her first child when she was 25.
 
What libs mean is protect the anything-goes life-STYLE of drunken party girls

This is the worst lie of the anti-abortion crowd.

  • 60% of the women getting abortions are in their 20's
  • 49% of the women getting abortions are living below the poverty level
  • 59% of the women getting abortions already have one or more children

What liberals are protecting, are a women's right to self determination, and reproductive health choices.
 
Makes have a say in protecting human life from murderers too.

Why do you hate our democracy??

You're the one who hates democracy. 80% of Americans want women to have access to abortion care if required.

It's only the misogynistic, anti-woman, anti-family anti-abortion, haters who oppose democracy. People like you who pretend to care about babies.
 
Then men should be charged and punished for getting a woman pregnant. Women don't get pregnant on their own and yet bear all of the consequences. And then you assholes say "don't play around".

Go fuck yourself, because that's literally what men need to be doing if they don't want women having abortions.

I love you ...
 
Student debt is keeping young adults living in their parents' basements, and a whole slew of problems are resulting.

Women can't wait a "lot, lot, later in life" to have children. The prime child bearing years are in your 20's. The 40's are dicey at best. Any over 40 pregnancy is considered "high risk". I was 25 when my son was born, and the nurses were referring to me as a "geriatric pregnancy" because I was so much older than most of the women having babies in our small town hospital.

My youngest daughter had her first child when she was 25.
Waiting until late 30s will help get rid of abortion for good. Being single until 40 and being financially sound before settling down is what is need d. No problems are created by this
 
LIE

the best "contraception" is staying away from the opposite sex until you are safely MARRIED

and hopefully people WAIT for marriage also... it is a lifelong commitment (supposed to be)
Many don't get married now.
 
Waiting until late 30s will help get rid of abortion for good. Being single until 40 and being financially sound before settling down is what is need d. No problems are created by this
In your opinion. History has shown that age at marriage really is irrelevant to whether or not the participants or the marriage are successful. Loretta Lynn was quite successful and she was married at 15 and had four children by 20
 
Yes, abstinance only has always worked so well as a method of contraception. Especially amongst priests and nuns who have all taken vows of chastity. If those who have sworn themselves to abstinence have so much trouble doing it, what chance do those who aren't supposed to be focussed on maintaining a chaste life have?

The ONLY form of sex which precludes the insemination of an egg, is gay sex.


The zygote is not a person. It is neither innocent nor guilty. But thanks for proving you know nothing of human biology.
A baby is a person despite your feeble denial.
 

Forum List

Back
Top