Would you support anti abortion legislation as long as it included exceptions?

[koshergrl]

Actually, I think the abortion industry wants to protect rapists, and anyone who promotes the use of abortion as a happy pill for rape is all about hiding the crime.

I mean, that's what it comes down to. Get an abortion to hide the crime.

 

[koshergrl]

Nice opinion.

Has nothing to do with the fact that the abortionists make a nice little profit off rape and incest, which of course explains why they want to promote and hide those crimes when they happen.

They are the bread and butter of the baby killing industry. Death, rape, incest. The tri-fecta of the left.

^ that has nothing at all to do with the addressing of the victims.

In fact, all you do is play the boogeyman card and totally leave the Rape victim out of the equation when drawing your conclusion. That's what makes you vile.

I'd say people who promote the butchery of rape victims in order to destroy the life within them, regardless of the cost to the victim, are the vile ones.

 

[koshergrl]

Killing is not a right. Sorry.

 

[koshergrl]

Who said rape was a right?

Not me.

Though you're certainly all about promoting something that protects rapists.

 

[koshergrl]

Getting rid of the baby before anyone knows about the pregnancy protects rapists.

 

[Sarah G]

No. Pro choice all the way.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

first off... I... never had an unwanted pregnancy.

I agree, there is no excuse, but accidents DO happen.

As for dont do the crime if you cant do the time. I am more then happy to extract a fetus and implant it into the father.... let him gestate if he if wants it.

i don't give a shit about anyone's personal "morals" of any of this. The bottom line is a woman's body belongs to HER and her alone.

I didn't mean you personally, so if I came across as attacking you personally-I do apologize.

And I'm well aware that accidents happen. But that shouldn't strip the person's responsibility away. If you get into a car accident-you're still held responsible.

I'm not debating "morals" here. I don't think if somebody gets an abortion that they're immoral.

And yes a woman's body is her body-BUT once she gets pregnant she is sharing her body with that fetus. And we know that that fetus will become a human being if left interrupted.

Just a few questions (not trying to "get you", just honestly curious in your views):

-What's the difference between a fetus the minutes before it's born, and the minute after? If you kill a baby a minute after it's born-that's murder (and I think we can both agree that it should be). So why wouldn't it be murder a minute before?

-If you somebody kills a pregnant mother, why can they be held for two counts of murder?

Apology accepted. Thanks


No..... if a woman gets pregnant she is allowing cells to grow insider her body. There is not sharing of a body. It is the woman's body. The moment she does not want to "share" then she has the right to remove it.

if have no issue with " fetus will become a human being if left interrupted.".... The operative word is .....become. Until it is a stand alone life... viable as a life.

The difference is where it will live on its ownoutside of the womb. At that point it is a life....with a life of its own. Until that point it is not a life of its own. I am not pro late term abortion in any way.

As for the double murder of a pregnant woman.... the lacy perteson case set the precedent for it. It all depends on if the woman... wanted the baby.

Let me start by saying I respect your opinions, but I just disagree. (I know many people on this thread get all hot-and bothered as the topic of abortion is a sensitive issue).

I don't agree that intent of whether to give birth to the fetus or not makes it a human being. If that was so then two women at the same exact moment of pregnancy, one who wants to have the child-one who doesn't. One of those fetus' is considered to be a human, and the other isn't? Just doesn't make much sense.

Well technically a baby isn't able to live and survive on it's own after birth anyways-it's still dependent upon the mother (or others). And most fetus' wouldn't be able to survive without the invention of modern technology if they were removed from the mother during a late-term, or the third tri-mester.

And this may seem like a stretch, but what about somebody who is in a coma, and aren't able to live without the assistance of modern technology-would they still be considered human or not? After all they have no means of surviving on their own.