"Women's reproductive rights" or a Child's right to be born? It's all about choiceS.

a reply to: andy06shake

In order for there to be no circles you must avoid your logical inconsistency

So...


I ask again...

How can a woman have access to an abortion but not a hospital or a morning after pill?

If a woman is raped, unless she is taken hostage too , then she has every opportunity to access TMAP or a hospital

If its incest, unless taken hostage, then she too sha access to a hospital or TMAP

If they are taken hostage and not allowed to visit a hospital or store for TMAP then what good would allowing abortions do?

Honestly, Jesus made it simple. We are to rebuke the sin but understand we are not the jury nor the judge of another's sin because everyone of us are actual sinners in God's laws, period. No one is worthy accept by the sacrifice made for you of a Kings own son for past mistakes and the laws that WERE IN PLAY that they were judged.

You see someone doing something you don't agree with you, then you should understand God, thru Yeshua's sacrifice will expect you to treat them as he will your sins. You/me/we are to remember not us but GOD WILL DO THE JUDGEMENT. We are to forgive and love them. We are to try to teach God's forgiving love while letting them know why we feel it is wrong. Nothing more.

I think abortion should be legal but rare.

The problem I have with abortion is that it is being used as a form of birth control. The reality is that accidental pregnancies are almost a result of being irresponsible and not using birth control during sex. My wife and I were joking that between condoms, birth control pills, and spermicide lube... if we ever had an accidental pregnancy, we would have named the kid Jesus.

I get mistakes happen in the heat of the moment. However, there is no reason there should be millions of abortions yearly other than irresponsibility. In fact, some studies have shown the FIFTY PERCENT of women who had an abortion have had more than one. Let that fact sink in.

While not so much related to abortion directly, I've long said that if women can unilaterally make the decision to abort or have a child, then men should be able to unilaterally decide if they want to financially support the child. As Dave Chappelle eloquently said, if you can decide to murder the kid, I should be able to at least abandoned that mf'er.

Abortion should be legal up to say 12 weeks or so. After that, put the kid of up for adoption.

The extremes on both sides make it difficult to come to a reasonable solution. You get the religious zealots on the right wanting it illegal regardless of circumstances, even in cases of rape and incest. Then on the left you have people wanting the ability to abort healthy nine month olds for any reason.

I feel sorry for all the unwilling Fathers who fall victim to dumb and selfish girls wishing to possess a man for their own benefit. Who cares about the mans life, sometimes ruined because they were USED after the actions of someone who projects that it's "Their Body Their Choice" but never steps up to the plate to show it?

Reproductive actions have consequenses. They should not be financial punshments but spiritual considerations FOR ALL.

There never used to be the phrase "Baby Daddy".

Flame On.....

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Why is your "date" 14 weeks better than what SCOTUS decided 50 years ago?

And would your 14 weeks ban remove all the roadblocks and hoops that states put up to make it harder for women to access a safe and legal abortion? In the EU abortions are part of their health system and covered by the government. If the USA do that? No, they wouldn't.

Would a 14 week ban of have exceptions for the health of the woman, or would she have to be dying hard enough for the likes of Texas and Alabama to care?

I got to hand it to you... You are about the only person here who can totally miss my point while proving my point at the same time, congrats

First thing first, the SCOTUS was wrong... stepped outside of its lane for political reasons and that is the only reason it was corrected. Secondly, whatever they picked is a pull-out of the butt number too.

!4 weeks wasn't the point, so go back and reread my post if you like...

originally posted by: nerbot
I feel sorry for all the unwilling Fathers who fall victim to dumb and selfish girls wishing to possess a man for their own benefit.

This seems to be more and more of a norm too. I read that men tend to date down and women tend to date up while putting themselves unrealistically on a scale of desire. What many women want today is about 1% of the male population while they offer nothing but what is between their legs.

originally posted by: Edumakated

I get mistakes happen in the heat of the moment. However, there is no reason there should be millions of abortions yearly other than irresponsibility. In fact, some studies have shown the FIFTY PERCENT of women who had an abortion have had more than one. Let that fact sink in.

Birth control pills and condoms end of story for about 99.9% of both pregnancies and STDs. I'm with you on the rare part and limiting the ability to get one should make people want to be more responsible for their actions.

originally posted by: nerbot

There never used to be the phrase "Baby Daddy".

There have always been "Baby Daddies". New terminologies don't erase history.

Woman gets pregnant not married -- her fault -- man deserts her.

Woman delivers wrong sex -- her fault -- man deserts her.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nerbot

There never used to be the phrase "Baby Daddy".

There have always been "Baby Daddies". New terminologies don't erase history.

Woman gets pregnant not married -- her fault -- man deserts her.

Woman delivers wrong sex -- her fault -- man deserts her.

I was talking about a "phrase" regardless of the status. I agree partly with your statements though but let's not stay one sided.

It was well represented in the movies "Forest Gump" or "The World according to Garp" where a woman has sex to get pregnant and the father never even knows or finds out many years later. DNA theft.

And the delivery of a "wrong sex" could be equated to the dissappointment of a man realising he will have to pay a huge dowry for a girl somewhere down the line when she marries instead of have a son who can make money and perhaps help grow the family business.

Also, removing the chance for a man to be part of a family of his own and be a father in his own right must be rejecting and devestating to many beyond what a woman can imagine.

originally posted by: nerbot

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nerbot

There never used to be the phrase "Baby Daddy".

There have always been "Baby Daddies". New terminologies don't erase history.

Woman gets pregnant not married -- her fault -- man deserts her.

Woman delivers wrong sex -- her fault -- man deserts her.

I was talking about a "phrase" regardless of the status. I agree partly with your statements though but let's not stay one sided.

It was well represented in the movies "Forest Gump" or "The World according to Garp" where a woman has sex to get pregnant and the father never even knows or finds out many years later. DNA theft.

And the delivery of a "wrong sex" could be equated to the dissappointment of a man realising he will have to pay a huge dowry for a girl somewhere down the line when she marries instead of have a son who can make money and perhaps help grow the family business.

Also, removing the chance for a man to be part of a family of his own and be a father in his own right must be rejecting and devestating to many beyond what a woman can imagine.

Thank you for the discussion -- without insults or name calling.

This is an exchange of ideas -- wish more posts were like yours.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Secondly, whatever they picked is a pull-out of the butt number too.

No they didn't. Fetal viability has medical and scientific validity to it, and is the logical, thought out process of balancing the rights of the woman to the interest of the state to protect life. Your 14 weeks is a number that is pulled out of someone's butt.

!4 weeks wasn't the point

Ah, but it is the point. Any abortion ban, at any number of weeks, rather than a viability benchmark is the point. Some fetuses will never achieve viability at any "date", not at 14 weeks, not at 32 weeks.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Any abortion ban, at any number of weeks, rather than a viability benchmark is the point

Oh the irony...

You dont mean "viable" you mean "outside the womb"

There is a difference.

The baby's heart starts beating at about 5-6 weeks of age in the womb.
Abortion is a medical procedure that stops a human heart from beating.
If one born person stops another born persons heart from beating .. it's called HOMICIDE.
Stopping a preborn baby's heart from beating is homicide.
No other accurate word for it.

a reply to: Another_Nut

Yes. That is the obvious answer when weighing the rights of the woman compared to the rights of the states to interfere.

a reply to: FlyersFan

The baby's heart starts beating at about 5-6 weeks

There is no "heart" that suddenly wakes up and starts beating at 5-6 weeks. And the electrical impulse that the medical community is able to detect with their modern magic machines could be detected earlier with better machines!

a reply to: Xtrozero

How did a company find out a person didn't get a vaccine? As I said once something is mandated then processes are put into place to manage it.

Which company, and how have we gone from abortions to vaccines?

My point is that "my body, my choice" is not a viable response anymore. If the population drops we could see mandatory birthing requirements.

Your body your choice is the only viable response, else you are a slave.

And unable to control what happens to you as a person by my guess.

No two ways about it really.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
There is no "heart" that suddenly wakes up and starts beating at 5-6 weeks.

Science says otherwise.
It's very simple.
Google - 'when does the baby's heart start beating in the womb'.
Answer on each link - 5-6 weeks.
The heart becomes more developed over the next couple of weeks.
But the heart beating in the heart tissue is considered there by modern medicine at 5-6 weeks.

When one human stops another humans heart from beating, it's called homicide.

National Library of Medicine - When the Heart Starts Beating

Medical News Today - When the Heart Starts Beating

What to Expect when You Are Expecting - When The Heartbeat is Heard

Healthline When Can You Hear The Baby's Heartbeat

University of Oxford - When Does the Heart Start to Beat

a reply to: FlyersFan

It's not a "heart", it's a pulse.

But according to experts, the term “fetal heartbeat” is misleading and medically inaccurate. “While the heart does begin to develop at around six weeks, at this point the heart as we know it does not yet exist,” said Dr. Ian Fraser Golding, a pediatric and fetal cardiologist at Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego.

www.nbcnews.com...

At any rate, it doesn't matter. When weighing the rights of the mother against the rights of the state to interfere, fetal viability is the most balanced choice.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
It's not a "heart", it's a pulse.

Tell that to the National Library of Medicine, the medical journals, and the Medical universities that I quoted. I'm sure they'd be giving you all the attention you deserve on it.

It's a heart beat. The heart is more developed a few weeks later, at 10 weeks, but it is a heart beat. And one human stopping another humans heart from beating is HOMICIDE.

You want to go with 10 weeks when the heart is fully developed instead of 6? Even pretending it's not a heartbeat at 5-6 weeks doesn't change the fact that it's a heartbeat with a fully formed heart at 10 weeks and stopping it is HOMICIDE.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

As long as we agree that a fetus is viable from implantation onward and when you say "viable" you mean "will this viable fetus stay alive if i remove it from its natural environment "

Glad we agree though...

Carry on