- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 119,657
- Reaction score
- 75,610
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The proof is there, just ask your parents. lol
You seem to think that parents and grandparents and their parents etc had the same concept of children or a family unit we have today.
Like my parents who both came from a family of 11 ( 11 on my mother's side, 11 on my father's ) large family's were the norm in their day. I come from a family of 7. Small family units of less than 5 did not even become a thing until the last 40 years. Large families were managed, nowadays parents, for the most part, fall into parenthood.
Anti choice laws are a threat to my religious freedom as a Jew … because according to classical Jewish text and most rabbinic interpreters, a developing embryo or fetus is not ‘an unborn child’ or ‘person,’ but has the legal status of an appendage of the pregnant woman. It is part of her body, not a separate person, until the moment that a majority of a viable baby capable of independent life has been born.”
Separated them by bestowing the same protections upon them.
They have an interesting methodology to their segregationist actions.
Again I never said there weren't abortions, I never said they were sanitary.
Avoiding answering the question is not answering.
My point stands unless you can show evidence to the contrary from a reputable source.
Our parents ( maybe not yours ), and their parents before them, were able to better manage pregnancies than people today despite all the birth controls that are currently available. Parents were able to space their children out ( usually 1.5-2 years apart ) with amazing success. As a result there were far fewer unwanted pregnancies and abortions than there is today.
In the 1930s, for example, abortion was widespread and extremely common. There was still tremendous risk involved, given that penicillin and antibiotics were not available until the Second World War. But even at this time, abortion was increasingly safe, relatively speaking.
The Great Depression produced an economic crisis that sharpened the need of women to control childbearing. Due to the 1920s campaign to make birth control available, by 1937, 80 percent of American women approved of using birth control. Moreover, the labor movement and socialist movements of that era produced an environment that largely supported women's reproductive rights. The fact that Russia following the 1917 revolution had been performing safe, legal abortions influenced radical doctors in the U.S.
In 1939, 68 percent of medical students in the U.S. reported that they would be willing to perform abortions if they were legal.
Many did. As Leslie Reagan describes in her excellent book When Abortion Was a Crime, clinics operated in open defiance of the law, and were often run by trained doctors, nurses and midwives. One such clinic in Chicago performed about 2,000 abortions a year between 1932 and 1941
Simply not true. It's Fox News FFS! Science is part and parcel of abortion as well as neonatal care. Science tells us that survival at that premature age is between 20 and 30% despite the best care possible. Sco=iece tells us that NO baby born before 20 weeks has ever lived. Science tells us that a Canadian baby held the earliest surviving premie record for something like 30 years despite massive advances in neonatal ICBU care. The only thing special about this child is her very low birth weight.
The issue goes beyond whether or not the born have rights. Indeed the mother's rights do trump the ZEF's right, if it is in her body. Bodily autonomy is the key, not whether the ZEF is a human life or a human being. If we apply the principle that saving a human life trumps bodily autonomy, then that same principle allows us to harvest organs from the dead and even "spares", such as kidneys, from the living, so that we can save a human life.Once the egg and sperm come together, you have formed a new human life. There's no dispute on that front. Human embryos and fetuses are human life. Different set of DNA, independent body parts and nervous system from the mother and father. Survival outside of the womb is a different concept. That does not dispute the concept that embryos and fetuses are human life.
I believe most pro-choicers acknowledge that a fetus is a human life, but argue that only born humans have constitutional rights, and being attached to the mother, means her rights trump the so-called rights of the fetus/baby/whatever.
A single cell has all that?...independent body parts and nervous system from the mother and father.
The issue goes beyond whether or not the born have rights. Indeed the mother's rights do trump the ZEF's right, if it is in her body. Bodily autonomy is the key, not whether the ZEF is a human life or a human being. If we apply the principle that saving a human life trumps bodily autonomy, then that same principle allows us to harvest organs from the dead and even "spares", such as kidneys, from the living, so that we can save a human life.
Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
A single cell has all that?
For starters, Pro-Lifers are not arguing that women shouldn't be allowed to use their own body parts or that the government should be forcing women to have their body parts removed. The argument here is whether or not, you should be allowed to destroy another human life. A fetus shouldn't be confused with a heart, liver, and so forth. It's another human life inhabiting another person's body.
There's a famous saying, it's not freedom, when you compromise other people's freedoms. In the case of pregnancies, we have two lives here. Unless we're talking about self-defense reasons -- the mother's health/life or the child's life --, there's no reason at all for abortions. I simply cannot accept the concept of abortion for inconvenience factors. Personal responsibility needs to be taken into consideration.
For starters, Pro-Lifers are not arguing that women shouldn't be allowed to use their own body parts or that the government should be forcing women to have their body parts removed. The argument here is whether or not, you should be allowed to destroy another human life. A fetus shouldn't be confused with a heart, liver, and so forth. It's another human life inhabiting another person's body.
There's a famous saying, it's not freedom, when you compromise other people's freedoms. In the case of pregnancies, we have two lives here. Unless we're talking about self-defense reasons -- the mother's health/life or the child's life --, there's no reason at all for abortions. I simply cannot accept the concept of abortion for inconvenience factors. Personal responsibility needs to be taken into consideration.
Your 'argument' was settled a long time ago when SCOTUS upheld Roe vs. Wade, making the point moot. The impregnated female is 'legally' entitled to do with her own body, and any other entity that relies on her body to exist to do what she pleases, including terminating any entities that may be within her body. That includes aborting said entities.
The Supreme Court is wrong.
A Fetus is not the woman's body. It's somebody else's body.
The Supreme Court is wrong.
A Fetus is not the woman's body. It's somebody else's body.
The Supreme Court is wrong.
A Fetus is not the woman's body. It's somebody else's body.
Pregnancy is risky. And it is more risky if your are under-resourced.
What you consider "abortion for convenience" is frequently a woman weighing what her financial/medical/social resources match up with health and housing security.
You do not understand bodily autonomy.
Bodily autonomy means a person has control over whom or what uses their body, for what, and for how long.
Sex is optional. You want to have sex, go for it, but there are consequences for that action. Both good and bad.
Adoption is ALWAYS an option. You feel, you cannot accept the responsibilities of raising a child, allow another family the opportunity.
Giving birth to a child is risky, but so is having an abortion. That is putting your body at risk as well and potential future children.
Statistically speaking, 98% of all abortions are not due to rape, incest, or the health or the life of the mother at stake. It's about being unready to raise a child.
Let me repeat: We're not talking about people who are experiencing medical complications and continuing the pregnancy will result in serious damage to the woman's body or her life.
I am not saying pregnancy is easy, but one must look at the other side of the equation: the life of the child. This is something pro-choice America doesn't care about.
Sex is optional. You want to have sex, go for it, but there are consequences for that action. Both good and bad.
Adoption is ALWAYS an option. You feel, you cannot accept the responsibilities of raising a child, allow another family the opportunity.
Giving birth to a child is risky, but so is having an abortion. That is putting your body at risk as well and potential future children.
Statistically speaking, 98% of all abortions are not due to rape, incest, or the health or the life of the mother at stake. It's about being unready to raise a child.
Let me repeat: We're not talking about people who are experiencing medical complications and continuing the pregnancy will result in serious damage to the woman's body or her life.
I am not saying pregnancy is easy, but one must look at the other side of the equation: the life of the child. This is something pro-choice America doesn't care about.
A fetus is growing within the woman's body. using her biological resources and with the ability to cause great harm.
And one possible consequence is abortion. If you do not agree with that, then do not have one.
In terms of your flippant "there is always adoption" ignores the real risk that woman face during pregnacy and childbirth.
A woman has control over her own body. You may not like it, but she does.
How do you know it is something pro-choicers don't care about ?. Do have have any definitive, credible proof your claim is factual, or are you just stating an 'opinion' and presenting it as 'fact' ? Be careful with your response, because I have definitive 'proof' your statement is 100 percent false.
The fetus is not a member of the woman's body. Check the DNA.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?