Respect unborn lives’ rights.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Good policy allows people of all religions to follow their own faiths and consciences in their own lives. In reproductive health, rights and justice, we define religious liberty as the right of a woman to make thoughtful decisions in private consultation with her doctor, her family and her faith. The religious beliefs of others should not interfere.
The unborn have no rights.
Many Religions sincerely believe that that abortion is a part of our Religious Liberty in the United States.
from the RCRC:
What (moral or legal) authority says that the unborn have rights? Or at least, what authority that Americans are obligated to follow?Respect unborn lives’ rights.
If a woman has control over her own body she should be responsible for it. That would include not getting pregnant if she doesn't want to be and then expect others to bail her out of a problem she created.And you don't have to be a "leftist" to support a woman having control of her own body.
What do you mean by 'bail her out?'If a woman has control over her own body she should be responsible for it. That would include not getting pregnant if she doesn't want to be and then expect others to bail her out of a problem she created.
Have taxpayers pay for a situation she created.What do you mean by 'bail her out?'
Ah yes. It does cost taxpayers when women or couples that cant afford to have a kid, do. That does suck that we end up with more taking from public assistance but there's no Const way to prevent people from reproducing.Have taxpayers pay for a situation she created.
Which is of course none of your business what a woman does in and with her body (within reason of course). And the baby has not be reproduced, baby is when it is born, not the pro-life American version of what people call a baby (which falsely includes pre-birth stages). It is a ZEF (zygote/embryo/fetus) and what a woman does in the first part of her pregnancy is nobody's business except the woman's. Hence the term right to choose and it being a women's right to make a choice to abort or not abort.
Out of curiosity can you give an example of "what a woman does in and with her body within reason of course" means? What things a woman doing in and with her body would you be opposed to?
Have taxpayers pay for a situation she created.
Then she doesn't have control over her own body if she doesn't know how to avoid a pregnancy. I understand why abortions may be necessary, if often wrong, but the 'control over her own body' argument is a weak one. There are far better excuses.Ah yes. It does cost taxpayers when women or couples that cant afford to have a kid, do. That does suck that we end up with more taking from public assistance but there's no Const way to prevent people from reproducing.
Of course women know how to do that. You do realize that no birth control works 100% of the time? You do realize that a decision to have a medical procedure to protect your health, family resources, and commitments to others is "control", right? You seem to imply others know better what a woman 'needs' to fulfill her responsibilities and obligations to others. Is that the case? That strangers should tell her that unborn is of more value than her current dependents, responsibilities to employer, community, society? Hmmm. Is that what you believe?Then she doesn't have control over her own body if she doesn't know how to avoid a pregnancy. I understand why abortions may be necessary, if often wrong, but the 'control over her own body' argument is a weak one. There are far better excuses.
elective abortion at 32 weeks
If the woman has that need to, yes. Since you see no difference, I see no reason to make distinctions then either. Only that woman (and perhaps her Dr) know her need. Certainly not strangers nor the govt and so they will not get to weigh in on that decision. Can you imagine? Women needing to explain their situations to authorities and ask permission for a medical procedure? It would be like the Dark Ages all over again.Why? Abortion is abortion, what difference the time? If the pre-born baby is not a person until he/she takes a breath of air, then any time until that first breath of air should be fine with pro-abortion people. According to those who support abortion (oops, supposed to use a nice polite euphamism here...choice), and if the woman does not want the pre-born baby, then the line of thinking should be any time until birth is ok. At 32 weeks, "it" is not a person, so no rights, so no worries to destroy "it", right?
Why? Abortion is abortion, what difference the time? If the pre-born baby is not a person until he/she takes a breath of air, then any time until that first breath of air should be fine with pro-abortion people. According to those who support abortion (oops, supposed to use a nice polite euphamism here...choice), and if the woman does not want the pre-born baby, then the line of thinking should be any time until birth is ok. At 32 weeks, "it" is not a person, so no rights, so no worries to destroy "it", right?
Well, that is nonsense, at week 32 the fetus can survive outside of the womb, a 12 week one cannot. Simple isn't it when one actually does some thinking. Also, you have no clue as to what pro-choice people think it seems.
If the woman has that need to, yes. Since you see no difference, I see no reason to make distinctions then either. Only that woman (and perhaps her Dr) know her need. Certainly not strangers nor the govt and so they will not get to weigh in on that decision. Can you imagine? Women needing to explain their situations to authorities and ask permission for a medical procedure? It would be like the Dark Ages all over again.
Is that what you have in mind?
There is no need for argument. No women abort healthy *viable* fetuses. None. If you believe otherwise, provide the data. It doesnt exist, no woman does it and no Dr is compelled to do it.Personally, I do see the difference, I just don't know how pro-aborts can make any argument that calls for the pre-born to live at any time before "it" takes a breath of air. You know I am anti-pre-born-extermination.
Whether the pre-born can survive or not is beside the point, "it" is not a person and therefore has no right to existence if the woman does not wish it so. That's the argument I keep reading from pro-aborts.
Then she doesn't have control over her own body if she doesn't know how to avoid a pregnancy. I understand why abortions may be necessary, if often wrong, but the 'control over her own body' argument is a weak one. There are far better excuses.
Then call a cop.And they have a choice on whether or not to get pregnant. It's not even "reproductive rights" once the baby is conceived. The baby has already been reproduced. When you abort, it's just murder.
And if she is genuinely responsible for her own body she should pay for it.No "excuses" are needed. If a woman wants an abortion, she should be able to get one.
Personally, I do see the difference, I just don't know how pro-aborts can make any argument that calls for the pre-born to live at any time before "it" takes a breath of air. You know I am anti-pre-born-extermination.
And if she is genuinely responsible for her own body she should pay for it.
Well, pretty sure that she's making the best decision that she can...and that is usually based on finances. OTOH, if that's the case and you'd prefer she have it, instead of a free or subsidized one, here's what you will be choosing:And if she is genuinely responsible for her own body she should pay for it.
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?