OK, I have a question...feel free to talk about your stance on the issue as well
Anways, I have been hearing from EVERYWHERE that Bush is gonna try and reverse Roe vs Wade. Does this mean Bush is gonna try to outlaw abortions?
See this dosent make sense to me, bc bush himself is actually FOR abortion in three circumstances..... :?

all i've been hearing is about the Rowe vs wade and i have no idea wats it about except that its about abortion

my two cents...i belive abortion should be outlawed becasue its murdering the child....44 million unborn babies have been murderd by abortion since 1974...and since its part of my religion (Roman Catholic) it should be outlawed.

People say what? your crazy! its not alive. It sure is alive, it shows signs of life. Isn't it eating? Isn't it breathing? Isn't it using signs of nutrition and excretion? ITs alive but not born. Abortion is murder.

SO i take it that your provide proper funerals for all these killed babies no?

A prayer is just as good.

ha if only that was an issue....

anyways....could you tell me about the roe vs wade

You think so? If my mother were to die, I would certainly want more than a prayer...

You'd want a funeral that is totally understandable. But would coaster want a funeral for your mother? That is the question really. Unless he had a tie to one of the children in question then a funeral is understandable.

You dont understand my point...at all :wink:

What is your point?

That Im in love with you

One of the issues I'm more conservative about.

And it basically comes down to is it a life or not? If it is a life then I don't see how you can support abortions. You might as well support a parents right to kill their born children if they don't work out too well for their plans.

If it is not yet a live, only a potential one, then you might as well support outlawing things like masturbation because all that sperm you waste are potential lives too.

So in special cases, like when the mother's life is in danger, I definitely support abortion 100%.

And in general I jsut barely support it even if I kinda feel bad that I do...I mianly support it because I think if it were not legal, women would find a way to have abortions illegally anyway, and it would just not work.


At 8 weeks the fetus can move, kick, etc...how can you not consider a life at that point???? I'm definitely against partiasl birth abortions.

So I don't know. Can someone post their reasoning as to why it should or shouldn't be considered a life? I'm very wishy washy on the subject so being informed on the issue of wether its a life or not would probably push me one way or the other.

No he is not going to overturn Roe vs. Wade...he's not that big an idiot.

Enough people in this ocuntry have gotten used to the idea of clinical abortions rather than back street ones, and many other's, who are uncomfortable with it, are at least either congniscient of arguements addressing women's rights and/or at least state's rights. There will however be a widdling down of these extensions in a very long process, which will eventually lead to something lie a two month allowance, parental and spousal priority in the decision, humiliating court procedures, and the allowance of protesters to continue to terrorize already vulnerable and insecure women trying to enter clinics. All of this will just lead to a self-imposed anti-choice culture. There's no need to overturn an old court case in the face of that potential.

-Dolce

ok i dont see waht the problem is? blah i'm confused..i dont get what lmr is saying but anyways...i would want my mother to have funeral even though it has ntohing to do with this..these unborn babies should have the right to live. If the mother doesnt want it put it up for adoption. Parents that want to adopt want to love kids so they would have no problem accepting them.

That's about as far as I can fully 100% support it. I mean, I don't even understand why the parents can't make a decision at that point. Would it be a hard decision...yes? That's not really an excuse to wait any longer.

Again, "special circumstances" are an exception.

Bush certainly owes the Christian Coalition a lot. I'd like to see him campaign publicly and actively to overturn Roe vs. Wade. :wink:

...And at the same time, if you have sex, unprotected sex (though of course even if you protect yourself there's that chance...), you know you run the risk of getting pregnant.

And you have to learn that your actions have consequences. While it would be nice to think that all your consequences can just be erased if they interfere with your plans, that's not the case and therefore should not be used as an excuse.

It's like someone who eats fast food every day and then you decide to sue the restaurant because you got fat? You knew the consequences all along and decided to go along with it anyway.

And even then it's not a good example cause that can be more easily reversed.

Someone please tell me that I'mw rong and why I don't want to completely move to the other side :wink:

Also, does anyone know what the laws are when it comes to a mother puts hjer fetust in danger, like they drink excessively while pregnant, or...I don't know, just has actions that threatern the fetus' life.

Well apparently you have no idea how a pregnancy test work because it only can be used with even decent accuracy 27 to 30 days after the fact. So there's goes one month right there. You are also assuming every woman's menstral cycle works like clockwork, and that if I miss a period 30 days from now I know something is up. That's untrue, women's cycles can be heavily affected from everything from weight loss/gain to stress to sports and/or sexual activity change. I know someone who's friend only had her period about every 3 months anyways. And yes, she caught her pregnancy very late. There are questions of access and comfort of discussion. If some highschool girl gets pregnant and her parents are in denial she even dates, its going to take that girl awhile to even mention it, if she even does. I know someone in high school who didn't. Instead she starved her self into miscarriage. Great Idea for a seventeen year old girl. Two months is just not enough time when dealing with all the very nuanced relationships and problems that can arise from an unexpected pregnancy. Remember, you arguement is that the abortion itself be conducted within the first 6 or so weeks, not just that the request for one has been filed with the clinic. Speeding up this process actually makes for more irrash decisions, not less. People will be scrambling for the deadline ot a point where they wouldn't even have the time to inform themselves about other alternatives.

So lets see. Girl gets preganant, only finds out she is because she tests herself after noticing her period didn't come. That's five weeks right there. Girl freaks out and doesn't know who to tell or ask for help. Figures out she will talk to her parents. That's a week to two right there...I guess she already missed the deadline for some of you guys. But humor me for minute. Girl speaks to parents and they are supportive and try not to freak out. The three decide they will explore her options by booking appointments with doctor's and a planned parenthood clinic. After a week (if they are lucky) they have learned her options. Lets say they sit on it for a week deciding what to do. And that's really not giving the baby and/or the mother's life much respect of you're going to make decisions such as this in 6 days. And finally, they decide they'll go through with it. They arrange for an appointment the following week. Anyway you cut it, that's three months. And that is operating on so many points such as the woman having a regular cycle, her ability to tell her parents and/or boyfriend within one week of learning for herself, they're ability to handle the situation calmly, how much access they have to information and if that information of options is readily available, how quickly they arrive at a conclusion once they feel securely and well informed (perhaps they want to take the extra time to ocntact an adoption agency and see what the many details of putting a child up for adoption is, and even this takes much more time), and how long it takes to arrange for an actual procedure from the point of that decision. All in two or three months...I don't think so.

-Dolce

No, I think you kinda misunderstood my post.


I am aware that at the very least it would probably take a woman a month or so before she would figure out she's pregnant. But you do make a good point that at that point a month might not be enough time ot make an informed choice.

So my original statement still holds true then. If at 8 months the fetus can be considered a life, then I don't think it's moral to go ahead with the abortion, if you were unable to make a decision by then, wether it was your fault or not. (You could also argue that at jsut 6 months its a life)

I also find it disgusting that the catholic church, trys to tell its followers that you HAVE to believe abortion is wrong, that you HAVE to vote fro a pro life candidate, while at the same time the candidate they are choosing goes against the values that the catholic church speaks out against
The pope has said that he is against thedeath penalty, and the UNJUST war in Iraq...yet people have no problem pointing their crucifix's at someone for voting a "pro choice" candidate, while in essence, they are commiting far worse of a "crime": if you will.


My My, hypocritical isnt it?l

So anyone have any scientific reasoning as to why a fetus should not be considered a life?

Alot of people say because it cannot survive without its mother.

I'm glad we see eye to eye on this. I know my own opinions on third trimester abortions is a bit extreme, and would not be all to traumatized if 6 months was the barrier. Delving into second trimester starts to force irrash and uninformed decisions on the side of the potential parents and may actually be counter productive to encouraging adoptions.

Also, I'm a bit moody tonight, so won't address the "special circumstances" comment until tomorrow, but when earlier I reffered to humiliating court cases, this was in refence to the rape and incest arguements. Just consider for a minute what that a woman would actually need to prove she was violated in order to get an abortion. Its a haevy triple whammy. Firstly, she's preganant, secondly she was raped, thirdly, she has to completely turn over her body's history to the courts to become a space of legal debate in order to orive she was raped. Many people don't seem to realize what doling out exceptions to victims of such crimes would entail doing. If we keep it at second trimester than the woman has the option regardless (hopefully) and there would be no need for courts and physicians trying to debate if the amount of abrasion in her vagina is proof positive of forced entry. Even if its possible to do that by the time the woman seeks an abortion weeks later? That is something for anyone of the lawyers on this board, Mike V, or NCAR that I know of, would better be able to inform you.

-Dolce

*Science* at a point more recent than anyone cares to admit, made very eloquent and convincing arguements as to why there were three distinct levels of man, and how the shape of your cranium could make you superior, and the curve of your back make you inferior. Lets not forget that *science* is not that nuetral and is not only a producer but also a product of discourse dependant on time and environment.

-Dolce

Blah.

I don't know.

Yes.

But you can argue the same thing about a newborn.(can't survive on its own)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade