Murder of an unborn baby is the ultimate abdication of personal responsibility .. and that's just the passive end. Margaret Sanger had active motives for abortion - genocide based on race.
It's really no surprise that abortion and Margaret Sanger are loved by lefties.
Good luck. There are multiple generations of women that believe that not only should they not be held responsible for their actions, but they should be allowed to commit murder if they want to to get out from under those actions. Or, in more cases than women like to admit, lie to the guy that she's on BC to trap him with child support payments when he doesn't want a relationship.
Responsibility needs to be a two way street and I'm tired of one half getting to set the rules, and even outright lie, with no consequences for them but always consequences for the man. It takes two to tango and women are the ones that spread their legs.
Honestly I would be fine with that but in the rare cases of rape where it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and the mother's life is in jeopardy or there are genetic risks that would affect quality of life abortion should be on the table. Provided it's funded by the people seeking one
There is already acknowledged medical difference between a life-threatening pregnancy situation and a viable one. It would be insanely simple to write in an exception for molar and ectopic pregnancies into any abortion law.
It’s also very rare for a pregnancy to become life-threatening, beyond situations like that, without medical intervention being possible for the mother. Things like gestational diabetes or preeclampsia are diagnosable and very treatable.
Rape is awful, but it’s not the child’s fault. Nor are genetic abnormalities. If you have a baby with a fatal trisomy or other situation where they can’t live outside the womb, that is a tragedy. But it’s also worth noting that shit like, say, a brain cyst, that shows up on a twenty week ultrasound might not be there by week thirty. And early genetic testing is insanely inaccurate. I think the risks of aborting actually healthy babies in those situations are far too great to allow.
Rape - the baby is put to death for the crime, but not the rapist?
Mother's life in jeopardy - In America how common is this really? Is this just a strawman at this point?
Genetic risks that would affect quality of life - where do you draw the line here? Who gets to decide what quality of life means? One parent thinks a child with Downs Syndrome is better of dead and another doesn't. What else earns a baby a death sentence? What if that becomes skin color or sex?
Rape - the baby is put to death for the crime, but not the rapist?
You think I believe a rapist shouldn't be put to death if it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Mother's life in jeopardy - In America how common is this really? Is this just a strawman at this point?
https://www.verywellfamily.com/what-do-statistics-look-like-for-ectopic-pregnancy-2371730
1 in every 50 pregnancies is an ectopic pregnancy so not statistically significant but still a reasonable consideration, but are you really going to advocate for the life of a baby but not a mother who does not have a viable pregnancy (there is no fetus or life in this type of pregnancy) and may potentially die as a result?
Genetic risks that would affect quality of life - where do you draw the line here? Who gets to decide what quality of life means? One parent thinks a child with Downs Syndrome is better of dead and another doesn't. What else earns a baby a death sentence? What if that becomes skin color or sex?
The freedom to make that decision should be left between the doctor and the mother/father of the child not the State. As such those decisions should come with the best evidence to deduce that if at all possible. Also you are highlighting a slippery slope. Wouldn't put it past the democrats to use skin color or sex but at the same time (for the time being) the argument is arbitrary because those are protected classes. It's not the same as someone who will basically be on the Country's dole for a genetic defect.
This is often true, but not always. Some women are raped and impregnated. Some children are sexually abused and impregnated. Some women use birth control and it fails (even IUD's can fail; every year there are babies born with the IUD stuck on their body somewhere.). Women & girls who are raped / abused may not want to tell their abortion provider the truth, so they just say they want the abortion just because. But if there is an exception for rape/abuse, then everyone who wants an abortion will claim that (ie, the lazy ones).
Convenience, and denial. Abortion is birth control for lazy people who won't use birth control, or do things to avoid pregnancy. Like abstinence.
Murder of an unborn baby is the ultimate abdication of personal responsibility .. and that's just the passive end. Margaret Sanger had active motives for abortion - genocide based on race.
It's really no surprise that abortion and Margaret Sanger are loved by lefties.
Good luck. There are multiple generations of women that believe that not only should they not be held responsible for their actions, but they should be allowed to commit murder if they want to to get out from under those actions. Or, in more cases than women like to admit, lie to the guy that she's on BC to trap him with child support payments when he doesn't want a relationship.
Responsibility needs to be a two way street and I'm tired of one half getting to set the rules, and even outright lie, with no consequences for them but always consequences for the man. It takes two to tango and women are the ones that spread their legs.
Well, we have the ultimate power: not having sex with a woman we don't want to have a child with.
Sadly, men who use power are a very small minority.
(I'm no angel, I had a pretty healthy sex live earlier in my life. But I see the errors of my ways back then. And luckily, go out unscathed.)
Honestly I would be fine with that but in the rare cases of rape where it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and the mother's life is in jeopardy or there are genetic risks that would affect quality of life abortion should be on the table. Provided it's funded by the people seeking one
There is already acknowledged medical difference between a life-threatening pregnancy situation and a viable one. It would be insanely simple to write in an exception for molar and ectopic pregnancies into any abortion law.
It’s also very rare for a pregnancy to become life-threatening, beyond situations like that, without medical intervention being possible for the mother. Things like gestational diabetes or preeclampsia are diagnosable and very treatable.
Rape is awful, but it’s not the child’s fault. Nor are genetic abnormalities. If you have a baby with a fatal trisomy or other situation where they can’t live outside the womb, that is a tragedy. But it’s also worth noting that shit like, say, a brain cyst, that shows up on a twenty week ultrasound might not be there by week thirty. And early genetic testing is insanely inaccurate. I think the risks of aborting actually healthy babies in those situations are far too great to allow.
Doctors can deliver the child early and give him/her a chance in the NICU.
Ding, ding! Winner.
I don't disagree at all. I dislike abortion, but it has a real medical basis for existing. But using it as birth control is repugnant.
Rape - the baby is put to death for the crime, but not the rapist?
Mother's life in jeopardy - In America how common is this really? Is this just a strawman at this point?
Genetic risks that would affect quality of life - where do you draw the line here? Who gets to decide what quality of life means? One parent thinks a child with Downs Syndrome is better of dead and another doesn't. What else earns a baby a death sentence? What if that becomes skin color or sex?
Rape - the baby is put to death for the crime, but not the rapist? You think I believe a rapist shouldn't be put to death if it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? Mother's life in jeopardy - In America how common is this really? Is this just a strawman at this point? https://www.verywellfamily.com/what-do-statistics-look-like-for-ectopic-pregnancy-2371730 1 in every 50 pregnancies is an ectopic pregnancy so not statistically significant but still a reasonable consideration, but are you really going to advocate for the life of a baby but not a mother who does not have a viable pregnancy (there is no fetus or life in this type of pregnancy) and may potentially die as a result? Genetic risks that would affect quality of life - where do you draw the line here? Who gets to decide what quality of life means? One parent thinks a child with Downs Syndrome is better of dead and another doesn't. What else earns a baby a death sentence? What if that becomes skin color or sex? The freedom to make that decision should be left between the doctor and the mother/father of the child not the State. As such those decisions should come with the best evidence to deduce that if at all possible. Also you are highlighting a slippery slope. Wouldn't put it past the democrats to use skin color or sex but at the same time (for the time being) the argument is arbitrary because those are protected classes. It's not the same as someone who will basically be on the Country's dole for a genetic defect.
This is often true, but not always. Some women are raped and impregnated. Some children are sexually abused and impregnated. Some women use birth control and it fails (even IUD's can fail; every year there are babies born with the IUD stuck on their body somewhere.). Women & girls who are raped / abused may not want to tell their abortion provider the truth, so they just say they want the abortion just because. But if there is an exception for rape/abuse, then everyone who wants an abortion will claim that (ie, the lazy ones).