Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So the fetus is alive? They should charge the fake doctors and the so called mothers with murder.“The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn apart limb by limb,” Justice Kennedy wrote in his dissent in the 2000 case Stenberg v. Carhart. “The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off.”
jesus christ...how the hell can anyone support this disgusting practice!?
The injection given the fetus before the removal begins makes sure the fetus is already dead and can't bleed to "death"
Dead has not feeling in the incident of not coming out whole.
the patient needs everything to come out completely, and if there are lots of pieces there is a greater chance bits would remain.
It is a woman's right and they simply make sure there is not heart beat so their is no pain or sensation.
The removal is basically the same idea and a D&C, which is common enough when the body does not release all waste each month. There are a few options but the lining is removed.
The idea of ripping a living fetus apart is incorrect. Nor can something already dead bleed to death.
Religion should not be apart of anti-abortion reason since not every one is of the same faith or more particularly of the same church or synagogue. Some women might be atheist and don't believe in the religious that attempt to impose their faith on other people. They have no right to take a woman's right or free choice from her.
For home abortions all those interfering people have no right to even know what happens.
As far as government funding, government down not pay for abortions except in time of rape. It is not yours, any church or organization and the governments business. It is a matter between the patient and the doctor. Now it is a matter of a phone call or email order and not hands of any doctor is involved. After the first week, she requires only a blood test and ultra sound or place the order which she takes herself at home.
In the case of deformed of brain damaged, it is a mercy rather than make an infant die a horrible death. In the case of mother's medical treatment, always, always the doctor will work to save the mother first if possible. The fetus is removed while so she can be treated. To remove after treatment begins risk infection and other complication while the immune system is compromised which could mean her death.
No one should be forced to carry and give birth against their will or if it mean endangering their health.
The woman's body, the woman's choice.
Ending a pregnancy is permitted in the religious text. The know herbs used to brew the potions are for the most part bitter, the text refers to them as bitter water which is given to the women.
In most cases the woman can give birth later on. Women who get chemo are often given the option to save their eggs in case they are all killed.
If someone objects on moral ground, they should not get an abortion, but they have no right to force their beliefs on others.
All types of exaggerations and lies used to make those not involved that somehow the fetus has any feeling at all in the process. They create imagery of butchery and brutality when that is not the case. A D&C is not a pleasant procedure, but the discomfort goes away quickly enough. It is just tissue and blood that would otherwise become toxic to the woman if not removed. If the body does not expel it naturally then the doctor needs to remove it with one of a few procedures.
Dear aris2chat
A. I agree with keeping beliefs out of govt.
B. Normally, "prochoice' if kept NEUTRAL would be the equivalent of letting all beliefs be treated equally and kept out of govt
C. HOWEVER because govt funding and protection is given to abortion then this is NOT NEUTRAL.
You can try to separate the funding, but the fact that govt endorses it makes it ESTABLISHING A BELIEF.
So you are contradicting your own argument by only protecting PROCHOICE beliefs from PROLIFE,
but not vice versa and not protecting PROLIFE beliefs from PROCHOICE being endorsed by govt.
Same with gay marriage
Same with health care through govt.
Those aren't neutral either when govt starts endorsing and protecting these as institutions.
Again, I AGREE with you that religious beliefs should be kept out of govt.
The problem is the secular beliefs and political beliefs are not treated the same
way and kept out of govt as religious beliefs should be.
So that isn't NEUTRAL and it isn't EQUAL.
==========================
o
If a woman does not want to be pregnant she has shitloads of options to deal with it by natural means or the day after pill. No one else has to be involved or help pay for another person to destroy a child in her womb. Its barbaric what abortion doctors do and even more barbaric to use aborted fetus cells that have been cloned in food products without ever fully identifying that is what they are doing.
She has a legal right for an abortion if she so choose. It is her body.
Her medical and life choices should never be open to you or anyone else.
You have no right to judge her or force her to follow your will
You should never even be aware of her choice.
Dear aris2chat
by the same token,
neither should you nor I impose a public policy that conflicts with the sacred beliefs of others.
There is harm caused on both sides, of either abortion that causes harm and is a compromise,
and harm in forcing anyone to do something against their will or beliefs, either way.
There is no way to get around this without violating someone's beliefs, because
induced abortion is not natural.
So the only way to agree is to PREVENT abortion, so we never have to debate that.
By preventing pregnancy, this issue does not have to come up.
And if you think pregnancy can't be prevented, think again.
The acts of sex leading to pregnancy are either forced by a person by rape,
or it is consensual.
There is no such thing as an accidental pregnancy unless
the sex is truly accidental and not the conscious choice of either party.
That is where we might reach agreement on focusing on prevention.
Because people's beliefs about right to life and right to choose cannot be forced to change
by govt, this issue is not going to be resolved by outvoted, outnumbering, or overruling one side by the other.
Only by preventing unwanted pregnancy and abortion 100% by free choice
are you going to end the debate, by preventing abortion from ever having to be considered in the first place.
Then we can agree, by free choice, and not get into endless arguments
about which side is imposing their beliefs politically -- they both are.
So for there to be equal representation and protection of both sides' viewpoints,
it is clear that abortion must be prevented. otherwise the people will never agree.
The prochoice people will never agree to laws that ban abortion and force women
already in compromised situations to suffer disproportionately after the fact, when
it affects the women more than the men. The prolife people who believe that abortion
is deliberate killing and murder will never agree that
abortion is an acceptable compromise.
both sides agree the ideal is to prevent abortion in the first place.
If we agree to focus there, we can eventually eliminate this entire problem.
one person's church or god has no part in the life of someone else with their beliefs.
I'm not forcing anyone what to choose. But no one should take that choice away from them. They are free to decide their life and their body, but not mine, yours, the kid down the street or the woman across the country.
A woman has a legal right to be free and make her choices. She is not someone's property to control. I've been making my choices since I was small. I was not restricted or told what to do. Maybe not all my choice were the best in hind sight, but they were mine. It was my life. There were many things I had no choice over. I don't control nature and I cant prevent or stop a war on my own. If I don't know there is danger I can't make the decision to avoid it.
I can't or want to control the decisions of other and I damn well don't want them making mine.
If I choose to play wit snakes or alligators no one gets to tell me I can't because I might get bit.
Everyone is free to make their choices for them, not the rest of the population.
I don't get to know the medical records of anyone without writes permission. I don't get to make choices if they are capable of understanding and saying no in some way.
I'm not telling them what to do, nor am I trying to take their rights away from them. I'm not going to let others decide or take the rights and freedoms away from other if I can help it.
I've lives in repressive societies where woman have few if any right. I've also seen what happens to woman after rape and abuse. I seen woman die in childbirth and know woman who kill themselves because they are pregnant, and seen woman killed.
I've tried to help and empower them when I could and just been a shoulder at others time.
A woman should have an absolute right to control her own body and life.
It is about person freedoms. Pro life have a freedom to believe, but not to interfere with someone else's choice who does not.
Same with gay
No one is saying they can't believe it is wrong. So they don't get an abortion or marry a gay. They is there right. When they try to take the right and freedoms of other, it becomes a problem.
We should not have to involved government, but when the protection of free choice is threatened, the courts step in.
If they think it is sinful, it is sinful for "them", not all the other people who do not share their church.
Women have a legal right to privacy and a legal right to control their body.
She has a legal right to seek an abortion, if that is her choice.
Government funds clinics that deal with reproductive issues and a woman's health. They do not fund or pay for abortions. The doctors just happen to be the same both. Abortions are a tiny percent of what those clinics provide. A safe abortion that preserves a woman's ability to reproduce at a later time.
Clinics abortions are down with better knowledge and access to birth control and day-after, but many are also opting for home abortions up to 24weeks, so the government figures are not accurate. Home kits might be ordered, but there are no figures of how may actually use, or complete, them. Maybe they changed their mind. Maybe they miscarried before taking.
In the case of a woman's health, it becomes an insurance issue. If rape, the government covers the cost, but that also involves police reports and hospital rape kits, even if the woman will not testify.
Religion should not be used to interfere with an individuals freedom, life liberty happiness
Till a fetus is born, able to live outside the womb, the woman's body is hers and she has the right to choose what happens. Medically the woman is the patient, not the fetus.
morally people should worry about themselves and not try to control the lives of others who do not ask for their interference. Try to help orphans and the poor, those we are already breathing, not a woman's legal right to control her life and her womb.
Dear aris2chat
A. I agree with keeping beliefs out of govt.
B. Normally, "prochoice' if kept NEUTRAL would be the equivalent of letting all beliefs be treated equally and kept out of govt
C. HOWEVER because govt funding and protection is given to abortion then this is NOT NEUTRAL.
You can try to separate the funding, but the fact that govt endorses it makes it ESTABLISHING A BELIEF.
So you are contradicting your own argument by only protecting PROCHOICE beliefs from PROLIFE,
but not vice versa and not protecting PROLIFE beliefs from PROCHOICE being endorsed by govt.
Same with gay marriage
Same with health care through govt.
Those aren't neutral either when govt starts endorsing and protecting these as institutions.
Again, I AGREE with you that religious beliefs should be kept out of govt.
The problem is the secular beliefs and political beliefs are not treated the same
way and kept out of govt as religious beliefs should be.
So that isn't NEUTRAL and it isn't EQUAL.
==========================
o
She has a legal right for an abortion if she so choose. It is her body.
Her medical and life choices should never be open to you or anyone else.
You have no right to judge her or force her to follow your will
You should never even be aware of her choice.
Dear aris2chat
by the same token,
neither should you nor I impose a public policy that conflicts with the sacred beliefs of others.
There is harm caused on both sides, of either abortion that causes harm and is a compromise,
and harm in forcing anyone to do something against their will or beliefs, either way.
There is no way to get around this without violating someone's beliefs, because
induced abortion is not natural.
So the only way to agree is to PREVENT abortion, so we never have to debate that.
By preventing pregnancy, this issue does not have to come up.
And if you think pregnancy can't be prevented, think again.
The acts of sex leading to pregnancy are either forced by a person by rape,
or it is consensual.
There is no such thing as an accidental pregnancy unless
the sex is truly accidental and not the conscious choice of either party.
That is where we might reach agreement on focusing on prevention.
Because people's beliefs about right to life and right to choose cannot be forced to change
by govt, this issue is not going to be resolved by outvoted, outnumbering, or overruling one side by the other.
Only by preventing unwanted pregnancy and abortion 100% by free choice
are you going to end the debate, by preventing abortion from ever having to be considered in the first place.
Then we can agree, by free choice, and not get into endless arguments
about which side is imposing their beliefs politically -- they both are.
So for there to be equal representation and protection of both sides' viewpoints,
it is clear that abortion must be prevented. otherwise the people will never agree.
The prochoice people will never agree to laws that ban abortion and force women
already in compromised situations to suffer disproportionately after the fact, when
it affects the women more than the men. The prolife people who believe that abortion
is deliberate killing and murder will never agree that
abortion is an acceptable compromise.
both sides agree the ideal is to prevent abortion in the first place.
If we agree to focus there, we can eventually eliminate this entire problem.
one person's church or god has no part in the life of someone else with their beliefs.
I'm not forcing anyone what to choose. But no one should take that choice away from them. They are free to decide their life and their body, but not mine, yours, the kid down the street or the woman across the country.
A woman has a legal right to be free and make her choices. She is not someone's property to control. I've been making my choices since I was small. I was not restricted or told what to do. Maybe not all my choice were the best in hind sight, but they were mine. It was my life. There were many things I had no choice over. I don't control nature and I cant prevent or stop a war on my own. If I don't know there is danger I can't make the decision to avoid it.
I can't or want to control the decisions of other and I damn well don't want them making mine.
If I choose to play wit snakes or alligators no one gets to tell me I can't because I might get bit.
Everyone is free to make their choices for them, not the rest of the population.
I don't get to know the medical records of anyone without writes permission. I don't get to make choices if they are capable of understanding and saying no in some way.
I'm not telling them what to do, nor am I trying to take their rights away from them. I'm not going to let others decide or take the rights and freedoms away from other if I can help it.
I've lives in repressive societies where woman have few if any right. I've also seen what happens to woman after rape and abuse. I seen woman die in childbirth and know woman who kill themselves because they are pregnant, and seen woman killed.
I've tried to help and empower them when I could and just been a shoulder at others time.
A woman should have an absolute right to control her own body and life.
It is about person freedoms. Pro life have a freedom to believe, but not to interfere with someone else's choice who does not.
Same with gay
No one is saying they can't believe it is wrong. So they don't get an abortion or marry a gay. They is there right. When they try to take the right and freedoms of other, it becomes a problem.
We should not have to involved government, but when the protection of free choice is threatened, the courts step in.
If they think it is sinful, it is sinful for "them", not all the other people who do not share their church.
Women have a legal right to privacy and a legal right to control their body.
She has a legal right to seek an abortion, if that is her choice.
Government funds clinics that deal with reproductive issues and a woman's health. They do not fund or pay for abortions. The doctors just happen to be the same both. Abortions are a tiny percent of what those clinics provide. A safe abortion that preserves a woman's ability to reproduce at a later time.
Clinics abortions are down with better knowledge and access to birth control and day-after, but many are also opting for home abortions up to 24weeks, so the government figures are not accurate. Home kits might be ordered, but there are no figures of how may actually use, or complete, them. Maybe they changed their mind. Maybe they miscarried before taking.
In the case of a woman's health, it becomes an insurance issue. If rape, the government covers the cost, but that also involves police reports and hospital rape kits, even if the woman will not testify.
Religion should not be used to interfere with an individuals freedom, life liberty happiness
Till a fetus is born, able to live outside the womb, the woman's body is hers and she has the right to choose what happens. Medically the woman is the patient, not the fetus.
morally people should worry about themselves and not try to control the lives of others who do not ask for their interference. Try to help orphans and the poor, those we are already breathing, not a woman's legal right to control her life and her womb.
If the poor woman chooses to have a child that she then can't support, why is it someone else's responsibility to fund a choice you said was hers alone?
So the fetus is alive? They should charge the fake doctors and the so called mothers with murder.“The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn apart limb by limb,” Justice Kennedy wrote in his dissent in the 2000 case Stenberg v. Carhart. “The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off.”
jesus christ...how the hell can anyone support this disgusting practice!?
The injection given the fetus before the removal begins makes sure the fetus is already dead and can't bleed to "death"
Dead has not feeling in the incident of not coming out whole.
the patient needs everything to come out completely, and if there are lots of pieces there is a greater chance bits would remain.
It is a woman's right and they simply make sure there is not heart beat so their is no pain or sensation.
The removal is basically the same idea and a D&C, which is common enough when the body does not release all waste each month. There are a few options but the lining is removed.
The idea of ripping a living fetus apart is incorrect. Nor can something already dead bleed to death.
Religion should not be apart of anti-abortion reason since not every one is of the same faith or more particularly of the same church or synagogue. Some women might be atheist and don't believe in the religious that attempt to impose their faith on other people. They have no right to take a woman's right or free choice from her.
For home abortions all those interfering people have no right to even know what happens.
As far as government funding, government down not pay for abortions except in time of rape. It is not yours, any church or organization and the governments business. It is a matter between the patient and the doctor. Now it is a matter of a phone call or email order and not hands of any doctor is involved. After the first week, she requires only a blood test and ultra sound or place the order which she takes herself at home.
In the case of deformed of brain damaged, it is a mercy rather than make an infant die a horrible death. In the case of mother's medical treatment, always, always the doctor will work to save the mother first if possible. The fetus is removed while so she can be treated. To remove after treatment begins risk infection and other complication while the immune system is compromised which could mean her death.
No one should be forced to carry and give birth against their will or if it mean endangering their health.
The woman's body, the woman's choice.
Ending a pregnancy is permitted in the religious text. The know herbs used to brew the potions are for the most part bitter, the text refers to them as bitter water which is given to the women.
In most cases the woman can give birth later on. Women who get chemo are often given the option to save their eggs in case they are all killed.
If someone objects on moral ground, they should not get an abortion, but they have no right to force their beliefs on others.
All types of exaggerations and lies used to make those not involved that somehow the fetus has any feeling at all in the process. They create imagery of butchery and brutality when that is not the case. A D&C is not a pleasant procedure, but the discomfort goes away quickly enough. It is just tissue and blood that would otherwise become toxic to the woman if not removed. If the body does not expel it naturally then the doctor needs to remove it with one of a few procedures.
You say "the woman's body, the woman's choice". If the choice the woman makes is to have the child, should the rest of us have a choice to say no when it comes to supporting the results of that choice if she can't do it herself? In other words, do you also believe "it's a woman's choice, it's a woman's sole responsibility"?
You are wrong on all accounts. Evil witch.So the fetus is alive? They should charge the fake doctors and the so called mothers with murder.“The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn apart limb by limb,” Justice Kennedy wrote in his dissent in the 2000 case Stenberg v. Carhart. “The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off.”
jesus christ...how the hell can anyone support this disgusting practice!?
The injection given the fetus before the removal begins makes sure the fetus is already dead and can't bleed to "death"
Dead has not feeling in the incident of not coming out whole.
the patient needs everything to come out completely, and if there are lots of pieces there is a greater chance bits would remain.
It is a woman's right and they simply make sure there is not heart beat so their is no pain or sensation.
The removal is basically the same idea and a D&C, which is common enough when the body does not release all waste each month. There are a few options but the lining is removed.
The idea of ripping a living fetus apart is incorrect. Nor can something already dead bleed to death.
Religion should not be apart of anti-abortion reason since not every one is of the same faith or more particularly of the same church or synagogue. Some women might be atheist and don't believe in the religious that attempt to impose their faith on other people. They have no right to take a woman's right or free choice from her.
For home abortions all those interfering people have no right to even know what happens.
As far as government funding, government down not pay for abortions except in time of rape. It is not yours, any church or organization and the governments business. It is a matter between the patient and the doctor. Now it is a matter of a phone call or email order and not hands of any doctor is involved. After the first week, she requires only a blood test and ultra sound or place the order which she takes herself at home.
In the case of deformed of brain damaged, it is a mercy rather than make an infant die a horrible death. In the case of mother's medical treatment, always, always the doctor will work to save the mother first if possible. The fetus is removed while so she can be treated. To remove after treatment begins risk infection and other complication while the immune system is compromised which could mean her death.
No one should be forced to carry and give birth against their will or if it mean endangering their health.
The woman's body, the woman's choice.
Ending a pregnancy is permitted in the religious text. The know herbs used to brew the potions are for the most part bitter, the text refers to them as bitter water which is given to the women.
In most cases the woman can give birth later on. Women who get chemo are often given the option to save their eggs in case they are all killed.
If someone objects on moral ground, they should not get an abortion, but they have no right to force their beliefs on others.
All types of exaggerations and lies used to make those not involved that somehow the fetus has any feeling at all in the process. They create imagery of butchery and brutality when that is not the case. A D&C is not a pleasant procedure, but the discomfort goes away quickly enough. It is just tissue and blood that would otherwise become toxic to the woman if not removed. If the body does not expel it naturally then the doctor needs to remove it with one of a few procedures.
You say "the woman's body, the woman's choice". If the choice the woman makes is to have the child, should the rest of us have a choice to say no when it comes to supporting the results of that choice if she can't do it herself? In other words, do you also believe "it's a woman's choice, it's a woman's sole responsibility"?
I don't think people should knowingly expect the government to support them. As a society we care about those un-able to work and provide temporary assistance if those who can't find a job yet after having been fired.
Those unwilling to work, even in some voluntary community way to pay back back the community for what they get, I object to. Starving in the streets is also not acceptable to most in our society. In nature, but civilization has come up with it's own standards of survival, not just of the fittest. Individuals have the right to refuse help offered. Individuals have the right to make their own choices. I don't think individuals should greedily bleed society without giving something back.
The true intent should be to help everyone to support themselves.
Fishing pool vs fish
So the fetus is alive? They should charge the fake doctors and the so called mothers with murder.“The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn apart limb by limb,” Justice Kennedy wrote in his dissent in the 2000 case Stenberg v. Carhart. “The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off.”
jesus christ...how the hell can anyone support this disgusting practice!?
The injection given the fetus before the removal begins makes sure the fetus is already dead and can't bleed to "death"
Dead has not feeling in the incident of not coming out whole.
the patient needs everything to come out completely, and if there are lots of pieces there is a greater chance bits would remain.
It is a woman's right and they simply make sure there is not heart beat so their is no pain or sensation.
The removal is basically the same idea and a D&C, which is common enough when the body does not release all waste each month. There are a few options but the lining is removed.
The idea of ripping a living fetus apart is incorrect. Nor can something already dead bleed to death.
Religion should not be apart of anti-abortion reason since not every one is of the same faith or more particularly of the same church or synagogue. Some women might be atheist and don't believe in the religious that attempt to impose their faith on other people. They have no right to take a woman's right or free choice from her.
For home abortions all those interfering people have no right to even know what happens.
As far as government funding, government down not pay for abortions except in time of rape. It is not yours, any church or organization and the governments business. It is a matter between the patient and the doctor. Now it is a matter of a phone call or email order and not hands of any doctor is involved. After the first week, she requires only a blood test and ultra sound or place the order which she takes herself at home.
In the case of deformed of brain damaged, it is a mercy rather than make an infant die a horrible death. In the case of mother's medical treatment, always, always the doctor will work to save the mother first if possible. The fetus is removed while so she can be treated. To remove after treatment begins risk infection and other complication while the immune system is compromised which could mean her death.
No one should be forced to carry and give birth against their will or if it mean endangering their health.
The woman's body, the woman's choice.
Ending a pregnancy is permitted in the religious text. The know herbs used to brew the potions are for the most part bitter, the text refers to them as bitter water which is given to the women.
In most cases the woman can give birth later on. Women who get chemo are often given the option to save their eggs in case they are all killed.
If someone objects on moral ground, they should not get an abortion, but they have no right to force their beliefs on others.
All types of exaggerations and lies used to make those not involved that somehow the fetus has any feeling at all in the process. They create imagery of butchery and brutality when that is not the case. A D&C is not a pleasant procedure, but the discomfort goes away quickly enough. It is just tissue and blood that would otherwise become toxic to the woman if not removed. If the body does not expel it naturally then the doctor needs to remove it with one of a few procedures.
You say "the woman's body, the woman's choice". If the choice the woman makes is to have the child, should the rest of us have a choice to say no when it comes to supporting the results of that choice if she can't do it herself? In other words, do you also believe "it's a woman's choice, it's a woman's sole responsibility"?
I don't think people should knowingly expect the government to support them. As a society we care about those un-able to work and provide temporary assistance if those who can't find a job yet after having been fired.
Those unwilling to work, even in some voluntary community way to pay back back the community for what they get, I object to. Starving in the streets is also not acceptable to most in our society. In nature, but civilization has come up with it's own standards of survival, not just of the fittest. Individuals have the right to refuse help offered. Individuals have the right to make their own choices. I don't think individuals should greedily bleed society without giving something back.
The true intent should be to help everyone to support themselves.
Fishing pool vs fish
Dear aris2chat
A. I agree with keeping beliefs out of govt.
B. Normally, "prochoice' if kept NEUTRAL would be the equivalent of letting all beliefs be treated equally and kept out of govt
C. HOWEVER because govt funding and protection is given to abortion then this is NOT NEUTRAL.
You can try to separate the funding, but the fact that govt endorses it makes it ESTABLISHING A BELIEF.
So you are contradicting your own argument by only protecting PROCHOICE beliefs from PROLIFE,
but not vice versa and not protecting PROLIFE beliefs from PROCHOICE being endorsed by govt.
Same with gay marriage
Same with health care through govt.
Those aren't neutral either when govt starts endorsing and protecting these as institutions.
Again, I AGREE with you that religious beliefs should be kept out of govt.
The problem is the secular beliefs and political beliefs are not treated the same
way and kept out of govt as religious beliefs should be.
So that isn't NEUTRAL and it isn't EQUAL.
==========================
o
Dear aris2chat
by the same token,
neither should you nor I impose a public policy that conflicts with the sacred beliefs of others.
There is harm caused on both sides, of either abortion that causes harm and is a compromise,
and harm in forcing anyone to do something against their will or beliefs, either way.
There is no way to get around this without violating someone's beliefs, because
induced abortion is not natural.
So the only way to agree is to PREVENT abortion, so we never have to debate that.
By preventing pregnancy, this issue does not have to come up.
And if you think pregnancy can't be prevented, think again.
The acts of sex leading to pregnancy are either forced by a person by rape,
or it is consensual.
There is no such thing as an accidental pregnancy unless
the sex is truly accidental and not the conscious choice of either party.
That is where we might reach agreement on focusing on prevention.
Because people's beliefs about right to life and right to choose cannot be forced to change
by govt, this issue is not going to be resolved by outvoted, outnumbering, or overruling one side by the other.
Only by preventing unwanted pregnancy and abortion 100% by free choice
are you going to end the debate, by preventing abortion from ever having to be considered in the first place.
Then we can agree, by free choice, and not get into endless arguments
about which side is imposing their beliefs politically -- they both are.
So for there to be equal representation and protection of both sides' viewpoints,
it is clear that abortion must be prevented. otherwise the people will never agree.
The prochoice people will never agree to laws that ban abortion and force women
already in compromised situations to suffer disproportionately after the fact, when
it affects the women more than the men. The prolife people who believe that abortion
is deliberate killing and murder will never agree that
abortion is an acceptable compromise.
both sides agree the ideal is to prevent abortion in the first place.
If we agree to focus there, we can eventually eliminate this entire problem.
one person's church or god has no part in the life of someone else with their beliefs.
I'm not forcing anyone what to choose. But no one should take that choice away from them. They are free to decide their life and their body, but not mine, yours, the kid down the street or the woman across the country.
A woman has a legal right to be free and make her choices. She is not someone's property to control. I've been making my choices since I was small. I was not restricted or told what to do. Maybe not all my choice were the best in hind sight, but they were mine. It was my life. There were many things I had no choice over. I don't control nature and I cant prevent or stop a war on my own. If I don't know there is danger I can't make the decision to avoid it.
I can't or want to control the decisions of other and I damn well don't want them making mine.
If I choose to play wit snakes or alligators no one gets to tell me I can't because I might get bit.
Everyone is free to make their choices for them, not the rest of the population.
I don't get to know the medical records of anyone without writes permission. I don't get to make choices if they are capable of understanding and saying no in some way.
I'm not telling them what to do, nor am I trying to take their rights away from them. I'm not going to let others decide or take the rights and freedoms away from other if I can help it.
I've lives in repressive societies where woman have few if any right. I've also seen what happens to woman after rape and abuse. I seen woman die in childbirth and know woman who kill themselves because they are pregnant, and seen woman killed.
I've tried to help and empower them when I could and just been a shoulder at others time.
A woman should have an absolute right to control her own body and life.
It is about person freedoms. Pro life have a freedom to believe, but not to interfere with someone else's choice who does not.
Same with gay
No one is saying they can't believe it is wrong. So they don't get an abortion or marry a gay. They is there right. When they try to take the right and freedoms of other, it becomes a problem.
We should not have to involved government, but when the protection of free choice is threatened, the courts step in.
If they think it is sinful, it is sinful for "them", not all the other people who do not share their church.
Women have a legal right to privacy and a legal right to control their body.
She has a legal right to seek an abortion, if that is her choice.
Government funds clinics that deal with reproductive issues and a woman's health. They do not fund or pay for abortions. The doctors just happen to be the same both. Abortions are a tiny percent of what those clinics provide. A safe abortion that preserves a woman's ability to reproduce at a later time.
Clinics abortions are down with better knowledge and access to birth control and day-after, but many are also opting for home abortions up to 24weeks, so the government figures are not accurate. Home kits might be ordered, but there are no figures of how may actually use, or complete, them. Maybe they changed their mind. Maybe they miscarried before taking.
In the case of a woman's health, it becomes an insurance issue. If rape, the government covers the cost, but that also involves police reports and hospital rape kits, even if the woman will not testify.
Religion should not be used to interfere with an individuals freedom, life liberty happiness
Till a fetus is born, able to live outside the womb, the woman's body is hers and she has the right to choose what happens. Medically the woman is the patient, not the fetus.
morally people should worry about themselves and not try to control the lives of others who do not ask for their interference. Try to help orphans and the poor, those we are already breathing, not a woman's legal right to control her life and her womb.
If the poor woman chooses to have a child that she then can't support, why is it someone else's responsibility to fund a choice you said was hers alone?
If poster/people care so much about helping other, let them care for those breathing, not those yet to take their first breath on their own or recognized as a person.
Dear aris2chat
A. I agree with keeping beliefs out of govt.
B. Normally, "prochoice' if kept NEUTRAL would be the equivalent of letting all beliefs be treated equally and kept out of govt
C. HOWEVER because govt funding and protection is given to abortion then this is NOT NEUTRAL.
You can try to separate the funding, but the fact that govt endorses it makes it ESTABLISHING A BELIEF.
So you are contradicting your own argument by only protecting PROCHOICE beliefs from PROLIFE,
but not vice versa and not protecting PROLIFE beliefs from PROCHOICE being endorsed by govt.
Same with gay marriage
Same with health care through govt.
Those aren't neutral either when govt starts endorsing and protecting these as institutions.
Again, I AGREE with you that religious beliefs should be kept out of govt.
The problem is the secular beliefs and political beliefs are not treated the same
way and kept out of govt as religious beliefs should be.
So that isn't NEUTRAL and it isn't EQUAL.
==========================
o
one person's church or god has no part in the life of someone else with their beliefs.
I'm not forcing anyone what to choose. But no one should take that choice away from them. They are free to decide their life and their body, but not mine, yours, the kid down the street or the woman across the country.
A woman has a legal right to be free and make her choices. She is not someone's property to control. I've been making my choices since I was small. I was not restricted or told what to do. Maybe not all my choice were the best in hind sight, but they were mine. It was my life. There were many things I had no choice over. I don't control nature and I cant prevent or stop a war on my own. If I don't know there is danger I can't make the decision to avoid it.
I can't or want to control the decisions of other and I damn well don't want them making mine.
If I choose to play wit snakes or alligators no one gets to tell me I can't because I might get bit.
Everyone is free to make their choices for them, not the rest of the population.
I don't get to know the medical records of anyone without writes permission. I don't get to make choices if they are capable of understanding and saying no in some way.
I'm not telling them what to do, nor am I trying to take their rights away from them. I'm not going to let others decide or take the rights and freedoms away from other if I can help it.
I've lives in repressive societies where woman have few if any right. I've also seen what happens to woman after rape and abuse. I seen woman die in childbirth and know woman who kill themselves because they are pregnant, and seen woman killed.
I've tried to help and empower them when I could and just been a shoulder at others time.
A woman should have an absolute right to control her own body and life.
It is about person freedoms. Pro life have a freedom to believe, but not to interfere with someone else's choice who does not.
Same with gay
No one is saying they can't believe it is wrong. So they don't get an abortion or marry a gay. They is there right. When they try to take the right and freedoms of other, it becomes a problem.
We should not have to involved government, but when the protection of free choice is threatened, the courts step in.
If they think it is sinful, it is sinful for "them", not all the other people who do not share their church.
Women have a legal right to privacy and a legal right to control their body.
She has a legal right to seek an abortion, if that is her choice.
Government funds clinics that deal with reproductive issues and a woman's health. They do not fund or pay for abortions. The doctors just happen to be the same both. Abortions are a tiny percent of what those clinics provide. A safe abortion that preserves a woman's ability to reproduce at a later time.
Clinics abortions are down with better knowledge and access to birth control and day-after, but many are also opting for home abortions up to 24weeks, so the government figures are not accurate. Home kits might be ordered, but there are no figures of how may actually use, or complete, them. Maybe they changed their mind. Maybe they miscarried before taking.
In the case of a woman's health, it becomes an insurance issue. If rape, the government covers the cost, but that also involves police reports and hospital rape kits, even if the woman will not testify.
Religion should not be used to interfere with an individuals freedom, life liberty happiness
Till a fetus is born, able to live outside the womb, the woman's body is hers and she has the right to choose what happens. Medically the woman is the patient, not the fetus.
morally people should worry about themselves and not try to control the lives of others who do not ask for their interference. Try to help orphans and the poor, those we are already breathing, not a woman's legal right to control her life and her womb.
If the poor woman chooses to have a child that she then can't support, why is it someone else's responsibility to fund a choice you said was hers alone?
If poster/people care so much about helping other, let them care for those breathing, not those yet to take their first breath on their own or recognized as a person.
I recognize unborn babies as persons. That you don't gives you an excuse.
As for the woman choosing to have kids she can't support, not my responsibility. I didn't produce them and she told me my opinion of whether or not she should have them was none of my business. For those two reasons, it's not my place to provide for them. It's hers. She made the choice on her own.
Dear aris2chat
A. I agree with keeping beliefs out of govt.
B. Normally, "prochoice' if kept NEUTRAL would be the equivalent of letting all beliefs be treated equally and kept out of govt
C. HOWEVER because govt funding and protection is given to abortion then this is NOT NEUTRAL.
You can try to separate the funding, but the fact that govt endorses it makes it ESTABLISHING A BELIEF.
So you are contradicting your own argument by only protecting PROCHOICE beliefs from PROLIFE,
but not vice versa and not protecting PROLIFE beliefs from PROCHOICE being endorsed by govt.
Same with gay marriage
Same with health care through govt.
Those aren't neutral either when govt starts endorsing and protecting these as institutions.
Again, I AGREE with you that religious beliefs should be kept out of govt.
The problem is the secular beliefs and political beliefs are not treated the same
way and kept out of govt as religious beliefs should be.
So that isn't NEUTRAL and it isn't EQUAL.
==========================
o
one person's church or god has no part in the life of someone else with their beliefs.
I'm not forcing anyone what to choose. But no one should take that choice away from them. They are free to decide their life and their body, but not mine, yours, the kid down the street or the woman across the country.
A woman has a legal right to be free and make her choices. She is not someone's property to control. I've been making my choices since I was small. I was not restricted or told what to do. Maybe not all my choice were the best in hind sight, but they were mine. It was my life. There were many things I had no choice over. I don't control nature and I cant prevent or stop a war on my own. If I don't know there is danger I can't make the decision to avoid it.
I can't or want to control the decisions of other and I damn well don't want them making mine.
If I choose to play wit snakes or alligators no one gets to tell me I can't because I might get bit.
Everyone is free to make their choices for them, not the rest of the population.
I don't get to know the medical records of anyone without writes permission. I don't get to make choices if they are capable of understanding and saying no in some way.
I'm not telling them what to do, nor am I trying to take their rights away from them. I'm not going to let others decide or take the rights and freedoms away from other if I can help it.
I've lives in repressive societies where woman have few if any right. I've also seen what happens to woman after rape and abuse. I seen woman die in childbirth and know woman who kill themselves because they are pregnant, and seen woman killed.
I've tried to help and empower them when I could and just been a shoulder at others time.
A woman should have an absolute right to control her own body and life.
It is about person freedoms. Pro life have a freedom to believe, but not to interfere with someone else's choice who does not.
Same with gay
No one is saying they can't believe it is wrong. So they don't get an abortion or marry a gay. They is there right. When they try to take the right and freedoms of other, it becomes a problem.
We should not have to involved government, but when the protection of free choice is threatened, the courts step in.
If they think it is sinful, it is sinful for "them", not all the other people who do not share their church.
Women have a legal right to privacy and a legal right to control their body.
She has a legal right to seek an abortion, if that is her choice.
Government funds clinics that deal with reproductive issues and a woman's health. They do not fund or pay for abortions. The doctors just happen to be the same both. Abortions are a tiny percent of what those clinics provide. A safe abortion that preserves a woman's ability to reproduce at a later time.
Clinics abortions are down with better knowledge and access to birth control and day-after, but many are also opting for home abortions up to 24weeks, so the government figures are not accurate. Home kits might be ordered, but there are no figures of how may actually use, or complete, them. Maybe they changed their mind. Maybe they miscarried before taking.
In the case of a woman's health, it becomes an insurance issue. If rape, the government covers the cost, but that also involves police reports and hospital rape kits, even if the woman will not testify.
Religion should not be used to interfere with an individuals freedom, life liberty happiness
Till a fetus is born, able to live outside the womb, the woman's body is hers and she has the right to choose what happens. Medically the woman is the patient, not the fetus.
morally people should worry about themselves and not try to control the lives of others who do not ask for their interference. Try to help orphans and the poor, those we are already breathing, not a woman's legal right to control her life and her womb.
If the poor woman chooses to have a child that she then can't support, why is it someone else's responsibility to fund a choice you said was hers alone?
If poster/people care so much about helping other, let them care for those breathing, not those yet to take their first breath on their own or recognized as a person.
I recognize unborn babies as persons. That you don't gives you an excuse.
As for the woman choosing to have kids she can't support, not my responsibility. I didn't produce them and she told me my opinion of whether or not she should have them was none of my business. For those two reasons, it's not my place to provide for them. It's hers. She made the choice on her own.
