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.
^^^inappropriate.
So pregnant women should not be allowed to smoke, or drink during the pregnancy? How about playing sports? Might harm the fetus. Should she do anything stressful? Might harm the fetus...
Different argument.
No it isn't. If the woman smokes through her pregnancy, how is she protecting her baby? She isn't. You said she is obliged to protect it, but then you say she isn't?
I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
I ask that if you wish to participate in this debate you first concede the following two points:
1) Aborting a fetus within a week of conception is not murdering a child.
2) Aborting a fetus after 8 months of gestation, that could survive outside the womb, is murdering a child.
The debate I'm interested in is where between point 1 and point 2 should that line be drawn? At what point in the pregnancy has the mother forfeited the right to 'choose' so to speak?
This would be a better country if Republicans cared more about babies than fetuses.
yeou're right avatar....things were so much nicer in the 50's when things were cheap, jobs were plentiful and good paying and people's stress level wasn't nearly what it is today.You don't think that the financial decline of a large percentage of our population has something to do with issues like divorce, single parenthood, and promescuity? It all works hand in hand.,..I believe.
I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
I ask that if you wish to participate in this debate you first concede the following two points:
1) Aborting a fetus within a week of conception is not murdering a child.
2) Aborting a fetus after 8 months of gestation, that could survive outside the womb, is murdering a child.
The debate I'm interested in is where between point 1 and point 2 should that line be drawn? At what point in the pregnancy has the mother forfeited the right to 'choose' so to speak?
When it has a central nervous system and accompanying brain. Conception and heart-beats are too early. 24 weeks sounds good, and the women must be allowed to choose before then. Nobody using theological motivations should be allowed to change laws concerning this, because this is not based on science. Science and the medical establishment must be the deciders of this.
^^^inappropriate.
Its not inappropriate and its NOT trolling.
His point is that what another woman does with HER body is her own business and not yours.
So the question to you is: By what right do you claim to force your beliefs on another person?
( There is a very good logical answer to that question. I am hoping you actually come up with it. )
But law does not dictate a right. Our founding fathers believed that rights are bestowed by God, regardless of the law of the land or anything else, and that a good government protects those rights.
And that is, in fact, the consensus of the world...that rights exist regardless of what the law dictates, and laws that violate those rights are in fact laws that oppress and violate humanity.
The law making it legal to abort is one of those laws, along with laws that dictated the legality of slavery, and laws that allow tyrants to butcher and murder their people, or laws that allow the strong to kill and subjugate the weak. Those are bad laws, and regardless of the fact that they are laws does not change the fact that the people they are enacted against have a right to be protected from them. Even if it means going against the law that dictates the legality of the oppression.
Different argument.
No it isn't. If the woman smokes through her pregnancy, how is she protecting her baby? She isn't. You said she is obliged to protect it, but then you say she isn't?
I agree with Kosher on this one.
IF a woman decides to carry to term, then, in my opinion, she has accepted the responsibility and therefore would be obliged to protect that child until birth.
I believe if a woman is pregnant, she is obligated to protect her child until birth, yes. And after birth, until the baby is safely placed with someone else who will provide for it.
So pregnant women should not be allowed to smoke, or drink during the pregnancy? How about playing sports? Might harm the fetus. Should she do anything stressful? Might harm the fetus...
Would you like to make a point?
Meanwhile;
Indiana prosecuting Chinese woman for suicide attempt that killed her foetus | World news | guardian.co.uk
No it isn't. If the woman smokes through her pregnancy, how is she protecting her baby? She isn't. You said she is obliged to protect it, but then you say she isn't?
I agree with Kosher on this one.
IF a woman decides to carry to term, then, in my opinion, she has accepted the responsibility and therefore would be obliged to protect that child until birth.
Yet she refuses to answer my question as to whether it is okay for a woman to smoke and drink through her pregnancy.
I know that. But we are talking about life.
I agree with Kosher on this one.
IF a woman decides to carry to term, then, in my opinion, she has accepted the responsibility and therefore would be obliged to protect that child until birth.
Yet she refuses to answer my question as to whether it is okay for a woman to smoke and drink through her pregnancy.
Not to the point where it harms the baby. And I posted a link that showed that women are prosecuted for doing things that harm/kill their unborn children.
I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
I ask that if you wish to participate in this debate you first concede the following two points:
1) Aborting a fetus within a week of conception is not murdering a child.
2) Aborting a fetus after 8 months of gestation, that could survive outside the womb, is murdering a child.
The debate I'm interested in is where between point 1 and point 2 should that line be drawn? At what point in the pregnancy has the mother forfeited the right to 'choose' so to speak?
When it has a central nervous system and accompanying brain. Conception and heart-beats are too early. 24 weeks sounds good, and the women must be allowed to choose before then. Nobody using theological motivations should be allowed to change laws concerning this, because this is not based on science. Science and the medical establishment must be the deciders of this.
I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.
I ask that if you wish to participate in this debate you first concede the following two points:
1) Aborting a fetus within a week of conception is not murdering a child.
2) Aborting a fetus after 8 months of gestation, that could survive outside the womb, is murdering a child.
The debate I'm interested in is where between point 1 and point 2 should that line be drawn? At what point in the pregnancy has the mother forfeited the right to 'choose' so to speak?
When it has a central nervous system and accompanying brain. Conception and heart-beats are too early. 24 weeks sounds good, and the women must be allowed to choose before then. Nobody using theological motivations should be allowed to change laws concerning this, because this is not based on science. Science and the medical establishment must be the deciders of this.
That's exactly what proponents of negative eugenics say, and it's wrong. Pure science and medicine do not see right or wrong, and should never be the "only" ones to decide ethical decisions upon which people's lives hang.
