You don't have to be religious to oppose killing.
Every time you hear of an abortion, you should experience pangs of sadness and/or revulsion.
Abortion
- Thread starter Darts
- Start date
You don't have to be religious to oppose killing.
Every time you hear of an abortion, you should experience pangs of sadness and/or revulsion.
OJ, are you suggesting that society should support children that their parents didn't want?
Then you should be out there volunteering to take full responsibility of those unwanted kids you demand be born.
http://time.com/5595974/pope-francis-abortion-hitman/
This is the same Pope who complains we aren't taking in enough migrants and who has so far declined to visit his suffering flock in Sri Lanka.
This is the same Pope who complains we aren't taking in enough migrants and who has so far declined to visit his suffering flock in Sri Lanka.
Of course. And the current crop of suits is more interested in a win in the conflict that a win for the community. Unlike some of their more judicious predecessors.
It is quite clear the current crop have zero interest in providing in any way for the needs, wishes, welfare or rights of the women they are legislating into forced motherhood. The victims of these new laws would be 100% of the community members directly impacted and over half of its total population.
Whatever moral principle may underly the claimed concern for those not yet born, it seems it wasn't powerful or important enough to persuade anything like the majority of women to agree. That there was no serious effort to consult them or solicit their input, suggests no higher moral principles were involved.
Knowing they are a minority, these zealots are taking full advantage of the temporary power the College and Senate have given them, and going for the win at any cost to the community as a whole.
I certainly do, if society's law is the sole reason that accidental embryo was carried to term and born into this world.
How is anyone better off if an unwanted child is then brought up by an unwilling parent without support, who likely resents its very presence? How can any society claim to have the welfare of the unborn at heart if it abandons them to such an upbringing?
When the laws ensure a paternity test is as easy for a woman to get as a pregnancy test, and the 'cost' of child-bearing and rearing falls as equally as it can on fathers as it does on mothers, then we can turn the laws to consider the supposed rights of someone who doesn't yet exist.
But no law should ever force on any child the evil abusive torture of being raised by those who don't want it. If society compels the birth, it owes the upbringing.
Thanks for confirming my initial understanding of your original post. I agree that if society prevents abortions, then society has a duty to properly raise that child. Hence, my post about leaving that child at the local fire station (which actually happened in real life recently).
https://www.cp24.com/news/police-ma...-left-baby-at-georgina-fire-station-1.4434497
Honesty is a pretty big deal when dealing with any issue, but especially a major one like an abortion. An unrestricted abortion, as advocated by the progressives, NEVER had the support of the majority of the voters. The voters didn't even had a say in the debate. That position, abortion without restrictions, is a minority view led by zealots. Where Americans are going is toward striking down Roe v. Wade and return it where it belongs- on the state level where people will finally have their say.
You are completely misunderstanding the issue of basic human rights. They are not available to be decided by a popular vote.
So if you support abortion you should also support more social services to pay for those kids.
Why don't you?
Since when late term abortion is a human right? Serious question. When, in the history of humanity, late term abortion was a human right?
Speaking of honesty, who is it that is advocating abortions at any time for any reason?
Canada has "late term" abortions and has been doing pretty well. Yes, we allow medical professionals to decide on a case by case basis whether a later term abortion is a necessity instead of letting politicians make a blanket decision.
And yes, the US has this strange fascination with states rights but they also have a federal constitution which according to their supreme court protects a woman's right to have access to abortion.
Serious answer: Quote someone making that claim. Ditto for Darts, singing the tenor line from your anti-women songbook.
You both seem to have forgotten that songbook is a US edition. Here in Canada, all Charter rights are 'subject to such restrictions as may be required in a free and democratic society'. And in the 'lawless' period after the Morgenthaler decision, there was no such evil wave, before regulations were enacted.
But since jc dragged in the entire history of humanity, you guys might remember the Romans who gave us our laws and their language had an official practice of exposing unwanted newborns to die on hillsides, which is about as 'late-term' or 'partial-boirth' as it gets. Not that they were the only people to do so. And as for 'wrong-race' babies and human rights, some quite recent 'white' governments legislated — nice Roman word that — criminal convictions for women bearing mixed race children. The Romans didn't have coat-hangers, but how many d'ya s'pose were misused because of those 'rightful' race laws?
So far you guys on your stalking horses are the only ones claiming those extreme 'rights'. Can't you find anyone real? Shouldn't you be arguing with them?
How is that at all relevant? You asked "When, in the history of humanity, late term abortion was a human right?" Since you've quote no one claiming late term abortion is a human right, and I know of no one who has, I answered with the historical fact: that its equivalent has often been legal and widely practised and permitted. Any Roman woman recently delivered of an unwanted infant could lawfully expose it to die, and no one had any 'right' to say her nay. That is the history, and widespread across the world, not restricted to a small bit of geography or time.
You asked.
Don't let me stop you from picking at irrelevant nits about what is a legally defined right, when the topic is the significance of abortion. But on the matter of citizens' rights under Roman law, please check the Acts of the Apostles. It tells how St. Paul, a Roman citizen invoked his right to be tried as a citizen, by a Roman court, and only a Roman Court. And on the subject of another right, an accused person's right to confront witnesses against them — Article Six US Bill of Rights — the US Supreme Court cited Acts 25:16, which reports the Roman governor Porcius Festus, discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner Paul: "It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges."
Sounds like he had the concept to me. Even if he didn't use our word.
Line ups or not, American stats are that one woman in four has had an abortion.
As for the fuss, there'd be none, if a few zealots — overwhelmingly male — weren't energetically trying to use the criminal law to force such women to bear, birth and nurture all those unwanted kids.
Not one of them has shown the slightest practical concern for the wellbeing of those babies. Will they grow up to Make America Great Again? Odds are they'll grow up to fill its prisons.
It's not relevant, yet you try to squeeze it through an eye of the needle of the Roman criminal law? Human right is a concept that crystalized in the 18th century. CE. What the unlimited abortion advocates argue are semantics. It is a ok for a woman to decide to remove some extra tissue in the late stages of pregnancy, but putting a born person to death a minute after living the birth canal earns one at least a dime behind bars. Forget rights or morality. Even the simplest logic fails, here. You have an unwanted pregnancy? Deal with it in a timely manner. But, somehow, women ask for full rights to decide, yet they don't want to accept responsibility.
Liberal Think
Liberals:
Only women with ovaries can have a say on abortion, if you don’t have ovaries you don’t have a say.
Also liberals:
Genitalia does not bind your gender. Men can have babies and have ovaries too and compete in woman's competitive sports.
Liberals, consistently inconsistent
Liberals:
Only women with ovaries can have a say on abortion, if you don’t have ovaries you don’t have a say.
Also liberals:
Genitalia does not bind your gender. Men can have babies and have ovaries too and compete in woman's competitive sports.
Liberals, consistently inconsistent
Similar threads
