Do you mean that you can't read and just troll to make up for your lack of intellect?Do you mean that it is everyone's personnel view as long as that view is the same as yours?
Do you mean that you can't read and just troll to make up for your lack of intellect?Do you mean that it is everyone's personnel view as long as that view is the same as yours?
So it makes it okay to kill an unborn child for something they might do as an adult. You have a warp view on things.There are a bunch of genes very closely linked to autism even if there is not a gene that explicitly determines autism.
But what happened to your view that it's a personal decision.
p.s. While abortion may have prevented some amazing people from being born, it also may have prevented some truly disgusting people from existing. Imagine if every poor or marginalized mother was forced to give birth? Either there would be shitload of un-adopted kids or a ton of single mothers (and you've stated your opinion on that topic).
p.p.s. I personally wouldn't consider autism as a reason to abort. Down syndrome on the other hand is extremely taxing on parents and the child would tend to have a shortened life with plenty of health issues.
So you do believe it is a woman's right to choose in her personal opinion?Do you mean that you can't read and just troll to make up for your lack of intellect?
Hold on...you made a statement in your last post so let's not get ahead of ourselves here...So you do believe it is a woman's right to choose in her personal opinion?
In my view it can be said to be as much a right as thatSo you do believe it is a woman's right to choose in her personal opinion?
Again, there is a Blood Test for autism during pregnancy to determine potential genetic conditions.Yes getting better but not conclusive and still very much in the study phase. Big decision to make based on something that's not conclusive no?
It's not about it being a woman's own body in the context of this specific scenario...it's about making a decision to abort based on testing that is not conclusive. It would be a different story if it was conclusive, but at this time it's not. So there is a risk of taking a chance and potentially making the wrong decision if the intent was to have a child in the first place.Again, there is a Blood Test for autism during pregnancy to determine potential genetic conditions.
If there is a Family History of ASD then the risk of Autism rises significantly. Opting for Chromosomal or Genetic blood tests along with the screening tests can determine the risk of a range of conditions including autism.
Based on that a woman and her doctor should be able to decide whether they want to abort the fetus. After all it is the Woman's own Body!!
They're not a child, they are a fetus. In states that ban at 6 weeks, they're just a lump of cells with the potential to become a human.So it makes it okay to kill an unborn child for something they might do as an adult. You have a warp view on things.
No. My views aren't based on religion. There's a big reason why the US (and France) have divided governmental laws from religious instruction.And vise versa no?
Do you see anywhere that I say autism screening is 100%? My view is that the mother can and should be able to make that decision. If she wants to get rid of a clump of fertilized cells for any reason, she can.The science for prenatal screening for autism is not conclusive yet. Maybe in time it will be. As it stands, it's not.
The list of people I provided was specifically for autism to reinforce my point about people aborting if they believe their child will be autistic.
re preventing disgusting people from being born, that's not really a fair comparison. People are a product of many things after they are born. Long list of influences and factors that shape who they end up becoming. Those influences can't happen to anyone if they're not born.
Babies in the womb who have been diagnosed with something severe or even life threatening to the mother would be a totally different thing.
There may be a soul trapped in an unborn to the religiousThey're not a child, they are a fetus. In states that ban at 6 weeks, they're just a lump of cells with the potential to become a human.
........................................
And that is what makes this a contentious issue: at what point is fetus a human being?They're not a child, they are a fetus. In states that ban at 6 weeks, they're just a lump of cells with the potential to become a human.
Pretty pathetic you want to impose your religious views on the rest of us.
I am asking whether a woman has a right to choose if you do not share that view. Not too complicated a it flows directly from my original question. Should be a yes or no.Hold on...you made a statement in your last post so let's not get ahead of ourselves here...
You said: " Do you mean that it is everyone's personnel view as long as that view is the same as yours? "
Now show me where I said that everyone's personal view needs to be the same as mine or anything even close to that.
I'll wait for your response.
Not even sure what that means. Excuse my denseness.In my view it can be said to be as much a right as that
of a man to whom a woman exercises her right to open
up her legs.
If it's such a simple question then why ask it by insulting me?I am asking whether a woman has a right to choose if you do not share that view. Not too complicated a it flows directly from my original question. Should be a yes or no.
My views have nothing to do with religion yet you think so just because you don't agree with them. You must be a woke liberal. The "SCIENCE" states that after 6 weeks the fetus has a heart beat. That's been one of the main arguments in the United States because they want to extend that six week period even though the science says it's a living human. Check out all of my posts and try to find any that are religious based.They're not a child, they are a fetus. In states that ban at 6 weeks, they're just a lump of cells with the potential to become a human.
Pretty pathetic you want to impose your religious views on the rest of us.