The Problem with Legalized Abortion

then call it medical regulation.there still will be a very large number of anti-abortionist pressing in politics to make abortian illegal.because it currently is not doesnt mean it never will be.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

it isn't.see. this is the issue. you're unfortunately correct. they keep trying to legislate science. they want to legislate that life begins at "conception" a period that doesn't exist. they want to legislate that evolution is "just a theory" and that theory means something other than what it means and i'm sure they're not opposed to legislating that human beings are "special creation of god" except that it has the word god in it and they'd never get it passed. or at least not in the near future. i think i almost get what you're saying. but no one is suggesting that people are unlimited in their choices. we just haven't figured out where the line should be drawn. why? because it's impossible to have a discussion about "when is a scientifically viable point and what restrictions should we have to demonstrate that compelling state interest?" without someone screaming about how life begins at conception and babies are precious and women are sluts and murderers.

unfortunately, people don't understand how to read.

if a human embreyo is classified as lifeit isn't.________________hence the word if.i beleive that further definition of rights need to be set by the government body for this reason:my wife becomes pregnant, and i want the baby and she doesnt want to get fat; how do i persue the life of my unborn child?however, under my own assertation of rights, i would have no viable action to save the existance of the child unless the child could first exist outside the womb.the problem with defining embryonic rights, is that the rights of the woman cannot be ignored.the unborn child and woman exist with a symbionic relationship. to put more rights over the embryo than the woman is criminal in my opinion. however, to assert that a woman has rights over a child that is in the womb that can survive without the relationship, then i beleive the unborn child has rights to exist as long as extraction and division from the parent entity would not cause death of the parent.in which case, the parent must be allowed to assert which would live or die, since she would have greater rights of the two.

i guess you mean preserve.you don't. until you can carry your own child, you have no right to tell her what she has to do with her organs. being fat may sound like a cosmetic issue to you, but i think it should be very clear that it's a very serious health concern.maybe you should better select which woman you choose to father children with. no, they don't. there is nothing that that fetus does for the woman alive that it wouldn't do for her dead. it is a parasite. it takes resources and gives nothing back. good job, this is what the legal precedence states. good job. this is similar to what the legal precedence states.you're not saying anything new. this is all in the caselaw.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

then there is nothing to debate with you, since we are on the same page, however i feel that the way you relayed it is cold.

are you gonna tell me i'm a slut and a murderer?i don't care how "cold" you think i am. feti are parasites that should only exist at the express permission of a woman. they cause serious harm and the only "benefit" they offer is changing diapers in the future and having an excuse to buy doll clothes. oh, and if you're lucky, someday they'll be reasonable and intelligent people with whom you can carry on a conversation without wanting to smack them. maybe.

not at all.i beleive for the sake of freedom the choice should exist.my hope is that humanity still find life precios enough to want to protect it by their own wishes.and that whatever the reasons of abortion, that if their is no guilt, they made the right choice. if a woman has had an abortion and feels guilt, then perhapts the choice of the abortion was not theirs.the freedom of choice should still be allowed.lol smack them huh? lolif your lucky they will care enough about you to help you in your old age Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

if i'm lucky, i'll be responsible enough to provide for my own old age.

quote:

---

i dont see how slavery is a proper analogy for abortion, the abortion problem is the sybiotic relationship with the mpother and fetus.

---

It is not a symbiotic relationship, since in symbiotic relationships two organisms mutually benefit each other.The carrier of a fetus doesn't derive any benefit from the fetus, and in fact the carrier is physically depleted by the fetus.The more apt term you are looking for is "parasitic relationship". Edited by nator, : No reason given.

thanks, yeah that was pointed out.

quote:

---

How will my paying for everything change the behavior that put her in the situation in the first place.

---

Look, I thought this was about babies, not controlling women's sexual behavior, or was I wrong about that?

............................................... What do you think we've been doing since Roe v Wade?............................................. Are you kidding?....... Seriously....... Are you joking? We aren't trying to make special fetus laws, we're trying, and have been trying, to get a fetus recognized as a a person with rights. You should come down off the mountain every once and awhile to see how the lowlanders live. What a ridiculous, bald-faced lie Ringo.... If we were allowed to care for a fetus, we would. But a woman bent on destroying her fetus is going to do what she wants. And from a lawful standpoint, there is nothing I can do about that except fight it through legislature.

quote:

---

What do they gain from it if they don't actually care?

---

There are plenty of things to be self-righteous about, none of which need include another person. Try again. Then go to Capital Hill some time. I guarantee you'll see it, since laws are passed and argued there, not at some obscure abortion clinic. LOL! Putting the cart before the horse is the silliest thing I've ever heard.

quote:

---

Well, Joseph Goebbels seems a strange choice given the horrendous experiments he conducted.

---

What for? I already know all about Minister Goebbels. I just find it strange that you choose a Nazi for your quote. What?!?! Are you joking??? Seriously.... Where do you come up with this nonsense?From start to finish your post is riddled with error and character assassination.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

Linear, you pay for Viagra; "they" pay for Viagra.That is, as taxpayers one pays for Viagra, since it is covered by Medicare and Medicaid. Birth control is not.Gollygeewillikers, I wonder why not.Let's see. Who is prescribed Viagra I wonder? Who is prescribed birth control?

Whodathunkit?Juggs, you going to get to that question of what specifically determines "new life" the moment the sperm penetrates the egg?Or are you going to hide, since you haven't got a satisfactory answer?