All I can say is I know of four people, if someone had not stepped in to save A  life. My Daughter being one > I have a > G son> who mostly will give me a GG son!

Most Women and some men suffer depression from abortion.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

I have stuck with reason and science.

LOL!

 

In response to chiefhowie's comment:

I hear you... If I agreed with abortion for myself..then the most important person in my world would not be here today. I don't believe in it for myself..but my point is that I don't have the right to force my belief on someone else. I made my choice for myself...I've no right to make the choice for someone else. Also..the point of this post is that there are a hundred scenarios like the one in Ireland . This is why RoeV Wade should stay the law of the land.

 

Also..with regards to Skeeter's hysterics..Roe V Wade does not allow for partial birth or late term abortion...Roe V Wade leaves abortion restrictions after the first trimester to the states. If you have a problem with a state law..then take it up with the state..not with the entire federal system.

In response to miscricket's comment:

The child has no choice. 

bad  people exiest everywhere. Girl in Cal, aborts her child , then chops it up and throws it in a hopper.

Girl aborts then kills herself.

In response to miscricket's comment:

Hysterics?

I think the hysterics lie elsewhere.  I'm just asking an honest, uncomfortable (for some)question.

When do the rights of the baby start?

Look, abortion is the law of the land.  It is also a sacred tennet of liberal orthodoxy, which means that, if I question it, I am being hysterical. NO dissent, NO other opinions allowed.

Go figure.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Once again as I said earlier the left can't have this rational slippery scope discussion.

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

Sure and the Right likes to pretend they are holier than thou pro lifers, until a GOP rep who is a doctor, cheats on his wife with a patient, knocks up said patient and then despite his strong pro life stance tells the patient to have an abortion.  You really couldn't make this stuff up....

The point has always been it is not the governments place to tell a women what she can and cannot do with her body. 

In response to Thesemenarecowards' comment:

Once again avoiding the question at hand.

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

 .....?

In response to skeeter20's comment:

People patting themselves on the back for having a "high sense of morality" are typically some of the least moral people out there....

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

Because it doesn't exist. LOL.

Roe gave the best answer: We cannot define the point at which something becomes an indepedent human being, but unlike some people we respect a woman's right to control her body. So the best we can do is say that the right to abort ends when the collection of cells growing inside the woman reaches the point where it can survive outside the woman.

 Bible-thumpers give the least american answer out there: I have a little storybook that says my invisible man says that life begins at conception. So that should be the law. YAY SHARIA!

 

 

 

As for slippery slopes, I love how you folk conveniently ignore the one you're standing on: If the right to life begins at conception, then you're calling a single cell a person. A full human being.

If you were logical, you would demand homicide investigations of every woman who had a miscarriage. After all, a person died in her care. Right?

 

Or is your position just a pile of it?

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

The question at hand has been law of the land for 40 years.  I don't care what women I will never meet do with their pregnancies.

The Left has no interest in avoiding the issue because it is a winning issue for them. 

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

This current discussion stems back to skeeter asking a reasonable question; at what time dose an unborn baby have rights?

I respesct the personal position that life begins at conception but that's not the legal or pragmatic position.

So at what stage does it deserve protection?

At implatation to the uterus?

At 8 weeks brain development, descernable facial features, hand visble

At 12 weeks not the cutest kid but it sure looks like one

At 13 weeks baby has unique finger prints

At 15 wks mother feels movement

 

The mothers health is always the drving concern.  I'm completely OK with the morning after pill.  Once implanted my discomfort rises.  I'm OK for the first 4 wks, and at 8 weeks I'm seeing a baby, at 12 weeks I think abortion is too late.

That's how I feel, how I feel is different from my acceptance of the law.

I have a picture of a live baby at 12 weeks> don't know how to post. From OYBGN nurse.

I see class warfare hasn't ended> here at BDC.

All about me against the world of life of responsibility.

G.I.T.M nation of video gamer's .

 

In response to Thesemenarecowards' comment:

So, unable to answerthe quetion, you try to throw the blame on mythical "bad republicans".

Answer the question.  When do the rights of the baby start?

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

Sure, some are like that, heck, maybe most.

So how is this an excuse for being immoral?

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

Roe v. Wade says nothign aboutthe rights of the baby.  When do we as a society recognize the rights of the baby?

This is not some esoteric religious discussion, but a legal one.  My take is that given the lack of clarity around when a baby has rights, between the goalposts of conception and birth, I would think that as a legal matter we need to choose one of the goalposts. Any point in between is a muddled decision based on philosophical choices. Agree?

In response to Thesemenarecowards' comment:

You may not have an interest in an individual's preganacy, which is precisely why the law does, or must.  Roe v. Wade addresses the right of the mother not the baby.  The left likes this answer all squishy so it can create another depencency group of voters.

[/QUOTE]

You may not have an interest in an individual's preganacy, which is precisely why the law does, or must.  Roe v. Wade addresses the right of the mother not the baby.  The left likes this answer all squishy so it can create another depencency group of voters.

[/QUOTE]

You are preetty "squishy" about the concept of individual rights.  You oppose the government involving itself in the economy, but want to employ its full power in matters of personal morality.  The country is hopelessly split on this issue and yet you are more than willing to impose your "truth" on others and prosecute those that don't follow your will.  That actually is not vague at all that is quite oppressive.

And the issue for the developing fetus is one of viability.  But even then if the mother's life is at risk the law favors the actual life over the potential life.  

Don't like abortion?  Don't have one.  That is not squishy at all.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Try reading it.

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

You may not have an interest in an individual's preganacy, which is precisely why the law does, or must.  Roe v. Wade addresses the right of the mother not the baby.  The left likes this answer all squishy so it can create another depencency group of voters.

[/QUOTE]

You are preetty "squishy" about the concept of individual rights.  You oppose the government involving itself in the economy, but want to employ its full power in matters of personal morality.  The country is hopelessly split on this issue and yet you are more than willing to impose your "truth" on others and prosecute those that don't follow your will.  That actually is not vague at all that is quite oppressive.

And the issue for the developing fetus is one of viability.  But even then if the mother's life is at risk the law favors the actual life over the potential life.  

Don't like abortion?  Don't have one.  That is not squishy at all.

[/QUOTE]


So, you admit that the baby has indivdidual rights?  And if do, when?

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

Oh, snap!

 

Such a nice bumper sticker you have there.

 

I like the part where Roe v. Wade recognizes thatthe baby has rights, but it is OK to kill it anyways.

 

Is that what you are referring to?

I wonder why skeeter wants all women who suffer miscarriages investigated for homicide. I mean.....to him, a zygote is a human person.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

You sure get nasty when you can't answer the question.

Well, here's your opportunity to educate me.  You indicate that the rights of the baby are addressed in Roe v. Wade.  Tell me what it says.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

 

Talk about thin-skinned. How on earth is this nasty:

I wonder why skeeter wants all women who suffer miscarriages investigated for homicide. I mean.....to him, a zygote is a human person.

 

???

It is the logical end of your position: That life begins at conception and therefore a zygote has all the rights of any other U.S. citizen. That would mean that a homicide investigation is appropriate for all miscarriages and still-births to determine whether the woman is guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

I doubt even you are dumb/lazy/insane enough to demand that, which leads me to believe you don't mean what you say here.

 

 

 

"Well, here's your opportunity to educate me.  You indicate that the rights of the baby are addressed in Roe v. Wade.  Tell me what it says."

I've already told you a million times: The woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps whatever rights the fetus has until the fetus reaches the point at viability, at which point, the fetuses' rights trump the woman's rights - unless the pregnancy could harm/kill the woman.

But go on, make another show of your refusal/inability to understand.....as if that's a counter-argument or something.