Bomma doesn't want his girls punished with a baby though.
Abortion is MURDER!!!!
- Thread starter Stoney
- Start date
Bomma doesn't want his girls punished with a baby though.
Bomma doesn't want his girls punished with a baby though.
Super, so it's better for her to live a life knowing that she killed her baby? What do you think that's going to do to her for the rest of her life? It is a horrible thing, no matter how you look at it. We as a society need to do a MUCH better job of helping women through those situations. I don't see how killing the baby is going to make things better for her one iota. It won't make her forget the rape will it? It will only compound the anguish upon her for the rest of her life.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 5,836
- Reaction score
- 4,780
- Points
- 113
No, she will just get to raise a child who's DNA is from a man who put that DNA into her body by brute force. Then she will get to look into that kid's face for the next couple decades and who and what do you suppose she will think of every time she looks at him/her? Talk about torture. For her it may or may not be better but she should damn sure have that choice. She didn't make the decision to have sex or get pregnant by her rapist, that choice was never given to her.
Last edited:
Adoption is a choice.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 5,836
- Reaction score
- 4,780
- Points
- 113
Carrying a child that a rapist implanted in you by force isn't.
I
Idioteque
Guest
Scientifically, the baby is never a "mass of cells" any more than you are right now. Its genetic coding begins at the moment of conception. Minutes later, it has the same human chromosomal map that you and I have at this moment.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 5,836
- Reaction score
- 4,780
- Points
- 113
It doesn't have a brain, so that makes it not quite the same as you and I, at least IMO.
Super, horrible things happen to good people all the time that they are forced to live with. A horrible car accident may disfigure somebody for life, and it's something that person will be forced to live with. Just like some people are forced to live with the fact that they can't have children, though they desperately want to. It's terrible, and we should help that person, just like a rape victim. Nobody is saying a woman should be forced to keep and raise the child, and nobody here is saying she should be forced to deal with this alone. You still haven't answered how killing the baby makes it better for her.
Killing a baby that is 1/2 of you is a choice. Give it up if you can't handle it. It didn't asked to for this either. It is still a choice whether to have it or not. It may not be a easy choice or a good choice but it still is a choice.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 5,836
- Reaction score
- 4,780
- Points
- 113
Listen, this is one of those topics that people aren't going to be swayed from their position, that's just the way it is. I'm not in favor of abortion in 99 cases out of 100. This is one of those cases where it would be, provided it's done very early on. I know you guys feel that a life is a life and aborting an embryo that is almost completely unformed and has no brain, can not think and can not feel is the same as an abortion where the baby is almost fully formed but I don't see it logically. I would not advocate a woman getting an abortion later in a pregnancy for almost any reason. The only one I can think of is if she is almost certainly going to die delivering the baby due to some rare medical occurrence, or if the baby has a major birth defect so horrific that the child would have zero quality of life (i.e. no brain has formed, etc.). Other than these rare occurrences I am on board with not being in favor of them.
It's a matter of timing and situation for me. If a woman gets raped, goes to the doctor and they give her the morning after pill the next day to get rid of the pregnancy, I have no moral qualms about that whatsoever. You can say whatever you want about a life has formed and it's the same thing as a late term abortion (although I would disagree completely), but that is a perfectly acceptable option to a woman in that situation to me.
It's a matter of timing and situation for me. If a woman gets raped, goes to the doctor and they give her the morning after pill the next day to get rid of the pregnancy, I have no moral qualms about that whatsoever. You can say whatever you want about a life has formed and it's the same thing as a late term abortion (although I would disagree completely), but that is a perfectly acceptable option to a woman in that situation to me.
Last edited:
I
Idioteque
Guest
In other words, a braindead person is not a person, correct? A comatose person who does not respond to pain stimuli is no longer a person, correct?
Last edited:
I
Idioteque
Guest
That doesn't make it OK to support murder. People used to feel that way about slavery and the Holocaust.
You don't know what the morning after pill is. It does NOT get rid of a pregnancy. It prevents the possibility of a pregnancy happening. It is the same as using a condom.
Please, get educated on this stuff.
so you're saying that all newly conceived children are liberals
I think having your genetic material passed on is a privilege. If your willing to reject that privilege due to selfishness or need, more power to you. More room for the kids of those who want to pass on their genetic material.
Last edited:
K
khruuton
Guest
Thanks Ron! I am actually seeing hope for this law to change. More and more younger adults (18-29) are stating they believe abortion is wrong at any stage of gestation. I see the change in my sunday school kids as they are coming into 7th grade, and not after I've taught them. They are already aware of this topic and their options to change it. I credit the March For Life movement and how they get the word out.
It's encouraging this attitude can change in America and the law can be changed in the future here. At least from what I'm seeing.
I
Idioteque
Guest
Most of America has the attitude of "I would never get an abortion, but I don't want to tell someone else they can't do it." This is the stupidest ******* thing I've ever heard. The issue is not whether people love abortion; very few do. The issue is convincing everyone that a person is a person is a person. That my 17 m/o is no different on a genetic human level than a baby at conception. That I can't morally kill my 17 m/o any more than I can kill an unborn one.
BlackStripeYellowPaint
Registered
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
Most tumors have a full set of human chromosomes and no one is complaining about taking them out of people's bodies.
I
Idioteque
Guest
So they're in the midst of the human development process?
Interesting Red Herring....Not!... Cancer cells are so-called because the very structure of the human-cells mutate; their DNA mutates, and in most cases mutates the DNA to such a respect as to deviate from the genetic deviation of **** Sapien aka Human. Also, cancerous tumors will never grow into anything that can "live" on their own...
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 5,836
- Reaction score
- 4,780
- Points
- 113
Jesus Christ excuse me! Can you be any more pompous? Not just in this instance either. If you puffed yourself up any more than you normally do, you would have to live in a house with no roof because your ******* head couldn't fit under it.
I
Idioteque
Guest
Well somebody is hyper ******* sensitive.
Kinda like me when someone tells me it's ok to kill a child if it's not that big yet.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,337
- Reaction score
- 1,680
- Points
- 113
There is legislative and judicial hope. This is actually HUGE news...
http://www.nationaljournal.com/heal...eme-court-can-t-do-anything-about-it-20140505
Texas Is Permanently Shutting Abortion Clinics and the Supreme Court Can't Do Anything About It
Regardless of what the judicial system does with Texas’s antiabortion law, its on-the-ground effects are unlikely to be reversed.
By Sophie Novack
May 5, 2014
When Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed a sweeping anti-abortion law in 2013, he did so knowing the measure faced an uncertain future. Indeed, the law is already winding its way through the legal system, and if its opponents have their way, Texas's reproductive legal code will land in the hands of the Supreme Court.
But such a decision is likely a year or years a way, and back in the Lone Star State, the final judicial score won't much matter.
The law has already had tremendous success in closing abortion clinics and restricting abortion access in Texas. And those successes appear all but certain to stick—with or without the Supreme Court's approval of the law that created them.
There were more than 40 clinics that provided abortions in Texas in 2011. There are now 20 still open, and after the law's last steps of implementation are taken in September, all but six are expected to close. Most of the closed clinics will never reopen, their operators say.
Few businesses could survive a years-long hibernation, and that's all the more true for clinics, providers say. The added difficulty of finding qualified doctors, getting new licences, and navigating state health department regulations is a hurdle higher than most closed clinics are likely to clear—especially in a state where a sizable portion of the public is vehemently opposed to abortion and unwilling to aid it in any way.
"I can't find anyone to deliver water or resurface the parking lot, because they're against abortion. I can't get someone to fix a leak in the roof," said Amy Hagstrom Miller, CEO of Whole Women's Health.
In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit—which covers Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana—upheld the law as constitutional. Additionally, the court declined a request to keep two of the law's provisions, both of which were instrumental in the clinic closures, from taking effect before the legal struggle over the law is completed.
The clinic closures will increase as the law phases in a set of requirements for abortion facilities. The first set, which included a requirement that doctors performing the procedure have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles, went into effect last November, prompting many clinics to close. The final set of restrictions—that all abortions, including drug-induced, be performed in ambulatory surgical centers—takes effect in September.
Hagstrom Miller's company had five abortion facilities and one ambulatory surgical center in Texas in 2013. Two closed as a result of the admitting-privilege requirement in March, and it's likely that only the surgical center in San Antonio will remain by September.
"The opposition has been extremely strategic," Hagstrom Miller said. "This law is perfectly crafted."
Ambulatory surgical centers are facilities that conduct outpatient or same-day surgical procedures, and must meet specific requirements regarding infrastructure, procedures, and equipment. The centers cost far more to run than abortion clinics, and would cost several million dollars to build from the ground up.
Hagstrom Miller also said it has been impossible to find hospitals that will agree to give admitting privileges to abortion providers, or ambulatory surgical centers that will sell or lease their facilities. Leasing or buying the space itself is expensive and difficult, and Hagstrom Miller currently has mortgages on three buildings, which she will have to sell. She purchased those under a different name, and did construction without associating them with Whole Woman's Health out of concern that she wouldn't get permitting or might attract protests.
The antiabortion coalition that backs the law sees all of this as sound public policy, arguing that the law's restrictions were put in place to protect women seeking medical care, and if the centers can't meet them, then they should be closed and stay closed.
"If the state is passing regulations that are similar or equivalent to those that all other medical facilities provide, and some [clinics] close because they're not meeting standards that other medical facilities have to meet, I don't see a problem with that," said Dan McConchie, vice president for government affairs at Americans United for Life, an advocacy group that worked on parts of the Texas legislation.
The six remaining abortion clinics come September will be clustered in major cities, which opponents of the law argue unfairly disadvantages women in rural areas—particularly the Rio Grande Valley—who tend to be poorer and less able to travel long distances for an abortion. Those clinics that remain will be serving more women with fewer doctors, leading to longer wait times and delayed procedures, the opponents say.
The legal struggle over the law continues, but in Texas, the law's challengers are looking beyond their state's borders. Following a broad Republican conquest of statehouses in 2010, a wave of state-level antiabortion laws have been passed—including in states whose circuit courts abortion rights groups hope will be more sympathetic to their arguments.
As challenges to those laws work their way up the legal system, opponents of the Texas law are hoping for a circuit-court ruling that is incompatible with the 5th Circuit appeals decision. Such a contradiction would open the possibility of the entire issue being elevated to the Supreme Court, where—depending on the scope of the decision—Texas's law could either be upheld or struck down.
But the U.S. judicial system is a deliberative one, and with the request for a stay denied, the Texas law is unlikely to be voided anytime soon.
"[A decision] is a ways away," said Jennifer Dalven, director of the Reproductive Freedom Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, which was part of the suit filed against the Texas legislation. "I dont think it would be next year; more likely in the year after that."
I
Idioteque
Guest
Well that's fan-*******-tastic news Vincent. Still a pretty sad state of affairs in this country though.
Baby-Killing: We're Phasing it Out Gradually for the Sake of Convenience!!
Baby-Killing: We're Phasing it Out Gradually for the Sake of Convenience!!
