Except that not one person in this thread has stated they are ok with killing healthy viable newborns
That’s your epic defense for infanticide? I could say you are only seeing what you want to as well If I’m wrong feel free to prove me wrong
So you are for forcing women to give birth like cattle so YOU might benefit ???? How many serial killers do you think were aborted? See how silly that "what if" game is ? Taking away women's rights would do more damage than any abortion ever did...
[QUOTE="Pollycy, post: 1073395561, ]♧ Now, please one counter-observation to your statement, "Of course they don't care if someone kills someone else via firearms". I don't know what the preferred 'mode d’emploi' for violent crimes is in France, but over here it is definitely firearms. Consequently, we law-abiding Americans turn more and more to firearms, and our right to possess and use them, as a defensive method to protect ourselves from criminals... nothing more, and nothing less.[/QUOTE] While that is the theory, it is not true in practice. Truth lies in the hundreds of children and innocent people killed by firearms in the USA every year. ISTM Americans have become so used to someone killing someone else that it has become a scar that you don't notice anymore. Anywhere else in the first world is astounded at the ease with which you both think you have to defend yourselves, rather than use the police for that, and the carnage you seem to put up with. The US just seems to be on a runaway horse and thinks it is normal. The question is more about why there is so much crime in the USA but that isn't the subject here. My principle point stands. Those who are so exercised by letting very ill babies die don't think twice about killing perfectly healthy citizens. Or letting older very ill people die. There is something both inconsistent and political about all this and IMO needs a singular general principle instead of mere historical custom. BTW European crime in general use knives. They leave far fewer bodies lying around and dont work in drive by's or at distance, in schools or through doors or walls.
Any baby capable of growing up to discover a cure for cancer would not be legally allowed to die in infancy. Those who are allowed to die are seriously ill and there is not a cure. They would spend their lives as a vegetable. Regardless of the hysteria some obsessives in here that those who accept the deaths of these children are the hand of the devil intent on reshaping the world as we know it.
FoxHastings said: ↑ So you are for forcing women to give birth like cattle so YOU might benefit ???? How many serial killers do you think were aborted? See how silly that "what if" game is ? Taking away women's rights would do more damage than any abortion ever did... As did I. If you don't like where it lead...that's not on me...
I'm sorry, but your phrasing of the issue was a bit confusing to me. If I understand you correctly, I would venture to say that the majority of abortions aren't carried out because of the conditions of the fetus.
Listen. You are talking about a law, and claimed it says something which it does not say. Its not even close. That was dishonest. You are trying to sell the idea that women want to give birth to babies, so they can kill them afterwards, and you expect people to believe that. You might believe it yourself, but vast majority of people are smarter than that.
But it doesn't mean anymore than "reasonable quality of life". In that case it means no quality of life at all. The child doesnt even know it is alive and the costs to the parents would be like a living hell.
Threads have a way of branching out in related ways. Hopefully my commenting on another's point isn't too far off the beaten path.
So, you expect to make a point on this issue based on things you've heard? Care to do some actual research? https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/the-facts-on-the-born-alive-debate/ "Late-term abortions are rare. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 1.3 percent of abortions in the U.S. were performed after 21 weeks gestational time, according to 2015 data. The CDC’s report showed that 65 percent of abortions that year occurred in the first eight weeks of pregnancy." We've had a law against after-birth abortions since 2002. That's why the Democrats are saying no to this one. It's redundant. https://www.statesman.com/story/new...-abortion-up-until-and-after-birth/984338007/ https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/ "Abortions at or after 21 weeks are uncommon, and represent 1% of all abortions in the US." There's a section in that link titled "Why do people have abortions later in pregnancy?" Read that, it explains how the new state laws prohibiting abortions after 8 or even 6 weeks will only result in more children born to poverty, and an increase of back-alley scam practioners. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy Men don't seem to understand, or don't want to understand, how dangerous pregnancy can be. It seems simple: "no big deal, women have babies all the time." Well, it's a big effing deal to the woman, especially a first pregnancy -- you don't know what to expect when you're expecting. Bottom line: a woman's pregnancy is her business, not mine, not yours and certainly not the government's.
ATTENTION ANTI-ABORTION FOLKS: Can anyone tell me why a pregnancy, which classifies as a medical condition, is reported to the government in the first place? Shouldn't it be between her and her doctor? Under what laws are states requiring an invasion into a woman's medical information? It violates the 4th Amendment. This is not a "gotcha" question. I would really like to know how states are circumventing the 4th Amendment for women of childbearing age.
So let me understand. A baby is born and breathing on its own. And then it is killed? By whom? And under who's order?
