WH supports Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

How would you like the school age children of divorce to have their post birth abortions?

 

The scenario that the pregnant one doesn't want to go through 9 months of pregnancy with all that that entails.

 

There's a good way to do that.

Don't get pregnant.

 

There is no such thing as after birth abortions....

Why are you being silly and illogical?

 

Or, more practically because women are human, too, have an abortion...

 

There never was any misunderstanding, so there was no need for you to compare apples to accordions.

Prostate surgery doesn't involve and effect another life, which might explain why prostate surgery was never illegal and a landmark SCOTUS case was never required to legalize it.

I'll leave the whining to you.

I'm happy to explain it to you...

They must have some right otherwise we wouldn't bother extending any protection.

They're recognized before birth, as well.

I'm sure both sides of this debate recognize the implications of extending the recognition of "personhood" to unborn children/fetuses at 20 weeks (or earlier), which is why the anti-abortion crowd is pushing the House bill and the pro-abortion crowd opposes it. That's also why the House bill will never get out of the Senate and Trump will never sign it into law.

The recognition of rights has everything to do with this issue, and it's this recognition that is central to the bill that is the subject of this thread.

Sure it does. You just want to hide behind your euphemism because "pro-choice" sounds noble and it allows people to lie to themselves instead of being honest. It also serves as a useful rhetorical tool that the pro-abortion crowd uses against the anti-abortion crowd.

In the end, there are only two sides to this debate - pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Either you support the legality of abortion or you don't.

I didn't see where you were right about anything other than the position we share on abortion, but I did find your criticism of other people hiding behind euphemisms while you hide behind them yourself hypocritical.

 

Sure.

They have 5 months to figure it out. Plenty of time.

Or, they could just not get pregnant in the first place, but that means people would have to be responsible.

I know how much liberals hate responsibility though.

 

Why shouldn't it pass the Senate and become law?

 

Yes glad he came to his moral senses about it.

How about you?

 

I was never in favor of partial birth abortion. I'm not a monster.

He "came to his senses" 5 minutes before he decided he was the perfect candidate for the alt-right.

 

You: """pro-choice" sounds noble and it allows people to lie to themselves instead of being honest""

What lie is there? Just because you refuse to take anyone at their word doesn't mean there's a lie, that's just something that you made up to make yourself feel better.

Pro-Choice is exactly what it says ...and you are free to have your erroneous opinion....

 

I think you surmise wrong.

OK, then 2 percent of abortions won't take place anymore. Ok with that?

 

80% of women support late term abortion bans.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/19/poll-80-percent-of-women-support-late-term-abortion-bans/

And yes we all should be concerned about the indiscriminate killing of unborn babies.

 

Why can't you say yiu are simply pro-abortion and support abortion as it exist in thos country and howbitbis executes and pro the results? Why the difficulty of spitting out the word of that which you support?

 

Because the law deprives adult females of the ability to decide what is best for them after taking into account their own personal circumstances, the law is based on dubious science, the law ignores the fact that many birth (some lethal) defects are only detectable at or around the 20 week mark (as a corrollary, scheduling doctors visits means that many of these would be detected after this law would make it illegal for abortion to take place), and because it has the chance of increasing the number of unwanted children and thereby - in several years - increasing the crime rate at large.

Those are just the few that I can think of off the top of my head.

 

And I know how much you "big government" folks want to dictate what behavior is considered "responsible."

 

It is not a baby, nor is it a human being, until it is born.

As for the adoption argument, I would suggest you take a look at the current state of the foster care system in America. It is overcrowded as it is and this law would only increase that number.

 

Unworthy troll post.

 

Murder has always been irresponsible no matter how little government there is.

 

Of course it's a human being before it goes through a vagina.

A vagina isn't like the Narnia chest.

 

No, but being self-sufficient does confer the legal status associated with humanity. It ain't murder.

 

So a fetus becomes a human being at what, 15 or 16 years old?

 

No, it just amplifies the stupidity of your argument.

 

its already the rules, most Abortions occur before 26 weeks, unless the mothers health is at risk

don't republicans have more important things to worry about

 

to some republicans it depends where their parents were born, and once a actual child is born, they no longer care

Bush and Texas (no money... no care)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151448,00.html