kallend 2,183 #26 November 14, 2011 Quote And while you are correct, it is not my body, it is MY child. If a woman (or anyone for that matter) kills my child, they best make sure I am far away first. Not that I envision having that issue... don't want kids? Keep it in your pants. Works pretty well for me. Perhaps the embryo could be removed from the mother and surgically implanted in your body. Then you could care for it for the next few months. Unless you're willing to do that, it's simply not your business.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,183 #27 November 14, 2011 Quote Sorry, but I do have a clue. So long as carrying the pregnancy to term is not going to put the life of the mother in danger and the pregnancy is not the result of rape or incest, I do not believe that abortion should be permitted. If it's absolutely wrong, why do you make an exception for rape or incest?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Elite_Marksman 0 #28 November 15, 2011 Quote Perhaps the embryo could be removed from the mother and surgically implanted in your body. Then you could care for it for the next few months. Unless you're willing to do that, it's simply not your business. Regardless of how willing or unwilling I would be, as far as I know I do not have a uterus, so it is impossible. My point is that by having sex, regardless of what protections are used, both parties are consenting to the possibility that there may be a pregnancy, and therefore must deal with the consequences of the act. If, after carrying the child to term, the mother still does not want the child, she is welcome to give it to the father or other family, if they so desire, and if not, put it up for adoption. QuoteIf it's absolutely wrong, why do you make an exception for rape or incest? In the case of both rape and incest, the pregnancy is the result of a crime. Also, in the case of rape, the mother obviously did not consent to sex, and therefore did not consent to the possibility of a pregnancy, and should not be held responsible for the acts of another. In the case of incest, it is highly likely that one party was coerced into the act, again rendering any consent given void and releasing them from the responsibility of carrying or caring for the child. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,602 #29 November 15, 2011 QuoteAlso, in the case of rape, the mother obviously did not consent to sex, and therefore did not consent to the possibility of a pregnancy, and should not be held responsible for the acts of another.So, in other words, you're using the pregnancy as a punishment, and not as interested in protecting the life, right? Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #30 November 15, 2011 QuoteQuote Sorry, but I do have a clue. So long as carrying the pregnancy to term is not going to put the life of the mother in danger and the pregnancy is not the result of rape or incest, I do not believe that abortion should be permitted. If it's absolutely wrong, why do you make an exception for rape or incest? Because the line between sacrilege and acceptance is drawn in different places by different people. So you are on the money, his absolute isn't quite so absolute. Kind of like people who say life is sacred, but are OK with abortion, war, and capital punishment. What starts out looking like moral high ground turns out to be just another personal desire - situational ethics at it's best." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #31 November 15, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Sorry, but I do have a clue. So long as carrying the pregnancy to term is not going to put the life of the mother in danger and the pregnancy is not the result of rape or incest, I do not believe that abortion should be permitted. If it's absolutely wrong, why do you make an exception for rape or incest? Because the line between sacrilege and acceptance is drawn in different places by different people. So you are on the money, his absolute isn't quite so absolute. Kind of like people who say life is sacred, but are OK with abortion, war, and capital punishment. What starts out looking like moral high ground turns out to be just another personal desire - situational ethics at it's best. The passage of this law would have been wonderful for the corporate prison system... If a woman had a miscarriage... she could have been prosecuted by these nutters.... guilty of allowing a person to die. The crazyness behind these laws is not in touch with any semblance of reality of human reproduction. It is nothing more than religious need to control the reproductive rights of all women... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #32 November 15, 2011 Quoteremove the fetus from it's womb and see for how long it survives.. a zygote is only alive as long its mothers wants it to be - it's up to the mother! Was this in reply to what I wrote? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #33 November 15, 2011 QuoteQuoteremove the fetus from it's womb and see for how long it survives.. a zygote is only alive as long its mothers wants it to be - it's up to the mother! Was this in reply to what I wrote? i think so!?“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #34 November 15, 2011 QuoteIf a woman had a miscarriage... she could have been prosecuted by these nutters Your so full of it! I know you believe they would convict women for it too, like miscarriages never happen naturally... Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #35 November 15, 2011 Quote Quote If a woman had a miscarriage... she could have been prosecuted by these nutters Your so full of it! I know you believe they would convict women for it too, like miscarriages never happen naturally... Did you actually read the bulk of the trash that was this "legislation" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #36 November 15, 2011 Who can when the bills are hundreds or thousands of pages long, written in lawyer speak...And filled with earmarks that have nothing to do with the bill Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #37 November 15, 2011 Quote Who can when the bills are hundreds or thousands of pages long, written in lawyer speak...And filled with earmarks that have nothing to do with the bill OH.. so you supported it even though you had not bothered to read it.. nor contemplated its "unintended consequences" I seem to remember a whole bunch of the FRIGHT wing being up in arms about that sort of thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #38 November 15, 2011 You don't fucking read do you. I never said I support it, I'm pro choice as I said above. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chutem 0 #39 November 15, 2011 Pro choice here also. James Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
