I was reading over my boylove post and it I became curious about bandsters and abortion.

I am PRO abortion

but

I don't like abortion .

I would never have (I don't think) an abortion.

I feel like the person who has one, has to live with it FOREVER, so they should be able to decide for themselves.

just my opinion

edie

If you are on life support, your husband has the right to have it removed. Technically, you are still living, and he then has the right to kill you. There may still be a chance that you could live, but he still has that right.

Not if you've made written provisions that you don't want to be removed from life support.

We've just never given the unborn the option to have a voice in the matter.

Not if you've made written provisions that you don't want to be removed from life support.

That's true, and I said that in the one of my other posts. But the fact remains, unless you have made your wished clear (legally clear, that is), your husband has the right to kill you if you are on life support. At that point, you do not have "a right to live."

We've just never given the unborn the option to have a voice in the matter.

Do you realize how...well, stupid, for lack of a better term, that statement is? Once we can come up with the technology a la "Babytalk," to listen to an unborn fetus, we can change the law. But right now, a fetus doesn't HAVE a voice to be heard.

That's true, and I said that in the one of my other posts. But the fact remains, unless you have made your wished clear (legally clear, that is), your husband has the right to kill you if you are on life support.

Not if someone else can articulate clearly in a court of law that your desire would have been to live.

Do you realize how...well, stupid, for lack of a better term, that statement is? Once we can come up with the technology a la "Babytalk," to listen to an unborn fetus, we can change the law. But right now, a fetus doesn't HAVE a voice to be heard.

Which is precisely why other people have to be their voice. The true measure of a society is how compassionate they are to the weak and needy among them. Who is more weak and needy than those who have no voice?

Which is precisely why other people have to be their voice. The true measure of a society is how compassionate they are to the weak and needy among them. Who is more weak and needy than those who have no voice?

Well, hell. I wrote out a reply and LBT lost it. I'll try to remember what I said.

A fetus does not know "bad" from "good". I would argue that society should be more concerned with the people already here who are begging for help and going unheard. You know, the thousands of kids in foster care, the millions of homeless, the millions of drug-addicts who want help. Even the thousands of innocent civilians in danger of being killed by our government's bombs.

society should be more concerned with the people already here who are begging for help and going unheard. You know, the thousands of kids in foster care, the millions of homeless, the millions of drug-addicts who want help. Even the thousands of innocent civilians in danger of being killed by our government's bombs.

All life is precious. How would you feel if I said, "Well, I think we should help the foster-care kids, the homeless, and the people in danger of being bombed, but let's kill all of the drug-addicts because they're worthless"?

All life is precious. How would you feel if I said, "Well, I think we should help the foster-care kids, the homeless, and the people in danger of being bombed, but let's kill all of the drug-addicts because they're worthless"?

Come on, surely you can do better than that. You're just resorting to emotional attacks because you are lacking a better argument. The difference between what I said and what you just said is that drug-addicts can actually make their wishes known. And, they are actually living, breathing individuals with a self-sustaining heart beat.

Come on, surely you can do better than that. You're just resorting to emotional attacks because you are lacking a better argument. The difference between what I said and what you just said is that drug-addicts can actually make their wishes known. And, they are actually living, breathing individuals with a self-sustaining heart beat.

It's not an emotional attack at all. Sorry if it hit home for you. What about foster-care infants, then, who can't make their wishes know -- even though they're "living, breathing individuals with a self-sustaining heartbeat" -- how about if we kill them? After all, what kind of life do they have to look forward to?

It's not an emotional attack at all. Sorry if it hit home for you.

Don't worry, it didn't. Your attempt may have been an emotional attack, but I just found it to be pitiful.

What about foster-care infants, then, who can't make their wishes know -- even though they're "living, breathing individuals with a self-sustaining heartbeat" -- how about if we kill them? After all, what kind of life do they have to look forward to?

And again, the attempt at an emotional attack/appeal. Come up with something better, please. Obviously, they are living, breathing indivisuals with a self-sustaining heartbeat. Therefore, they are not comparable to a fetus.

Obviously, they are living, breathing indivisuals with a self-sustaining heartbeat. Therefore, they are not comparable to a fetus.

So until the unborn takes a breath of air, it is not an individual?

So until the unborn takes a breath of air, it is not an individual?

No, not in my opinion. Until it has a greater chance of being able to live than dying once it is removed from its mother's womb, it isn't an individual. Until that point, the woman carrying it has greater value than a fetus that would die if removed.

Then you're in favor of the partial birth abortion ban? Because in that procedure, the baby is delivered, head-first, before being stabbed at the base of the skull and having his or her brains removed. So in that case, the baby could take a breath and is therefore alive?

Then you're in favor of the partial birth abortion ban? Because in that procedure, the baby is delivered, head-first, before being stabbed at the base of the skull and having his or her brains removed. So in that case, the baby could take a breath and is therefore alive?

Can it sustain that breath, though? Could it sustain a heartbeat? If so, then the baby should be delivered. If not, then there isn't anything wrong happening. I am not in favor of a ban. I think it is something that should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Generally, yes. These are late-term abortions performed on viable babies.

Some lives are deemed more precious than others. In the case of civil suits concerning wrongful death the cash pay-outs are based on this. A young woman's life is more important than that of a recently fertilized egg, I believe.

Okay while reading through this thread I have been wondering about opinions on something. For those who are pro choice- If a woman is 6 months pregnant and someone were to beat her and cause a miscarriage would you consider that murder? I am pro choice but I struggle with this because I know if I were that pregnant woman in the situation I would feel as if my child was murdered. Yet if there is no life until birth then how could a murder take place. It almost makes me feel like a bit of a hypocrite in a way. Does it make a difference because that baby was "wanted" and an aborted baby is "unwanted"?