|
|
If the GOP is pro-birth, and hold every sperm, zygot and fetus as sacred, then it follows that any male whose reproductive emissions are not specifically seeking an egg should be considered in violation of civil and religious law. Elle Woods' argument on the subject seems sound to me. Let's codify that before Roe v. Wade is overturned.
|
|
|
If the GOP is pro-birth, and hold every sperm, zygot and fetus as sacred, then it follows that any male whose reproductive emissions are not specifically seeking an egg should be considered in violation of civil and religious law.
It was Woody, hahaha, Allen who opined "my brain is my second favorite organ!" I'd bet there are thumpers out there who actually want a law like that passed.
|
|
|
If the GOP is pro-birth, and hold every sperm, zygot and fetus as sacred, then it follows that any male whose reproductive emissions are not specifically seeking an egg should be considered in violation of civil and religious law.
It was Woody, hahaha, Allen who opined "my brain is my second favorite organ!"
I'd bet there are thumpers out there who actually want a law like that passed.
The nutbars are taking over the asylum...
|
|
|
If the GOP is pro-birth, and hold every sperm, zygot and fetus as sacred, then it follows that any male whose reproductive emissions are not specifically seeking an egg should be considered in violation of civil and religious law. Elle Woods' argument on the subject seems sound to me. Let's codify that before Roe v. Wade is overturned.
I thought GOP/antivaxxers has been yelling. My body my choice....I'm guessing a women's body doesn't belong to her as her choice is taken away.
|
|
|
If the GOP is pro-birth, and hold every sperm, zygot and fetus as sacred, then it follows that any male whose reproductive emissions are not specifically seeking an egg should be considered in violation of civil and religious law. Elle Woods' argument on the subject seems sound to me. Let's codify that before Roe v. Wade is overturned.
I thought GOP/antivaxxers has been yelling. My body my choice....I'm guessing a women's body doesn't belong to her as her choice is taken away.
As in so many issues, the ol' double standard is still holding sway in the Republican Party.
|
|
|
Between 12,000 and 15,000 per year are performed after a child is viable outside of the womb.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is it your position that 24 weeks from the date of conception is the point at which any individual “child” is “viable outside of the womb”? Is that your cutoff point for "acceptable" abortion?
It's more like 20 weeks, as the medical field has been able to keep kids alive that have to be taken from the womb at week 20. I would be absolutely fine with a law that said that a woman can choose to have an abortion up until 20-24 weeks (somewhere in that range to be determined by the medical community) and that all children above that range could be delivered and cared for at the state's expense rather than being aborted and killed if the mother chose not to have the child. Personally, I don't think there would ever be a situation where I would support the idea of having an abortion but I can understand a woman's choice to do so and I believe the law needs to allow for that.
|
|
|
If the GOP is pro-birth, and hold every sperm, zygot and fetus as sacred, then it follows that any male whose reproductive emissions are not specifically seeking an egg should be considered in violation of civil and religious law. Elle Woods' argument on the subject seems sound to me. Let's codify that before Roe v. Wade is overturned.
I thought GOP/antivaxxers has been yelling. My body my choice....I'm guessing a women's body doesn't belong to her as her choice is taken away.
As in so many issues, the ol' double standard is still holding sway in the Republican Party.
The "ol' double standard" irony is that the Democrats want to let women kill viable babies because it's "their body, their choice" but at the same time wants to force adults and children to have unproven vaccines.
|
|
|
Between 12,000 and 15,000 per year are performed after a child is viable outside of the womb.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is it your position that 24 weeks from the date of conception is the point at which any individual “child” is “viable outside of the womb”? Is that your cutoff point for "acceptable" abortion?
It's more like 20 weeks, as the medical field has been able to keep kids alive that have to be taken from the womb at week 20. I would be absolutely fine with a law that said that a woman can choose to have an abortion up until 20-24 weeks (somewhere in that range to be determined by the medical community) and that all children above that range could be delivered and cared for at the state's expense rather than being aborted and killed if the mother chose not to have the child.
Personally, I don't think there would ever be a situation where I would support the idea of having an abortion but I can understand a woman's choice to do so and I believe the law needs to allow for that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So…you find abortion at 24 weeks to be medically acceptable, but unacceptable at 25 weeks. Or to be more specific...acceptable at 168 days, unacceptable at 169 days. As for your personal choice, I’m quite certain I can present a situation in which you or any so-called “pro-lifer” would opt for abortion, so spare me the sanctimonious BS.
|
|
|
Bob,
I don't find it acceptable to murder any child that could survive outside of the womb. I don't agree with the term "medically acceptable" because it's not a medical decision. And I'm sure you could come up with a hundred examples where the majority people would agree that an abortion is acceptable. I would personally agree with some of those examples and not others.
|
|
|
Bob, I don't find it acceptable to murder any child that could survive outside of the womb. I don't agree with the term "medically acceptable" because it's not a medical decision. And I'm sure you could come up with a hundred examples where the majority people would agree that an abortion is acceptable. I would personally agree with some of those examples and not others.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Personally, I don't think there would ever be a situation where I would support the idea of having an abortion..." "...I'm sure you could come up with a hundred examples where the majority people would agree that an abortion is acceptable. I would personally agree with some of those examples..." That quite a convoluted response. Care to clarify?
|
