What's new
By:

Abortion Bills in the South

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
NPC D4617 said:
I have a thought experiment for you guys and gal. Or you theys.

Now dont get all huffy puffy. Take your meds before you react. I need a thoughtful answer here. Your intellectual credibility is riding in this. Snarky and sarcastic answers arent allowed, accepted, or approved.

Lets say that a woman is 8 months pregnant. A person decides, as a joke to give the pregnant woman a drug that is 100% harmless to the woman, but aborts the babies life. The baby is also absorbed or dissapears into the woman body with no ill effects.

What crime if any would the person who slipped the woman the drug, as a joke, be committing? Keep in mind the pregnant woman had no idea this was happening, and was upset after it happened.
Click to expand...

Next hypothetical. the Government mandates that all 11 year old boys take a completely harmless pill that renders them sterile. The Government can give you a second harmless pill to immediately reverse the effects when you choose to start a family. After having the number of kids you want, you again take the first pill. Details are worked out so that the program eliminates all abortions.

Would you be pro life, in favor of the Government mandate, or would you be pro choice, allowing unborn babies to die when men choose to not take the pill?
 
silesian said:
And I assume you do agree that we should eliminate all abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies?
Click to expand...
I will answer yes

However I still think there would be cases where the fetus is non viable and/or the mother is at risk of death from the delivery where abortion might make sense.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
silesian said:
Next hypothetical. the Government mandates that all 11 year old boys take a completely harmless pill that renders them sterile. The Government can give you a second harmless pill to immediately reverse the effects when you choose to start a family. After having the number of kids you want, you again take the first pill. Details are worked out so that the program eliminates all abortions.

Would you be pro life, in favor of the Government mandate, or would you be pro choice, allowing unborn babies to die when men choose to not take the pill?
Click to expand...
I would be in favor of the pill being mandated.

I would also be interested in looking at a situation where if a mother gets an abortion for a non life threatening type situation or non rape situation that they have to be sterilized. You don't want to be a mom? Fine then you don't have to be. Ever.
Or at the very least a law saying that you can only get one abortion.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
I don't think any person ever aspires to have an abortion. I think abortion should be legal in circumstances where the woman's health is at risk, or if doctors believe the woman can't safely carry the pregnancy. The debate ultimately comes down to the question of at what point during the pregnancy the unborn child has rights. There is some point in time between the conception and the delivery when the unborn child acquires the right to live. Obviously, once the child is born, it's illegal to kill the child. The question is simply how much earlier the child acquires rights.

I also think that the male parent should be given a few rights along with responsibilities to help raise the child. If the father's family is able to help raise the child, even if the mother is not, then this too should be preferable to aborting the child. If abortion is being considered, I don't think it should be the woman's decision alone, but other options should be given serious consideration.

The problem right now is that a very significant percentage of pregnancies are being aborted. In the early 80s, apparently over 30% of pregnancies were aborted. That number has declined, however it's still substantial. The majority aren't abortions due to health concerns, or because the woman was raped. They're unwanted pregnancies that are aborted for convenience.

The real problem is promiscuity, something that feminism and popular culture have encouraged now for 50 years.
 
Catchall said:
There is some point in time between the conception and the delivery when the unborn child acquires the right to live. Obviously, once the child is born, it's illegal to kill the child. The question is simply how much earlier the child acquires rights.
Click to expand...

At what points does the right of person A to live overrule the right of Person B to decide who can make use of person B's body? Does this only happen when A is a fetus and B is a woman?

Catchall said:
The real problem is promiscuity, something that feminism and popular culture have encouraged now for 50 years.
Click to expand...

Said without irony during a period of time when sexual activity is decreasing among young people, compared to earlier generations.
 
If you consider that rights begin at conception, I'm assuming that you are opposed to in vitro fertilization. Many fertilized eggs are not used and eventually destroyed.
 
JazzGal said:
If you consider that rights begin at conception, I'm assuming that you are opposed to in vitro fertilization. Many fertilized eggs are not used and eventually destroyed.
Click to expand...
Oh snap


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
JazzGal said:
If you consider that rights begin at conception, I'm assuming that you are opposed to in vitro fertilization. Many fertilized eggs are not used and eventually destroyed.
Click to expand...

Every pro life family should dedicate their women to surrogate these babies and stop them from being killed!

I mean, if you truly think that this is murder, do you not have the moral obligation to stop this?

If you refuse to save these children, are you not accomplices?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top