JT, I ask this with as much respect as possible. How can pro-choice not be pro-abortion? Isn't that the core of the "Choice"? What else do they fight so intensely for? It's always the choice to have an abortion. It's not the choice to use a condom, or to just say "NO!" It's not the investigation and prosecution of molesters or rapists. The pro-choice group is always fighting in favor of abortion. I had opportunity to have a conversation with a "radical" Democrat who happened to be very "pro-choice". She spoke very passionately about why she thought is was acceptable. NOT because abortion was a right, not because women should be entitled, but because of what she saw helping young mothers through unwanted pregnancies where they were not allowed an abortion. These young mothers were denied abortions either through their familys pressure, the medical institutions in their communities or other non-political methods. I am anti-abortion, but I still agree that an abortion should be available in certain cases. Such as but not limited to imminent danger to the mother's life, medically certain birth defect, other health issues regarding the mothers life and incest or rape. I know some will counter that child-birth itself is a threat to the mothers life, but what I mean is that the mother will medically-certainly die during child-birth. <br /><br />I resent the whole Choice part of the pro-choice issue. The choice was during, or prior to conception, it should not be after. The woman has the right to say no just as the man does. In the event she does not have that choice I think I covered that with the rape or incest condition. I further resent the choice issue because the woman can easily consent to the act and mislead the man to believe that she is protected but really isnt. And then guess what, the guy is on the hook for child-support etc for at least 18 years for a choice he did not have. Oh, wait he did have that choice, it was called abstinence, the same as the woman. <br /><br />And JT, I am qualified to speak on this subject as I am a member of the group I spoke of. My oldest sons mother tricked me. She was supposed to be using birth-control. BC that I paid for. She later admitted that she wanted a baby, knew I did not, so she just quit taking BC. Where was my choice in that? Dont get me wrong, I love my son. I never left his life, except when she moved him away. I always fought to stay in his life and have custody of him now, because she tried moving him 14 hours away. But where was my choice? Or as a man do I not deserve the same rights as a woman?<br /><br />Pro-choice my rear-end. But JT, I respectfully ask for you to elaborate, if you can without just spewing the canned-responses.
Great use of the words CAN and SOON. Because it might not survive anyway, and might later be a life but is not yet.<br /><br />I think it's really easy to draw the line; this woman has something inside her she wants removed. It's her body. If that can't survive without her, then it's not a life or person yet, is it?<br /><br />Nobody wants to discuss the privacy and constitutional implications because it will lead to other unintended consequences and we all know it. If you say that doctor-patient privacy doesn't apply in the case of abortion, then that opens the door to regulating other privacy issues, doens't it?
.....JKYou are approaching this as if it is black and white, when there are shades of grey. Think of an adult siamese twin. There is usualy 2 distinct live forms, and they usualy share some common organs. If you seperate them, usualy one will live and one will die.(the one who is removed from the shared organ/s). This ilustrates that requireing a host does not indicate a lack of life. <br /> My big problem with abortion is that in most cases, there was ample opportunity for choice before the pregnancy. Abortion is simply a means of avoiding responsibility for ones actions. There are cases where abortion may be necesary, but not as a convienence for someone who is not ready for the consequences of their actions.
.....JKHow about right there? How about six months? How about we just deliver it and see if it can live on its own, no life support measures?<br /><br />
You are wrong, in this country. And principles are principles; if you say the fourth amendment doesn't apply to certain things, then it's no longer a valid blanket protection. If the police search and sieze improperly, the evidence is inadmissible. If doctor-patient privacy is illegally broached, the evidence found there is not admissible. Go read the decision carefully, and see what the REAL underlying issues are.<br /><br />
That is symbiance, not a host/parasite relationship. It's not even close to applicable in this case. Those are two equal organisms. Now, there have been cases where Siamese twins consisted of one under-developed cell mass which was parasitic and detrimental to the other, and was removed and killed in the process.
