No. What part of "pro-choice" don't you get? It's purely up to the mother. Why is that such a hard concept for you to grasp?
Moronic post on your part. Pro-choice means pro-choice. If the mother is confident she can handle a special needs child, why not carry to term? Ain't ****ing rocket science, dude. Mother's choice means mother's choice.
Yes, pro choice to kill their tenants of their bellies. Might as well let landlords kill their tenants if they become inconvenient. The "Special Needs" is a red herring. How many abortions are done because of special needs or rape? Nearly 0%. Landlord's choice means landlord's choice. Cramp his/her style, kill 'em!!! So compassionate are liberals.
I think about only 1% of abortions are done for reasons of rape and incest combined. (Surprisingly, 1 out of 2 women in the US who have a pregnancy resulting from rape do NOT choose to get an abortion) A 2020 Arizona survey found that 15 out of 9,631, or less than 0.3% of abortions, were done for medical reasons. While a July-December 2008 Florida study found less than 0.7% of abortions to have been done due to fetal defects or abnormality. It that study, 3.6% of the abortions were due to rape or incest (less than 0.12% being due to incest).
So he did have a brain. Looks like media hype to say he didn't. It's impressive how he grew and I am happy for them. It doesn't change my position because to me, no brain activity means no brain activity. It does not mean some or partial.
Great information. It's amazing the lengths liberals will go to justify killing innocent babies. It's just a red herring strawman argument.
The point is, doctors told the parents their child had no brain and that there was no possibility of the child being able to survive. That there was no reason not to get an abortion. Sometimes the doctors are not always right. When a child has a medical condition, sometimes everyone thinks it is just easier to abort. The doctors will often tell the parents they need to abort.
FoxHastings said: ↑ I never said that.....this is the "Anti-Choicers have No Argument So Make things Up Phase""" Abortion isn't murder and if it is do your civic duty and call the cops....why haven't you???? yes, postings ridiculous EMOTIONAL, made up crap like "pro-choicer's killing thirsts."" is not logical nor is it "reasoning". It IS flamebait.
They are more common than you realise Look I am getting very very tired of posts bleating about what people SHOULD do without outlining what is possible to change that so from this point on I will be ignoring them It is the old maxim - if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem
Uh, so because these numbers aren't high enough for YOU then you feel all women's rights can be destroyed??? What an odd way to think???
Ultimately it will be you paying for support of these children - throughout their life - look at the case of baby k - Stephanie Keene who spent most of her two years in a care facility having multiple admissions to ICU
HaHa, iF I sHaRe bEaUtiFuL anD cUtE sToRy mAyBe pRo-ChOicHeRs wIll LeT tHeiR eMotIonS rUn sTroNgEr tHaN tHeIr ReAsOn aNd tHeY wIlL tUrN aNtI-AbOrTioN!
Raising a disabled child is a huge responsibility that comes with a lot of financial and emotional hardship and it is not at all easy for the child either. Parents have to make the choice themselves because only they can know what is truly best for them.
Cougarbear said: ↑ Red Herring answer. Democrats are supposed to be the caring compassionate ones and want the taxes to go up. Right now, Democrat are just printing money growing on trees. A caring compassionate person would not want a child to go through all that...
You want more kids to survive the womb - send money for new incubators for WANTED babies, every minute you spend crabbing about abortion is a minute you could have spent raising money for WANTED children in need. Mother's who WANT their fetus to reach maturity, but lack quality healthcare or financial support. Doesn't do any good to whine about a 2 month old fetus not surviving when you're letting 10 month old babies die because of lack of healthcare. Every time I hear a Republican whine about abortion - then whine even louder about healthcare that might let a mother carry to term a WANTED baby - I know just how full of bullcrap their posts are.
Nothing more flamebaiting killing the most innocent who cannot defend themselves. The thirst for killing babies by abortionists is Jeffrey Dalmer level evil.
I'm not complaining. There self-worth is more than you will ever know nor understand. You look at the right to life as a financial decision. So did Stalin, Mao, Hitler and all dictator atheists.
More red herrings. Completely two different topics. No one is letting 10 month old babies die because of lack of healthcare. Medicaid pays for their care. And, that 2 month old fetus has more self worth than all the abortionist atheists combined. Both babies need whatever care is needed. No need to decide one or the other lives. Who does that but non-compassionist Democrats for sure?
Every 11 seconds a newborn child or mother dies in childbirth around our globe. Most are preventable with better nutrition and prenatal care - guess you really don't know what you think you know, do you?
Another red herring. Throw in "around the world." Not so in the U.S. and other civilized nations. Yes, poor nations have health problems as we did when our nation was just getting started. Today, we have programs to help those in need. But, that still doesn't have a thing to do about abortion.
In the US, a woman is several times more likely to die in a car crash than die in childbirth. The only reason that's not true for the entire world is probably because there are so many people in different parts of the world that don't have cars that it pulls the overall average way down. I also want to point out that I doubt there's even a single woman in the US who decided to get an abortion because she was worried about the risk of dying in childbirth. That's just not one of the major reasons women decide to get abortions. If there was such a woman, she would probably have already had her tubes tied.
So do you think then we should mandate the abortion of all children who are expected to go on to have medical problems that will be expensive to the taxpayer? Your argument here isn't necessarily a pro-choice one.
How about a child with ADHD? How about routine prenatal genetic screening to determine a child's future expected IQ? If it is expected to be below 80 (in the bottom 10 percentile), the pregnancy would be terminated, since it would bring too much financial and emotional hardship. I'd like to know where exactly the line is going to be drawn. Are fetuses going to get aborted because they are missing one leg? Because they don't have blue eyes? Because the woman wanted a girl?
