I do not derive my moral beliefs from you......and my neighbor doesn't derive her moral beliefs from me....and on down the line.....moral beliefs should NOT determine law...
FoxHastings said: ↑ Well, then you appear not to believe in the law. So you think anyone can hire killers to kill at will but the person doing the hiring is a nice guy and deserves no punishment?!!!!! YUP! YOU DID!
I never said someone who hires a killer is a "nice guy". Nor that they do not deserve punishment. Just not the same punishment as the trigger puller. I'm surprised you could not understand that. Of course then again you claim not to understand what I say about pregnancy complications and dangers either.
UH "certified to teach" high school biology OBVIOUSLY doesn't give one knowledge of what happens to women during pregnancy....hey, how about a LINK to your peer reviewed published works on how pregnancy doesn't affect women...... I'll wait... Thanks for the flamebaiting.... ...will wait for more....
Where are yours? And once again I never claimed "pregnancy doesn't affect women". I said that most pregnancies do not result in significant permanent damage to a woman. Not doesn't result in any at all. Are you incapable of understanding that?
BS! If they're so many people wanting to adopt EXPLAIN why so many kids age out of the system, turn 18 BEFORE being adopted? WHY? And NO for some women adopting out their kid is NOT an option, being pregnant for 9 months is NOT an option, Loosing money is NOT an option, Having career setbacks including possibly loosing her job is NOT an option...
WHO are YOU to decide what is or isn't "significant"? DEATH and all the changes/problems/physical damage is very significant to pregnant women. THEY decide what is significant to them, THEY are the ones who are pregnant and have to face EVERYTHING pregnancy entails.....you claiming it's not significant does NOT make it INsignificant. Would you put up with someone else deciding what in YOUR life was significant or not? I doubt it...
Speaking from personal experience, adoption procedures in the U.S. are massively restrictive, difficult and expensive.
This isn't the 18th century. Death is not a significant risk in a typical pregnancy. And you ask "who are you"? Who are you to speak for pregnant women?
FoxHastings said: ↑ WHO are YOU to decide what is or isn't "significant"? DEATH and all the changes/problems/physical damage is very significant to pregnant women. THEY decide what is significant to them, THEY are the ones who are pregnant and have to face EVERYTHING pregnancy entails.....you claiming it's not significant does NOT make it INsignificant. Would you put up with someone else deciding what in YOUR life was significant or not? I doubt it... I asked first and , as usual, you couldn't answer. YES, maternal mortality IS a problem....just because it isn't YOU dying you think it's not significant? I do NOT speak for pregnant women, I defend their right to their own body and their own decisions.
wo I'm not assuming that if elective abortions (abortions not for the health or life of the mother) were made illegal in the United States that all other factors like adoption would remain the same as they are today. Outlawing elective abortions would be such a staggering change to American law that I assume other things (such as adoption procedures) would be changed radically as well.
Then why are there 400,000+ unwanted children awaiting adoption? The FACTS expose that baseless allegation as a load of bovine excrement.
Enacting morals and beliefs into the Law of the Land has ALWAYS been a complete and utter FAILURE every single time. Why is it going to be any different this time?
Strange that someone "certified to teach biology" knows nothing whatsoever about the process as to how a fertilized egg becomes a fetus. Or even about the myriad ways in which DNA can FAIL during pregnancy.