My acorn like my ZEF had no pain connection, my acorn was as much like an acorn as my ZEF was like a person....both had potential to be something more
Not going to happen any time soon. An embryo cannot be disconnected from the woman and implanted anywhere else. Why do people come up with such ridiculous scenarios?
I believe it's unconstitutional to force folks who do not agree with them to pay for abortions. We now medicare or Medicaid pays for some abortions. It also pays for contraceptives. Since anything that unnaturally prevents a fertilized egg from implanting is abortion, any contraceptives, including the day after pill must not be paid by those who do not believe in abortion, or who believe it's a sin of murder. Condoms are okay. When used properly, they are effective in the high 90 percentile range. Combine that with some careful study of timing ovulation, and you come close to 100% effective. You also prevent transmission of many std/sti 's. Pretty simple to just pay for insurance for abortions and contraceptives for yourself as an add on to your policy. It would have to be made available. That isn't that difficult. Half of all participants are women. That's got to be worth it to the insurance companies.
I don't believe the US should go to war, where's my refund? And it does NOT matter how effective any contraception is, NO one is obligated to put drugs or foreign objects in their bodies.
I've got the cure....QUIT MAKING IT YOUR PROBLEM! Try minding your own business and letting total strangers mind theirs.
OK, Guess the abortion forum is the Religion Forum because some people can't address the issue WITH FACTS. "Less horrible" things would happen if people accepted Jesus ??... LOL! YOU imply that accepting Jesus doesn't do much but things would be a little less horrible... maybe he should ask his Dad why he made the world so horrible because now he, Jesus, has to run around making it a little less horrible if people pledge allegiance.... What hilarity and the poster won't see it ! Jesus was accepted by lots of people....why didn't that fix the world? Next Topic ? : I guess anything we wish.....guns, religion, Jesus, the price of fish in China and anything else that diverts from Anti-Choicers getting a faceful of facts..
Ah, the "if you don't believe in abortion then don't have one" argument. I guess you would then be okay with the "if you don't believe in slavery then don't own one" argument as well.
No, slavery involves another PERSON. Abortion only involves ONE person , the pregnant woman, who has the right to decide what to do with her own body. Slavery involves owning, controlling, punishing another PERSON.....like Anti-Choicers want to do.
Definitions of personhood can and do change. There was time not so long ago in the United States that black people were not considered fully a "person".
Yes, and that was wrong and corrected. They were BORN person's who should've had rights. Slavery involves owning, controlling, punishing another PERSON.....like Anti-Choicers want to do. IF a fetus was ever deemed a "person" with rights with those rights comes restrictions. We all are restricted from using another's body to sustain our lives. Why do you want to give fetus's more rights or less restrictions than anyone else?
What's up to 21 weeks? Saving a premie? So what ? It wasn't put into an artificial womb , was it? If it was, who paid for that to happen? Most abortions are done before 18 weeks. No woman should be required to carry a fetus ANY length of time. The expense of putting millions of fetuses in artificial wombs , especially for no reason, would prohibit most of them.
Medical technology is advancing more quickly than ever before, with a great deal of research relating reproduction. And I was just citing the state of the art. Beyond that, there is cloning research... As for making a woman carry a fetus, you have to wait about 4 weeks now, right? And as for paying, as I said, Republicans are big on charities as opposed to Federal spending. Churches and anti abortion activists can set up a general fund. However much they are willing to pay will determine how many babies can be saved. It could all be voluntary.
All of which has nothing to do with women retaining the rights everyone ele has. Totally irrelevant. What? WHO makes women wait 4 weeks? Women can take a morning after pill if they CHOOSE...... ...and since women usually don't know they're pregnant in the first four weeks it's hardly forcing them to wait 4 weeks.... As I have said, Repubs and Anti-Choicers FIGHT to cut funding to any entity that supports or aids children. They want funding cut to Welfare, WIC, SNAP, healthy school lunches, they don't even want poor kids to have access to educational TV (YES, they cut funding to PBS which has been shown to aid children in learning and better prepare them for school...and ANTI's CUT FUNDING), and many unwanted children who are given up for adoption end up aging out of the system because Anti's did NOT adopt them..... So why do you think they will donate BILLIONS to keep unwanted babies alive? REALLY !???
Actually 90% of abortions are in the first trimester....12 weeks .weighs less than an ounce and has no neural connections
Who said anything about rights? I even suggested it could be voluntary. Only because you don't understand the point. They will continue to develop artificial wombs. Doctors Then there should be no abortions! I looked it up. That is how long you have to wait. If they don't then they have no right to complain. If they want to stop abortions, I say, put up or shut up! What do they really care about, babies or money? I am 100% sure that 90% of the time, the answer will be, money. They will gladly try to control other people's lives but you can be damn sure they won't put their money where their mouths are. They will spend billions to spread their doctrine but not to save babies. I agree.
Get back to us when you have 1+ million couples willing, able and vetted to adopt each and every year. Your "solution" creates a MAJOR problem because there are no million plus couples ready, willing and able to adopt each and every year. Technology is not a "solution" when it churns out generations of unwanted children who have a considerably higher chance of becoming addicts and criminals.
So according to you millions of women, many of them mothers and/or Christians, are "savages" simply because they exercised their reproductive rights?
Banning abortion is UNSOUND social policy. Banning alcohol and gay marriage are examples of UNSOUND social policies. But you want to repeat the same mistake.
