Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 17 to 24 of 56

Thread: Elizabeth on THE VIEW

  1. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Post Re: Elizabeth on THE VIEW

    Yeah.....those "late term abortions" that hardly ever happen. Americans clearly want to preserve a woman's right to privacy...and to choose, with her doctor, how many children she'll have to raise.
    Nobody is forcing you to have an abortion.

  2. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    267

    Post Re: Elizabeth on THE VIEW

    Quote Originally Posted by reines View Post
    Yeah.....those "late term abortions" that hardly ever happen. Americans clearly want to preserve a woman's right to privacy...and to choose, with her doctor, how many children she'll have to raise.
    Nobody is forcing you to have an abortion.
    Yeah and nobody's forcing people to have sex either.
    And if they "hardly ever happen" why is there legislation proposed against it?
    And why are people like Barack Obama voting against it?

  3. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Post Re: Elizabeth on THE VIEW

    Ask doctors how often they happen. This is just another hyped-up issue proudly trotted out by the pro-life crowd...who think they have a much better chance of getting approval for this than the abortions that happen 99.9% of the time.
    The country....in poll after poll after poll.......supports a woman's right to privacy...and to choose. Abortion is not going away. Just as pre-marital sex, and rape isn't going away.

  4. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    933

    Re: Elizabeth on THE VIEW

    IMO 1 late term abortion is to many

  5. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Post Re: Elizabeth on THE VIEW

    Agreed. Which is why they are never done unless the mother's life is in danger.

  6. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Posts
    1,947

    Re: Elizabeth on THE VIEW

    Thanks. I've had others who don't see it they way you do so I had to ask.

  7. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    267

    Post Re: Elizabeth on THE VIEW

    Quote Originally Posted by reines View Post
    Agreed. Which is why they are never done unless the mother's life is in danger.
    Which is a MYTH! If i'm 32 weeks pregnant, and something happens to me like a ruptured placenta or something, what reason in the WORLD would there be to KILL the baby to save me? NONE.

  8. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Post Re: Elizabeth on THE VIEW

    Make no mistake about it: The real motive for banning "partial-birth" abortions is to undermine Roe v. Wade and, eventually, outlaw all abortions. How?
    "Partial-birth" abortion, most commonly known as intact dilation and extraction (D&X), is a relatively rare procedure designed primarily to be used in the case of 5- and 6-month-old fetuses that are dying, malformed, or threaten the woman's health or life. The procedure involves pulling the fetus from the womb, except for the head which is too large to pass without injuring the woman. The head is then collapsed to allow removal. This procedure is designed for the maximum protection of the woman. The late-term alternative to D&X, known as D&E (Dilation and Evacuation), doesn't require partial removal; it involves dismembering the fetus in the womb before extraction--a much riskier procedure.
    Anti-abortionists cleverly coined the term "partial birth" to suggest that the partially removed fetus is no longer "unborn," and, therefore, Roe vs. Wade no longer applies (so they allege). But linguistic manipulation can't create an essential distinction when none exists. A woman has a right to her own body, and, if she chooses to abort, then all effort should be made to protect the woman from injury. To rule otherwise is to negate this right.
    Banning any type of abortion to "protect the fetus" necessarily grants rights to the fetus--an utter perversion of individual rights. If a woman has no right to her own body, then by what logic does a fetus (which, by definition, is a biological parasite) have a right to the woman's body? Properly, an infant's rights begin after the fetus is removed from the mother's body and its umbilical cord cut.
    It is a woman's individual rights--to her life, to her liberty, and to the pursuit of her happiness--that sanctions her right to have an abortion. Once "fetal rights" are granted to one stage of the pregnancy, nothing will prevent their extension to all stages. "Fetal rights" are a gimmick to destroy a woman's individual rights.
    Tragically, many "pro-choicers" have conceded the "partial-birth" debate to the anti-abortionists and accept a ban as a compromise (and merely quibble about its scope). Such "pro-choicers" have apparently been hoodwinked by the anti-abortionists' strategy of emotionalism and evasion designed to disguise their deeper purpose.
    The anti-abortionists' strategy involves focusing solely on the fetus and describing the abortion in gruesome detail. Their professed compassion for the fetus apparently leaves no room for considering the woman's health and happiness. For them, waving a picture of a bloody, mangled fetus constitutes an argument. If so, then so does waving a picture of a woman whose future was ruined because she was denied an abortion--or of a woman bloody and mangled by a "back-alley" abortion.
    A picture is not an argument--and should not be allowed as a cover-up.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •