I think a woman doesn't have the right to remove a fetus with the same discourse as removing a malignant mole.
In your eyes, should there be difference on the 2nd abortion? Third...?
I think a woman doesn't have the right to remove a fetus with the same discourse as removing a malignant mole.
In your eyes, should there be difference on the 2nd abortion? Third...?
I think a woman doesn't have the right to remove a fetus with the same discourse as removing a malignant mole.
In your eyes, should there be difference on the 2nd abortion? Third...?
I think a woman doesn't have the right to remove a fetus with the same discourse as removing a malignant mole.
In your eyes, should there be difference on the 2nd abortion? Third...?
As a fomer fetus.. I reject your incorrect assumption, that tender fetuses do not feel pain through it's pain-conveying system ..
Since general anesthesia is not used in most late-term and partial birth abortions ..the fetus feels pain as scissors puncture the base of its tiny skull...
As a fomer fetus.. I reject your incorrect assumption, that tender fetuses do not feel pain through it's pain-conveying system ..
Since general anesthesia is not used in most late-term and partial birth abortions ..the fetus feels pain as scissors puncture the base of its tiny skull...
I believe the woman has a right and responsibility to not get pregnant in the first place. (rape is a different story)
I could comprimise a little and only charge a woman with murder on her second abortion. After the first one she should have learned her lesson.
Ok, so you are opposed to abortion. Clearly, you must be in favor of increased funding to support families with children. Or you must be in favor of increased funding to the state for children in group homes, state run orphanages, etc. Hold on, I'll check....
....Nope. You argue against all of them.
Your position, not unlike your general politics, is ripe with hypocrisy, short-sightedness, ignorance, and falsities.
I believe the woman has a right and responsibility to not get pregnant in the first place. (rape is a different story)
I could comprimise a little and only charge a woman with murder on her second abortion. After the first one she should have learned her lesson.
Ok, so you are opposed to abortion. Clearly, you must be in favor of increased funding to support families with children. Or you must be in favor of increased funding to the state for children in group homes, state run orphanages, etc. Hold on, I'll check....
....Nope. You argue against all of them.
Your position, not unlike your general politics, is ripe with hypocrisy, short-sightedness, ignorance, and falsities.
I agree. There shouldn't be any laws at all.
I agree. There shouldn't be any laws at all.
Ok, so you are opposed to abortion. Clearly, you must be in favor of increased funding to support families with children. Or you must be in favor of increased funding to the state for children in group homes, state run orphanages, etc. Hold on, I'll check....
....Nope. You argue against all of them.
Your position, not unlike your general politics, is ripe with hypocrisy, short-sightedness, ignorance, and falsities.
First off...please show where I have argued against funding for these things.
Second, there are many families who have children, support them on their own. Its a consequence for an action, diliberate or not.
You come up with a comprehensive plan that addresses responsibility and compassion for all. And I will compromise my beliefs and allow for one early term abortion.
An orphanage in theory is for children whos parents are dead.
I'm all for taking away some of our public sector unrealistic pensions and unreasonable perks and giving it to support unwanted children.
Ok, so you are opposed to abortion. Clearly, you must be in favor of increased funding to support families with children. Or you must be in favor of increased funding to the state for children in group homes, state run orphanages, etc. Hold on, I'll check....
....Nope. You argue against all of them.
Your position, not unlike your general politics, is ripe with hypocrisy, short-sightedness, ignorance, and falsities.
First off...please show where I have argued against funding for these things.
Second, there are many families who have children, support them on their own. Its a consequence for an action, diliberate or not.
You come up with a comprehensive plan that addresses responsibility and compassion for all. And I will compromise my beliefs and allow for one early term abortion.
An orphanage in theory is for children whos parents are dead.
I'm all for taking away some of our public sector unrealistic pensions and unreasonable perks and giving it to support unwanted children.
The document you are relying upon gives the government the right to make any law that does not infringe upon Constiutional rights. Obviously, the argument here is it is a violation of privacy.
The document you are relying upon gives the government the right to make any law that does not infringe upon Constiutional rights. Obviously, the argument here is it is a violation of privacy.
First off...please show where I have argued against funding for these things.
Second, there are many families who have children, support them on their own. Its a consequence for an action, diliberate or not.
You come up with a comprehensive plan that addresses responsibility and compassion for all. And I will compromise my beliefs and allow for one early term abortion.
An orphanage in theory is for children whos parents are dead.
I'm all for taking away some of our public sector unrealistic pensions and unreasonable perks and giving it to support unwanted children.
You're kidding right?
Please tell me you aren't suggesting that suddenly, you are in favor of increasing the welfare state.
Did you know that....gasp....abortions are socio-economic driven. No way right?
An orphange/boys home, etc. are for unwanted children. The fact that you don't know this pretty much defeats your response.
You should leave your parent's home and see the real world before responding.
First off...please show where I have argued against funding for these things.
Second, there are many families who have children, support them on their own. Its a consequence for an action, diliberate or not.
You come up with a comprehensive plan that addresses responsibility and compassion for all. And I will compromise my beliefs and allow for one early term abortion.
An orphanage in theory is for children whos parents are dead.
I'm all for taking away some of our public sector unrealistic pensions and unreasonable perks and giving it to support unwanted children.
You're kidding right?
Please tell me you aren't suggesting that suddenly, you are in favor of increasing the welfare state.
Did you know that....gasp....abortions are socio-economic driven. No way right?
An orphange/boys home, etc. are for unwanted children. The fact that you don't know this pretty much defeats your response.
You should leave your parent's home and see the real world before responding.
So by default your solution to the financial shortfall of paying for all these unwanted children is turn your back while they are systematically snuffed out?
Only poor women want abortions? is that what you said?
So by default your solution to the financial shortfall of paying for all these unwanted children is turn your back while they are systematically snuffed out?
Only poor women want abortions? is that what you said?
The document you are relying upon gives the government the right to make any law that does not infringe upon Constiutional rights. Obviously, the argument here is it is a violation of privacy.
The document you are relying upon gives the government the right to make any law that does not infringe upon Constiutional rights. Obviously, the argument here is it is a violation of privacy.
So by default your solution to the financial shortfall of paying for all these unwanted children is turn your back while they are systematically snuffed out?
Only poor women want abortions? is that what you said?
As opposed to your solution of restricting abortion and eliminating programs for unwanted/disadvantaged children?
Women with money will find other means of obtaining an abortion. Women without can not. It ain't rocket science.
Restrictions on abortion have a disparate impact based on socio-economic status. You can argue it isn't true and tell me that the sky is green.
So by default your solution to the financial shortfall of paying for all these unwanted children is turn your back while they are systematically snuffed out?
Only poor women want abortions? is that what you said?
As opposed to your solution of restricting abortion and eliminating programs for unwanted/disadvantaged children?
Women with money will find other means of obtaining an abortion. Women without can not. It ain't rocket science.
Restrictions on abortion have a disparate impact based on socio-economic status. You can argue it isn't true and tell me that the sky is green.
Would seem a no-brainer but too easy to argue that they are allowing the search of their person by virture of obtaining the procedure.
The privacy argument falls upon the same basis for arguing the legality of abortion in the first place...IMO.
Would seem a no-brainer but too easy to argue that they are allowing the search of their person by virture of obtaining the procedure.
The privacy argument falls upon the same basis for arguing the legality of abortion in the first place...IMO.
Would seem a no-brainer but too easy to argue that they are allowing the search of their person by virture of obtaining the procedure.
The privacy arguement falls upon the same basis for arguing the legality of abortion in the first place...IMO.
Would seem a no-brainer but too easy to argue that they are allowing the search of their person by virture of obtaining the procedure.
The privacy arguement falls upon the same basis for arguing the legality of abortion in the first place...IMO.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.