Should the government force mothers to look at their children before aborting them?

[yongrel]

From the Free Turkey:
http://thefreeturkey.com/2008/11/12/texas-lawmaker-shame-and-scare-mothers-to-prevent-aboriton/

Everything’s bigger in Texas, including the melodrama. Two identical bills have been submitted to the Texas state legislatures that are essentially designed to scare and shame mothers who have decided to abort.

According to CBS Austin, doctors would by law have to “perform an ultrasound on the woman and display the image of her fetus to her, explaining the size of the embryo or fetus and outlining the presence of any internal organs. The doctor would also have to play the fetus’s heartbeat for the woman.”
Continue reading... (http://thefreeturkey.com/2008/11/12/texas-lawmaker-shame-and-scare-mothers-to-prevent-aboriton/)

[Monolithic]

no.

there should be no restrictions on abortion rights

[Cowlesy]

Nice post, Yongrel.

I am one of those perpetually on the fence. I understand the basic "rights" issue with respect to the mother. In an ardently unpopular stance, I am for abortion in cases of life threatening danger to the mother.

At the same time, if you look at a sonogram [*sic] picture as shown in your post, I sit there and believe that it is a little person in the earliest stages of LIFE, and to kill/abort it just because it has not left the womb is wrong. With the long lines of those waiting to adopt children, it sets up a heartbreaking situation.

I guess where I part from the hardcore libertarians is that I look at that picture and see a little person, where they just see a cluster of cells.

As a rule, I never debate abortion on the board, but that is where I stand.

[The_Orlonater]

No.

[pcosmar]

no.

there should be no restrictions on abortion rights

Rights?

Can you point out this right, you speak of.
Killing a child is not in the Bill of Rights, as far as I can tell.

Life , Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Unless killing babies is how you find happiness ( and I hope not) then It is not there.

[Monolithic]

Rights?

Can you point out this right, you speak of.
Killing a child is not in the Bill of Rights, as far as I can tell.

Life , Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Unless killing babies is how you find happiness ( and I hope not) then It is not there.

it's not a child, it's a lump of undeveloped tissue and cells (i don't care how much it LOOKS like one, it isn't one)

[nate895]

it's not a child, it's a lump of undeveloped tissue and cells (i don't care how much it LOOKS like one, it isn't one)

You know, that is how they thought before the 1830s when the latest advance in microscopes led them to the conclusion that they were killing people. Abortion is an ancient, barbaric, practice that modern science helped to eliminate.

[pcosmar]

it's not a child, it's a lump of undeveloped tissue and cells (i don't care how much it LOOKS like one, it isn't one)

I'm sure saying that over and over again will make it easier. The fact is that it IS life, and allowed to continue will be a human child.
Making a decision to deny life is against the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution.
It is also an ultimate expression of selfishness.

[Monolithic]

You know, that is how they thought before the 1830s when the latest advance in microscopes led them to the conclusion that they were killing people. Abortion is an ancient, barbaric, practice that modern science helped to eliminate.

uh huh, sure

it's a practice that modern science has helped to perfect and make safer

[Monolithic]

I'm sure saying that over and over again will make it easier. The fact is that it IS life, and allowed to continue will be a human child.
Making a decision to deny life is against the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution.
It is also an ultimate expression of selfishness.

it doesn't matter if it's life or not

it matters if its human life or not

[UnReconstructed]

It is a life from the very beginning but government shouldn't even be imo. We should abort government not babies.

[nate895]

uh huh, sure

it's a practice that modern science has helped to perfect and make safer

It's the truth. Abortion went on from time immemorial, until science advanced and said "hang on, we are killing people here." You cannot deny that your thought that it isn't a human life is a regression to a more barbaric time.

[AutoDas]

My poop made a last gasp for breath when I flushed it down. I should have never gotten that laxative! Laxatives are murder!

[Monolithic]

it doesn't matter if it's life or not, it's not sentient, it's not like it knows what's going on

[nate895]

it doesn't matter if it's life or not, it's not sentient, it's not like it knows what's going on

It's not like that makes it right. If we went by whether it knows what is going on, we can start killing infants and small children, or even mentally slow adults. They wouldn't know what was going on if someone tried to give them a lethal injection.

[pcosmar]

it doesn't matter if it's life or not

it matters if its human life or not

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Charged+in+unborn+death&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&o
Interesting.
A 24-year-old man whose speeding vehicle crashed head-on with a car carrying two women, one of whom was pregnant, was charged in Grand Junction today
A local woman has been arrested after she was accused of killing her unborn child
South Sioux City, NE Man Charged In Unborn Baby's Death.
And on and on and on,

All these people should be released then.
No crimes have been committed?


Odd to me is that is seems to depend on who is doing the killing.
Same child(or fetus) in a clinic is not murder. Any where else it is murder.

[Cowlesy]

It's not like that makes it right. If we went by whether it knows what is going on, we can start killing infants and small children, or even mentally slow adults. They wouldn't know what was going on if someone tried to give them a lethal injection.

or like the millions of those who voted for one of the major party candidates who get all their news at 6:30 M-F.

More people who certainly do not know "what is going on".

[Monolithic]

It's not like that makes it right. If we went by whether it knows what is going on, we can start killing infants and small children, or even mentally slow adults. They wouldn't know what was going on if someone tried to give them a lethal injection.

well, technically we could, but there's no reason to kill them, unlike abortions where sometimes the mother can't afford a child, doesn't want a child and had it on accident, was raped, or giving the birth to the child would potentially cause her harm/be fatal to her

[nate895]

well, technically we could, but there's no reason to kill them, unlike abortions where sometimes the mother can't afford a child, doesn't want a child and had it on accident, was raped, or giving the birth to the child would potentially cause her harm/be fatal to her

"No reason to kill them." That is insane. I suppose that means if someone has a reason, it is perfectly fine and we shouldn't punish it.

If the mother's life is at risk, abortion is okay, the disease that causes that is 1/100,000 pregnancies anyway, it's not like they could all of the sudden claim everyone is going to die if they don't have their baby murdered.

As for any other case, there is another A-word: adoption. If you don't want it, adopt it out, there are plenty of people who will take it. If we enact our other policies that have to do with the economy, that would also help to fill the adoption roles.

[The_Orlonater]

uh huh, sure

it's a practice that modern science has helped to perfect and make safer

+1

[AutoDas]

It's a parasite.

[Monolithic]

It's a parasite.

yes, this.

fetus' basically fit the definition of a parasite.

[The_Orlonater]

"No reason to kill them." That is insane. I suppose that means if someone has a reason, it is perfectly fine and we shouldn't punish it.

If the mother's life is at risk, abortion is okay, the disease that causes that is 1/100,000 pregnancies anyway, it's not like they could all of the sudden claim everyone is going to die if they don't have their baby murdered.

As for any other case, there is another A-word: adoption. If you don't want it, adopt it out, there are plenty of people who will take it. If we enact our other policies that have to do with the economy, that would also help to fill the adoption roles.

What if there's a detection that the baby will have a mental disorder like down syndrome? Why keep the poor kid alive, families with kids like that suffer too. Just, peacefully abort it. Besides, from what I've heard. Giving birth wears you down. People should have the right to abort.

[trey4sports]

i could give two shits whether its alive or not,
ur not takin my tax dollars to shame someone into aborting an abortion

[nate895]

It's a parasite.

This where I wonder how long the human race has to live, or any intelligent being for that matter. All human instinct says "have as many children as I can support," but because we are so "evolved" we think that it is okay to kill off the unborn and dismiss it because it is a "parasite." When society begins to think this way of its young, it has little time before it totally dies off. Sometimes it is best to listen to your most basic instinct. I am sick of turning onto a sitcom on TV, and having it basically totally bash the mere idea of having children, for men to actually grow up, settle down, and have children, or for women to actually be a mother to their child. It is somehow a burden, not a great joy which all should welcome.

[The_Orlonater]

No one is advocating the abortion of every baby. I'm just saying that sometimes an abortion could be necessary.

[nate895]

No one is advocating the abortion of every baby. I'm just saying that sometimes an abortion could be necessary.

I am saying that abortion is never necessary and all children should be welcomed, and since this is a human life, the government should forbid the practice for it is murder. It is a shame that while a million babies a year die for no good reason, there are people out there looking for children they can't have due to some medical reason, and they can't find one because someone couldn't stand the consequences of their actions.

[AutoDas]

This where I wonder how long the human race has to live, or any intelligent being for that matter. All human instinct says "have as many children as I can support," but because we are so "evolved" we think that it is okay to kill off the unborn and dismiss it because it is a "parasite." When society begins to think this way of its young, it has little time before it totally dies off. Sometimes it is best to listen to your most basic instinct. I am sick of turning onto a sitcom on TV, and having it basically totally bash the mere idea of having children, for men to actually grow up, settle down, and have children, or for women to actually be a mother to their child. It is somehow a burden, not a great joy which all should welcome.

Stop being so melodramatic. Get a dictionary and look it up. Better yet, I'll save the trouble of book-learnin.

noun
"an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment."

[The_Orlonater]

I am saying that abortion is never necessary and all children should be welcomed, and since this is a human life, the government should forbid the practice for it is murder. It is a shame that while a million babies a year die for no good reason, there are people out there looking for children they can't have due to some medical reason, and they can't find one because someone couldn't stand the consequences of their actions.

Oh freaking please. There a tons of situations on where an abortion could be necessary. It's not a life when the sperm hits the egg. If it is then, we should outlaw masturbating. Think of all the possible amounts of babies could be born if that sperm went somewhere!

[nate895]

Stop being so melodramatic. Get a dictionary and look it up. Better yet, I'll save the trouble of book-learnin.

noun
"an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment."

It actually doesn't fit the definition. A fetus is not of another species.

[nate895]

Oh freaking please. There a tons of situations on where an abortion could be necessary. It's not a life when the sperm hits the egg. If it is then, we should outlaw masturbating. Think of all the possible amounts of babies could be born if that sperm went somewhere!

There is a humongous difference between sperm, and when the sperm hits the egg and eventually becomes a zygote. I propose abortion to be against the law once it hits the stage of zygote, unless of course the body performs the abortion, which happens often when the zygote is terribly deformed, to the point it isn't even a human anyway.

[Danke]

From the Free Turkey:

Should the government force mothers to look at their children before aborting them?


Wise words from The One:


Clutter it [yongrel's blog] up with a bunch of pictures of choo-choo trains.

[yongrel]

Instead of arguing ideologically, let's think about abortion pragmatically.

What would happen if we outlawed abortion tomorrow?

I think you'll find that the consequences are even less desirable.

[nate895]

Instead of arguing ideologically, let's think about abortion pragmatically.

What would happen if we outlawed abortion tomorrow?

I think you'll find that the consequences are even less desirable.

Oh yes, the "but all those mother will die because they participated in back alley abortions" argument. I don't care if they die. They deserve what happens to them if they are looking to kill their child.

[americana]

Stop being so melodramatic. Get a dictionary and look it up. Better yet, I'll save the trouble of book-learnin.

noun
"an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment."

It is a human, not a parasite. It is the same species. If you don't believe me, do the karyotype (check the dna). The fetus is a human species at very early stages of development. We are all on a continual developmental process. Why should the govt be allowed to define at what stage of development a person can be killed and no charges be brought against the killer? Again look at crimes where a person is hit by a car and their unborn child dies. The criminal is prosecuted for killing the child. Should that not be a crime??

And a sperm is not a human. No amount of development by itself will yield a human, ever. It only has half the dna that a human species has.

[yongrel]

Oh yes, the "but all those mother will die because they participated in back alley abortions" argument. I don't care if they die. They deserve what happens to them if they are looking to kill their child.

:rolleyes:

My point is that simply outlawing abortion doesn't solve any problems and creates a lot more.

If abortions were outlawed tomorrow, abortions would still take place, likely with near the same frequency as today. The difference? They'd be less safe, more women would die, and valuable doctors would be treated as criminals. Look at what happened with Portugal back when they outlawed abortion. It's not a good situation.

Instead of using the government to back up your position with force, try educating people. Did you read what I wrote in the original post on my website? The responsibility of the pro-life movement is to truly be pro-life, and not just an angry bunch of people praising the deaths of mothers seeking an abortion.

[AutoDas]

I've been so wrong onthis whole liberty thing. People owning themselves? What nonsense!

[americana]

I've been so wrong onthis whole liberty thing. People owning themselves? What nonsense!

But it is not just your body that you are affecting. It is another human that you are exterminating. Where are his/her rights?

[AutoDas]

What rights are you talking about? Prove these rights.

[nate895]

:rolleyes:

My point is that simply outlawing abortion doesn't solve any problems and creates a lot more.

If abortions were outlawed tomorrow, abortions would still take place, likely with near the same frequency as today. The difference? They'd be less safe, more women would die, and valuable doctors would be treated as criminals. Look at what happened with Portugal back when they outlawed abortion. It's not a good situation.

Instead of using the government to back up your position with force, try educating people. Did you read what I wrote in the original post on my website? The responsibility of the pro-life movement is to truly be pro-life, and not just an angry bunch of people praising the deaths of mothers seeking an abortion.

I am not in favor of the bill they were trying to pass. I am only in favor of an outright ban on abortion, at least at the state level. This issue is the state's jurisdiction, not the Supreme Court's.

I doubt abortion could possibly stay at the same levels if it was prohibited. It is murder, not doing drugs. By that logic, we should legalize murder to find safer, cleaner ways of doing the job, since murder would stay at the same levels anyway. The way to prevent the murder of innocent children is to have them go through the same health class that they are forced to go through, with more emphasis on fetal development. Whenever we have the day at my HS in health class where they go over the stages of fetal development, you will always see a class that is totally pro-life, even if only for 5 minutes until they stop thinking about it. Banning the practice and recognizing the fetus as a life will reinforce this lesson.

[americana]

Oh I'm sorry. Do we not believe in unalienable rights endowed by our creator? Using your logic please prove the rights for a new born...

[AutoDas]

Exactly, we are privileged to grace this earth. I'm not entitled to anything I haven't earned.

[americana]

Exactly, we are privileged to grace this earth. I'm not entitled to anything I haven't earned.

Who gave us the privilege? Certainly not the mother. If that was the case then my mom could come kill me right now no problem, no charges.

I still don't know where you stand. When the child is in the birth canal it is ok to kill, but once it is out it is not?? What is it?

A new born has not earned anything, nor has a toddler etc. So they can be killed without punishment as well???

[AutoDas]

Who gave us the privilege? Certainly not the mother. If that was the case then my mom could come kill me right now no problem, no charges.

I still don't know where you stand. When the child is in the birth canal it is ok to kill, but once it is out it is not?? What is it?

A new born has not earned anything, nor has a toddler etc. So they can be killed without punishment as well???

Your mother could have killed you, she didn't. That's a privilege granted by your creator.

There's always going to be a punishment for your action but it should be me asking you what the punishment should be since you are the one for outlawing abortions. Should the woman be jailed for life or be executed, publicly humiliated? A fetus that has had no impact on anyone is suddenly having the biggest impact on a woman's life.

[youngbuck]

Who gave us the privilege? Certainly not the mother. If that was the case then my mom could come kill me right now no problem, no charges.

I still don't know where you stand. When the child is in the birth canal it is ok to kill, but once it is out it is not?? What is it?

A new born has not earned anything, nor has a toddler etc. So they can be killed without punishment as well???

Of course those arguing in favor of abortion are "true liberals," and "classic liberals." I could almost even call myself a classic liberal, but I just find the whole thing ironic.

So the baby must be completely born to possess any inherent, natural rights? This is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard.

Americana at least can think rationally and logically, instead of being brainwashed by the eugenics-propagandized "left" (even though I'll admit the left/right paradigm is a huge hoax).

[AutoDas]

Of course those arguing in favor of abortion are "true liberals," and "classic liberals." I could almost even call myself a classic liberal, but I just find the whole thing ironic.

umm what? could you clarify:D


So the baby must be completely born to possess any inherent, natural rights? This is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard.

I didn't say that.;)

[LibertyEagle]

it doesn't matter if it's life or not

it matters if its human life or not

What is it, a giraffe?

[LibertyEagle]

:rolleyes:

My point is that simply outlawing abortion doesn't solve any problems and creates a lot more.

If abortions were outlawed tomorrow, abortions would still take place, likely with near the same frequency as today. The difference? They'd be less safe, more women would die, and valuable doctors would be treated as criminals. Look at what happened with Portugal back when they outlawed abortion. It's not a good situation.
Well, I guess we could apply that same logic to murder cases. I mean, why outlaw murder? People are still going to do it anyway. :p


Instead of using the government to back up your position with force, try educating people. Did you read what I wrote in the original post on my website? The responsibility of the pro-life movement is to truly be pro-life, and not just an angry bunch of people praising the deaths of mothers seeking an abortion.

It's a state issue. But, I agree with you that education is key and also giving options to those women who carry their unwanted baby to term.

[Theocrat]

it's not a child, it's a lump of undeveloped tissue and cells (i don't care how much it LOOKS like one, it isn't one)

Click on the image in my signature, and watch the video on the homepage of the link. If you still believe an unborn child is not a human, then you are a sick individual, and I can't even fathom how you would be a supporter of Congressman Paul.

[kojirodensetsu]

I'm fairly anti-abortion, although admittedly I have not come to a solid stance yet.

I mean under normal circumstances I believe that people should be held responsible for having unprotected sex. They decided to do that and now they have to face the consequences. But then what about rape? I mean killing is killing no matter how you look at it. Wouldn't that unborn baby have rights too? But then the woman never intended to have the baby. So should she be forced to carry around a baby for 9 months? And then what about issues where a couple does have protected sex but by some odd chance the girl gets pregnant anyways?

I just.. don't know how something like this should be legislated.

[DamianTV]

I think most people missed the entire point. Which part of the Govt are we talking about, State, or Fed?

If we are talking about the Fed, then absolutely hell fucking no. Go back and read the constitution. The fed doesnt just run around and blackmail states into doing what it tells them to do, it intervenes what happens between states. The federal government should have very little real power.

If its a STATE issue, then it is something to be determined by each individual and soverign State. From there its the mob rule of democracy and not the functions of a Republic (we are NOT a democracy, we are a Republic, but um, well not very well represented...). Then it just depends on which particular bunch of people have the bigger bug up their asses to get what they want, abortion, or no abortion.

---

But I'll answer the original question: "Should the government force mothers to look at their children before aborting them?" No. Thats about as stupid as passing a law that requires murderers to look at the face of their victims before murdering them. (being the killer and victim are both adults, not newborn or unborn). But again, so you or your wife / girlfriend has a Tubal Pregnancy. The baby will NEVER come to term and it WILL kill the mother. Lets make sure you feel extra guilty with a sprinkle of facism on top.

[angelatc]

. Abortion is an ancient, barbaric, practice that modern science helped to eliminate.

Not sure that's true. Abortion has never been eliminated anywhere.

[Crash Martinez]

"Should the government force mothers to look at their children before aborting them?" No. Thats about as stupid as passing a law that requires murderers to look at the face of their victims before murdering them.
+1

[angelatc]

I think, sadly, that we should stay pro-choice, at least on a state level. Abortion won't be stopped by making it illegal, and women shouldn't die as a result of having one.

I have no objection to a state that requires mothers to view anything to discourage the procedure. (Maybe we should require young boys to view graphic war wound pictures before embarking on military careers too.)


I hate Snopes.com. They lean left.

But this picture is of a 21 week old fetus, who reached out during in-utero surgery. The phptographer who took the picture says that he turned from pro-choice to pro-life at this very moment.

http://graphics2.snopes.com/photos/medical/graphics/armas1.jpg

[yokna7]

Let's make the great compromise and let the states decide. The abortion argument will never end.................................of course increasing federal funding for abortions that obama is gonna bring is f#@king ridiculous!

[torchbearer]

I think people forget its two lives involved, which makes it a different matter than simple murder.
People don't like the comparison, but if you can't sustain your own life, do you have the right to leech off of someone else?
Well, you don't if you are an adult.

Then, you get the christians... who supposedly believe in an afterlife of bliss in heaven, who think its horrible for a child to skip the shitty party and go striaght to heaven.. as if, this life is all there is...
Is there not a better life beyond?

I would think athiest would be more pro-life... as in, this is it. And you just robbed someone of their one chance at life.

People make no sense. What-so-ever.
And personally, I'm against abortion, but as a politician, I can't make a one size, fits all... decision for every person on this issue.
The choice is not mine to make.

[americana]

I think people forget its two lives involved, which makes it a different matter than simple murder.
People don't like the comparison, but if you can't sustain your own life, do you have the right to leech off of someone else?
Well, you don't if you are an adult.

Then, you get the christians... who supposedly believe in an afterlife of bliss in heaven, who think its horrible for a child to skip the shitty party and go striaght to heaven.. as if, this life is all there is...
Is there not a better life beyond?

I would think athiest would be more pro-life... as in, this is it. And you just robbed someone of their one chance at life.

People make no sense. What-so-ever.
And personally, I'm against abortion, but as a politician, I can't make a one size, fits all... decision for every person on this issue.
The choice is not mine to make.

you can not be serious. a new born cant sustain his own life either. neither can infants, toddlers, etc. the child didnt decide to "leech" off his mother, SHE DID. all this talk about children being parasites and leechers is honestly making me want to vomit. sick stuff guys, really.

as far as the original question, no, its a dumb law to try to pass.

[torchbearer]

you can not be serious. a new born cant sustain his own life either. neither can infants, toddlers, etc. the child didnt decide to "leech" off his mother, SHE DID. all this talk about children being parasites and leechers is honestly making me want to vomit. sick stuff guys, really.

as far as the original question, no, its a dumb law to try to pass.

Its a discussion about rights, which stems from property.
I even stated, I'm against abortion.
But some people would rather this be an emotional issue.
That works well for the collectivist too.

[Pepsi]

no.

there should be no restrictions on abortion rights

There should be no restrictions on people having children.

[RonPaulMania]

Stop being so melodramatic. Get a dictionary and look it up. Better yet, I'll save the trouble of book-learnin.

noun
"an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment."

Your pathetic application to definition also applies to babies up to 7 years old and the incapacitated.

[Dr.3D]

Seems everybody is focused on the effect rather than the cause.
If a couple had morals, then they wouldn't be getting pregnant by accident to begin with.

What is it, the joy of having sex rather than having it for what it is intended for?

Sex is for procreation and when people decided to have it for fun instead of procreation, the problem of what to do with the unwanted baby they made for the enjoyment of having sex, reared it's ugly head.

[youngbuck]

umm what? could you clarify:D


To clarify, there has been this little trend that I've been noticing as of late. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but it seems that most of the time people are going for progressive/collectivist/(new)liberal garbage, they're coming from the true/classic liberal camp. Like I said, I could almost even call myself a classic liberal, but it's sad to see people supporting abortion just because the new breed of so-called "liberals" support it.

It's murder, and that's that. People have been brainwashed by hardcore eugenics advocates that slip their agenda into education and media.

[youngbuck]

Seems everybody is focused on the effect rather than the cause.
If a couple had morals, then they wouldn't be getting pregnant by accident to begin with.

What is it, the joy of having sex rather than having it for what it is intended for?

Sex is for procreation and when people decided to have it for fun instead of procreation, the problem of what to do with the unwanted baby they made for the enjoyment of having sex, reared it's ugly head.

YES! Why has this extremely complex concept escaped the minds of the masses? Oh yea, propaganda and brainwashing.

[p4poetic]

To clarify, there has been this little trend that I've been noticing as of late. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but it seems that most of the time people are going for progressive/collectivist/(new)liberal garbage, they're coming from the true/classic liberal camp. Like I said, I could almost even call myself a classic liberal, but it's sad to see people supporting abortion just because the new breed of so-called "liberals" support it.

It's murder, and that's that. People have been brainwashed by hardcore eugenics advocates that slip their agenda into education and media.

I don't think anyone is "pro abortion". Pro choice is not pro abortion, I think that's what people who lean on the pro-life side tend to think. In the case of rape, the situation is very delicate, especially for me myself. The woman should not be forced to have the child, but also, the child is innocent and it should not be aborted because it is 'unwanted'.

[americana]

I don't think anyone is "pro abortion". Pro choice is not pro abortion, I think that's what people who lean on the pro-life side tend to think. In the case of rape, the situation is very delicate, especially for me myself. The woman should not be forced to have the child, but also, the child is innocent and it should not be aborted because it is 'unwanted'.

yes rape is a tough issue to deal with. but an ever sadder thing to happen would be to take that horrible crime and add another one on top of it. many adoptive parents would take the child.

now in the case of the fetus harming the mother, the just decision would be to kill that which is threatening the life of the mother.

[Crash Martinez]

now in the case of the fetus harming the mother, the just decision would be to kill that which is threatening the life of the mother.
So you are the judge? If the mother decided to sacrifice herself for her child, would she be acting unjustly?

[SnappleLlama]

abortion debates make me feel all tingly in the womb region.

[americana]

So you are the judge? If the mother decided to sacrifice herself for her child, would she be acting unjustly?

no lol not me. it would be just for the mother to spare her life by having an abortion. but if she wanted to sacrifice herself for the child, of course she could.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

From the Free Turkey:
http://thefreeturkey.com/2008/11/12/texas-lawmaker-shame-and-scare-mothers-to-prevent-aboriton/

Everything’s bigger in Texas, including the melodrama. Two identical bills have been submitted to the Texas state legislatures that are essentially designed to scare and shame mothers who have decided to abort.

According to CBS Austin, doctors would by law have to “perform an ultrasound on the woman and display the image of her fetus to her, explaining the size of the embryo or fetus and outlining the presence of any internal organs. The doctor would also have to play the fetus’s heartbeat for the woman.”
Continue reading... (http://thefreeturkey.com/2008/11/12/texas-lawmaker-shame-and-scare-mothers-to-prevent-aboriton/)

Because of their hard working attitudes, abortions in Texas just tend to desire to know the boss before they get aborted. It really bothers even a little Texan when they don't show up for work everyday and on time! I mean, unlike those little states in the northeast where, after eating their mincemeat pie, Puritans still prance around a maypole naked, Texas still has lots of available air and land, trees to cut down, water to drink, beer to make and football to watch. So, bring your tired, worthless and soulless fetuses or, as sophisticated artisans like to pronounce it while enjoying some mint tea with marmalade on dry toast, feti to Texas!