My Constitutional Amendment idea |
| Posted by: Beth_K | | I propose we amend the Constitution to formally recognize the unborn children conceived by American men and women as full citizens of the United States of America.
This would
a.) Make Roe v Wade null and void, and abortions would be illegal in all 50 states
b.) Eliminate the practice of illegal women who cross the US border to deliver and have their kids be automatic citizens just because they are born here
c.) American women travelling or living abroad's children would be US citizens if born elsewhere
d.) Stop the practice of using embryos for scientific stem cell research
Science shows that human life begins at conception, and I believe protected personhood should begin at the same moment.
I thank you for writing to your representatives to say that you would support this amendment. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Inner City Blues | | Since fetuses are full citizens, can you charge a mother for manslaughter if she has a miscarriage?
Let's say she gets in a car accident, her fault, and the trauma causes the miscarriage, should she be charged with a crime? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: schmiggens | |
| quote: |
Beth_K said this in post #1 :
c.) American women travelling or living abroad's children would be US citizens if born elsewhere |
Can't you get American ciitzenship even if you are born overseas as long as your parents are American? I am pretty sure that's how it works everywhere else.
Besides, not all people born overseas would want to be solely American, being born in another country and having dual-citizenship can be very handy.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Beth_K | |
| quote: |
Inner City Blue said this in post #2 :
Since fetuses are full citizens, can you charge a mother for manslaughter if she has a miscarriage?
Let's say she gets in a car accident, her fault, and the trauma causes the miscarriage, should she be charged with a crime? |
I would say that a natural miscarriage is no different than a person dying from natural causes.
An accident causing a miscarriage would be the same as a driver causing the death of her passenger, I'm not sure that drivers are usually charged unless they were recklessly negligent.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: fuscia | |
| quote: |
| b.) Eliminate the practice of illegal women who cross the US border to deliver and have their kids be automatic citizens just because they are born here |
Your amendment would not eliminate this. Anyone born on American soil becomes a citizen. We would need another ammendement to state that one of your parents must be a U.S. citizen for you to become one regardless of where you are born. I hope that they do this.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Dekka00 | |
| quote: |
schmiggens said this in post #4 :
Can't you get American ciitzenship even if you are born overseas as long as your parents are American? I am pretty sure that's how it works everywhere else.
Besides, not all people born overseas would want to be solely American, being born in another country and having dual-citizenship can be very handy. |
yeah... I was born in Japan to American parents and I was an American citizen, not Japanese.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: adityamahesh | |
| quote: |
fuscia said this in post #6 :
Your amendment would not eliminate this. Anyone born on American soil becomes a citizen. We would need another ammendement to state that one of your parents must be a U.S. citizen for you to become one regardless of where you are born. I hope that they do this. |
There should be laws (and action) against illegal immigration, but a country that was made by immigrants (after decimating the natives) should have a rule that one of the parents should be a U.S. citizen? Please, don't make me laugh.
M.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Beth_K | |
| quote: |
adityamahesh said this in post #9 :
There should be laws (and action) against illegal immigration, but a country that was made by immigrants (after decimating the natives) should have a rule that one of the parents should be a U.S. citizen? Please, don't make me laugh.
M. |
I'm talking about ILLEGALS who have their baby here and that baby of an illegal alien is automatically a US citizen.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: adityamahesh | | Yes, but I was responding to Fuscia's idea of one parent required to be a U.S. citizen. That would affect legal immigrants hugely.
M. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Inner City Blues | |
| quote: |
Beth_K said this in post #5 :
I would say that a natural miscarriage is no different than a person dying from natural causes. |
What classifies as a natural miscarriage? If you have some directions for diet from the doctor and you have a miscarriage, can you be charged with a crime?
If you drink something with alcohol in it (not necessarily beer or wine), can you be charged with giving a minor alcohol?
How many rights does an expectant mother have? Isn't this in essence removing rights from certain persons in our society, especially for people that may have been raped (rape does not only include attacks by strangers but can also include sexual abuse by a spouse, partner, or relative)?
Why not just wait until the baby is out of the womb before we start giving it all these rights?
| quote: |
Beth_K said this in post #5 :
An accident causing a miscarriage would be the same as a driver causing the death of her passenger, I'm not sure that drivers are usually charged unless they were recklessly negligent. |
Right, would the mother be charged if she was driving recklessly and then gets into an accident, which results in miscarriage. Before you could charge a person wth reckless driving, but could you tack on vehicular manslaughter?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Beth_K | |
| quote: |
Inner City Blue said this in post #12 :
What classifies as a natural miscarriage? If you have some directions for diet from the doctor and you have a miscarriage, can you be charged with a crime?
If you drink something with alcohol in it (not necessarily beer or wine), can you be charged with giving a minor alcohol?
How many rights does an expectant mother have? Isn't this in essence removing rights from certain persons in our society, especially for people that may have been raped (rape does not only include attacks by strangers but can also include sexual abuse by a spouse, partner, or relative)?
Why not just wait until the baby is out of the womb before we start giving it all these rights?
Right, would the mother be charged if she was driving recklessly and then gets into an accident, which results in miscarriage. Before you could charge a person wth reckless driving, but could you tack on vehicular manslaughter? |
I happen to be a very pro-life person. I do not think there is a culture of life and a culture of death, but I do happen to think there is an overall culture of disrespect for human life going on in our country and in our world. That means people do not always take care of themselves, pregnant women do not always take care of their unborn (and some kill their unborn through reckless behavior or abortion) parents do not always take care of their born children, adults do not always take care of their aging parents, and we turn a blind eye to needy in our country and in our world. Basically we are a society that thinks of self pleasure first, and often other people's lives are not important enough for us to care.
Well, I care about all human life, from the point of conception to the point of natural death. We have a moral obligation to ourselves and each other to respect each other and care for each other when someone needs our help.
I think our Constitution should reflect the value that we as Americans should put on ALL human life, born and unborn. When Roe v Wade legalized abortion in this country, the effects I believe are snowballing, where we as a society lessen the value of human life in the name of convenience, and to take the easy way out of a difficult situation. It is disrespect for human life in the highest form, and I for one, am sick of abortions being legal, and acceptable to many.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Inner City Blues | | I understand all that, but that really didn't answer my question. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Beth_K | |
| quote: |
Inner City Blue said this in post #14 :
I understand all that, but that really didn't answer my question. |
I don't think you truly do understand all that, if you did you would have your answer. We all have a responsibility for our own lives, pregnant women have the extra responsibility for the lives of their unborn children. If they are doing reckless things, doing crack, having someone jump on their stomach repeatedly, then they have been negligent to the human life inside them. If they were doing crack after the baby is born and say in their high state dropped their baby and killed it, this would be negligent behavior.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Inner City Blues | |
| quote: |
Beth_K said this in post #15 :
I don't think you truly do understand all that, if you did you would have your answer. We all have a responsibility for our own lives, pregnant women have the extra responsibility for the lives of their unborn children. If they are doing reckless things, doing crack, having someone jump on their stomach repeatedly, then they have been negligent to the human life inside them. If they were doing crack after the baby is born and say in their high state dropped their baby and killed it, this would be negligent behavior. |
I understand your point, but doesn't that take away rights from women? Aren't they suddenly second-class citizens if they get pregnant? How can one have equal rights when those rights are suddenly abridged? How do you reconcile pregnancies that are dangerous to the woman?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nikiTa | |
| quote: |
Inner City Blue said this in post #16 :
I understand your point, but doesn't that take away rights from women? Aren't they suddenly second-class citizens if they get pregnant? How can one have equal rights when those rights are suddenly abridged? How do you reconcile pregnancies that are dangerous to the woman? |
So, being pregnant abridges a woman's rights.....interesting.
How do men sleep at night?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Beth_K | |
| quote: |
Inner City Blue said this in post #16 :
I understand your point, but doesn't that take away rights from women? Aren't they suddenly second-class citizens if they get pregnant? How can one have equal rights when those rights are suddenly abridged? How do you reconcile pregnancies that are dangerous to the woman? |
See, your words here how how little you respect life. Second class citizens? Women are certainly never second class citizens! But you sure seem fine with unborn children (male and female) being second class citizens, oh wait you don't even think they should be citizens at all unless they are out of their mother's body. 
A woman who would die if she didn't abort is acting in self-defense. But these cases are not the reason most abortions are performed, and you know it.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nikiTa | | Well, Beth_K, fetuses are not live humans according to Roe vs Wade.
And, of course a premature baby at 7 months born and surviving is a human.
But an eight or nine month fetus is fair game.
This is the logic of pro-abortion. Spock would be disappointed. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: fuscia | |
| quote: |
adityamahesh said this in post #11 :
Yes, but I was responding to Fuscia's idea of one parent required to be a U.S. citizen. That would affect legal immigrants hugely.
M. |
I should have clarified that it should be that only U.S. citizens and those with legal status can have their children become citizens.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Inner City Blues | |
| quote: |
Beth_K said this in post #18 :
See, your words here how how little you respect life. Second class citizens? Women are certainly never second class citizens! But you sure seem fine with unborn children (male and female) being second class citizens, oh wait you don't even think they should be citizens at all unless they are out of their mother's body.
A woman who would die if she didn't abort is acting in self-defense. But these cases are not the reason most abortions are performed, and you know it. |
First of all, please don't make any assumptions about me because you'll probably end up being just plain wrong.
You want to classify fetuses as citizens and I am just asking you some questions, that in reality, I don't think you have asked yourself. You talk about how horrible it is for me to suggest that a women is a second class citizen in your world order and imply that I have no respect for life or whatever phrases you're saying, but now you're willing to turn right back around and say a woman can terminate a pregnancy in "self-defense"?
So now the question is, does a fetus forfeit its rights to life once classified as being a danger to the mother? What if a spouse disagrees? Can he/she (in the case of a same-sex couple) take the partner to court challenging the doctor and woman's opinion?
If fetuses are citizens, isn't the notion of equality now lost because some can be aborted while others can't? What about the fetuses that will die with minutes and hours after birth, would you force a woman to carry that fetus to term? Notice I use the term force as you are taking away a woman's right.
Why am I asking these seemingly ridiculous questions? I am asking them because they are questions that seriously come up when you take these ridiculous steps to define fetuses as citizens.
Let's a say a woman doesn't know she's pregnant and she gets in a fight with another person. The fight results in the termination of the unknown pregnancy, do you charge the person with manslaughter? Do you charge the woman with child endangerment?
Citizenship should be retained for those that are born. In the womb, you shouldn't have this classification. Yes, it's a human, but personhood should be defined as at birth. When you're dealing with something that completely relies on something for sustenance, the rights must go to the host, in this case the mother. You can't try to cut it two ways where if the host is in danger, the fetus loses its rights, it just makes no sense. What does make sense is just giving the woman the right to choose, whether it be the right, wrong, best, or worst choice.
| quote: |
sowhatsthetruth said this in post #19 :
Well, Beth_K, fetuses are not live humans according to Roe vs Wade.
And, of course a premature baby at 7 months born and surviving is a human.
But an eight or nine month fetus is fair game.
This is the logic of pro-abortion. Spock would be disappointed. |
I was under the impression that third trimester abortions are not allowed unless the mother's life is in danger. Considering there are only a handful of these each year, these ARE cases where death may occur as a result of birthing the child. I don't understand the reason you brought up that point and I'll treat it as a straw man.
*********************************
Personally, I don't know why people care so much about abortion because I refuse to believe these people care for human life so much because in most cases, these groups align themselves politically with people that seek to take away the programs and aid that can go to people in need. I see it nothing more than an ideological position where the actual people do not matter; you just want it the way you want it.
In most cases, I would say never abort as I think it is wrong, but I am also a man and I will never have to make that choice so I'll never know what it's like to be in such a position. Moreover, I think it's a bit presumptuous of me to tell a person what they can and cannot do with their own body because like it or not, you are telling a woman she has no control of her body. We could talk about the statistics of who makes up the majority of abortions, but that's irrelevant as the minority situations are important and nothing is clear cut with abortion.
This is not an easy choice made with the drop of a hat, so I think no one should trivialize the choice these women take, for many it is a hard decision that brings them sorrow.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nikiTa | | Inner City Blue said:
| quote: |
| I was under the impression that third trimester abortions are not allowed unless the mother's life is in danger. Considering there are only a handful of these each year, these ARE cases where death may occur as a result of birthing the child. I don't understand the reason you brought up that point and I'll treat it as a straw man. |
No straw, just logic.
The partial birth abortion law angered many pro abortion folks to the point of filing suits to negate the federal law.
This tells me there are those who actually believe as I stated in my original post regarding this subject.
Where is the logic in that? So when does the life of a "fetus" actually become worthy of life? Viability? And who is qualified to make that determination? Doctors? Lawyers? Judges? The people? Congress? The President? The mother?
| quote: |
A third federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday halting enforcement of a new law prohibiting certain late-term abortions...
...In Nebraska, federal Judge Richard Kopf said his order applies only to the four doctors who filed the lawsuit, but the ruling could extend beyond Nebraska because the physicians are licensed to practice in Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, New York, South Carolina and Virginia.
Since 1995, similar bans against what critics term "partial birth abortions" have been enacted in more than half the states. They have been challenged in courts throughout the country.
The American Civil Liberties Union says courts considering these laws -- including the U.S. Supreme Court just three years ago -- have consistently struck down the bans because they do not take into account risks to the women's health.
The ACLU has successfully challenged so-called "partial-birth abortion" bans in Alaska, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey and Rhode Island. |
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/06/abortion.decision/
the entire Nebraska case here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...ol=914#section1 | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Inner City Blues | |
| quote: |
sowhatsthetruth said this in post #22 :
Inner City Blue said:
No straw, just logic.
The partial birth abortion law angered many pro abortion folks to the point of filing suits to negate the federal law.
This tells me there are those who actually believe as I stated in my original post regarding this subject.
Where is the logic in that? So when does the life of a "fetus" actually become worthy of life? Viability? And who is qualified to make that determination? Doctors? Lawyers? Judges? The people? Congress? The President? The mother?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/06/abortion.decision/
the entire Nebraska case here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...ol=914#section1 |
Still a straw man.
You never addressed any of the questions or statements I made in my post, instead you go to another subject and using some ill logic you attack that subject.
A premature baby and the use of partial birth abortion? The way you posited the situations is just wrong and getting into a discussion about partial-birth abortion still doesn't address what I wrote. In fact, I said nothing about partial-birth abortions so how is that relevant?
It's a straw man.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Beth_K | |
| quote: |
Inner City Blue said this in post #21 :
First of all, please don't make any assumptions about me because you'll probably end up being just plain wrong.
You want to classify fetuses as citizens and I am just asking you some questions, that in reality, I don't think you have asked yourself. You talk about how horrible it is for me to suggest that a women is a second class citizen in your world order and imply that I have no respect for life or whatever phrases you're saying, but now you're willing to turn right back around and say a woman can terminate a pregnancy in "self-defense"?
So now the question is, does a fetus forfeit its rights to life once classified as being a danger to the mother? What if a spouse disagrees? Can he/she (in the case of a same-sex couple) take the partner to court challenging the doctor and woman's opinion?
If fetuses are citizens, isn't the notion of equality now lost because some can be aborted while others can't? What about the fetuses that will die with minutes and hours after birth, would you force a woman to carry that fetus to term? Notice I use the term force as you are taking away a woman's right.
Why am I asking these seemingly ridiculous questions? I am asking them because they are questions that seriously come up when you take these ridiculous steps to define fetuses as citizens.
Let's a say a woman doesn't know she's pregnant and she gets in a fight with another person. The fight results in the termination of the unknown pregnancy, do you charge the person with manslaughter? Do you charge the woman with child endangerment?
Citizenship should be retained for those that are born. In the womb, you shouldn't have this classification. Yes, it's a human, but personhood should be defined as at birth. When you're dealing with something that completely relies on something for sustenance, the rights must go to the host, in this case the mother. You can't try to cut it two ways where if the host is in danger, the fetus loses its rights, it just makes no sense. What does make sense is just giving the woman the right to choose, whether it be the right, wrong, best, or worst choice.
I was under the impression that third trimester abortions are not allowed unless the mother's life is in danger. Considering there are only a handful of these each year, these ARE cases where death may occur as a result of birthing the child. I don't understand the reason you brought up that point and I'll treat it as a straw man.
*********************************
Personally, I don't know why people care so much about abortion because I refuse to believe these people care for human life so much because in most cases, these groups align themselves politically with people that seek to take away the programs and aid that can go to people in need. I see it nothing more than an ideological position where the actual people do not matter; you just want it the way you want it.
In most cases, I would say never abort as I think it is wrong, but I am also a man and I will never have to make that choice so I'll never know what it's like to be in such a position. Moreover, I think it's a bit presumptuous of me to tell a person what they can and cannot do with their own body because like it or not, you are telling a woman she has no control of her body. We could talk about the statistics of who makes up the majority of abortions, but that's irrelevant as the minority situations are important and nothing is clear cut with abortion.
This is not an easy choice made with the drop of a hat, so I think no one should trivialize the choice these women take, for many it is a hard decision that brings them sorrow. |
Now you are making assumptions about me! I do think we need to give aid to people who need it, through charity AND welfare. I do think that women who find themselves with unplanned pregnanies are very vunerable and scared. I don't want to punish these women, but there is another person whose fate is not being given a voice, the unborn. If our society thought of the unborn as real people, then this would hopefully make them realize the importance of their actions and the consequences and act accordingly so as to NOT find themselves in a position of having to want an abortion.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Inner City Blues | |
| quote: |
Beth_K said this in post #24 :
Now you are making assumptions about me! I do think we need to give aid to people who need it, through charity AND welfare. I do think that women who find themselves with unplanned pregnanies are very vunerable and scared. I don't want to punish these women, but there is another person whose fate is not being given a voice, the unborn. If our society thought of the unborn as real people, then this would hopefully make them realize the importance of their actions and the consequences and act accordingly so as to NOT find themselves in a position of having to want an abortion. |
And you still haven't addressed anything I've said. The reason why I used a bunch of asteriks was to separate my statements, the stuff under the asteriks were not directed at anyone, but more of a general comment that has nothing to do with anyone here.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Beth_K | |
| quote: |
Inner City Blue said this in post #25 :
And you still haven't addressed anything I've said. The reason why I used a bunch of asteriks was to separate my statements, the stuff under the asteriks were not directed at anyone, but more of a general comment that has nothing to do with anyone here. |
But I have addressed your issues, you just can't phathom the idea of personal responsibilty and the idea that sometimes we need to do what is right and not what is easy.
Abortion takes a human life. That it remains legal in this country is unacceptable to me. I would like the unborn child's life to be given the respect and the protection that it deserves. I would like ALL human life to be given respect and protection.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nikiTa | |
| quote: |
Inner City Blue said this in post #23 :
Still a straw man.
You never addressed any of the questions or statements I made in my post, instead you go to another subject and using some ill logic you attack that subject.
A premature baby and the use of partial birth abortion? The way you posited the situations is just wrong and getting into a discussion about partial-birth abortion still doesn't address what I wrote. In fact, I said nothing about partial-birth abortions so how is that relevant?
It's a straw man. |
Call it what you want.
Logic and facts are beyond your comprehension on this one.
Again: iCB said:
| quote: |
| I was under the impression that third trimester abortions are not allowed unless the mother's life is in danger. Considering there are only a handful of these each year, these ARE cases where death may occur as a result of birthing the child. I don't understand the reason you brought up that point and I'll treat it as a straw man. |
What are your questions here that you say I ignored????
The late term abortion ban for some procedures allows an out for women who are deemed medically threatened by giving birth. They can have these abortions.
Yet, obviously that has not been enough for certain groups like the ACLU and States of Calif, Nebraska etc. Since they, along with others, challenged the partial abortion bill after it became law.
Did you see the links?
I am saying that NARAL and other abortion groups would say that abortion at any time is OK.
And the illogic in this that a seven month old premie who survives is called human....while babies the same age or older should be able to be aborted if the mother wants it.
So, when does human life began?
Outside the vagina?
Where a doctor can force labor and kill it in the womb before leaving the vagina?
I am making perfect sense here....you continue to call straw....denial isn't a river in Egypt, ya know?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Inner City Blues | | Both of you are completely ignoring my posts. My familiarity with late term abortions has nothing to do with the questions I asked. Perhaps I should rewrite a few of them because you're both avoiding the issue completely.
You said you'd make a fetus a citizen through an amendment. I asked a bunch of questions regarding the problems that can arise with such a hasty decision. Late term abortion has nothing to do with the subject matter, that was a deflection trying to turn this into a debate on partial birth abortion, something separate from classifying a fetus as a citizen. There is a constant bringing up of personal responsbility, but then you ignore cases of abuse and rape. Whether or not they make up the vast majority of abortions is irrelevant as those still make a sizeable amount of abortions.
I even asked questions about things like charging a pregnant woman with child endangerment for drinking or reckless driving. All these questions are ignored. Would you go as far as testing every woman that come into contact with law enforcement? Some women won't appear to be pregnant, and since you define pregnancy as being at conception, shouldn't you take steps to see if a woman is pregnant as to ensure protection of this "citizen" fetus? Does a woman now lose her privacy rights where she must say if she is pregnant or not? If a woman is unaware that she is pregnant can she still be charged with crimes against her fetus?
How about this, you have outlawed abortion, they are illegal. Now you come to a situation where a woman has a severly deformed fetus that will be a stillborn or it will die within minutes of delivery. Now if this woman knows the status of this fetus, can she suddenly be held liable for any of her actions that might be seen as a "danger" to the citizen fetus?
You still have not addressed these points because I don't think you've even thought through the legal ramifications of such a step to classify a fetus as a citizen. Let's say your no citizenship for illegal immigrant children doesn't pan out (really that idea would never ever fly), is citizenship determined by where you were conceived? Let's just say you have legal immigrants, conceived in the native country and then they come to the U.S., the child is born, is the child a citizen of the U.S. or the native country? Or do you give them dual citizenship? What determines the legal status of the child, the egg? The sperm? The donors? Or is it the status of the womb that counts? Let's say you get a woman who hires an illegal immigrant to be a surrogate, is that fetus classified as an American citizen? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Inner City Blues | |
| quote: |
sowhatsthetruth said this in post #27 :
Call it what you want.
Logic and facts are beyond your comprehension on this one. |
Who was the first to mention partial-birth abortion? You brought it up, it is a deflection from the topic, classification of a fetus as a citizen.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nikiTa | | Why is it a deflection to talk about when human life is actually determined human life?
That was the thrust of the Roe v Wade case and that is the thrust of the entire abortion issue.
Bringing up partial birth abortion....which is a form of abortion....abortion, ya know?...is not a deflection...it gets to the heart of the matter, which is, again, when and who is qualified to determine the beginning of human life?
Abortion is a business--a multi-billion dollar business at that.
Doctors and their associates make way too much money to allow abortion to become illegal.
This greed factor in the abortion issue is on the same line as the greed factor of oil companies and wars that result from such a factor.
No difference. The morality is the same.
Innocent lives sacrificed to line the pockets of the wealthy. And the lives of the women convinced that this is a "choice" are also affected in this multi billion dollar business. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Inner City Blues | |
| quote: |
sowhatsthetruth said this in post #30 :
Why is it a deflection to talk about when human life is actually determined human life?
That was the thrust of the Roe v Wade case and that is the thrust of the entire abortion issue.
Bringing up partial birth abortion....which is a form of abortion....abortion, ya know?...is not a deflection...it gets to the heart of the matter, which is, again, when and who is qualified to determine the beginning of human life?
Abortion is a business--a multi-billion dollar business at that.
Doctors and their associates make way too much money to allow abortion to become illegal.
This greed factor in the abortion issue is on the same line as the greed factor of oil companies and wars that result from such a factor.
No difference. The morality is the same.
Innocent lives sacrificed to line the pockets of the wealthy. And the lives of the women convinced that this is a "choice" are also affected in this multi billion dollar business. |
And still you are not addressing the citizenship of the fetus and the points I bring up...yes it is a deflection... 
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: devildog | | Luckily, I don't make the rules. After two abortions, you would be fixed, neutered, spayed or whatever.
Yes, mothers should be responsible, (theres that word) for the life they are carrying. You smoke, drink, or play on a trampoline, and hurt the child, you should be held accountable.
If the mother isn't "showing" and this happens, then she can't be held responsible because she will say that she didn't know about the pregnancy. If it can be proven that she did know, then all bets are off.
Children born to American citizen parents should be Americans, regardless of where they are born. If they want if differently, fine.
A raped woman doesn't have these rules apply, but she could get an abortion almost instantly, so it isn't really pertinent.
Did that address the issues? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Inner City Blues | |
| quote: |
devildog said this in post #32 :
Luckily, I don't make the rules. After two abortions, you would be fixed, neutered, spayed or whatever.
Yes, mothers should be responsible, (theres that word) for the life they are carrying. You smoke, drink, or play on a trampoline, and hurt the child, you should be held accountable.
If the mother isn't "showing" and this happens, then she can't be held responsible because she will say that she didn't know about the pregnancy. If it can be proven that she did know, then all bets are off.
Children born to American citizen parents should be Americans, regardless of where they are born. If they want if differently, fine.
A raped woman doesn't have these rules apply, but she could get an abortion almost instantly, so it isn't really pertinent.
Did that address the issues? |
Thank you!
I'll discuss some of your points later, I agree with you on some pf them and you actually answered the questions I was asking. Hiwever, I don't think you would be extending citizenship rights to the fetus, it seems you are just putting more restrictions on one's ability to get an abortion.
But on the rape issue, I think the one problem I have is that people always think of rape as a stranger when we also have to remember there are Ike& Tina relationships out there where rape occurs. I think the woman should just leave, but we know it's never that easy to leave especially if you have a dangerous partner.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: devildog | | Tina can always go get an abortion right away if she was raped. Police would be involved and Ike arrested. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nikiTa | |
| quote: |
Inner City Blue said this in post #31 :
And still you are not addressing the citizenship of the fetus and the points I bring up...yes it is a deflection... |
Before you can even address the fact of a "fetus" being a "citizen" of the US....you have to admit whether or not that "fetus" is a human being.
Because as far as I know....only human beings can be considered for citizenship within the U.S. And, the willful taking of another human beings' life is grounds for murder charges. And for some reason, the courts see the willful taking of a fetus' life legal. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Multitasking is an art form.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Inner City Blues | |
| quote: |
sowhatsthetruth said this in post #36 :
Before you can even address the fact of a "fetus" being a "citizen" of the US....you have to admit whether or not that "fetus" is a human being.
Because as far as I know....only human beings can be considered for citizenship within the U.S. And, the willful taking of another human beings' life is grounds for murder charges. And for some reason, the courts see the willful taking of a fetus' life legal. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Multitasking is an art form. |
I am done with you, you're trying to deflect from the topic. What you're talking about is irrelevant to the topic. The OP pertains to a world order where the fetus is a citizen and abortion is illegal. I am asking questions whether making such regulations are helpful and if they create more problems, especially in the way of equal rights and privacy. Whatever someone's view of a fetus is irrelevant and as I said, you brought a straw man into the discussion as partial-birth abortion has nothing to do with this subject.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nikiTa | | I am getting to the nitty gritty here....and you want to bring up your deflections....and I am not playing....and you won't address the very most basic dilemma in the abortion issue.
Give up....there is nothing you can say to what I brought up. Bow out.
Because there is nothing left to discuss...
is a fetus a human?
If so, they should be allowed citizenship and full protection of the law.
Read the Roe vs Wade case for yourself like I did in my univ. Constitutional Law class.
Until then, I am not sure if you can even understand what I am getting to here....but you know enough to bow out when faced with hard truth. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Beth_K | |
| quote: |
Inner City Blue said this in post #37 :
I am done with you, you're trying to deflect from the topic. What you're talking about is irrelevant to the topic. The OP pertains to a world order where the fetus is a citizen and abortion is illegal. I am asking questions whether making such regulations are helpful and if they create more problems, especially in the way of equal rights and privacy. Whatever someone's view of a fetus is irrelevant and as I said, you brought a straw man into the discussion as partial-birth abortion has nothing to do with this subject. |
It's all in the perspective: my proposal is much more helpful to the unborn children! It recognizes that they are indeed human beings that deserve to be given a chance to be born, and that while he or she is in utero that he or she is should not be abused from reckless behavior by his or her mother.
You ask if my proposal creates more problems, I wouldn't say that. Since most abortions right now are performed for convenience sake, then what my proposal does is say to the mother that she will be inconvenienced. I am not asking her to die, but right now every aborted baby does die! Like I said, my proposal -- more helpful to unborn babies, does not create problems but holds those accountable that brought the problems upon themselves.
Now, does THIS answer your questions? Because I really feel like I am answering you but you just don't like my answers so you keep saying I am not.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nikiTa | |
| quote: |
Beth_K said this in post #39 :
It's all in the perspective: my proposal is much more helpful to the unborn children! It recognizes that they are indeed human beings that deserve to be given a chance to be born, and that while he or she is in utero that he or she is should not be abused from reckless behavior by his or her mother.
|
Interesting you brought this up Beth_K.
Since Scott Peterson was convicted of murder charges for his unborn baby and he was the father....why shouldn't the mothers be held accountable for allowing doctors to take the life of their babies???
How can these doctors sleep at night?
They must have taken the "hypocritical oath."
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Beth_K | |
| quote: |
sowhatsthetruth said this in post #38 :
I am getting to the nitty gritty here....and you want to bring up your deflections....and I am not playing....and you won't address the very most basic dilemma in the abortion issue.
Give up....there is nothing you can say to what I brought up. Bow out.
Because there is nothing left to discuss...
is a fetus a human?
If so, they should be allowed citizenship and full protection of the law.
Read the Roe vs Wade case for yourself like I did in my univ. Constitutional Law class.
Until then, I am not sure if you can even understand what I am getting to here....but you know enough to bow out when faced with hard truth. |
This is the crux of the debate. We now know more about the development of the children in utero, and so the pro-choice people have had to change their defense from "its a blob of tissue" (we have ultrasounds that tell us differently) to "it may be human, but it is not a person."
It is ridiculous, as if the unborn baby that comes from the joining of human egg and human sperm and from the moment of conception has eveything within it to become a human being is anything less than a person just because of its physical location in the womb.
Then also comes the question of what point during gestation can we say that okay, NOW the fetus can be called a person? Because we know a wanted baby who is killed (say when the mother is murdered), that is considered a double homicide. Why should only a wanted baby be considered a person?
Inner City Blue, you may think a baby has to be born before it should be considered a person, but even that view is not widely accepted by the pro-choice people who often think late term abortions are wrong.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nikiTa | |
| quote: |
Beth_K said this in post #39 :
You ask if my proposal creates more problems, I wouldn't say that. Since most abortions right now are performed for convenience sake, then what my proposal does is say to the mother that she will be inconvenienced. I am not asking her to die, but right now every aborted baby does die! Like I said, my proposal -- more helpful to unborn babies, does not create problems but holds those accountable that brought the problems upon themselves.
|
Perspective would deem whether a child is a problem or a blessing.
The real question is...should an unborn child who is considered a problem have its life ended by a doctor with the permission of a mother...just because it is a "problem?" Is it murder or not?
Or is it just "eliminating a problem?"
The mob uses such terms all the time:
eliminate the problem, take care of the problem.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Beth_K | |
| quote: |
sowhatsthetruth said this in post #40 :
Interesting you brought this up Beth_K.
Since Scott Peterson was convicted of murder charges for his unborn baby and he was the father....why shouldn't the mothers be held accountable for allowing doctors to take the life of their babies??? |
Well, of course the reason is because abortion is legal, but I agree there is a double standard because it is saying that only wanted babies are considered people while unwanted babies are not.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nikiTa | |
| quote: |
Beth_K said this in post #43 :
Well, of course the reason is because abortion is legal, but I agree there is a double standard because it is saying that only wanted babies are considered people while unwanted babies are not. |
But at the very fundamental level, what is the difference between what Scott P did and what abortion doctors do?
When will this country start executing the unwanted homeless, or indigent, or whatever society deems "unwanted?"
This is madness. Utter madness. 
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Inner City Blues | |
| quote: |
sowhatsthetruth said this in post #42 :
Perspective would deem whether a child is a problem or a blessing.
The real question is...should an unborn child who is considered a problem have its life ended by a doctor with the permission of a mother...just because it is a "problem?" Is it murder or not?
Or is it just "eliminating a problem?"
The mob uses such terms all the time:
eliminate the problem, take care of the problem. |
Perfect straw man I must say.
One can set up a straw man in several different ways:
- Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
- Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
- Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
- Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.
You've managed to hit at least 3 of the 4 above.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/cartoon/mrdid.jpg
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Beth_K | |
| quote: |
sowhatsthetruth said this in post #44 :
But at the very fundamental level, what is the difference between what Scott P did and what abortion doctors do?
When will this country start executing the unwanted homeless, or indigent, or whatever society deems "unwanted?"
This is madness. Utter madness. |
Yes, indeed, doesn't anyone else see the sheer lunacy when you think about it, that its basically the mother's personal decision to determine that the child inside her is a person or not? A wanted child = a person, an unwanted child = not a person. Madness, that's a good word to describe it.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nikiTa | |
| quote: |
Inner City Blue said this in post #45 :
Perfect straw man I must say.
One can set up a straw man in several different ways:
- Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
- Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
- Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
- Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.
You've managed to hit at least 3 of the 4 above.
|
So who exactly was I "refuting" here?
Who is my "opponent?"
I was addressing Beth_K....NOT you or anyone else.
Your post there was meaningless to the discussion....how about chiming in on our points? Or is this how you "bow out."
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Beth_K | |
| quote: |
Inner City Blue said this in post #45 :
Perfect straw man I must say.
One can set up a straw man in several different ways:
- Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
- Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
- Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
- Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.
You've managed to hit at least 3 of the 4 above.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/cartoon/mrdid.jpg |
Seems like your talking so much about strawmen that you've lost sight of what we're discussing here.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Beth_K | | Inner City Blue, do you even realize how you make the unborn into the villian in your views? As if the baby deserves to die just for being conceived, like how dare it expect to be given a chance to live? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Beth_K | | By the way, I should mention to anyone who happens to agree with me, to please write to your Congressmen with your support of such a proposal. I suppose Inner City Blue here could write to his and show his support against it. I'd at least like to see it discussed in Congress. Roe v Wade is really not a good decision, but I think there should be standards that don't change when you cross state borders. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Inner City Blues | |
| quote: |
Beth_K said this in post #49 :
Inner City Blue, do you even realize how you make the unborn into the villian in your views? As if the baby deserves to die just for being conceived, like how dare it expect to be given a chance to live? |
And have you addressed my questions involving giving fetuses' citizenship? That's all I want you to address. You and sowhatsthetruth are all over the place as I am asking questions about privacy rights, and equal protections; you have not addressed this instead going off onto a tangent talking about my disrespect for life, which even if I think every woman should have an abortion if impregnated, doesn't address my questions.
I'll say this: fetuses aren't humans, they are like bloodsucking parasites that are nothing more than ticks taking nutrients away from the mother. If anything, I am pro-death, I want every fetus to be aborted because there is nothing worse than a fetus that is like a vampire inside the womb becoming an even more prodigious bloodsucker on the outside. Happy?
Now that you know my position, how does this address the points I brought up earlier?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nikiTa | |
| quote: |
| By the way, I should mention to anyone who happens to agree with me, to please write to your Congressmen with your support of such a proposal. |
Beth_K,
Wonder what Tom Tancredo would say....I phone his office frequently with my opinions and asking the office people how he plans to vote on issues...
He's the Republican fighting Bush on immigration laws....and he's now being mentioned as Candidate material in 2008....he's just about 1 of 2 Congresspeople I respect.
I'll do it. 
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Beth_K | |
| quote: |
Inner City Blue said this in post #51 :
And have you addressed my questions involving giving fetuses' citizenship? That's all I want you to address. You and sowhatsthetruth are all over the place as I am asking questions about privacy rights, and equal protections; you have not addressed this instead going off onto a tangent talking about my disrespect for life, which even if I think every woman should have an abortion if impregnated, doesn't address my questions.
I'll say this: fetuses aren't humans, they are like bloodsucking parasites that are nothing more than ticks taking nutrients away from the mother. If anything, I am pro-death, I want every fetus to be aborted because there is nothing worse than a fetus that is like a vampire inside the womb becoming an even more prodigious bloodsucker on the outside. Happy?
Now that you know my position, how does this address the points I brought up earlier? |
I find it interesting that you mention equal rights, because you say the woman has the right to privacy, but the child does not even have the right to life. That doesn't sound very equal to me!
You have mentioned that sometimes a pregnancy can endanger a mother's life, and when I said ending such a pregnancy is like self-defense (self-preservation) you jump all over me like I am using double standards, which is ludicrious. If the mother dies, so would the baby. If its a choice between the mother and the baby dying, or just the baby dying to save the mother, you save the mother of course. But often the life of the baby can be spared and the mother's with medical technology, so I don't see this as a big issue. I see it as a big (what do you like to call it...) DEFLECTION.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Beth_K | |
| quote: |
sowhatsthetruth said this in post #52 :
Beth_K,
Wonder what Tom Tancredo would say....I phone his office frequently with my opinions and asking the office people how he plans to vote on issues...
He's the Republican fighting Bush on immigration laws....and he's now being mentioned as Candidate material in 2008....he's just about 1 of 2 Congresspeople I respect.
I'll do it. |
THANK YOU! 
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nikiTa | |
| quote: |
Inner City Blue said this in post #51 :
You and sowhatsthetruth are all over the place as I am asking questions about privacy rights,
If a mother beats her 4 year old to death....are you going to cry "privacy rights" there too? Or will this woman be facing murder charges??? What if she watches and allows her 4 year old to be murdered by a father/boyfriend? Accessory to murder out of the question?
and equal protections;
And what about "equal protections" for the unborn? Not important? Do they even have a voice? Yes, they do....people like Beth_K, Devildog, and I.
you have not addressed this instead going off onto a tangent talking about my disrespect for life, which even if I think every woman should have an abortion if impregnated, doesn't address my questions.
No, we're getting to the heart of the matter. Is abortion murder of a human or not? A person or not? Is a 2 day old baby a person, or not? After all, they cannot fend for themselves....they would die if no one attended to them.
You would like us to feed into your distractions...not budging. nope.
|
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Inner City Blues | |
| quote: |
Beth_K said this in post #53 :
I find it interesting that you mention equal rights, because you say the woman has the right to privacy, but the child does not even have the right to life. That doesn't sound very equal to me!
You have mentioned that sometimes a pregnancy can endanger a mother's life, and when I said ending such a pregnancy is like self-defense (self-preservation) you jump all over me like I am using double standards, which is ludicrious. If the mother dies, so would the baby. If its a choice between the mother and the baby dying, or just the baby dying to save the mother, you save the mother of course. But often the life of the baby can be spared and the mother's with medical technology, so I don't see this as a big issue. I see it as a big (what do you like to call it...) DEFLECTION. |
Yes, I brught up equal protections because how do you determine equal protections? You can't have both the woman and fetus as equals, which is why I brought it up in the first place. Does the fetus only have conditional protections based on viability? And of course there is always the case where it's one or the other, mother or child, can the mother choose her life over that of the child?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nikiTa | | Well we already know by Roe vs Wade that the unborn have no "equal protections." Unless of course, the baby is late-term, or not undergoing the forced labor/kill in the vagina torture, or the mother has not been deemed "in danger to give birth to baby."
Maybe we cannot change that....but we can comment on how very messed up that really is.
And since this is in the agree2disagree, it appears we've already established that we will agree2disagree.
Come to think of it...why even discuss such matters when we go into this forum with just that very heading "agree2disagree?"
I agree with the original post in this thread.
Thanks for thinking it through Beth_K. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Inner City Blues | |
| quote: |
sowhatsthetruth said this in post #55 :
If a mother beats her 4 year old to death....are you going to cry "privacy rights" there too? Or will this woman be facing murder charges??? What if she watches and allows her 4 year old to be murdered by a father/boyfriend? Accessory to murder out of the question? |
Slap an amniotic sac on the child and attach an umbilical cord and I'm sure the situation is comparable.
| quote: |
sowhatsthetruth said this in post #55 :
No, we're getting to the heart of the matter. Is abortion murder of a human or not? A person or not? Is a 2 day old baby a person, or not? After all, they cannot fend for themselves....they would die if no one attended to them.
You would like us to feed into your distractions...not budging. nope. |
As I have stated, the child is not human, it is a bloodsucking parasite (please see that I have stated that above). I want to see MORE abortions.
But as I said, that question is irrelevant. We are talk ing about fetal citizens or granting them citizenship, thus I asked a few questions:
| quote: |
Inner City Blue said this in post #2 :
Since fetuses are full citizens, can you charge a mother for manslaughter if she has a miscarriage?
Let's say she gets in a car accident, her fault, and the trauma causes the miscarriage, should she be charged with a crime? |
| quote: |
Inner City Blue said this in post #12 :
What classifies as a natural miscarriage? If you have some directions for diet from the doctor and you have a miscarriage, can you be charged with a crime?
If you drink something with alcohol in it (not necessarily beer or wine), can you be charged with giving a minor alcohol?
How many rights does an expectant mother have? Isn't this in essence removing rights from certain persons in our society, especially for people that may have been raped (rape does not only include attacks by strangers but can also include sexual abuse by a spouse, partner, or relative)?
Why not just wait until the baby is out of the womb before we start giving it all these rights?
Right, would the mother be charged if she was driving recklessly and then gets into an accident, which results in miscarriage. Before you could charge a person wth reckless driving, but could you tack on vehicular manslaughter? |
| quote: |
Inner City Blue said this in post #21 :
So now the question is, does a fetus forfeit its rights to life once classified as being a danger to the mother? What if a spouse disagrees? Can he/she (in the case of a same-sex couple) take the partner to court challenging the doctor and woman's opinion?
If fetuses are citizens, isn't the notion of equality now lost because some can be aborted while others can't? What about the fetuses that will die with minutes and hours after birth, would you force a woman to carry that fetus to term? Notice I use the term force as you are taking away a woman's right.
Let's a say a woman doesn't know she's pregnant and she gets in a fight with another person. The fight results in the termination of the unknown pregnancy, do you charge the person with manslaughter? Do you charge the woman with child endangerment? |
| quote: |
Inner City Blue said this in post #28 :
Would you go as far as testing every woman that come into contact with law enforcement? Some women won't appear to be pregnant, and since you define pregnancy as being at conception, shouldn't you take steps to see if a woman is pregnant as to ensure protection of this "citizen" fetus? Does a woman now lose her privacy rights where she must say if she is pregnant or not? If a woman is unaware that she is pregnant can she still be charged with crimes against her fetus?
How about this, you have outlawed abortion, they are illegal. Now you come to a situation where a woman has a severly deformed fetus that will be a stillborn or it will die within minutes of delivery. Now if this woman knows the status of this fetus, can she suddenly be held liable for any of her actions that might be seen as a "danger" to the citizen fetus?
Let's say your no citizenship for illegal immigrant children doesn't pan out (really that idea would never ever fly), is citizenship determined by where you were conceived? Let's just say you have legal immigrants, conceived in the native country and then they come to the U.S., the child is born, is the child a citizen of the U.S. or the native country? Or do you give them dual citizenship? What determines the legal status of the child, the egg? The sperm? The donors? Or is it the status of the womb that counts? Let's say you get a woman who hires an illegal immigrant to be a surrogate, is that fetus classified as an American citizen? |
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Inner City Blues | |
| quote: |
sowhatsthetruth said this in post #57 :
Well we already know by Roe vs Wade that the unborn have no "equal protections." Unless of course, the baby is late-term, or not undergoing the forced labor/kill in the vagina torture, or the mother has not been deemed "in danger to give birth to baby."
Maybe we cannot change that....but we can comment on how very messed up that really is.
And since this is in the agree2disagree, it appears we've already established that we will agree2disagree.
Come to think of it...why even discuss such matters when we go into this forum with just that very heading "agree2disagree?"
I agree with the original post in this thread.
Thanks for thinking it through Beth_K. |
Perhaps the confusion comes from the standpoint of the discussion. You seem to be talking about things as they are now with the law. I am ignoring that. I am in Beth_K's world. The fetus is the citizen or is now just getting rights, and now I am asking questions about problems that may arise with this citizenship idea.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Beth_K | | Inner City Blue - try this on for size. In my world where humans inside the womb are people just the same as outside the womb, all you have to do with any of your questions is act as if that child was outside of the womb, and how would a mother's negligence be treated then? If she purposely endangers her child outside the womb and the child is harmed or killed, she is held accountable. The same should be true if the child is inside the womb. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Beth_K | | Something I should add about Inner City Blue's ridiculous comment that a fetus is a parasite because it leeches blood from his mother, the unborn child has its very own blood supply, the mother's blood does carry through the umbilical cord the nutrients the baby needs, but the blood never mixes. A woman only needs about 300 extra calories a day to feed the unborn child.
As to comments about a mother accidentally causing a miscarriage: a woman's uterus every month thickens its lining in the potential preparation for a pregnancy. As a matter of fact, the first two weeks of the 40 week gestation period includes this preparation period before egg & sprem even meet!
The womb is designed (intelligent design of course!) to protect the baby from everyday life of the mother (she can even engage in sex if she desires). So, it takes a real traumatic event to the mother for a miscarriage to happen accidentally.
So, let's just forget about those scenarios and discuss the real reasons most people want abortions -- for convenience. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: devildog | | Which is probably why people want to know what sex their baby is at
5 weeks(?) now. I think that is the age. Perhaps it is me, but why else do you find out what the sex is at 5 weeks? There are other reasons, I guess, but you know that people will be trying for one sex, and when they are unsuccessful, they abort it at 5 weeks and try again. Yes, convenience.
BTW, if we know the sex at such a young age now, it seems pretty hard to grasp the concept that it isn't a "person" until............ | | Reply To this Message
|
|
I'm sorry for laughing, but that was a great retort ICB.