Alyssa Milano with the help of the liberal media is now declaring victory. Alyssa Milano says her sex strike has now got people talking about women’s reproductive rights. Sure people are talking but from what I have heard most are talking about her.
Isn’t the reproductive right the right to chose to use birth control or not?
Once that decision is made, other are involves should the unimaginable happen. The person who may b the father, where’s his rights? The new lis, where are their rights?
One might ask, if a person choses to potentially get pregnant, doesn’t;t that end their right to chose themselves?
I am grateful that the country my daughter came from looks down of abortion and puts unwanted children up for adoption as they love their children even if they cannot afford to keep them.
Most all unwanted pregnancies comes down to irresponsibility. Not knowing how to use the choice of birth control, not using birth control. Sure mistakes happen but as two consenting adults that should be taken into consideration before the deed is done.
Most all abortions are because the woman and or man simply do not want the responsibility of raising a child. That should had been taken into account long before the two of them got together.
3 Likes
But it’s all about meeee! And of course what I want.
Unfortunately that’s not true. That is simply what the new moral code allows.
The once “needy” have become the “entitled greedy”. They feel entitled to leech off of the rest of us but think those who have serious mental retardation issues should just be done away with so there will be more freebies for them to split.
So she couldn’t keep it going for even a week. I bet the line in front of her house just got too long.
I think you might be missing the point. The point is that people OFTEN use the extreme exception as the foundation of an argument…so I say cede the extreme exception. What you find is that their use of the extreme exception is nothing more than an emo appeal that disguises the real argument and the real argument is the defense of ALL abortions always.
You can’t hold a truly principled stance if you are always willing to keep ceding ground on that position.
If you can use Down’s as a “reasonable exception” then why not brown eyes, a high likelihood of the child developing diabetes, cancer, not being tall enough, not being blonde, etc.
We need to draw clear ethical and legal lines that are not to be crossed.
Personally I think that line cannot be drawn beyond the point at which the child has a high certainty of death from conditions such as an encephaly .
For the most part for me the only justifications to excuse an abortion are rooted in protecting the life of the mother. I’m willing to cede rape/incest as well but even with those, it isn’t the unborn child that is guilty but I can understand how for some women being forced to carry such pregnancies to term could have serious long term psychiatric consequences. Even with that would very much prefer that the woman be convinced that an abortion will not undo the harm done to them and that the only possible positive outcome would be for that new and innocent life to be given a chance.
We’ll never run out of adoption agencies or people willing to adopt such babies so the mother can have the solace of knowing that while she’ll never have to be reminded of the rape by seeing the child every day that child has been given a chance at a good and productive life with another loving family somewhere.
To me it boils down to two things. If the child is certain to die or certain to never have any quality of life and secondly self defense for the mother. If carrying that child to term will likely kill or maim her she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy.
1 Like
Ceding the argument re Downs Syndrome merely exposes the fact that their argument has literally nothing to do with Downs Syndrome. The ‘Downs Syndrome’ argument is no different than the ‘rape or incest’ argument…that is…a sensational emotional appeal that thinly veils the pro abortion for all stance.
I personally do not take a strictly for or against stance on abortion. I am not in favor of banning abortions. 2 primary reasons…1-As a legal argument it is doomed and 2-people will get abortions no matter what. Personally…I think if the pro or anti arguments were nullified and people truly worked to make abortions safe, legal, but rare, lives would be saved and both sides would be able to commit the resources currently used to fight the legal argument to actually providing resources for mothers and unborn children.
I get your point but I can’t side with the argument that it needs to be safe, legal and rare… to me, it’s flat out murder and that shouldn’t be legal. It’s also subjective on the “safe”… for who? Certainly isn’t safe for the baby. No, the problem with the argument is that people like me see babies as human beings worthy of protection and the right to life … I want people to focus on PREVENTION and they won’t take steps to get there so long as abortion is an option. If it’s all of the sudden a crime, I think it will make some people a bit more careful. I just want us siding with the Constitution and none of your constitutional rights apply if you’re not afforded the right to life first and foremost.
The abortion proponents have spent four decades aggressively dehumanizing the unborn and fighting any attempts to show prospective abortees what it is they are killing via photos or sonograms.
I like this, the only exception being the exception for rape. Certainly you have the right to not get pregnant, though there are ways to avoid pregnancy after rape. I fear an exception there would lead to rape charges where regret is the real culprit. Morning after pills are effective and if raped, I want someone in jail and the woman protected. We shouldn’t focus on allowing an abortion for the extreme minority of cases like that, rather we should put our effort into prevention and prosecution.
Democrats used the same tactics to try to keep slavery. They haven’t changed. It’s not a human being… they also argue for slavery today… of course the new target is the rich and they call it Socialism. 
I’m actually a little more liberal than that.
If the baby has no chance of living or having any quality of life I can’t see forcing a woman to carry it to term.
Other than that, rape, incest, or a clear threat to the life/health of the mother.
No chance at life is one thing but quality of life is subjective. I know a kid with Down’s syndrome that has a great quality of life. One with CP with a good quality of life. As far as the others, morning after pills are my preference but they make up such a small subsection of the abortions that I could see giving the ground to stop the rest. My problem is they use those extreme cases to try to justify the 99% of abortions.
Outside of the Justice System women are the only people that have the right to say who lives and who dies.
1 Like
The conditions though are pretty well and easily defined such as anencephally.
So they are the new god?
I suspect the real god would disagree.
2 Likes
the right to say who lives or dies, so the unborn has no rights?
2 Likes
Many abortions happen because of lack of support and money. So men are blameless? 