No, because the Colorado plan involves the government. That is always a non-starter for me.
Wait a second. Just a few posts after the one I quoted you said govt involvement was a non-starter for you.
1 Like
And your pro life stance involves the government telling women what they can or cant do. Again, sounds more like you are pro life as long as that life doesnt involve yours or your $$$.
Meri,
Let me also add that your anti-govt stance on this issue results in abortions. I am offering a non-ideal solution that reduced abortion by 60%.
IUDs of today are much safer than those early ones. Iâm sure you can google stats if you like. But you are willing to continue the current abortion rate because IUDs have done minor (usually) side effects in a small minority of women? You probably run a higher risk of getting in a traffic accident yet you drive all the time.
I would think a pro-lifer who cared deeply about the fetuses would jump at the chance to substantially reduce abortion.
1 Like
Well it does matter.
You made the argumentâŚeither you stand by it or you have to admit it really wasnt that well thought out
For me, it is. I am asking you this question, wondering what it would take for you to be on the side of forbidding abortion⌠
As everybody knows here, I am in the pro-life camp here. Very much so.
With that said though, I do not approve of schools â I know it was private â taking their students to political events, especially ones where thereâs a great political divide. If the students participated in the March For Dimes, or fighting Cancer, thatâs fine. Children should be given multiple viewpoints on a subject matter, and allow them to pick the best view.
I would love to go to March for Life events, but my problem is that religious views on human life become the forefront of the argumentation. As in, itâs all about âGodâs lawâ being the crust of the argument. Itâs always better to make a constitutional case â 5th and 14th amendment being violated â than a religious one. It should be noted that the bible says pretty much nothing about abortion. The only real passage was about sexually active women drinking âbitter waterâ.
You have switched the goal posts from abortion to preventing pregnancy. I am against abortion. I am also against (for the most part) willy-nilly handing out contraceptives to teenagers. Two separate issues, two separate discussions. It seems to me you are saying that if we can prevent pregnancy, we prevent abortion. Absolutely correct.
Now what is the best way to prevent pregnancy? You seem to be saying, Give tax-payer IUDs to teens. I donât want the government hands on my teens. Keep in mind, I do not like settling for âGood Enoughâ when better options are available.
They have improved in the last year? Good to know. ExceptâŚshe was told what happened to her is rare, but it does happen. Iâm pretty sure there is that same warning given to the ones made this year?
No she didnât.
1 Like
Character assassination, over the crime of white boy smirking. A heinous act indeed what was the boy thinking 
1 Like
From what I saw she didâŚ
I believe that.
Hope it made your day
I didnât find it odd. In my area, there are both single-sex and co-ed Catholic high schools and every year January they have a bus trips to pro life rallies in DC. It isnât compulsory, and those students who do attend have to commit to making up any missed classwork. Maybe the media found their presence unusual, but in communities, particularly East Coast communities nearer DC, where there are Catholic high schools, this annual trip is pretty common.
1 Like
Why is a fetus not a baby. Why is it not a person, and why is it ok to kill this supposed non-person. Now, at fertilization it is a new life that possesses human DNA and is the offspring of human parents, it can only legitimately be described as human life. At the time of fertilization, it is known what color of eyes this person, will have, how the hair will be, all what this person will be is right there. Everything at fertilization. At 3 weeks, this supposed non baby has a heart beat, before most people know what this supposed non-person exists. On what basis is this a non-baby, and why is ok to kill this supposed non baby.
They are never going to get it through their heads. They ignore science on this issue, and they also ignore morality and common sense.
I am Catholic but when approaching this issue, religious arguments is not the reason I will use. I see abortion as killing an innocent person. Science says that this is a person, it is not an animal. Choice is do you want to eat a hamburger or hot dog, French fries or onion rings, not on whether this innocent person in the womb should be killed. Why is it okay to kill this innocent human being is the argument I use.
1 Like
By the way, pro-choiceers, this is evidence that you are not really religious, that you are hypocritical. You say that itâs the Christian thing to let illegal immigrants into the U.S., to let asylum seekers into the U.S., while you support killing of an innocent life for another personâs convenience. So donât tell me that you are actually religious. Either support the values 100% or be honest with yourself and donât support it at all. Itâs not a thing where you can just pick and choose which aspects you want to adhere to.
We donât really have a clear deliniatioj between life and non-life. We have a definition of life that is âclearâ at its core, âfuzzyâ at its borders.
Is a virus alive? Are prions? Is a seed?
Because life is an emergent entity, the border between life and non-life is a continuum, not a sharp line.
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/lifeâs_working_definition.html
