1
10 Pt
Guest
Choices have repercussions.
Abortion
- Thread starter Overpaid Union Thug
- Start date
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Keyword.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Such as?
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Zealots with too much free time will yell at you when you go to have a medical procedure.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Yeah, we get those folks who will stand outside Planned Parenthood hoping that their merciless heckling of a young pregnant woman will force her to change her mind.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
The KKK is nothing compared to Planned Parenthood ... "Planned Parenthood has killed over ten million black babies”.
That would have been 10 million more votes for Hillary or at least 9 million.
- E.W. Jackson
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Good lord TOS was less of a troll than you.
Sportello
Well-Known Member
I see what you did there.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
High praise!
Now that I joined the CE Cuckers, I'd enjoy the tit-for-tar with him.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
But once the baby is born, they are nowhere to be found.
Bunch of hypocrites!
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Neither is the father.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
If known.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
In April, scientists achieved a major breakthrough that could one day drastically improve the fate of babies born extremely prematurely. Eight premature baby lambs spent their last month of development in an external womb that resembled a high-tech ziplock bag. At the time, the oldest lamb was nearly a year old, and still seemed to be developing normally.
This technology, if it works in humans, could one day prove lifesaving for the 30,000 or so babies each year that are born earlier than 26 weeks into pregnancy.
It could also complicate—and even jeopardize—the right to an abortion in an America in which that right is predicated on whether a fetus is “viable.”
In a 1983 decision, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor argued that Roe vs. Wade was on a “collision course with itself,” because improvements in technology would make it possible for a fetus to continually be viable earlier in the course of a pregnancy. In some cases, today, a fetus can now survive outside the womb at 22 weeks, two whole weeks earlier than at the time of Roe vs. Wade.
“In 1990 a woman maybe could have an abortion at 25 weeks, but in 2020 perhaps it will be 20 weeks,” said Cohen. “There’s a problem when an abortion that would be legal in one decade is not in another under the Constitution.”
http://gizmodo.com/how-new-technology-could-threaten-a-womans-right-to-abo-1797339090
This technology, if it works in humans, could one day prove lifesaving for the 30,000 or so babies each year that are born earlier than 26 weeks into pregnancy.
It could also complicate—and even jeopardize—the right to an abortion in an America in which that right is predicated on whether a fetus is “viable.”
In a 1983 decision, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor argued that Roe vs. Wade was on a “collision course with itself,” because improvements in technology would make it possible for a fetus to continually be viable earlier in the course of a pregnancy. In some cases, today, a fetus can now survive outside the womb at 22 weeks, two whole weeks earlier than at the time of Roe vs. Wade.
“In 1990 a woman maybe could have an abortion at 25 weeks, but in 2020 perhaps it will be 20 weeks,” said Cohen. “There’s a problem when an abortion that would be legal in one decade is not in another under the Constitution.”
http://gizmodo.com/how-new-technology-could-threaten-a-womans-right-to-abo-1797339090
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Who is going to be legally responsible for that unwanted fetus artificially carried to babyhood?
Note: I bolded legally since some people didn't pick up on that! SMH
Last edited:
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
The technology creates a bizarre legal situation on so many levels it's kind of mind boggling.
upschuck
Well-Known Member
So, that is your definition to doing what is right or wrong, financial?
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Seems like a valid question. The anti-choice people might soon have their chance to save all those poor innocent fetuses they care so much about. I hope they start saving now it's gonna cost a lot.
upschuck
Well-Known Member
Old people cost the gov't more, let's just kill everyone off that is costing the gov't money.
There are a lot of people wanting to adopt.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
As far as the government is concerned ... yes.
Government should not concern itself with morality or character.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
And there a lot of actual children born the natural way wanting to be adopted, not so sure spending money to keep an unwanted fetus growing is a good use of the money. But it's not my money so whatever....
