What's your Abortion Policy?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:27:20 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  What's your Abortion Policy?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Poll
Question: Abortion Policy?
#1
Pro-Choice
 
#2
Pro-Choice, with exceptions
 
#3
Somewhere in between
 
#4
Pro-Life, with exceptions
 
#5
Pro-Life
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 48

Author Topic: What's your Abortion Policy?  (Read 14214 times)
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 16, 2013, 05:47:57 PM »
« edited: September 16, 2013, 06:16:32 PM by ElectionsGuy »

On most social issues, I'm quite liberal, but abortion is an issue where I tend to go center right. I support a ban on abortion after.... say 3 or 4 months, by that time babies are pretty developed and it would indeed be close to murder to have an abortion at post-4 months. I think it is the responsibility of the parent to decide whether or not to have an abortion in the time of 3 or 4 months (it is plenty of time).

But, I absolutely think abortion should be a free use and a right to use when needed (not just in the case of a mothers life, rape, etc.), even if its sometimes irresponsible. I strongly oppose any full out ban on abortion or legislation that heavily restricts it.

So in conclusion, I'm probably somewhere in between, or perhaps pro-life with exceptions, or perhaps pro-choice with exceptions. I don't know, so I'll vote somewhere in between.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2013, 06:10:37 PM »

Pro life. My only exception would be in cases where the mother's life is threatened. I'm unconvinced by arguments for abortion in cases of rape/incest.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2013, 06:15:56 PM »

Pro-choice during the first two trimesters, pro-life except for risk to the mother's life in the third trimester.
Logged
RedSLC
SLValleyMan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,484
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2013, 06:31:32 PM »

Pro-choice for first two trimesters. For the third trimester, abortion should be permitted only if either the mother's life becomes endangered or the fetus develops serious problems.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 16, 2013, 06:50:37 PM »

This is my take-

Pro-choice- abortion is a matter of personal choice until some reasonable point and should be still be available at some amount beyond extreme need until to the point viability. Whether Medicaid performs them should be an open question. Parental notification maybe OK if sufficiently watered down enough.


Pro-choice with exceptions- abortion should be available until some reasonable point but there should be "common sense" abortion control such as not allowing Medicaid to cover them but for extreme need (the pregnancy was caused by a felony or will is more likely than not fatal), and allowing a 1 or 2 business day waiting period and notification of parents if under 18.

Mixed- Abortion should only be available when "need" is established by the clinic performing it (the abortion is not just because the mother doesn't want to have the child or a child of a particular gender or coloring....or for reasons that are particularly offensive without taking out most of the "choice") and should only be available for reasonable time that is well before viability. Abortions should only be done is hospitals or in communities that support their family planning clinics that perform them. The same "common sense" restrictions above but maybe a weeks' waiting period or even have spousal notification/consent. Make non-conforming abortions cause for prosecution of a drug felony for doctors, but never women.

Mostly Pro-Life- You think that in general, that abortion should be cause for at least a misdemeanor domestic violence offense for the mother and maybe the father if he didn't go straight to the police if he knew. Anyone who performed it could get a felony drug or assault charge. However, there could be reasons for an abortion. If the mother was more likely than not to die, or the pregnancy was caused by a felony or maybe if the mother would require a hysterectomy, be paralyzed or become mentally ill to the point of not being able to have a job from it or the child not likely to survive long after the birth or maybe if the child was severely disabled.  Those situations should be decided by the hospital and only performed there. The DA could be privy the decisions by the hospital and would have the right to sue/press charges if the DA there was insufficient cause for the abortion.

Pro-Life- Means that you think abortion should only be performed in hospitals for the immediate self-defense of the mother, or that it should never be legal except for maybe if the mother miscarries because of getting treatment for a terminal illness. Other than that, either the homicide laws should be changed to include any self-sustained biological reaction that could theoretically result in the birth of a human (even if it is unlikely) or abortion should be treated as a felony domestic violence or drug change. Perhaps even hormonal or biochemical birth control and certain medical advances would also be considered abortion. It would be interested how cloning would work into this (would clones be protected or would abortion be mandatory for clones).
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2013, 07:03:19 PM »

Pro-choice. 

In principle, I would be fine with restricting abortions after a certain point, perhaps 16 weeks.  There is something very wrong to me about a late term abortion where the only reason is the convenience of the mother.  However, I think there are valid reasons why a woman would want a late-term abortion.  It could be the health of the mother, serious defects with the fetus or some other extenuating circumstance.

The problem is then, how do you make a rule that makes room for extenuating circumstances like the health of the mother?  I can't think of a good way to regulate whether there is a legitimate health concern with the mother or the fetus.  It's such a private, individual situation, both in terms of the individual moral concerns and the unique health situation.  In light of that, I think it's probably best to have those tough medical ethics questions resolved by women in consultation with their doctors.  If a woman is seeking an abortion that is not medically indicated and is very late in her pregnancy, a doctor should refuse to perform an abortion and submit the situation on an anonymous basis to a medical ethics review board.  Then, perhaps an ethical doctor could and would refuse the request to perform a late term abortion and that would be a better limit than a government blanket rule.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2013, 07:09:45 PM »

Pro-choice.  I like bedstuy's approach to late-term abortions.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,464
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2013, 07:14:07 PM »

Pro-choice.  I agree with bedstuy and Scott. 
Logged
H. Ross Peron
General Mung Beans
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,406
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2013, 07:31:15 PM »

Pro life. My only exception would be in cases where the mother's life is threatened. I'm unconvinced by arguments for abortion in cases of rape/incest.

Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2013, 07:39:24 PM »


Don't get any bimbos pregnant.  Godawful.  I'll have to deal with that soon enough.  Like living my own adolescence all over again.  The boy's only eight now, but time flies.  Ah, at least he's not a girl.  Gotta be worse to be a pregnant bimbo than the one who impregnated her.

I grudgingly call myself "pro choice."  I'm astonished that we're still having this argument.  There are enough people already.  Accidental pregnancies can be dispatched safely, legally, and with minimal cost.  I'm generally against socialized medicine, but I make an exception here.  Certainly the one-time $350 fee is preferable to the taxpayers than the tens of thousands of dollars per year for 18 years that it will cost the taxpayers to nurture the unwanted progeny of a parent not yet ready to be a parent.  And let's not even get started on the big dollars we'll spend on incarceration of the adult which evolves from the unloved and unwanted child.

Someone mentioned parental notification.  I strongly agree with that and would vote for its requirement in a binding referendum.  We're a very litigious society.  You can't even get a nose job without a parent's signature if you're under 18.  No reason to exclude fetal abortions.  No parent will force his child to abort.  Some might refuse to give the consent to abort, but we'll have to live with that.  Yes I recognize that a small subset of pregnant teens might then resort to illegal, unsafe back-alley abortions, but you have to take the crunchy with the smooth.  Parents are blindsided enough by the increasingly collectivist rules of society without having to accept medical doctrinaire.  On parental notification, I'm a strict conservative--Mostly because children are just that:  children.  If my child leaves a flaming bag of shit on your doorstep and rings a bell and runs away, I get sued, not him.  That's the reality and, frankly, it's fair since parents are morally and ethically responsible for their progeny.  All the more reason for a liberal abortion policy--but overall I'm pretty much with the Liberal mindset on this issue.  Provide funding for those who cannot afford abortions, so long as we can make sure that they're clean and safe, of course, but do not force people to abort if they have genuine inhibitions about it. 

Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2013, 07:50:58 PM »


Don't get any bimbos pregnant.  Godawful.  I'll have to deal with that soon enough.  Like living my own adolescence all over again.  The boy's only eight now, but time flies.  Ah, at least he's not a girl.  Gotta be worse to be a pregnant bimbo than the one who impregnated her.

I grudgingly call myself "pro choice."  I'm astonished that we're still having this argument.  There are enough people already.  Accidental pregnancies can be dispatched safely, legally, and with minimal cost.  I'm generally against socialized medicine, but I make an exception here.  Certainly the one-time $350 fee is preferable to the taxpayers than the tens of thousands of dollars per year for 18 years that it will cost the taxpayers to nurture the unwanted progeny of a parent not yet ready to be a parent.  And let's not even get started on the big dollars we'll spend on incarceration of the adult which evolves from the unloved and unwanted child.

Someone mentioned parental notification.  I strongly agree with that and would vote for its requirement in a binding referendum.  We're a very litigious society.  You can't even get a nose job without a parent's signature if you're under 18.  No reason to exclude fetal abortions.  No parent will force his child to abort.  Some might refuse to give the consent to abort, but we'll have to live with that.  Yes I recognize that a small subset of pregnant teens might then resort to illegal, unsafe back-alley abortions, but you have to take the crunchy with the smooth.  Parents are blindsided enough by the increasingly collectivist rules of society without having to accept medical doctrinaire.  On parental notification, I'm a strict conservative--Mostly because children are just that:  children.  If my child leaves a flaming bag of shit on your doorstep and rings a bell and runs away, I get sued, not him.  That's the reality and, frankly, it's fair since parents are morally and ethically responsible for their progeny.  All the more reason for a liberal abortion policy--but overall I'm pretty much with the Liberal mindset on this issue.  Provide funding for those who cannot afford abortions, so long as we can make sure that they're clean and safe, of course, but do not force people to abort if they have genuine inhibitions about it. 


That's an argument for not making a abortion a crime.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2013, 07:54:11 PM »

Indeed.
Logged
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,322
Thailand


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2013, 09:11:34 PM »


Don't get any bimbos pregnant.  Godawful.  I'll have to deal with that soon enough.  Like living my own adolescence all over again.  The boy's only eight now, but time flies.  Ah, at least he's not a girl.  Gotta be worse to be a pregnant bimbo than the one who impregnated her.

I grudgingly call myself "pro choice."  I'm astonished that we're still having this argument.  There are enough people already.  Accidental pregnancies can be dispatched safely, legally, and with minimal cost.  I'm generally against socialized medicine, but I make an exception here.  Certainly the one-time $350 fee is preferable to the taxpayers than the tens of thousands of dollars per year for 18 years that it will cost the taxpayers to nurture the unwanted progeny of a parent not yet ready to be a parent.  And let's not even get started on the big dollars we'll spend on incarceration of the adult which evolves from the unloved and unwanted child.

Someone mentioned parental notification.  I strongly agree with that and would vote for its requirement in a binding referendum.  We're a very litigious society.  You can't even get a nose job without a parent's signature if you're under 18.  No reason to exclude fetal abortions.  No parent will force his child to abort.  Some might refuse to give the consent to abort, but we'll have to live with that.  Yes I recognize that a small subset of pregnant teens might then resort to illegal, unsafe back-alley abortions, but you have to take the crunchy with the smooth.  Parents are blindsided enough by the increasingly collectivist rules of society without having to accept medical doctrinaire.  On parental notification, I'm a strict conservative--Mostly because children are just that:  children.  If my child leaves a flaming bag of shit on your doorstep and rings a bell and runs away, I get sued, not him.  That's the reality and, frankly, it's fair since parents are morally and ethically responsible for their progeny.  All the more reason for a liberal abortion policy--but overall I'm pretty much with the Liberal mindset on this issue.  Provide funding for those who cannot afford abortions, so long as we can make sure that they're clean and safe, of course, but do not force people to abort if they have genuine inhibitions about it. 


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hail%20Mary
look up definition #3
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 16, 2013, 09:49:01 PM »

No federal funding of abortions.
Ban federal health coverage that includes abortion.
Ban abortions for sex and race selection.
Let private sector determine if coverage includes abortions.
Federal ban on partial birth abortion except to save a mother's life.
Federal ban on human cloning for reproductive purposes.
Limit abortions to when there is an imminent or immediate threat to the mother's life.
24 hour waiting period before abortions with the exception of emergencies.
Both parents must consent to termination of pregnancies.
Parental consent mandatory for minors who have abortions unless there is a court order.
Increase embryotic stem cell research.
Federal law preventing minors from crossing state lines to have abortions.
Make it a federal crime to harm a fetus during another crime.
Expand contraceptive services for low income women.
Ensure access and funding for contraception.
Provide emergency contraception at military facilities.
Focus on preventing pregnancies and emergency contraception.
Ban Family Planning funding unless they stop endorsing abortions.
Never let the UN force women to have abortions for the sake of "population control."
Plan B morning after pills can be dangerous.
Continue ban on abortions at military bases.
Teach abstinence and contraceptives in public schools.

Basically I'm saying limit abortion to when saving a mother's life and ban partial birth abortion altogether. Minors should have to have parental consent and women should have to have consent from the other parent. On a political level I'm fine with ensuring easy access and funding for contraceptives especially when it comes to low income women. I'm for whatever it takes to prevent pregnancies that could end in abortions. My personal view is that even the morning after pill is abortion and that abortions are wrong. Our public schools need to be teaching about contraceptives and abstinence. I try to be libertarian on social issues, but I feel very strongly about being pro-life and am in favor of protecting life.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2013, 10:11:29 PM »

Pro-life, only exception being to save the mother's life. As a prudential matter, I would accept the rape exception as well if it meant getting a ban otherwise passed. The rape exception is illogical but so is politics.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2013, 10:16:31 PM »

Pro-choice at any point before the child is born, for any reason the impregnated woman chooses (because it is not my place to tell her that she has to take a fetus to term), completely and totally funded and covered under a national health insurance scheme. No questions asked, no parental notification requirements, waiting period requirements, sonogram/ultrasound requirements - none of that. A woman should be able to walk into any abortion clinic she wants and have an abortion free of charge with no angry mob outside the door calling her a slut, no nutjob threatening to blow up the clinic, and no invasive behavior on the part of the state to coerce her into not having an abortion - and most importantly of all, I believe, again, that the state should provide abortions free of charge so that abortion is not a privilege only for rich women, but is a right accessible to poor women as well.

I also believe in sex positive education, encouraging (and making free) all methods of contraception, teaching those methods from an early age, national health insurance, national child care, and stipends for young mothers (as well as paid parental leave) to prevent or reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 16, 2013, 10:58:56 PM »

Pro-choice up to 16-20 weeks, with certain exceptions.
Logged
badgate
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,466


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 17, 2013, 03:17:04 AM »

Pro-choice up to the 24 week mark. But it should be easier to get an abortion, much easier, and less common by making unplanned pregnancies less common. I believe life begins at birth and it's about time the pro-lifers bent over backwards to accommodate my beliefs, thankyouverymuch
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 17, 2013, 03:36:07 AM »

Pro-choice at any point before the child is born, for any reason the impregnated woman chooses (because it is not my place to tell her that she has to take a fetus to term), completely and totally funded and covered under a national health insurance scheme. No questions asked, no parental notification requirements, waiting period requirements, sonogram/ultrasound requirements - none of that. A woman should be able to walk into any abortion clinic she wants and have an abortion free of charge with no angry mob outside the door calling her a slut, no nutjob threatening to blow up the clinic, and no invasive behavior on the part of the state to coerce her into not having an abortion - and most importantly of all, I believe, again, that the state should provide abortions free of charge so that abortion is not a privilege only for rich women, but is a right accessible to poor women as well.

I also believe in sex positive education, encouraging (and making free) all methods of contraception, teaching those methods from an early age, national health insurance, national child care, and stipends for young mothers (as well as paid parental leave) to prevent or reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies.

So you're saying that a woman should be allowed to abort her baby because she found out the father is black which would mean an interracial child? Are you really supporting abortions based on race? I thought Democrats were against racism and here we have a Democrat advocating government funding to support potential racism.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 17, 2013, 03:38:12 AM »

Pro-choice up to the 24 week mark. But it should be easier to get an abortion, much easier, and less common by making unplanned pregnancies less common. I believe life begins at birth and it's about time the pro-lifers bent over backwards to accommodate my beliefs, thankyouverymuch

You want conservatives to bend over backwards? This could lead to more pregnancies.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 17, 2013, 03:40:37 AM »

Pro-choice during the first two trimesters, pro-life except for risk to the mother's life in the third trimester.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 17, 2013, 06:01:15 AM »

My views on abortion are nuanced. Ultimately I don’t take a personal view on what is essentially a gynaecological matter that affects women. No man will ever carry or child or contemplate the choice of terminating it. Secondly, I think the life of the mother is important. There are too many attempts, particularly by those who seek to restrict access, in trying to redefine what life is by pushing it further and further back and applying emotive rather than empirical measurements. It has became a ‘chase’ right back to before viability even to before zygote formation, to as close to the moment of conception that you can muster ensuring that if you classify life in it’s broadest sense, then you are essentially suggesting that the bodies natural response to pregnancy which in turn can lead to termination or miscarriage at any stage in the pregnancy is ‘death’. If ‘life’ begins at conception, then the ending of this by whatever means is by definition ‘death’. You are now in the realm of making moral statements on what are essentially natural bodily responses. This is a great disservice to women who are now charged with involuntarily destroying more ‘life’ than they create. I am aware that this may not be the intent of defining life in this way, but it logically leads from that proposition. A more purposeful approach is to determining ‘life’, if life has to be determined in utero, is the point of viability which is between 21-24 weeks. And that’s that. A baby delivered before that period, will die because it is not able to live. There shouldn’t need to be a big argument over abortion up until that point. At that point the only concerns that should kick in regarding termination during the period of viability should be the mothers health (which for me as a ‘born’ life has to be weighted higher than an ‘unborn’ life but that’s a separate issue). The fact that there is a freight train of opposition trying to push ‘life’ back before the point of viability to even before embryogenesis is what clouds what should be a fairly simple matter.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 17, 2013, 06:07:41 AM »

Pro-choice at any point before the child is born, for any reason the impregnated woman chooses (because it is not my place to tell her that she has to take a fetus to term), completely and totally funded and covered under a national health insurance scheme. No questions asked, no parental notification requirements, waiting period requirements, sonogram/ultrasound requirements - none of that. A woman should be able to walk into any abortion clinic she wants and have an abortion free of charge with no angry mob outside the door calling her a slut, no nutjob threatening to blow up the clinic, and no invasive behavior on the part of the state to coerce her into not having an abortion - and most importantly of all, I believe, again, that the state should provide abortions free of charge so that abortion is not a privilege only for rich women, but is a right accessible to poor women as well.

I also believe in sex positive education, encouraging (and making free) all methods of contraception, teaching those methods from an early age, national health insurance, national child care, and stipends for young mothers (as well as paid parental leave) to prevent or reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies.

So you're saying that a woman should be allowed to abort her baby because she found out the father is black which would mean an interracial child? Are you really supporting abortions based on race? I thought Democrats were against racism and here we have a Democrat advocating government funding to support potential racism.

I support a woman's right to choose for any reason. While I would discourage race or sex selective abortions, the right to choose is again ultimately not something I am willing to infringe on. If a woman chooses to abort an unwanted pregnancy for racial or sexual reasons, that is her business, not Uncle Sam's. But ultimately this whole argument is a red herring because very few women who get abortions do so because they're afraid the child is going to be biracial. One would assume they are fully aware of the person they had sex with to become pregnant.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 17, 2013, 07:36:21 AM »

Pro-choice at any point before the child is born, for any reason the impregnated woman chooses (because it is not my place to tell her that she has to take a fetus to term), completely and totally funded and covered under a national health insurance scheme. No questions asked, no parental notification requirements, waiting period requirements, sonogram/ultrasound requirements - none of that. A woman should be able to walk into any abortion clinic she wants and have an abortion free of charge with no angry mob outside the door calling her a slut, no nutjob threatening to blow up the clinic, and no invasive behavior on the part of the state to coerce her into not having an abortion - and most importantly of all, I believe, again, that the state should provide abortions free of charge so that abortion is not a privilege only for rich women, but is a right accessible to poor women as well.

I also believe in sex positive education, encouraging (and making free) all methods of contraception, teaching those methods from an early age, national health insurance, national child care, and stipends for young mothers (as well as paid parental leave) to prevent or reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies.

So you're saying that a woman should be allowed to abort her baby because she found out the father is black which would mean an interracial child? Are you really supporting abortions based on race? I thought Democrats were against racism and here we have a Democrat advocating government funding to support potential racism.

I support a woman's right to choose for any reason. While I would discourage race or sex selective abortions, the right to choose is again ultimately not something I am willing to infringe on. If a woman chooses to abort an unwanted pregnancy for racial or sexual reasons, that is her business, not Uncle Sam's. But ultimately this whole argument is a red herring because very few women who get abortions do so because they're afraid the child is going to be biracial. One would assume they are fully aware of the person they had sex with to become pregnant.

I think the issue in those cases tends to be the gender of the baby, not the race.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 17, 2013, 08:04:53 AM »

As I've stated before, I could accept placing the dividing line between non-personhood and personhood at anywhere between 10 weeks (the embryo becoming a fetus) and 24 weeks (the generally accepted average point of viability).  However once that dividing line has been drawn, I am absolutely opposed to crossing it in the case of rape or incest.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.076 seconds with 14 queries.