For the supposedly pro-life crowd: when do men have a physical duty to their children? If a woman can be compelled to give her body for her child, can a man be compelled to give, say, a lobe of his liver to a child he never wanted?
So much has happened in science, medicine especially prenatal and fetal health that an article from 1971 is immaterial. We know that a fetus does feel pain, interacts with their environment in utero. Sorry. It doesn’t matter her political or philosophical spin.
Whether you believe in abortion or not, other than a religious argument that upon the moment of conception the fetus is a human being with a soul, too much has changed in the world.
You wouldn’t repost an article from 1971 to discuss any issue. This article is superfluous.
I'm going to have to disagree. Science changes things. And honestly what we felt in 1971 doesnt matter in today's world. Not to me anyway. I have changed my own attitude towards abortion because of science. We know things today that we didnt know 50 years ago. These facts matter.
And truth the only abortion article that was written in 1970s that matters in the one written by RBG who told the democrats how to legally protect the right to abortion and they did not pay attention. A law article is one thing. Some selfimportant nonsense is not.
I should say that abortion is not an issue which makes me that emotional, so I'm saying this very calmly:
Are you saying that 6 million "dead" fetuses is equivalent to 6 million murdered in the Holocaust? And if not surely you understand that fetuses are in a different category to born humans?
For the supposedly pro-life crowd: when do men have a physical duty to their children? If a woman can be compelled to give her body for her child, can a man be compelled to give, say, a lobe of his liver to a child he never wanted?
So much has happened in science, medicine especially prenatal and fetal health that an article from 1971 is immaterial. We know that a fetus does feel pain, interacts with their environment in utero. Sorry. It doesn’t matter her political or philosophical spin.
Whether you believe in abortion or not, other than a religious argument that upon the moment of conception the fetus is a human being with a soul, too much has changed in the world.
You wouldn’t repost an article from 1971 to discuss any issue. This article is superfluous.
Surely everthing worth reading was written before 1971? The abortion debate is as old as time.
I'm going to have to disagree. Science changes things. And honestly what we felt in 1971 doesnt matter in today's world. Not to me anyway. I have changed my own attitude towards abortion because of science. We know things today that we didnt know 50 years ago. These facts matter.
And truth the only abortion article that was written in 1970s that matters in the one written by RBG who told the democrats how to legally protect the right to abortion and they did not pay attention. A law article is one thing. Some selfimportant nonsense is not.
Nah bitch! You’re killing a human being period. Can’t spin it.
I should say that abortion is not an issue which makes me that emotional, so I'm saying this very calmly:
Are you saying that 6 million "dead" fetuses is equivalent to 6 million murdered in the Holocaust? And if not surely you understand that fetuses are in a different category to born humans?
Lol. I believe you’re comparing apples to oranges. They’re not in a different category. You seem to be living to long. It’s time for you to go.