The Obsolete Science Behind Roe v. Wade

His nonsensical "mostly male" government official. He is trying to imply that abortion restrictions are imposed by men onto women.

In fact 37% of women believe that abortion should be illegal in "all or most cases" (compared to 42% of men). This is not an issue that is divided by gender.

When Bill (who is a man) tells Stacy (who is a woman) what she should think about abortion in terms of what men are doing to women.... it is a little funny. I hate to use the word "mansplaining", but it kind of describes what Bill is doing here.

The only thing that changes is its location.

When evangelical Christians first began debating the issue of abortion, they were nowhere near as unified about the topic as they appear to be today. Shortly after the Supreme Court made their landmark decision on the issue in Roe v. Wade (1973), influential Baptist minister W.A. Criswell, pastor of First Baptist in Dallas, TX, and predecessor to FOX News darling Robert Jeffress, said:

"I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person, and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed."

maxdancona wrote:

Oooookkkkkaaaay Bill,

You are arguing that in the case of vaccinations it is Ok to control a woman's body because lives are at stake?

Huh.

So we are back to a fetus inside a woman body is a human being with full human rights not a group of cells that maybe in the future will become a human with full human rights or maybe not?

Sorry but a woman rights is somewhat at a higher level then a fetus and you or anyone else does not have the right to seize control of a woman womb.

There is a big difference between a fetus at one month, and a fetus after 9 months. I speak from experience.

There is no disagreement that once a baby is born it is a full human being. However not much changes in a baby's development 5 minutes before it is born.

The only thing that changes is its location.

Thank you Hightor for acknowledging that an arbitrary line must be drawn somewhere.

There are mothers who kill their perfectly healthy children with one or two years of age.

I don't know if you are making the claim that any mother should be able to kill their healthy newborn (or just that they wouldn't).

Thank you MontereyJack,

My point is that almost as many women believe that abortions should be illegal as men do. The narrative that this is men controlling women doesn't make sense.

Quote:

There are mothers who kill their perfectly healthy children with one or two years of age.

Which is one of the strongest arguments for not forcing women to bear unwanted children.

Quote:

I don't know if you are making the claim that any mother should be able to kill their healthy newborn (or just that they wouldn't).

Of course not. I specifically mentioned the circumstances – non-viability. Roe vs Wade is not retroactive.

Do not forget when the women end up with more fetuses in her womb that she can carry to term and therefor to save any of them perfect healthy fetus need to be aborted.

maxdancona wrote:

There are mothers who kill their perfectly healthy children with one or two years of age.

Which is one of the strongest arguments for not forcing women to bear unwanted children.

Why do you keep focussing on rape-abortions, BillRM? I would hazard a guess that they're a small percentage of total abortions. Stop. The issue isn't rape; it's birth control. Birth control works whether a woman is raped or not. If a woman is raped, she should be given 'the morning after' pill. End of possible baby. Birth control should be FREE to all women.

Quote:

There are mothers who kill their perfectly healthy children with one or two years of age.

Which is one of the strongest arguments for not forcing women to bear unwanted children.