Why not, we are killing babies anyway. Why not give you the option to see if the child will annoy you in the first three months after birth to decide if you want to "not keep the baby". When will we wake up in this country and repeal Roe vs Wade.
2007-10-17 12:49:40 · 8 answers · asked by Sarge Boston 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
coranth 1. Let me ask you this. Would you support a law that made it legal to drill into your childs head and scramble there brains just because it was handy for you for the child to not be around? I understand your argument which is the argument of most libs, but the vast majority of abortions are preformed out of convience for the mother not for medical or financial reasons. You have to do what is the most good for the most people.
2007-10-17 13:10:49 · update #1
Little ba... first of all you libs are too dim to realize that I am saying fourth trimester to make a point about the first three months after a baby is born for shock value. Second of all if you consider a baby a life after the cord is cut than are you saying that it is still ok to kill a baby after birth just as long as it is before the cord is cut? Thirdly I love all of you libs that say it's not a baby until they are born and can sustain life without the mothers help. Try to leave a day old baby alone and see if it can fend for itself, I think they still depend of people for some time after birth.
2007-10-17 13:15:22 · update #2
hell NO i vote NO on all forms and terms of abortion.. mmm excuse me MURDER....but i can see your point of view.. most women may prefer it that way.. lets see how the kid comes out.. if it`s OK then we will keep it.. if it looks odd then we will just toss it in the incinerator..UM! HELLO PEOPLE THIS QUESTION IS FOR DUH!!!!! AFTER THE BABY IS BORN!!!! 3 MONTHS!!!!!
2007-10-17 13:16:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
First off , there is no such THING as a 4th TRIMESTER----a trimester is 3's.... Second.. NO ONE in their right mind (or wrong mind) would ever suggest we kill babies that were already born.... besides,,, an ABORTION means that something is taken out of a Mother---to extract... and a baby is something that is already HERE.... so you couldn't call that an abortion, you would have to call that MURDER because it was already a living viable baby AFTER THE CORD WAS CUT so as not to be supported by any part of the mother's body.... to have an abortion, you have to have a fetus who is wholly relied on by the mother for it's life at that time. I think YOU are a tad bit OVERBOARD in your assumption and Roe V Wade has NOTHING to do with babies that are already BORN.... so go learn something about trimesters and while you are at it... why not actually READ the Roe V Wade decision... I always LOVE how people come on here and spout off STUPID STUFF about something they know NOTHING about and haven't read ONE THING....
2007-10-17 13:07:16 · answer #2 · answered by LittleBarb 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No -- and not everyone agrees with your characterization that "we are killing babies anyway".
But let me ask you this --- would you vote for a candidate that would pass a law (assuming a willing legislature) that made it mandatory for any parent to donate blood, bone marrow or a kidney to their child if they child needed it -- the parent has no say in the matter -- if a doctor determines the child needs the transplant or the transfusion, the biological parent is required to consent -- even if you religion forbids that kind of medical procedure...
Would you support that kind of forced medical procedure? Because that's what you are doing when you say a woman must donate from her body -- even against her will -- to support an unborn child, and that she has no say in the matter.
And apparently you don't realize that Roe v. Wade was already partially overturned in 1992 and is not the current law on the issue. See Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and several other cases after that.
2007-10-17 12:58:25 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Nothing like exaggerated nonsense B.S. being spouted by the terminally ignorant to cloud an issue.
2007-10-17 12:56:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Not anybody's decision to make except the woman carrying a fetus. Your question is so preposterous that it actually scares me to think of how you came up with it in the first place.
2007-10-17 12:57:19 · answer #5 · answered by HachiMachi 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
"4th trimester?" Human women only have 3 trimesters. Maybe elephants have 4, but I don't think they vote.
2007-10-17 12:54:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
as a juror, I'd vote Guilty .
2007-10-17 12:58:30 · answer #7 · answered by NEOBillyfree 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You annoy me.
2007-10-17 15:40:01 · answer #8 · answered by Lionheart ® 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋