Fetus now has "Personhood" according to North Dakota.

[xpucksx]

So if that's the case make everyone either get an abortion or better yet sterilize the entire population therefore no one will ever have a nother baby and no more children or adults will be abused.

Obviously, I am pro-choice,

That's not what I m saying because I know that is as unrealistic as hoping that people will think with their heads before they think with their genitals and not get into the situation where the child becomes a burden. I just think that if we take away the ability for women to have a medically safe abortion done, then we will have created another negative situation.

In America, people will do what they want no matter what , so I would rather them be doing it safely.

I have never believed that any one person has the right to tell another person what to do with their bodies as long as it does not outwardly harm those around them

[MadMan1978]

I have said this before the States will continue to attack Row vs Wade in that level. Penn, Virginia, Mississippi and now ND are doing just that.

[mrveggieman]

Obviously, I am pro-choice,

That's not what I m saying because I know that is as unrealistic as hoping that people will think with their heads before they think with their genitals and not get into the situation where the child becomes a burden. I just think that if we take away the ability for women to have a medically safe abortion done, then we will have created another negative situation.

In America, people will do what they want no matter what , so I would rather them be doing it safely.

I have never believed that any one person has the right to tell another person what to do with their bodies as long as it does not outwardly harm those around them

She had a choice of what to do with her body. She could have did a better job protecting herself or abstained all together. Once a baby is involved the woman's body is no longer the primary concern.

[Wickabee]

She had a choice of what to do with her body. She could have did a better job protecting herself or abstained all together. Once a baby is involved the woman's body is no longer the primary concern.

And where's daddy?

Oh right, you don't care because women are lesser to you. Forgot, sorry.

[mrveggieman]

And where's daddy?

Oh right, you don't care because women are lesser to you. Forgot, sorry.

When he gets caught he should be financially responsbile for taking care of his child.

[xpucksx]

She had a choice of what to do with her body. She could have did a better job protecting herself or abstained all together. Once a baby is involved the woman's body is no longer the primary concern.

...but a fetus is not a baby. Taken outside of the body, the fetus could not survive on it's own. A baby is a being that is survivng on it's own accord without nourishment from the umbilical cord on the outside of the mother. We arestarting to misunderstand simple English definitions here.

And you are totally right. She (and the male counterpart) should not have even gotten pregnant if they knew they could not properly support the child.

...and the bolded statement is one of the most classic examples of what I would call ignorant fundamentalist Christian contradiction (and from your other posts I have never read you as being in that camp, so it is sort of surprising to me...). Lets logicaly restate the statement:

I agree that yes, once the entity IS a baby, meaning being actually born and outside of the mothers body, then it has it's own body rights as the mother does
When it is a FETUS it is still reliant on the mothers nourishment, so the mothers body HAS to be the primary concern for the survival of the fetus. I don't understand how people so easily misconstrue this very simple idea.

[Wickabee]

When he gets caught he should be financially responsbile for taking care of his child.

Right, but we shouldn't do more to find these guys, even though the system in place is an obvious and utter failure because it would be harder for guys to skeet and run, which you're against because having a penis gives us that right!

You're not a misogynist at all...

[mrveggieman]

...but a fetus is not a baby. Taken outside of the body, the fetus could not survive on it's own. A baby is a being that is survivng on it's own accord without nourishment from the umbilical cord on the outside of the mother. We arestarting to misunderstand simple English definitions here.

And you are totally right. She (and the male counterpart) should not have even gotten pregnant if they knew they could not properly support the child.

...and the bolded statement is one of the most classic examples of what I would call ignorant fundamentalist Christian contradiction (and from your other posts I have never read you as being in that camp, so it is sort of surprising to me...). Lets logicaly restate the statement: If someone needs a religion to tell them that murdering an unborn child is wrong I truely feel for them.

I agree that yes, once the entity IS a baby, meaning being actually born and outside of the mothers body, then it has it's own body rights as the mother does
When it is a FETUS it is still reliant on the mothers nourishment, so the mothers body HAS to be the primary concern for the survival of the fetus. I don't understand how people so easily misconstrue this very simple idea.

Response in bold.

[habsheaven]

She had a choice of what to do with her body. She could have did a better job protecting herself or abstained all together. Once a baby is involved the woman's body is no longer the primary concern.

Unless of course she was raped. Then, all of a sudden, her mental anguish takes precedent over the "baby's" right to life. Right veggie? Gotta love the thinking of some anti-abortionists.

[mrveggieman]

Unless of course she was raped. Then, all of a sudden, her mental anguish takes precedent over the "baby's" right to life. Right veggie? Gotta love the thinking of some anti-abortionists.

Or better yet the pro abortion ahem "choice" people who believe that abortions should be handed out like candy.