I think a lot of young people these days just never had the opportunity to hold a child in their arms to understand the preciousness of their lives, so they just don’t understand. Most kids grow up being told having a kid will ruin your life.  The media also desensitizes us of the value of human life. To them they see just a weight on their lives, and an extra expense in a world that is going to shit at no direct fault of themselves.

But even after that being said, I’d like to imagine that for the most part once people are faced with their time to make these decision, they’re more often than not to accept the challenge and move on to the next stage of life even if they’re not ready.

I believe that when push comes to shove, most young people just want the choice. And I think at this point the only way forward is some concession to them.

I think if we ever want to resolve this issue both sides will have to make some sort of compromise. I personally think trump had it along the right idea, the federal government should have no right to impose its will on the people. Was it actually the right call? We don’t know. Because right now you got a large population who are screaming that it’s violating body rights. But maybe it’s all Trump derangement syndrome, maybe not. That remains to be determined.

As the federal government they need to find what works best for the system as a whole and not for political affiliation and neither side is completely right in their ultimate visions. Because on the flip side of this argument it’s also true that women are also dying in the southern states for fear of persecution and denial of treatment resulting from pregnancy complications. There are also some conditions in where people just shouldn’t have kids. So again there has to be some compromise.

In turn, I think as citizens it’s our civic duty to not impose our will on our fellow countrymen, but to individually stand for solutions that best fit the system as a whole even if that means somewhere there will be a compromise somewhere. Just live how you believe is pono, and pray for others to do the same.  Personally I fall on the pro-life spectrum. I think abortion in most cases is wrong for the soul. I have a daughter that my girl and I probably weren’t ready for. And I’ll pay whatever price any day because to me it’s what I feel is right as a human being, and I love my family.

Don’t call each other stupid or monsters because of disagreement. We are brothers and sisters in this for our freedoms and the 2nd amendment. Debate is a part of the American culture. We shouldn’t divide ourselves because of disagreement. Aloha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why is the mother allowed to kill her child? 

Do you not comprehend the inconsistency of your argument?

You didn't answer WHICH RIGHTS a fetus has.  Why is that?

So far, you've not offered any facts, just opinions and beliefs -- none of which you've been able to support.

If the mother has full autonomy over what she's allowed to do with her body, then why can she be charged with child endangerment of an unborn child if she smokes, drinks and/or does drugs against the advice of her doctor?

I guess those "mother's rights" are not as concrete as you want to believe.

Check out the chart below the map here.  it shows how almost every state charges pregnant mothers with some form of child abuse or endangerment when they use drugs.
https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/maternity-drug-policies-by-state

Seems to fly in the face of "mother's rights > fetus' rights" that you are preaching.

Maybe you should do some research before posting more hogwash on this topic.  You're just arguing for a position without any supporting FACTS!!

You are assuming my opinion.   I don't think mother's should be charged with endangerment.  The states are wrong on that. 

You are assuming my opinion.   I don't think mother's should be charged with endangerment.  The states are wrong on that.

I don't have to assume anything.  You already told us what you believe.

i'm just telling you you're wrong, and all you can do is reply with more hyperbole.

Your reply above proves it.  Pure unsupported, subjective opinion.

...

I think if we ever want to resolve this issue both sides will have to make some sort of compromise. I personally think trump had it along the right idea, the federal government should have no right to impose its will on the people. Was it actually the right call? We don’t know. Because right now you got a large population who are screaming that it’s violating body rights. But maybe it’s all Trump derangement syndrome, maybe not. That remains to be determined.

As the federal government they need to find what works best for the system as a whole and not for political affiliation and neither side is completely right in their ultimate visions. Because on the flip side of this argument it’s also true that women are also dying in the southern states for fear of persecution and denial of treatment resulting from pregnancy complications. There are also some conditions in where people just shouldn’t have kids. So again there has to be some compromise.

......

Don’t call each other stupid or monsters because of disagreement. We are brothers and sisters in this for our freedoms and the 2nd amendment. Debate is a part of the American culture. We shouldn’t divide ourselves because of disagreement. Aloha

First, show me where the right to life deserves a "compromise". 

Civil society has a duty to protect the weakest among us from those who seek to destroy them. 

If we were to compromise when a teen is being held up, the law would say you have to hand over your wallet and jewelry to the robber, and no charges would be filed if the robber never harmed you.  You walked away poorer but otherwise unharmed, and the robber got what he wanted without being shot while threatening the victim with a knife or gun.

Compromise.

Are we supposed to let the mother kill her unborn child without asking if the decision was reasonable in the situation?  Or do we give the pro-abortion camp total autonomy to make that decision without any oversight or verification?

There is no one in society more in need of protection than an unborn child.  Innocent, vulnerable and totally dependent on the mother -- before AND after birth.

the question is whether the mother has a duty to protect her own child, not whether the government can force her to carry a child she doesn't want to term.  If the duty exists, then the law is simply a mechanism to ensure the child is protected in spite of the mother's actions.

We don't outlaw murder because the state is forcing us to let others live.  We outlaw it because society agrees murder is inherently wrong, and society has a duty to protect itself from those who inflict violence upon others.

There is no compromise when the outcome is the irreversible destruction of an unborn child except when there is severe risk to the mother's existence.

I don't see how you can talk about comrpromise when the child doesn't get a vote.

As for using labels, I think calling lt like we see it is warranted.  This topic is not a clean, sanitary debate.  It's about killing children.  Anyone who thinks it's okay to kill a child in utero when the child cold have been delivered instead is a monster. 

And i'm not calling the person stupid, just his arguments -- because they are.

That's stupid....

You may want to rethink your definitions.  The ones you are using are stupid.

I'd be willing to apologize if you can show where someone called any forum member "stupid."  I don't think I did.

Maybe EEF is the exception, but he started it!