No. You can't notice that you are pregnant at the 6th week. Many women also have irregular periods.
The embryo/fetus is also dependent on your uterus to survive. If the fetus should have the same rights like everyone, then we should have the right to abort 'cause i dont have the right to use someone's organs against their will to survive. So why should a fetus have more rights than pregnant women. Any so called pro lifer who wants a fetus have more rights than pregnant women should be forced to give their organs to someone in need, otherwise they are hypocritical.
Then the mental health affect the unborn baby. A woman who is forced to to give birth will have mental issues and she would not really care about her health at this point. A woman can even have misscarriage if she eats fastfood. And what about pregnant women with drug and alcohol addiction or pregnant women who smoke? All of these drugs and alcohol will affect the unborn baby in a bad way.
So you extra have to care about your mental health/physical health when being pregnant. Healthy food is also more expensive.
In short i dont believe that these women can give birth to healthy kids. It is important that the kids are healthy because statistically unhealthy kids dont get adopted. The adoption centers are already full and so where tf are the pro lifers? Go fucking adopt them, instead of making them have shitty life without parents. Statistically kids who grow up without parents tend to be criminals and tend to be victims of sex traficking etc. A pro lifer who dont adopt is sadistic and hypocritical since they dont give a fuck what happen to the kid after it is born and they just create a generation of criminals and victims of sex traficking etc.
It is also ridiculous to punish women for aborting. The jails are already full. Rapists, pedophiles etc. are outside but you care about innocent women for having abortion? It is just wasting the enery/time of police. How does it work? Do men also get jailed for not using protection?
While it is hard to remember today, the modern-day opposition to abortion had its roots not in a moral defense of life but rather in the need for President Richard Nixon to win votes before the 1972 election. Pushing the idea that abortion was a central issue of American life was about rejecting the equal protection of the laws embraced by the Democrats far more than it was ever about using the government to protect fetuses.
Abortion had been a part of American life since its inception, but states began to criminalize abortion in the 1870s. By 1960, an observer estimated that there were between 200,000 and 1.2 million illegal U. S. abortions a year, endangering women, primarily poor ones who could not afford a workaround. To stem this public health crisis, doctors wanted to decriminalize abortion and keep it between a woman and her doctor. In the 1960s, states began to decriminalize abortion on this medical model, and support for abortion rights grew.
But in 1972, Nixon was up for reelection, and he and his people were paranoid that he would lose. His adviser Pat Buchanan was a Goldwater man who wanted to destroy the popular New Deal state that regulated the economy and protected social welfare and civil rights. To that end, he believed Democrats and traditional Republicans must be kept from power and Nixon must win reelection.
Catholics, who opposed abortion and believed that "the right of innocent human beings to life is sacred," tended to vote for Democratic candidates. Buchanan, who was a Catholic himself, urged Nixon to woo Catholic Democrats before the 1972 election over the issue of abortion. In 1970, Nixon had directed U. S. military hospitals to perform abortions regardless of state law; in 1971, using Catholic language, he reversed course to split the Democrats, citing his personal belief "in the sanctity of human life—including the life of the yet unborn.”
Although Nixon and Democratic nominee George McGovern had similar stances on abortion, Nixon and Buchanan defined McGovern as the candidate of "Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion," a radical framing designed to alienate traditionalists.
Traditional Republicans supported an activist government that regulated business and promoted social welfare, but radical right Movement Conservatives wanted to kill the active government. They attacked anyone who supported such a government as immoral. Abortion turned women's rights into murder.
And so this is just that after several decades of right wing disinformation. The original idea was just that: an idea. But in order for it to really root itself into our political culture it needed to latch on to something a little more permanent. And that is spite. Nothing beats good ol' dependable sexual frustration. "Pro-life" became a dogwhistle for "you're not getting laid as much as you want, punish women who are fucking other dudes!" and so it remains to this day..
Not sure what a "ridic" law is, but the question begs a series of more elemental questions:
At EXACTLY what point does the fetus become a human being? What is the exact moment in the gestational process in time? What is the biological and moral difference one second before that moment, and one second after?
That answered, when ought the law authorize the individual to interfere with or end a life that has no committed no action against the first individual? If this is permissible under these circumstances, what is the range of other circumstances in which it morally and logically follows that it is permissible?
What are the moral implications for the culture that permits the individual to interfere with or extinguish another life for the first person's convenience? (That is that the first person's life is not itself threatened with being ended?)
If there are no moral implications, than, on a different scale, ought individual business owners be allowed to segregate lunch counters without the law intervening to forbid it? If not, why is this lesser standard not permissible, but the ending of a life without cause, simply for being what it is, permissible?
Would more information and discussion of these questions alter the abortion debate? If not, than is the debate more about a mere assertion of will and power than moral principle and cultural norms?
Are these not legitimate questions that precede the question that has been asked here?
I really don't understand with today's contraceptives available how so many women are getting pregnant when they aren't ready. You have birth control, iud's, condoms, plan B. If you want to have sex that's fine. But we all know that can lead to pregnancy. And it really seems unfair to make the life growing inside the woman to pay for their mistakes.
It's not like these women are having sex not knowing they could get pregnant. Abortion is unnecessary unless for medical reasons. It's selfish because it could have been easily prevented.
Maybe if women can't get abortions by the time the fetus has a heartbeat it will force them to be more responsible with not getting pregnant in the first place. Most abortions aren't because of rape, medical issues, or failed contraceptives. Most are because of irresponsible decisions. And that's what a lot of pro-life people have a problem with.
And any of you that have a problem with my opinion on the subject, just remember I'm not the one advocating to kill innocent lives. I advocate to prevent it from happening by making responsible decisions.
Opinion
28Opinion
It could potentially, but a lot of people won’t care how much factual info you present to them. Parts of our society want to punish women for having sex for pleasure rather than for procreation. That’s what a big part this debate is really about.
I'm morally pro-life and legally pro-choice. Even though they denied an emergency appeal application to the new Texas law, the Supreme Court is never going to overturn Roe Verses Wade. Courts virtually never overturn their own decisions. Have you ever asked a Judge or a panel of Judges to overturn her/his/their own decision? That's the major reason why the Appellate Court system is so overwhelmed in this country, even before the pandemic. In just over 245 years, the Supreme Court itself has only overturned less than 2% of their own decisions, and there's no Appellate Court higher than the Supreme Court. Whether people in this country like it or not, Roe Verses Wade is the law of the land. Also, conservative justices tend to be law traditionalists, and make decisions based on precedent and caselaw, even if they morally disagree with the decision. Roe Verses Wade is precedent and caselaw. So even though the Supreme Court blocked this emergency appeal application (key word: "emergency"), and anything is possible, I would be extraordinarily shocked if this Texas law is upheld in any way after a full application is made to the Court.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/supreme-court-votes-5-4-to-leave-texas-abortion-law-in-place
"The Court voted 5-4 to deny an emergency appeal from abortion providers and others that sought to block enforcement of the law that went into effect Wednesday. The Justices also suggested that their order likely isn't the last word on whether the law can stand because other challenges to it can still be brought."
We all need to read between the lines of the decision and Chief Roberts' statement. The emergency appeal application denial was a procedural decision, and not a merit-based decision.
If you look at countries such as Ireland, where life is pretty much governed by religion you can see just how crazy the situation is.
all that happens without the option of abortion those born to mothers are put in to an overburdened care system.
A care system rife with abuse by those same people against abortion and the needs of the child.
All that will happen is more and more cash will be needed to support the care system, along with an increase in the current levels of abuse.
Being pro-life, I’m honestly more hopeful over these laws and swing to more pro-life sentiments.
It’s always been half and half more or less
But now with the Supreme Court being majority conservative/Republican, who knows.
I’m a guy big on morality and alleviation of suffering, so you’d imagine that pro-choice beliefs aren’t necessarily something I can agree with it.
I wish someone can convince me that pro choice is the more moral thing for all parties, but I don’t think people have such an argument.
Also, I understand, I’m not entitled to anyone’s time to convince me.
Women should have to live with the consequences of their bad decisions. Abortion should only be allowed out of medical necessity not as a means of birth control. If you don't want the kid, pop it out and put it up for adoption but be aware that in my ideal system you'd never be allowed to seek out the child and your child wouldn't be able to seek you out until after turning 21.
This bullshit we've setup in the country propping up women has destroyed us. Women need to suffer for the bad decisions they make that ruin the lives of not just their partners and exes but also the shitty lives the force upon their children when they try to raise them in single mother households thus increasing their likelihood of their child ending up in prison x800%.
If you want to make someone pro-life just show them photos of aborted fetuses, fat feminists "shouting their abortion", and that a majority of abortions are being done as a form of contraception rather than using actual contraception. That is why this happens. People are turning against the "pro-abortion" (can you even call them pro-choice anymore? They don't care about the choice on any other topic) crowd for these reasons. The era of R v Wade is coming to an end, albeit slow.
What more info are you referring to?
The basic breakdown is many people believe that its a human being from conception, and they are being murdered.
Your asking them to support murder of a innocent.
I know lots of them think the morning after pill is an abortion, I don't think it is... but it used to only work in the first couple of days to prevent conception.
Nope I think the more information we know the more abortion is going to be views as barbarism
Most people who are prolife are religious. There is no reasoning with them
Soooo I expected this to be a woman hahaha
Why are you encouraging women to hurt what they technically were born to do?
I think that most of pro lifers base their opinion in religion and just aren’t at all sympathetic because they believe that premarital sex is a sin and that people should suffer for their choices. A lot of them believe that “life” begins and conception, so there is a fundamental disagreement on what is considered “life”
Well, there's hundreds of studies that prove vaccines are effective and don't give autism and aren't full of dangerous stuff... And yet, here we are...
Great. If 99% of abortions occur in that time frame why the protest over the Heartbeat Bill which would limit nearly all abortions you state already occur in that time frame anyway? It’s 2 less weeks from when a heart beat can usually be detected. What’s the big issue?
At what point in life do human rights take effect.
Don't give me the bullshit about viability.
A one day old baby is not "viable". It cannot survive without sucking on its mothers tit. It needs someone to wipe its shitty ass when needed.
At what point is a human being "viable".
There's only two groups of pro-life: politicians who want to please their voters and emotionally brainwashed people. You will never convince either group with facts and logic. The politicians will never be swayed because they want to make their voters happy. And the voters will never be swayed because they're just emotional people who believe whatever someone tells them.
People who believe in abortions are never going to change their mind. People who don't believe in abortions are never going to change their mind. So there's no use arguing about it all the time.
In most cases, I tend to agree with conservatives. However, unlike many conservatives, I also believe that if you make it you own it. f you whittle a baby out of a stick of firewood that you bought, you own it. That means, you have the right keep it, give it to a little girl, or throw it in the fireplace with the other firewood. By the same standards, if you make a fetus, you own it. Therefore, you can keep it or abort it.
The right will endlessly call the left sjw's for virtue signaling for any social justice but hold firm for the unborn.
They could ban abortion for all I care fuck cis women transgender children are under attack and y’all are worried about killing babies
Wait… correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t you advocate for vaccine mandates? Also biased poll is biased.
