General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I'M THE 14-YEAR-OLD WHO WROTE THE "JESUS ISN'T A DICK SO KEEP HIM OUT OF MY VAGINA" SIGN IN TEXAS AN [View all]AmyStrange
(7,989 posts)-
it makes sense, to try and make it safer for the mother, but the way they are doing it in Texas is wrong. It makes it less safe. More probable a young mother will go alternate routes. If they really were doing this with the health of the mother in mind, they would force (by law) all hospitals to have clinics, on site.
Personally, I am against abortion, BUT I am also against making laws that force my belief on others.
No matter what religious people say, it is NOT about the children, or the POTENTIAL children, because no matter how hard you argue against it, a fetus is ONLY a POTENTIAL CHILD and not an ACTUAL child.
The reason it isn't about the child is because, if you take the "potential" child theory to it's logical conclusion, even not having sex is killing a "potential" child. Doesn't the bible say, "be fruitful and multiply"? Why aren't they also out there encouraging people to have sex and having kids? It's because the religion has nothing to do with what they believe. It's only use is as an excuse to do what they want. It enables them to be mean, IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!
I also believe that rather than trying to "virtually" ban something, they should be making sure children (remember, it's suppose to be about the children) are taken cared of after they are born, proper daytime care (if the mother has to finish school or work) and a good education, including College.
And also, someone should be figuring out a way to take the fetus ("potential" child) from one mother and giving it to another mother to take care of it until the child is born and after.
Sorry, didn't mean to rant, but thank you for letting me vent.
So Bennyboy, you're not this Tuesday Cain, right? Either way, doesn't matter, that article was very well written and smart.
Thank you,
d
-
ETC: "it'" to "it's"