Try the political quiz
@BBWTFFB Agreements3mos ago

While there are mixed feelings about Abortion, I believe it should still be up to the women, as it is their bodies and should be their choice if the fetus should be removed or not. the fetus, while possibly having a heartbeat and life, they do not have a conscious mind to make a choice whether it should live or not. it does not have the freedom to choose, as it has not been born yet into the world. the fetus is still inside the womb, inside the woman, therefore it should still be her choice. Think about the women you'd be forcing to give birth to a baby they might not even want, whether it was accidental, or they were a victim to rape and or SA. it could be a child or even a woman. It is still a violation of a woman's body to give birth to her abusers child. regardless of who the offender or person is.

+
Expand

Knowledge quiz

How much do you know about Social Issues?

See if you know more than the average American.

Test your knowledge!

11 Replies

 @BBXMDNYDemocrat from Massachusetts  disagreed…3mos3MO

If the baby has a heartbeat, it is alive, actively circling blood through the body, leading abortion to essentially kill the baby. I do believe that in circumstances like rape, or incest where there was no choice in having the baby that it is okay to abort as the woman went though something traumatic.

 @BBXMKG2 from Illinois  disagreed…3mos3MO

A fetus, while not born, is still a living being separate from the woman's body. It should be treated as a human being. If the woman is unable to take care of the baby, abortion should not be used to kill the child, rather the child can be put up for adoption to spare its life. Rape is a horrible crime, but it isn't justified to use it as an excuse to kill an innocent human being.

 @BBXFKYNIndependent  from Michigan  disagreed…3mos3MO

No, from a scientific standpoint, it is not the woman's body. The fetus is separate from the mother, while still being dependent on her. Also, what exactly do you define as a "conscious mind"? A newborn would not be able to tell you whether it wants to live or not. An eighteen-year-old could tell you that they shouldn't live (which would be horribly alarming), but it is possible. Even with their expressed consent, there is no moral or legal justification for killing that person because they said it was ok. Also, no matter how the child was conceived, they have just as much…  Read more

 @BBXFP8L from Florida  disagreed…3mos3MO

It is fundamentally immoral to take a life without consent in almost all cases, especially in the case of unborn children which will eventually reach consciousness if not for an abortion or medical issue.

 @BBXKT2B from Michigan  disagreed…3mos3MO

You made a choice to have intimacy. You should be held responsible for your actions. You are taking the life away from a child. Before you were knit in the womb, God knew you.

 @BBXTKQP from New Mexico  disagreed…3mos3MO

Be responsible for your actions, of course there are expection like rape where abortion can be an option.

 @BBXL7DT  from North Carolina  disagreed…3mos3MO

It is NOT the woman's body; anyone with common sense should know that at conception, the baby has a set of DNA that is separate from both the man's and the woman's and is a combination of both. Both the man and the woman had the choice to engage in sexual activities, and the responsibility ends there. It is not right to murder the child after the fact because of a bad decision. Just because it is in a woman's body does not mean IT IS the woman's body; that is a ridiculous argument. No matter the situation, the child has a right to life

 @BBXDYM6 from Texas  disagreed…3mos3MO

Although they may not have a conscious mind, they are still human beings and should be given the same rights we have.

 @BBYVBDBDemocrat from Pennsylvania  agreed…3mos3MO

Abortion shouldn’t even be up to the men. It’s the woman’s body and she can do whatever she wants with it.
If she was raped these laws would cause more damage to her than the abortion itself because now she has to give birth and raise her rapists child and a child she wasnt or didnt want to have.

 @BBY3ZDQ from Washington  agreed…3mos3MO

Women should be able to make their own decisions without being judged. Women can choose whether or not to keep the child maybe they are not mentally stable to provide and care for a baby which would be better to have a abortion.

 @BBXH5WH from California  agreed…3mos3MO

Yes I fully agree because not only that if they don't even want the kid it won't be fair to have a kid suffer from bad parenting.

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this agreement.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

About this author

Learn more about the author that submitted this agreement.

@BBWTFFB

Last activeActivity3 discussionsInfluence1 engagementsEngagement bias100%Audience bias100%Active in
Answers  1 Social Issues  1 Gay Marriage  1 Agreements  1
PartyUndeclaredLocationUnknown

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Israeli Bombings Kill 2,300 In Lebanon in 3 weeks

Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.The Israeli military has ordered people living in more than a quarter of Lebanon to flee, according to a UN calculation, as its fight with the Iran-backed Shia militant group Hizbollah threatens to engulf the Mediterranean country.Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.More than 1mn people have fled their homes in Lebanon in under a month, according to its government, a dramatic forced movement of the population in a country of only about 5mn inhabitants with a land mass smaller than the US state of Connecticut. Israeli forces began a ground offensive in south Lebanon two weeks ago, in their fourth invasion of the country in under five decades. They had already destroyed large parts of the densely populated southern Beirut suburb where Hizbollah had its headquarters, and killed many top militant commanders in air strikes, including former leader Hassan Nasrallah.Rema Jamous Imseis, Middle East director of UNHCR, told journalists in Geneva that “over 25 per cent of [Lebanon is] under a direct Israeli military evacuation order”. “People are heeding these calls to evacuate and they’re fleeing with almost nothing,” she added, saying that 80 per cent of the shelters opened by the Lebanese government — mostly in schools — were now full.

▲  1012 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies