The latest craze in abortion law...

[Jake]

A lot of pro-life supporters will say abortion is okay in cases of rape, but with our justice system it takes much longer than 9 months to prove someone was or wasn't raped. The abortion couldn't be done with proof of guilt or innocence.

[Cerbaho-WG]

A CHILD IS A CHILD there it doesnt matter to me how far along it is. So that is why I abstain. If the women is raped yes it is still murder and family same goes for a family member and anytime the mothers life in jeopardy then it isn't It becomes a life saving procedure. Now why are people like Cerbaho, Heads, Lowercase, Rex and the liberals against the Death Penalty that kills thugs but yet gleefully defend abortion or "right to choose"? A killers life is more worth saving that an innocent helpless baby?

 

Because in my mind it isn't murder, although I'm opposed to third trimester abortion where the fetus is fully formed. Look, if you're having an abortion through RU-486 (the day after) arguing that you're killing something is completely asinine. You're flushing out some dividing cells which could or could not be naturally aborted anyways. When you move up to the fetus stage, it's "life" is dependant on the mother. Take out a second trimester fetus and it's not going to survive on its own. Likewise with a first trimester fetus. You're not destroying life, because life hasn't even occured.

 

Many doctors agree that a fetus cannot feel pain up until six months, and you're really going to argue that you're killing life when this fetus doesn't even have basic motor functions? And many have twisted the facts to support their own agendas. But if people are going to cry "damn liberal jew run media," here's a report from the Journal of the American Medical Association, which last time I heard was unbiased, but I could be wrong: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/8/947

[Rex Kickass]

A fetus does not form until the end of the first trimester. Prior to the second trimester, the baby to be is considered an embryo.

[Balance]

Look, if you're having an abortion through RU-486 (the day after) arguing that you're killing something is completely asinine.

Point of clarification- Are you talking about the "Morning After Pill" or RU-486? They are not the same thing.

 

It doesn't affect your argument, but I think it's important that people know there's a difference. The Morning After Pill is simply a higher-dose birth control pill. It's no different from the birth control pills that millions of women use every day. It works by suppressing ovulation. The Morning After Pill is only effective up to 48 hours after unprotected intercourse.

 

RU-486, on the other hand, will cause an abortion and will work after fertilization and implantation.

 

I'll go back to my lurking, now....

[FlaSoxxJim]

Point of clarification- Are you talking about the "Morning After Pill" or RU-486? They are not the same thing.

 

It doesn't affect your argument, but I think it's important that people know there's a difference. The Morning After Pill is simply a higher-dose birth control pill. It's no different from the birth control pills that millions of women use every day. It works by suppressing ovulation. The Morning After Pill is only effective up to 48 hours after unprotected intercourse.

 

RU-486, on the other hand, will cause an abortion and will work after fertilization and implantation.

 

I'll go back to my lurking, now....

 

But that is not entirely true either. The double-dose of the pill that comprises the "morning after" pill not only supresses ovulation, but also can terminate blastulae that have implanted by creating an inhospitible environment in the womb. Like RU-486 it can therefore can also work after fertilization and implantation.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Because in my mind it isn't murder, although I'm opposed to third trimester abortion where the fetus is fully formed. Look, if you're having an abortion through RU-486 (the day after) arguing that you're killing something is completely asinine. You're flushing out some dividing cells which could or could not be naturally aborted anyways. When you move up to the fetus stage, it's "life" is dependant on the mother. Take out a second trimester fetus and it's not going to survive on its own. Likewise with a first trimester fetus. You're not destroying life, because life hasn't even occured.

 

Many doctors agree that a fetus cannot feel pain up until six months, and you're really going to argue that you're killing life when this fetus doesn't even have basic motor functions? And many have twisted the facts to support their own agendas. But if people are going to cry "damn liberal jew run media," here's a report from the Journal of the American Medical Association, which last time I heard was unbiased, but I could be wrong: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/8/947

 

The 'when can it live on its on?' argument is an equally pointless one, IMO. How long is a full-term baby going to live on its own without care?

 

Point of clarification. Your ARE destroying 'life' when you terminate a first trimester fetus. Whether that life is a human being is the issue for most.

 

You destroy 'life' when youre sperm goes down the shower drain. Human life too, albeit in a dead-end haploid form. Not a human being though, of course

 

I really dislike all the legalistic arguments about conception and life and human life. Haploid egg and sperm are 'human life,' but not human beings. Fertilized diploid ovum, blastula, gastrula, and embryo are also all 'human life,' but not (yet) human beings. Defining THE spot in the continuum where it's now a human being is artificial and a losing exercise.

 

None of that is to be construed as an argument against pro-choice, merely an argument against ignoring facts of biology for the sake of constructing a legalistic argument.

[Steff]

But that is not entirely true either. The double-dose of the pill that comprises the "morning after" pill not only supresses ovulation, but also can terminate blastulae that have implanted by creating an inhospitible environment in the womb. Like RU-486 it can therefore can also work after fertilization and implantation.

 

 

 

While this is true, the effective % are so low, and the additional estrogen from the "overdose" of BC pills is not good, they don't push this practice.

[FlaSoxxJim]

While this is true, the effective % are so low, and the additional estrogen from the "overdose" of BC pills is not good, they don't push this practice.

No they don't, that is true. It's more a 'nonindicated use.'

[Steff]

No they don't, that is true. It's more a 'nonindicated use.'

 

 

 

A dangerous one, IMO.

[Rex Kickass]

The 'when can it live on its on?' argument is an equally pointless one, IMO. How long is a full-term baby going to live on its own without care?

 

Point of clarification. Your ARE destroying 'life' when you terminate a first trimester fetus. Whether that life is a human being is the issue for most.

 

You destroy 'life' when youre sperm goes down the shower drain. Human life too, albeit in a dead-end haploid form. Not a human being though, of course

 

I really dislike all the legalistic arguments about conception and life and human life. Haploid egg and sperm are 'human life,' but not human beings. Fertilized diploid ovum, blastula, gastrula, and embryo are also all 'human life,' but not (yet) human beings. Defining THE spot in the continuum where it's now a human being is artificial and a losing exercise.

 

None of that is to be construed as an argument against pro-choice, merely an argument against ignoring facts of biology for the sake of constructing a legalistic argument.

 

A tumor is technically a form of human life as well, no?

[FlaSoxxJim]

A tumor is technically a form of human life as well, no?

Absolutely, just one that doesn't know how to take orders.

[Rex Kickass]

So sorta like my waitress at Denny's *rimshot*

[minors]

I will back off from the rape or incest because this was not of person's own doing. But in any other case no I do not support abortion and could give a s*** if it is 1 day or 9 months along. If a person goes out and has their fun and it ends up with conceiving a child they should not be able to deal with it by killing it. And I don't know how anyone could support it.

[Steff]

I will back off from the rape or incest because this was not of person's own doing. But in any other case no I do not support abortion and could give a s*** if it is 1 day or 9 months along. If a person goes out and has their fun and it ends up with conceiving a child they should not be able to deal with it by killing it. And I don't know how anyone could support it.

 

 

So you would support having a child whom you discover has a diaphramic hernia at 26 weeks, which is when the diaphram ruptures pushing it's lungs, heart, kidneys, and whatever else is in it's way, up into the chest cavity which then causes the heart not to be able to beat distributing oxygen which then results in brain damage to the point that the child will surely be a vegetable all it's life?

 

 

Not all women that interrupt their pregnancies are irresponsible. And not all situations are as black and white as you seem to think they are.

[minors]

So you would support having a child whom you discover has a diaphramic hernia at 26 weeks, which is when the diaphram ruptures pushing it's lungs, heart, kidneys, and whatever else is in it's way, up into the chest cavity which then causes the heart not to be able to beat distributing oxygen which then results in brain damage to the point that the child will surely be a vegetable all it's life?

Not all women that interrupt their pregnancies are irresponsible. And not all situations are as black and white as you seem to think they are.

 

 

I have already said in an earlier post that any kind of condition where the mother and or child is at stake is a medical procedure not a abortion/murder. I define abortion as a mother wanted to rid of there mistakes by killing the child.

[Steff]

I have already said in an earlier post that any kind of condition where the mother and or child is at stake is a medical procedure not a abortion/murder. I define abortion as a mother wanted to rid of there mistakes by killing the child.

 

 

 

But that's my point.. there is no MEDICAL risk to either. She will deliver just fine, and the kid will be put on a respirator, surgery will be performed, the organs will be put back where they belong. The only difference is that the damage is done and the child will be a vegetable.

 

Your definition is flawed. There are a million reasons a woman could give for having an abortion OTHER than it being a form of birth control. I'm not asking you to change your stance. Just be a bit more open minded to others as you have no idea what kind of shoes they have worn.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Cancers, tumors, etc. are life -- but nobody cares about those and actively endorses those killings.

 

Many arch-conservatives (in general) are for the sanctity of life at birth but not for people accused of crimes that may warrant the death penalty. They do not lose their human-ness, only we choose to take it from them.

 

As for giving babies to families who would want them -- there are plenty of kids out there right now that are hungry, alone and looking for people to care of them already. Perhaps those parents should take on some of the children languishing in orphanages or poor foster homes looking for permanent parents. For many of the most ardent pro-lifers advocating these people have their kids, I don't see them giving them the money and supplies to do an excellent job raising them. In fact, some of the most ardent pro-lifers like Georgie Bush are busy cutting poverty rolls to make it more difficult for the urban poor kids to be taken care of.

 

Don't get me wrong, I have serious moral reservations about abortion as well. However, I believe that it should be safe, legal and rare. Instead of forcing abstinence only courses in sexual education, students should learn all the benefits and risks of sexual activity -- and how to protect one's self from some of the risks. By doing this, people will have the tools to be responsible as adults. If you really want to cut down the rate of abortion, educate people on safe sex and sexuality. Mere prohibition has not worked in the past (when abortion was illegal, alcohol, the war on drugs, etc.) and still will not work today. Making abortion illegal will simply mean that the women wealthy enough to go to a place where it is legal will still get their

abortions and those who can't will go towards unsafe means to procure them (i.e. back-alley coathanger shops)

 

The government should not have the right to dictate to a woman what medical options are open to her. Pro-choice people are not "OH YEAH! KILLING BABIES! GET OUT THE KEG AND FIRE UP THE GRILL, WE'RE BBQ'ING TONIGHT! WOOOO!" We just don't think that the government has the right to dictate to people what medical procedures they should not be able to have. It is the state intruding unnecessarily into peoples' lives when they can just as easily cut down the rate of abortion via adequate funding of social programs and proper education.

[minors]

But that's my point.. there is no MEDICAL risk to either. She will deliver just fine, and the kid will be put on a respirator, surgery will be performed, the organs will be put back where they belong. The only difference is that the damage is done and the child will be a vegetable.

 

Your definition is flawed. There are a million reasons a woman could give for having an abortion OTHER than it being a form of birth control. I'm not asking you to change your stance. Just be a bit more open minded to others as you have no idea what kind of shoes they have worn.

 

I can understand your position and could understand if a child was only going to be a vegetable then I would consider it. I only have problems where a woman decides to have an abortion just to have one to get rid of there mistake.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 08:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will back off from the rape or incest because this was not of person's own doing. But in any other case no I do not support abortion and could give a s*** if it is 1 day or 9 months along. If a person goes out and has their fun and it ends up with conceiving a child they should not be able to deal with it by killing it. And I don't know how anyone could support it.

Ok, here's another situation.

 

Are you against young mothers who live in poor conditions, in poverty, and in bad neighborhoods deciding to have an abortion because they know they will not be able to raise a child properly? What are the odds that a child in those conditions will grow up one day to become a "thug" ( a person who breaks any law according to you and nuke?) WIll you admit that it is much more likely for a child to become a "thug" when he/she is raised in a crappy environment, through poverty, without a father figure, and/or a young mother?

 

I'm surprised nuke isn't in favor of forcing all convicted felons, murderers, and sex offenders to have abortions because they are sick f***s and their offspring will probably become a "thug" too. He loves to talk about taking their rights away.

[minors]

Ok, here's another situation.

 

Are you against young mothers who live in poor conditions, in poverty, and in bad neighborhoods deciding to have an abortion because they know they will not be able to raise a child properly? What are the odds that a child in those conditions will grow up one day to become a "thug" ( a person who breaks any law according to you and nuke?) WIll you admit that it is much more likely for a child to become a "thug" when he/she is raised in a crappy environment, through poverty, without a father figure, and/or a young mother?

 

I'm surprised nuke isn't in favor of forcing all convicted felons, murderers, and sex offenders to have abortions because they are sick f***s and their offspring will probably become a "thug" too. He loves to talk about taking their rights away.

 

Yep I am against it because of adpotion give the kid a chance before murdering it.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Ok, here's another situation.

 

Are you against young mothers who live in poor conditions, in poverty, and in bad neighborhoods deciding to have an abortion because they know they will not be able to raise a child properly? What are the odds that a child in those conditions will grow up one day to become a "thug" ( a person who breaks any law according to you and nuke?) WIll you admit that it is much more likely for a child to become a "thug" when he/she is raised in a crappy environment, through poverty, without a father figure, and/or a young mother?

 

I'm surprised nuke isn't in favor of forcing all convicted felons, murderers, and sex offenders to have abortions because they are sick f***s and their offspring will probably become a "thug" too. He loves to talk about taking their rights away.

 

 

Whats this nonsense about taking people's rights away? If you mean taking away their "right" to be coddled by a weak justice system and their "right" to exploit loopholes in the law to dodge a conviction for criminal activity then yeah, Im all for it.

 

My biggest problem with abortion is its use as a last-ditch form of contraception. Im not an unreasonable person when it comes to this issue. I realize that it is sometimes necessary to save the life of the mother and I don't have any issues with the morning-after pill either but this business of killing a child because the parents dont want to raise it is sick and asinine and should be stopped.

[maggliopipe]

My former thesis advisor, Mark Noble, is a big shot in the stem cell field. I love this hypothetical question he poses to people who claim to value the lives of just-conceived blastocysts and fetuses as much as a real human life.

 

You are the only person around and a fertility clinic is on fire. There's a 1 year old baby and a freezer full of 10,000 fetuses. You can only save one or the other. Now of course if you value them equally, you're obligated to rescue the freezer full of 10,000 fetuses and let the living, breathing, screaming and bawling 1 year old burn to death. Is there seriously anyone who would actually save the freezer and let the child die?

[Balta1701]

Ah, what the heck. Way too many people are getting along here, so lets go ahead and lob a grenade into the lovefest.

Congratulations on a great success!

[Steff]

I can understand your position and could understand if a child was only going to be a vegetable then I would consider it. I only have problems where a woman decides to have an abortion just to have one to get rid of there mistake.

 

 

OK, I understand your position better now. And I do agree that abortion as birth control is stupid. Especially with so many other alternatives - besides not having sex.

 

By the way, what happened above is what happened to my step daughter. Her first pregnancy was interrupted, the second she had and for 5 agonizing weeks we watched little Joey die before our eyes. It was something I wouldn't wish on anyone.

 

Just try to understand that circumstances aren't always one way or the other.