Perhaps you should take up my suggestion of a further education course TK Sensei? You may then learn the difference between a cluster of cells and a 6 month old fetus. Worth a try I think.
You anti women's rights types really are not above any sort semantics to force women to give up their right to choose areyou?
Sad TK Sensei very sad. Do women frighten you?
As nothing positive is likely to come of our communicating, you'll have to expect I will not generally respond to your 'comments.' I will thank you, however, for not casting insults, accusations, or any implications my way. I'm sure you have plenty of 'discussions' to enjoy on the religion forum. You can play 'who are you?' over there to your heart's content.
TK Sensei - I was just trying to help. I see you attacking educated people all the time and suggest this may help with your inferiority complex. Personally - I see no shame in an educational lack, so I am on your side. Really.
LOL at the "nothing positive" from the troll I have never once seen say anything positive.
Second time: Please refrain from personal attacks.
I don't think making a factual statement would be considered a personal attack TK Sensei.
This entire thread is testament to the fact that you are here merely to cause fights. Good job by the way.
There sure is not a bit of a possibility that abortion will ever be made illegal, and I generally don't think it should be most days -- but when it becomes clear that the idea of basic moral behavior is somehow a belittling, constrictive way to live and teach your children, an opinion apparently held by many -- that the act and consequence of abortion is de-humanized to the extent reflected here and in the past in other forum topics -- then one realizes that the very legit and progressive atmosphere that led to the legalization of abortion is much changed -- and it is not the passage of Roe vs. Wade that should be overturned, but the amoral extremist voice and attitude of 21st century 'free love' and 'choice' and 'it's my body', etc... that makes a mockery of the 60's -- that should be overturned.
As we all know TK is a hostile, small-minded little character.
Really? Just to think that this person (whoever you are) was this "cluster of cells" long ago....
I'm conflicted. I feel a woman has the right to choose to end a pregnancy up to the point the umbilical cord is cut. But, I also believe a human being's life begins at conception. You don't have to call a person a thing to justify abortion. That mass of cells is a child in early development. But, a woman alone should have the right to say what goes in or comes out of her body. I feel strongly about both points.
I can see why you are conflicted. I am not sure I could hold those two views in the same head, and I think the current compromise of "viability" is a good one.
No one, woman or other-wise, has the "Right" to kill another, Mark.
And soon I believe America will correct the abomination of abortion, or as I call it, the genocide of the innocents.
What civilized people could possibly ignore the barbarism of such a thing.
Semantic nonsense. The fact that you are unable to grasp basic biology really is of no interest to me. Your total and utter lack of knowledge and understanding of history is not surprising either. Abortion was illegal for a time. Did not work out so well for you did it? Any more than prohibition did.
Still - when the Muslims you are so scared of take over - I suspect they will agree with you.
Must be conflicting for you.
Answer: civilized people in many countries around the world.
The same ones who support the massacre of Palestinians!
You question is an insult, not intended to lead to serious discussion. The incident had nothing to do with abortion. You are just being nasty and provocative as usual.
You honeslty don't see any connection? It is mentioned several times in the article.
Show us where. Quote it from the article, please.
The article stated that Mass is one of the 38 states that will prosecute the death of a fetus otherwise capable of sustaining life outside the womb. The key part here is capable of surviving on it's own outside the womb. A fetus six months along is capable of that.
This is not abortion as is argued upon all over the world, this is murder of a baby, a formed, functional, living baby who could have survived. An egg that is freshly fertilized and still attaching itself to the uterin wall is different.
I could not have an abortion, it is not the right choice for me. Howver I do feel that it is not the government's place to tell a woman what she must do with her body. We do not know what has transpired in her life to make her go there. I do not agree with it, but I believe in our country's freedoms and in our right to choose what is best for us.
Just to get the record straight - no. You obviously did not have a premie. I did. They can't even breath by themselves at that age.
I was born at 8 months, and could not have survived on my own...
I have had three premies...two at 32 weeks, one at 34.....there were babies in the nicu that hed been born at 29 weeks and one at 27......they had been there for the majority of their first year-one did ceebrate his first birthday there but they were alive.
Thank you Ron. There are so many things the skilled, caring people who run the NICUs can do for babies today that their chance of survival is so much greater today. Twins, especially tend to come as early as five months and still survive. Yes, they may need a machine's help until they can do it on their own, but they can 'survive' outside of the womb. That seems to be the real basis of this argument.
there's a difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice.
I read the article and while tragic, I'm not getting the connection with your title? what exactly are you asking?
Well, it seems that many of those who are fervently pro-abortion justify their support for something they would not otherwise support by denying the humanity of the unborn. The charges brought against the defendant referenced in the article certainly concern that question.
So basically you are attacking a woman's right to choose to abort a 12 week old fetus based on a not-yet-decided court case being bought involving an assault on a woman who was 6 months plus pregnant? And compare this to an early abortion?
You fascist, evangelical anti-women's right types really are getting more dishonest with every statement you make. Sad really. Perhaps you are right - education would not help. Sorry I suggested it. I apologize for doing so.
Total denial of reality - why can't you face facts?
Why are you embarrassed to acknowledge your past identities?
Why do you continue to make up terms like "pro-abortion" when you know there's no such thing? Sounds like something TK would do.
the article does not in any way state that the woman chose abortion. her fetus could not survive. but she did choose to follow this woman who kicked her unborn fetus!
a tragic account by all counts.
what kind of idiot kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach? talk about flagrant disregard for human life. that article has nothing to do with abortion though. anyone, pro or against, would understand that that was wrong and a horrible thing. i think i get what you're saying though, an unborn baby is an unborn baby and should be protected.
as far as the issue of abortion goes, i believe everyone should be entitled to any safe and legal medical procedure but then again if i think about it more, on the side of the unborn, i cringe. and another thing, everyone talks about 'the woman's right to choose'....what about the man? doesn't he factor into it at all? we assume men have no feelings for their unborn babies, which is wrong. being against abortion has nothing to do with religion. it's so easy to paint people with a giant brush of generalizations. i haven't seen SabOh attack anyone in this thread. in fact, Mark Knowles is the only one attacking and no one says anything because he is, after all, Mark Knowles...
and quit calling it "choice". have the guts to say 'yes i killed my unborn baby".
if a woman is mature enough, regardless of age or body weight (what that has to do with it is beyond me but anyway) to have sex, she should be mature enough to 'man up' and deal with the consequences of her behavior. if she wants to terminate her pregnancy, fine, but think about what you did and own it, instead of just shrugging your shoulders and going 'oh well, thank god that's over'.
DUH, if you don't know that having a man penetrate you and spill his semen inside gets you pregnant, what planet are you living on? have you not heard of condoms? saying no? coitus interruptus? SOMEthing?
once there's a heartbeat, you shouldn't do it. period.
okay, i'm confused.
first of all, LOL@PRO-abortion...thats absurd. no one is "pro-abortion" its called pro-choice. as in pro-let people live their own damn lives.
and what the EFF does this even have to do with abortion?
pretty much nothing you wrote (or usually write) makes any sort of logical sense to anyone with a brain....
so just make a thread called: i'm pro-make-laws-to-force-others-to-live-my-shitty-life.
i hate abortion.
that would make much more sense than making *non* connections between a divisive, controversial issue and a horrible story that has absolutely no correlation other than a woman's baby unfortunately dying...not due to abortion...not even close.
people like you make me sad for humanity.
"as in pro-let people live their own damn lives"
Certain actions let some people live their own damn lives by taking the lives of others.
All this effort to run from being 'pro-abortion' says a lot about exactly why this article is relevant to the topic.
Enhancing your previous attacks. A common tactic for those who can't defend a position.
Repeat until someone believes you.
"All this effort to run from being 'pro-abortion' says a lot about exactly why this article is relevant to the topic."
You mean all this effort to use non-prejudicial terminology is minimizing the foolishness in the discussion.
Mark calling you "Anti-women's rights" isn't any better than you calling choice advocates "pro-abortion."
"Pro-life" and "anti-choice" are different words, with different connotations, for the same folks. Same with "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion." The denotation is the same, the connotation is different. Well-chosen words have power, though.
Don't be too upset that you aren't winning a semantic game. Be a good sport about it.
are any pro-choicers oppposed to this?
then how on earth can you stand for the murder of little unborn babies?
does that make any sense to you?
that is just about how much sense your relation of your original article to abortion.
no. freaking. sense.
Of course supporters of pro-choice are opposed to it. To even suggest otherwise is silly and a bit immature.
There's quite a difference between abortion and aggravated manslaughter or murder, you know -- namely, the mother's intention. It's the mother who decides whether or not a fetus is a baby during the first 12 weeks of gestation, and that's defined by law. After those 12 weeks pass, then the law steps in and defines the fetus is a baby, for all intents and purposes.
And then there's the difference in age: most terminations occur in the first six weeks after conception. That's a big leap to say that six weeks is anything close to six months. If you need help understanding that, consider this: a six-week-old fetus can't survive outside of the womb no matter how hard you try; it's just not possible. A six <i>month</i> old fetus, however, <i>could</i> survive outside of the womb -- that's another factor, part of what makes it a baby.
And <i>then</i> there's the method of application: terminating a pregnancy is nothing like willfully and maliciously ripping an unborn six-month-old child from his mother's womb, while she's alive and conscious, and then gruesomly killing the mother. If I were sexually assaulted, and I became pregnant as a result of that rape, I wouldn't consider "having the fetus ripped out of my abdomen and then being stomped to death" as one of my potential options.
You cannot compare abortion to the heinous act of premeditated murder and infanticide. It's simply not the same thing.
And by the way, no, most pro-choicers don't support late-term abortions, and we certainly do not support premeditated murder. You should be able to draw that line yourself without a problem.
I'm pro-choice, and I'm against it. But that's probably because the events described in the article are not an abortion. Which is a medical procedure that happens in a clinic, typically only in the first trimester.
It's kind of like the difference between going to the dentist to have a root canal, and having a tooth knocked out in a car accident.
well I'm not pro-abortion, so of course I am appalled to read that article, that person should be thrown under the jail. If not worse. Awful.
Choose what to kill their baby, how about to choose not to have sex. Then they wouldn't have the inconvenience of a pregnancy. Abortion as a form of birth control is wrong, any way you look at it.
Fortunately - your ridiculous moral standards are no longer able to dictate what people do and women are free to choose an abortion if they wish.
How about you keep your nonsensical morals to yourself? Whatever way you look at it - spouting irrational religious nonsense is just plain wrong.
This has nothing to do with religion, MARK, There are plenty of women who love to have a baby but can't, yet there are woment out there who use abortion as a form of birth control. They think oh well if I get pregnant I'll just get an abortion. I mean really in it reckless behavior. If you can't live with the consequenses that go along with sex then you shouldn't be having sex.
Right. Nothing to do with religion. Just wrong - what do you propose again? Oh - abstinence. Sure - bound to work. Fantastic idea. Wonder why no one thought of it before.
"there are woment out there who use abortion as a form of birth control. They think oh well if I get pregnant I'll just get an abortion. I mean really in it reckless behavior"
Unfortunately, you are correct.
The incident has nothing to do with abortion, either.
Did you? Because abortion isn't mentioned.
Yes. I read the article. And it has nothing to do with abortion. Your topic is another example of your feeble, insulting efforts to make a point.
Of course abstinence works everytime. Problem is no self control. Not my problem or the babys, Whats wrong with having the baby and giving it up for adoption.
Or we could just be realistic? What say ye?
Love to. In reality I would love for someone to give me their baby. But their reality is, it is an inconvenient to be pregnant.
And your reality is =- they should not have sex? Now how about actual reality?
Whatever, Okay maybe your right I know of at least one woman who should have had an abortion.
There are other forms of birth control, its not just a choice of abortion or giving birth.
From your attacks on Sab Oh and anyone who doesn't fit into the little box you call right I can only conclude you are incapable of seeing any other point of view.
You really should expand your thought process.
Mark - we get to what the 'abortion' debate is really about. The same crowd of folks against abortion is against sex education - against contraception and would ban the 'morning-aftr' pill if they could. They want to control sexual behavour of women - and make second-class citizens of women who get pregnant out of wedlock. It's neanderthal and society isn't going there.
"They want to control sexual behavour of women - and make second-class citizens of women who get pregnant out of wedlock."
There may be some who think that way, but you are incorrect to generalize like that.
Instead of pretending to be able to read my mind, maybe we could focus on the topic of the thread and thereby avoid all the unnecessary personal attacks.
Passive aggressive attacks are still attacks TK Sensei. Please stop making personal attacks.
What was the subject of the thread again? You do not think women should be able to choose an abortion. Yes - you have made that clear. Well done.
Since the title of the thread is a personal attack. You once again have no leg to stand on. (my applogies if you actually have had your legs amputated)
In Sab's defense, it's more of a blanket insult than a personal attack. He wasn't singling anyone out; rather, the title implies that if someone is pro-choice, they are also pro-kicking-pregnant-women--against-the-women's-wishes-until-they-lose-the-baby-as-a-form-of-birth-control.
He didn't mean you specifically.
You haven't known him long enough. He has been banned so many times for such attacks, that he has had to change strategies, not intent.
He is attacking individuals in the forums who have called him on his previous BS.
Jeff, don't they have an insurance policy for that now? I forget which company, but I swear they have one...
The "pro-kicking-pregnant-women--against-the-women's-wishes-until-they-lose-the-baby-as-a-form-of-birth-control," policy.
"the title implies that if someone is pro-choice, they are also pro-kicking-pregnant-women--against-the-women's-wishes-until-they-lose-the-baby-as-a-form-of-birth-control. "
That is absolutely NOT the intended meaning of the title of this thread.
Yes, it was. Crafted to avoid a banning, but personal all the same.
Personal to whom?
I didn't take it personally and I'm pro choice.
I don't believe you. (don't take it personally)
Doug, don't make sweeping generalizations. Not everyone who opposes abortion is against sex ed and contraceptives! I generally oppose abortion, but I am all for contraceptives and sex ed.
Another point - abortion isn't ALWAYS about religion. I worked with an atheist who thought abortion was wrong.
I think abortions in the first trimester should be legal. Even though I hate it in principle, there are always extenuating circumstances. Late term abortions, on the other hand, are murder. When the fetus can feel pain and react to its surroundings, it's too late for an abortion. Just my two cents!
That's exactly how I feel! Habee, you couldn't have stated it better!
A good point, Habee. I did make a generalization, and it doesn't apply to ALL members of the pro-life camp. I thought about making the statement more nuanced, but it would have deprived the statement of the punch I wanted to deliver.
You won't find a bigger defender of freedom of religion tham I am. But I also believe in separation of church and state. A lot of the conservatives I 'punch' in the political forums I know from the religous forums. So there's ususally no doubt in my mind when they are promoting their religious superstitions on the political forums.
Just curious, Diane...
Have you had any babies yourself yet; and if you have, have you yet been the mother of a fourteen- or fifteen-year-old?
oh yeah when they turn fourteen I'm sure thats when you say I wish I had an abortion.
I noticed you didn't answer. No. What I discovered when my own daughter was that age, was that I couldn't believe how much I absolutely, absolutely, adored her; and if I imagined what I'd hope she'd do if she were to get pregnant, I was surprised to realize that (even though I'm generally opposed to abortion and definitely opposed to abortion past the first trimester) my first instinct was that I'd hope (IF it happened) she'd get an early abortion. I'd look at this little, 80-something-lb girl and think how I just couldn't imagine her going through a pregnancy.
well my mother was 15 when she got pregnant with me 90lbs and got through it just fine and raised me just fine.
Whether young teen girls get through it "just fine" or not isn't even really the issue. It's how it feels to worry about your own child having some of the problems associated with pregnancies in young teens. It's not just the physical consequences mothers think about when thinking about their own daughters giving birth that young.
Unfortunately, it did not work for Sarah Palin. She pushed abstinence on her children but her daughter still got pregnant. Of course abortion should not be used as birth control and it is not used that way in the vast majority of cases.
For the record, I am not "pro-abortion" I am pro a woman's right to choose. Personally, I doubt I would have chosen an abortion but that is not for me to decide for someone else.
The original story has nothing to do with abortion, it has everything to do with assault.
As someone who thinks first-trimester abortion should be the woman's choice, that story about a six-month fetus (baby) doesn't conflict at all with my stand on the issue. There are viable fetuses. Then there are fetuses who are fully formed but not viable. Then, too, there are fetuses that aren't even fully formed yet. There are embryos. 90% of abortions are performed before 10 weeks. So, a lot of Pro Choice people are pretty much in a similar boat, thinking-wise, as I am. I think that addresses the question of the six-month, viable, fetus and the manslaughter charge.
UW you never cease to amaze me
You just spoke my thoughts only in a much more articulate way
"For the record, I am not "pro-abortion" I am pro a woman's right to choose"
Isn't that really just semantics? I mean, you are not talking about her right to choose what to eat for lunch.
"Personally, I doubt I would have chosen an abortion but that is not for me to decide for someone else. "
And I doubt you would drive drunk. Is it not for you to decide if your neighbor should?
There's a difference: a neighbor driving drunk can kill you, me, and any random stranger on the street.
You're right, a drunk driver might kill someone but an abortion is certain to kill someone.
You're wrong again ( I have just programmed my laptop to give this as an auto resonse to all of your posts)
No one dies during an abortion procedure unless there is a complication. The procedure sometimes actually saves a life.
Here again we see just how the article is in fact related to the abortion debate. The fact that many among the pro-abortion crowd cannot seem to support their position without denying completely the humanity of the unborn child is what led me to wonder if they would support the charges brought against the assailant in this case. It seems that if pro-abortionists really do deny the humanity of the unborn that they would find those charges without merit. I recognize that many have a less than categorical view of the matter, but it seems to me that the fact that many pro-abortionists cannot support their position without completely denying the humanity of the unborn suggests they understand on some level that their position is morally insupportable but are so driven by political ideology that they are willing to engage in the kind of distortion and denial that has historical precedent I will not mention here because I know it might offend some.
Does it really?
Seriously, though, what about girls who are raped or victims of incest? What about girls in abusive relationships - it is more common than you think for abusers to deliberately get their wives/girlfriends pregnant (often by sabotage) and then force them to get an abortion. It's all about power and control for these men - they don't give a **** about the baby.
As a side note: While it is understandable that people will have different opinions on the general topic and perhaps even this specific story, I'm sure we can discuss it without personal insults if we all try. Strongly held opinions and even strong emotions do not necessarily have to equate to hurling insults at each other.
I don't mean about the remark to Mark above. I just mean as far as your stand on the matters goes.... Sometimes how people believe changes after they've had a baby themselves or once they have experienced having a teen daughter.
No I have not had a baby and likely will not have a baby , nevertheless my views wouldn't change.
You're probably right that they won't.
In answer to the what's wrong with adoption question - I know how I felt about the two babies I had myself (a third was adopted), and there's no way I'd wish giving-away one's baby on anyone, especially some young girl who didn't think, "if anything happens I'll just get an abortion", but who more likely thought, "It won't happen to me."
With my son (the adopted one) being over 30 years, I'm a big fan of being an adoptive mother. As someone who has given birth to two others I just wouldn't wish that on anyone. Who can have babies and who ends up with an unwanted pregnancy may seem unfair to all involved, but they're two separate things and the people involved have nothing to do with each other.
As someone who had a 20-week miscarriage; as awful as that loss was to me, I never would have expected some 17-year-old girl to go through an unwanted pregnancy just so I could have the baby I didn't get to have at the time.
My parents also adopted one more baby after three of their own. And It won't happen to me is not an excuse, sorry. I am sorry about your miscarriage, I know that must have been a terrible loss. But thats what I find strange in your response. My mother had a miscarriage when I was about three years old and she saw the product of the miscarriage which was only about 8 weeks along and she said " I don't know how anybody could have an abortion if they saw that because it already looked like my baby. It was very disturbing to her. I'm sorry, I just don't agree with it.
(My miscarriage was ages ago, but thanks ).
I, myself, would not have an abortion. If I could have my way, and if the world could be the way I'd like it to be, there would be no abortions. I'm no big fan of abortions, and as I said, I'm against any abortions beyond the first trimester.
Ideally, nobody would risk an unwanted pregnancy. That gets back to people (especially young ones, whose brains don't even finish maturing until early- to mid- twenties, and who are using the judgment of an "unfinished" brain) thinking "it won't happen to me". A lot of people don't/can't really believe they're risking an unwanted pregnancy. A lot of teens aren't great at self-control because they're teens. Also, I had a friend who was in a serious relationship (after going through losing her brother and a friend). She was 24 and thought, "if anything happens we're getting married anyway". Well, surprise! The boyfriend changed his mind about getting married.
Am I comfortable with the idea of abortions? No. Still, sometimes I think it can be more merciful to end a life in the first trimester than to let a baby be born to a mother who isn't ready to be a mother. I mean... I had maternal instincts toward my unborn babies (all three of them) right from the beginning. I know, though, that how I felt about there was a big difference between even that 20-week fetus and my 34-week premie son. Sometimes I just think there are worse things in the world for a child than to stop it from growing beyond the first trimester.
When you have young kids, you're always hoping they "won't do something stupid" (like risking a pregnancy) because you KNOW most young kids do one or another stupid thing at one time or another. Now that I know that absolute horror of imagining my own "baby" (at 14 or 15, which only a few years past being 10) possibly "bringing home a baby", I feel like I have a lot more understanding of the "stupid stuff kids do" and can't help but think that, if early enough, sometimes abortion is the better choice for the girl and the baby.
I think "it won't happen to me" may not be an "excuse", but I think it's only realistic and fair to recognize that that kind of thinking can come from a person's brain development, which isn't something they can change until their brain is finished maturing.
Are you sure it was only 8 weeks? I had a miscarriage at 8 weeks, too, and am kind of amazed she was able to see anything. The fetus is only 1/2 to 3/4 inch long at that point, and in my case it was mixed up with several cups worth of bloody goop. I looked, but it was like looking for a needle in a particularly gory haystack. Not even the doctor found it when he inspected the tissues.
"there's no way I'd wish giving-away one's baby on anyone"
...but you're ok with...
How about without inflamatory statements and multiple punctuation marks. It isn't just personal statements that lower the tone and make reasoned argument impossible. Saying "???" after a quite is just an implied personal attack with no real argument attached.
" Saying "???" after a quite (sic) is just an implied personal attack"
NO, it is not. It is an indication of confusion over what has been said and a suggestion that further clarification would be helpful.
Here in Australia, we pay women to have babies.
Thousands of dollars!
Nine months later, Plasma TV sales went through the roof.
Of course, we pay the mothers to look after them after they are born.
It's OK. They can have as many as they want.
The more babies, the more benefits.
Social welfare is a wonderful thing.
To attack a person pregnant and not pregnant is just insanity, what has abortion got to do with this, involuntary expulsion of baby due to violence not induced abortion --
STOP Violence and stay CALM always
Did I get this story completely wrong?
The pregnant woman was attacked and kicked by another woman. The fetus aborted because of the attack, not because the mother didn't want the fetus, from what I read.
This story is about a homicide, not an abortion.
There is no abortion issue here.
That said, I'm not pro-life. They murder abortionists. And I'm not really pro-choice. In some cases, there is evidence of murder, too. Each situation where pregnancy is involved needs to be carefully considered by the mother carrying the child, as to what is best for herself and her baby. Few, if any, are qualified to judge, with the exception of clear, homicidal intentions, which should be provable by law, not be people's twisted judgments.
"That said, I'm not pro-life. They murder abortionists."
They do? All of them? Most of them? A majority of them? Half of them? Or just a tiny minority of crazed radicals who are rejected and despised by the vast, vast majority because it is illegal and entirely in opposition to the very point of being pro-life?
So - now you know what the vast, vast majority of anti-women's rights campaigners think?
I would say "more than enough" of them murder doctors. Disgusting really.
Very astute. The very same logic can also be applied to pro-choicers. Are the girls/women who were raped and chose to abort, murderers? All of them? Same with all the other categories of women who choose to have abortions. Be careful about this. It applies on both sides.
Eh, a large number of pretty mainstream figures in the anti-abortion movement chose to behave in ways that made them complicit to one degree or another in George Tiller's death, and in the hundreds of other assaults, attempted assassinations, kidnappings, and other attacks on abortion providers since the 70's.
Tiller's home address, the full names of his family members, and the names and addresses of business and individuals he and his staff patronized were posted online.
So were pictures of his children and the names of their schools.
So was his daily schedule, including the fact that he attended services weekly at Reformation Lutheran Church, where he was eventually shot and killed.
It was the second time he'd been shot. He'd also survived the bombing of his clinic. He and his staff had to wear bulletproof vests to work, and travel in armored cars.
Tiller's murder was not the work of one crazy man, it was the logical result of a longtime campaign of harassment and intimidation against abortion providers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … tor-murder
"Tiller's murder was not the work of one crazy man, it was the logical result of a longtime campaign of harassment and intimidation against abortion providers."
Very good point. Various religious anti-abortion fanatics are complicit in Tiller's murder as a result of their inflamatory rhetoric--"Baby killing. Infanticide. Murdering children, etc."
Thanks for this info. I was only partially aware. I will never understand how in these cases "good Christians" (in most cases they proclaim their Christian faith) can with any conscience at all justify murder for any reason. Two wrongs don't make a right.
That's my point in neither being supportive of pro-life or pro-choice. I think the matter is very delicate and should be addressed by individuals involved with a lot of soul-searching in order to make a decision that is going to best for mother and her baby. This territory is not unfamiliar to me. I've seen the struggles of a couple of family members in trying to come to terms with what it means to keep a baby, give it up for adoption, and consider abortion. It's life-changing and devastating in these cases. Why do I or anyone else need to be judge and jury for such people when we know so little of any relevant facts?
That's pretty much my feelings on the matter, too. I am personally pro-life, but politically pro-choice. I've seen first hand the emotional and physical havoc wrecked by unwanted pregnancies, regardless of the eventual outcome, and I don't think I or anyone else has the right to judge women or their partners for decisions made under difficult and often heartbreaking circumstances, let alone call in the government to make the decision for them. Also, I'm acutely aware that making abortion illegal does not mean abortions will stop happening. It only means they'll stop being safe.
"Tiller's murder was not the work of one crazy man"
Yes it was.
"This story is about a homicide, not an abortion."
And what does the word "homocide" mean?
First, nobody's* pro-abortion. The pro-choice crowd want abortion to be legal, safe, and above all, rare.
Second, of course, everybody who cares about an individual's rights is against assault and battery. I'm against assault and battery, manslaughter, reckless endangerment, homicide, murder, etc. I hope the assailant gets put away for a very long time.
Third, why do you assume that someone who is pro-choice will necessarily think it's okay to kick a pregnant woman in the stomach? That's a pretty weak strawman, and quite frankly, insulting.
And fourth, do you support criminal charges (contributing to the delinquency of a minor comes to mind, but there could be others) for a pregnant woman who smokes a cigarette or drinks a glass of champagne? Rides a roller coaster? Goes scuba-diving? Because that's the logical legal repercussions of declaring a fetus legally to be a child: anything known to contribute to birth defects or possibly cause a miscarriage equals child abuse. If they involve substances that kids aren't allowed to have, it's also contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Are you comfortable with that? 'Cos I'm not.
*Okay, there's probably some folks out there who think abortion is just fine and should be as routine as a nose-job, but they're jerks.
"why do you assume that someone who is pro-choice will necessarily think it's okay to kick a pregnant woman in the stomach? "
Where did I say that I assumed that?
"Where did I say that I assumed that?"
Unless you're being deliberately disingenuous, you will have to admit that
"Are any of the pro-abortion types even opposed to THIS?"
implies an assumption that "pro-abortion types" approve of kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach.
NO, perhaps you did not read the article well?
You keep accusing people of that, but you have yet to give any reason why a six month pregnant woman losing her baby as a result of getting beaten up by her boyfriend's cousin has anything to do with abortion.
In retrospect, it was obviously stupid of the mother to follow her attacker, but we don't know the full circumstances, so I don't think we have any right to judge her for that at this point. Maybe she was genuinely hoping she would be able to make up with the other woman.
Regardless, it's fairly common legally to charge manslaughter or similar in cases like this where deliberate harm to a medically viable fetus is involved. If you're trying to make some point about late term abortions, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that late term abortions make up less than 1% of all abortions, and are performed only in extreme circumstances. (Not least because there's only a handful of providers nationwide and women may have to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to get one.) Most late term abortions are performed because the fetus is not viable and never will be, thanks to anencephaly or similar conditions. By definition, that has nothing to do with the death of a viable fetus.
I am beginning to wonder if you did--because I am interpreting it the same way as everyone else here but you. Logical conclusion: we are all wrong and you are right?
"of course, everybody who cares about an individual's rights is against assault and battery. "
All individuals, or just certain ones?
"All individuals, or just certain ones?"
Persons. All of them.
If you declare a fetus to be a person, you open up a whole can of legal worms, which I note that you've not yet addressed.
Well there we go. And here we see how this story is related to the issue of abortion, right?
So, do you disagree with the charges brought against the woman in the article?
"do you disagree with the charges brought against the woman in the article?"
Oh, is that what you were trying to ask? The title of the thread was pretty unclear. It looked like you were asking if pro-lifers were opposed to kicking fetuses to death through their mothers' bellies.
Do I disagree with the charges? That's a very good question, and the honest answer is I'm not sure. I really think a statute is the way to deal with this issue, rather then letting legal precedent (a messy process) do the job.
This hypothetical statute should spell out exactly when a fetus crosses the line from legal fetus to legal person, and when elective abortions will be prohibited. I think that to save the life of the mother, c-section is infinitely better than abortion in cases where the fetus is viable, but I'm sure there have been cases where that was impossible.
When does attacking a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage become murder? What if the attacker didn't know the woman was pregnant? What if the woman didn't realize she was pregnant yet? First trimester, second trimester, third trimester: when does causing a miscarriage become a separate crime from the assault on the woman? What do you call it? Murder? If so, what degree? Manslaughter? Negligent homicide? What if a miscarriage happens after the accused merely scared or stressed out the expectant mother, a-la Pacific Heights?
This response may seem cold, and that's deliberate. I'm trying to think legally, and trying not to allow emotion to color my judgment.
"This hypothetical statute should spell out exactly when a fetus crosses the line from legal fetus to legal person"
Is it possible to make any such distinction with certainty, or would it come down to an arbitrary choice?
"Is it possible to make any such distinction with certainty, or would it come down to an arbitrary choice?"
This is a good question, and as far as I can guess, it would have to be an arbitrary choice. Medicine is not an exact science. One fetus might be viable at six months, another at five, another not viable until seven and a half.
It's analogous to the drinking age, driving age, voting age, etc.
We're considered too young to drive when we're 15, but we magically become mature at 16 (when some of us are nowhere near ready for the responsibility). We can't vote until 18, and we can't rent a car (in most states) until we're 21, when, incidentally, we're also allowed to drink alcohol.
Fair? Yes, in that these laws treat everyone the same, regardless of who they are.
Just? No, in that responsible folks who are younger than the arbitrary age limit are disallowed a freedom (and responsibility) they can handle, and in that irresponsible folks who have met the arbitrary age requirement get to do stuff they shouldn't be doing.
But we supposed to be a nation governed by laws, not men. We've sacrificed a certain level of flexibility in order to ensure that folks with connections to power don't get special treatment. (It doesn't work perfectly, but it's better than having to bribe someone to get your driver's license.)
Exactly. There's already a certain amount of arbitrariness built into the system. The youngest surviving preemie to date was born at 21 weeks, 6 days, but most doctors will not even attempt to save a baby born earlier than 24 weeks, and even at that stage, parents and doctors are looking at months of intensive care and a a substantial risk of lifelong medical problems as a result of the premature birth.
"as far as I can guess, it would have to be an arbitrary choice. "
So you are willing to err on the side of killing an innocent human being?
I'm willing to err on the side of not forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term.
I'm sure a woman is a person with rights. I'm not sure when a fetus becomes a person with rights. It's probably sometime around the beginning of the 3rd trimester, but it's not the same for all feti, just as all children do not magically become responsible adults at 16, 18, or 21.
I'm also sure I don't want to bust a 3-weeks pregnant woman for abuse, endangerment or contributing to the delinquency of a minor for taking part in a champagne toast.
"I'm willing to err on the side of not forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term."
Right. You would rather give that side the benefit of the doubt even if it means killing the most innocent, vulnerable human being. Is that an accurate representation of your point of view?
"Is that an accurate representation of your point of view?" That's exactly how you'd characterize it to win debates on an emotional, not a rational, basis.
Kind of like your opponents might characterize your position as, "When a woman becomes pregnant she loses all rights of self-determination and essentially becomes a living incubator with no rights of her own."
The difference is that you have admitted many times now that you would be willing to err on the side of killing an innocent human being but I have not advocated for the restriction of a woman's activity beyond what society already accepts in restricting the 'right' of one person to kill another as exemplified in the article.
Except that's not even a little bit what happened. You're entitled to your own opinion, but stop making up facts.
Clearly, I'm rassling with the proberpial pig here.
Jeff, I don't necessarily think it has to turn into that legal can of worms. Your post has actually "inspired" a Hub - thanks.
Sab Oh, wording your thread differently, and in a way that didn't appear to be about "abortion types", rather than about the manslaughter/can-of-worms aspect, would have brought the discussion to the real issue a lot of sooner.
Hey, great! Let me know when it's published, eh?
Certain people were more prepared to be defensive and hostile than anything else and reacted accordingly instead of reading carefully.
Yes - reading carefully I see what you mean. Not intending to be provocative at all are you?
Did u lern wot the difference is yet?
Or, certain people were more interested in provoking an emotional reaction than starting a reasoned debate, and acted accordingly instead of writing clearly.
Yes, it's me. Friends kept bugging me to do it. It's temporary.
Stop hitting on Daniel as if he were a piece of meat!
Habee - off topic - I saw a little of Anderson Cooper tonight, he said the 65 yard rule had been lifted by the coast guard.
The comparison of legal abortion to this is laughable and sad at the same time. In no way am I "Rah, rah, abortion," there is a thick line between this extremist analogy to pro-choicers. Hilarious.
My opinion: men should not discuss abortion, it's none of their business! They cannot feel what a woman feels, when she is pregnant, and when she is pregnant and knows that she HAS TO TERNINATE IT! And in some countries the abortion is indeed a form of contraception, and I came from one of those. Yes, it is a murder in a way. But do we have a choice? Sometimes we don't. We are not cats and cannot reproduce indefinitely. If society cannot protect us,women, from that, who can? To cry for abstinence is stupid. What age do we live in? It's the same if you say: if you don't eat, you are not going to have a diarrhea! And believe me, woman usually feels it like a murder, you don't have to tell her that. At least I did.
Some good points, but I have to disagree with your first statement here. Where did the baby come from in the first place?
Does society have to swing all the way to the opposite extreme - first women have zero say, but then if women get any kind of rights then men have no say? That's not justice, and it's not fair.
The problem with what you said is with the context. Yes, a man contributed to the making of a baby, once it has reached that stage, which isn't for many months away. Before hand, it remains the right of the woman to do what is in her best interest for the future and not at that particular moment in time. The responsibility for children is quite a bit and should be approached by those who are adult in mind, not children and not those who are raped.
Abortion is always to remain with the woman, beyond all others. It is her life and abortion is an option. As for the argument of those who use abortion as a contraception is absurd and extreme thinking, almost borderline paranoid(if any do do it, then it would be the lowest statistic ever accumulated for anything).
The topic itself- should not be an ISSUE to begin with. It infringes upon the rights of a individual, and their right to life and right of choice.
As for the argument from the religious side, it's just ignorance and the oppression of people to bend to the will of some god or another(which is based on ignorance in and of itself).
All arguments created about this topic is so people can feel better about themselves, so as to give off the appearance of caring for others, when it's a direct violations of human rights. Hence, for it to be legal and an option, in America.
Other Countries laws, are irrelevant, to my view in America's society.
That's my thoughts on the abortion in general. I did not bother to read the link or go to it, instead I read the thread, which was enough. I did write a hub on abortion being a non-issue, if anyone is interested.
Have a great day.
"Abortion is always to remain with the woman, beyond all others. It is her life and abortion is an option."
It is not ONLY her life. That's the whole point. We're not talking about whether orn not suicide should be legal.
"The topic itself- should not be an ISSUE to begin with. It infringes upon the rights of a individual, and their right to life and right of choice."
Nothing infringes upon the rights of an individual more than taking aeay his or her life.
" I did not bother to read the link or go to it"
Maybe you should. Then you would know what people are talking about.
Nothing to do with abortion TK Sensei. But - great fight. Well done. Troll? Oh yes. Force women to do what you think?
Please do not attack me again. Thanks.
So what should be the penalty for a pregnant woman who commits suicide?
Actually, you are giving too much value to the unborn versus the value of the woman. It's nothing to do with suicide, but then again, even the law against suicide is dysfunctional, if you actually think about it. What is the government going to do with those who commit suicide?? Cannot charge them. Get real.
Actually, I do not need to know about your OP and it's discussion, because it's a non-issue, yet you cannot seem to find your way out of other people's life.
"Actually, you are giving too much value to the unborn "
Context, please, Sab. Selective quotes are beneath you. Or ought to be...
The shocking inhumanity of a statement like "Actually, you are giving too much value to the unborn " is unbelievable to me.
I thought that was pretty clear.
"Abortion is always to remain with the woman, beyond all others. It is her life and abortion is an option. As for the argument of those who use abortion as a contraception is absurd and extreme thinking, almost borderline paranoid(if any do do it, then it would be the lowest statistic ever accumulated for anything).
The topic itself- should not be an ISSUE to begin with. It infringes upon the rights of a individual, and their right to life and right of choice."
You are forgetting that there is always more than one individual involved.
And more women use abortion as a form of birth control than you might believe.
It's not about the rights. It's about unability to understand, unability to feel it. A man cannot think and feel like a pregnant woman, so he should not interfere unless she asks him to do that. Killing the doctors, it's so ridiculous, so Middle Ages, abominable.
That's irrational. Women can't know how it 'feels' to get kicked in the nuts, so if a man takes a shot to the nuts and then goes on a killing spree women should have no say in holding him accountable? Nonsense. You can think of a million such silly examples. "Oh, you're not X so you can't have a say in something that affects society as a whole" makes no sense and cannot be the basis of a socety of laws.
"My opinion: men should not discuss abortion, it's none of their business!"
It's everyone's business. It's the business of human life.
No it is not. It may become that in the future, but right now, it is not.
Of course it is. Anything that involves actions that take the lives of citizens is the business of everyone in that society.
But what if the forced birthing of children in to poverty increases the levels of murders?
It has already been statistically proven that abortion vastly reduces levels of crime in any society.
Therefore wouldn;t it be the right of the parents to hold of an childbirth until they are ready to support the child?
"and when she is pregnant and knows that she HAS TO TERNINATE IT!"
Has to? or Chooses to?
" But do we have a choice? Sometimes we don't. "
Of course you do. What's all this talk about "choice" then?
Again...how do you force a woman to carry a baby to full term if she does not want to? Therefore, it is the woman's choice and the woman's choice alone.
Well, I guess you can't 'force' a woman to feed her young child so that is just "the woman's choice and the woman's choice alone"?
Again, I think we can all agree that a woman is a person with rights. We can likewise agree that a baby is a person with rights.
Where the controversy comes in is that some of us do not agree on when a fetus becomes a person with rights. You're saying that you're sure it happens at the moment of conception, and that the fetus's rights trump the woman's.
I'm saying that I'm not sure that the ten-second fetus (or the two week fetus, or the six week fetus) is a person with rights, and therefore, the woman (who we all are sure is a person with rights), trumps the fetus.
The question becomes murkier when the fetus becomes capable of surviving outside the womb, and medical advances are making this earlier and earlier. That's why I think an arbitrary, but fair, statutory line needs to be drawn, probably somewhere around the beginning of the third trimester, so that legally we'll know what is or isn't permitted. Morally is another matter, and that's up to the individuals concerned. (The ones that we're sure are people with rights, that is.)
"Where the controversy comes in is that some of us do not agree on when a fetus becomes a person with rights."
And are therefore willing to err on the side of killing the most innocent and vulnerable human beings. I cannot fathom how you can live with that "maybe" in the equation.
"You're saying that you're sure it happens at the moment of conception"
I'm saying since we can't be sure there is only one reasonable place to give the benefit of the doubt.
"and that the fetus's rights trump the woman's"
This again comes back to the same question. You wouldn't describe a mother's 'rights' as being trumped when holding her responsible for not killing her newborn.
"I'm saying since we can't be sure there is only one reasonable place to give the benefit of the doubt."
And I'm saying that since we can be sure that the woman is a person with rights, and we can't be sure that the fetus is, the one we can be sure about wins.
"You wouldn't describe a mother's 'rights' as being trumped when holding her responsible for not killing her newborn." That's because we're sure that both individuals in that scenario are people with rights.
Again it comes back to the fact that you are willing to err on the side of killing the most innocent and vulnerable of human beings.
I'm willing to err on the side of upholding the rights of known persons rather than those of hypothetical ones.
You care more about hypothetical persons than about known persons, apparently.
You seem to be avoiding the aspect that only one side of the equation involves terminating a human life.
Actually, niether side does. Abortions do sometimes SAVE the life of the mother. Legal abortions NEVER terminate a human life no matter how many times you repeat the lie.
I have recognized that you deny the humanity of the unborn child (and understand why), but your political need to say so does not make it so no matter how many times YOU repeat YOUR OPINION, so maybe we could dispense with the "lie" business.
Lies are when someone intentionally makes false statements. You lie when you label collections of cells - medical, not political definition - as unborn children.
You are lying - that's a fact.
You falsely claim to understand my reasoning and motivation - that's your misguided opinion.
See the difference TK?
Your opinion about when life begins is just that (and it seems clear to me why a certain political point of view 'requires' just such an opinion) and insisting upon calling it "fact" won't make it so. I recognize that you have a different set of beliefs, but what you are talking about isn't "fact" and therefore talk of "lies" is disingenuous.
More confusion on your part. Medically established facts are not beliefs. Your faith that repeating lies will magically change them into truth is a belief.
See the difference TK?
I agree with you totally! You are right, and Ron and Mark are wrong. Calling a human being a mass of cells is a cop out for people that don't want to face the responsibility of killing another human being. Don't dehumanize a child with science or any other high minded excuse regardless of the point of the development of that child! Again I need to ask: Would that mass of cells in a womans body turn out to be anything other than a haman child?
But...My opinion is that a woman has a right to end that childs life at any point that child is still in her body. Her right does supercede the right of the HUMAN BEING inside her body.
What is a haman child? You think that an abortion right up to the point of birth is ok? Your thoughts are incredibly inconsistent.
I'm on your side! Don't ridicule me so fast. I agree, I'm inconsistant on this topic of abortion. It doesn't really matter since it's none of my business. But, I think I explained the reason for my inconsistancy.
I think, no one has a right to tell a another person they have to have a child. That is as close to rape as you can get.
I recognize that you are being honest if, in my opinion, shockingly immoral.
But, you are entitled to your opinion.
Yeah, not being praised for killing another human being whose only crime is existing (most often as the result of choices by the would-be terminator) is exactly like slavery...
If I agreed that a fetus was already a full human being, you'd have a point. I don't, so I don't agree with you.
From my perspective, pro-life means a woman becomes a walking incubator, with no will of her own, for 9 months. The free will of a woman, a fully-formed human being that can survive on her own, trumps that of a fetus which can not.
I don't expect you to agree with me, but that's the way I see it. Berating me won't make me change my mind.
It seems you need to end, or win every point in this debate. Do you feel your last reply to my comment was well thought out! This is an important debate that should have everyone focusing on the best points they can contribute to the discussion. My point was anyone that forces their will on another person is violating that person. Just because that person is capable of reproducing, they shouldn't be treated like livestock.
"If I agreed that a fetus was already a full human being, you'd have a point. I don't, so I don't agree with you."
I recognize that you don't agree. Could you tell me the exact moment that a human being comes into being for you? Exactly?
"From my perspective, pro-life means a woman becomes a walking incubator, with no will of her own, for 9 months. "
Is the mother of a newborn a 'slave' with no will of her own?
"I don't expect you to agree with me, but that's the way I see it. Berating me won't make me change my mind."
I haven't berated you or anyone else. I have been trying to have a discussion and I have been trying hard to avoid the usual name calling and such despite the fact that some people have gotten angry and defensive just because they disagree with me.
My thoughts are in line with several other commenters' here: at the point the fetus becomes a baby, or that it's capable of living on its own outside its mother. It seems that's about 7-8 months.
The mother of a newborn is caring for a human being. This gets back to where your definition of personhood begins. I doubt we'll agree on this.
Finally, I said "berate" and not "insult." You do know the difference, right?
Why do you keep replying to your own posts?
That's kind of creepy.
"My thoughts are in line with several other commenters' here: at the point the fetus becomes a baby, or that it's capable of living on its own outside its mother. It seems that's about 7-8 months."
I'm sorry, but I asked you for an exact moment. Could you be much, much, much more specific?
Because on this one point; he is right. Life begins the minute the human sperm enters the human egg. However, in my opinion, a woman does not have to argue the point. I feel, as long as that human being is in her body; it is her choice to end or deliver that child.
My question was more about his insistence that I answer his question to his satisfaction. He will tend to berate until he drives all dissent out of the forum.
That's why I have to say on that one point; he is right. To me, he seems to dodge more points of debate than he addresses. A useful tactic used alot during the Bush years. Some people have caught on that it's getting old.
Not to unnecessarily fine-tune this, but there is a difference between life and personhood. I see them as different things, he sees them as the same thing.
So do I. I understand the need to dehumanize a baby for legal purposes. Don't expect everyone to go along with that elusion. It not a reasonable expectation.
Thats what they do Sab... lies to support abortion... lies to support evolution... lies to support their progressive agendas, etc, etc, etc...
yes, those are fine examples of lies, which means the .000001 % of the population that agrees with your homophobic, racist, intollerant, TKish view of the world are the only ones telling the truth.
Congratulations, you two should build a shack in Montana and begin your quest to build a new society of freaks.
Why?! Don't you suppose that's an important factor in this discussion, given that you admit that at some point even most pro-abortionists recognize that a human baby is involved?
Yes, and I answered that question for you. I said when it is viable outside its mother's womb on its own, then it is an unborn baby and no longer a fetus. Again, this is my opinion. You apparently think an embryo is a baby, and the fact that it can not survive on its own is meaningless in this case. We disagree.
"My question was more about his insistence that I answer his question to his satisfaction. He will tend to berate until he drives all dissent out of the forum"
Why do you choose to see discussion as "berating"?
"yes, those are fine examples of lies, which means the .000001 % of the population that agrees with your homophobic, racist, intollerant view of the world are the only ones telling the truth.
Congratulations, you two should build a shack in Montana and begin your quest to build a new society of freaks."
Why can't you express your views without the insults and name-calling? Is it really too much to ask?
Like say little babies and kids who get killed as collateral damage in a "war"? Or a genocide...which ever you prefer.
It's just incredible, I am sure you will agree at the actual joy in debating abortions. I often wonder how many understand this experience personally, including the men.
Anyways my point, sure to be repetitive, the OP's link to a news article is about abuse and not at all regarding abortion. How long will this thread continue to thrive on abortion? Shall be interesting,
Just an opinion, not at any one person but it's all of us.
So do all people who hold the pro-choice position also stand for partial birth abortion. And for those of you who do not know what that is, it is when a baby is carried full term and all of the body is delivered except for the head and then a needle is inserted in the base of the skull and the brains are sucked out. Thereby killing the baby before the head is delivered. I suppose that is okay too. I mean it is not alive yet if it hasn't drawn a breath right.
Most people do know what partial birth abortion is, and, no, ALL of the pro-choice people don't think any differently than a lot of anti-abortion people do when it comes to partial-birth abortion.
Partial birth abortion is a political term, medically speaking there is no such thing. You are following TK's example of mislabeling in an attempt to stir emotions and dismiss reason.
Not an admirable trait.
Yes I'm afraid there is such thing as partial birth abortion, It is just unlawful at this time in the U.S. That doesn't mean there is no such thing. It does however happen in other parts of the world. Admirable? Okay I don't admire certain traits as well shall I list them.
In a generalized form, Lisa would be correct, both sides are successful in admitting their position is the way it should be, regardless.
However, being pro-choice only puts the appearance of pro-abortion, because the opposition paints it to look that way.
Pro-abortion and Pro-choice are clearly two distinctive things. The ideology behind both are different
Pro-choice is fought on an individual level- right to life and right to choose.
Pro-abortion is fought on a business level- right to perform the procedure or service to the community of citizens.
That's where the translation gets lost and how the agendas of some people are manipulated.
Just my thoughts.
"Pro-choice is fought on an individual level"
Leaving out an important individual...
Who may or may not be a person with rights, as opposed to the other people, who we are sure are people with rights.
And you admit you don't know but are willing to accept that you 'may' be supporting the killing of innocent human beings.
Zygotes and un-viable fetuses aren't yet human beings and certainly not babies or children as the fanatics claim in their inflammatory propaganda.
I can't know that zygotes aren't babies or children? Yes I can.
"I can't know that zygotes aren't human? Yes I can."
NO, you cannot.
Sab Oh - We all support your right to an opinion - no matter how much it's based in your own superstition. None of us will make you get an abortion.
We oppose your efforts to IMPOSE that opinion all all of us in the form of legislation which makes wee clusters of cells - 'people' - with more rights than the woman who would be required to carry that cluster of cells until it IS a person.
No one is arguing FOR abortion. Some of us are arguing that there may be cirucmstances which make an elective abortion preferable to delivering a child. The woman who faces those circumstances is the most qualified to decide - not the state. Not your superstition.
Rarely - 1% of abortions are performed after the 20th week. (The age a fetus is considered 'viable' is 24 weeks.) So over 99 % of pregnancies happen before the fetus is 'viable'. Generally, the other 1% are for medical reasons - either the fetus is deemed unhealthy or pregnancy to term would endanger the life of the mother. In those cases, the decison is between the doctor and the woman - and again it should not be the state or your superstition that controls.
Nothing like a few facts to move the discussion along in a constructive fashion.
"We all support your right to an opinion - no matter how much it's based in your own superstition."
"No one is arguing FOR abortion."
Maybe you haven't read all the responses.
No he can't, Infinity, nyah nyah nyah.
There, I saved Sab the effort of typing his next response
Why are some people so damned preoccupied with other people's extremely private decisions about whether to carry a pregnancy to term?
If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one.
If you're really so "pro-life" then tell me how many foster kids you have. Or how many orphans with special needs have you adopted? Or what kind of emotional or financial assistance have you offered to women -- even one woman -- who became pregnant not by choice?
I rest my case.
Devils advocate for a minute.
Except in very few circumstances women become pregnant by choice.
They may not have planned it but they knew it could happen.
Be responsible and insist on your partner wearing a condom, it could save two lives.
Jim, I can't speak for other women, but I can speak for myself (and I can't be the only one).
Before I had the first pregnancy I couldn't even "mentally digest" the reality beyond just kind of thinking in "intellectual terms". Even in early pregnancy, it seemed almost like it was "just a word" (even if there was some sickness that would indicate it was more than "just a word").
Later, when I was expecting my other children, I'd still kind of think of the whole thing "in intellectual terms", even when I'd feel the baby move. It wasn't until I actually saw the baby - all born (and not just in an ultrasound picture) that I actually "mentally digested" that there was something "more real" than "just intellectual thinking" about the pregnancy. With each baby's arrival, I actually kind of thought, "Wow - look at that. There really WAS a baby in there."
Some young girls/young women find something appealing about the "idea" of pregnancy before it happens, but then reality hits. There are a bunch of things/thoughts/worries that show up for pregnant women that no man and no woman who hasn't been through at least one (although more than one offers different experiences) successful pregnancy can ever imagine or understand.
My point is that if someone like me (three very wanted pregnancies, at 27, 29, and 32 years old) could have trouble really believing the reality of the whole thing, what can anyone expect of 16-year-old kids or even 21-year-old young women? I mean, I look at my grown kids today and sometimes think, "Hey. I really love these people. I can't believe where they came from."
My daughter got pregnant at 16 and I guarantee you that you are 100% correct about not understanding what she had inside her. She was given the option of having the child or aborting and she chose to have him.
My daughter is a horrible mother and that is why we have the baby, she has since moved in with the father of the child and is happy not raising him.
For all of those people out there who believe conservatives are racists, that little guy is black and very loved.
I'm glad the child is getting care from someone who loves him. Lots and lots of children don't have that luxury.
I know that not all conservatives are racist, but I am under the impression that most social conservatives who are dead-set against abortion are also dead-set against contraceptives. Since I gather you're conservative but don't think you are necessarily the religious social conservative type, maybe you can explain this paradox.
I can't explain it other than saying I have common sense. I wish abortions were not necessary but I understand that they will occur. People who claim they have the right to do with their body as they will also have an obligation, sadly most are irresponsible dolts.
"People who claim they have the right to do with their body as they will also have an obligation, sadly most are irresponsible dolts."
I find this true of pretty much anybody who likes to go on about their rights: they stare at you blankly when you talk to them about their responsibilities.
"Why are some people so damned preoccupied with other people's extremely private decisions?"
This issue at hand is NOT an extremely private decision, but an extremely public decision.
The issue at hand seems to be that you do not want women to have the right to an abortion. Fortunately - this issue has been decided and it has been decided that it is none of your business. It is the private business of the woman concerned.
I asked this question of someone else who blew it off, Mark, so since your so liberal and pro-choice, I gues partial birth abortion is okay too. I mean if the baby hasn't drawn a breath yet, its not alive right.
No. I concur with the current laws. But - I see you using this as an attack on women's right to an abortion.
Since you are a right wing religionist and anti-women's rights, I guess the murder of abortion providers is OK too. I mean - if they are killing babies - they deserve to die - right?
Wrong! They do not deserve to die, neither do the babies! They do deserve to have their practices shut down. But that is another story. I think that those picketters and things you see on tv in front of abortion clinics do no good and actually hurts the cause. And no I am no anti womens rights just pro-life. What about the rights of the child. A womans right to her own body changed the moment she decided to have sex knowing it could possibly result in a pregnancy.
And don't act like your so womens rights as you hate women anyone can see that.
That's an untruth, and would have been better left unsaid. Trust me, a misogynist wouldn't even bother responding to you.
As for the whole thread, it just decends (as always) into personal gripes. The abortion issue cannot be reasoned out between opposing parties, simple. Why do people even bother starting such threads?
Unfortunately, condoms are not foolproof. Maybe insist your significant other get a vasectomy then there would be no chance
Yes I have helped such women a few of them actually, a couple of them chose to keep the baby and some of them chose to give them up for adoption. And they all have gotten past this just fine. The couple who opted to keep their baby, have not reqretted their choice, and those that gave their baby up know that the baby is in a loving home with parents who love them. As for foster children the system is flawed, they want people to take in children, love them, nurture them, guide them, and in essence invest your self into that childs life only to say that if the courts so choose they can take that child who you have invested so much emotionally in, out of your home and put it back into the home it was taken out of to begin with.
So many people who would love to take in foster children, shy away from it because they know it would take an emotional toll on them to do so.
Diane, only for the purpose of discussion and - really - not with the intent to be "adversarial" at all... It would be an extremely, extremely, rare birth mother who "got past it just fine". People deal with awful things they have to face in life, but when those things are so big and so deep, nobody ever really gets "past it just fine". People just don't tend to talk about the things that are most painful to talk about.
I would not/could not have given away either of the babies I had; and even if it's possible to eventually get over the "most acute grief" of doing something like that, women usually live with that grief. Also, knowing how much I love my children, I wouldn't want to have to think they were out there somewhere, and worry about whether they were loved enough or whether they'd ended up in some horrible situation. It's not something I would ever expect any other woman to do. If some can do it for some reason, great. I'm sorry, though... I would not want to see my own daughter, niece, or anyone else I care about go through that.
It's always easy to think what someone else ought to do, and it can even be easy to think what we'd do if we were in that situation (either because we don't have the feelings other people may, or else because we believe we would never be in that situation in the first place).
Would it be better if nobody in the world ever let an unwanted pregnancy occur? Sure. Would it be better if nobody ever messed up when it comes to sex? Sure. That's not human nature, though - especially when it comes to a lot teens. If there's some young girl who thinks she loves her boyfriend, and if she starts worrying he'll break up if she doesn't have sex, voila - you've got a teen's emotions kicking in and say "no, forever until I'm married, ten years older, and financially stable and without any life circumstances that would cause problems for a baby or my other children" So since the beginning of time women have found themselves with unwanted pregnancies.
The choices are: Live with almost a year of an unwanted pregnancy and bring the baby into a bad situation to a parents who aren't going to be ready to be parents, have an abortion, or have give the baby away. None of those are great choices.
I do agree with you on the foster care problem, though. The unfortunate reality is that any time anyone is going to try to take on a parental role, it's too bad so many people will let their concern about the possible emotional cost to them stop them. Being a parent (foster or otherwise) has to always be about what you can do for the child, regardless of what the emotional toll on you is - not whether you're going have to pay some emotional or other price. It's too bad the people who aren't willing to try to become a foster or adoptive mother because of fear that they'll have to pay an emotional toll often don't understand that a similar concern about emotional or other toll is also often at the root of the choice to abort an early pregnancy.
Sometimes, though, people just can't afford (for whatever reason) to pay some emotional tolls (so those reluctant foster parents shouldn't be judged either).
I will state the obvious here. You have never been a woman.
Both sexual partners know -- on whatever level -- that their actions could lead to conception. Yet I think it's very safe to say that the vast majority of people engaging in sex are NOT doing so with the goal of becoming pregnant.
I won't even go into the "dramatic" cases of rape and incest.
I will state categorically, however, that your assertion is wrong. "In very few circumstances women become pregnant by choice." Not true.
No method of birth control -- except abstinence -- is foolproof. Condoms are notorious for breaking. I've even known women who became pregnant on the pill (at least one of these is a nurse and you can be sure was using it correctly).
It's not like going out and drinking a few too many cocktails and the next day you "pay the piper" with a 24-hour hangover.
Having and raising a child is a HUGE responsibility.
I could argue that (in my observation) the responsible women are those who recognize their parental limitations BEFORE it's too late.
Nope, never been a woman. Of course both partners know what exactly does that have to do with insisting on a condom? It seems I am hearing or rather reading that condoms don't always work so why bother.
The woman has the right to choose one of those choices is what type of contraceptive should be used. Whether I am right about getting pregnant by choice or by rape or incest is irrelevant. A greater number of women get pregnant by the choice of having sex as apposed to not having a choice, its not even disputable.
I would argue that the more responsible woman would use contraceptives not decide later that she is unfit to be a mother. I actually find that position laughable, no offense intended.
""Except In very few circumstances women become pregnant by choice." Not true."
Yes true, because except in a very few cirsumstances having sex is by choice.
I'd hate to know I was the daughter of a woman who is pro-abortion. I wonder what their kids will think. But of course I'm sure they say things like I chose to have you, I did get an abortion once but I chose not to have that baby.
my mom had an abortion.
honestly, does it make me think less of her? no, but she's a piece of crap in general and treated me like she should've aborted me.
are all peoople who have abortions as selfish as that? absolutely not.
i have never told anyone close to me, but i have had one.
it was a really tough decision.
at the time, i felt i was doing right by my EXISTING child, and i was.
had i had a second child at the time, my first would have suffered immensely.
i have TWO now, and finances are tight, still. but a couple years before this and it would have been literally impossible, we would all be homeless right now, no doubt.
so is it always a pretty decision? no
should there have been ways to prevent it? of course, people make mistakes.
should my son have had to pay for a mistake i made for the rest of his life? absolutely not. i will probably not tell my family that i had an abortion....ever.
my boyfriend/life-partner knows, but that is all.
i am a bit ashamed, and its my very, very private decision.
but i do not regret it.
and again, this story has nothing to do with abortion.
and the reason it upsets me so much is i try to be really positive. i do not have television, i do not watch the news, i do not want to know such negative things. spreading the negativity in these unfortunate stories never has any positive repercussions, no matter what the intent.
i am sad that i had to know such a story, and then to have it so badly related to abortion...well...i feel people just need a reason to spread the depressing, negative news of society.
why not share some positive news...news about a prodigy child...and the fact that any aborted baby could have been the next einstein.
these threads are absolutely the most un-christian/unwholesome threads (and usually by devout christians LOL)
I think when people are just looking to discuss "issues", it's so easy for anyone for whom any particular issue is not personal (not something the individual has had first-hand experience with) to "just discuss" as if discussing the best wheat bread or someone's favorite holiday. It's easy to have opinions about what other people should do and not do. When it doesn't "hit home" it doesn't always feel like "negativity" - just ideas. If it's a subject that does "hit home" it obviously brings up the negative stuff the person has come to associate with the subject.
Maybe what happens on a thread like this is that people for whom it's too negative or even insulting, there's the tendency not to "spout off" or even want to participate in the discussion. So, the people without first-hand experience are among those most willing to kick in on the discussion.
The choice to end a pregnancy is, as you said, a very very personal one; and a lot of women make their choice without sharing it with anyone. In a way, though, it's unfortunate that they feel they need to keep their private/personal choice to themselves because then, as you've pointed out, they end up being subjected to a lot of foolishness and lack of understanding that they really shouldn't have to be.
I don't happen to think discussing "the issues" means "nothing but negative", but it might be nice if people, in general, were more interested in opening their minds and trying to a little more understanding of others, as opposed to hanging onto to whatever "side" allows them to feel the most superior to other people.
That's good to hear. I'm with you 100%. All in favor of adoption.
Agree the foster care system is a nightmare and the real victims are the kids.
I guess my perspective is jaded because I work with so many addicts who are on the other side of those court decisions -- desperate to prove they can lick their demons and be good parents.
Nature is unfair sometimes.
So many couples who want to have children can't.
So many women who have children end up having them taken away.
Personally, I choose not to discuss my sex life in any fashion with my son.
There is a lot of unfairness in our biology, and Mother Nature can be every bit as cruel as she can be generous. I personally believe that we don't need to be slaves to our biology, and our bodies are something that we have the right to exercise control over, but that's my opinion (and why I support the right to abortion).
We all know that a lot of men that contribute sperm but want to have nothing to do with the upbringing of a child. I really wish abortion activists, if they truly care about the welfare of all children and not just fetuses, would expand the scope of what they care about and make sure that "deadbeat dad" would vanish from our collective vocabulary.
unfortunately their are plenty of dead beat dads thats true. I know of plenty who want to get girls pregnant, to trap them into staying with them till they are tired of them then dump both them and the kids. and plenty of other scenarios. However that is another matter. Entirely.
I think you misunderstood me.
Perhaps I didn't phrase my thoughts correctly.
I agree that the responsible thing is to use contraception to avoid pregnancy in the first place.
It may also be more responsible to not bring a child into the world if you are not prepared for the life-changing duties of parenthood.
It's too bad we don't require a competency test for parenting. But that opens another whole can of worms about government in people's lives. So forget that I even mentioned it...:-)
I am pro abortion, however I agree that this is manslaughter for the same basic reason that I am pro euthenasia but would say that people beating a cancer patient to a pulp leading to a premature death would be manslaughter.
I don't really want to get in to this debate, since, like religion, this topic tends to be a conflict of views rather than a pure conflict of reason.
But I think we can all agree that not only was the person who beat a pregnant woman severely in the wrong, but that it is also disturbing that this pregnant woman followed her agressor and continued the fight.
While I feel that women should not be using abortion as a form of contraception, and I do not deny that this happens on a larger scale than it should (I do not know the figures personally) I do question how people can be pro contraception yet against abortion on the value of human life.
Contraception is in my view preventing a human life just as abortion is. The only difference is that one is post conception, one is preventing the conception.
I think that abortion solves a lot more problems than it creates.
Not because of the potential of the human being being created, but because of the affect a baby has on a family that cannot afford to keep it, and in turn the affect this upbringing has on the child.
If the parents do not feel as if they are ready to raise a child, I think it is in the best interests of these parents to prevent parenthood until they are ready.
Diane I have seen most of the hatred on this thread coming from you.
Also Diane, what do you think to condoms? each time you use one you are killing a baby, you are preventing potential life.
"what do you think to condoms? each time you use one you are killing a baby"
That makes no sense.
Well okay, each time a guy uses one he is killing a baby
My argument is however, that what do you see as the key difference between preventing conception through use fo a condom, preventing gestation through use of the morning after pill, and removing a developing fetus.
Each one is the prevention of the birth of a human.
Well, then, how do you feel about abstinence?
"each time a guy uses one he is killing a baby "
NO, of course not. That really makes no sense.
Is the concept of before, as opposed to after conception really so hard to grasp?
Every sperm is saaaa-cred, every sperm is gooood....
I've got to say I just don't get this whole thread...the article is about a woman suffering a violent attack which resulted in the death of her unborn child...clearly the prosecuted should be held to account for this. I just don't get the whole link to abortion, right or wrong - where is the logic?
My initial reaction was the same. However, I believe Sab Oh's point was to challenge pro choice advocates who support post-viable abortions with inconsistency if they support the manslaughter charge in the Boston case involving the death of a potentially viable fetus. That is, if the attack in Boston that resulted in the death of a viable fetus is manslaughter, why isn't aborting a viable fetus also manslaughter?
I believe the woman should be charged, she realized the other woman was pregnant and apparently was not to concerned. In my field we have seen many preemies and they are breathing, kicking little human beings. It was an unneccesary irrespnsible action .
Sab- it's interesting that you got so angry at me when i discussed the "trespasser" idea of abortions, and yet the article talks about how there are laws discussing quite a similar idea -- that they make a distinction between fetuses, and fetuses that can live outside the womb.
I'm not in ANY way going to defend brutally beating a pregnant woman - acts of aggression are never justified.
Some might argue that aborting a fetus is the same as aggression against a human, but it could also be seen as the woman simply giving a home to a human, and at one point changes her mind about wanted to shelter him/her (with the problem being that a fetus can generally only live out of the womb after about 8 months).
It's not sensationalism sir dent...it's the truth.
And I for one, am curious why living, breathing, already born babies are less important than fetus's in a womb?
If you are pro-life, you must be anti-war, right???
Because if you say sometimes war is warranted, well, so is abortion.
And anyone who watched Operation Cast Lead and supported it, cannot turn around and lecture on abortion. IMO
It shouldn't even be a topic. It should not be an issue. It is an individual private matter and needs no government or other person interference.
It's personal and no one business.
It can't just be a "personal matter" because it involves more than one person.
It's obvious that you have no position, because it is an individual choice, regardless of whatever position.
The mother and her body, keeps the right to do as she chooses. YOU do not have a right to interfere. And, the fact you think you do is completely foolish beyond comprehension.
You want spout off your words, be my guest, you have free speech, but you are clearly wrong and it's been proven time and time again.
Yet, you are the one not seeing the truth. It's none of your business.
"It's obvious that you have no position, because it is an individual choice, regardless of whatever position."
You can shout "I'm right and you're wrong!" all you want, but it in no way concludes the matter. Even the most ardent pro-abortionists must admit that at some point in the natural developmental process (which abortion destroys) another individual is involved. Therefore, insisting that it is about the woman and the woman alone is false no matter how often repeated. To further insist that society has no stake in matters pertaining to the termination of the lives of its members is simply ignoring reality.
Another lie that you keep repeating, hoping repetition will change it to truth. There's no such thing as a pro-abortionist; you're aware of that. Why do you lie?
"There's no such thing as a pro-abortionist"
Of course there are. It's a matter of semantics I suppose, but interesting how and why it makes some people uncomfortable.
Interesting how your lies DON"T make you uncomfortable...
...or do they. You seem to have trouble sleeping.
Repeating the word "lie" over and over changes exactly nothing and, needless to say, only drags down the discourse here AGAIN.
You would like to continue lying and hope that no one calls you out for it - that's your wish.
Each time I read another of your lies, I will point it out to you - That's the truth.
See the difference TK?
You're entitled to your opinion, but just shouting "lie" over and over is an unproductive distraction. Unless that is really what you're after, why don't we focus on the topic instead of such distractions?
The topic of your op includes a lie, therein lies the problem. Start with a truthful statement and an actual discussion is possible. Insist on continuing your lies, and I will continue to point them out.
It's really pretty simple.
P.S. Are seriously TRYING to find work?
No, Sab knows exactly what he's doing, I think. He's trying to win the argument on an emotional, not a rational, level, and as part of his plan, he's trying to twist words to make people who believe that a woman is competent to make her own decisions (pro-choice) seem like they believe that it's a good idea to use abortion as birth control, or even as a fun way to spend an afternoon (pro-abortion). Sab doesn't seem to be able to recognize the difference, or at least he's pretending not to.
It's a tactic that has worked in the past (witness how the words "death tax" have taken over the debate on the inheritance tax). I suspect that Sab is frustrated that we're on to him.
"He's trying to win the argument on an emotional, not a rational, level"
You've got it exactly backwards, and I'm not trying to "win" any argument. The very notion is a little ridiculous.
"he's trying to twist words to make people who believe that a woman is competent to make her own decisions (pro-choice) seem like they believe that it's a good idea to use abortion as birth control"
NO, that is NOT what I'm saying. The fact that you have been reduced to trying to define my thinking for me says a lot about where you feel you are in this discussion.
"You've got it exactly backwards,"
Oh, I get it. You're trying to lose the argument on a rational, not an emotional, level. That makes so much more sense, given your recent posts. Well done.
"The fact that you have been reduced to trying to define my thinking for me says a lot about where you feel you are in this discussion."
First, you've tried "to define my thinking for me" several times earlier in this discussion, so that argument holds very little water.
Second, if I'm misunderstanding what you're writing, the problem can only be half mine. Write more clearly, and maybe we can get to a point where we understand each other. Or, perhaps you've been writing very clearly, and I've understood you perfectly, and you don't like that I've copped on to your not-so-subtle semantic tricks.
Whichever the case may be, you should either take some responsibility for clarity in your communication, or else be more graceful about being caught playing semantic tricks.
Actually, what part of none of your business did you not understand?
YOU are not society and you don't speak for ALL of society. You do however speak for yourself, which is fine and dandy, but what you care to complain about or banter back and forth with others about is irrelevant, because the law favors woman's rights.
Something that will not change anytime soon, even with you flapping your chops.
"Actually, what part of none of your business did you not understand?"
Anything that concerns the life or death of society's most innocent and vulnerable members is the business of everyone in society.
"YOU are not society and you don't speak for ALL of society. "
I am a member of society and have a responsibility to participate and voice the concerns of myself and many others, as do you.
No one has defended the killing of society's most innocent and vulnerable; that is a lie.
Other people's personal choices that do not affect you are none of your business; that's the truth.
See the difference TK?
"No one has defended the killing of society's most innocent and vulnerable"
Many posts here demonstrate otherwise.
"Other people's personal choices that do not affect you are none of your business"
Those are not the sort of choices being discussed here.
Wrong again. Study more, rant less, then you won't always be wrong.
If a person was in your body; they would have the same rights as you? Someone outside your body would be able to exert their will upon you because they say they speak for the person in your body? That would mean someone else had power over your body. Don't you realize SLAVES are treated that way, not free tax paying Americans.
I agree so totally!!
Problem is, they have an active agenda to end it. And that lady tea-bagger in Nevada has all the support and money of Fox behind her....she says no abortion even if you are raped or impregnated by your father.
Already where I live, you cannot get an abortion. States such as Kansas want to throw drs. in prison who perform the procedure. Abortion clinics closing left and right.
And the domestic terrorism that is allowed in this country is all under the guise of "free speech".
Until it stops, it needs to be made an issue...especially with elections coming up. The party of suppressing rights is propagandizing their way back in power.
It's not less gvt and less taxes, it's more laws to lock people up and more money from poor people.
Privacy trumps ALL rights as far as I'm concerned. The freedom to control your own destiny.
It is at stake with these pubs and baggers.
She's crazy. Harry Reid is lucky that she won the GOP nomination.
"Already where I live, you cannot get an abortion."
Yes you can. You should stop repeating that falsehood.
yeah, just take a couple of punches to the gut and that should clean things up!
What is the total number of legal abortions since 1973?
As of the most recent update of this FAQ, the estimated total number of abortions is over 46 million.
46 million reasons to have an abortion? Ectopic pregnancies should be aborted. There may be other reasons for abortions that I am not aware of, but not 46 million of them.
As far as being antiwar, if my neighbor attacked my family, should I fight in their defense or let him destroy them?
That is a position where rational people from all sides of the issue can agree. There should be far fewer abortions. The idiots who refer to anyone as being pro-abortion do a great disservice to the pro-life position and should be shunned by more reasonable people of that movement.
Should "Life begin" be labeled by Government at the point of conception, and thus defining "Life", as science has deemed it, then the entire social structure would change.
Hence, why states take it upon themselves to judge the most viable time for a fetus/child/baby or whatever can sustain it's own life without help from the mother.
To clearly define what is murder, as best it can. The problem with making it at conception is that it then infringes or takes away the rights of the individual carrying said "life".
It invades on her right to life and right to choose, leaving her without any options. Hence, why things are as they are.
Those 'rights' are lost when you take a decision that can affect the 'rights' of another, in this case the yet unborn, newly conceived child.
Up until the point of conception sex can be viewed as a fun but possibly liable exercise, once 'life' is conceived, i.e. a sperm successfully unites with an egg, starting the life process, then the sperm donor and the sperm recipient both lose their rights to the third entity they have created.
The responsibility rests with the male and female sexual partners to ensure that they do not create a life that they are not prepared to support until it can support itself (i.e. live without their assistance)but there is no doubt that scientifically life begins when those two components are united, and will continue until a natural or unnatural death occurs.
Any other opinion seeks to justify the 'right' to deprive one viable human being of life in favour of another two viable responsible human beings, for the sake of their convenience, mutual or singular.
Those rights are NOT lost, just because YOU say they are. Did you NOT read my post that you replied to? WOW!
Unfortunately, you are out of your territory, first off, you are NOT a U.S. citizen, so should see your way out of the conversation. Secondly, the LAW stipulates the damn rules. If you don't like the law, then try changing. However, as MY POST said- it is not going to happen, because of the right to life and right to choose remains with the mother. Or did you not understand that? I know you being from outside of America, have a limited understanding of what rights are and struggle with the concept, but learn about them first, before you plan on telling people they are "wrong" about something.
Then see your way out of their life. It is NONE of your business, unless your are the father or mother. Otherwise, it's not your business.
You see, you forget or simply just refuse to understand rights. Rights are given to people who are BORN into this world- rights of fetus/baby are manipulation of facts. So, with that said. Enjoy!
It is interesting that you refer to them as the mother and father, yet it is not a child. According to you.
It is NONE of your business, unless your are the father or mother.
And your statement comes from the foolish assumption of thinking you know or understand my position. I follow the LAW NOT GOD's LAW!
There is no god. The laws people must deal with are the ones that are in place. Or are you trying to work your way around those?
Actually in scriptural and spiritual terms we are commanded to obey the law UNTIL it contravenes Gods law, then we are permitted (by God) to challenge and refuse to obey or accept any man made law which contravenes Gods laws.
We must be prepared to accept the consequences of refusing these laws, but if one has a conscience, one must follow it even if it causes you problems.
In Hitlers Germany the law gave authority for millions to be killed, those obeying the law were hung when it was determined that 'just obeying orders' was not and never will be an acceptable defence against exercising personal judgement as to what is right or wrong.
YOUR science cannot deny the fact that once conception has taken place a viable living entity will be born UNLESS God or man intervenes, hence life begins at conception.
This may not fit your liberal opinions, it may not comply with your laws, but that just makes your laws incorrect and your opinions faulty.
"Unfortunately, you are out of your territory, first off, you are NOT a U.S. citizen, so should see your way out of the conversation"
That is inappropriate and a pretty blatant attempt to silence an opinion you don't like. This forum is open to people from all over the world and YOU would NOT have said that to someone from outside the US who happened to agree with your position.
"I know you being from outside of America, have a limited understanding of what rights are and struggle with the concept, but learn about them first, before you plan on telling people they are "wrong" about something."
It is just plain WRONG to dismiss, belittle, and insult someone like that just because they are not from the US. This is more of the stuff that degrades the discourse around here.
"The problem with making it at conception is that it then infringes or takes away the rights of the individual carrying said "life"."
So what's important is not when life actually begins but what most conveniently fits a predetermined political position? Unbelievable.
Very believable, since one cannot determine when the zygote becomes a viable life; a person, with rights.
We know, for a fact, that a woman is a person with rights. When she becomes pregnant, she remains a person with rights. You're willing to strip her of those rights, albeit temporarily, based on your notion of when a zygote becomes a person (immediately after the sperm enters the egg, apparently).
Are you willing to charge a pregnant woman with contributing to the delinquency of a minor if she takes a drink of champagne? Smokes a cigarette? Are you willing to charge her with child abuse if she goes horseback riding, for example, or doesn't seek prenatal care? Are you ready to order a criminal investigation into all miscarriages, to see if the woman didn't "accidentally on purpose" cause the miscarriage by her actions?
You've managed to sidestep all of those issues so far. Is it because you know you'll be outed as an oppressor of women when you say yes you'd be perfectly happy with charging a pregnant woman with a crime for doing something that every other adult with rights may do? Or is it because you know you'll be outed as inconsistent when you say that it's okay for a pregnant woman to choose to take a drink or a smoke or a roller-coaster ride (all of which can either damage a developing fetus or cause a miscarriage), but not to decide on purpose to abort a pregnancy?
I mean really, that's like saying it's murder to deliberately shoot someone, but if you happened to kill someone by firing up into the air, it's okay. See, you didn't mean to kill anyone. You knew there was a chance someone could get hurt, even killed, but you weren't trying to hurt anybody, so no harm no foul.
"Very believable, since one cannot determine when the zygote becomes a viable life"
Right, ok, we've been over this time and time again. You don't know, and are willing to be wrong about it even at the cost of an innocent human life. If that is NOT what you are saying, please let me know.
"You don't know, and are willing to be wrong about it even at the cost of an innocent human life." I don't know, and I'm willing to let the woman decide, prior to a time, set by statute, at which the fetus is more likely to be viable than not viable (probably at or about the 6-month mark, but the expert testimony of many doctors would need to be consulted).
After that time, an elective abortion would be illegal, but an emergency c-section or induction of labor would be permitted to save the life of the mother, with every effort made to preserve the life of the fetus before it comes out, and the kid after it comes out.
That is what I'm saying.
"Are you willing to charge a pregnant woman with contributing to the delinquency of a minor if she takes a drink of champagne? Smokes a cigarette? Are you willing to charge her with child abuse if she goes horseback riding, for example, or doesn't seek prenatal care?"
All of those things may be done without the intent or effect of killing the unborn child, UNLIKE ABORTION WHICH IS ALL BUT GUARANTEED TO.
And reckless driving, drunk driving, and randomly discharging a firearm may be done without the intent or the effect of killing actual humans with rights. Should we be allowed to do all of those things, since death is not the inevitable outcome?
And giving a kid a sixpack of beer or a pack of cigarettes isn't going to kill them, but it's still illegal: it's called contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
If the zygote = child with rights, then if a pregnant woman puts either of those things into her system, she is also giving them to a child, through her bloodstream. Therefore, if zygote = child, the woman is contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
If aborting a zygote is killing a child, then drinking or smoking is contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Or, you're being inconsistent.
"And reckless driving, drunk driving, and randomly discharging a firearm may be done without the intent or the effect of killing actual humans with rights. Should we be allowed to do all of those things, since death is not the inevitable outcome?"
NO, they should not be allowed, nor should much more serious things. Now, if you think a mother or father should be charged with a crime for introducing second-hand smoke into their children's environment I can understand your sentiment but am not sure how the legal details might play out.
"Is it because you know you'll be outed as an oppressor of women "
Are you kidding? "oppressor of women"? Is one an oppressor of women who supports it being a crime for a woman to kill her children or murder her husband in his sleep? That kind of rhetoric is just empty appeal to emotion.
Nope, because children and a sleeping husband are persons, with rights, just as the woman is a person, with rights, and you seem to want the rights of a pregnant woman to disappear from the moment she conceives to the moment she gives birth.
You keep saying that but I have never made that claim. I have been pretty specific about 'rights' being limited in only the same way the 'rights' of anyone else are where they run up against those of another, specifically in a manner that would certainly cause the death of that other. Certainly you don't hold the rights of the individual as extending to the 'right' to kill another person at will. That is not "oppression" no matter who it happens to apply to, and civilization could not function were it otherwise.
So AGAIN we come back to the same point that you recognize (in your own view) that at some point in a pregnancy we are talking about a person and not any other term that pro-abortionists prefer in order to insulate themselves from the obvious moral dilemma involved, but that you are willing to accept the very real possibility that your position could very well end up (according to YOU) killing an innocent "person with rights."
We could just keep on repeating this same point over and over if you like but I don't see where it will advance the discussion.
Let's try this:
You have admitted that at some point in a pregnancy we are talking about an actual human being, right? At that point is it a violation of a woman's rights to hold her responsible for not actively and deliberately killing that human being?
You are going in circles and making yourself dizzy. The law is on the side of the woman carrying the baby. At the time a stranger beats the child out of the womans body; she may have never considered abortion. That is murder. But, if the woman ends that childs life anytime before it leaves the womb, it is an abortion. OK, stop the carousel.
"You have admitted that at some point in a pregnancy we are talking about an actual human being, right?"
At some point, which cannot yet be determined*, and which is going to be different for every fetus, yes, the fetus becomes a person with rights at some point.
"At that point is it a violation of a woman's rights to hold her responsible for not actively and deliberately killing that human being?"
Unfortunately, we cannot determine when that point occurs for every fetus. There's no scientific test. The only way to fairly uphold the rights of everyone involved is to establish a statutory moment when a woman's right to choose an abortion ends and the fetus's right to get born takes over. The limit would probably end up being set at or about the beginning of the third trimester. Is this justice? We will never have total agreement on that. Is it fair? Yes, because it treats all pregnant women, and all fetuses (feti?) equally, as we are all supposed to be treated equally under the law.
*If, at some point in the future, it can be determined when the fetus becomes a person, then I will change my position to this: Before any abortion is performed, the surgeon must administer the person-test. If the person-test comes back positive, no abortion may be performed on that fetus. I'm sure there are legal ways to ensure that one guy doesn't fudge the result of a test; perhaps requiring no less than three medical professionals of some kind to countersign the test results?
""You have admitted that at some point in a pregnancy we are talking about an actual human being, right?"
At some point, which cannot yet be determined*, and which is going to be different for every fetus, yes, the fetus becomes a person with rights at some point."
You don't know at what point but you know it's going to be different for each developing child? How could you know that? And in any case, you are still left with the conclusion that you accept the very real possibility that you would sanction the killing of a person with rights, right?
"You don't know at what point but you know it's going to be different for each developing child? How could you know that?"
I know that because biology is an inexact science.
"And in any case, you are still left with the conclusion that you accept the very real possibility that you would sanction the killing of a person with rights, right?"
A very very slim chance, under the conditions I outlined. Compare that to the absolute certainty of the revocation of rights from a known (not a hypothetical) person with rights.
So I can know for a certainty that I'm revoking the rights of a person who has committed no crime, or I can be reasonably sure that I'm not hurting anybody. Seems like a good deal to me.
"A very very slim chance"
I notice you need to add qualifiers to make the notion palatable even to yourself, but here again you admit you are willing to accept the possibility (in your own view) of killing an innocent human being. So I take it that the right to privacy (as judicially construed in one rather unfortunate case) is more important to you than the right to actually live? Strange prioritizing if you ask me.
How is the fight to prevent women from having the choice of an abortion going TK Sensei? Are you making headway yet? I see you have resorted to attacking other people's opinions and twisting what they say to make it appear as though they said something they did not.
Do you think that will convince them - despite your obvious lack of medical or legal qualifications?
If you're expecting any replies you'll have to address your comments to me and not someone else. So if you were hoping to get a reaction to your silly comment about qualifications you'll have to stop playing that tired old game of 'you are really someone else!'
Not that it really matters. If past behavior is any indication you will just cast about some insults then tell everyone how much you fear faith and religion no matter what the actual topic is.
Good luck with that.
The Law dictates when rights are and those rights are given at BIRTH. Do you NOT understand that?
1. Abortion is legal
2. Get over it
3. Don't get an abortion if you're so against it.
4. Some of us couldn't care less of "your" make-believe deity, much less what its values may be.
5. MY BODY. period.
6. get it?
Do you take that attitude toward laws you don't approve of? Just shut up and get over it? Somehow I doubt you do. Only an irresponsible citizen would take that kind of attitude.
Please do not construe this as an 'attack' on you personally, but only a response to your comments.
I agree Mark Knowles!!
As sabby himself said earlier, "This is more of the stuff that degrades the discourse around here."
AND dehumanize the woman...as if choosing an abortion is the same as choosing a pair of shoes.
It's a disgusting insult.
You would be right, if I thought a woman had to bend to my will on abortion or when life begins. I feel nobody should force their will on another human being regardless of who or what is in her body.
I just believe a baby is a baby from beginning of life to end of life. Don't tell me I have to buy in to that illusion. No disrespect to anyone.
I thought that the pro-abortionists recognized that a choice was being made. Isn't that their whole point?
Oh there are plenty of laws that I have problems with, but these laws are a little bit more important than whether or not someone has the right to tell ME what I can do with MY body.
Again, as I said before - if you don't approve of abortion. Don't get one.
You can consider this an attack, or merely just a response to your comment, but why don't you, Mel Gibson and the rest of the far-out wingnuts in society go colonize your own little island and inbreed yourselves out of existence.
Thank you and have a splendid afternoon.
"Oh there are plenty of laws that I have problems with, but these laws are a little bit more important than whether or not someone has the right to tell ME what I can do with MY body."
Which is certainly not nearly as important as whether or not YOU have the right to use your body to kill someone else.
"You can consider this an attack"
I certainly did not, until those gratuitous and inappropriate comments toward the end of your post. No need to attack or defend, only discuss.
also, maybe you shouldn't word your initial post with words like "pro-abortion".
Simply because someone is "pro-choice", doesn't make them "pro-abortion".
In fact, I don't think I know ONE person who is "pro-abortion".
The simple fact of pretty much instigating that pro-lifers are FOR abortion and WANT people to get them is defamatory, ignorant and says very little about your moral fiber.
"Simply because someone is "pro-choice", doesn't make them "pro-abortion"."
We're not talking about what to 'choose' for lunch. It's a matter of semantics but refers to the exact same thing. If one is not comfortable being pro-abortion then maybe that should tell them something.
If one is so comfortable repeating the same lie ad nauseum, maybe that should tell one something about one's self. Maybe one would even spend one's time doing something constructive with one's life rather than 24/7 spreading one's lies via one's commodore 64.
Just one man's opinion.
You keep repeating the word "lie" (along with unnecessary insults) but no "lie" is being told. As I've said before, you are entitled to your opinion, but there is no "lie" no matter how often you say it.
Oh, I can't take it! I screamed like a girl! Even coming from you, I didn't see that coming. When I saw the pictures of the computer I almost fell backwards off my chair,(for real this time)that was good! I can't wait to see how you top that!
??? Do share the photos here! We could all use a falling off your chair funny photo of a computer......or are they posted here and it's something I should scroll back for for a good laugh......
"Pro abortion" is a misleading pejorative which comes from the same crowd that incites killers by calling abortionists baby killers and child murderers. Pro choice supporters advocate many policies that would result in a reduction in abortions, and anti-abortionists aren't known for supporting these policies--comprehensive sex education, availability of birth control measures and morning after pills, improved education, anti-poverty efforts and public expenditures to support adoption and foster care. Anti-abortion fanatics, as a rule, don't support policies that would actually result in fewer abortions. Many studies show that "abstinence only" programs aren't effective.
""Pro abortion" is a misleading pejorative"
NO, it is a descriptive
"which comes from the same crowd that incites killers by calling abortionists baby killers and child murderers."
That is about as cheap and transparent as it gets, not to mention utterly illogical. You, of course, know this.
It's very true. About once a month a crowd of 50 or so lines up on the main drag in front of the Shrine of the Little Flower (Father Coughlin's church) equipped with signs saying "stop murdering babies," "Stop killing children" which I assume is with the permission and encouragement of the parish priest. This kind of invective winds up nutcases like the guy who murdered the Kansas abortion doctor in his church. Basically extremists like you Sab Oh make it impossible to have a civil discussion of this subject (and practically any other as well).
"It's very true."
I very much disagree.
"About once a month a crowd of 50 or so lines up on the main drag in front of the Shrine of the Little Flower (Father Coughlin's church) equipped with signs saying "stop murdering babies," "Stop killing children" "
Most likely the same small group of people every month. And how many of those 50 have attempted to kill a doctor or patient at an abortion center?
"which I assume is with the permission and encouragement of the parish priest."
Any proof of that?
"This kind of invective winds up nutcases like the guy who murdered the Kansas abortion doctor in his church"
I guess we should throw out the 1st Amendment 'just in case' then, right?
"Basically extremists like you Sab Oh make it impossible to have a civil discussion of this subject "
Nice try~ (all the subtlety of a brick) but I am no one's "extremist" and I haven't seen anyone trying 1/10th as hard to maintain some civility in discussion around here. A civil discussion doesn't mean everyone pretends to agree when they in fact do not. It would help if certain elements could find some self control and stop relying on insult instead of reason, but that is a bigger issue than just this one thread.
"NO, it is a descriptive"
No, it's a misleading label used in an attempt to skew the debate. You've been caught.
"It's a matter of semantics but refers to the exact same thing."
No. No it does not. Pro-abortion both connotes and denotes a preference for abortion.
Pro-choice both connotes and denotes a preference for a woman's freedom to make the decision for herself.
Pro-abortion further connotes support for abortion as the only tool in responding to an unwanted pregnancy.
Pro-choice both connotes and denotes support for making an array of choices, from carrying the fetus to term and raising the baby oneself, to carrying the fetus to term and putting the baby up for adoption, to an early abortion, to contraception (so that no decision about whether to carry a fetus to term would have to be made in the first place).
Pro-abortion connotes support for abortion as the routine response to pregnancy.
There's a difference, and it's pretty big. You're playing semantic games in a deliberate attempt to skew the discussion, and you've been caught doing it. Be a gentleman and accept your censure with grace.
"No need to attack or defend, only discuss."
You should be a comedian.
And it has occured to me that maybe sabby's job is spreading right-wing propaganda on the internet???
For, if you are pro-life, you must be anti-war. Just simple common sense!!!
And sabby supported Operation Cast Lead and the Iraq invasion...in which millions of innocent babies were burnt to a crisp or blown to bits. Ergo, NOT pro life, simply anti-abortion.
"And sabby supported Operation cast Lead"
I've never said a word about that.
" millions of innocent babies were burnt to a crisp or blown to bits."
Those are not statistics, just hyperbole.
"NOT pro life, simply anti-abortion."
Take your pick, both are good.
This thread still going round and round huh!
The anti-choice lobby can't seem to see that the right wing or religious stance that underlies that opinion is the same stance that supported the killing of poeple in wars from Vietnam to Iraq withall the other nasty little 'operations' to support tinpot right wing dictators who habitually murdered their own citizens. Just because those people are not seen does not make them any less human beings - to get emotionally tied up about the rights of a foetus and not show the same outrage against the aggression and warmongering of your own people is the most intense and intolerable hypocrisy, or maybe insanity.
Use your energy to git the Cult "The Family" out of Uganda. They are helping to spread disease and war in that country for the purpose of getting better oil deals from the installed Government.(The President is also a part of "The Family".) Of course, you wouldn't be attacking women, you would be facing real murderers and crooks.
"Use your energy to git the Cult "The Family" out of Uganda. "
No idea what you are talking about, but it would be nice if we could stick to one topic at a time.
"Of course, you wouldn't be attacking women, you would be facing real murderers and crooks."
I'm not "attacking" anyone, as I've said many times now.
Sorry. I thought I was replying to a comment involving the subject of abortion and murder. You seem to be pretty capable of looking up facts on your Commodore 64 when it suits you. I'm sure it would be a strain on your system, but google "The Christian Right Religious Cult, The Family" or "Uganda" or "Ugandan Murder of Homosexuals". You do want to protect life, don't you Heroe?
"The anti-choice lobby can't seem to see that the right wing or religious stance that underlies that opinion is the same stance that supported the killing of poeple in wars from Vietnam to Iraq withall the other nasty little 'operations' to support tinpot right wing dictators who habitually murdered their own citizens."
Even Stretch Armstrong himself couldn't stretch that far on a hot day tied to two Buicks traveling in opposite directions.
"Just because those people are not seen does not make them any less human beings"
The unseen you say? Something to think about...
by Jackie Lynnley18 months ago
I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
by Rhonda Lytle3 years ago
Is there really a war on women in the USA or is it a politically motivated means of division?Do you believe there is a war on women in the United States of America? If so, what do you think it is? Do you...
by Onusonus12 months ago
A poll for the ladys out there.Planned Parenthood claims that only 3% of their services are for abortion. The rest is for cancer screening and other unrelated health services.So how many of you women out there actually...
by Chris Mills5 years ago
I am pro-life. I am so adamant about seeing the number of abortions decrease that I am in favor of providing contraception to minors without parental consent. I could actually work side by side with a...
by Nickny799 years ago
Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi on birth-control funding as part of the $825 billion stimulus package: "Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises...
by Barefootfae5 years ago
The Tenth Circuit Court:“The particular burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by healthcare...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.