The way people are talking about a women being pregnant and comparing to to some hostage takeover which only leads to death/obesity/mental angish , my wife must be crazy for wanting another one.
this is just to play a bit of devil's advocate, but take this situation for example...
I force you for nine months into many physiological changes...all of which can have lasting impact on your life...I force you to gain weight against your will, in come cases I force you to stay in a room for months unable to do anything but go to the bathroom...I force you to care for me even though you may not be able to...the only way to change that is to kill me...would that be justified?
The reason I ask is because the debate over whether or not it is ok to kill an unborn baby usually centers around when it is a human life. if it is a human life immediately wouldn't it then be ok to kill that human being that does those things I explained above (not in great detail I realize but I think you are intelligent enough to see my point) ...
I suppose it would be different if there was someway to pull the child out of the mother without killing it...i don't believe we are there yet technologically...
huh? this example must come from a man and I am confused by it :? sorry but...
you are disregarding the miracle of life and childbirth entirely
and not even considering a viable option to killing...
that be putting your baby up for adoption
I have never understood the debate about when life happens ...
just really a cop out for those in favor of abortion
of course it is a human life and it is killing it.
I am pro choice not pro abortion, that debate seems to sugar coat what is really happening
and that is part of making a choice and owning it ...
understanding what you are doing and knowing that is a choice you can live with
And of course we can never go back to making abortion illegal
Since you asked, for me, it's not about taking anyone's personal choice away, it's about respecting the life of the unborn child and not taking away their right to life.
interesting...
this is just to play a bit of devil's advocate, but take this situation for example...
I force you for nine months into many physiological changes...all of which can have lasting impact on your life...I force you to gain weight against your will, in come cases I force you to stay in a room for months unable to do anything but go to the bathroom...I force you to care for me even though you may not be able to...the only way to change that is to kill me...would that be justified?
The reason I ask is because the debate over whether or not it is ok to kill an unborn baby usually centers around when it is a human life. if it is a human life immediately wouldn't it then be ok to kill that human being that does those things I explained above (not in great detail I realize but I think you are intelligent enough to see my point) ...
I suppose it would be different if there was someway to pull the child out of the mother without killing it...i don't believe we are there yet technologically...
No offense, but comparing having a child to being kidnapped/held captive is pretty ridiculous.
If what you say is justified, then people should be able to kill their children at any point.
that isn't true, you missed the part about their being a way to get rid of the child without harming it...which you can do...but you cannot do that until it is out of you...
I don't think it is as ridiculous as you do...the physical damage done by a pregnancy up to and including life threatening is real...I cannot threaten your life and get away with it...I cannot make your body go through changes you don't want and get away with it, I cannot force you to stay in a room and not move except for the bathroom and get away with it...
I am not saying it is my argument...just one I find interesting. the same argument I made would ban late term abortion mind you...when the kid can live outside the womb abortion would be off the table... It isn't that far fetched of an example.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
this extreme circumstance is completely irrelevent to the discussion.
As is mentioning a father raping his 1 month old to death, but I see you let that slide.
i apologize to you cincy for missing _'s post...
but since you keep calling me out without fail on most days, i will answer.
i believe that _'s post is relevent to this thread because these laws are trying to make all women carry all pregnancies to term, and the point of the thread is to point out the attack on women's reproductive rights.
the law of averages states that events like the one in her example would be more common if more babies were born or more were made by law to be born. it is a terrible example of what people can do to defenseless children. murder by rape. sick bastard that man is..
but it is relevent to this thread topic about how taking away the right to abortion would lead to an increased number of deaths by infanticide...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
that isn't true, you missed the part about their being a way to get rid of the child without harming it...which you can do...but you cannot do that until it is out of you...
I don't think it is as ridiculous as you do...the physical damage done by a pregnancy up to and including life threatening is real...I cannot threaten your life and get away with it...I cannot make your body go through changes you don't want and get away with it, I cannot force you to stay in a room and not move except for the bathroom and get away with it...
I am not saying it is my argument...just one I find interesting. the same argument I made would ban late term abortion mind you...when the kid can live outside the womb abortion would be off the table... It isn't that far fetched of an example.
So, being born is a crime against the mother then? You are comparing child birth to CRIMES!!!
And even so, you are saying that those crimes are worthy of the death penalty. Which even in our society with the death penalty, it wouldn't be used for kidnapping.
I would honestly say that anyone that considers child birth to be the equivalent of a crime should do 2 things:
this is just to play a bit of devil's advocate, but take this situation for example...
I force you for nine months into many physiological changes...all of which can have lasting impact on your life...I force you to gain weight against your will, in come cases I force you to stay in a room for months unable to do anything but go to the bathroom...I force you to care for me even though you may not be able to...the only way to change that is to kill me...would that be justified?
The reason I ask is because the debate over whether or not it is ok to kill an unborn baby usually centers around when it is a human life. if it is a human life immediately wouldn't it then be ok to kill that human being that does those things I explained above (not in great detail I realize but I think you are intelligent enough to see my point) ...
I suppose it would be different if there was someway to pull the child out of the mother without killing it...i don't believe we are there yet technologically...
huh? this example must come from a man and I am confused by it :? sorry but...
you are disregarding the miracle of life and childbirth entirely
and not even considering a viable option to killing...
that be putting your baby up for adoption
I have never understood the debate about when life happens ...
just really a cop out for those in favor of abortion
of course it is a human life and it is killing it.
I am pro choice not pro abortion, that debate seems to sugar coat what is really happening
and that is part of making a choice and owning it ...
understanding what you are doing and knowing that is a choice you can live with
And of course we can never go back to making abortion illegal
It did come from a man, quite a controversial one at that.
Basically it says that if I were to keep you captive, change your body, force you to gain weight, in some cases threaten your life, and the only way to end it was to kill me, would that be justifiable...you can say yes or no, but I am not sure what the confusing part is...
It also stipulates that if there was another way to rid the woman of the baby and it could, even for a short period survive on its own, the homicide would no longer be justifiable. But again, if I put you in a room for 5 months, and forced you to gain weight, messed with your hormones, and possible threatened your life, would it not be justifiable to kill me if it was the only way to get away?
"in favor of abortion" try not to use words like this. I am pro choice, not pro abortion. I am not in favor of abortion, I don't think people should have them...but I am not those people and as long as the baby cannot survive on its own I am fine with people choosing. For those of us who believe in an afterlife, those kids just get there sooner than they would have...but that is a whole other topic.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
that isn't true, you missed the part about their being a way to get rid of the child without harming it...which you can do...but you cannot do that until it is out of you...
I don't think it is as ridiculous as you do...the physical damage done by a pregnancy up to and including life threatening is real...I cannot threaten your life and get away with it...I cannot make your body go through changes you don't want and get away with it, I cannot force you to stay in a room and not move except for the bathroom and get away with it...
I am not saying it is my argument...just one I find interesting. the same argument I made would ban late term abortion mind you...when the kid can live outside the womb abortion would be off the table... It isn't that far fetched of an example.
So, being born is a crime against the mother then? You are comparing child birth to CRIMES!!!
And even so, you are saying that those crimes are worthy of the death penalty. Which even in our society with the death penalty, it wouldn't be used for kidnapping.
I would honestly say that anyone that considers child birth to be the equivalent of a crime should do 2 things:
1) Become sterile.
2) Get a good head doctor.
if the birth is against the mothers will, than yeah, I suppose the argument does equate forced child birth to a crime...but again it isn't me, it is an argument that has been made and one I find quite interesting because it attempts to bypass the whole "when does life begin" question by presupposing that life begins at conception.
It does not equate all child birth to crimes. that is how you are reading it...what I am saying is that if it is against the mother's will, to do all the things I described...the question becomes is it justifiable homicide...your answer is obviously a resounding no. I do find the question interesting however...
And while kidnapping may not have the death penalty attached in the legal system, would you convict someone of murder for killing their kidnapper...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
that isn't true, you missed the part about their being a way to get rid of the child without harming it...which you can do...but you cannot do that until it is out of you...
I don't think it is as ridiculous as you do...the physical damage done by a pregnancy up to and including life threatening is real...I cannot threaten your life and get away with it...I cannot make your body go through changes you don't want and get away with it, I cannot force you to stay in a room and not move except for the bathroom and get away with it...
I am not saying it is my argument...just one I find interesting. the same argument I made would ban late term abortion mind you...when the kid can live outside the womb abortion would be off the table... It isn't that far fetched of an example.
I see where you're going with it -- I kinda assumed it wasnt a scenario you suggested to make sense, but rather to make someone think differently about it -- as in, if the woman wants an abortion, but we make laws that restrict her from the things she wants?...yes, perhaps selfish of some women I guess though...
The underlined part is what I learned the most about last time there was a thread here discussing abortion, and it helped me decide whether to support a womans choice to abortion or not. (for the record I am pro-choice, but very against abortions, especially for convenience) But i believe the majority of abortions happen within the first 6 weeks (anybody know?), and before the majority of that fetus' development.
I have never understood the debate about when life happens ...
just really a cop out for those in favor of abortion
of course it is a human life and it is killing it.
Not a cop out...(but to continue from my above thought)...I feel life starts as the sperm makes contact with the egg, but until that fetus can survive out of the womb on its own, I believe it to be an extension of that woman's body. Its 100% dependent on her, and her choice what to do with her body.
if the birth is against the mothers will, than yeah, I suppose the argument does equate forced child birth to a crime...but again it isn't me, it is an argument that has been made and one I find quite interesting because it attempts to bypass the whole "when does life begin" question by presupposing that life begins at conception.
Ok then, since I think this line of thinking is beyond ridiculous, and I think you are generally a very level headed and informed poster, I'm just going to be done with this topic now, ok?
I think the social issues will be the downfall of the GOP as we approach a society where more people get involved and more people see government for what it was intended to be and what it actual has become.
The attacks on abortion rights are the same thing. I understand the crusade to want to save babies...even the ugly ones are cute...
as far as publically funded abortions...they certainly take a side route to get there...but if the federal government gives money to a clinic program, even if it is specifically designed for other areas of spending, it frees up capital for those clinics to provide services like abortion to women, possibly on a sliding fee scale...
I don't know for sure, but just like in all politics, I am sure there is some measure of truth among the over-generalized hyperbole about government funded baby killing, no matter how small the sliver may be..
That's not true. They have to keep VERY strict track to make sure the funds/services are not related. And it's the patients who will have to make up the cost for their contraceptive & cancer screening services if the government stops funding them; the clinic's not going to pull money from the (minuscule) abortion revenue to subsidize contraceptive & cancer screening care.
are planned parenthood providers paid on salary or by productivity?
I don't know a lot about their specific operation
I did just read this though...makes a lot of sense to me
Will it cost taxpayers money to fund abortions?
No. Because the costs associated with childbirth, neonatal and pediatric care greatly exceed the costs of abortion, public funding for abortion neither costs the taxpayer money nor drains resources from other services.
interesting way to look at it. I still don't understand why someone would want to take away a personal choice of someone else
Okay, real quick before I go, so I can get this straight...
I haven't specifically read the contract of any Planned Parenthood provider, but the non-PP abortion providers I know are paid based on a mixture of salary, productivity, & grant funding.
But let me understand what you're saying here: The federal government funds non-abortion-related contraceptive, STI, & cancer screening services at Planned Parenthood (and other clinics & hospitals that may or may not provide abortion) through Medicaid payment of services and Title X & 340b subsidies. Planned Parenthood also receives income for services via cash & insurance. They also have income from some private donors. And you don't think the government money for non-abortion services can possibly be kept separate from the money for abortion services. Right?
But that's like saying that when my mom (who's anti-alcohol) buys milk at a grocery store & pays for the milk, and I buy alcohol & pay for the alcohol, my mom is really paying for my alcohol. (Analagous to payment for services, i.e. Medicaid.) And if the government wants to provide milk subsidies or coupons, they are using tax money to pay for alcohol. (Analagous to subsidized services, i.e. Title X & 340b drug pricing.) The expense of & income from those items are not tied together. If patients can't pay for their abortions, the cost is not subsidized by the non-abortion budget - the service is just not provided. And the cost for the doctor's time, the instruments, etc for abortion is factored into & paid by the income from the procedures. Salaried or not, it's not difficult to pay part of a person's paycheck from one budget and part from another, depending on how much time they spend on each service. It's pretty simple, actually, to make sure monies are kept separate for services & overhead when using different funds; organizations do it with grant funds all the time.
if the birth is against the mothers will, than yeah, I suppose the argument does equate forced child birth to a crime...but again it isn't me, it is an argument that has been made and one I find quite interesting because it attempts to bypass the whole "when does life begin" question by presupposing that life begins at conception.
Ok then, since I think this line of thinking is beyond ridiculous, and I think you are generally a very level headed and informed poster, I'm just going to be done with this topic now, ok?
fair enough
just like to give a new way of looking at things to people...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Not a cop out...(but to continue from my above thought)...I feel life starts as the sperm makes contact with the egg, but until that fetus can survive out of the womb on its own, I believe it to be an extension of that woman's body. Its 100% dependent on her, and her choice what to do with her body.
The womb is just the fetuses enviorment, its where its safely developing/getting nutritents. It can't survive outside of the womb but it is still surviving and developing in the womb.
Just beacuse we can't survive on in different enviorment (outside of earth/space) does not make us any less human, just incapable of living in that enviorment at our stage in development (evolution).
The fetus is just a developing human, there is no disputing that.
I don't think it is as ridiculous as you do...the physical damage done by a pregnancy up to and including life threatening is real...
A woman who is less than 9 weeks pregnant (when most abortions occur) is 71 times more likely to die if she chooses childbirth than if she chooses abortion.
I don't think it is as ridiculous as you do...the physical damage done by a pregnancy up to and including life threatening is real...
A woman who is less than 9 weeks pregnant (when most abortions occur) is 71 times more likely to die if she chooses childbirth than if she chooses abortion.
And a baby whose mother and father decided to abort is have a 100% chance of dying. I love statistics. I thought you were leaving.
Not a cop out...(but to continue from my above thought)...I feel life starts as the sperm makes contact with the egg, but until that fetus can survive out of the womb on its own, I believe it to be an extension of that woman's body. Its 100% dependent on her, and her choice what to do with her body.
The womb is just the fetuses enviorment, its where its safely developing/getting nutritents. It can't survive outside of the womb but it is still surviving and developing in the womb.
Just beacuse we can't survive on in different enviorment (outside of earth/space) does not make us any less human, just incapable of living in that enviorment at our stage in development (evolution).
The fetus is just a developing human, there is no disputing that.
Man, I missed your analogies!
But, until we evolve enough to breath on the moon or Mars, we arent able to survive without support from resources from the Earth (Mom).
that isn't true, you missed the part about their being a way to get rid of the child without harming it...which you can do...but you cannot do that until it is out of you...
I don't think it is as ridiculous as you do...the physical damage done by a pregnancy up to and including life threatening is real...I cannot threaten your life and get away with it...I cannot make your body go through changes you don't want and get away with it, I cannot force you to stay in a room and not move except for the bathroom and get away with it...
I am not saying it is my argument...just one I find interesting. the same argument I made would ban late term abortion mind you...when the kid can live outside the womb abortion would be off the table... It isn't that far fetched of an example.
I see where you're going with it -- I kinda assumed it wasnt a scenario you suggested to make sense, but rather to make someone think differently about it -- as in, if the woman wants an abortion, but we make laws that restrict her from the things she wants?...yes, perhaps selfish of some women I guess though...
The underlined part is what I learned the most about last time there was a thread here discussing abortion, and it helped me decide whether to support a womans choice to abortion or not. (for the record I am pro-choice, but very against abortions, especially for convenience) But i believe the majority of abortions happen within the first 6 weeks (anybody know?), and before the majority of that fetus' development.
I have never understood the debate about when life happens ...
just really a cop out for those in favor of abortion
of course it is a human life and it is killing it.
Not a cop out...(but to continue from my above thought)...I feel life starts as the sperm makes contact with the egg, but until that fetus can survive out of the womb on its own, I believe it to be an extension of that woman's body. Its 100% dependent on her, and her choice what to do with her body.
I agree her choice..
but it is important for her to know she is killing a human being...
no sugar coating it with words like terminate
it is murder and she should be at good terms with that for herself
I don't think it is as ridiculous as you do...the physical damage done by a pregnancy up to and including life threatening is real...
A woman who is less than 9 weeks pregnant (when most abortions occur) is 71 times more likely to die if she chooses childbirth than if she chooses abortion.
Why don't you compare the number of deaths to actual childbirths... Its WAY less than 1% (in the US which has terrible health care, right)
are planned parenthood providers paid on salary or by productivity?
I don't know a lot about their specific operation
I did just read this though...makes a lot of sense to me
Will it cost taxpayers money to fund abortions?
No. Because the costs associated with childbirth, neonatal and pediatric care greatly exceed the costs of abortion, public funding for abortion neither costs the taxpayer money nor drains resources from other services.
interesting way to look at it. I still don't understand why someone would want to take away a personal choice of someone else
Okay, real quick before I go, so I can get this straight...
I haven't specifically read the contract of any Planned Parenthood provider, but the non-PP abortion providers I know are paid based on a mixture of salary, productivity, & grant funding.
But let me understand what you're saying here: The federal government funds non-abortion-related contraceptive, STI, & cancer screening services at Planned Parenthood (and other clinics & hospitals that may or may not provide abortion) through Medicaid payment of services and Title X & 340b subsidies. Planned Parenthood also receives income for services via cash & insurance. They also have income from some private donors. And you don't think the government money for non-abortion services can possibly be kept separate from the money for abortion services. Right?
But that's like saying that when my mom (who's anti-alcohol) buys milk at a grocery store & pays for the milk, and I buy alcohol & pay for the alcohol, my mom is really paying for my alcohol. (Analagous to payment for services, i.e. Medicaid.) And if the government wants to provide milk subsidies or coupons, they are using tax money to pay for alcohol. (Analagous to subsidized services, i.e. Title X & 340b drug pricing.) The expense of & income from those items are not tied together. If patients can't pay for their abortions, the cost is not subsidized by the non-abortion budget - the service is just not provided. And the cost for the doctor's time, the instruments, etc for abortion is factored into & paid by the income from the procedures. Salaried or not, it's not difficult to pay part of a person's paycheck from one budget and part from another, depending on how much time they spend on each service. It's pretty simple, actually, to make sure monies are kept separate for services & overhead when using different funds; organizations do it with grant funds all the time.
thanks for the answer...
but no, not right. I am saying that it is possible that dollars allocated to a clinic for sti, cancer and other screenings(group A funds) are used to pay the entirety of a providers salary.. Those providers to then preform abortions, on a sliding scale minimum mind you, if clients are paying the full amount it is a moot point. isn't it possible to see this as federally funding abortions? This really only applies to those agencies that would account this way. I cannot believe it is an unheard of way of doing things however, I do understand the lengths most places go through to keep funding separate...we do it all the time...but is it impossible to think this kind of accounting goes on?
to me that is the kind of thinking that goes into saying that federal money funds abortions...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I don't think it is as ridiculous as you do...the physical damage done by a pregnancy up to and including life threatening is real...
A woman who is less than 9 weeks pregnant (when most abortions occur) is 71 times more likely to die if she chooses childbirth than if she chooses abortion.
Why don't you compare the number of deaths to actual childbirths... Its WAY less than 1% (in the US which has terrible health care, right)
Did you mean compare the number of maternal deaths to the number of women who don't experience maternal death? Because that's not the question at hand.
i believe that it is a slippery slope to begin making laws to limit rights. laws should be there to grant people rights. i feel it is wrong to legislatively take away a right that has been granted 30 years ago.
also, it seems that many people on here who vote republican or claim to be "independant" (which is politically convenient these days) are arguing against abortion and say it should not be legal. i thought you all wanted government out of everyone's lives? what happened to that?
i guess wanting government out of people's lives only applies to taxes and health insurance and freedom, and not the bedroom or the doctor's office where the government should keep it's nose out of. people are all too ready to fight against gay marriage and women's rights to choose..
if you are against abortion, do not have one. do not legislate what everyone else should do with their own bodies....
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
i believe that it is a slippery slope to begin making laws to limit rights. laws should be there to grant people rights. i feel it is wrong to legislatively take away a right that has been granted 30 years ago.
also, it seems that many people on here who vote republican or claim to be "independant" (which is politically convenient these days) are arguing against abortion and say it should not be legal. i thought you all wanted government out of everyone's lives? what happened to that?
i guess wanting government out of people's lives only applies to taxes and health insurance and freedom, and not the bedroom or the doctor's office where the government should keep it's nose out of. people are all too ready to fight against gay marriage and women's rights to choose..
if you are against abortion, do not have one. do not legislate what everyone else should do with their own bodies....
Good point, and can you imagine if abortions were illegal, how women would be going about getting abortions still? It would be really ugly.
i believe that it is a slippery slope to begin making laws to limit rights. laws should be there to grant people rights.
if you are against abortion, do not have one. do not legislate what everyone else should do with their own bodies....
Right, like granting rights to the developing human.
As for the last point....if you are against war, just do fight in one. If you are against corporate greed, just don't buy from those corporations. If you are against prayer in school, just don't pray. :roll:
thanks for the answer...
but no, not right. I am saying that it is possible that dollars allocated to a clinic for sti, cancer and other screenings(group A funds) are used to pay the entirety of a providers salary.. Those providers to then preform abortions, on a sliding scale minimum mind you, if clients are paying the full amount it is a moot point. isn't it possible to see this as federally funding abortions? This really only applies to those agencies that would account this way. I cannot believe it is an unheard of way of doing things however, I do understand the lengths most places go through to keep funding separate...we do it all the time...but is it impossible to think this kind of accounting goes on?
to me that is the kind of thinking that goes into saying that federal money funds abortions...
That is the kind of thinking that goes into it, but it's not accurate. That money is not used to pay the providers' entire salaries and patients cannot pay for abortion on a sliding scale. It is an unheard way of doing things because they really do go to great lengths to keep the money separate & have to be strictly accountable for that.
Good point, and can you imagine if abortions were illegal, how women would be going about getting abortions still? It would be really ugly.
Especially if it were made illegal now.
Which is why we should start viewing it as a terrible thing but not just take it away in 1 day. It should be reduced through education. In time, it could be eliminated except in some extreme cases. Even then I'm against it since I believe it is murder (incest, rape) and why should 1 crime follow another, but it'd be pretty difficult to tell a woman that has been raped that she must have the child. That is a very shitty situation.
Anyhoo, I think I'm going to try and bail out of this one now before I have a heart attack. Take care all.
i believe that it is a slippery slope to begin making laws to limit rights. laws should be there to grant people rights. i feel it is wrong to legislatively take away a right that has been granted 30 years ago.
also, it seems that many people on here who vote republican or claim to be "independant" (which is politically convenient these days) are arguing against abortion and say it should not be legal. i thought you all wanted government out of everyone's lives? what happened to that?
i guess wanting government out of people's lives only applies to taxes and health insurance and freedom, and not the bedroom or the doctor's office where the government should keep it's nose out of. people are all too ready to fight against gay marriage and women's rights to choose..
if you are against abortion, do not have one. do not legislate what everyone else should do with their own bodies....
Actually it seems to me that the many people on here that are arguing against abortion actually have children.
Its a slippery slop to decide which stage of human development you deem acceptable of murdering.
i believe that it is a slippery slope to begin making laws to limit rights. laws should be there to grant people rights.
if you are against abortion, do not have one. do not legislate what everyone else should do with their own bodies....
Right, like granting rights to the developing human.
As for the last point....if you are against war, just do fight in one. If you are against corporate greed, just don't buy from those corporations. If you are against prayer in school, just don't pray. :roll:
Are you saying you support giving eggs, from the moment they are fertilized (assuming that's your definition of pregnancy), the same rights as born people?
i believe that it is a slippery slope to begin making laws to limit rights. laws should be there to grant people rights.
if you are against abortion, do not have one. do not legislate what everyone else should do with their own bodies....
Right, like granting rights to the developing human.
As for the last point....if you are against war, just do fight in one. If you are against corporate greed, just don't buy from those corporations. If you are against prayer in school, just don't pray. :roll:
the rights of a living woman supercede the rights of anything developing within her. at the 9 week point the fetus is nothing more than a parasite living off of the woman. sorry to reduce it to that, but by definition of parasite it fits the bill...
as far as fighting in a war, i won't. i won't pray in a school, and i try to buy locally every chance i get.. :roll:
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Comments
With you? Probably.
Hell I have a kid and I think anyone that has more than 1 is crazy. I'm not convinced you aren't crazy if you want even just 1.
you are disregarding the miracle of life and childbirth entirely
and not even considering a viable option to killing...
that be putting your baby up for adoption
I have never understood the debate about when life happens ...
just really a cop out for those in favor of abortion
of course it is a human life and it is killing it.
I am pro choice not pro abortion, that debate seems to sugar coat what is really happening
and that is part of making a choice and owning it ...
understanding what you are doing and knowing that is a choice you can live with
And of course we can never go back to making abortion illegal
that isn't true, you missed the part about their being a way to get rid of the child without harming it...which you can do...but you cannot do that until it is out of you...
I don't think it is as ridiculous as you do...the physical damage done by a pregnancy up to and including life threatening is real...I cannot threaten your life and get away with it...I cannot make your body go through changes you don't want and get away with it, I cannot force you to stay in a room and not move except for the bathroom and get away with it...
I am not saying it is my argument...just one I find interesting. the same argument I made would ban late term abortion mind you...when the kid can live outside the womb abortion would be off the table... It isn't that far fetched of an example.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
but since you keep calling me out without fail on most days, i will answer.
i believe that _'s post is relevent to this thread because these laws are trying to make all women carry all pregnancies to term, and the point of the thread is to point out the attack on women's reproductive rights.
the law of averages states that events like the one in her example would be more common if more babies were born or more were made by law to be born. it is a terrible example of what people can do to defenseless children. murder by rape. sick bastard that man is..
but it is relevent to this thread topic about how taking away the right to abortion would lead to an increased number of deaths by infanticide...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
So, being born is a crime against the mother then? You are comparing child birth to CRIMES!!!
And even so, you are saying that those crimes are worthy of the death penalty. Which even in our society with the death penalty, it wouldn't be used for kidnapping.
I would honestly say that anyone that considers child birth to be the equivalent of a crime should do 2 things:
1) Become sterile.
2) Get a good head doctor.
First of all, you and I are just active posters recently, nothing personal.
Second of all, of course you do. Gotta stick with your team, even when they use crazy examples (i.e. fear mongering).
It did come from a man, quite a controversial one at that.
Basically it says that if I were to keep you captive, change your body, force you to gain weight, in some cases threaten your life, and the only way to end it was to kill me, would that be justifiable...you can say yes or no, but I am not sure what the confusing part is...
It also stipulates that if there was another way to rid the woman of the baby and it could, even for a short period survive on its own, the homicide would no longer be justifiable. But again, if I put you in a room for 5 months, and forced you to gain weight, messed with your hormones, and possible threatened your life, would it not be justifiable to kill me if it was the only way to get away?
"in favor of abortion" try not to use words like this. I am pro choice, not pro abortion. I am not in favor of abortion, I don't think people should have them...but I am not those people and as long as the baby cannot survive on its own I am fine with people choosing. For those of us who believe in an afterlife, those kids just get there sooner than they would have...but that is a whole other topic.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
if the birth is against the mothers will, than yeah, I suppose the argument does equate forced child birth to a crime...but again it isn't me, it is an argument that has been made and one I find quite interesting because it attempts to bypass the whole "when does life begin" question by presupposing that life begins at conception.
It does not equate all child birth to crimes. that is how you are reading it...what I am saying is that if it is against the mother's will, to do all the things I described...the question becomes is it justifiable homicide...your answer is obviously a resounding no. I do find the question interesting however...
And while kidnapping may not have the death penalty attached in the legal system, would you convict someone of murder for killing their kidnapper...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I see where you're going with it -- I kinda assumed it wasnt a scenario you suggested to make sense, but rather to make someone think differently about it -- as in, if the woman wants an abortion, but we make laws that restrict her from the things she wants?...yes, perhaps selfish of some women I guess though...
The underlined part is what I learned the most about last time there was a thread here discussing abortion, and it helped me decide whether to support a womans choice to abortion or not. (for the record I am pro-choice, but very against abortions, especially for convenience) But i believe the majority of abortions happen within the first 6 weeks (anybody know?), and before the majority of that fetus' development.
Not a cop out...(but to continue from my above thought)...I feel life starts as the sperm makes contact with the egg, but until that fetus can survive out of the womb on its own, I believe it to be an extension of that woman's body. Its 100% dependent on her, and her choice what to do with her body.
Ok then, since I think this line of thinking is beyond ridiculous, and I think you are generally a very level headed and informed poster, I'm just going to be done with this topic now, ok?
Okay, real quick before I go, so I can get this straight...
I haven't specifically read the contract of any Planned Parenthood provider, but the non-PP abortion providers I know are paid based on a mixture of salary, productivity, & grant funding.
But let me understand what you're saying here: The federal government funds non-abortion-related contraceptive, STI, & cancer screening services at Planned Parenthood (and other clinics & hospitals that may or may not provide abortion) through Medicaid payment of services and Title X & 340b subsidies. Planned Parenthood also receives income for services via cash & insurance. They also have income from some private donors. And you don't think the government money for non-abortion services can possibly be kept separate from the money for abortion services. Right?
But that's like saying that when my mom (who's anti-alcohol) buys milk at a grocery store & pays for the milk, and I buy alcohol & pay for the alcohol, my mom is really paying for my alcohol. (Analagous to payment for services, i.e. Medicaid.) And if the government wants to provide milk subsidies or coupons, they are using tax money to pay for alcohol. (Analagous to subsidized services, i.e. Title X & 340b drug pricing.) The expense of & income from those items are not tied together. If patients can't pay for their abortions, the cost is not subsidized by the non-abortion budget - the service is just not provided. And the cost for the doctor's time, the instruments, etc for abortion is factored into & paid by the income from the procedures. Salaried or not, it's not difficult to pay part of a person's paycheck from one budget and part from another, depending on how much time they spend on each service. It's pretty simple, actually, to make sure monies are kept separate for services & overhead when using different funds; organizations do it with grant funds all the time.
fair enough
just like to give a new way of looking at things to people...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Just beacuse we can't survive on in different enviorment (outside of earth/space) does not make us any less human, just incapable of living in that enviorment at our stage in development (evolution).
The fetus is just a developing human, there is no disputing that.
A woman who is less than 9 weeks pregnant (when most abortions occur) is 71 times more likely to die if she chooses childbirth than if she chooses abortion.
And a baby whose mother and father decided to abort is have a 100% chance of dying. I love statistics. I thought you were leaving.
Man, I missed your analogies!
But, until we evolve enough to breath on the moon or Mars, we arent able to survive without support from resources from the Earth (Mom).
Yep, a fetus is definitely a developing human.
but it is important for her to know she is killing a human being...
no sugar coating it with words like terminate
it is murder and she should be at good terms with that for herself
It is 100% on her this loss of life
62% happen at less than 9 weeks. I don't have time to look up the 6 week data. Sorry.
thanks for the answer...
but no, not right. I am saying that it is possible that dollars allocated to a clinic for sti, cancer and other screenings(group A funds) are used to pay the entirety of a providers salary.. Those providers to then preform abortions, on a sliding scale minimum mind you, if clients are paying the full amount it is a moot point. isn't it possible to see this as federally funding abortions? This really only applies to those agencies that would account this way. I cannot believe it is an unheard of way of doing things however, I do understand the lengths most places go through to keep funding separate...we do it all the time...but is it impossible to think this kind of accounting goes on?
to me that is the kind of thinking that goes into saying that federal money funds abortions...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Did you mean compare the number of maternal deaths to the number of women who don't experience maternal death? Because that's not the question at hand.
also, it seems that many people on here who vote republican or claim to be "independant" (which is politically convenient these days) are arguing against abortion and say it should not be legal. i thought you all wanted government out of everyone's lives? what happened to that?
i guess wanting government out of people's lives only applies to taxes and health insurance and freedom, and not the bedroom or the doctor's office where the government should keep it's nose out of. people are all too ready to fight against gay marriage and women's rights to choose..
if you are against abortion, do not have one. do not legislate what everyone else should do with their own bodies....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Good point, and can you imagine if abortions were illegal, how women would be going about getting abortions still? It would be really ugly.
Right, like granting rights to the developing human.
As for the last point....if you are against war, just do fight in one. If you are against corporate greed, just don't buy from those corporations. If you are against prayer in school, just don't pray. :roll:
That is the kind of thinking that goes into it, but it's not accurate. That money is not used to pay the providers' entire salaries and patients cannot pay for abortion on a sliding scale. It is an unheard way of doing things because they really do go to great lengths to keep the money separate & have to be strictly accountable for that.
Especially if it were made illegal now.
Which is why we should start viewing it as a terrible thing but not just take it away in 1 day. It should be reduced through education. In time, it could be eliminated except in some extreme cases. Even then I'm against it since I believe it is murder (incest, rape) and why should 1 crime follow another, but it'd be pretty difficult to tell a woman that has been raped that she must have the child. That is a very shitty situation.
Anyhoo, I think I'm going to try and bail out of this one now before I have a heart attack. Take care all.
Its a slippery slop to decide which stage of human development you deem acceptable of murdering.
Are you saying you support giving eggs, from the moment they are fertilized (assuming that's your definition of pregnancy), the same rights as born people?
as far as fighting in a war, i won't. i won't pray in a school, and i try to buy locally every chance i get.. :roll:
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."