You're making a big assumption that all late term abortions occur because of the health of the mother. And even if that's sometimes the case, why is it ok? I mean, if it's really the case that the fetus is considered (even by pro-choice supporters) to be viable (and a human child) at 14 weeks, why is it that approximately 100,000 of these late term abortions occur each year after 14 weeks? That seems like an awful lot of Mothers with health concerns. I don't believe that all are for Mother's health concerns. But, in the cases where they are, why are not the heavy majority of these concerns figured out prior to 14 weeks?
And finally, in these situations where it actually is a health concern, would you admit that they're now killing a child to save a Mother?
Moreover, who supported partial birth abortion? When did the majority of these (term-wise), when they were permitted, occur? I've heard 20+ weeks. That's almost two months after your 14 weeks threshold.
Who says it's okay to abort later term for the health of the mother? ... The mother does. Wtf. Yeah, I think it's totally fine for a woman to decide that. Wow, what a concept. And no, I don't admit that they are now killing a child to save a mother. They are aborting a fetus that is harming or killing the woman carrying it.
Well, when is it a child then?
Also, maybe I'm incorrect, but you seem to be avoiding the other questions. Why aren't these concerns with a mother's health figured out prior to 14 weeks? You said that was the cut off on viability. Do you really believe that all or even the majority of the 100,000 late term abortions per year occur because of the health of the mother? Do you think the "health of the mother" is ever used as an excuse when it's not really an issue? Finally, wasn't it the pro-choice movement that supported partial birth abortion? The majority of those occurred at 20+ weeks, right? Like I previously, mentioned that's almost 2 months past this 14 week viability stage.
I only answered the questions I felt like answering, that's all. I'm kinda busy. I'm not trying to avoid anything, fyi.
Err, health concerns for the mother that warrant late term abortions aren't figured out during the first trimester because such health problems aren't yet evident; such problems are generally caused by the progression of the pregnancy (usually combined with other parallel factors). I thought that would be kinda obvious.
I can't speak for others, but I don't personally consider a fetus in the first trimester viable. A minimum of 1 in 5 pregnancies terminate themselves during this time. As far as I'm concerned, Mother Nature doesn't consider 1st tri fetuses viable either. It's the time during which the body is deciding whether or not it's going to bother dealing with it (and it often decides not to).
As for health concerns being used as an excuse... that has nothing to do with anything. It's possible that that is happening... but since it would require a doctor to lie on medical charts, that is a different matter altogether and impossible to gauge in any case.
A lot of later term abortions are also done because of defects to the fetus wherein the mother (or both parents) decide it's better not to have the baby. I believe that is completely a personal call to be made by the mother, and very strongly believe that you or anyone else has no right to step into that decision-making process. It is something inside the woman's body - Something that is a PART OF HER BODY. I think anyone has a HUUUUUGE nerve trying to dictate what a woman should do with that. That's it. Beyond that, there is no point in debating it in my opinion. I don't think it's right to use abortion as birth control, but honestly, very few women do this... it's not like getting an abortion is easy and painless for crying out loud. Anyone who says a relevant number of women choose this as a birth control method is full of it. That's ridiculous.
I also don't approve of late term abortions without due cause (due cause is the health of the mother or because of the quality of life a defective fetus might have as determined by the mother). But since no late term abortions are EVER performed without due cause, that is a completely moot issue.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I only answered the questions I felt like answering, that's all. I'm kinda busy. I'm not trying to avoid anything, fyi.
I get that people are busy and I'm no way trying to rush answers. I'm just curious and wondered why you were skipping certain questions. Plus, I didn't start the conversation with you, you asked me a question first.
Here are the questions you avoided:
"Well, when is it a child then?
Finally, wasn't it the pro-choice movement that supported partial birth abortion? The majority of those occurred at 20+ weeks, right? Like I previously, mentioned that's almost 2 months past this 14 week viability stage."
Err, health concerns for the mother that warrant late term abortions aren't figured out during the first trimester because such health problems aren't yet evident; such problems are generally caused by the progression of the pregnancy (usually combined with other parallel factors). I thought that would be kinda obvious.
I can't speak for others, but I don't personally consider a fetus in the first trimester viable. A minimum of 1 in 5 pregnancies terminate themselves during this time. As far as I'm concerned, Mother Nature doesn't consider 1st tri fetuses viable either. It's the time during which the body is deciding whether or not it's going to bother dealing with it (and it often decides not to).
As for health concerns being used as an excuse... that has nothing to do with anything. It's possible that that is happening... but since it would require a doctor to lie on medical charts, that is a different matter altogether and impossible to gauge in any case.
A lot of later term abortions are also done because of defects to the fetus wherein the mother (or both parents) decide it's better not to have the baby. I believe that is completely a personal call to be made by the mother, and very strongly believe that you or anyone else has no right to step into that decision-making process. It is something inside the woman's body - Something that is a PART OF HER BODY. I think anyone has a HUUUUUGE nerve trying to dictate what a woman should do with that. That's it. Beyond that, there is no point in debating it in my opinion. I don't think it's right to use abortion as birth control, but honestly, very few women do this... it's not like getting an abortion is easy and painless for crying out loud. Anyone who says a relevant number of women choose this as a birth control method is full of it. That's ridiculous.
I also don't approve of late term abortions without due cause (due cause is the health of the mother or because of the quality of life a defective fetus might have as determined by the mother). But since no late term abortions are EVER performed without due cause, that is a completely moot issue.
The whole part of her body issue, once again, should be moot if that thing inside is also a person with equal rights. Although you disagree, do you at least see my argument? I mean, if we are saying that's a human life, then they have rights to their own body to not be destroyed.
Finally, I see you don't approve of late term abortions without "due cause". Let me ask this: would "gender" ever be good enough to be considered due cause? How about genes? Where is the line drawn on your "due cause"? Because I would argue that allowing a mother to decide due cause basically throws out any rationalization against late term abortion. It's providing a caveat to allow it in totality. In other words, a mother who seeks a late term abortion can always generate a rationale for why the fetus may not have a good "quality of life". So, while you're saying you don't support late term abortions, you're basically leaving open the door to anyone getting one.
If that's not what you meant by due cause, fair enough. But, then you're most likely wrong about this quote: "But since no late term abortions are EVER performed without due cause, that is a completely moot issue". There's no way that every late term abortion (100000 a year) is due to either the health of the mother or disfigurement of the child. It's simply not possible.
I only answered the questions I felt like answering, that's all. I'm kinda busy. I'm not trying to avoid anything, fyi.
I get that people are busy and I'm no way trying to rush answers. I'm just curious and wondered why you were skipping certain questions. Plus, I didn't start the conversation with you, you asked me a question first.
Here are the questions you avoided:
"Well, when is it a child then?
Finally, wasn't it the pro-choice movement that supported partial birth abortion? The majority of those occurred at 20+ weeks, right? Like I previously, mentioned that's almost 2 months past this 14 week viability stage."
Err, health concerns for the mother that warrant late term abortions aren't figured out during the first trimester because such health problems aren't yet evident; such problems are generally caused by the progression of the pregnancy (usually combined with other parallel factors). I thought that would be kinda obvious.
I can't speak for others, but I don't personally consider a fetus in the first trimester viable. A minimum of 1 in 5 pregnancies terminate themselves during this time. As far as I'm concerned, Mother Nature doesn't consider 1st tri fetuses viable either. It's the time during which the body is deciding whether or not it's going to bother dealing with it (and it often decides not to).
As for health concerns being used as an excuse... that has nothing to do with anything. It's possible that that is happening... but since it would require a doctor to lie on medical charts, that is a different matter altogether and impossible to gauge in any case.
A lot of later term abortions are also done because of defects to the fetus wherein the mother (or both parents) decide it's better not to have the baby. I believe that is completely a personal call to be made by the mother, and very strongly believe that you or anyone else has no right to step into that decision-making process. It is something inside the woman's body - Something that is a PART OF HER BODY. I think anyone has a HUUUUUGE nerve trying to dictate what a woman should do with that. That's it. Beyond that, there is no point in debating it in my opinion. I don't think it's right to use abortion as birth control, but honestly, very few women do this... it's not like getting an abortion is easy and painless for crying out loud. Anyone who says a relevant number of women choose this as a birth control method is full of it. That's ridiculous.
I also don't approve of late term abortions without due cause (due cause is the health of the mother or because of the quality of life a defective fetus might have as determined by the mother). But since no late term abortions are EVER performed without due cause, that is a completely moot issue.
The whole part of her body issue, once again, should be moot if that thing inside is also a person with equal rights. Although you disagree, do you at least see my argument? I mean, if we are saying that's a human life, then they have rights to their own body to not be destroyed.
Finally, I see you don't approve of late term abortions without "due cause". Let me ask this: would "gender" ever be good enough to be considered due cause? How about genes? Where is the line drawn on your "due cause"? Because I would argue that allowing a mother to decide due cause basically throws out any rationalization against late term abortion. It's providing a caveat to allow it in totality. In other words, a mother who seeks a late term abortion can always generate a rationale for why the fetus may not have a good "quality of life". So, while you're saying you don't support late term abortions, you're basically leaving open the door to anyone getting one.
If that's not what you meant by due cause, fair enough. But, then you're most likely wrong about this quote: "But since no late term abortions are EVER performed without due cause, that is a completely moot issue". There's no way that every late term abortion (100000 a year) is due to either the health of the mother or disfigurement of the child. It's simply not possible.
Yeah, I don't think a fetus has equal rights to the woman carrying it, so...
And of COURSE gender is not a reason to abort. That is NOT legal in North America, because you don't find out the gender before 14 weeks, and can't have an abortion with medical justification after that (and gender doesn't count as medical justification). I'm not sure what you mean by "genes" as justification... You mean hypothetical genetic engineering?? ... Because I'm not bothering to discuss that. It's not a reality at the moment, and a different issue. The slippery slope argument should, IMHO, be saved for simpletons. Also... I dunno... you seem to be veering off into unreality rather than talking about the real issues now. You can say "what about this" and "What about that" forever, but if none of those variables actually exist, I don't see the point in wasting my time debating them. We are talking about actual abortion rights... not Philosophy 101.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I only answered the questions I felt like answering, that's all. I'm kinda busy. I'm not trying to avoid anything, fyi.
I get that people are busy and I'm no way trying to rush answers. I'm just curious and wondered why you were skipping certain questions. Plus, I didn't start the conversation with you, you asked me a question first.
Here are the questions you avoided:
"Well, when is it a child then?
Finally, wasn't it the pro-choice movement that supported partial birth abortion? The majority of those occurred at 20+ weeks, right? Like I previously, mentioned that's almost 2 months past this 14 week viability stage."
Err, health concerns for the mother that warrant late term abortions aren't figured out during the first trimester because such health problems aren't yet evident; such problems are generally caused by the progression of the pregnancy (usually combined with other parallel factors). I thought that would be kinda obvious.
I can't speak for others, but I don't personally consider a fetus in the first trimester viable. A minimum of 1 in 5 pregnancies terminate themselves during this time. As far as I'm concerned, Mother Nature doesn't consider 1st tri fetuses viable either. It's the time during which the body is deciding whether or not it's going to bother dealing with it (and it often decides not to).
As for health concerns being used as an excuse... that has nothing to do with anything. It's possible that that is happening... but since it would require a doctor to lie on medical charts, that is a different matter altogether and impossible to gauge in any case.
A lot of later term abortions are also done because of defects to the fetus wherein the mother (or both parents) decide it's better not to have the baby. I believe that is completely a personal call to be made by the mother, and very strongly believe that you or anyone else has no right to step into that decision-making process. It is something inside the woman's body - Something that is a PART OF HER BODY. I think anyone has a HUUUUUGE nerve trying to dictate what a woman should do with that. That's it. Beyond that, there is no point in debating it in my opinion. I don't think it's right to use abortion as birth control, but honestly, very few women do this... it's not like getting an abortion is easy and painless for crying out loud. Anyone who says a relevant number of women choose this as a birth control method is full of it. That's ridiculous.
I also don't approve of late term abortions without due cause (due cause is the health of the mother or because of the quality of life a defective fetus might have as determined by the mother). But since no late term abortions are EVER performed without due cause, that is a completely moot issue.
The whole part of her body issue, once again, should be moot if that thing inside is also a person with equal rights. Although you disagree, do you at least see my argument? I mean, if we are saying that's a human life, then they have rights to their own body to not be destroyed.
Finally, I see you don't approve of late term abortions without "due cause". Let me ask this: would "gender" ever be good enough to be considered due cause? How about genes? Where is the line drawn on your "due cause"? Because I would argue that allowing a mother to decide due cause basically throws out any rationalization against late term abortion. It's providing a caveat to allow it in totality. In other words, a mother who seeks a late term abortion can always generate a rationale for why the fetus may not have a good "quality of life". So, while you're saying you don't support late term abortions, you're basically leaving open the door to anyone getting one.
If that's not what you meant by due cause, fair enough. But, then you're most likely wrong about this quote: "But since no late term abortions are EVER performed without due cause, that is a completely moot issue". There's no way that every late term abortion (100000 a year) is due to either the health of the mother or disfigurement of the child. It's simply not possible.
Yeah, I don't think a fetus has equal rights to the woman carrying it, so...
And of COURSE gender is not a reason to abort. That is NOT legal in North America, because you don't find out the gender before 14 weeks, and can't have an abortion with medical justification after that (and gender doesn't count as medical justification. Nor does "I don't want it." Nor does "my back hurts" or "I have heart burn"). I'm not sure what you mean by "genes" as justification... You mean hypothetical genetic engineering?? ... Because I'm not bothering to discuss that. It's not a reality at the moment, and a different issue. The slippery slope argument should, IMHO, be saved for simpletons. Also... I dunno... you seem to be veering off into unreality rather than talking about the real issues now. You can say "what about this" and "What about that" forever, but if none of those variables actually exist, I don't see the point in wasting my time debating them. We are talking about actual abortion rights... not Philosophy 101 (or so I thought... If I missed something, apologies).
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Once again, you ignored the top-line questions. Here they are again:
"Well, when is it a child then?
Finally, wasn't it the pro-choice movement that supported partial birth abortion? The majority of those occurred at 20+ weeks, right? Like I previously, mentioned that's almost 2 months past this 14 week viability stage."
The slippery slope argument should, IMHO, be saved for simpletons. Also... I dunno... you seem to be veering off into unreality rather than talking about the real issues now. You can say "what about this" and "What about that" forever, but if none of those variables actually exist.
The variables do exist. You've been all over the place here. First, you reply to me saying that discussions on when the fetus is a child are irrelevant in this issue. I still don't understand that (and that's why I wanted you to answer the question above, which you've now avoided a number of times). Then you explain that the fetus is viable in your opinion after 14 weeks, so abortion after that is not right, but you said they don't occur. After that I brought up partial birth abortion, which you avoided. Then when I explained that over 100,000 abortions per year in the U.S. occur after that point (14 weeks)... you say, it's ok if it's for the mother's health. Then when I asked if you really believe all 100,000 really have the lives of the mother in jeopardy, you say maybe not. Then you add that the due cause argument to your list of why it would be ok. Saying, if there's due cause the child will have an issue, it's also ok. Then when we discuss what exactly your "due cause" could entail, you say we're getting too philosophical. Ok fair enough...
So, my way to break this down to less philosophical is - when does human life begin? When is the point it is not permissible under any circumstance to kill that human? This, most likely, brings us full circle back to when you originally responded to me in this thread.
Once again, you ignored the top-line questions. Here they are again:
"Well, when is it a child then?
Finally, wasn't it the pro-choice movement that supported partial birth abortion? The majority of those occurred at 20+ weeks, right? Like I previously, mentioned that's almost 2 months past this 14 week viability stage."
The slippery slope argument should, IMHO, be saved for simpletons. Also... I dunno... you seem to be veering off into unreality rather than talking about the real issues now. You can say "what about this" and "What about that" forever, but if none of those variables actually exist.
The variables do exist. You've been all over the place here. First, you reply to me saying that discussions on when the fetus is a child are irrelevant in this issue. I still don't understand that (and that's why I wanted you to answer the question above, which you've now avoided a number of times). Then you explain that the fetus is viable in your opinion after 14 weeks, so abortion after that is not right, but you said they don't occur. After that I brought up partial birth abortion, which you avoided. Then when I explained that over 100,000 abortions per year in the U.S. occur after that point (14 weeks)... you say, it's ok if it's for the mother's health. Then when I asked if you really believe all 100,000 really have the lives of the mother in jeopardy, you say maybe not. Then you add that the due cause argument to your list of why it would be ok. Saying, if there's due cause the child will have an issue, it's also ok. Then when we discuss what exactly your "due cause" could entail, you say we're getting too philosophical. Ok fair enough...
So, my way to break this down to less philosophical is - when does human life begin? When is the point it is not permissible under any circumstance to kill that human? This, most likely, brings us full circle back to when you originally responded to me in this thread.
1) I don't even know what question you think I'm avoiding. Please restate.
2) I absolutely did NOT say I think a fetus is viable after 14 weeks (I don't think it's viable until it can live outside of the womb unassisted or almost unassisted). I said I don't think a fetus under 14 weeks is viable according to mother nature. Huge different - please stop changing my words around.... I think your doing that is what is creating your own confusion in what I'm saying. You have a tendency to take one statement and apply it to various other points that it wasn't intended for. If you do that, of course you're going to become confused.
3) When I don't directly address a particular thing you happened to mention it doesn't mean I'm avoiding it. It means I didn't bother because I didn't care or didn't think it was relevant.
4) You ask: "when does human life begin? When is the point it is not permissible under any circumstance to kill that human?" - I think human life begins when it can live independent from another human being's physical body.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'm pro choice, but I don't know how it is decided if a fetus is viable based on the criterium that it can live independent of a host. I mean, some babies live after being born at 24 weeks (my nephew, who is now 14), some don't make it after 40. so how do we know what's viable and what isn't before we actually let it attempt survival?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'm pro choice, but I don't know how it is decided if a fetus is viable based on the criterium that it can live independent of a host. I mean, some babies live after being born at 24 weeks (my nephew, who is now 14), some don't make it after 40. so how do we know what's viable and what isn't before we actually let it attempt survival?
viability is about potentiality not actuality.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I'm pro choice, but I don't know how it is decided if a fetus is viable based on the criterium that it can live independent of a host. I mean, some babies live after being born at 24 weeks (my nephew, who is now 14), some don't make it after 40. so how do we know what's viable and what isn't before we actually let it attempt survival?
viability is about potentiality not actuality.
ok, thanks.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
For example, there was a large portion of the pro-choice camp that was for legal partial birth abortion, and adamantly opposed the ban on it. If you don't remember what partial birth abortion is - that's when the fetus head is sucked out of the mother "alive", and struck in the head with a knife to kill it and suck out it's brain,.... approx. 2 seconds out of the womb, I'd guess is pretty accurate there. In fact, I'm pretty sure our current President was a opposed a ban on partial birth abortion. As a matter of fact, President Obama also did not support Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which was an Illinois bill aimed at protecting the lives of babies born alive after attempted abortions.
You have a complete misunderstanding of this issue and why people have opposed these bans, so please stop trying to represent us and our beliefs.
No, I don't. I simply stated how our President voted in regards to this issue prior being elected President and that a reasonably large portion of the pro-choice community was against a ban on partial-birth abortion (including him).
I think you have issues with facts.
You are misrepresenting:
1. What a "partial birth abortion" is (hint: there's no such thing), and consequently what the bill actually bans.
You have a complete misunderstanding of this issue and why people have opposed these bans, so please stop trying to represent us and our beliefs.
No, I don't. I simply stated how our President voted in regards to this issue prior being elected President and that a reasonably large portion of the pro-choice community was against a ban on partial-birth abortion (including him).
I think you have issues with facts.
You are misrepresenting:
1. What a "partial birth abortion" is (hint: there's no such thing), and consequently what the bill actually bans.
I'm pro choice, but I don't know how it is decided if a fetus is viable based on the criterium that it can live independent of a host. I mean, some babies live after being born at 24 weeks (my nephew, who is now 14), some don't make it after 40. so how do we know what's viable and what isn't before we actually let it attempt survival?
Some babies survive abortion attempts... making things even more complicated.
1) I don't even know what question you think I'm avoiding. Please restate.
You had been avoiding when human life begins to the point it's no longer permissible to kill it. This was all just me seeking your opinion since it's not like you make laws. Anyway, I also brought up partial birth abortion a few times and asked for thoughts on that. You can re-read those questions if you'd like.
3) When I don't directly address a particular thing you happened to mention it doesn't mean I'm avoiding it. It means I didn't bother because I didn't care or didn't think it was relevant.
Yeh, I figured that out. You must not like discussing partial birth abortion. Since, you avoided that topic so many times.
4) You ask: "when does human life begin? When is the point it is not permissible under any circumstance to kill that human?" - I think human life begins when it can live independent from another human being's physical body.
Well, at least you answered the question. My response here is obviously, when exactly is that? And would it ever be ok to terminate that human life?
This is circular discussion. Basically, if you think murdering a baby two minutes outside the womb is wrong and NEVER permissable. Why (under any condition) would be it ok to murder a fetus that could survive outside the womb? And if it's not, then when (again) is the time frame after which it's not permitted?
This is my issue with the pro-choicers who believe life doesn't begin at birth. They basically admit that it's ok under certain conditions to kill a human life. I say, it's never ok. This whole issue always comes back to when life begins. Pro-choicers who believe life starts at birth and Pro-lifers who believe life starts at conception are at least consistent and aren't saying it's ever ok to kill a human life. All that said, Pro-choicers who believe life starts at birth have a whole lot of other issues with their argument. For example, viable life that can survive in or out of the womb. Which was my point when you first responded to me in this thread. In my humble opinion, the only side here that is consistent all the way through is Pro-life side. That's why I advocate that stance. Basically, humans should never advocate killing human people.... under any condition, ever. Once again, it comes back to when is a fetus a human person. The OP makes some good points there.
I might be out of the norm, go figure, but I am Pro choice and believe
life starts at conception, without question. I also do not sugar coat
and I believe abortion IS taking a life....
indeed premeditated murder.
Harsh but what women could consider before choosing abortion
to avoid regrets if at all possible. This regret is not one you want to take to the grave.
Being Pro Choice doesn't make me pro abortion as many have stated
in many threads.
Abortion in my mind is here to stay but laws based in good common sense
can be passed to help limit it as a choice. To give life a chance, to choose adoption.
To help both mother and child.
Also 14 weeks is not correct... many abortions are done after,
this varies by law and by state. At 24 weeks a child can live outside the womb and the law
states 2 or more doctors must be present to aid the child if indeed that is necessary.
1) I don't even know what question you think I'm avoiding. Please restate.
You had been avoiding when human life begins to the point it's no longer permissible to kill it. This was all just me seeking your opinion since it's not like you make laws. Anyway, I also brought up partial birth abortion a few times and asked for thoughts on that. You can re-read those questions if you'd like.
3) When I don't directly address a particular thing you happened to mention it doesn't mean I'm avoiding it. It means I didn't bother because I didn't care or didn't think it was relevant.
Yeh, I figured that out. You must not like discussing partial birth abortion. Since, you avoided that topic so many times.
4) You ask: "when does human life begin? When is the point it is not permissible under any circumstance to kill that human?" - I think human life begins when it can live independent from another human being's physical body.
Well, at least you answered the question. My response here is obviously, when exactly is that? And would it ever be ok to terminate that human life?
This is circular discussion. Basically, if you think murdering a baby two minutes outside the womb is wrong and NEVER permissable. Why (under any condition) would be it ok to murder a fetus that could survive outside the womb? And if it's not, then when (again) is the time frame after which it's not permitted?
This is my issue with the pro-choicers who believe life doesn't begin at birth. They basically admit that it's ok under certain conditions to kill a human life. I say, it's never ok. This whole issue always comes back to when life begins. Pro-choicers who believe life starts at birth and Pro-lifers who believe life starts at conception are at least consistent and aren't saying it's ever ok to kill a human life. All that said, Pro-choicers who believe life starts at birth have a whole lot of other issues with their argument. For example, viable life that can survive in or out of the womb. Which was my point when you first responded to me in this thread. In my humble opinion, the only side here that is consistent all the way through is Pro-life side. That's why I advocate that stance. Basically, humans should never advocate killing human people.... under any condition, ever. Once again, it comes back to when is a fetus a human person. The OP makes some good points there.
I'm comfortable with shades of grey myself. Judgment calls determined by individual situations - I see nothing confusing about this concept.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
No, I don't. I simply stated how our President voted in regards to this issue prior being elected President and that a reasonably large portion of the pro-choice community was against a ban on partial-birth abortion (including him).
I think you have issues with facts.
You are misrepresenting:
1. What a "partial birth abortion" is (hint: there's no such thing), and consequently what the bill actually bans.
2. Why people oppose these bills.
Ummm... no. I'm not.
Whatever, dude. Anyone who actually knows anything about this topic knows that you are. I just feel bad about the people who don't know any better and actually believe you.
3) When I don't directly address a particular thing you happened to mention it doesn't mean I'm avoiding it. It means I didn't bother because I didn't care or didn't think it was relevant.
Yeh, I figured that out. You must not like discussing partial birth abortion. Since, you avoided that topic so many times.
Funny coming from the guy who's avoiding discussing the same topic with me.
1) I don't even know what question you think I'm avoiding. Please restate.
You had been avoiding when human life begins to the point it's no longer permissible to kill it. This was all just me seeking your opinion since it's not like you make laws. Anyway, I also brought up partial birth abortion a few times and asked for thoughts on that. You can re-read those questions if you'd like.
3) When I don't directly address a particular thing you happened to mention it doesn't mean I'm avoiding it. It means I didn't bother because I didn't care or didn't think it was relevant.
Yeh, I figured that out. You must not like discussing partial birth abortion. Since, you avoided that topic so many times.
4) You ask: "when does human life begin? When is the point it is not permissible under any circumstance to kill that human?" - I think human life begins when it can live independent from another human being's physical body.
Well, at least you answered the question. My response here is obviously, when exactly is that? And would it ever be ok to terminate that human life?
This is circular discussion. Basically, if you think murdering a baby two minutes outside the womb is wrong and NEVER permissable. Why (under any condition) would be it ok to murder a fetus that could survive outside the womb? And if it's not, then when (again) is the time frame after which it's not permitted?
This is my issue with the pro-choicers who believe life doesn't begin at birth. They basically admit that it's ok under certain conditions to kill a human life. I say, it's never ok. This whole issue always comes back to when life begins. Pro-choicers who believe life starts at birth and Pro-lifers who believe life starts at conception are at least consistent and aren't saying it's ever ok to kill a human life. All that said, Pro-choicers who believe life starts at birth have a whole lot of other issues with their argument. For example, viable life that can survive in or out of the womb. Which was my point when you first responded to me in this thread. In my humble opinion, the only side here that is consistent all the way through is Pro-life side. That's why I advocate that stance. Basically, humans should never advocate killing human people.... under any condition, ever. Once again, it comes back to when is a fetus a human person. The OP makes some good points there.
I think your method of debate is flawed (not just in this thread). I find I don't have the energy or desire to deal with it, because it's pointless. No matter what anyone says, you twist it up and create new meanings for yourself so you can reassert your argument despite anything that may poke holes in it. Fox newsy. I've accused you of this before... Not trying to attack you; you'll do what you want of course, and more power to you. Just explaining why I don't really get into it with you or bother responding to a lot of your points; I find many of them to be very clouded, your interpretations of what others say very off-base, and your assumptions applied to what they say rather convenient and irritating. Some like to engage with these methods, but not me. It gets boring after a while, so I bail (flaw on my part, perhaps). And in the end, I just disagree with most of your points that make any sense, find your "facts" dubious at best, and IMHO you rely too much on theory rather than the realities of the issue. With all due respect, seriously. I do admire your tenacity. You've got more than I do.
Are you a man, btw? Or a woman?
Oh, and I have no prob discussing partial birth. It doesn't make me uncomfortable. I just do find it relevant; I don't understand why you keep bringing it up like it matters.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I think your method of debate is flawed (not just in this thread). I find I don't have the energy or desire to deal with it, because it's pointless. No matter what anyone says, you twist it up and create new meanings for yourself so you can reassert your argument despite anything that may poke holes in it. Fox newsy. I've accused you of this before... Not trying to attack you; you'll do what you want of course, and more power to you. Just explaining why I don't really get into it with you or bother responding to a lot of your points; I find many of them to be very clouded, your interpretations of what others say very off-base, and your assumptions applied to what they say rather convenient and irritating. Some like to engage with these methods, but not me. It gets boring after a while, so I bail (flaw on my part, perhaps). And in the end, I just disagree with most of your points that make any sense, find your "facts" dubious at best, and IMHO you rely too much on theory rather than the realities of the issue. With all due respect, seriously. I do admire your tenacity. You've got more than I do.
First, I'd say simply: you don't "bail". You continue to engage, in some cases when you throw up your arms you focus on the style of discussion (see above), and pick and choose what you respond to. If you really did "bail", this message I'm quoting wouldn't be here. You would stop engaging. That's bailing.
Second, I'd say it's not really a debate if when a question is presented one side chooses to not respond. Further, I don't really want a debate, I'd prefer a discussion. I have my opinion and I'm aware others have theirs. On this issue, I do think I have a bit of passion maybe because I've just had children, and believe they were alive when I saw the ultrasound. I have my beliefs on this issue, and I believe they are well thought out. Anyway, I was curious why anyone would involve themselves in a discussion by saying that late-term abortion is not relevant in regards to the subject of the morality of abortion. So, I asked questions to see what this person really thinks. I asked you a few questions, and in my humble opinion, you got so lost in what you believe that you felt the need to stop and start discussing the style of questions. But, maybe that's just my take. Regardless of my questions, you engaged with me in this thread, not the other way around. I asked questions in response and you continued to engage, sometimes not responding to certain questions.
Are you a man, btw? Or a woman?
Oh, and I have no prob discussing partial birth. It doesn't make me uncomfortable. I just do find it relevant; I don't understand why you keep bringing it up like it matters.
I am a man, but don't see how that's relevant.
Partial birth abortion was relevant in our discussion for a variety of reasons. For example, it's commentary on abortion (which this threads about) and the thread title is "after-birth abortion". Partial birth abortion would certainly fall into that conceptual compartment of discussion. Moreover, you originally engaged with me when I was discussing a subject very close to parital birth abortion if not identical.
You never once said whether you support partial birth abortion or, further, infanticide of botched abortions. I was simply trying to understand your thoughts on those issues, which certainly is topically involved with the thread.
I think your method of debate is flawed (not just in this thread). I find I don't have the energy or desire to deal with it, because it's pointless. No matter what anyone says, you twist it up and create new meanings for yourself so you can reassert your argument despite anything that may poke holes in it. Fox newsy. I've accused you of this before... Not trying to attack you; you'll do what you want of course, and more power to you. Just explaining why I don't really get into it with you or bother responding to a lot of your points; I find many of them to be very clouded, your interpretations of what others say very off-base, and your assumptions applied to what they say rather convenient and irritating. Some like to engage with these methods, but not me. It gets boring after a while, so I bail (flaw on my part, perhaps). And in the end, I just disagree with most of your points that make any sense, find your "facts" dubious at best, and IMHO you rely too much on theory rather than the realities of the issue. With all due respect, seriously. I do admire your tenacity. You've got more than I do.
First, I'd say simply: you don't "bail". You continue to engage, in some cases when you throw up your arms you focus on the style of discussion (see above), and pick and choose what you respond to. If you really did "bail", this message I'm quoting wouldn't be here. You would stop engaging. That's bailing.
Second, I'd say it's not really a debate if when a question is presented one side chooses to not respond. Further, I don't really want a debate, I'd prefer a discussion. I have my opinion and I'm aware others have theirs. On this issue, I do think I have a bit of passion maybe because I've just had children, and believe they were alive when I saw the ultrasound. Anyway, I was curious why anyone would involve themselves in a discussion by saying that late-term abortion is not relevant in regards to the subject of the morality of abortion. So, I asked questions to see what this person really thinks. I asked you a few questions, and in my humble opinion, you got so lost in what you believe that you felt the need to stop and start discussing the style of questions. But, maybe that's just my take. Regardless of my questions, you engaged with me in this thread, not the other way around. I asked questions in response and you continued to engage, sometimes not responding to certain questions.
Are you a man, btw? Or a woman?
Oh, and I have no prob discussing partial birth. It doesn't make me uncomfortable. I just do find it relevant; I don't understand why you keep bringing it up like it matters.
I am a man, but don't see how that's relevant.
Partial birth abortion was relevant in our discussion for a variety of reasons. For example, it's commentary on abortion (which this threads about) and the thread title is "after-birth abortion". Partial birth abortion would certainly fall into that conceptual compartment of discussion. Moreover, you originally engaged with me when I was discussing a subject very close to parital birth abortion if not identical.
You never once said whether you support partial birth abortion or, further, infanticide of botched abortions. I was simply trying to understand your thoughts on those issues, which certainly is topically involved with the thread.
Edit: you're right, partial-birth abortion WAS kind of relevant, but no anymore in our discussion, I don't think. Because when it happens and why is what matters I think (and for you too, if you think life begins at conception and consider all abortion murder), not the procedure itself. And I think your idea of when and why it happens is not matching reality.
I think it's very relevant that you're a man. I don't think men have any business whatsoever sticking their nose into the issue, honestly. They cannot EVER understand abortion or the many different levels of reasoning and emotions around the issue. They just can't. Because it's not their bodies that have ever or will ever be the bodies that carry a fetus. Sorry. I find it fairly offensive when men act like they think they really know what they're talking when it comes to abortion. I'm a woman who has had an abortion as well as a miscarriage ... I think I have a much clearer view of the issue that you ever could, no matter how much you want to wax-on about it, which is why I tend to kind of blow off men who have all this blah blah blahing to do on the matter of pro-life (men who just respect the woman's right to choose is what I can respect). It means nothing to me. You just don't know (not that you don't have a right to your opinion... I just can't muster any interest in what it is). Sorry. :?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I think your method of debate is flawed (not just in this thread). I find I don't have the energy or desire to deal with it, because it's pointless. No matter what anyone says, you twist it up and create new meanings for yourself so you can reassert your argument despite anything that may poke holes in it. Fox newsy. I've accused you of this before... Not trying to attack you; you'll do what you want of course, and more power to you. Just explaining why I don't really get into it with you or bother responding to a lot of your points; I find many of them to be very clouded, your interpretations of what others say very off-base, and your assumptions applied to what they say rather convenient and irritating. Some like to engage with these methods, but not me. It gets boring after a while, so I bail (flaw on my part, perhaps). And in the end, I just disagree with most of your points that make any sense, find your "facts" dubious at best, and IMHO you rely too much on theory rather than the realities of the issue. With all due respect, seriously. I do admire your tenacity. You've got more than I do.
First, I'd say simply: you don't "bail". You continue to engage, in some cases when you throw up your arms you focus on the style of discussion (see above), and pick and choose what you respond to. If you really did "bail", this message I'm quoting wouldn't be here. You would stop engaging. That's bailing.
Second, I'd say it's not really a debate if when a question is presented one side chooses to not respond. Further, I don't really want a debate, I'd prefer a discussion. I have my opinion and I'm aware others have theirs. On this issue, I do think I have a bit of passion maybe because I've just had children, and believe they were alive when I saw the ultrasound. Anyway, I was curious why anyone would involve themselves in a discussion by saying that late-term abortion is not relevant in regards to the subject of the morality of abortion. So, I asked questions to see what this person really thinks. I asked you a few questions, and in my humble opinion, you got so lost in what you believe that you felt the need to stop and start discussing the style of questions. But, maybe that's just my take. Regardless of my questions, you engaged with me in this thread, not the other way around. I asked questions in response and you continued to engage, sometimes not responding to certain questions.
Are you a man, btw? Or a woman?
Oh, and I have no prob discussing partial birth. It doesn't make me uncomfortable. I just do find it relevant; I don't understand why you keep bringing it up like it matters.
I am a man, but don't see how that's relevant.
Partial birth abortion was relevant in our discussion for a variety of reasons. For example, it's commentary on abortion (which this threads about) and the thread title is "after-birth abortion". Partial birth abortion would certainly fall into that conceptual compartment of discussion. Moreover, you originally engaged with me when I was discussing a subject very close to parital birth abortion if not identical.
You never once said whether you support partial birth abortion or, further, infanticide of botched abortions. I was simply trying to understand your thoughts on those issues, which certainly is topically involved with the thread.
I think it's very relevant that you're a man. I don't think men have any business whatsoever sticking their nose into the issue, honestly. They cannot EVER understand abortion or the many different levels of reasoning and emotions around the issue. They just can't. Because it's not their bodies that have ever or will ever be the bodies that carry a fetus. Sorry. I find it fairly offensive when men act like they think they really know what they're talking when it comes to abortion. I'm a woman who has had an abortion as well as a miscarriage ... I think I have a much clearer view of the issue that you ever could, no matter how much you want to wax-on about it, which is why I tend to kind of blow off men who have all this blah blah blahing to do on the matter of pro-life (men who just respect the woman's right to choose is what I can respect). It means nothing to me. You just don't know (not that you don't have a right to your opinion... I just can't muster any interest in what it is). Sorry. :?
I don't think you'd be engaging continuously with me if you didn't care about my opinion. If you didn't care, you'd probably be doing something else.
Couple things:
First, men are aborted as are women. So, men can and should care about the issue.
Second, if it's really only about women having a choice, then who's defending the female fetus' choice? They seem to be tossed out in plastic bags with no choice.
Third, IMHO if it's really only females who should have a say, would you support freedom of choice when it comes to child support? You're pro-choice, right?
No, I don't care about your actual opinion on abortion, as in I couldn't care less if you're against it or why on a personal level, because I don't think you have any business suggesting that it's not the woman's choice. I mean, you just talked about how men are aborted as well and that's why they care about it, LOL!!!!! That is so off-side on a few levels. Why are you talking about the gender of the fetuses?? Like that has anything to do with anything; also, obviously, a fetus doesn't have a choice - the woman does, that's the whole point, duh. As for child support... yeah, too bad so sad. The woman gets to choose, and then if she chooses to have the baby, the man is stuck with child support. Ain't life hard men? I guess men need to think about where they stick it, since the woman is in charge of whether or not a little him will be running around in 9 months. Complain to mother nature about that one. Sorry.
But anyway, I'm frustrated by what you say and the way you present it, even though I still don't care about what your opinion actually is, and I'm a bit of an idiot I guess, because that makes me get into it. Nasty little habit. I think just that the ideas you have make me uncomfortable, because I know they're out there, and it's like one more drop in the bucket for those pro-life politicians, and that scares me.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
No, I don't care about your actual opinion on abortion, as in I couldn't care less if you're against it or why on a personal level, because I don't think you have any business suggesting that it's not the woman's choice. I mean, you just talked about how men are aborted as well and that's why they care about it, LOL!!!!! That is so off-side on a few levels. Why are you talking about the gender of the fetuses?? Like that has anything to do with anything;
You brought up the gender in terms of the discussion, remember. You said men shouldn't be allowed to hold opinions on the issue (or something along those lines). I responded - then if it's just females who are entitled to a take on the issue, why can't we hear what the female fetus would have to say on it? If they can't properly respond yet, does that make it ok to terminate them? Why not kill a 6 month old then? So, let's ask that fetus 10-20 years later if it's ok in their opinion to be killed when "THEY" (key word themselves) were in their Mom's belly. Their answer would effect their reality. Let's see some stats on those responses.
You basically are claiming that men have no right to feel one way or the other on this issue,... I'll use an example - male pedophiles going after boys. Should women not be concerned about the boys because they are female? Of course they should. Your argument on this being strictly gender-related is silly. I understand women have to carry the baby. But, that doesn't make it ok for them to kill it. If that was the point on this issue, then it would be ok for them to kill it all along, say at 9 months too.... wouldn't it?
As for child support... yeah, too bad so sad. The woman gets to choose, and then if she chooses to have the baby, the man is stuck with child support. Ain't life hard men? I guess men need to think about where they stick it, since the woman is in charge of whether or not a little him will be running around in 9 months. Complain to mother nature about that one. Sorry.
I agree men need to think about "where they stick it" to quote you. But, woman shouldn't?
But anyway, I'm frustrated by what you say and the way you present it, even though I still don't care about what your opinion actually is, and I'm a bit of an idiot I guess, because that makes me get into it. Nasty little habit. I think just that the ideas you have make me uncomfortable, because I know they're out there, and it's like one more drop in the bucket for those pro-life politicians, and that scares me.
lol. Uh huh. Most likely you're frustrated because I'm making some good points and making you really think about the issue.
All I know is, I wouldn't want to be an aborted fetus and I'm glad my Mom and wife didn't abort me or my kids. I'd simply advise women and men to think about what they're doing before they bang. Basically - if the contraception fails, then be prepared to have a kid. It's not rocket science and I don't feel bad about saying there are repercussions for human action, including sex. People hate taking responsibility for their actions these days. If you don't want a kid, and want to be positive you won't have one, don't have sex. If you want to have sex, go ahead, just use protection and know there's risk someone will end up pregnant. If that happens, you knew the consequences. So, you shouldn't just kill it. That could haunt someone for the rest of their life.
No, I don't care about your actual opinion on abortion, as in I couldn't care less if you're against it or why on a personal level, because I don't think you have any business suggesting that it's not the woman's choice. I mean, you just talked about how men are aborted as well and that's why they care about it, LOL!!!!! That is so off-side on a few levels. Why are you talking about the gender of the fetuses?? Like that has anything to do with anything;
You brought up the gender in terms of the discussion, remember. You said men shouldn't be allowed to hold opinions on the issue (or something along those lines). I responded - then if it's just females who are entitled to a take on the issue, why can't we hear what the female fetus would have to say on it? If they can't talk yet, does that make it ok? Why not kill a 6 month old then? So, ask that fetus 10-20 years later if it would have been ok in their opinion to be killed when "THEY" (key word themselves) were in their Mom's belly. Let's see some stats on those responses.
You basically are claiming that men have no right to feel one way or the other on this issue,... I'll use an example - male pedophiles going after boys. Should women not be concerned about the boys because they are female? Of course they should. Your argument on this being strictly gender-related is silly. I understand women have to carry the baby. But, that doesn't make it ok for them to kill it. If that was the point on this issue, then it would be ok for them to kill it all along, say at 9 months too.... wouldn't it?
As for child support... yeah, too bad so sad. The woman gets to choose, and then if she chooses to have the baby, the man is stuck with child support. Ain't life hard men? I guess men need to think about where they stick it, since the woman is in charge of whether or not a little him will be running around in 9 months. Complain to mother nature about that one. Sorry.
I agree men need to think about "where they stick it" to quote you. But, woman shouldn't?
But anyway, I'm frustrated by what you say and the way you present it, even though I still don't care about what your opinion actually is, and I'm a bit of an idiot I guess, because that makes me get into it. Nasty little habit. I think just that the ideas you have make me uncomfortable, because I know they're out there, and it's like one more drop in the bucket for those pro-life politicians, and that scares me.
lol. Uh huh. Most likely you're frustrated because I'm making some good points and making you really think about the issue.
All I know is, I wouldn't want to be an aborted fetus and I'm glad my Mom and wife didn't abort me or my kids. I'd simply advise women and men to think about what they're doing before they bang. Basically - if the contraception fails, then be prepared to have a kid. It's not rocket science and I don't feel bad about saying there are repercussions for human action, including sex. People hate taking responsibility for their actions these days. If you don't want a kid, and want to be positive you won't have one, don't have sex. If you want to have sex, go ahead, just use protection and know there's risk someone will end up pregnant. If that happens, you knew the consequences. So, you shouldn't just kill it. That could haunt someone for the rest of their life.
Haha. No, you are not making good points or making me think anything I didn't already think, but it's nice that you are a positive thinker.. or maybe just egotistical. You must be... since now you are preaching abstinence.
Whether or not an abortion haunts someone for the rest of their life is none of your business. And you wouldn't know one way or another (it doesn't haunt me, btw).
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Haha. No, you are not making good points or making me think anything I didn't already think, but it's nice that you are a positive thinker.. or maybe just egotistical. You must be... since now you are preaching abstinence.
Whether or not an abortion haunts someone for the rest of their life is none of your business. And you wouldn't know one way or another (it doesn't haunt me, btw).
I don't know why you keep responding if you don't want to hold a discussion.
I'm not preaching abstinence at all. I'm preaching personal responsibility. As I stated, human beings, when they have sex, risk pregnancy (amongst other things, like STDs). That's human nature. Talk to God about that, or whatever supernatural being you believe in... mother nature, if need be. So, if we assume that with sex comes risk of pregnancy (and STDs), humans should be aware of that risk. Contraceptives mitigate a large portion of that risk, but small portions remain. So, as I said, if you want to have sex (and not pro-create), great... use protection and know the risk.
If you roll a bad die with the risks you knew about, one shouldn't go back in time and kill the byproduct of the risk they knew about to make their own life easier. To me, there's nothing more sloth-oriented and vile that that sort of mind-set. But, that's my opinion.
Haha. No, you are not making good points or making me think anything I didn't already think, but it's nice that you are a positive thinker.. or maybe just egotistical. You must be... since now you are preaching abstinence.
Whether or not an abortion haunts someone for the rest of their life is none of your business. And you wouldn't know one way or another (it doesn't haunt me, btw).
I don't know why you keep responding if you don't want to hold a discussion.
I'm not preaching abstinence at all. I'm preaching personal responsibility. As I stated, human beings, when they have sex, risk pregnancy (amongst other things, like STDs). That's human nature. Talk to God about that, or whatever supernatural being you believe in... mother nature, if need be. So, if we assume that with sex comes risk of pregnancy (and STDs), humans should be aware of that risk. Contraceptives mitigate a large portion of that risk, but small portions remain. So, as I said, if you want to have sex (and not pro-create), great... use protection and know the risk.
If you roll a bad die with the risks you knew about, one shouldn't go back in time and kill the byproduct of the risk they knew about to make their own life easier. To me, there's nothing more sloth-oriented and vile that that sort of mind-set. But, that's my opinion.
Why do you care if I'm responding or not? I feel like it - who cares? I already said, it's a nasty habit. Maybe I thrive on conflict, I dunno.
I don't believe in God, or any other supernatural being. I'm an Atheist. I believe in Nature or course, but it's not conscious. Plus, who is to say that aborting unwanted fetuses isn't human nature? It's certainly been going on for all of modern human history. Maybe selective abortion is naturally womankind's imperative... like a footnote to miscarriage. You don't know.
Risk schmisk. It's still just up to the woman whose body is involved. Once you have people trying to dictate what you're going to do with your body or something in it, then your opinion can matter. Until then, I think anything you have to say is irrelevant and misinformed.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Unfortunately abortion, the termination of life,
has become a convenience for some women. This was bound to happen
as society accepted it and the generations have moved along with it.
I too wish that more women would choose to carry the precious life they hold
to term and adopt the child to a loving family.
But this is not always the case ... a loving family for each child.
Not every woman can ...
has the resources to carry the child to term...
some do not even have a safe happy place for themselves
while carrying this child. It's a cruel world for many.
It would be wonderful for those who do have the option to carry
and seek a loving home would consider this. To be so unselfish to give life a chance.
It is life changing life altering to be apart of this miracle.
I also feel that fathers should very much have a say...
that this is not a women only topic.
If a father wants to solely care for the child the woman involved
could consider this option also.
I am in agreeance with responsibility and feel far too many are not responsible
nor educated nor have forethought when it comes to the responsibilities of
their sexual conduct. ... which is basic and something that should be remedied...
to avoid pregnancy which avoids abortions.
I don't believe in God, or any other supernatural being. I'm an Atheist. I believe in Nature or course, but it's not conscious. Plus, who is to say that aborting unwanted fetuses isn't human nature? It's certainly been going on for all of modern human history. Maybe selective abortion is naturally womankind's imperative... like a footnote to miscarriage. You don't know.
If you get off on abortions being a power trip for women, that's your prerogative. Sounds pretty sick though.
Risk schmisk. It's still just up to the woman whose body is involved. Once you have people trying to dictate what you're going to do with your body or something in it, then your opinion can matter. Until then, I think anything you have to say is irrelevant and misinformed.
Risk schmisk. Yeh, let's just never worry about consequences to our actions. If your kid ends up with a STD, be sure to tell them "Risk Schmisk".
Also, it's not just the woman though. Men play a part in making the baby, and probably most importantly, Doctors are paid to kill it. So, it still IS NOT just up to the woman. It's an industry. And our culture gives the moral ok.
I'm not standing in anyone's way. Go get 10 abortions for all I care. What I will say, however, is abortion is wrong. I think our society is wrong for allowing it to be legal. Deep down, although you'll never say it here, I think you think it's wrong too.
I don't believe in God, or any other supernatural being. I'm an Atheist. I believe in Nature or course, but it's not conscious. Plus, who is to say that aborting unwanted fetuses isn't human nature? It's certainly been going on for all of modern human history. Maybe selective abortion is naturally womankind's imperative... like a footnote to miscarriage. You don't know.
If you get off on abortions being a power trip for women, that's your prerogative. Sounds pretty sick though.
Risk schmisk. It's still just up to the woman whose body is involved. Once you have people trying to dictate what you're going to do with your body or something in it, then your opinion can matter. Until then, I think anything you have to say is irrelevant and misinformed.
Risk schmisk. Yeh, let's just never worry about consequences to our actions. If your kid ends up with a STD, be sure to tell them "Risk Schmisk".
Also, it's not just the woman though. Men play a part in making the baby, and probably most importantly, Doctors are paid to kill it. So, it still IS NOT just up to the woman. It's an industry. And our culture gives the moral ok.
I'm not standing in anyone's way. Go get 10 abortions for all I care. What I will say, however, is abortion is wrong. I think our society is wrong for allowing it to be legal. Deep down, although you'll never say it here, I think you think it's wrong too.
But, I digress.
Ha. It's not a power trip or anything close to it (where the fuck did that conclusion come from?? You make so many assumptions). It's about others not having the right to dictate what women do in this regard. Nothing to do with power. Everything to do with human rights. Yeah, I am done now, as you carry on your infuriating method of reinterpreting everything anyone says who doesn't agree with you. Grrrr. You are on you own little power trip - you know perfectly well how your bullshit way of debating gets under people's skin. While I'm to blame for letting you irritate me, I think you enjoy the hell out of it; I can just picture you smirking yourself into self-righteousness, wherever you are. And trust me, deep down I do NOT think abortion is wrong. I really don't. I've been there, and I don't. But of course, that IS NOT THE POINT AT ALL.
I have no idea what your point about doctors performing the abortions is about. That doesn't impact the right of a woman to have full control over her own body at all, including whether or not she's going to give birth. It's actually very simple concept - you sure have managed to make it messy and convoluted, but it still comes down to that one very simple concept, no matter what you or anyone thinks is right and wrong morally. That's all just white noise IMO.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I am pro choice. However, I find it utterly offensive when anyone says it's the woman's choice and the woman's only. we BOTH got pregnant. yes, you carry the fetus, but if I was willing to allow you to sever all parental obligations after the birth, I think that would be something worth discussing. Of course, if it meant the woman going through something that would be ill advised health wise, I think the man has rights too.
not in the judicial system yet, as it's very tricky to "force" a woman to have a baby to term if she doesn't want to, but there's got to be some common ground.
I'd be incredibly upset if I found out someone I got pregnant aborted without even giving me the consideration of consultation first.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Comments
I only answered the questions I felt like answering, that's all. I'm kinda busy. I'm not trying to avoid anything, fyi.
Err, health concerns for the mother that warrant late term abortions aren't figured out during the first trimester because such health problems aren't yet evident; such problems are generally caused by the progression of the pregnancy (usually combined with other parallel factors). I thought that would be kinda obvious.
I can't speak for others, but I don't personally consider a fetus in the first trimester viable. A minimum of 1 in 5 pregnancies terminate themselves during this time. As far as I'm concerned, Mother Nature doesn't consider 1st tri fetuses viable either. It's the time during which the body is deciding whether or not it's going to bother dealing with it (and it often decides not to).
As for health concerns being used as an excuse... that has nothing to do with anything. It's possible that that is happening... but since it would require a doctor to lie on medical charts, that is a different matter altogether and impossible to gauge in any case.
A lot of later term abortions are also done because of defects to the fetus wherein the mother (or both parents) decide it's better not to have the baby. I believe that is completely a personal call to be made by the mother, and very strongly believe that you or anyone else has no right to step into that decision-making process. It is something inside the woman's body - Something that is a PART OF HER BODY. I think anyone has a HUUUUUGE nerve trying to dictate what a woman should do with that. That's it. Beyond that, there is no point in debating it in my opinion. I don't think it's right to use abortion as birth control, but honestly, very few women do this... it's not like getting an abortion is easy and painless for crying out loud. Anyone who says a relevant number of women choose this as a birth control method is full of it. That's ridiculous.
I also don't approve of late term abortions without due cause (due cause is the health of the mother or because of the quality of life a defective fetus might have as determined by the mother). But since no late term abortions are EVER performed without due cause, that is a completely moot issue.
I get that people are busy and I'm no way trying to rush answers. I'm just curious and wondered why you were skipping certain questions. Plus, I didn't start the conversation with you, you asked me a question first.
Here are the questions you avoided:
"Well, when is it a child then?
Finally, wasn't it the pro-choice movement that supported partial birth abortion? The majority of those occurred at 20+ weeks, right? Like I previously, mentioned that's almost 2 months past this 14 week viability stage."
The whole part of her body issue, once again, should be moot if that thing inside is also a person with equal rights. Although you disagree, do you at least see my argument? I mean, if we are saying that's a human life, then they have rights to their own body to not be destroyed.
Finally, I see you don't approve of late term abortions without "due cause". Let me ask this: would "gender" ever be good enough to be considered due cause? How about genes? Where is the line drawn on your "due cause"? Because I would argue that allowing a mother to decide due cause basically throws out any rationalization against late term abortion. It's providing a caveat to allow it in totality. In other words, a mother who seeks a late term abortion can always generate a rationale for why the fetus may not have a good "quality of life". So, while you're saying you don't support late term abortions, you're basically leaving open the door to anyone getting one.
If that's not what you meant by due cause, fair enough. But, then you're most likely wrong about this quote: "But since no late term abortions are EVER performed without due cause, that is a completely moot issue". There's no way that every late term abortion (100000 a year) is due to either the health of the mother or disfigurement of the child. It's simply not possible.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Yeah, I don't think a fetus has equal rights to the woman carrying it, so...
And of COURSE gender is not a reason to abort. That is NOT legal in North America, because you don't find out the gender before 14 weeks, and can't have an abortion with medical justification after that (and gender doesn't count as medical justification). I'm not sure what you mean by "genes" as justification... You mean hypothetical genetic engineering?? ... Because I'm not bothering to discuss that. It's not a reality at the moment, and a different issue. The slippery slope argument should, IMHO, be saved for simpletons. Also... I dunno... you seem to be veering off into unreality rather than talking about the real issues now. You can say "what about this" and "What about that" forever, but if none of those variables actually exist, I don't see the point in wasting my time debating them. We are talking about actual abortion rights... not Philosophy 101.
Yeah, I don't think a fetus has equal rights to the woman carrying it, so...
And of COURSE gender is not a reason to abort. That is NOT legal in North America, because you don't find out the gender before 14 weeks, and can't have an abortion with medical justification after that (and gender doesn't count as medical justification. Nor does "I don't want it." Nor does "my back hurts" or "I have heart burn"). I'm not sure what you mean by "genes" as justification... You mean hypothetical genetic engineering?? ... Because I'm not bothering to discuss that. It's not a reality at the moment, and a different issue. The slippery slope argument should, IMHO, be saved for simpletons. Also... I dunno... you seem to be veering off into unreality rather than talking about the real issues now. You can say "what about this" and "What about that" forever, but if none of those variables actually exist, I don't see the point in wasting my time debating them. We are talking about actual abortion rights... not Philosophy 101 (or so I thought... If I missed something, apologies).
"Well, when is it a child then?
Finally, wasn't it the pro-choice movement that supported partial birth abortion? The majority of those occurred at 20+ weeks, right? Like I previously, mentioned that's almost 2 months past this 14 week viability stage."
The variables do exist. You've been all over the place here. First, you reply to me saying that discussions on when the fetus is a child are irrelevant in this issue. I still don't understand that (and that's why I wanted you to answer the question above, which you've now avoided a number of times). Then you explain that the fetus is viable in your opinion after 14 weeks, so abortion after that is not right, but you said they don't occur. After that I brought up partial birth abortion, which you avoided. Then when I explained that over 100,000 abortions per year in the U.S. occur after that point (14 weeks)... you say, it's ok if it's for the mother's health. Then when I asked if you really believe all 100,000 really have the lives of the mother in jeopardy, you say maybe not. Then you add that the due cause argument to your list of why it would be ok. Saying, if there's due cause the child will have an issue, it's also ok. Then when we discuss what exactly your "due cause" could entail, you say we're getting too philosophical. Ok fair enough...
So, my way to break this down to less philosophical is - when does human life begin? When is the point it is not permissible under any circumstance to kill that human? This, most likely, brings us full circle back to when you originally responded to me in this thread.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
1) I don't even know what question you think I'm avoiding. Please restate.
2) I absolutely did NOT say I think a fetus is viable after 14 weeks (I don't think it's viable until it can live outside of the womb unassisted or almost unassisted). I said I don't think a fetus under 14 weeks is viable according to mother nature. Huge different - please stop changing my words around.... I think your doing that is what is creating your own confusion in what I'm saying. You have a tendency to take one statement and apply it to various other points that it wasn't intended for. If you do that, of course you're going to become confused.
3) When I don't directly address a particular thing you happened to mention it doesn't mean I'm avoiding it. It means I didn't bother because I didn't care or didn't think it was relevant.
4) You ask: "when does human life begin? When is the point it is not permissible under any circumstance to kill that human?" - I think human life begins when it can live independent from another human being's physical body.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
viability is about potentiality not actuality.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
ok, thanks.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
You are misrepresenting:
1. What a "partial birth abortion" is (hint: there's no such thing), and consequently what the bill actually bans.
2. Why people oppose these bills.
Ummm... no. I'm not.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Some babies survive abortion attempts... making things even more complicated.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
You had been avoiding when human life begins to the point it's no longer permissible to kill it. This was all just me seeking your opinion since it's not like you make laws. Anyway, I also brought up partial birth abortion a few times and asked for thoughts on that. You can re-read those questions if you'd like.
Yeh, I figured that out. You must not like discussing partial birth abortion. Since, you avoided that topic so many times.
Well, at least you answered the question. My response here is obviously, when exactly is that? And would it ever be ok to terminate that human life?
This is circular discussion. Basically, if you think murdering a baby two minutes outside the womb is wrong and NEVER permissable. Why (under any condition) would be it ok to murder a fetus that could survive outside the womb? And if it's not, then when (again) is the time frame after which it's not permitted?
This is my issue with the pro-choicers who believe life doesn't begin at birth. They basically admit that it's ok under certain conditions to kill a human life. I say, it's never ok. This whole issue always comes back to when life begins. Pro-choicers who believe life starts at birth and Pro-lifers who believe life starts at conception are at least consistent and aren't saying it's ever ok to kill a human life. All that said, Pro-choicers who believe life starts at birth have a whole lot of other issues with their argument. For example, viable life that can survive in or out of the womb. Which was my point when you first responded to me in this thread. In my humble opinion, the only side here that is consistent all the way through is Pro-life side. That's why I advocate that stance. Basically, humans should never advocate killing human people.... under any condition, ever. Once again, it comes back to when is a fetus a human person. The OP makes some good points there.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
life starts at conception, without question. I also do not sugar coat
and I believe abortion IS taking a life....
indeed premeditated murder.
Harsh but what women could consider before choosing abortion
to avoid regrets if at all possible. This regret is not one you want to take to the grave.
Being Pro Choice doesn't make me pro abortion as many have stated
in many threads.
Abortion in my mind is here to stay but laws based in good common sense
can be passed to help limit it as a choice. To give life a chance, to choose adoption.
To help both mother and child.
Also 14 weeks is not correct... many abortions are done after,
this varies by law and by state. At 24 weeks a child can live outside the womb and the law
states 2 or more doctors must be present to aid the child if indeed that is necessary.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
there are some good facts here and a chart addressing when abortions take place as far as
weeks along
I'm comfortable with shades of grey myself. Judgment calls determined by individual situations - I see nothing confusing about this concept.
Whatever, dude. Anyone who actually knows anything about this topic knows that you are. I just feel bad about the people who don't know any better and actually believe you.
Funny coming from the guy who's avoiding discussing the same topic with me.
I think your method of debate is flawed (not just in this thread). I find I don't have the energy or desire to deal with it, because it's pointless. No matter what anyone says, you twist it up and create new meanings for yourself so you can reassert your argument despite anything that may poke holes in it. Fox newsy. I've accused you of this before... Not trying to attack you; you'll do what you want of course, and more power to you. Just explaining why I don't really get into it with you or bother responding to a lot of your points; I find many of them to be very clouded, your interpretations of what others say very off-base, and your assumptions applied to what they say rather convenient and irritating. Some like to engage with these methods, but not me. It gets boring after a while, so I bail (flaw on my part, perhaps). And in the end, I just disagree with most of your points that make any sense, find your "facts" dubious at best, and IMHO you rely too much on theory rather than the realities of the issue. With all due respect, seriously. I do admire your tenacity. You've got more than I do.
Are you a man, btw? Or a woman?
Oh, and I have no prob discussing partial birth. It doesn't make me uncomfortable. I just do find it relevant; I don't understand why you keep bringing it up like it matters.
First, I'd say simply: you don't "bail". You continue to engage, in some cases when you throw up your arms you focus on the style of discussion (see above), and pick and choose what you respond to. If you really did "bail", this message I'm quoting wouldn't be here. You would stop engaging. That's bailing.
Second, I'd say it's not really a debate if when a question is presented one side chooses to not respond. Further, I don't really want a debate, I'd prefer a discussion. I have my opinion and I'm aware others have theirs. On this issue, I do think I have a bit of passion maybe because I've just had children, and believe they were alive when I saw the ultrasound. I have my beliefs on this issue, and I believe they are well thought out. Anyway, I was curious why anyone would involve themselves in a discussion by saying that late-term abortion is not relevant in regards to the subject of the morality of abortion. So, I asked questions to see what this person really thinks. I asked you a few questions, and in my humble opinion, you got so lost in what you believe that you felt the need to stop and start discussing the style of questions. But, maybe that's just my take. Regardless of my questions, you engaged with me in this thread, not the other way around. I asked questions in response and you continued to engage, sometimes not responding to certain questions.
I am a man, but don't see how that's relevant.
Partial birth abortion was relevant in our discussion for a variety of reasons. For example, it's commentary on abortion (which this threads about) and the thread title is "after-birth abortion". Partial birth abortion would certainly fall into that conceptual compartment of discussion. Moreover, you originally engaged with me when I was discussing a subject very close to parital birth abortion if not identical.
You never once said whether you support partial birth abortion or, further, infanticide of botched abortions. I was simply trying to understand your thoughts on those issues, which certainly is topically involved with the thread.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Edit: you're right, partial-birth abortion WAS kind of relevant, but no anymore in our discussion, I don't think. Because when it happens and why is what matters I think (and for you too, if you think life begins at conception and consider all abortion murder), not the procedure itself. And I think your idea of when and why it happens is not matching reality.
I think it's very relevant that you're a man. I don't think men have any business whatsoever sticking their nose into the issue, honestly. They cannot EVER understand abortion or the many different levels of reasoning and emotions around the issue. They just can't. Because it's not their bodies that have ever or will ever be the bodies that carry a fetus. Sorry. I find it fairly offensive when men act like they think they really know what they're talking when it comes to abortion. I'm a woman who has had an abortion as well as a miscarriage ... I think I have a much clearer view of the issue that you ever could, no matter how much you want to wax-on about it, which is why I tend to kind of blow off men who have all this blah blah blahing to do on the matter of pro-life (men who just respect the woman's right to choose is what I can respect). It means nothing to me. You just don't know (not that you don't have a right to your opinion... I just can't muster any interest in what it is). Sorry. :?
I don't think you'd be engaging continuously with me if you didn't care about my opinion. If you didn't care, you'd probably be doing something else.
Couple things:
First, men are aborted as are women. So, men can and should care about the issue.
Second, if it's really only about women having a choice, then who's defending the female fetus' choice? They seem to be tossed out in plastic bags with no choice.
Third, IMHO if it's really only females who should have a say, would you support freedom of choice when it comes to child support? You're pro-choice, right?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
But anyway, I'm frustrated by what you say and the way you present it, even though I still don't care about what your opinion actually is, and I'm a bit of an idiot I guess, because that makes me get into it. Nasty little habit. I think just that the ideas you have make me uncomfortable, because I know they're out there, and it's like one more drop in the bucket for those pro-life politicians, and that scares me.
You brought up the gender in terms of the discussion, remember. You said men shouldn't be allowed to hold opinions on the issue (or something along those lines). I responded - then if it's just females who are entitled to a take on the issue, why can't we hear what the female fetus would have to say on it? If they can't properly respond yet, does that make it ok to terminate them? Why not kill a 6 month old then? So, let's ask that fetus 10-20 years later if it's ok in their opinion to be killed when "THEY" (key word themselves) were in their Mom's belly. Their answer would effect their reality. Let's see some stats on those responses.
You basically are claiming that men have no right to feel one way or the other on this issue,... I'll use an example - male pedophiles going after boys. Should women not be concerned about the boys because they are female? Of course they should. Your argument on this being strictly gender-related is silly. I understand women have to carry the baby. But, that doesn't make it ok for them to kill it. If that was the point on this issue, then it would be ok for them to kill it all along, say at 9 months too.... wouldn't it?
lol. Uh huh. Most likely you're frustrated because I'm making some good points and making you really think about the issue.
All I know is, I wouldn't want to be an aborted fetus and I'm glad my Mom and wife didn't abort me or my kids. I'd simply advise women and men to think about what they're doing before they bang. Basically - if the contraception fails, then be prepared to have a kid. It's not rocket science and I don't feel bad about saying there are repercussions for human action, including sex. People hate taking responsibility for their actions these days. If you don't want a kid, and want to be positive you won't have one, don't have sex. If you want to have sex, go ahead, just use protection and know there's risk someone will end up pregnant. If that happens, you knew the consequences. So, you shouldn't just kill it. That could haunt someone for the rest of their life.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Haha. No, you are not making good points or making me think anything I didn't already think, but it's nice that you are a positive thinker.. or maybe just egotistical. You must be... since now you are preaching abstinence.
Whether or not an abortion haunts someone for the rest of their life is none of your business. And you wouldn't know one way or another (it doesn't haunt me, btw).
I don't know why you keep responding if you don't want to hold a discussion.
I'm not preaching abstinence at all. I'm preaching personal responsibility. As I stated, human beings, when they have sex, risk pregnancy (amongst other things, like STDs). That's human nature. Talk to God about that, or whatever supernatural being you believe in... mother nature, if need be. So, if we assume that with sex comes risk of pregnancy (and STDs), humans should be aware of that risk. Contraceptives mitigate a large portion of that risk, but small portions remain. So, as I said, if you want to have sex (and not pro-create), great... use protection and know the risk.
If you roll a bad die with the risks you knew about, one shouldn't go back in time and kill the byproduct of the risk they knew about to make their own life easier. To me, there's nothing more sloth-oriented and vile that that sort of mind-set. But, that's my opinion.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Why do you care if I'm responding or not? I feel like it - who cares? I already said, it's a nasty habit. Maybe I thrive on conflict, I dunno.
I don't believe in God, or any other supernatural being. I'm an Atheist. I believe in Nature or course, but it's not conscious. Plus, who is to say that aborting unwanted fetuses isn't human nature? It's certainly been going on for all of modern human history. Maybe selective abortion is naturally womankind's imperative... like a footnote to miscarriage. You don't know.
Risk schmisk. It's still just up to the woman whose body is involved. Once you have people trying to dictate what you're going to do with your body or something in it, then your opinion can matter. Until then, I think anything you have to say is irrelevant and misinformed.
Unfortunately abortion, the termination of life,
has become a convenience for some women. This was bound to happen
as society accepted it and the generations have moved along with it.
I too wish that more women would choose to carry the precious life they hold
to term and adopt the child to a loving family.
But this is not always the case ... a loving family for each child.
Not every woman can ...
has the resources to carry the child to term...
some do not even have a safe happy place for themselves
while carrying this child. It's a cruel world for many.
It would be wonderful for those who do have the option to carry
and seek a loving home would consider this. To be so unselfish to give life a chance.
It is life changing life altering to be apart of this miracle.
I also feel that fathers should very much have a say...
that this is not a women only topic.
If a father wants to solely care for the child the woman involved
could consider this option also.
I am in agreeance with responsibility and feel far too many are not responsible
nor educated nor have forethought when it comes to the responsibilities of
their sexual conduct. ... which is basic and something that should be remedied...
to avoid pregnancy which avoids abortions.
Because you keep saying you don't want to engage in a dialogue, but then you engage. It's silly.
If you get off on abortions being a power trip for women, that's your prerogative. Sounds pretty sick though.
Risk schmisk. Yeh, let's just never worry about consequences to our actions. If your kid ends up with a STD, be sure to tell them "Risk Schmisk".
Also, it's not just the woman though. Men play a part in making the baby, and probably most importantly, Doctors are paid to kill it. So, it still IS NOT just up to the woman. It's an industry. And our culture gives the moral ok.
I'm not standing in anyone's way. Go get 10 abortions for all I care. What I will say, however, is abortion is wrong. I think our society is wrong for allowing it to be legal. Deep down, although you'll never say it here, I think you think it's wrong too.
But, I digress.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Ha. It's not a power trip or anything close to it (where the fuck did that conclusion come from?? You make so many assumptions). It's about others not having the right to dictate what women do in this regard. Nothing to do with power. Everything to do with human rights. Yeah, I am done now, as you carry on your infuriating method of reinterpreting everything anyone says who doesn't agree with you. Grrrr. You are on you own little power trip - you know perfectly well how your bullshit way of debating gets under people's skin. While I'm to blame for letting you irritate me, I think you enjoy the hell out of it; I can just picture you smirking yourself into self-righteousness, wherever you are. And trust me, deep down I do NOT think abortion is wrong. I really don't. I've been there, and I don't. But of course, that IS NOT THE POINT AT ALL.
I have no idea what your point about doctors performing the abortions is about. That doesn't impact the right of a woman to have full control over her own body at all, including whether or not she's going to give birth. It's actually very simple concept - you sure have managed to make it messy and convoluted, but it still comes down to that one very simple concept, no matter what you or anyone thinks is right and wrong morally. That's all just white noise IMO.
not in the judicial system yet, as it's very tricky to "force" a woman to have a baby to term if she doesn't want to, but there's got to be some common ground.
I'd be incredibly upset if I found out someone I got pregnant aborted without even giving me the consideration of consultation first.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014