Abortion ultrasound-viewing advances in S.C.

catefrances

Trau wrote:

It seems like convenience for you versus another person's right to exist.

that is not your call to make.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

People who protest abortion aren't quite right in the head 100%.

Trau

catefrances wrote:

that is not your call to make.

What isn't my call?

unemployable22

I'm gonna go ahead and guess this will probably get me banned, but since freedom of speech exists...

FUCK ABORTION.

Everyone has a right to exist...to live...to breathe...to become something...and someone...women who fuck around and get "knocked up" should take responsibility for their own actions...what if your mom had gotten an abortion? Do you feel you have the right to exist? Why? I bet all the abortioned babies would have grown to think they deserved it too.

Putting it blunt...if you fuck around...you get pregnant...how is that that baby's fault? Why kill innocent children? Who the fuck are you to play God?

catefrances

Trau wrote:

What isn't my call?

that a specific woman would choose to abort for her convenience.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=707_1174808241

surferdude

catefrances wrote:

then you obviously haven't
A) been a parent
been pregnant
C) had a mental illness.
D) any idea what you're talking about.

A) Would open the abortion issue for men to decide.
C) Would open the abortion issue for men to decide.
D) Would open the abortion issue for men to decide.
This only leaves you option , is this really the best you have!!

cornnifer

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=707_1174808241

Not quite sure what point your trying to make with this. If your trying to use it as an argument for the ethical acceptability of abortion, its a weak argument, i'm afraid. You can't point to one disgusting thing as ethical justification for another disgusting thing.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

cornnifer wrote:

Not quite sure what point your trying to make with this. If your trying to use it as an argument for the ethical acceptability of abortion, its a weak argument, i'm afraid. You can't point to one disgusting thing as ethical justification for another disgusting thing.

If women don't want the baby they will abort it one way or another.

cornnifer

um... the lady that put thew baby in the river...

















is going to jail!

Jeanie

Trau wrote:

Quality of life? That is very subjective.

Especially since you don't have to raise the child if you do not want to.

It seems like convenience for you versus another person's right to exist.

Look you asked me what I thought and I told you.
And as I suspected, you don't like my answers.

If you are having trouble with quality of life as a concept perhaps a quick look at Amnesty International or the hundreds of statistics available on human suffering.

I notice that you've done a lot of asking questions, and a lot of judging, but you haven't bothered to tell us too much about you and why you think that your opinions are justified.
And you don't mind throwing in the personal attacks either I notice. If you're all for caring about people, perhaps try being a bit more pleasant to those of us that are already here attempting, foolishly to communicate with you.
I'm finding your attempts at questioning everybody in this thread a bit sinister and condescending, like you have an ulterior motive. Not working for a lobby group are we?
I've said nothing about the fact that you think abstaining is the solution to all this. Or that you have managed to completely ignore the issue at hand which is the state sanctioning of a forced medical procedure on women, a decision made in majority by men. If you can't stand in another person's shoes and try to be empathetic to them then I suggest it's just good manners for you to be quiet and stop judging.
Do you even have children? Can you even have children? Would you ever have to make the choice to abort or carry a pregnancy to term? HOW can you know the answer to that as an absolute if you've never been in the situation? Have you ever been adopted? Do you know what it's like to suffer? Really suffer? Poverty, sexual abuse, physical abuse, injustice, malnutrition, lack of education, lack of love from a parent, and a plethora of others. Do not tell me that a life time of suffering is better because you are alive to live through it as opposed to being humanely stopped from that suffering. If you believe that then I don't believe you to be the paragon of virtue you are making yourself out to be.
Oh and if you can do nothing else here could you at the very least stop making sweeping generalizations and putting words into people's mouths please? Where did I EVER say in this thread that abortion was convenient? If I did show me, I'll be happy to retract that.

soulsinging

Trau wrote:

I consider human to be a human as soon as he or she is conceived. This is not a line drawn by me but by nature, and is therefore not arbitrary.

Sperm and eggs are not humans by themselves because they will not, on their own, develop into anything else. They are what they are. When a child is conceived, a process of development has begun.

Yes, of course.

Again, I haven't drawn any line at all. I have gone to the beginning, where nature has chosen to begin the process of human development.

Just what is my ilk and what is my ideology?

your ilk are the sex warriors. they used to believe masturbation was murder becos sperm were living beings. they found they were wrong. you might find the same. nature has drawn no such line. your line is as good a place as any to start. but it's not fact. becos medical science has shown that fetuses cannot be considered living beings by any definition we currently use until several weeks into a pregnancy. thus, nature says nothing about starting points. it's a process, and where one draws the line to say "now it's alive" is inevitably guesswork. you dont have sole claim to fact here. nobody does.

also, why doesn't your pro-life zeal go to pushing for murder laws for women who drink while pregnant? cos you dont really care about life or about what women do to their fetuses. you care about controlling people's sexual activity to suit your prudish conservative views and making sure pregnancy remains a serious punishment for breaking the rules.

soulsinging

Trau wrote:

Why are each of those reasons more important than the right of that "potential" person to live?

potential does not get the same rights as actual. otherwise, how come we dont crack down on pollution that interferes with a person's potential right to live to be 110? pollution should be murder if we're going to talk about potential. you're starting to sound like one of those big brother liberals now.

soulsinging

unemployable22 wrote:

I'm gonna go ahead and guess this will probably get me banned, but since freedom of speech exists...

FUCK ABORTION.

Everyone has a right to exist...to live...to breathe...to become something...and someone...women who fuck around and get "knocked up" should take responsibility for their own actions...what if your mom had gotten an abortion? Do you feel you have the right to exist? Why? I bet all the abortioned babies would have grown to think they deserved it too.

Putting it blunt...if you fuck around...you get pregnant...how is that that baby's fault? Why kill innocent children? Who the fuck are you to play God?

if mom aborted me id never have been alive and would have had no idea what i was missing. so no, i wouldnt have given a flying fuck.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

cornnifer wrote:

um... the lady that put thew baby in the river...
is going to jail!

Actually in this case the mother was never caught.

bookmuse

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Actually in this case the mother was never caught.

There are just too many of these cases. A few years back during July 4th a mom threw her two year old sons off a bridge into a river in St Paul. One was saved the other died a tramatic death. How about all the poor little babies born with addictions? The abused and tortured children around this world.

Someone mentioned Playing God -where is God? Why are these little one's not protected by God? What about all the sick people who now live long lives because of medical advances who may have died much earlier or more inhumanely without medical help. Is that playing God?

I think Trau's motivation here is to make pro-choice folks feel guilty and admit that abortion is murder. Problem is there is a line in the sand for pro-choice folks and the only thing to do is agree to disagree.

hippiemom

Trau wrote:

Again, I haven't drawn any line at all. I have gone to the beginning, where nature has chosen to begin the process of human development.

Your arbitrary line is in deciding that anything containing human genetic material is sacred and must be protected at all costs. That is a belief that I do not share. That is the arbitrary line I've drawn for myself. I don't expect anyone else to care about my arbitrary line. I'm perfectly content to draw lines on my life alone, and leave you to color yours in as you see fit. I only ask that you keep your lines away from me.

Trau

catefrances wrote:

that a specific woman would choose to abort for her convenience.

What do you mean that's not my call? I'm not making one. It is for convenience in every case except for when the physical health of the mother is threatened.

Collin

Trau wrote:

It is for convenience in every case except for when the physical health of the mother is threatened.

What about a rape victim?

Trau

soulsinging wrote:

your ilk are the sex warriors.

I really don't know what a "sex warrior" is.

nature has drawn no such line. your line is as good a place as any to start. but it's not fact.

I'm afraid it very much is fact. Again, I have chosen to respect the beginning of the whole process. The beginning of that process has not been determined by me, and therefore I have not done anything but acknowledge when nature has chosen to begin the growth of a human being.

It is others who say, "well it is not a human unless it has this or can do this". If you say that I am arbitrarily drawing a line, then I guess you just don't understand what arbitrary means.

becos medical science has shown that fetuses cannot be considered living beings by any definition we currently use

And what definitions are those?

also, why doesn't your pro-life zeal go to pushing for murder laws for women who drink while pregnant? cos you dont really care about life or about what women do to their fetuses. you care about controlling people's sexual activity to suit your prudish conservative views and making sure pregnancy remains a serious punishment for breaking the rules.

If I wanted to control sexual behavior, I'd push for laws controlling sexual behavior. Try again, swami.