"After-birth abortion"...

PJ_Soul · March 2012

inlet13 wrote:

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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.

inlet13 · March 2012

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

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."

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

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.

PJ_Soul · March 2012

inlet13 wrote:

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

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."

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

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.

PJ_Soul · March 2012

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

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."

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

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).

inlet13 · March 2012

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."

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

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.

PJ_Soul · March 2012

inlet13 wrote:

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."

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon · March 2012

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?

catefrances · March 2012

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon · March 2012

catefrances wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

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.

_ · March 2012

inlet13 wrote:

_ wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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.

2. Why people oppose these bills.

inlet13 · March 2012

_ wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

_ wrote:

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.

2. Why people oppose these bills.

Ummm... no. I'm not.

inlet13 · March 2012

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

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.

inlet13 · March 2012

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

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.

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

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.

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

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.

pandora · March 2012

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.

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

PJ_Soul · March 2012

inlet13 wrote:

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

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.

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

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.

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

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.

_ · March 2012

inlet13 wrote:

_ wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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.

_ · March 2012

inlet13 wrote:

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

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.

PJ_Soul · March 2012

inlet13 wrote:

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

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.

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

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.

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

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.

inlet13 · March 2012

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

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.

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

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.

PJ_Soul · March 2012

inlet13 wrote:

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

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.

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

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. :?

"After-birth abortion"...

Comments

Categories

&quot;After-birth abortion&quot;...

Comments

Categories

"After-birth abortion"...