Abortion, expanded

[Luissa]

wow! looks like Pro CHoice til a certain point is winning by far. Who would of thunk it?

 

[Ceasaro]

Abortion is for people who aren't limited by an intellectual straight-jacket of random morality. It's just another human, there are 6 billion+ already and we're heading for 9 billion+ by mid-century. You folks have your heads screwed on wrong, save every last person but who cares how many other species go extinct? Time to get of the human ego trip of being such superior beings. We're a real danger to all the other species out there.

Don't start with us, Eugenics Boy. YOU are "just another human" out of 6 billion+, and you of all people do NOT want to start encouraging anyone to think in terms of "let's do away with the surplus", if you catch my drift.

Where did I say that I wanted to do away with the surplus?

Immie, if you cared so much about other species, you wouldn't eat them (no, I'm not in PETA but do support pretty much everything they do). By eating them, you force them to endure a grotesque life before being killed early on.
So you're bent out of shape that humans are terminated (of which there is a plentiful and growing supply), but largely unaffected by the fate of other species who are completely either abused or endangered or about to be extinct.
When was the last time you ate a McDonald's? Because you'd be supporting the destruction of the Amazon rain forest so they can raise cattle.
How about shrimp? Because then you'd be supporting either wanton marine destruction with the nets to gather them up, or you're supporting factory farming of them (it's unhealthy) in Thailand or China.
...

 

[Immanuel]

Immie, if you cared so much about other species, you wouldn't eat them (no, I'm not in PETA but do support pretty much everything they do). By eating them, you force them to endure a grotesque life before being killed early on.
So you're bent out of shape that humans are terminated (of which there is a plentiful and growing supply), but largely unaffected by the fate of other species who are completely either abused or endangered or about to be extinct.
When was the last time you ate a McDonald's? Because you'd be supporting the destruction of the Amazon rain forest so they can raise cattle.
How about shrimp? Because then you'd be supporting either wanton marine destruction with the nets to gather them up, or you're supporting factory farming of them (it's unhealthy) in Thailand or China.
...

Ceasaro,

Let's put it this way... for me to survive, I must eat meat. There are very few vegetables that I can even stomach. I would literally starve to death if I had to eat vegetables. As for shrimp, the last time I ate seafood I spent the night in the hospital getting Adrenaline shots fighting for my life against anaphylactic (sp?) shock. I am deathly allergic to seafood.

It seems to me that you have gone overboard with your "environmentalism". Are you the chairman of The Al Gore Fan Club by chance?

Immie

 

[Cecilie1200]

wow! looks like Pro CHoice til a certain point is winning by far. Who would of thunk it?

Anyone who can interpret English, rather than simply battening on the poll creator's misleading use of the word "pro-choice" in most of the selections.

Figures YOU would be stupid enough to view something like "pro-choice until conception" as being "pro-choice".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Abortion is for people who aren't limited by an intellectual straight-jacket of random morality. It's just another human, there are 6 billion+ already and we're heading for 9 billion+ by mid-century. You folks have your heads screwed on wrong, save every last person but who cares how many other species go extinct? Time to get of the human ego trip of being such superior beings. We're a real danger to all the other species out there.

Don't start with us, Eugenics Boy. YOU are "just another human" out of 6 billion+, and you of all people do NOT want to start encouraging anyone to think in terms of "let's do away with the surplus", if you catch my drift.

Where did I say that I wanted to do away with the surplus?

In your post, asshat. Don't even try that semantic hairsplitting "I didn't use those EXACT words, so that's not what I said" bullshit with me. Not only will I cut you off at the knees, but no one else here is dumb enough to buy it, either.

Immie, if you cared so much about other species, you wouldn't eat them (no, I'm not in PETA but do support pretty much everything they do). By eating them, you force them to endure a grotesque life before being killed early on.
So you're bent out of shape that humans are terminated (of which there is a plentiful and growing supply), but largely unaffected by the fate of other species who are completely either abused or endangered or about to be extinct.

What a frigging moron. "Caring about other species means trying to remove humans from their place in the food chain." What bilge.

When was the last time you ate a McDonald's? Because you'd be supporting the destruction of the Amazon rain forest so they can raise cattle.
How about shrimp? Because then you'd be supporting either wanton marine destruction with the nets to gather them up, or you're supporting factory farming of them (it's unhealthy) in Thailand or China.
...

Yeah, and eating veggies supports destroying the plants you're eating, not to mention having to cut down forests for farmland. Here's an idea. Since existing means ::gasp:: actually taking up space on the planet, why don't you just die? At the very least, the hot air from your half-assed arguments can't be helping with global warming concerns.

 

[Smartt33]

While I am never in any position to tell anyone what to believe on this issue, or even to dislike them for their own opinions, I pereonally believe abortion is wrong. In an emergency, I cannot say for sure one way or another, but maybe even then I would not choose it. (Of course I am a male so I won't have to)

I also don't condemn someone who has an abortion, except to say I believe personally it is a wrong choice.

I have three grand children who are awesome, but had I not been so verbal and emotional in the matter, they would not be here. That is all I need to always proclame abortion is wrong. Adoption is always an option which is better than abortion.

Is it murder? I believe that is determined by the motive for the abortion. In emergencies, no it is not a murder. For convenience, absolutely it is. For medical and physical issues that are predetermined, before birth, that the child will have to deal with, I do not believe abortion is appropriate. Is that murder, God only knows, but if it is determined to abort just because you cannot afford the medial care, or because it would be too hard to handle, I believe that would be as close to murder as you can get.

There is no question here about if there is a real human involved, however, I believe from the very beginning there is a human life.

The pro choice that I do believe in is the choice to say no to sex that can result in a child if you don't want one. A person's pleasures is not license to murder.

With the new Obama health care plan, us seniors are now on the abortion chopping block. That is absolutely the same thing in my opinion as abortion, because murder is murder. If the person wants to die, I withhold my judgement because I understand it is their own choice for their own life. That too would have it's limitations, but they have to deal with that themselves too. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Luissa]

wow! looks like Pro CHoice til a certain point is winning by far. Who would of thunk it?

Anyone who can interpret English, rather than simply battening on the poll creator's misleading use of the word "pro-choice" in most of the selections.

Figures YOU would be stupid enough to view something like "pro-choice until conception" as being "pro-choice".

giving the fact that is not the choice I am refering to I would say you are the stupid one.
Why don't you check on his second option moron. " pro choice until a certain point of developement"
There is a clue for ya!

 

[Care4all]

I'm sorry, but where did you get the idea that doctors have the legal right to hide medical information about you from you? HIPAA law gives the patient the legal right to demand instant access to any and all medical information pertaining to him/her, and a failure to provide information and instruction pertinent to making medical decisions constitutes medical malpractice.

Actually when you go to Planned Parenthood they are required to give you an ultrasound before the abortion. They keep the screen turned and keep ear pieces in to hear heart beats. They need to know if they are going in for one or multipul babies. They are NOT required to show you and don't even ask if you would like to see. Angel Heart is dead on with the current practice in abortion clinics. If they forced the mother to see the fetus I'd bet dollar to cents you would have less abortions. Since abortion clinics make money off of the abortions though they keep it as impersonal as possible and as in and out as possible. I don't think they should force someone to see the ultrasound though, because if they really don't want the baby and only get guilted into keeping it, don't make that choice themselves, what kind of mother would they be? Don't just think about getting that life into existence but think about what kind of family you would be forcing that child to have.

While Planned Parenthood is probably not required to place the ultrasound so that you can see it or to ask you if you wish to see it (because Planned Parenthood gets away with a lot of things regular outpatient medical clinics cannot), I'd say you could probably make a good legal case under HIPAA law for demanding that they share the ultrasound information with you. I don't think they can legally refuse to give you information if you request it, since no other medical practitioner can, and if they can, I'll bet it would make an interesting legal case.

I don't see any particular reason why women going to Planned Parenthood should necessarily be exempted from the overload of information everyone else is subjected to when they go to the doctor, although I've always believed that every patient should be given the option of stipulating in writing that they waive it. I would certainly have preferred to do so when my doctors felt compelled to share with me in excruciating detail all of the possible genetic defects my son, Quinn, might have . . . right before telling me that it would take two weeks for the genetic test results to come back. I could have done without the two weeks of nailbiting brought on by TMI.

But if every other patient is forced to hear more info than they want because they're legally entitled to a fully informed medical decision, then women getting abortions ought to get the exact same treatment.

Planned parenthood only performs a little over 200,000 abortions a year while there are over a million abortions done a year, if we are to believe what is being reported as statistics....

So, knowing this, I guess one would have to presume the rest are done in their personal gyno's office, right? Or are there private clinics, outside of Planned parenthood that perform abortions?

Well, if it is the doctor's office, I am certain they would show you the ultrasound in a nano second and hope it changes your mind, because just on MONEY BASIS, a pregnant patient is much more lucrative than a patient with a one money grab abortion....

 

[Cecilie1200]

wow! looks like Pro CHoice til a certain point is winning by far. Who would of thunk it?

Anyone who can interpret English, rather than simply battening on the poll creator's misleading use of the word "pro-choice" in most of the selections.

Figures YOU would be stupid enough to view something like "pro-choice until conception" as being "pro-choice".

giving the fact that is not the choice I am refering to I would say you are the stupid one.
Why don't you check on his second option moron. " pro choice until a certain point of developement"
There is a clue for ya!

Which is far from the "pro-choice" you and your ilk would like to consider it, and we both know it. Don't think for a second that anyone with a brain larger than a pea (translated: anyone who isn't you) doesn't see you frauds running around claiming that people who actually favor severe restrictions on abortion that you would NEVER agree to or accept are "pro-choice" so that you can disingenuously include their numbers into support for unlimited abortion. I could just as easily - and a hell of a lot more honestly - claim them for the side of "abortion is horrible, and should be virtually nonexistent".

So stuff THAT "clue" in your crack pipe and smoke it.

 

[BrokenAngel]

Anyone who can interpret English, rather than simply battening on the poll creator's misleading use of the word "pro-choice" in most of the selections.

Figures YOU would be stupid enough to view something like "pro-choice until conception" as being "pro-choice".

giving the fact that is not the choice I am refering to I would say you are the stupid one.
Why don't you check on his second option moron. " pro choice until a certain point of developement"
There is a clue for ya!

Which is far from the "pro-choice" you and your ilk would like to consider it, and we both know it. Don't think for a second that anyone with a brain larger than a pea (translated: anyone who isn't you) doesn't see you frauds running around claiming that people who actually favor severe restrictions on abortion that you would NEVER agree to or accept are "pro-choice" so that you can disingenuously include their numbers into support for unlimited abortion. I could just as easily - and a hell of a lot more honestly - claim them for the side of "abortion is horrible, and should be virtually nonexistent".

So stuff THAT "clue" in your crack pipe and smoke it.

Such an angry Zuul!

 

[Ceasaro]

If you're for choice, do it, if you're against abortion then don't do it. It's pretty simple really. Personally I couldn't give a crap what other people do, and would expect others to respect my right to do what I want.
Plus you're all hypocrites anyways, trying to save humans while eating through the whole animal kingdom

 

[BrokenAngel]

If you're for choice, do it, if you're against abortion then don't do it. It's pretty simple really. Personally I couldn't give a crap what other people do, and would expect others to respect my right to do what I want.
Plus you're all hypocrites anyways, trying to save humans while eating through the whole animal kingdom

No one here is throwing red paint on anyone else's fur coats. You should respect our rights to slaughter as many cows and fish for as many shrimp as we want and just use your power of choice to not do the same. Quite the oppression man!!!

 

[sidneyworld]

How does Pro-choice before conception work? When a woman becomes pregnant she has conceived a child. No matter what stage of it's development it is the making of a human being. When a child is birthed it can breath on it's own and continue to process food through it's system on it's own, however it cannot completely survive on it's own, because it needs a caretaker, whomever that might be, to feed it, and provide the proper environment and stimulation for it to survive.

I find it remarkable that anyone would challenge the integrity of the stages of life of a fetus when they have no intention of bringing it to full term, yet cherish the same fetus/baby when it is wanted. What this does essentially is lower the standard of the value of life to simple arbitration if not convenience. Human life is not dispensible.

Pro-choice should be, under controllable responsible circumstances, the choice not to potentially become pregnant when having a child is not intended.

Anne Marie

 

[Luissa]

Anyone who can interpret English, rather than simply battening on the poll creator's misleading use of the word "pro-choice" in most of the selections.

Figures YOU would be stupid enough to view something like "pro-choice until conception" as being "pro-choice".

giving the fact that is not the choice I am refering to I would say you are the stupid one.
Why don't you check on his second option moron. " pro choice until a certain point of developement"
There is a clue for ya!

Which is far from the "pro-choice" you and your ilk would like to consider it, and we both know it. Don't think for a second that anyone with a brain larger than a pea (translated: anyone who isn't you) doesn't see you frauds running around claiming that people who actually favor severe restrictions on abortion that you would NEVER agree to or accept are "pro-choice" so that you can disingenuously include their numbers into support for unlimited abortion. I could just as easily - and a hell of a lot more honestly - claim them for the side of "abortion is horrible, and should be virtually nonexistent".

So stuff THAT "clue" in your crack pipe and smoke it.

Where did I state that I am for unlimited abortion? Where did I state my opinion on abortion in this thread at all?

 

[Luissa]

Actually when you go to Planned Parenthood they are required to give you an ultrasound before the abortion. They keep the screen turned and keep ear pieces in to hear heart beats. They need to know if they are going in for one or multipul babies. They are NOT required to show you and don't even ask if you would like to see. Angel Heart is dead on with the current practice in abortion clinics. If they forced the mother to see the fetus I'd bet dollar to cents you would have less abortions. Since abortion clinics make money off of the abortions though they keep it as impersonal as possible and as in and out as possible. I don't think they should force someone to see the ultrasound though, because if they really don't want the baby and only get guilted into keeping it, don't make that choice themselves, what kind of mother would they be? Don't just think about getting that life into existence but think about what kind of family you would be forcing that child to have.

While Planned Parenthood is probably not required to place the ultrasound so that you can see it or to ask you if you wish to see it (because Planned Parenthood gets away with a lot of things regular outpatient medical clinics cannot), I'd say you could probably make a good legal case under HIPAA law for demanding that they share the ultrasound information with you. I don't think they can legally refuse to give you information if you request it, since no other medical practitioner can, and if they can, I'll bet it would make an interesting legal case.

I don't see any particular reason why women going to Planned Parenthood should necessarily be exempted from the overload of information everyone else is subjected to when they go to the doctor, although I've always believed that every patient should be given the option of stipulating in writing that they waive it. I would certainly have preferred to do so when my doctors felt compelled to share with me in excruciating detail all of the possible genetic defects my son, Quinn, might have . . . right before telling me that it would take two weeks for the genetic test results to come back. I could have done without the two weeks of nailbiting brought on by TMI.

But if every other patient is forced to hear more info than they want because they're legally entitled to a fully informed medical decision, then women getting abortions ought to get the exact same treatment.

Planned parenthood only performs a little over 200,000 abortions a year while there are over a million abortions done a year, if we are to believe what is being reported as statistics....

So, knowing this, I guess one would have to presume the rest are done in their personal gyno's office, right? Or are there private clinics, outside of Planned parenthood that perform abortions?

Well, if it is the doctor's office, I am certain they would show you the ultrasound in a nano second and hope it changes your mind, because just on MONEY BASIS, a pregnant patient is much more lucrative than a patient with a one money grab abortion....

they also ask you at planned parenthood if you would like to see the ultrasound or not. ANd if you ask them if you can of course they are going to let you, for one they have to.

 

[Anguille]

I find it remarkable that anyone who claims a fetus or and embryo has a right to life would deny that right to some just because they resulted from a rape.

How is that the fault of the fetus or embryo?

 

[Immanuel]

I find it remarkable that anyone who claims a fetus or and embryo has a right to life would deny that right to some just because they resulted from a rape.

How is that the fault of the fetus or embryo?

I completely agree, but if it came to an 11 year old rape victim... well, sometimes I think we have to be reasonable and understanding.

Immie

 

[sidneyworld]

I find it remarkable that anyone who claims a fetus or and embryo has a right to life would deny that right to some just because they resulted from a rape.

How is that the fault of the fetus or embryo?

If you are addressing me, then for the record, the only circumstances I would agree with abortion is if there is any danger to the mother. Anything else is an extremely difficult decision when the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest that should not be arbitrated in any court of law.

But for that matter, I don't believe abortion should have to regulated by an established precedent in the Constitution. We don't own our children so property rights should not have been asserted in protecting a woman's right to choose. And as far as right to privacy, that in itself does not cover the rights, any expressed rights of that unborn human being.

Abortion constitutionally devalues the value of human life no matter how it's applied under whatever circumstances. It should never have become an expressed right because it challenges a human being's right of procreation, but only if it is desires, which actually undermines the integrity of procreation and the inherent rights of that child.

Anne Marie

 

[Luissa]

I find it remarkable that anyone who claims a fetus or and embryo has a right to life would deny that right to some just because they resulted from a rape.

How is that the fault of the fetus or embryo?

If you are addressing me, then for the record, the only circumstances I would agree with abortion is if there is any danger to the mother. Anything else is an extremely difficult decision when the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest that should not be arbitrated in any court of law.

But for that matter, I don't believe abortion should have to regulated by an established precedent in the Constitution. We don't own our children so property rights should not have been asserted in protecting a woman's right to choose. And as far as right to privacy, that in itself does not cover the rights, any expressed rights of that unborn human being.

Abortion constitutionally devalues the value of human life no matter how it's applied under whatever circumstances. It should never have become an expressed right because it challenges a human being's right of procreation, but only if it is desires, which actually undermines the integrity of procreation and the inherent rights of that child.

Anne Marie

by stating you are only for abortion if it endangers the mother you are stating the rights of the mother are more important than the unborn child. And by your standards would still be denying the child of it's rights.

 

[Anguille]

Abortion constitutionally devalues the value of human life no matter how it's applied under whatever circumstances. It should never have become an expressed right because it challenges a human being's right of procreation, but only if it is desires, which actually undermines the integrity of procreation and the inherent rights of that child.

Anne Marie

Abortion bans devalue the value of female life.

The rest of your post in incoherent.