The Great Abortion Compromise!

[ScreamingEagle]

Rape wasn't rare. Women's willingness to report it was because they were humiliated in Court by dumbfucks who decided that what they wore "caused" them to be raped and they became victims. It's taken decades for that attitude to change and you want to return things to the stone age. Sick.

And just to clarify, women DID have abortions... they just died during them an awful lot. Guess that's ok, too. Huh?

Rape was a lot less than today.
http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php

Many also believe there is just as much under-reportage today as before. And women CONTINUE to remain victims of rape because we do not take a hard line stance against rape. Then we compound the problem by committing the additional atrocity of abortion. That's what is really sick.

Why not kill the rapist instead of the baby?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You don't know anythign about the criminal mind do you? So, as soon as Roe vs Wade was passed all these sickos decided "Hey, i can go and rape with impunity now"? They are not even connected in the slightest way. Go ask a rapist if he even considers that aspect when he rapes. Rapists do it for power and personal gratification, nothing else...

Unlike you liberals I could care less about the "criminal mind". Like I said to jillian, why not kill the rapist instead of the baby?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I disagree...if there's one thing that an individual should have legal dominion over, it's his or her body. I wonder how many people would be as eager to interfere with that dominion if it were suggested, for example, that every female, as soon as she becomes capable, receives a sub-dermal implant to prevent pregnancy and it isn't removed until she's married.

to quote the great Ronald Reagan,,"Here we go again" with the bumper sticker mentality.

Uhhhhhhhh, its NOT a part of her body. Plain and simple. It has a distinct and different DNA and respitory system. You can say whatever you want, in any way you want, those are clear and simple FACTS. DNA is legally and scientifically used to IDENTIFY INDIVIDUALS.
ANd to attempt to analogize the FORCING of a medical procedure to the RESTRICTING of a medical procedure is downright lying. You do realize that A LOT of medical procedures are illegal. I dont hear you complaining about those.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Sorry, but I think it is stupid. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to protect the citizens from the abuse of those in power in the government..

Typical liberal ABUSE and mis use and distortion of the COTUS. The main purpose of the Constitution is NOT ONLY to protect us from govt abuse, but to keep the powers of govt balanced, and to dictate what the federal domains and State domains are, to prevent an overpowering central govt, which, unfortunately, the liberals are, and have been pushing us towards ever since FDR and social security. He actually was one of our worst presidents, he just happened to be presiding when WWll broke out. Anybody with half a brain could have led us to victory in that war because our military was so damn good.

And there is no more abuse of power than to tell someone what medical decisions they can make..

Oh baloney! You gonna tell that to black people who were enslaved?

The courts aren't perfect. For example, I think forfeiture laws are blatantly unconstitutional. .

Well, you have that one right, ALMOST. THey ARE unconstitutional, you dont have to qualify it with a "I think they are".

I mean, how much closer can you get to an "unreasonable search and seizure" than having a cop take your money or property without you ever even being charged with a crime? But forfeiture laws have never been declared unconstitutional even though it's right there in the Constitution in plain language.

The right to privacy is basic. Without it, we may as well throw the Constitution away.

Liberals have already thrown it away. "A living and breathing document" was the nail in the coffin.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Jillian Wrote:


I think that both sides will attempt to capitalize on any bit of information they can that helps their side. A pro-lifer will show pictures of fetuses yawning and smiling and hiccupping in the womb at amazingly early stages of development as proof that abortion is murder while a pro-choicer will tell tales of woman brutalized or woman carrying children that might kill them as proof of why abortion is needed.

It does not change however, the fact that a new life begins when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell and that newly created zygote begins to develop. As I stated before - it is, in my opinion, the obvious biological beginning to human life. There is nothing political, nothing religious, nothing pro-life or pro-choice about that fact. It is simply where all humans begin biologically. An entirely new entity created from one man and one woman.

I do not think we should hide from facts because they might give ammunition to a "side" we oppose.

There is nothing weaker about the argument that abortion is stopping a human's development in its earliest stages but that is sometimes necessary than the arguement that it isn't killing anything at all until that magical point where we decide a fetus is worthy of being called a baby so we should be able to abort the fetus at any point for any reason up until that magical point.

In fact, I feel that by honestly answering these types of questions - without hiding from the uncomfortable answers or taking a harder line because we are afraid of extremists - we can come closer to an honest, albeit difficult middle ground.

Seems like you contradict yourself a bit. You claim its a biological fact, then later state its "your opinion" that life starts at fertilization. I agree with your "its a biological fact", mainly because, uh, well, because IT IS !!

It is the ONLY clear cut point of delianation, unlike, as you said, "some magical point in time" when a fetus becomes a baby.

Your points are excellent, except I disagree with the last one, I dont think there is a middle ground. How can there be? If abortion is the taking of a human life, an innocent one at that, how can you not oppose any and all abortions, except to save the mothers life. I dont think incest or rape are valid at all. I mean, suppose a baby is born and then on the second day after birth, you discover through DNA that it is the product of rape or incest. Would it be ok to terminate its life then?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

MissileMan Wrote:


Its an interesting point. I suppose I could argue that a human can continue to grow and develop if they are "brain dead" which is why the medical community makes the distinction between brain dead and just plain dead in the first place.

However - in normal human development death is the end. Brain death occurs in rare occassions but is not the norm...and the norm is what we really are discussing.

But the fact that it is possible to be brain dead does not alter the fact that after a sperm and egg connect development begins. Brain functioning is a natural part of that - but it is not the start of human development.

No person ever started with brain development but without a sperm and egg uniting. By the time brain development begins cells, dna, etc. have already been established - life has already begun. Brain development is a stage in human development - obviously, a crucial one, but it is not the first.

For the good of the abortion debate however, pro-choice people might want to be careful about stating that brain activity is what matters...ultrasound imaging has shown that 5 weeks after conception the first synapses begin forming in a fetus's spinal cord and by week 6 those synapses are allowing fetal movement...it isn't dreaming and philosophising...but it is the earliest form of brain activity....followed by hicupping, yawning, etc. in the 8th weeks, etc.

The brain continues to develop throughout pregnancy and throughout human development...a baby isn't born with its brain fully developed...so obviously it isn't "proof" of life, its just a very important part of human development.

Actually, "brain" activity is present from MOMENT ONE. The single cell has a nucleus, which is a form of a brain. It certainly is a very simple one, but it dictates to the rest of the cell the functions it must carry out, including how to reproduce itself. ALthough seemingly simple compared to the fully developed human brain, it is actually quite complicated and advanced compared to our modern computers.
Also, death is defined as more than cessation of brain activity, as you mention, some people are brain dead.
If I recall correctly, heart and brain activity cessation is the definition, and I think respiration is included as well. The single cell has elements that fit all three of those requirements.
But to claim that defining the beginning of life by inversing the definition of death is not accurate at all. It sounds good, but has no basis in fact, rationale or logic if you think about it. NOBODY has provided sound reasoning why the construation of the two definitions should have such a relationship to each other.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

With the right care, I agree. A 5 month old fetus is not 'viable' via birth, whether natural or abortion. However, I believe that those under a pound, in 6-7 month have survived.

So how then is abortion justified? Why would it be ok to kill a 5 month gestation, simply because it hasn't attained the weight?

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a 'hardship' on the one with a uterus, but sheesh, a few months and the bearer could turn it over to someone willing to nurture and love it.

When a baby is medically viable has been and will continue to shift. It is pathetic to use that to try to define if it is a baby human or not. I mean, does our ability, or lack of medical ability to keep a fetus alive determine whether or not it is a human individual baby? I think not.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Cool. So you are in favour of condoms being distributed to 16 and 17 year olds at high school. Excellent.?

WEll, that certainly is an outright distortion of Dillo's statement. He did include words such as "almost anything". Very typical of liberals to distort what is spoken/written.

Because whether you like it or not, millions of children/kidults - whatever you want to call them - are going to have sex at that age.?

Kids will have a tendency to life up to adults expectations and encouragement. Your statement is soooo pessimistic and demeaning to the ability of our kids. Just because you idiotic liberals and your new age school policies cause more and more kids to leave high school illiterate, doesnt mean they cant once again become the productive, educated and value instilled kids we use to have coming out of high school.

And unless you want to live in a Hitlerian state, that is NEVER going to change.?

Interesting, because it was in America, very rare for teens to have sex and pregnancies at the VERY TIME we were in fact defeating Hitler and the other facist states. But leave it to the liberals to throw out the term Hitler whenever their posistion is faltering.

So draw your line in the sand. I'll give you your "at the moment of concpetion it becomes a human" if you give me "I'll allow my 16 year old daughter to take the pill/my 16 year old son to buy condoms"...Deal?

Go ahead, buy condoms for your 16 year old, or let him buy his own. That decision, along with abortion, should be decided family by family, something the liberals dont want. The liberals want the schools to control those decisions because they know liberals dominate the schools, and liberals are control freaks for the most part.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Spoken like somebody who will never have to deal with those consequences...

How would you know?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Rape was a lot less than today.
http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php

Many also believe there is just as much under-reportage today as before. And women CONTINUE to remain victims of rape because we do not take a hard line stance against rape. Then we compound the problem by committing the additional atrocity of abortion. That's what is really sick.

Why not kill the rapist instead of the baby?

Dont forget to throw date rape into the equation. ANd also the liberal feminazis re defining of the term rape and how it has effectively made the term much more palatable because of that.

 

[Dr Grump]

How would you know?

Unless SE is a female, how could he?

 

[red states rule]

Crazy Freak Fetus Resembles Human Baby
Fetus Survives Killing of Mother, Washington Post

Kansas Woman Charged With Strangling Pregnant Woman, Then Stealing Fetus, New York Times

Woman Charged in Grisly Theft of Fetus, ABC News

N.C. Woman Helped Crack Stolen Fetus Case, TheCarolinaChannel.com

Suspect in Stolen Fetus Case to Be Arraigned, Fox News

Stolen fetus hearing venue to be set, The Washington Times

Communities struggle with death of mother, theft of fetus, KBCI Boise

Hearing set in stolen fetus killing, CNN.com

Woman Accused of Stealing Fetus to Appear in Court Tomorrow, WIBW-TV Topeka

Fetus Snatch Suspect Faces Hearing, CBS 2

Hospital: Stolen fetus in "remarkably good condition",News 14 Carolina

Woman Accused of Taking Fetus "Acted Normally", WOAI

Notice a pattern here? Even fascist Faux News and the Moonie Times agree that the bizarre creature brutally extracted from a murdered woman last week was a fetus. Not a human child, mind you, but a F-E-T-U-S. Yet despite a media consensus to the contrary, the anti-choice crowd still insists on referring to the damned thing as a "baby". A poor womyn is killed and a fetus is on the loose, yet all these repugs can think about is how to use this tragedy as a means to undermine Roe v. Wade.

Goddess forbid I should ever have a tapeworm. The fundies would probably insist it had a "right-to-life" and force me to carry it around inside me for the rest of my days.

Yes, I know the fetus has cute little "baby hands" with cute little "baby fingers" and makes cute little "baby noises", but that doesn't make it any more human than a baby-shaped intestinal parasite. Furthermore, I don't recall this fetus being "born", nor have I read anything remotely hinting that the host organism wanted it to be. She could have been on her way to the abortion clinic for all we know. So lacking a physical birth or any sort of written documentation certifying an intent to carry the pregnancy to term, we must protect a Woman's Right to Choose and err on the side of inhumanity. It's a FETUS, and will remain one until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals says otherwise.

Unfortunately, that could take years. The fetus could be well into high school before it is deemed "alive" and awarded full human rights. Not quite living, yet not quite dead, this veritible Schrodinger's Fetus would be subject to relentless harassment and teasing all through it's quasi-childhood.

I know, because I've been there. There was a little girl on my street who was "born" prematurely, her "mother" having died in a car accident on the way to the abortion clinic. "Frannie the Fetus", we'd call her. We'd chase her all the way to the bus stop in the morning, singing "Frannie the Fetus! Frannie the Fetus! Watch out she's gonna eat us!" until she broke down in tears. Then her old man called the gestapo on me and I spent my 28th birthday picking up trash off the side of the freeway. So I'm no stranger to suffering.

Sadly, no one understood the potential danger of a fetus allowed to roam free back then, and they sure as hell don't understand it now. I hear that the "father" has already claimed custody of the fetus and is going to selfishly raise it as if it were his "child", oblivious to the damage he's doing to the cause of reproductive freedom. As with the Laci Peterson case, the anti-choicers will use the fetus' humanlike characteristics to insinuate life where there is none, and chip away at a Woman's Right to Choose.

One can almost smell the smoke as the Bill of Rights burns.


http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2004/12/fetus_resembles.html

 

[MissileMan]

Actually, "brain" activity is present from MOMENT ONE.

That's just become the most stupid post I've ever read...congratulations!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

That's just become the most stupid post I've ever read...congratulations!

Then apparently you dont read your own.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Unless SE is a female, how could he?

So, you're not sure if SE is a female or not, and you went ahead with your original statement?

Besides, you dont have to be a female to have to deal with those consequences and issues.

 

[jillian]

So, you're not sure if SE is a female or not, and you went ahead with your original statement?

Besides, you dont have to be a female to have to deal with those consequences and issues.

You don't have to be a female to deal with the consequences of a rape?

Interesting..... do we need to have that little talk about the birds and bees?

Oh... and it's clear SE is male... hence his comment.

 

[Dr Grump]

So, you're not sure if SE is a female or not, and you went ahead with your original statement?

Besides, you dont have to be a female to have to deal with those consequences and issues.

SE is male. Do you actually beleive the shit you write? SE thinks that if you stop abortion you'll get a decrease in rape. That's like me saying "I don't like that green car, which is why the sky is blue". And unless SE is female, and has been raped, he has NO idea. Trying to force a rape victim to have a child is like a woman telling a man what it's like to have vasectomy. Nothing worse than a zealot in any form, on any subject. SE fits the bill as do you...

 

[MissileMan]

Go ahead, buy condoms for your 16 year old, or let him buy his own. That decision, along with abortion, should be decided family by family, something the liberals dont want. The liberals want the schools to control those decisions because they know liberals dominate the schools, and liberals are control freaks for the most part.

Who in hell ever suggested that schools should decide if women can have abortions or not...you really need to read what you've written before pushing the submit button.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You don't have to be a female to deal with the consequences of a rape?

Interesting..... do we need to have that little talk about the birds and bees?.

So, you think if my daughter was raped, it wouldnt affect me at all?

Oh... and it's clear SE is male... hence his comment.

How is that so clear, and if it is known POSITIVELY, then why the doubt in The Grumpy ones statement?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

SE is male....

YOU made the statement, "unless you are a female.." indicating YOU WERENT SURE. It was a stupid statement by you if you knew SE's gender.

Do you actually beleive the shit you write? SE thinks that if you stop abortion you'll get a decrease in rape. That's like me saying "I don't like that green car, which is why the sky is blue"....

I see, so you dont believe there is any correlation between crime and abortion. Then you also must believe the recent controversial study that indicates that crime rates have dropped because of legalized abortion. Ok, start squirming.

And unless SE is female, and has been raped, he has NO idea....

Baloney. The actual victim of a rape, abortion, or person forced to go to term, are not the only ones who suffer consequences.

Trying to force a rape victim to have a child is like a woman telling a man what it's like to have vasectomy. Nothing worse than a zealot in any form, on any subject. SE fits the bill as do you...

So, you think the morality of the act of abortion depends on how the person who is considering having it "feels"? Sorry, my morals are decided upon feelings.
Fact is, whether it is moral or immoral to have an abortion hinges on one thing, and one thing only. Whether or not its difficult for the woman to have the child is irrelevant. The ONLY THING that matters is, "IS THE UNBORN BABY A LIVING HUMAN INDIVIDUAL" or not. If it is as just described, then ANY abortion for any reason is immoral, except to save the life of the mother. If it isnt, then any abortion, for any reason, until it becomes a living individual human being, is perfectly moral.

Human, YES, DNA proves it.
Living, YES, DNA proves it.
Inidividual, YES, DNA proves it.
ta daaaaaaaaaaaaaaa