What if Roe Vs. Wade was Overturned?

[LuvRPgrl]

Hey, dill-hole; I'm saying that illegalizing abortion operations won't stop abortions procedures from happening.

Abortion is an evidable sin when it comes to certain people; we, as americans, have a choice as to how to deal with it; we'll either chose to use a percision instrument or a clotheshanger?

Whatever helps you sleep at night, bub!

All I can do is use the instrument that I trust; the word of GOD. Say my peace, then pray; I won't force morality on anyone. Last I recalled, I never lost a child to abortion, while consulting women of their choices.

The legal side of me says that as long as abortion is legal, women have a right to do it; my moral side fights to establish programs for women seeking alternative steps.

So when you think about it, abortion is your problem, not mine!

you wont force morality on anyone? Dont you realize that bogus left wing concept went out with the ten pound cell phone?

Uh, so you dont think murdering someone is immoral? Or you dont support laws against murder?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There is NO WAY, that the truth will ever be discovered to a 100% certainty,

No. The truth is out. Fetuses are alive. They are from the moment of conception. they may not be "viable outside the womb", or "feel pain", but why are we putting these superfluous criteria on human life when any bio student can tell you about LIVING single celled organisms. When it comes to humans, godless lefties set the bar higher. WHY? So they can kill guilt free? I think so.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Some of us believe that a fetus is a person. Thus, it's actually between the woman, her doctor, and her child, except the child doesn't get an input. It *is* a life or death issue. The debate lies, or should lie, solely on the basis of whether or not a fetus is a person. It has nothing to do with women's rights. If a fetus is not a person, the state cannot overwrite her right to surgically modify her own body. If a fetus is a person, the woman's right to alter her body cannot overwrite the child's right to live. We wouldn't allow plastic surgery if a 3 month old baby had to be killed for every operation, therefore a mother's right to the surgury cannot overwrite the child's right to live if that child is deemed a person.

<a href=http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-abortion-first-trimestert.xml>CDC studies</a> show us that some 58% of abortions occur within the first 8 weeks of a pregnancy and 88% occur within the first 12 weeks, which is often when women are first aware that they are pregnant. If a pregnancy is unplanned, the product of rape or the product of incest, why should a woman be denied the option of a safe, legal medical proceedure to terminate the pregnancy, particularly when viability is no an issue. OTC availability emergency contraception in the form of '<a href=http://www.mckinley.uiuc.edu/health-info/womenhlt/planb.html>Plan B</a>' would significantly reduce the need for such abortions. However, the FDA has, yet again delayed its release. This drug has been proven safe and effective, and many in the medical community see no problem with it being sold. Unfortunately, ideology and politics on the part of the Bush administration are working to prevent its release.

Calling an embryo/fetus a 'child' is simply an act of misdirection, serving to confuse the issue. It gives the potential, in the form of an egg or embryo the same status as the very real interests of an adult woman. Following that logic, birth control of any kind could be outlawed...the time of month which couples could engage in sexual intercourse could be regulated...and, since 50% or more of fertlized eggs fail to implant anyways, do we force women to take every measure to ensure that the fertilized egg does implant? Oh, and let's not forget all of those unused fertilized eggs at IVF clinics. Do we force women to have them implanted and carried to term? This is where your logic finally leads us.

Arguments against abortion are not about protecting human life...They are merely a smokescreen for the real agenda, which is control. The real agenda is the power to say 'thou shalt...' and 'thou shalt not...'. It is about the power to impose an ideology that views women as chattel. Life is the least of the concerns of the 'pro-life' movement.

 

[Bullypulpit]

What about a woman's right to choose to commit arson? Abortion is killing. It IS about life and death you monstrousity.

You simply can't leave the bad analogies alone?...Can you? Arson is a crime. Abortion is a safe, legal medical proceedure.

Now tell me...When does life begin?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You simply can't leave the bad analogies alone?...Can you? Arson is a crime. Abortion is a safe, legal medical proceedure.

Now tell me...When does life begin?

But what about a woman's choice to burn things down. Seems to me you're occluding her rights by limiting her choices.

Life begins at conception.

Anything else, dipstick?

 

[no1tovote4]

Your analogy is as flawed as your reasoning. Child molestation is a crime whether it occurs in private, as it always does, or not. So, come back when you've put together a better argument. Dismissed.

So is killing your progeny. The only difference being the state of development. More and more we are finding it scientifically untenable to defend the "only a cluster of cells" argument.

Once again I proffer a different tack on the problem. Instead of making it a goal to kill this human progeny, we should remove the fetus and attempt to develop the person outside of the womb or in an artificial womb and thus give actual choice to women over time. The only choice nowadays being to birth a child or kill the developing human in the womb. That isn't a choice it is barbarism sheathed under "privacy" and allowed to flourish in the name of "women's rights". At least with my idea there would be two patients when a woman chose to not be an incubator and no innocent life lost with intent.

 

[no1tovote4]

You simply can't leave the bad analogies alone?...Can you? Arson is a crime. Abortion is a safe, legal medical proceedure.

Now tell me...When does life begin?

LOL. SAFE???? That would depend entirely on your point of view. If you are the Fetus how safe is abortion?

 

[KarlMarx]

Gem, I support legal abortions because without it, you'll see the garbage bins pilling up with dead babies, more need for prisons because we'll start arresting the people who conduct abortions, and dead women as the result of infections and or bleeding as the result of botched operations.

Sometimes people needs to understand that our society, in certain situations, has to "cut off its nose in order to save its face". History had already told us that with the attempted prohibition of alcohol. Abortion lies within that catagory; I don't care to stop it, but it has to be contained.

Garbage bins piling up with dead babies --- you mean, like today? How many times have I read stories of babies being abandoned in dumpsters, flushed down toilets etc? Even with legalized abortions, this is happening anyway.

How many garbage bins would you need to hold 1.5 million dead babies? Well, if you can stuff 100 dead babies in a garbage bin, you'd still need 15,000 garbage bins (assuming that a garbage bin is 10 feet long, that's 150,000 feet or about 28 miles of garbage bins). That number is equal to the number of legalized abortions performed in this country today. Somehow, the "dead babies in garbage bins" argument seems somewhat specious to me....

How many women died or had health problems because of illegal abortions ? Probably a handful, not hundreds, not thousands. How many are dying, becoming sterile and having their life endangered today? Even a tenth of one percent of 1.5 million is 1,500 a year. So ironically, more women today may be in danger of suffering from the after effects of poorly performed abortions by virtue of the fact that so many are being performed.

 

[no1tovote4]

<a href=http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-abortion-first-trimestert.xml>CDC studies</a> show us that some 58% of abortions occur within the first 8 weeks of a pregnancy and 88% occur within the first 12 weeks, which is often when women are first aware that they are pregnant. If a pregnancy is unplanned, the product of rape or the product of incest, why should a woman be denied the option of a safe, legal medical proceedure to terminate the pregnancy, particularly when viability is no an issue. OTC availability emergency contraception in the form of '<a href=http://www.mckinley.uiuc.edu/health-info/womenhlt/planb.html>Plan B</a>' would significantly reduce the need for such abortions. However, the FDA has, yet again delayed its release. This drug has been proven safe and effective, and many in the medical community see no problem with it being sold. Unfortunately, ideology and politics on the part of the Bush administration are working to prevent its release.

Why should we deem a life as worthless because of the state of conception? The innocence or guilt of the father cannot make the life of the child worth less. Why should the developing human suffer the ultimate punishment for a crime that they are not guilty of? With my previous post I explained a way that a woman would not have to carry the child while at the same time we would not kill human progeny with intent. Killing them is not the only choice available.

Calling an embryo/fetus a 'child' is simply an act of misdirection, serving to confuse the issue. It gives the potential, in the form of an egg or embryo the same status as the very real interests of an adult woman. Following that logic, birth control of any kind could be outlawed...the time of month which couples could engage in sexual intercourse could be regulated...and, since 50% or more of fertlized eggs fail to implant anyways, do we force women to take every measure to ensure that the fertilized egg does implant? Oh, and let's not forget all of those unused fertilized eggs at IVF clinics. Do we force women to have them implanted and carried to term? This is where your logic finally leads us.

The state of development doesn't change what it is, human progeny. Attempting to define it as "only a cluster of cells" doesn't change the fact that it is a living and developing human. Birth control stops the conception and is not directed action to end a life as abortion is. The analogy is flawed.

And there are sites that allow people to adopt those fertilized eggs. We now also know that it is unnecessary to collect stem cells from them as they can change adult stem cells to embryonic stem cells now. Once again your logic is flawed.

Arguments against abortion are not about protecting human life...They are merely a smokescreen for the real agenda, which is control. The real agenda is the power to say 'thou shalt...' and 'thou shalt not...'. It is about the power to impose an ideology that views women as chattel. Life is the least of the concerns of the 'pro-life' movement.

That is incorrect, I proposed an idea that would allow people to control their own life and bodies and would not involve directed death of human progeny with intent.

 

[Nuc]

Once again I proffer a different tack on the problem. Instead of making it a goal to kill this human progeny, we should remove the fetus and attempt to develop the person outside of the womb or in an artificial womb and thus give actual choice to women over time. The only choice nowadays being to birth a child or kill the developing human in the womb. That isn't a choice it is barbarism sheathed under "privacy" and allowed to flourish in the name of "women's rights". At least with my idea there would be two patients when a woman chose to not be an incubator and no innocent life lost with intent.

Now we're talking! This is a good idea. Technology will advance to this point soon. But it will still be more expensive than using a breeder female. Who's going to pay for it? And what happens to the resulting children?

I guess you could match up prospective adoptive parents with the incubating fetus and have them pay for it. Then parents don't have to contend with corrupt foreign governments.

 

[no1tovote4]

Now we're talking! This is a good idea. Technology will advance to this point soon. But it will still be more expensive than using a breeder female. Who's going to pay for it? And what happens to the resulting children?

I guess you could match up prospective adoptive parents with the incubating fetus and have them pay for it. Then parents don't have to contend with corrupt foreign governments.

To tell the truth, in order to save the lives of innocents I would be willing to pay for it through government funds.

Imagine a world where a working woman could choose between natural birth or ex utero incubation, where women who were raped would not have to add the guilt of killing an innocent life so that they would not have to carry the child. That doctors could once again be for life instead of working toward the goal of directed death in the name of privacy or personal rights while ignoring that there is an actual life ended with every abortion. I think that government funding would be well worth the end of life sacrificed to "privacy".

 

[MissileMan]

No. The truth is out. Fetuses are alive. They are from the moment of conception. they may not be "viable outside the womb", or "feel pain", but why are we putting these superfluous criteria on human life when any bio student can tell you about LIVING single celled organisms. When it comes to humans, godless lefties set the bar higher. WHY? So they can kill guilt free? I think so.

Sperm cells are alive, as are eggs and cancerous tumors. The question isn't whether fetuses are alive, but when they become human beings. If you believe in a soul, the question is when is the soul assigned. If you don't believe in a soul, the question is when is there sufficent fetal development to provide for sentience. As I stated before, there's no way to know with 100% certainty when these conditions are met.

 

[dilloduck]

Sperm cells are alive, as are eggs and cancerous tumors. The question isn't whether fetuses are alive, but when they become human beings. If you believe in a soul, the question is when is the soul assigned. If you don't believe in a soul, the question is when is there sufficent fetal development to provide for sentience. As I stated before, there's no way to know with 100% certainty when these conditions are met.

Since we aren't 100% certain the obvious answer is to just assume that fetus do not have a soul, aren't human and kill them at will. ????

Any alien life form that might show up better run like a mo fo cause they a dead meat if we use your standards.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The question isn't whether fetuses are alive, but when they become human beings. If you believe in a soul, the question is when is the soul assigned. If you don't believe in a soul, the question is when is there sufficent fetal development to provide for sentience. As I stated before, there's no way to know with 100% certainty when these conditions are met.

So now our laws should take soul into consideration? you're a moron.

 

[MissileMan]

So now our laws should take soul into consideration? you're a moron.

What's your problem? I know an intelligent argument is beyond your scope, but you jump to personal attacks quicker than anyone else on the board. If you have nothing constructive to add to a discussion, why not just STFU!

 

[MissileMan]

Since we aren't 100% certain the obvious answer is to just assume that fetus do not have a soul, aren't human and kill them at will. ????

Any alien life form that might show up better run like a mo fo cause they a dead meat if we use your standards.

That's not what I said. Some people believe that a fetus gets a soul at conception, some believe that they get a soul at birth, some believe that there is no soul at all. I'm saying that abortion legislation should be a compromise of all 3 postions since there's no way to prove any of them right or wrong.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That's not what I said. Some people believe that a fetus gets a soul at conception, some believe that they get a soul at birth, some believe that there is no soul at all. I'm saying that abortion legislation should be a compromise of all 3 postions since there's no way to prove any of them right or wrong.

And we're saying that's stupid.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What's your problem? I know an intelligent argument is beyond your scope, but you jump to personal attacks quicker than anyone else on the board. If you have nothing constructive to add to a discussion, why not just STFU!

You want to make laws based on such undefinables as soul an sentience. I'm sorry. that's simply untenable, stupid, ridiculous, bad, what have you. WHat I've added to the discussion is basic common sense.

 

[Bullypulpit]

But what about a woman's choice to burn things down. Seems to me you're occluding her rights by limiting her choices.

Life begins at conception.

Anything else, dipstick?

Let's, just for the sake of argument, assume that you are correct in your assumption that life begins at conception. The blasyocyst, that's the newly fertilized egg, is a living being. Following the same logic, the cells we wash down the drain each time we bathe are living entities. Unfertilized ova are living entities, so you have to prevent ovulation and menstration. Spermatazoa (<i>Ever see <b>Monty Python's The Meaning of Life</b></i>?) which fail to reach an egg are living entities, so you have to criminalize masturbation. These cells are are living entities eqaully as capable of giving rise to a human life as a blastocyst, so aren't they entitled to the same concern?

If my statements seem absurd, they only reflect the absurdity and fallaciousness of the 'pro-life' arguments.

Life doesn't begin at conception. Adherents of this position posit this argument with the sole aim of criminalizing <b>ANY</b> form of contraception or birth control. You've run out of ammo, as shown by your name-calling and poor excuses for argument, so you're left with throwing the gun.

And you're still stuck in the world of bad analogies, aren't you. Arson is a crime, not a safe, legal medical proceedure.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Let's, just for the sake of argument, assume that you are correct in your assumption that life begins at conception. The blasyocyst, that's the newly fertilized egg, is a living being. Following the same logic, the cells we wash down the drain each time we bathe are living entities. Unfertilized ova are living entities, so you have to prevent ovulation and menstration. Spermatazoa (<i>Ever see <b>Monty Python's The Meaning of Life</b></i>?) which fail to reach an egg are living entities, so you have to criminalize masturbation. These cells are are living entities eqaully as capable of giving rise to a human life as a blastocyst, so aren't they entitled to the same concern?

If my statements seem absurd, they only reflect the absurdity and fallaciousness of the 'pro-life' arguments.

Life doesn't begin at conception. Adherents of this position posit this argument with the sole aim of criminalizing <b>ANY</b> form of contraception or birth control. You've run out of ammo, as shown by your name-calling and poor excuses for argument, so you're left with throwing the gun.

And you're still stuck in the world of bad analogies, aren't you. Arson is a crime, not a safe, legal medical proceedure.

The difference is that one bundle of cells will develop into a human if left alone. The others you mention will not. Come to think of it, you are about as valuable as a wart.

Arson could be legal if we made it legal. Just as abortions could be illegal if we made them illegal. How safe is the baby you kill?