What should abortion laws be?

[Contumacious]

Whether she has an agenda or not doesn't matter; it's the validity of the arguments that matters.

True.

Thus far she has advanced no valid arguments.

.

 

[JD_2B]

It's better than partial birth, but just because we aren't able to detect brain activity doesn't mean it's not human, or it's not killing a human to destroy it.

Babies didn't used to be able to survive if they were more than 8 weeks premature. Should we have been aborting them up to 7 months then, because technology hadn't caught up with their needs?

I don't believe in the destruction of any human force, regardless of how capable that person is of thinking or communicating to us.

So you are against hormonal birth control, then also? Or the Plan B pill, which causes the uterus to become an even more than usually difficult place for the fertilized egg to implant itself, (if it doesn't kill off the sperm, in the first place- yet another life force..)- And then lets not forget about menstrual periods. What a waste of human life force..

And let's get really specific here, and beg the question of the billions of sperm that are lost, even when an egg is fertilized. We have such advanced technology these days, that it is a shame to let these human forces go to waste, and be killed by lack of use.

You do need to understand that something not being used is okay, and natural. Fetuses and uteruses are all included in this "non use" scenario. It may be used for a certain amount of time, but at some given point, a decision is made, either consciously, or unconsciously, whether the fertilized egg implants, or does not implant, or stays or is removed, or rejected.
This is just a non use issue.

And when you come to speak about technology, you also need to realize that just because it is available, does not mean it has to be utilized.

A right to life is not a entitlement to live, or remain alive, in any event or definition you wish to choose.

We can't keep anything alive forever, even if we wanted to, and nothing is entitled to remain alive for any period of time, whatsoever.

It only has the right to "live" as long as IT possibly can, in the environment it resides in.

Children and adults die of starvation all day long.. I hate this bitter truth, but the fact remains- as much as they do have the right to life, if they do not have the means to live, then they simply can not do such a thing.

Did you know that paprika can cause a miscarriage? Oh yes- that and many other herbs are available to take a whole lot of, and naturally rid one's self of a pregnancy. If the paprika does it's job of rejecting the fetus or embryo, whether this was intentional or not, then the embryo in question simply gets passed out, in a little blob, and usually flushed, because the woman will generally not even know that an embryo ever existed.
Vitamin C is another powerful morning after pill. It takes about 4,000 Mgs a day for a week, but it will aide in redicing the chances of a fertilized egg actually attaching itself to the uterine walls.

Sorry to have to break all of this to you, but people really need to understand that a right to life, by any definition, law, or purpose, will do nothing to change the fact that nothing in this world has an entitlement to live.

I support your decisions, though- to not abort. I simply do not think that legislation should try to tighten up on or dismantle a woman's right to choose what her body goes through, during any period of time in her life, including during a pregnancy.

 

[Bern80]

A right to life is not a entitlement to live, or remain alive, in any event or definition you wish to choose.

Really? Then what is it a right to?

We can't keep anything alive forever, even if we wanted to, and nothing is entitled to remain alive for any period of time, whatsoever.

It only has the right to "live" as long as IT possibly can, in the environment it resides in.

Children and adults die of starvation all day long.. I hate this bitter truth, but the fact remains- as much as they do have the right to life, if they do not have the means to live, then they simply can not do such a thing.

I really wish you could see how ridicuous a contrivance you have had to resort to. This isn't complicated. You would never advocate the killing of an innocent person. In order to reconcile that you abortion on demand goof balls have to come up with some way of considering un-birthed life as something less than a human. The compromise the original poster arrived at is a perfectly reasonable enough. Most people aren't so naive as to believe that at the moment of conception that sack of cells is just as human as it would be once it reached term and was born. It is just as unfathomable that YOU can belive that a child is so significantly less than human the moment before it is born aborting it up to that point is justified.

Take a step back and look at all the contrivances you abortionists have had to invent to justify your stance. Abortion instead of kill, fetus instead of baby. When in reality every excuse you have come up with to not protect this unborn life would apply to any child up to about a teenager.

 

[Contumacious]

A right to life is not a entitlement to live, or remain alive, in any event or definition you wish to choose.

Really? Then what is it a right to?

Individuals have a right to life and to defend the same. "A" - an individual - has no right to kill "B" another individual.

That does not mean that "A" must pay for "B's " health care, feed him, clothe him, shelter him.....and all other welfare state "rights".

.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

A right to life is not a entitlement to live, or remain alive, in any event or definition you wish to choose.

Really? Then what is it a right to?

Individuals have a right to life and to defend the same. "A" - an individual - has no right to kill "B" another individual.

That does not mean that "A" must pay for "B's " health care, feed him, clothe him, shelter him.....and all other welfare state "rights".

.

I love this post.

The first point,

"A" - an individual - has no right to kill "B" another individual.

Shoots you and JD right out of the water and destorys your lame attempts to defend killing babies through this thread (and JD's defense of killing a baby so long as the umbilical cord isn't cut). You just aregued that only two of the positions stated in this thread are valid and meet your criterion: Min and that of those who oppose abortion in all instances

That does not mean that "A" must pay for "B's " health care, feed him, clothe him, shelter him.....and all other welfare state "rights".

Awesome. Now you wish to argue that parents shouldn't have to feed or clothe their children. Just so you know, babies die if you never feed them. That would be killing your baby by any sane definition. So your earlier assertion makes the rest of you post- well, bullshit.

 

[Contumacious]

Really? Then what is it a right to?

Individuals have a right to life and to defend the same. "A" - an individual - has no right to kill "B" another individual.

That does not mean that "A" must pay for "B's " health care, feed him, clothe him, shelter him.....and all other welfare state "rights".

.

I love this post.

The first point,

"A" - an individual - has no right to kill "B" another individual.

Shoots you and JD right out of the water and destorys your lame attempts to defend killing babies through this thread (and JD's defense of killing a baby so long as the umbilical cord isn't cut). You just aregued that only two of the positions stated in this thread are valid and meet your criterion: Min and that of those who oppose abortion in all instances.

INDIVIDUAL not fetus

That does not mean that "A" must pay for "B's " health care, feed him, clothe him, shelter him.....and all other welfare state "rights".

Awesome. Now you wish to argue that parents shouldn't have to feed or clothe their children. Just so you know, babies die if you never feed them. That would be killing your baby by any sane definition. So your earlier assertion makes the rest of you post- well, bullshit.

We are talking about FETUSES not children or babies,

.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

INDIVIDUAL not fetus

A fetus is an individual save in the extenuating circumstances I posted earlier.

Why do you people have to lie and change your definitions all the time?

A fetus is a child. It's usually the child of the woman carrying it. Hence the phrase 'unborn child'.

Awesome. Now you wish to argue that parents shouldn't have to feed or clothe their children. Just so you know, babies die if you never feed them. That would be killing your baby by any sane definition. So your earlier assertion makes the rest of you post- well, bullshit.

We are talking about FETUSES not children or babies,

wait.. now you're mad about someone being forced to put clothes on a fetus? Once again, you're on your own little world where reality doesn't apply, I see.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Who's punishing them, then? God?

Burden and punishment are not equivalent terms. But then, we've yet to see you or JD say anything intelligent, so I'm not surprised by this latest display of stupidity.

Seems to me like crappy parents like that would be more of a punishment for the kid than the other way around, even though the poor child didn't do anything to deserve punishment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Enough about dead babies that grow and are alive cause they grow but aren't alive because they aren't breathing at the momwent and human-dog hybrids (as amusing as JD's little comedy routine was for a short while)...

Does anyone have any objection to this reasoning?

I support abortion up to 6 weeks after conception. This is based on the evidence I've seen which suggests that the regions of the brain which give rise to sentience develop possibly as early as 6-7 weeks after conception. Once this occurs, we are dealing with a sentient mind- a true person. Prior to the emergence of the mind capable of perceiving its own existence and/or the world around it, we are dealing with a living entity that possesses no selfhood. Thus, ending the life of such a creature is fundamentally the same as letting the body of the braindead die- the individual does not exist as such and the tissue itself possesses only sentimental value in its association in our minds with the individual.

This being said, finding information on fetal brain development has been difficult and I remain open to evidence indicating a different timeline.

APPENDIX:I also support abortion as a necessary, if undesirable, option in medical emergencies threaten the life of mother and/or child (it's better to save one life than to allow two to die)

I object to it because I don't consider higher brain function to be a relevant cut-off. We give more respect to the life of an endangered titmouse than we do to the life of the youngest of our own species. I think it's dangerous to start setting limits based on things like intelligence and brain function, because then it becomes necessary to explain just how much intelligence and how much brain function is required, and to explain why it's not okay to kill other humans who don't meet up to an arbitrary standard of same. And sure, YOU might be able to delineate and avoid going down the slippery slope, but it opens the door to others who can't or don't want to.

I think a fetus is valuable and important for the same reason I think any human is valuable and important: because he's human and alive. It's objective, undeniable (unless you're the sort of person who also believes dogs and humans can mate), and clear, and shuts the door definitively on people who might decide to play havoc with your arguments to allow them to bump off anyone who happens to be inconvenient to them at the moment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cuminthetumy, attacking Allie on a personal level does nothing to refute her(?) assertions or strengthen your own arguments.

Can we please have a mature conversation like adults? We got enough childishness from, JD's posts to last the rest of the thread.

Identify the FACTS upon which you rely to conclude that Allie's arguments are pure as the white driven snow. Specifically, that she does not have a hidden agenda.

.

Who gives a fuck what her motivations are? What matters is if you can refute her arguments, not whether or not you approve of the reason she's making them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whether she has an agenda or not doesn't matter; it's the validity of the arguments that matters.

True.

Thus far she has advanced no valid arguments.

.

"Valid" is not defined as "Contumacious likes them and agrees with them".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Individuals have a right to life and to defend the same. "A" - an individual - has no right to kill "B" another individual.

That does not mean that "A" must pay for "B's " health care, feed him, clothe him, shelter him.....and all other welfare state "rights".

.

I love this post.

The first point,

Shoots you and JD right out of the water and destorys your lame attempts to defend killing babies through this thread (and JD's defense of killing a baby so long as the umbilical cord isn't cut). You just aregued that only two of the positions stated in this thread are valid and meet your criterion: Min and that of those who oppose abortion in all instances.

INDIVIDUAL not fetus

That does not mean that "A" must pay for "B's " health care, feed him, clothe him, shelter him.....and all other welfare state "rights".

Awesome. Now you wish to argue that parents shouldn't have to feed or clothe their children. Just so you know, babies die if you never feed them. That would be killing your baby by any sane definition. So your earlier assertion makes the rest of you post- well, bullshit.

We are talking about FETUSES not children or babies,

.

Get a dictionary, Noah Webster.

From Merriam-Webster Online:

fetus - an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

baby - an extremely young child

child - an unborn or recently born person; a son or daughter of human parents

Sure sounds to ME like different words for the same thing.

 

[rdean]

If the conservatives are totally serious about ending abortion, this is the way to do it:

TEN STEPS TO END ABORTION FOREVER -

1. Register every single voter who is anti Abortion.

2. Outlaw every abortion, even ones that put the mothers life in danger, after all, there have been huge advancements in medicine.

3. End all "family planning'.

4. End all education on sex except "abstinence only". Outlaw any mention of disease or contraceptive.

5. Begin a "public option" fund by taxing ONLY voters who registered against abortion rights. That money to be used for prenatal care for women that can't afford such care.

6. Start a lottery. Only those who are registered against abortion rights can play.

7. Winners get to receive brand new babies.

8. Losers have to support a woman and her baby if she wants to keep the baby.

9. "Daily Doubles" get twins.

10. Children must be cared for for 18 years.

 

[Father Time]

I think that would violate the 14th, I'm not sure.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If the conservatives are totally serious about ending abortion, this is the way to do it:

TEN STEPS TO END ABORTION FOREVER -

1. Register every single voter who is anti Abortion.

2. Outlaw every abortion, even ones that put the mothers life in danger, after all, there have been huge advancements in medicine.

3. End all "family planning'.

4. End all education on sex except "abstinence only". Outlaw any mention of disease or contraceptive.

5. Begin a "public option" fund by taxing ONLY voters who registered against abortion rights. That money to be used for prenatal care for women that can't afford such care.

6. Start a lottery. Only those who are registered against abortion rights can play.

7. Winners get to receive brand new babies.

8. Losers have to support a woman and her baby if she wants to keep the baby.

9. "Daily Doubles" get twins.

10. Children must be cared for for 18 years.

We'll be taking your advice on abortion right after I find a man with brain damage to advise me on breastfeeding, okay? Do us all two favors:

1) Save your advice until someone's stupid enough to ask for it, and
2) Hold your breath while you wait for that.

 

[rdean]

If the conservatives are totally serious about ending abortion, this is the way to do it:

TEN STEPS TO END ABORTION FOREVER -

1. Register every single voter who is anti Abortion.

2. Outlaw every abortion, even ones that put the mothers life in danger, after all, there have been huge advancements in medicine.

3. End all "family planning'.

4. End all education on sex except "abstinence only". Outlaw any mention of disease or contraceptive.

5. Begin a "public option" fund by taxing ONLY voters who registered against abortion rights. That money to be used for prenatal care for women that can't afford such care.

6. Start a lottery. Only those who are registered against abortion rights can play.

7. Winners get to receive brand new babies.

8. Losers have to support a woman and her baby if she wants to keep the baby.

9. "Daily Doubles" get twins.

10. Children must be cared for for 18 years.

We'll be taking your advice on abortion right after I find a man with brain damage to advise me on breastfeeding, okay? Do us all two favors:

1) Save your advice until someone's stupid enough to ask for it, and
2) Hold your breath while you wait for that.

I'm pretty sure my plan is better than any plan, no pun intended, "conceived" by any conservative. Under my plan, they can put all those "Christian sensibilities" into practice.

 

[Father Time]

Except the abstinence only part, that part is really stupid. Teenagers have libidos so why would not telling them about contraceptives reduce abortions?

 

[rdean]

Except the abstinence only part, that part is really stupid. Teenagers have libidos so why would not telling them about contraceptives reduce abortions?

Because, according to conservatives, telling teenagers about contraceptives and what makes a baby and disease gives them a "red light" to have orgies and churn out babies faster than you can say, "Watermelon seed".

 

[Cecilie1200]

If the conservatives are totally serious about ending abortion, this is the way to do it:

TEN STEPS TO END ABORTION FOREVER -

1. Register every single voter who is anti Abortion.

2. Outlaw every abortion, even ones that put the mothers life in danger, after all, there have been huge advancements in medicine.

3. End all "family planning'.

4. End all education on sex except "abstinence only". Outlaw any mention of disease or contraceptive.

5. Begin a "public option" fund by taxing ONLY voters who registered against abortion rights. That money to be used for prenatal care for women that can't afford such care.

6. Start a lottery. Only those who are registered against abortion rights can play.

7. Winners get to receive brand new babies.

8. Losers have to support a woman and her baby if she wants to keep the baby.

9. "Daily Doubles" get twins.

10. Children must be cared for for 18 years.

We'll be taking your advice on abortion right after I find a man with brain damage to advise me on breastfeeding, okay? Do us all two favors:

1) Save your advice until someone's stupid enough to ask for it, and
2) Hold your breath while you wait for that.

I'm pretty sure my plan is better than any plan, no pun intended, "conceived" by any conservative. Under my plan, they can put all those "Christian sensibilities" into practice.

We need non-believers to teach us how to be Christians even less than we need liberal retards to teach us how to be conservative. Only a leftist would be stupid and arrogant enough to believe that they're qualified to teach others how to be something that they aren't themselves.

 

[JD_2B]

INDIVIDUAL not fetus

A fetus is an individual save in the extenuating circumstances I posted earlier.

It is too.. Yes it is!! It may not be all the way individual, but yeah huhhhhh uh huhhhh yes it isssssss, even if it isntttttt!!! <proletarian having a tantrum, stamping feet, whining loudly, annoying all> Wah wah fucking wah.

Why do you people have to lie and change your definitions all the time?

It is or it isnt, P. YOU are the only one picking and choosing here.

A fetus is a child. It's usually the child of the woman carrying it. Hence the phrase 'unborn child'.

It is in fact INSIDE of the woman, making it a NON SINGULAR entity. The pregnant woman eats for two, not for just one. If the fetus's only chance of livlihood is brought about by it's NEEDING OF ONE living thing to chew food and eat FOR it to be nourished it COMPLETELY LOSES ANY RIGHTS TO INDIVIDUALITY. And no, you can't count babies needing their formula made or breast feeding, etc, because ANYONE WHO LACTATES CAN FEED THEM. In the face of an embryo or fetus, the reliance is on the life of the woman to whom it is a part of, for the duration of the pre-life process of gestation. Hence, it is not a fucking individual.

Awesome. Now you wish to argue that parents shouldn't have to feed or clothe their children. Just so you know, babies die if you never feed them. That would be killing your baby by any sane definition. So your earlier assertion makes the rest of you post- well, bullshit.

We are talking about FETUSES not children or babies,

wait.. now you're mad about someone being forced to put clothes on a fetus? Once again, you're on your own little world where reality doesn't apply, I see.

Parents DONT have to feed or clothe their children. Anyone can do that.
Many children forage for their own food.
Many other children are left to die, and either die or are saved by some other person, who may or may not be their parent.

Being cared for when you are helpless, is a sociological expectation, not a right.

Welcome to reality, numbnuts.