Why do you hate

[Hollie]

when did I ignore it???

I answered it twice and also said when the life of the child or mother are in question that even though its a harsh thing it is necessary,,,

.its you thats stuck on it not me,,,

I would rather of course focus on the millions being murdered for convenience,,,

I just wanted to understand your position, it is not so far from my own. We both believe there are some situations where abortions should be legal and some where they should NOT be legal. Of course we differ on which situations are serious enough to warrant allowing legal abortions but those are just details since we agree on the basic issue, some, but not all, abortions should be legal.

Did I state your position fairly?

somewhat,,,a little to vague,,,

like I said ,,only when it can be proven the child or mothers life is in danger,,,,

Excellent! I was purposely vague since I doubted I could put into words what it means to have the child or mothers life in 'danger'. I'm no doctor. I suspect my definition would be much more expansive.

Likewise, the younger the fetus the less I'd be willing to second guess the mother's decision. Until the fetus develops past a certain point (I don't really know where that point is, maybe higher level brain functionality or viability?) I'd be willing let the mother decide.

the mother would be very emotional and needs more than just a second opinion,,,and some doctors are in it for the money, so in this kind of case should have a lot of over site,,,

Oh,,,,yes,,,,, very emotional women,,,,,, they have periods and stuff so can't be trusted to make decisions,,,,,,

 

[alang1216]

There is no justification for aborting a healthy fetus.

You state your opinion as a fact. It is NOT a fact.

Your 'healthy' fetus qualifier is a red herring since you have yet to say that that there is a justification for aborting an unhealthy fetus.

So far the only example you have provided usually dies in the womb as a miscarriage, is stillborn or dies shortly after birth.

I’m waiting for you to provide an example of one that doesn’t have one of those three outcomes. For all I know your definition of unhealthy is a downs baby.

It took a while but progressive hunter finally said he would agree that abortion is a morally acceptable option for a fetus that has serious health issues. I have yet to hear you agree that there is ANY circumstance where the mother should be allowed to choose the abortion option. Is that right?

 

[alang1216]

Every animal has a heart, it is the human brain that makes us unique so that is probably my yardstick.

Every mammal has a central nervous system which includes a brain.

We kill and eat many of those mammals. Do you have moral issue with that?

 

[ding]

There is no justification for aborting a healthy fetus.

You state your opinion as a fact. It is NOT a fact.

Your 'healthy' fetus qualifier is a red herring since you have yet to say that that there is a justification for aborting an unhealthy fetus.

So far the only example you have provided usually dies in the womb as a miscarriage, is stillborn or dies shortly after birth.

I’m waiting for you to provide an example of one that doesn’t have one of those three outcomes. For all I know your definition of unhealthy is a downs baby.

It took a while but progressive hunter finally said he would agree that abortion is a morally acceptable option for a fetus that has serious health issues. I have yet to hear you agree that there is ANY circumstance where the mother should be allowed to choose the abortion option. Is that right?

Probably because I am still waiting for you to draw the line where you wouldn’t. I don’t write blank checks.

 

[ding]

Every animal has a heart, it is the human brain that makes us unique so that is probably my yardstick.

Every mammal has a central nervous system which includes a brain.

We kill and eat many of those mammals. Do you have moral issue with that?

No. It’s called the natural order.

 

[alang1216]

Probably because I am still waiting for you to draw the line where you wouldn’t. I don’t write blank checks.

I think Roe was a reasonable compromise and set the line at viability.

 

[alang1216]

We kill and eat many of those mammals. Do you have moral issue with that?

No. It’s called the natural order.

What makes it 'natural'?

 

[Hollie]

Until the fetus develops past a certain point (I don't really know where that point is, maybe higher level brain functionality or viability?) I'd be willing let the mother decide.

Apparently that point is a heart beat.

Not apparent to me. Every animal has a heart, it is the human brain that makes us unique so that is probably my yardstick.

A fetal heartbeat used as the test for restricting a woman's access to abortion is strictly an appeal to emotion. Roe vs. Wade already addresses the the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother.

 

[progressive hunter]

There is no justification for aborting a healthy fetus.

You state your opinion as a fact. It is NOT a fact.

Your 'healthy' fetus qualifier is a red herring since you have yet to say that that there is a justification for aborting an unhealthy fetus.

So far the only example you have provided usually dies in the womb as a miscarriage, is stillborn or dies shortly after birth.

I’m waiting for you to provide an example of one that doesn’t have one of those three outcomes. For all I know your definition of unhealthy is a downs baby.

It took a while but progressive hunter finally said he would agree that abortion is a morally acceptable option for a fetus that has serious health issues. I have yet to hear you agree that there is ANY circumstance where the mother should be allowed to choose the abortion option. Is that right?

STOP FUCKING TELLING LIES ABOUT WHAT i SAID,,,

murder is not moral,,,i never said serious health issue because you and I might have a different idea of what serious is,,,

I said in that one case that it could be an option, "COULD BE"

I would like to have a lot more specifics

 

[progressive hunter]

Probably because I am still waiting for you to draw the line where you wouldn’t. I don’t write blank checks.

I think Roe was a reasonable compromise and set the line at viability.

viability is at conception,,,

 

[alang1216]

There is no justification for aborting a healthy fetus.

You state your opinion as a fact. It is NOT a fact.

Your 'healthy' fetus qualifier is a red herring since you have yet to say that that there is a justification for aborting an unhealthy fetus.

So far the only example you have provided usually dies in the womb as a miscarriage, is stillborn or dies shortly after birth.

I’m waiting for you to provide an example of one that doesn’t have one of those three outcomes. For all I know your definition of unhealthy is a downs baby.

It took a while but progressive hunter finally said he would agree that abortion is a morally acceptable option for a fetus that has serious health issues. I have yet to hear you agree that there is ANY circumstance where the mother should be allowed to choose the abortion option. Is that right?

STOP FUCKING TELLING LIES ABOUT WHAT i SAID,,,

murder is not moral,,,i never said serious health issue because you and I might have a different idea of what serious is,,,

I said in that one case that it could be an option, "COULD BE"

I would like to have a lot more specifics

"COULD BE"??? You're just tying yourself in knots because you can't admit to yourself that there are extreme circumstances where abortion is a morally acceptable option and in fact may be the best outcome.

 

[alang1216]

Probably because I am still waiting for you to draw the line where you wouldn’t. I don’t write blank checks.

I think Roe was a reasonable compromise and set the line at viability.

viability is at conception,,,

As you well know, viability means viable outside the womb. If you were given a fetus what would you do with it?

 

[ding]

Probably because I am still waiting for you to draw the line where you wouldn’t. I don’t write blank checks.

I think Roe was a reasonable compromise and set the line at viability.

I think each state should decide for themselves.

 

[ding]

We kill and eat many of those mammals. Do you have moral issue with that?

No. It’s called the natural order.

What makes it 'natural'?

Look around.

 

[progressive hunter]

There is no justification for aborting a healthy fetus.

You state your opinion as a fact. It is NOT a fact.

Your 'healthy' fetus qualifier is a red herring since you have yet to say that that there is a justification for aborting an unhealthy fetus.

So far the only example you have provided usually dies in the womb as a miscarriage, is stillborn or dies shortly after birth.

I’m waiting for you to provide an example of one that doesn’t have one of those three outcomes. For all I know your definition of unhealthy is a downs baby.

It took a while but progressive hunter finally said he would agree that abortion is a morally acceptable option for a fetus that has serious health issues. I have yet to hear you agree that there is ANY circumstance where the mother should be allowed to choose the abortion option. Is that right?

STOP FUCKING TELLING LIES ABOUT WHAT i SAID,,,

murder is not moral,,,i never said serious health issue because you and I might have a different idea of what serious is,,,

I said in that one case that it could be an option, "COULD BE"

I would like to have a lot more specifics

"COULD BE"??? You're just tying yourself in knots because you can't admit to yourself that there are extreme circumstances where abortion is a morally acceptable option and in fact may be the best outcome.

\


because extreme to you is different than extreme to me,,,

you think downs is enough to kill where I dont,,

and I am not willing to give a generalizations that lead to murder

and murder is never moral just necessary at times


sorry you might be easily ready to say kill it where I will try and find every reason not to,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Probably because I am still waiting for you to draw the line where you wouldn’t. I don’t write blank checks.

I think Roe was a reasonable compromise and set the line at viability.

viability is at conception,,,

As you well know, viability means viable outside the womb. If you were given a fetus what would you do with it?

no I dont know that,,,

viable means unless someone kills it, it will live

 

[alang1216]

I think each state should decide for themselves.

Same for civil rights legislation? Same for gun control?

 

[progressive hunter]

I think each state should decide for themselves.

Same for civil rights legislation? Same for gun control?

NO!!!

civil rights are not up for debate,,,,EVER

 

[ding]

I think each state should decide for themselves.

Same for civil rights legislation? Same for gun control?

You do know that the only reason we needed civil rights in the first place was because Democrats refused to accept blacks as equals, right? So if you want to have federal legislation that recognizes that human life in the womb is not property and afford them equal rights then I am all for it.

As for the right to bear arms there is an amendment which explicitly spells out that right. So if you want to amend the constitution to explicitly define human life in the womb as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, go for it.

 

[BreezeWood]

Probably because I am still waiting for you to draw the line where you wouldn’t. I don’t write blank checks.

I think Roe was a reasonable compromise and set the line at viability.

viability is at conception,,,

.

viability is at conception,,,

then there is no problem separating the two, each going their separate ways ... good point.