A question for those who support abortion.

[whitehall]

The way the law is set up a fetus is considered to be non human and devoid of the basic rights of a human if it's head remains in the birth canal while it is stabbed to death and it's brain is sucked out. If the fetus slips out of the abortionist's hands and ends up on the table it suddenly becomes human and covered under the U.S. Constitution. Abortionist doctor Kermit Gosnell's house of horrors didn't happen in rural border Tex/Mex towns. Pizza places in Philadelphia were better regulated than Gosnell's abortion clinic. He was finally convicted of negligent homicide when one of his "patients" died. You gotta ask yourself who benefits most from legal abortion. It certainly isn't the woman who might endure physical problems including infertility in addition to mental issues similar to PTSD for the rest of her life. If abortion isn't intended to benefit women who does it benefit? That's right, the people who make the laws and protect the abortionists mostly democrat liberal men have their future responsibilities erased at the stroke of a scalpel and walk away while the women are left to cope with the loss and the pain for the rest of their lives.

 

[Lysistrata]

The way the law is set up a fetus is considered to be non human and devoid of the basic rights of a human if it's head remains in the birth canal while it is stabbed to death and it's brain is sucked out. If the fetus slips out of the abortionist's hands and ends up on the table it suddenly becomes human and covered under the U.S. Constitution. Abortionist doctor Kermit Gosnell's house of horrors didn't happen in rural border Tex/Mex towns. Pizza places in Philadelphia were better regulated than Gosnell's abortion clinic. He was finally convicted of negligent homicide when one of his "patients" died. You gotta ask yourself who benefits most from legal abortion. It certainly isn't the woman who might endure physical problems including infertility in addition to mental issues similar to PTSD. If abortion isn't intended to benefit women who does it benefit? That's right, liberal men have their future responsibilities erased at the stroke of a scalpel.

The theories that women who undergo an abortion "might endure physical problems including infertility In addition to mental issues similar to PTSD" have been debunked. They were concocted by right-wingers and no one from any legitimate medical society agrees. Gosnell is serving life without parole. Why his operations were not noted by state officials for so long remains a question.

Yes. The availability of a safe, legal termination benefits women. Women schedule terminations of their own volition. Nobody drags them off the streets and ties them down. Look at all the women from Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic who find themselves flying to England for terminations.

Societies that are too stupid and repressed, like ours, don't realize that a good, practical education about the human body (not some vague "religious" bullshit), frank talk about the role sexuality plays in the lives of human beings, a clear education of how birth-control measures work, and the universal availability of birth-control measures would greatly reduce the number of terminations.

The people who talk about women "keeping their knees together" or balancing an aspirin and the rest of the porno crap they put out are just exhibiting some sick and morbid animosity toward female sexuality. They are steeped in misogyny. They are out to interfere with and destroy heterosexuality. They hate heterosexuals for whatever reason. Yet they hate LGBTs, too. Go figure. It's time to examine these peoples' brains, if indeed they have any.

 

[Dragonlady]

Nope.

But the right wing would deny millions and millions of health care if they could, yet they call themselves pro-life. What a fraud

Why the **** should I have to pay for a ***** to abort her baby because she couldn't keep her legs closed? If she wants to abort, she should have to pay for it.....******* worthless tard women, don't realize that liberal men want to **** their brains out, but if they get prego, then the liberal men want it aborted. Just cant get more stupid than a liberal woman...

You misogynistic piece of shit. Because “a woman can’t keep her legs closed”.

Because a man can’t keep it in his pants. Doesn’t wear a condom, doesn’t give a shit about the consequences because he won’t have to raise the child.

You exist because a woman didn’t keep her legs closed. She should have. One less sexist piece of filth in the world.

 

[TheDude]

It doesn't make sense, because the umbilical cord was cut on the one. With an umbilical cord, the fetus is more a turnip or eggplant.

 

[Lysistrata]

Nope.

But the right wing would deny millions and millions of health care if they could, yet they call themselves pro-life. What a fraud

Why the **** should I have to pay for a ***** to abort her baby because she couldn't keep her legs closed? If she wants to abort, she should have to pay for it.....******* worthless tard women, don't realize that liberal men want to **** their brains out, but if they get prego, then the liberal men want it aborted. Just cant get more stupid than a liberal woman...

You misogynistic piece of shit. Because “a woman can’t keep her legs closed”.

Because a man can’t keep it in his pants. Doesn’t wear a condom, doesn’t give a shit about the consequences because he won’t have to raise the child.

You exist because a woman didn’t keep her legs closed. She should have. One less sexist piece of filth in the world.

What you say is true, as regards to hook-ups at closing time and the like. But don't disregard the large amount of heterosexuals who are in caring relationships day after day. These right-wingers exhibit no understanding of the fact that heterosexual men and women form pair-bonds and are welcoming and loving toward each other. Nobody knows what is whispered between any couple, heterosexual or not, when the lights go out unless they were there. The right-wingers choose to treat any interaction between heterosexuals as a casual hook-up. They refuse to recognize that heterosexuals actually care for each other. Sometimes, when a woman is in the examining room, there is a man outside waiting, worried, and ready to pay the bill. This I know from deeply personal experience.

I don't have anything against LGBTs. Life is the same for them in their relationships. But I am getting really pissed at the right-wingers who try every day to ruin heterosexuality for all of us.

 

[Dragonlady]

Nope.

But the right wing would deny millions and millions of health care if they could, yet they call themselves pro-life. What a fraud

Why the **** should I have to pay for a ***** to abort her baby because she couldn't keep her legs closed? If she wants to abort, she should have to pay for it.....******* worthless tard women, don't realize that liberal men want to **** their brains out, but if they get prego, then the liberal men want it aborted. Just cant get more stupid than a liberal woman...

You misogynistic piece of shit. Because “a woman can’t keep her legs closed”.

Because a man can’t keep it in his pants. Doesn’t wear a condom, doesn’t give a shit about the consequences because he won’t have to raise the child.

You exist because a woman didn’t keep her legs closed. She should have. One less sexist piece of filth in the world.

What you say is true, as regards to hook-ups at closing time and the like. But don't disregard the large amount of heterosexuals who are in caring relationships day after day. These right-wingers exhibit no understanding of the fact that heterosexual men and women form pair-bonds and are welcoming and loving toward each other. Nobody knows what is whispered between any couple, heterosexual or not, when the lights go out unless they were there. The right-wingers choose to treat any interaction between heterosexuals as a casual hook-up. They refuse to recognize that heterosexuals actually care for each other. Sometimes, when a woman is in the examining room, there is a man outside waiting, worried, and ready to pay the bill. This I know from deeply personal experience.

I don't have anything against LGBTs. Life is the same for them in their relationships. But I am getting really pissed at the right-wingers who try every day to ruin heterosexuality for all of us.

Right wingers are opposed to sex for purposes other than procreation. They believe in abstinence but they’re not willing to practice it. 130,000 evangelical women get abortions every year. So much for right wing pro-lifers.

Scratch a pro-lifer and you find a misogynistic jerk who thinks that only single party girls get abortions. They ignore that half of the women who get abortions are married or in a committed relationship. That half the women who get abortions were using birth control when they got pregnant.

They completely ignore the other good and valid reasons why people have sex and decree that if you don’t want a baby, you shouldn’t risk having sex. As if the only point or purpose of having sex is procreation.

Forget that in some States a husband can divorce a wife for refusing sex. Forget the emotional and physical benefits of a healthy sex life for adults.

But that expression “spreads her legs” is so indicative of a sleazy, misogynistic attitude that every time I see or hear it, I want to ***** slap the slime ball who said it into next week.

 

[Lysistrata]

Nope.

But the right wing would deny millions and millions of health care if they could, yet they call themselves pro-life. What a fraud

Why the **** should I have to pay for a ***** to abort her baby because she couldn't keep her legs closed? If she wants to abort, she should have to pay for it.....******* worthless tard women, don't realize that liberal men want to **** their brains out, but if they get prego, then the liberal men want it aborted. Just cant get more stupid than a liberal woman...

You misogynistic piece of shit. Because “a woman can’t keep her legs closed”.

Because a man can’t keep it in his pants. Doesn’t wear a condom, doesn’t give a shit about the consequences because he won’t have to raise the child.

You exist because a woman didn’t keep her legs closed. She should have. One less sexist piece of filth in the world.

What you say is true, as regards to hook-ups at closing time and the like. But don't disregard the large amount of heterosexuals who are in caring relationships day after day. These right-wingers exhibit no understanding of the fact that heterosexual men and women form pair-bonds and are welcoming and loving toward each other. Nobody knows what is whispered between any couple, heterosexual or not, when the lights go out unless they were there. The right-wingers choose to treat any interaction between heterosexuals as a casual hook-up. They refuse to recognize that heterosexuals actually care for each other. Sometimes, when a woman is in the examining room, there is a man outside waiting, worried, and ready to pay the bill. This I know from deeply personal experience.

I don't have anything against LGBTs. Life is the same for them in their relationships. But I am getting really pissed at the right-wingers who try every day to ruin heterosexuality for all of us.

Right wingers are opposed to sex for purposes other than procreation. They believe in abstinence but they’re not willing to practice it. 130,000 evangelical women get abortions every year. So much for right wing pro-lifers.

Scratch a pro-lifer and you find a misogynistic jerk who thinks that only single party girls get abortions. They ignore that half of the women who get abortions are married or in a committed relationship. That half the women who get abortions were using birth control when they got pregnant.

They completely ignore the other good and valid reasons why people have sex and decree that if you don’t want a baby, you shouldn’t risk having sex. As if the only point or purpose of having sex is procreation.

Forget that in some States a husband can divorce a wife for refusing sex. Forget the emotional and physical benefits of a healthy sex life for adults.

But that expression “spreads her legs” is so indicative of a sleazy, misogynistic attitude that every time I see or hear it, I want to ***** slap the slime ball who said it into next week.

You and me, both!!! I consider people who talk like this to be on the same level as the porn industry, the kind of people who decent people should not be exposed to.

This whole idea of sex being only for procreation goes back to medieval times in some church factions. It is ridiculous on its face. It ignores the role that emotions play in our lives. It objectifies the participants. The only thing that I can think is that people who hold these views are emotionally stunted. It's a sick way to live, and they want to force everyone else into their perverted lifestyle.

 

[TheParser]

We shouldn’t even be having the abortion debate, birth control is the cheapest, most easily accessible, readily available, and effective than its ever been in human history.

Very thoughtful comments.

Thanks.

I have always considered birth control to be the best thing since sliced bread.

But you know, of course, that some people consider birth control to also be a form of "murder."

 

[LittleNipper]

I believe that many "women's " problems including things like endometriosis can be linked to birth control. There seems to be an epidemic of such things. They don't like to talk about it because it is not a popular topic among liberals.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The way the law is set up a fetus is considered to be non human and devoid of the basic rights of a human if it's head remains in the birth canal while it is stabbed to death and it's brain is sucked out. If the fetus slips out of the abortionist's hands and ends up on the table it suddenly becomes human and covered under the U.S. Constitution. Abortionist doctor Kermit Gosnell's house of horrors didn't happen in rural border Tex/Mex towns. Pizza places in Philadelphia were better regulated than Gosnell's abortion clinic. He was finally convicted of negligent homicide when one of his "patients" died. You gotta ask yourself who benefits most from legal abortion. It certainly isn't the woman who might endure physical problems including infertility in addition to mental issues similar to PTSD. If abortion isn't intended to benefit women who does it benefit? That's right, liberal men have their future responsibilities erased at the stroke of a scalpel.

The theories that women who undergo an abortion "might endure physical problems including infertility In addition to mental issues similar to PTSD" have been debunked. They were concocted by right-wingers and no one from any legitimate medical society agrees. Gosnell is serving life without parole. Why his operations were not noted by state officials for so long remains a question.

Yes. The availability of a safe, legal termination benefits women. Women schedule terminations of their own volition. Nobody drags them off the streets and ties them down. Look at all the women from Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic who find themselves flying to England for terminations.

Societies that are too stupid and repressed, like ours, don't realize that a good, practical education about the human body (not some vague "religious" bullshit), frank talk about the role sexuality plays in the lives of human beings, <b>a clear education of how birth-control measures work, and the universal availability of birth-control measures would greatly reduce the number of terminations.</b>

The people who talk about women "keeping their knees together" or balancing an aspirin and the rest of the porno crap they put out are just exhibiting some sick and morbid animosity toward female sexuality. They are steeped in misogyny. They are out to interfere with and destroy heterosexuality. They hate heterosexuals for whatever reason. Yet they hate LGBTs, too. Go figure. It's time to examine these peoples' brains, if indeed they have any.

Taking responsibility for your actions, and not punishing the baby would eliminate terminations, other than for serious medical reasons.

 

[MordechaiGoodbud]

Two women get pregnant at the same time. At 28 weeks, one woman has a premature birth. She then kills her baby and goes to prison for murder. The other women kills her baby at 28 weeks, while it's still in the womb. No one says anything about it. No charges are filed. Once again, the babies are the same age. Should the woman who had the abortion also be charged with murder?

I require a simple yes or no answer. There are no alternatives. They are both guilty of murder, or neither one is.

A fetus is not a baby, shithead.

 

[Imissbush]

Pro-life and anti-immigrant? Immigrants are not life?

 

[Dragonlady]

I can understand people who oppose abortion.

They sincerely feel that abortion is the same as murder.



*****

Nevertheless, this is 2018.

Human beings change their minds over the years. (People throughout history once accepted slavery, for example.)

Probably a majority of Americans now feel that it is wrong to force a woman to have a baby against her will. (Furthermore, that unwanted child MAY grow up to be a real menace to society.)

So in regard to the OP's question, I vote "No." That is, the woman who murders her baby after it is born is NOT the same as the woman who stops the baby from being born in the first place.

And how do you know abortion isn’t going to be seen as evil in the future, just like slavery now? What kept slavery alive at the time, despite the philosophy of our founding documents that “all men are created equal,” was a lack of ethically thinking things out, ignoring important ethical questions and inconsistencies, and an appeals to convienience with thoughts like “well I don’t agree with slavery, but we’re never going to get rid of it, it’ll cause a massive civil war, and besides what are we going to do with all these slaves after, matter of fact we’re making their lives better introducing them to god and the western civilization and pulling them out of their savagery...not to mention it is keeping crop prices down.”

You’re doing the EXACT same thing as them. Saying a child MAY be a menace to society, therefore it doesn’t deserve life. It’s this false justification that you are actually helping not only this mother, but this child, and society overall by not recognizing it’s right to life.

And choice starts when you choose to participate in the act of reproduction. Do you have freedom of your body. Absolutely, I can wave my arm around you as much as I want, but It’s assault once I use it to punch you in the face. Your rights go as far to as long as you’re not using them to infringe on others rights...once that happens it’s no longer a right. And here’s the stupid thing, in this day and age, we shouldn’t even be having the abortion debate, birth control is the cheapest, most easily accessible, readily available, and effective than its ever been in human history. There’s no excuse for having a “whoopsy.” Part of the reason there are so many abortions is the fact that it’s there afford people to not take responsibility for themselves and actions, and not use protection...because they can just use abortion as “birth control.” Actual real birth control is infinitely cheaper, much easier, and safer than going for an actual abortion. But you don’t hear any pro choice people making that point. Why is that?

And in your answer to the OP, The only thing different between the two babies/fetuses is location, that’s it...why the hell can two people have clear intent to kill, carry out the killing, and the only thing separating murder from totally legal is based on the victims location...lunacy.

Your post is utter bullshit. Despite advances in reproductive technology, fully half the women who have abortions used birth control the month they got pregnant.

Condoms break, the pill doesn’t always work and some of us flat out can’t take BC pills. To suggest that abortions should be illegal because birth control works, you are obviously male. Women know better.

But not only has birth control improved, so has prenatal genetic testing - for a wide range of genetic abnormalities. Many late term abortions are based on the results of that testing. The problem is that test results aren’t available until almost the 24th week of pregnancy. Testing can’t even be done until 20 weeks.

By age 40, one in every four women will have had an abortion. That’s 25% of all women of reproductive age. To even suggest that abortion is outmoded or no longer necessary is to be willfully ignorant of the facts surrounding abortion and why we need access to safe, legal abortions for everyone.

Those who suggest that anyone not wishing to become pregnant should abstain from sex should be taken out behind the barn and horse whipped. There are many good and valid reasons for having sex with your spouse that have nothing to do with procreation. Those of you who think otherwise will have to turn in their Viagara prescriptions.

 

[John Shaw]

Two women get pregnant at the same time. At 28 weeks, one woman has a premature birth. She then kills her baby and goes to prison for murder. The other women kills her baby at 28 weeks, while it's still in the womb. No one says anything about it. No charges are filed. Once again, the babies are the same age. Should the woman who had the abortion also be charged with murder?

I require a simple yes or no answer. There are no alternatives. They are both guilty of murder, or neither one is.

It's not my ******* problem. If both want to strangle their babies and murder their ******* families, I couldn't give a rat's ass, as long as I'm not affected by it.

 

[sakinago]

I can understand people who oppose abortion.

They sincerely feel that abortion is the same as murder.



*****

Nevertheless, this is 2018.

Human beings change their minds over the years. (People throughout history once accepted slavery, for example.)

Probably a majority of Americans now feel that it is wrong to force a woman to have a baby against her will. (Furthermore, that unwanted child MAY grow up to be a real menace to society.)

So in regard to the OP's question, I vote "No." That is, the woman who murders her baby after it is born is NOT the same as the woman who stops the baby from being born in the first place.

And how do you know abortion isn’t going to be seen as evil in the future, just like slavery now? What kept slavery alive at the time, despite the philosophy of our founding documents that “all men are created equal,” was a lack of ethically thinking things out, ignoring important ethical questions and inconsistencies, and an appeals to convienience with thoughts like “well I don’t agree with slavery, but we’re never going to get rid of it, it’ll cause a massive civil war, and besides what are we going to do with all these slaves after, matter of fact we’re making their lives better introducing them to god and the western civilization and pulling them out of their savagery...not to mention it is keeping crop prices down.”

You’re doing the EXACT same thing as them. Saying a child MAY be a menace to society, therefore it doesn’t deserve life. It’s this false justification that you are actually helping not only this mother, but this child, and society overall by not recognizing it’s right to life.

And choice starts when you choose to participate in the act of reproduction. Do you have freedom of your body. Absolutely, I can wave my arm around you as much as I want, but It’s assault once I use it to punch you in the face. Your rights go as far to as long as you’re not using them to infringe on others rights...once that happens it’s no longer a right. And here’s the stupid thing, in this day and age, we shouldn’t even be having the abortion debate, birth control is the cheapest, most easily accessible, readily available, and effective than its ever been in human history. There’s no excuse for having a “whoopsy.” Part of the reason there are so many abortions is the fact that it’s there afford people to not take responsibility for themselves and actions, and not use protection...because they can just use abortion as “birth control.” Actual real birth control is infinitely cheaper, much easier, and safer than going for an actual abortion. But you don’t hear any pro choice people making that point. Why is that?

And in your answer to the OP, The only thing different between the two babies/fetuses is location, that’s it...why the hell can two people have clear intent to kill, carry out the killing, and the only thing separating murder from totally legal is based on the victims location...lunacy.

Your post is utter bullshit. Despite advances in reproductive technology, fully half the women who have abortions used birth control the month they got pregnant.

Condoms break, the pill doesn’t always work and some of us flat out can’t take BC pills. To suggest that abortions should be illegal because birth control works, you are obviously male. Women know better.

But not only has birth control improved, so has prenatal genetic testing - for a wide range of genetic abnormalities. Many late term abortions are based on the results of that testing. The problem is that test results aren’t available until almost the 24th week of pregnancy. Testing can’t even be done until 20 weeks.

By age 40, one in every four women will have had an abortion. That’s 25% of all women of reproductive age. To even suggest that abortion is outmoded or no longer necessary is to be willfully ignorant of the facts surrounding abortion and why we need access to safe, legal abortions for everyone.

Those who suggest that anyone not wishing to become pregnant should abstain from sex should be taken out behind the barn and horse whipped. There are many good and valid reasons for having sex with your spouse that have nothing to do with procreation. Those of you who think otherwise will have to turn in their Viagara prescriptions.

Dear god, no one suggested abstainance, that was YOU, having to resort to a strawman. I do know how birth control works...don’t have to be a women to know that. This is the most ridiculous and overtly prejudice argument that has arisen over the past few years, that based on your identity one is unable to understand a certain point. I.e. I’m a man, and because of my penis I don’t know how birth control works. I’ve been in the medical field as an RN my entire professional career. The instances you are talking about, getting pregnant while on birth control, are sooooo statistically rare, it was very clearly stupid to suggest babies are popping out left and right from birth control failing. If it was failing as much as you suggested, then no one would be using it. Everyone would be using condemns instead. Where talking 99.9% efficacy rates...they are some of the most effective drugs ever created.

It’s true that some women can’t go on birth control, like those with clotting conditions, which is a bummer for them no doubt....but they just use condemns. Can they break, sure, but that’s also a very rare occurrence. And is usually because it’s a condemn past it’s expiration date that’s lost it’s elascisty. Or not enough lubrication, either synthetic or natural, is in the mix. Both of these causes are extremely easy to solve and prevent. Despite its seeming simplicity, condemn technology has also greatly increased...breakages are very rare these days, and there’s plenty of sensation involved, so they didn’t have to sacrifice that for sturdiness.

So your soft sexist argument that women just aren’t responsible enough to take very very very very easy and effective measures to prevent pregnancy, and even when they do they still are getting pregnant, is just ridiculous. It’s also very telling that the left pushes for abortion, and they don’t do as much to push people to use birth control and prevent a costly and much more dangerous option in abortion. WE ALL SHOULD BE TRYING TO PREVENT WOMEN FROM GETTING AN ABORTION. Just for the sake of the mother, because birth control is much cheaper, much safer, and oh yea not to mention no moral/emotional/mental dilemma involved. You hear women regret abortions, you don’t ever hear any regret not getting an abortion. Not only is it ridiculous but it doesn’t even delve into the ethics behind the issue. Should government protect life, if your answer is yes (duh), then your next question should be, is a fetus life? That answer is also yes, by every single metric we have from science and biology. Well ok then, you might then ask “what about things like personhood, or viability, or consiousness and sentients.” A. They don’t really matter since life is the natural right offered up in our founding documents. B. None of these terms are either static, or even clearly defined. 2 out of the 3 are completely abstract and wildly subjective terms to begin with. So why the hell is it good policy to base laws off of terms we don’t have clear definitions or benchmarks for that are always changing, especially when the issue is life itself? There is no good answer to that question. And because there isn’t a good answer the inconsistencies of these laws show quite starkly.

 

[mamooth]

I believe that many "women's " problems including things like endometriosis can be linked to birth control

You "Believe it"? Well, that settles it. Your feelings obviously define reality.

There seems to be an epidemic of such things. They don't like to talk about it because it is not a popular topic among liberals.

You'd never hack it in the liberal reality-based community, given that you base your reality on what you feel, as opposed to what the facts show.

 

[mamooth]

Where talking 99.9% efficacy rates...they are some of the most effective drugs ever created

No, not even close. The failure rate of birth control alone creates way more pregnancies than the number of abortions. That kills your "irresponsible women" control freak argument.

WE ALL SHOULD BE TRYING TO PREVENT WOMEN FROM GETTING AN ABORTION. Just for the sake of the mother, because birth control is much cheaper, much safer, and oh yea not to mention no moral/emotional/mental dilemma involved.

Okay. The pro-chioice side pushes birth control, while the pro-life side tries to restrict or ban it. Moral high ground to pro-choicers.

You hear women regret abortions,

Not often. Most women have no regrets over it. And the ones who say they regret it were usually deliberately guilted into doing so by religious types.

you don’t ever hear any regret not getting an abortion.

Many women regret having children. It's just not PC to say such things in public, being our very puritan society will demonize anyone saying it.

Should government protect life

No (duh). "Life" alone is kind of meaningless.

Well ok then, you might then ask “what about things like personhood, or viability, or consiousness and sentients.” A. They don’t really matter since life is the natural right offered up in our founding documents.

So the founders were vegetarians? Oh wait, they couldn't have eaten plants either, because that's also "life". Gee, it looks like the founders were talking about persons.

B. None of these terms are either static, or even clearly defined.

"Person" has been clearly defined across the whole world for thousands of years as "Human, born, and alive". The recent pro-life attempts at making a new definition are moral, lexical and historical revisionism.

 

[Dragonlady]

I can understand people who oppose abortion.

They sincerely feel that abortion is the same as murder.



*****

Nevertheless, this is 2018.

Human beings change their minds over the years. (People throughout history once accepted slavery, for example.)

Probably a majority of Americans now feel that it is wrong to force a woman to have a baby against her will. (Furthermore, that unwanted child MAY grow up to be a real menace to society.)

So in regard to the OP's question, I vote "No." That is, the woman who murders her baby after it is born is NOT the same as the woman who stops the baby from being born in the first place.

And how do you know abortion isn’t going to be seen as evil in the future, just like slavery now? What kept slavery alive at the time, despite the philosophy of our founding documents that “all men are created equal,” was a lack of ethically thinking things out, ignoring important ethical questions and inconsistencies, and an appeals to convienience with thoughts like “well I don’t agree with slavery, but we’re never going to get rid of it, it’ll cause a massive civil war, and besides what are we going to do with all these slaves after, matter of fact we’re making their lives better introducing them to god and the western civilization and pulling them out of their savagery...not to mention it is keeping crop prices down.”

You’re doing the EXACT same thing as them. Saying a child MAY be a menace to society, therefore it doesn’t deserve life. It’s this false justification that you are actually helping not only this mother, but this child, and society overall by not recognizing it’s right to life.

And choice starts when you choose to participate in the act of reproduction. Do you have freedom of your body. Absolutely, I can wave my arm around you as much as I want, but It’s assault once I use it to punch you in the face. Your rights go as far to as long as you’re not using them to infringe on others rights...once that happens it’s no longer a right. And here’s the stupid thing, in this day and age, we shouldn’t even be having the abortion debate, birth control is the cheapest, most easily accessible, readily available, and effective than its ever been in human history. There’s no excuse for having a “whoopsy.” Part of the reason there are so many abortions is the fact that it’s there afford people to not take responsibility for themselves and actions, and not use protection...because they can just use abortion as “birth control.” Actual real birth control is infinitely cheaper, much easier, and safer than going for an actual abortion. But you don’t hear any pro choice people making that point. Why is that?

And in your answer to the OP, The only thing different between the two babies/fetuses is location, that’s it...why the hell can two people have clear intent to kill, carry out the killing, and the only thing separating murder from totally legal is based on the victims location...lunacy.

Your post is utter bullshit. Despite advances in reproductive technology, fully half the women who have abortions used birth control the month they got pregnant.

Condoms break, the pill doesn’t always work and some of us flat out can’t take BC pills. To suggest that abortions should be illegal because birth control works, you are obviously male. Women know better.

But not only has birth control improved, so has prenatal genetic testing - for a wide range of genetic abnormalities. Many late term abortions are based on the results of that testing. The problem is that test results aren’t available until almost the 24th week of pregnancy. Testing can’t even be done until 20 weeks.

By age 40, one in every four women will have had an abortion. That’s 25% of all women of reproductive age. To even suggest that abortion is outmoded or no longer necessary is to be willfully ignorant of the facts surrounding abortion and why we need access to safe, legal abortions for everyone.

Those who suggest that anyone not wishing to become pregnant should abstain from sex should be taken out behind the barn and horse whipped. There are many good and valid reasons for having sex with your spouse that have nothing to do with procreation. Those of you who think otherwise will have to turn in their Viagara prescriptions.

Dear god, no one suggested abstainance, that was YOU, having to resort to a strawman. I do know how birth control works...don’t have to be a women to know that. This is the most ridiculous and overtly prejudice argument that has arisen over the past few years, that based on your identity one is unable to understand a certain point. I.e. I’m a man, and because of my penis I don’t know how birth control works. I’ve been in the medical field as an RN my entire professional career. The instances you are talking about, getting pregnant while on birth control, are sooooo statistically rare, it was very clearly stupid to suggest babies are popping out left and right from birth control failing. If it was failing as much as you suggested, then no one would be using it. Everyone would be using condemns instead. Where talking 99.9% efficacy rates...they are some of the most effective drugs ever created.

It’s true that some women can’t go on birth control, like those with clotting conditions, which is a bummer for them no doubt....but they just use condemns. Can they break, sure, but that’s also a very rare occurrence. And is usually because it’s a condemn past it’s expiration date that’s lost it’s elascisty. Or not enough lubrication, either synthetic or natural, is in the mix. Both of these causes are extremely easy to solve and prevent. Despite its seeming simplicity, condemn technology has also greatly increased...breakages are very rare these days, and there’s plenty of sensation involved, so they didn’t have to sacrifice that for sturdiness.

So your soft sexist argument that women just aren’t responsible enough to take very very very very easy and effective measures to prevent pregnancy, and even when they do they still are getting pregnant, is just ridiculous. It’s also very telling that the left pushes for abortion, and they don’t do as much to push people to use birth control and prevent a costly and much more dangerous option in abortion. WE ALL SHOULD BE TRYING TO PREVENT WOMEN FROM GETTING AN ABORTION. Just for the sake of the mother, because birth control is much cheaper, much safer, and oh yea not to mention no moral/emotional/mental dilemma involved. You hear women regret abortions, you don’t ever hear any regret not getting an abortion. Not only is it ridiculous but it doesn’t even delve into the ethics behind the issue. Should government protect life, if your answer is yes (duh), then your next question should be, is a fetus life? That answer is also yes, by every single metric we have from science and biology. Well ok then, you might then ask “what about things like personhood, or viability, or consiousness and sentients.” A. They don’t really matter since life is the natural right offered up in our founding documents. B. None of these terms are either static, or even clearly defined. 2 out of the 3 are completely abstract and wildly subjective terms to begin with. So why the hell is it good policy to base laws off of terms we don’t have clear definitions or benchmarks for that are always changing, especially when the issue is life itself? There is no good answer to that question. And because there isn’t a good answer the inconsistencies of these laws show quite starkly.

You most assuredly did talk about decisions being made, the first one being to have sex.

And while the clinical research says that the failure rate for birth control is statistically low, the abortion providers say otherwise.

Fully 50% of the women who have abortions claim to have used birth control in the month they got pregnant. Who knows if they used it properly, or if they knew how to use it properly, but this statistic suggests that education may be a problem.

25% of all women have abortions at some point in their lives. This figure alone suggests that there’s a very strong need for abortion to remain both legal and available, regardless of what you think you know about birth control.

 

[sakinago]

I can understand people who oppose abortion.

They sincerely feel that abortion is the same as murder.



*****

Nevertheless, this is 2018.

Human beings change their minds over the years. (People throughout history once accepted slavery, for example.)

Probably a majority of Americans now feel that it is wrong to force a woman to have a baby against her will. (Furthermore, that unwanted child MAY grow up to be a real menace to society.)

So in regard to the OP's question, I vote "No." That is, the woman who murders her baby after it is born is NOT the same as the woman who stops the baby from being born in the first place.

And how do you know abortion isn’t going to be seen as evil in the future, just like slavery now? What kept slavery alive at the time, despite the philosophy of our founding documents that “all men are created equal,” was a lack of ethically thinking things out, ignoring important ethical questions and inconsistencies, and an appeals to convienience with thoughts like “well I don’t agree with slavery, but we’re never going to get rid of it, it’ll cause a massive civil war, and besides what are we going to do with all these slaves after, matter of fact we’re making their lives better introducing them to god and the western civilization and pulling them out of their savagery...not to mention it is keeping crop prices down.”

You’re doing the EXACT same thing as them. Saying a child MAY be a menace to society, therefore it doesn’t deserve life. It’s this false justification that you are actually helping not only this mother, but this child, and society overall by not recognizing it’s right to life.

And choice starts when you choose to participate in the act of reproduction. Do you have freedom of your body. Absolutely, I can wave my arm around you as much as I want, but It’s assault once I use it to punch you in the face. Your rights go as far to as long as you’re not using them to infringe on others rights...once that happens it’s no longer a right. And here’s the stupid thing, in this day and age, we shouldn’t even be having the abortion debate, birth control is the cheapest, most easily accessible, readily available, and effective than its ever been in human history. There’s no excuse for having a “whoopsy.” Part of the reason there are so many abortions is the fact that it’s there afford people to not take responsibility for themselves and actions, and not use protection...because they can just use abortion as “birth control.” Actual real birth control is infinitely cheaper, much easier, and safer than going for an actual abortion. But you don’t hear any pro choice people making that point. Why is that?

And in your answer to the OP, The only thing different between the two babies/fetuses is location, that’s it...why the hell can two people have clear intent to kill, carry out the killing, and the only thing separating murder from totally legal is based on the victims location...lunacy.

Your post is utter bullshit. Despite advances in reproductive technology, fully half the women who have abortions used birth control the month they got pregnant.

Condoms break, the pill doesn’t always work and some of us flat out can’t take BC pills. To suggest that abortions should be illegal because birth control works, you are obviously male. Women know better.

But not only has birth control improved, so has prenatal genetic testing - for a wide range of genetic abnormalities. Many late term abortions are based on the results of that testing. The problem is that test results aren’t available until almost the 24th week of pregnancy. Testing can’t even be done until 20 weeks.

By age 40, one in every four women will have had an abortion. That’s 25% of all women of reproductive age. To even suggest that abortion is outmoded or no longer necessary is to be willfully ignorant of the facts surrounding abortion and why we need access to safe, legal abortions for everyone.

Those who suggest that anyone not wishing to become pregnant should abstain from sex should be taken out behind the barn and horse whipped. There are many good and valid reasons for having sex with your spouse that have nothing to do with procreation. Those of you who think otherwise will have to turn in their Viagara prescriptions.

Dear god, no one suggested abstainance, that was YOU, having to resort to a strawman. I do know how birth control works...don’t have to be a women to know that. This is the most ridiculous and overtly prejudice argument that has arisen over the past few years, that based on your identity one is unable to understand a certain point. I.e. I’m a man, and because of my penis I don’t know how birth control works. I’ve been in the medical field as an RN my entire professional career. The instances you are talking about, getting pregnant while on birth control, are sooooo statistically rare, it was very clearly stupid to suggest babies are popping out left and right from birth control failing. If it was failing as much as you suggested, then no one would be using it. Everyone would be using condemns instead. Where talking 99.9% efficacy rates...they are some of the most effective drugs ever created.

It’s true that some women can’t go on birth control, like those with clotting conditions, which is a bummer for them no doubt....but they just use condemns. Can they break, sure, but that’s also a very rare occurrence. And is usually because it’s a condemn past it’s expiration date that’s lost it’s elascisty. Or not enough lubrication, either synthetic or natural, is in the mix. Both of these causes are extremely easy to solve and prevent. Despite its seeming simplicity, condemn technology has also greatly increased...breakages are very rare these days, and there’s plenty of sensation involved, so they didn’t have to sacrifice that for sturdiness.

So your soft sexist argument that women just aren’t responsible enough to take very very very very easy and effective measures to prevent pregnancy, and even when they do they still are getting pregnant, is just ridiculous. It’s also very telling that the left pushes for abortion, and they don’t do as much to push people to use birth control and prevent a costly and much more dangerous option in abortion. WE ALL SHOULD BE TRYING TO PREVENT WOMEN FROM GETTING AN ABORTION. Just for the sake of the mother, because birth control is much cheaper, much safer, and oh yea not to mention no moral/emotional/mental dilemma involved. You hear women regret abortions, you don’t ever hear any regret not getting an abortion. Not only is it ridiculous but it doesn’t even delve into the ethics behind the issue. Should government protect life, if your answer is yes (duh), then your next question should be, is a fetus life? That answer is also yes, by every single metric we have from science and biology. Well ok then, you might then ask “what about things like personhood, or viability, or consiousness and sentients.” A. They don’t really matter since life is the natural right offered up in our founding documents. B. None of these terms are either static, or even clearly defined. 2 out of the 3 are completely abstract and wildly subjective terms to begin with. So why the hell is it good policy to base laws off of terms we don’t have clear definitions or benchmarks for that are always changing, especially when the issue is life itself? There is no good answer to that question. And because there isn’t a good answer the inconsistencies of these laws show quite starkly.

You most assuredly did talk about decisions being made, the first one being to have sex.

And while the clinical research says that the failure rate for birth control is statistically low, the abortion providers say otherwise.

Fully 50% of the women who have abortions claim to have used birth control in the month they got pregnant. Who knows if they used it properly, or if they knew how to use it properly, but this statistic suggests that education may be a problem.

25% of all women have abortions at some point in their lives. This figure alone suggests that there’s a very strong need for abortion to remain both legal and available, regardless of what you think you know about birth control.

And you took the leap to say that I meant abstinence, which was just absurd. What I was clearly doing was stating biological fact, babies come from sex. Sex is not inconsequential, but there are very easy, convienient, and cheap steps to take to ensure a baby doesn’t happen. That’s fact. To suggest otherwise is like blaming the car when the engine seizes up when somebody doesn’t change or fill up the oil in a car. Or blaming the car when the car when it runs out of gas, when you didn’t fuel it up. There are consequences to actions, that is fact.

A. Where are you getting your ridiculous, and non-specific statistics. And why on earth would you think anecdotal claims hold a candle and refute claims from numerous FDA controlled double blind studies...oh and the entire medical field and collected knowledge. Vet your own shit, I shouldn’t have to point this out to you, if you’re trying to use anecdotal evidence against rigorously vetted scientific evidence, using the scientific method in the strictest parameters...you’ve already lost the argument before you even started.
B. Even if they are true, of course abortions providers, and abortion clients would claim that. Abortion providers aren’t doing abortions for free, they’re getting paid either through the individuals or government or some sort of assistance program. And of course people want to claim that birth control was used, because it’s human nature to not want to admit irresponsibility. I see this shit all the time, no one wants to admit to the doctor that they smoke, drink too much, use drugs, are still eating the same shit that gave them diabetes in the first place, aren’t excercising or taking medication like they’re supposed to, aren’t following their PT regime, etc. It’s just human nature to want to lie and not look irresponsible, even when someone like me is obviously going to respond back “dude, we have these little things called lab tests that show me the exact shit you are putting into your body.”
C. Again your points don’t even touch the ethics of the situation. You’re ignoring them, and it’s because you have to ignore them. Does government have the responsibility to protect human life. Is a fetus human life. Well then why aren’t we putting 2 and 2 together?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Two women get pregnant at the same time. At 28 weeks, one woman has a premature birth. She then kills her baby and goes to prison for murder. The other women kills her baby at 28 weeks, while it's still in the womb. No one says anything about it. No charges are filed. Once again, the babies are the same age. Should the woman who had the abortion also be charged with murder?

I require a simple yes or no answer. There are no alternatives. They are both guilty of murder, or neither one is.

A fetus is not a baby, shithead.

A fetus is not a baby, shithead.

Peterson Convicted Of Double Murder (washingtonpost.com)

REDWOOD CITY, Calif., Nov. 12 -- A jury found Scott Peterson guilty Friday of killing his pregnant wife, Laci, and their unborn child in the saga of suburban adultery and betrayal that transfixed much of the nation for nearly two years.

Washington Post calls the unborn a child. Is the Washington Post "FAKE" news?
When a liberal talks this way, it reminds me of this.....Then they wonder why liberals go out and shoot up school kids.