Abortion

[wade]

Find me one instance of someone who is "pro-abortion" -- I've yet to see such a person with that position.

 

[OCA]

Abortion in cases of rape or incest statistically is less than 1% in America. Quite frankly abortion today is used as a form of birth control in almost all cases and is genocide.

 

[Bonnie]

In case anyone wants to know.........A lot of these were from CDC statistics.......Im sure no one has an exact accounting in terms of numbers but these numbers give a good idea.
www.Abortionfacts.com

 

[wade]

Abortion in cases of rape or incest statistically is less than 1% in America. Quite frankly abortion today is used as a form of birth control in almost all cases and is genocide.

To be genocide it needs to target a specific ethnic/political/religous sub-group. It does not, so it is not genocide. Mass murder - perhaps, but not genocide.

I agree abortion is used far to often and as I've stated, I think it needs to be restricted to very early in the pregnancy. Today's standards are far too lax for my sensibilities.

Wade.

 

[OCA]

To be genocide it needs to target a specific ethnic/political/religous sub-group. It does not, so it is not genocide. Mass murder - perhaps, but not genocide.

I agree abortion is used far to often and as I've stated, I think it needs to be restricted to very early in the pregnancy. Today's standards are far too lax for my sensibilities.

Wade.

What very early in the pregnancy????????? That wouldn't limit jack. It needs to be limited to cases of rape or incest only.

Maybe infanticide is a better choice of words.

 

[Bonnie]

To be genocide it needs to target a specific ethnic/political/religous sub-group. It does not, so it is not genocide. Mass murder - perhaps, but not genocide.

I agree abortion is used far to often and as I've stated, I think it needs to be restricted to very early in the pregnancy. Today's standards are far too lax for my sensibilities.

Wade.

Yes that's the great thing about abortion, it's a non discriminitory mass murder type of thing as opposed to just genocide......... Yes infanticide? Sounds more fitting to me.

 

[wade]

What very early in the pregnancy????????? That wouldn't limit jack. It needs to be limited to cases of rape or incest only.

Maybe infanticide is a better choice of words.

Infanticide implies an infant - and infants are already born people. So that is not the right word either. Just making a point here - not saying I believe this is how it should be.

As for limiting it to only cases of rape or incest - why? By your logic those lives are innocent lives as well, should they not also be protected?

Again, I personally think the line should be first drawn at the point where the cerebral cortex becomes active, since it is at this point that sentience occures. Then, as technology improves and society hopefully matures, the point where abortion should be allowed should be shortened until only something that ensures a very early term miscarriage should be allowed except in special circumstances (rape/incest, the mother's health, or severe defect of the embreo/fetus).

Wade.

 

[YoungChristian]

Why is abortion an issue? Do we have the choice to murder? Then why don't we? Pro-choice is just a nice term made up by liberals to give the choice of whether or not to kill an innocent victim. I will never understand why abortion is pro-choice when murder is not pro-choice.
In the case of rape or incest, or if the mother may die during the birth, abortion at least makes sense. But, of all abortions 99 percent are contraception abortion, taking the place of a condom.

 

[Bonnie]

Why is abortion an issue? Do we have the choice to murder? Then why don't we? Pro-choice is just a nice term made up by liberals to give the choice of whether or not to kill an innocent victim. I will never understand why abortion is pro-choice when murder is not pro-choice.
In the case of rape or incest, or if the mother may die during the birth, abortion at least makes sense. But, of all abortions 99 percent are contraception abortion, taking the place of a condom.

Well welcome to the board!!

 

[wade]

Why is abortion an issue? Do we have the choice to murder? Then why don't we? Pro-choice is just a nice term made up by liberals to give the choice of whether or not to kill an innocent victim. I will never understand why abortion is pro-choice when murder is not pro-choice.
In the case of rape or incest, or if the mother may die during the birth, abortion at least makes sense. But, of all abortions 99 percent are contraception abortion, taking the place of a condom.

Why is it that you christian conservatives are so concerned about the embreo/fetus being born but then turn your backs on them once they have been born? You are the same people who argue against health care for poor children, argue against social programs to faciliate their education and even their recieving a balanced meal every day.

I think the answer is because those things are not your problem. Once the child is born, he can no longer be aborted, and you feel your mission is done. So what if he lives a life of misery and drags his mother into the same?

Grrrrr....

 

[dmp]

Why is it that you christian conservatives are so concerned about the embreo/fetus being born but then turn your backs on them once they have been born? You are the same people who argue against health care for poor children, argue against social programs to faciliate their education and even their recieving a balanced meal every day.

I think the answer is because those things are not your problem. Once the child is born, he can no longer be aborted, and you feel your mission is done. So what if he lives a life of misery and drags his mother into the same?

Grrrrr....

No you are just making things up...(sigh)..

"We" are for Parents taking responsibility to provide those things for the kids - not taking the money out of MY pockets to handle those instances where a parent can make MORE money on welfare, than they can working.

(sigh)

You just don't get it.

 

[wade]

No you are just making things up...(sigh)..

"We" are for Parents taking responsibility to provide those things for the kids - not taking the money out of MY pockets to handle those instances where a parent can make MORE money on welfare, than they can working.

(sigh)

You just don't get it.

That's right. I don't get that you are sooooo concerned about the kid when it's in the womb, even if it's only a couple of cells, but you then turn your backs on them after they are born.

Do you really think the mother, who wanted to abort her baby, is going to take good care of it? Especially with no significant assistance?

You want it both ways. You want to be moral, but you don't want to pay for it.

And your view of welfare is screwed up. Welfare moms live in abject poverty.

 

[shadrack]

"We" are for Parents taking responsibility to provide those things for the kids - not taking the money out of MY pockets to handle those instances where a parent can make MORE money on welfare, than they can working.

Working and making $6/hr can't even allow a parent to be fully responsible for their child or children. It is a degrading and humiliating experience to be a parent and unable to be fully responsible in providing the needs your child requires.

Parent's will choose the path of least resistance toward what is best for their child. Which usually leads to welfare. The only safety net provided for us all. And we are all subject to the same pitfalls 39 million impoverished Americans find themselves.

You just don't get it.

I get it. You are spouting some ideology that isn't realistic.

 

[dmp]

Working and making $6/hr can't even allow a parent to be fully responsible for their child or children. It is a degrading and humiliating experience to be a parent and unable to be fully responsible in providing the needs your child requires.

Then work two jobs. Or three. (shrug). See? easy. Degrading? Like it builds esteem to be on welfare?

Parent's will choose the path of least resistance toward what is best for their child.

...which is part of the problem....

Which usually leads to welfare. The only safety net provided for us all. And we are all subject to the same pitfalls 39 million impoverished Americans find themselves.

It's a choice. Like being Gay. Or a democrat. Poor is a state of mind or laziness in 90% (my figure) of the cases. Likely more than 90%.

I get it. You are spouting some ideology that isn't realistic.

How so? I know people who have been in this country less than 10 years who are now making twice the money I do as a natural born citizen. Hard work - it's what too many american's simply can't grasp.

 

[dmp]

That's right. I don't get that you are sooooo concerned about the kid when it's in the womb, even if it's only a couple of cells, but you then turn your backs on them after they are born.

Do you really think the mother, who wanted to abort her baby, is going to take good care of it? Especially with no significant assistance?

You want it both ways. You want to be moral, but you don't want to pay for it.

And your view of welfare is screwed up. Welfare moms live in abject poverty.

Adoption? "Do it anyway"?

The whole "what kind of live would the kid have anyway" argument is intellectually dishonest.

 

[wade]

Then work two jobs. Or three. (shrug). See? easy. Degrading? Like it builds esteem to be on welfare?

So a mother should work 3 jobs rather than be on Welfare so that she can pay someone else to raise her kid? Doesn't that kinda defeat the whole purpose? Isn't that a big part of the problems with kids in our society (that they have absentee parents)?

It's a choice. Like being Gay. Or a democrat. Poor is a state of mind or laziness in 90% (my figure) of the cases. Likely more than 90%.

How old are you =d= ? Poor is a state of mind? I bet you come from an upper middle class or better family and spout this shit from your high horse of ignorance.

How so? I know people who have been in this country less than 10 years who are now making twice the money I do as a natural born citizen. Hard work - it's what too many american's simply can't grasp.

But this is not the issue, the issue is poor, young, unwed mothers. You suggest that they should work 2-3 $6 an hour jobs, jobs which do not provide benefits. Lets say they work these jobs, for a total of 60 hours a week (six days @ 10 hours per day). Okay, so they are earning $1450 a month. Now lets look at reasonable expenses:

Housing: $500/month
Child care : $500/month (10 hours per day 5 days per week)
Food: $300/month
Transportation: $75/month
Clothing and cleaning: $50/month

Of course, the apartment has no heat, the baby cannot see a doctor, and the mother must work even if she is sick or the whole thing collapses (she has no sick time benefits).

Now lets look at the time:

Hours in a week = 168
Hours working = 60
Hours commuting = 12
Hours sleeping = 50
Hours awake with baby = 46 (less than 7 hours per day)
Hours baby is not in daycare = 168 - 50 = 118

And who is caring for baby for the 12 unaccounted for hours of the week? No money for a sitter. ?????

Can it be done? Yes. Are the results good - no.

Is it a reasonable choice for a woman looking at this future to choose not to have the child? I think so, but she has to make that decision quickly, before the embreo becomes sentient (self aware).

If you want to force all pregnancies to be carried to birth, then you have to step in and accept some of the burdon, which you are not willing to do. It's easy to make moral decisions for others when you bear no costs or responsiblities for those decisions - but it is not right that you do so.

Either put up or shut up - if you won't pitch in you have no right to have a say in the mothers decision.

 

[Bonnie]

So a mother should work 3 jobs rather than be on Welfare so that she can pay someone else to raise her kid? Doesn't that kinda defeat the whole purpose? Isn't that a big part of the problems with kids in our society (that they have absentee parents)?



How old are you =d= ? Poor is a state of mind? I bet you come from an upper middle class or better family and spout this shit from your high horse of ignorance.



But this is not the issue, the issue is poor, young, unwed mothers. You suggest that they should work 2-3 $6 an hour jobs, jobs which do not provide benefits. Lets say they work these jobs, for a total of 60 hours a week (six days @ 10 hours per day). Okay, so they are earning $1450 a month. Now lets look at reasonable expenses:

Housing: $500/month
Child care : $500/month (10 hours per day 5 days per week)
Food: $300/month
Transportation: $75/month
Clothing and cleaning: $50/month

Of course, the apartment has no heat, the baby cannot see a doctor, and the mother must work even if she is sick or the whole thing collapses (she has no sick time benefits).

Now lets look at the time:

Hours in a week = 168
Hours working = 60
Hours commuting = 12
Hours sleeping = 50
Hours awake with baby = 46 (less than 7 hours per day)
Hours baby is not in daycare = 168 - 50 = 118

And who is caring for baby for the 12 unaccounted for hours of the week? No money for a sitter. ?????

Can it be done? Yes. Are the results good - no.

Is it a reasonable choice for a woman looking at this future to choose not to have the child? I think so, but she has to make that decision quickly, before the embreo becomes sentient (self aware).

If you want to force all pregnancies to be carried to birth, then you have to step in and accept some of the burdon, which you are not willing to do. It's easy to make moral decisions for others when you bear no costs or responsiblities for those decisions - but it is not right that you do so.

Either put up or shut up - if you won't pitch in you have no right to have a say in the mothers decision.

Wade that is indeed nice math........The problem is no matter what you argument you come up with in this regard, it can in no way be an excuse for murder. Essentially what you are saying is that a child is better off dead than for it to be a child of a single working mom, or single working dad, or grandparents or adoptive parents.....Ill tell you what, how about we ask the child in the womb what they want...okay......Because I would bet my life THEY would all choose life.................!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[wade]

Adoption? "Do it anyway"?

The whole "what kind of live would the kid have anyway" argument is intellectually dishonest.

I agree, Adoption is a reasonable option. But it is a lot to ask a woman to carry a baby to term, with all the costs and effects on her life, only to give up the child. And if we are going to insist on this option, again, we have to pay for it. Pre-natal care and even late term financial support need to be available.

Why do you have such a problem with very early term abortions, such as the RU486 pill that works only within the first week or so? I understand and even agree with the desire to limit abortions to very early in the term, before the brain has become functional, but you seem to be opposed to it even 1 second past conception, and I find this position silly.

 

[wade]

Wade that is indeed nice math........The problem is no matter what you argument you come up with in this regard, it can in no way be an excuse for murder. Essentially what you are saying is that a child is better off dead than for it to be a child of a single working mom, or single working dad, or grandparents or adoptive parents.....Ill tell you what, how about we ask the child in the womb what they want...okay......Because I would bet my life THEY would all choose life.................!!!!!!!!!!!

Which is why I believe abortion should be limited to the period before the cerebral cortex becomes active. Prior to this, it's just a lump of cells and could not answer even if you could ask it, but after this point, I believe it is a human being and as such is entitled to live.

 

[dmp]

I agree, Adoption is a reasonable option. But it is a lot to ask a woman to carry a baby to term, with all the costs and effects on her life, only to give up the child. And if we are going to insist on this option, again, we have to pay for it. Pre-natal care and even late term financial support need to be available.

A woman not-need to have sex if she isn't in the position to afford financial and/or other issues involved with carrying a baby. That policy would likely prevent, in my guess, 95% of abortions.

Why do you have such a problem with very early term abortions, such as the RU486 pill that works only within the first week or so? I understand and even agree with the desire to limit abortions to very early in the term, before the brain has become functional, but you seem to be opposed to it even 1 second past conception, and I find this position silly.

I believe there is no specific point where a cluster of cells becomes 'alive' - I believe from the moment of conception, a soul exists for the child. Until the time we could prove beyond reasonable doubt, the contrary is true, I'd prefere 'we' as a society gave the baby the benefit of the doubt.