What should abortion laws be?

[☭proletarian☭]

What is YOUR moral justification that stretch marks and weight gain and any other "shallow" issues she might have, should suddenly be considered second rate to the contents of HER uterus?

So vanity > the life of other people

Nice.

How ******* retarded are you. What a bunch of BS!!!!

 

[MajikMyst]

Wow.. 62 pages later and the same two people are talking about the same thing..

A baby breathing.. Only now it appears to be what the baby is breathing.. I don't want to know..


Abortion is a tough issue.. There is no clear cut and dry solution or answer.. As for when life begins or when it becomes a person.. I belive that happens when the brain of the child begins to manage heart function on it's own.. I think that is around the 6 week mark.. When the child starts to have it's own functions seperate from the mother, it becomes a person.. Before that, it is just a group of cells and nothing more.. It is of no issue what it will become.. If that were an issue then none of us could eat eggs every again..

I don't believe that abortion should be used as a form of Birth control.. Having said that, I think that teenagers should be allowed to have one as long as we are before the 6 week mark or the brain activity point.. Past that she must have the child and put it up for adoption.. Unless her parents opt to raise it as well.. I think strong emphasis should be put on birthcontrol.. Prevent the pregnancy..

In the cases of rape or incest.. Again, abortion is available up until the 6 week mark.. Beyond that she must have the baby and she can either keep it or put it up for adoption..

In the case of a life threatening situation.. Always save the mother!! If the child is of a viable age to save, then abort and make all attempts to save the child and the mother.. If not, then abort the child and save the mother.. If the mother dies then so does the baby.. So save one life at least..

That is pretty much how I see it.. I am on the fence when it comes to teenagers.. I believe they should have a way out, but also they need to pay for their mistake.. My wife's friends daughter's friend.. I hope you got that... Had a baby at 13.. Her mom is helping raise it.. But all dreams of going to college and stuff are gone.. The dad, 14 himself is already under court order to pay child support.. It is a screwed up situation.. Both of them were to young to understand the ramification of having sex.. And now, they have a baby and are facing adult issues.. I was playing pacman at 14.. I liked girls.. I just wasn't all that concerned about them..

It is just a tough issue..

 

[JW Frogen]

I think we can all agree on this, the only sane solution to this problem is to allow all fetuses and Iranians aquire nuclear weapons and then let God sort it out.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Explain to the class how the fetus gets oxygen into its own blood, then, you stupid cuntrag.

Since I've already done so at least twice, it's particularly amusing that YOU would dare to call anyone "stupid". Go back and look it up, fool.

I remember your post, **********- I do not need to go look through 60 pages of flame wars to look up your retarded ass post.

Go ahead- tell the class how the fetus gets oxygen without the mother's breathing aiding in that. Go ahead, you ******* ****.

Nice dodge, dumbass, but since that's not the position you took, you don't get to backtrack now and pretend that it was. This is what you said, dunce, and you get to own it forevermore, just like your piece de resistance of dogs impregnating humans:

Just because a machine forces air into the lungs does not make it any different from a fetus, whose oxygen is also FORCED into it's body by means of the oxygenated blood pumped through the woman's veins first.

And when I mocked you for saying that, you responded thus:

Explain to the class how the fetus gets oxygen into its own blood, then, you stupid cuntrag.

So clearly, you were defending the idea that the mother's body pumps the fetus's blood for him. And this is leaving entirely aside your ORIGINAL flight of genius, when you claimed outright that the mother and fetus share the same blood supply.

And am I supposed to be offended by your childish obscenities apparently accusing me of the "horrible crime" of having heterosexual sex? As far as I'm concerned, that's fine with me, so long as I continue to choose cocks attached to men who aren't abusive losers, unlike some "women" around here.

 

[Cecilie1200]

JD is not a human person.

Persons are sentient and intelligent beings.

Well, see, there you go. JD is neither intelligent NOR sentient, and yet she IS a living human being, and therefore a person, albeit an incredibly stupid one who should be sterilized for the sake of protecting children and the gene pool.

Sentient enough to recognize that you are a dripping green **** who cant make an argument for personhood of a fetus to save her own life, who is also willing to hurt her own children and children's girlfriends if they dare make the decision to not continue a pregnancy. Go ahead, queef some more green goo in my direction, ****.

Well, I realize that I'm incapable of coming up with arguments like your "woman ******* a dog in Mexico and getting pregnant" brilliance, but I'm pretty sure everyone on this thread except you has understood my arguments perfectly well, whether they agree or not.

Oh, and you accusing me of hurting my children? Funny, considering that I'VE never killed any of my children, so I think I have you beaten on the "good mother" scale. Of course, Joan Crawford would beat you on that scale, because she didn't kill any of HERS, either.

 

[Bern80]

YOU claim that a fetus is a person but if the woman's life is in danger, than it is okay to abort it. YES that is a legal and a moral justification for abortion, one that YOU make. You make the "exception" to "kill a person" assuming a third trimester fetus is a person, as long as it poses some risk of death to the woman. That is called justifying the abortion, legally. It is not ME who does this "oh lets make exceptions only for a certain type of threat"- That is YOU.

Uh yeah. What's your point. I fail to see what you find some ass backwards about making such an exception. I have said for the hundredth time now, YOU MAKE THE BEST CHOICE POSSIBLE FOR ALL parties involved. If there is no way around the outcome that someone is going to die as a result of the pregnancy and only one can be saved, it is no more moral to save the mother over baby or vice versa hence a parental choice over who to save is perfectly morally justified.

What is your moral justification for forcing a woman to bring a fetus to full term, even if that means that she will lose a promotion she has been working her ass off for five years to achieve? What is YOUR moral justification that stretch marks and weight gain and any other "shallow" issues she might have, should suddenly be considered second rate to the contents of HER uterus? Why on earth would one reason to abort, and in your opinion, criminalize a woman for murder or manslaughter, all because she CHOSE to do it for a different reason than YOU would choose, be at all immoral? Just because YOUR choice would be for a different RATIONALE than hers, does not make THE RESULT of the decision any different. You say a late term fetus is a person, but you justify in killing that "person", for a certain standard- HER HEARTBEAT.
I take it a step further and say that her heart might beat, but it will not be full of joy, if she had to spend 7 months saving the money to get the ******* abortion, for whatever reason. I say that if her heart beating is important, then so should her work, her home life, her other family, and her entire pursuit of happiness, which in fact includes her self image. YOU say that her heart remaining a beating organ is the only reason to "kill another person"- And I say you are an inconsistent pile of poo for failing to see that the RESULT of the abortion is the SAME either way. And yes- Late term abortions are often planned and CHOSEN, under the advice of a doctor.

What is sad is that you can't see the difference between an immoral choice and a moral one. Killing because you're worried about your ******* career is immoral. Choosing to end a life for the purpose of saving another is not. That's the ******* difference.

I strongly disagree. I believe that I have far more compassion for a person's life, and I look at things objectively, from a long term perspective.
I also look at the potential life of the baby-to-be, and whether things have changed enough in that woman's life to justify an abortion, morally. Now, again- I personally would not abort that late on just to avoid stretch marks, lol- I said that a million ******* times now, you huked on fonix halfwit- but that does not mean that another woman might not make a decision based on that, too, or based on the fear of tearing her vagina during childbirth, or having to get a C-section. I see it this way- if a woman who is 7 months pregnant has been getting abused by her husband or boyfriend or family, etc, and this only started when they saw her showing- which would indicate she was at 5 months, at least- then she should be allowed to schedule an abortion, just to stop being abused. YOU dont give a **** about her. You don't care AT ALL about her situation. YOU have no understanding of the facts on abused pregnant women, nor do you care enough to open your mind up to them. And what about the woman who was 6 months pregnant and on some sort of life support caused by a car accident? You do realize that pulling the plug and ventilator tube out would be like murdering the fetus "person", as you say, because WHY SHOULD THE POOR INNOCENT LITTLE FETUSPERSON HAVE TO SUFFER??

What you don't seem to get is that subconsciously or otherwise a women is aware of all of those things, well before a pregnancy gets to the point where said fears and resulting abortion could constitute killing a person. I have no problem with a woman alleviating all of those fears by not having sex, having protected sex, taking the morning after pill, or having an abortion a couple of months into the pregnancy. After that, any decision to abort based on fears about your job, financial position, social life, c-sections, vaginal tears, etc. is a simply morally bankrupt decision because a person, whether they choose to admit it or not, is aware of all of those risks before they even sex, let alone 7 months into a pregnancy. Aborting at that point in time for those reasons isn't protecting life. It's protecting your own selfish, irresponsible ass and no one elses. And that is not an emotional argument. There is simply no other way to characterize having an abortion to protect your career at that stage of pregnancy.

There is no logical argument why an abortion done for those reasons at that stage shouldn't be illegal. You are killing a person for immoral reasons. Either explain why that is legally justifiable or why that is a false statement. And if your gonna choose the later, please for once attempt to use accepted definitions of terms rather than the JD definitions you are so fond of using.

 

[JD_2B]

What is YOUR moral justification that stretch marks and weight gain and any other "shallow" issues she might have, should suddenly be considered second rate to the contents of HER uterus?

So vanity > the life of other people

Nice.

How ******* retarded are you. What a bunch of BS!!!!

My God, but you are a troll. You can't even keep up with your own arguments on personhood, freak boy.

Is the philosophy of personhood not vain in and of itself?? LMAO!!

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Main Entry: vane
Pronunciation: \ˈvān\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English (southern dial.), from Old English fana banner; akin to Old High German fano cloth, Latin pannus cloth, rag
Date: 14th century
1 a : a movable device attached to an elevated object (as a spire) for showing the direction of the wind b : one that is changeable or inconstant
2 : a thin flat or curved object that is rotated about an axis by a flow of fluid or that rotates to cause a fluid to flow or that redirects a flow of fluid <the vanes of a windmill>
3 : the web or flat expanded part of a feather &#8212; see feather illustration
4 : a feather fastened to the shaft near the nock of an arrow

 

[JD_2B]

Wow.. 62 pages later and the same two people are talking about the same thing..

A baby breathing.. Only now it appears to be what the baby is breathing.. I don't want to know..

AIR. Oxygen. Show us all how a fetus can get oxygen if the mother was to die, if not by breathing. Jesus.

Abortion is a tough issue.. There is no clear cut and dry solution or answer.. As for when life begins or when it becomes a person.. I belive that happens when the brain of the child begins to manage heart function on it's own.. I think that is around the 6 week mark.. When the child starts to have it's own functions seperate from the mother, it becomes a person.. Before that, it is just a group of cells and nothing more.. It is of no issue what it will become.. If that were an issue then none of us could eat eggs every again..

So you think that a 6 week embryo should be considered a person, which gives it Constitutional rights? So the right to not be miscarried, because, as a "person" at that stage, it would have the right to life.
Sorry, but fetuses are not entitled to the body they reside in, just because some of you have an emotional reaction to the way it looks, and use bullshit arguments such as it having "separate functions from the mother". Honest to God, if a fetus had any real sentience whatsoever prior to birth, women would NEVER survive the pregnancy/ birthing process. Get real.

I don't believe that abortion should be used as a form of Birth control..

Abortion IS birth control. It is the solution we use to not give birth, when all other birth control options we have used, have failed us. Getting pregnant and choosing to end the pregnancy is BIRTH control, because it puts US in control of whether we give birth or not. This is all about family planning. Just because a woman happens to get pregnant unexpectedly, which happens to 50% of all women, worldwide, at least once in their lifetime, does not mean that she should suddenly become a ******* baby oven to appease some stupid asshole, and avoid being labeled as some sort of heinous, heartless cold blooded killer, the way we ALL are, as you can see, by lunatic extremists like Cecile and Proletarian. Look through the thread and see how many times they have both called me a non person/ non sentient organism, etc, BASED SOLELY on their emotionally overcharged feelings towards fetuses, and reactions to me being pro choice all the way to the moments just before birth. There is absolutely no respect for the woman involved with these ******* sick ass douchebags. They eminate nothing but hate and let their emotions rule the roost, rather than actually stepping back and looking it with any logic whatsoever. For some reason, I have a feeling you are somewhat similar, in certain respects, although you may not be as freakish as they are, or hate filled, LOL.. =) No offense to you intended there.. Take it with a grain of salt.

Having said that, I think that teenagers should be allowed to have one as long as we are before the 6 week mark or the brain activity point.. Past that she must have the child and put it up for adoption.. Unless her parents opt to raise it as well.. I think strong emphasis should be put on birthcontrol.. Prevent the pregnancy..

So Teenagers should be allowed to be in control of their bodies but not grown women???

What?????

PS- Not everyone can get birth control, and many teens will go without, because their parents drive them to the doctors office, carry the insurance cards, etc.. and will not allow them to be on birth control, because they feel that allowing their children on birth control is condoning the sexual behavior.
Also- Good ******* luck getting people to ONLY abort while their pregnancy is still in the embryonic stage. Six weeks... You gotta be kidding me. Generally, the soonest the abortion can be done is a few weeks after the call is made to make the soonest available appointment, and that call is not made until after the person even finds out they are pregnant, which can generally be anywhere between 2 and 4 weeks gestation, if not 5 to 6 weeks already. You clearly have no clue how irrational and unreasonable that timeline is.

In the cases of rape or incest.. Again, abortion is available up until the 6 week mark.. Beyond that she must have the baby and she can either keep it or put it up for adoption..

She must have the ******* baby.. Yep I knew it. Women are nothing but cum toilets, who should only have control over their bodies if they are super young, or have been seriously and probably maliciously abused (let me guess- Your claim is that rape is only something that can happen with bruising being present, and saying no halfway through is simply not an appropriate claim to being raped, if the man doesn't stop when told to. Typical ******* male cheuvenist cretin.)

In the case of a life threatening situation.. Always save the mother!! If the child is of a viable age to save, then abort and make all attempts to save the child and the mother.. If not, then abort the child and save the mother.. If the mother dies then so does the baby.. So save one life at least..

LMFAO!!!!

******* dumbass. Empty emotional rhetoric- AND obviously totally lacking in logic. See, but deep down, this shows that you would prefer to see the fetus or embryo aborted than to have to have any harm come to the woman, and feel guilty about it.

<busts out in song>
Feeeeeelllllllliiiinnnnngssss nothing more than ffeeeeeeellllliiiinnnngggssss....

That is pretty much how I see it.. I am on the fence when it comes to teenagers.. I believe they should have a way out, but also they need to pay for their mistake..

You sick twisted ****. Now, you change your story, to say that teenagers should be the ones forced to birth, based on them being young and stupid and having sex??? OMFG aren't you the dope of the day. What is WRONG with you??? I mean, are you SERIOUS????? Teenagers should pay the price, because why- Because you ******* hate teenagers??? I mean, what the **** does them being TEENAGERS have ANYTHING to do with it???? WTF Chuck?????

My wife's friends daughter's friend.. I hope you got that... Had a baby at 13.. Her mom is helping raise it.. But all dreams of going to college and stuff are gone.. The dad, 14 himself is already under court order to pay child support.. It is a screwed up situation.. Both of them were to young to understand the ramification of having sex.. And now, they have a baby and are facing adult issues.. I was playing pacman at 14.. I liked girls.. I just wasn't all that concerned about them..

It is just a tough issue..

And SO THEY SHOULD BE, right?? Because OMFG the teenage girl should have to PAY THE ******* PRICE and learn to KEEP HER LEGS CLOSED, but that poor teenage boy who pays child support.. poor thing!! You are one seriously demented ******* asshole.. Glad I am not your wife. She probably has a perpetual black eye, too. Sick dick..

 

[JD_2B]

I remember your post, **********- I do not need to go look through 60 pages of flame wars to look up your retarded ass post.

Go ahead- tell the class how the fetus gets oxygen without the mother's breathing aiding in that. Go ahead, you ******* ****.

Nice dodge, dumbass, but since that's not the position you took, you don't get to backtrack now and pretend that it was. This is what you said, dunce, and you get to own it forevermore, just like your piece de resistance of dogs impregnating humans:

Just because a machine forces air into the lungs does not make it any different from a fetus, whose oxygen is also FORCED into it's body by means of the oxygenated blood pumped through the woman's veins first.

And when I mocked you for saying that, you responded thus:

Explain to the class how the fetus gets oxygen into its own blood, then, you stupid cuntrag.

So clearly, you were defending the idea that the mother's body pumps the fetus's blood for him. And this is leaving entirely aside your ORIGINAL flight of genius, when you claimed outright that the mother and fetus share the same blood supply.

And am I supposed to be offended by your childish obscenities apparently accusing me of the "horrible crime" of having heterosexual sex? As far as I'm concerned, that's fine with me, so long as I continue to choose cocks attached to men who aren't abusive losers, unlike some "women" around here.

The fetus would not have ANY oxygen without the.... Fill in the blank ....


MOTHER .... Breathing... Air. Air contains oxygen.. Oxygen ONLY goes to the fetus in this way, simply put.

Oh and being a woman who sucks dick is fine- being a ********** is quite a different story, though.
And being ABUSED is never the fault of the victim, you stupid fatass whore, especially when the victim does not sit around and take the ******* abuse.
Speaking of taking abuse, why the hell haven't I added YOU to my ignore list?? You can't even concede that the fetus NEEDS the mother to get AIR.

A baby does not need the mother to breathe for it to get air. And a baby/ other person who is on a ventilator is in a VERY SPECIAL position, because it is getting 1000 times better health care than most babies and other children and adults in the world. Being on a ventilator is not a ******* ENTITLEMENT. It is purely an emotional based attachment to an image of a human being, based on HOPE, that can be disconnected at any time!
Air for one who cannot breathe it, is not an ENTITLEMENT. It too can be disconnected at ANY time, whether it is by abortion, or by accident/ natural causes.

Dumb *****.

 

[JD_2B]

Oh, and you accusing me of hurting my children? Funny, considering that I'VE never killed any of my children, so I think I have you beaten on the "good mother" scale. Of course, Joan Crawford would beat you on that scale, because she didn't kill any of HERS, either.

I never killed any of my children either, you stupid *****. I had an abortion. VERY big difference, there, genius.

PS- On the good mother scale, I would hardly call threatening my children with the "wrath of mom" that they "know oh so well", because you "would kill them" and "kill your sons girlfriends" for having an abortion- is anywhere close to giving you June Cleaver status, you psycho fuckstick.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

​

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

I never killed any of my children either, you stupid *****. I had an abortion. VERY big difference, there, genius.

No, there's not. A = A.

Your offspring = you children


to end a life = to kill

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

When JD posts, it's like

This is just for JD

JD did a lot of research on the subject

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

Glad I am not your wife. .

I'm sure the feeling's mutual

 

[JD_2B]

YOU claim that a fetus is a person but if the woman's life is in danger, than it is okay to abort it. YES that is a legal and a moral justification for abortion, one that YOU make. You make the "exception" to "kill a person" assuming a third trimester fetus is a person, as long as it poses some risk of death to the woman. That is called justifying the abortion, legally. It is not ME who does this "oh lets make exceptions only for a certain type of threat"- That is YOU.

Uh yeah. What's your point. I fail to see what you find some ass backwards about making such an exception. I have said for the hundredth time now, YOU MAKE THE BEST CHOICE POSSIBLE FOR ALL parties involved. If there is no way around the outcome that someone is going to die as a result of the pregnancy and only one can be saved, it is no more moral to save the mother over baby or vice versa hence a parental choice over who to save is perfectly morally justified.

I make the choice. Got it. Oh and I hope that is crystal clear to YOU, as well. I make the choice. MY choice. Not your choice.. MINE.

What is your moral justification for forcing a woman to bring a fetus to full term, even if that means that she will lose a promotion she has been working her ass off for five years to achieve? What is YOUR moral justification that stretch marks and weight gain and any other "shallow" issues she might have, should suddenly be considered second rate to the contents of HER uterus? Why on earth would one reason to abort, and in your opinion, criminalize a woman for murder or manslaughter, all because she CHOSE to do it for a different reason than YOU would choose, be at all immoral? Just because YOUR choice would be for a different RATIONALE than hers, does not make THE RESULT of the decision any different. You say a late term fetus is a person, but you justify in killing that "person", for a certain standard- HER HEARTBEAT.
I take it a step further and say that her heart might beat, but it will not be full of joy, if she had to spend 7 months saving the money to get the ******* abortion, for whatever reason. I say that if her heart beating is important, then so should her work, her home life, her other family, and her entire pursuit of happiness, which in fact includes her self image. YOU say that her heart remaining a beating organ is the only reason to "kill another person"- And I say you are an inconsistent pile of poo for failing to see that the RESULT of the abortion is the SAME either way. And yes- Late term abortions are often planned and CHOSEN, under the advice of a doctor.

What is sad is that you can't see the difference between an immoral choice and a moral one. Killing because you're worried about your ******* career is immoral. Choosing to end a life for the purpose of saving another is not. That's the ******* difference.

Prove that killing happens. It does not.. no more than killing a TREE happens, when we cut one down.

Killing is PLENTY moral. People work very hard and support plenty of causes that support killing, as a result of unprotected sex. Killing cervical cancer, caused by HPV, which generally results in a person having to lose or leave their jobs to care for the sickness.. killing the HIV virus, which eventually causes AIDS, which in turn will generally lose one their job... Killing STDs and Tumors, to avoid getting even semi-sick and losing one's job...

Even Killing moles before they become cancerous, which could cause a lot of days out, and losing one's job.... Killing sperm cells and egg cells before they get the chance to unite. Killing bacteria on hard surfaces, to avoid too many sick days and losing ones job.. Killing the "bad guys" on the streets.. Killing is absolutely a moral standard for maintaining one's job in any other situation where killing is a prerequisite.

You only want to apply "to save one's life" when there is an immediate threat, and never EVER stop to consider that the threat to ones life might not be immediate, but a long term issue.

I strongly disagree. I believe that I have far more compassion for a person's life, and I look at things objectively, from a long term perspective.
I also look at the potential life of the baby-to-be, and whether things have changed enough in that woman's life to justify an abortion, morally. Now, again- I personally would not abort that late on just to avoid stretch marks, lol- I said that a million ******* times now, you huked on fonix halfwit- but that does not mean that another woman might not make a decision based on that, too, or based on the fear of tearing her vagina during childbirth, or having to get a C-section. I see it this way- if a woman who is 7 months pregnant has been getting abused by her husband or boyfriend or family, etc, and this only started when they saw her showing- which would indicate she was at 5 months, at least- then she should be allowed to schedule an abortion, just to stop being abused. YOU dont give a **** about her. You don't care AT ALL about her situation. YOU have no understanding of the facts on abused pregnant women, nor do you care enough to open your mind up to them. And what about the woman who was 6 months pregnant and on some sort of life support caused by a car accident? You do realize that pulling the plug and ventilator tube out would be like murdering the fetus "person", as you say, because WHY SHOULD THE POOR INNOCENT LITTLE FETUSPERSON HAVE TO SUFFER??

What you don't seem to get is that subconsciously or otherwise a women is aware of all of those things, well before a pregnancy gets to the point where said fears and resulting abortion could constitute killing a person.

You have yet to prove or even bring up a shred of evidence that a fetus is a person.. moving right along...

FEEEEEELLLLINNNNGGGSSSS.. nothing more than FEEEEEEEEELLLLIIIIINNNGGGSSSS.... blah blah blabbity blah. Get a hold of yourself.

I have no problem with a woman alleviating all of those fears by not having sex, having protected sex, taking the morning after pill, or having an abortion a couple of months into the pregnancy. After that, any decision to abort based on fears about your job, financial position, social life, c-sections, vaginal tears, etc. is a simply morally bankrupt decision because a person, whether they choose to admit it or not, is aware of all of those risks before they even sex, let alone 7 months into a pregnancy. Aborting at that point in time for those reasons isn't protecting life. It's protecting your own selfish, irresponsible ass and no one elses. And that is not an emotional argument. There is simply no other way to characterize having an abortion to protect your career at that stage of pregnancy.

What happens that makes a human so much different between the 2nd month and the 7th? It is still prone to miscarry by all of the same things that the 7 week embryo or third month fetus. Neither are people. Neither have any real sentience, or the woman would never survive the pregnancy, much less childbirth.
Sorry, honey, but choosing to do a late term abortion is FOR the woman to keep her job intact. It is so that the woman does not end up sick in the hospital for a week, or having heart failure, which would cause her to miss time at work. If her life wasn't so ******* important, then why the **** would she care so much about keeping it intact?? Good grief- you do realize that the sanctity of LIFE as a whole entails far more than having a beating heart and active brain waves, do you not? You do realize that there are interactions and relationships, responsibilities that these people have outside of what is going on in the uterus, right???

Be real, now- how many dirty, disease ridden vagrants are going to be admitted to the hospital for a heart attack and kept on life support for any amount of time? They don't because they are not as important in society. Their relationships and interactions are less than appealing. They are second class citizens, to be blunt, and nobody really gives a rats ass about them. They would NOT have a ventilator in their lungs for any period of time. When nobody wants you, you are ALLOWED to be let go. Letting GO is OKAY, too. It is perfectly natural to die. There is no entitlement to live. And, sorry but saying those things might be reality and might hurt your feelings to have to face, but that is how it is. That is not immoral, or amoral. That is how our emotional human race WORKS, sociologically.
If you had feelings for TREES, you would be laying down in front of bulldozers and logging trucks, to try to slow the process down. You just don't happen to have feelings for trees.. But by definition, they are "life". They are "living", and as such, they are "Alive", in many of the same respects as an embryo. They just look a whole lot different, and have different DNA, and no potential to hold your hand, or smile at you, or evoke those same emotional feelings you have towards other humans.

There is no logical argument why an abortion done for those reasons at that stage shouldn't be illegal. You are killing a person for immoral reasons. Either explain why that is legally justifiable or why that is a false statement. And if your gonna choose the later, please for once attempt to use accepted definitions of terms rather than the JD definitions you are so fond of using.

Number one- try to spell latter right, for once in your life, before you start lecturing me about defining terms, k??

And again- prove or at least give some evidence that a fetus is a person., before you start using all that bullshit emotional hyperbole on here. =)

 

[JD_2B]

I never killed any of my children either, you stupid *****. I had an abortion. VERY big difference, there, genius.

No, there's not. A = A.

Your offspring = you children


to end a life = to kill

Awww poor baby. Stop killing billions of sperm every time you have sex with yourself, then you dumb ****.

PS- Offspring are those that are BORN, not those that are conceived. Or else a woman with 5 failed pregnancies would have 5 offspring that died. Nope, that doen't sound quite right to me.. GEE I wonder why..

 

[Bern80]

I remember your post, **********- I do not need to go look through 60 pages of flame wars to look up your retarded ass post.

Go ahead- tell the class how the fetus gets oxygen without the mother's breathing aiding in that. Go ahead, you ******* ****.

Nice dodge, dumbass, but since that's not the position you took, you don't get to backtrack now and pretend that it was. This is what you said, dunce, and you get to own it forevermore, just like your piece de resistance of dogs impregnating humans:

Just because a machine forces air into the lungs does not make it any different from a fetus, whose oxygen is also FORCED into it's body by means of the oxygenated blood pumped through the woman's veins first.

And when I mocked you for saying that, you responded thus:

Explain to the class how the fetus gets oxygen into its own blood, then, you stupid cuntrag.

So clearly, you were defending the idea that the mother's body pumps the fetus's blood for him. And this is leaving entirely aside your ORIGINAL flight of genius, when you claimed outright that the mother and fetus share the same blood supply.

And am I supposed to be offended by your childish obscenities apparently accusing me of the "horrible crime" of having heterosexual sex? As far as I'm concerned, that's fine with me, so long as I continue to choose cocks attached to men who aren't abusive losers, unlike some "women" around here.

The fetus would not have ANY oxygen without the.... Fill in the blank ....


MOTHER .... Breathing... Air. Air contains oxygen.. Oxygen ONLY goes to the fetus in this way, simply put.

Oh and being a woman who sucks dick is fine- being a ********** is quite a different story, though.
And being ABUSED is never the fault of the victim, you stupid fatass whore, especially when the victim does not sit around and take the ******* abuse.
Speaking of taking abuse, why the hell haven't I added YOU to my ignore list?? You can't even concede that the fetus NEEDS the mother to get AIR.

A baby does not need the mother to breathe for it to get air. And a baby/ other person who is on a ventilator is in a VERY SPECIAL position, because it is getting 1000 times better health care than most babies and other children and adults in the world. Being on a ventilator is not a ******* ENTITLEMENT. It is purely an emotional based attachment to an image of a human being, based on HOPE, that can be disconnected at any time!
Air for one who cannot breathe it, is not an ENTITLEMENT. It too can be disconnected at ANY time, whether it is by abortion, or by accident/ natural causes.

Dumb *****.

One can only laugh at your continued hypocrisy JD. You accuse people of emotional rhetoric yet can't manage to end a paragraph without some juvenile insult. It is YOU that doesn't have the proverbial balls to admit what you are.

You can't admit that you communicate at the level of the avg. junior high student.

You can't admit that you use words outside of their meaning because you are at loss for any other way to rationalize your position.

You can't admit to being the hypocrite that you so clearly have demonstrated to be.

You can't admit to the any of the fallacies of your logic.

You can't even separate the issues, your emotion, and basic concepts of argumentation. The truth is lost to people like you. You are so heavily invested in maintaining your position that you couldn't admit the truth was something different from that position if it smacked you in the face. Your ego won't allow you to admit your wrong at this point. Do you have the ability to objectively look at yourself? YOU are the insult leader on this thread. I can't imagine someone who claims they are objective and rationale stooping to that level and having the capacity to take it all back once they found out the truth. You are 32 ******* years old. For your child's sake, grow the **** up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, and you accusing me of hurting my children? Funny, considering that I'VE never killed any of my children, so I think I have you beaten on the "good mother" scale. Of course, Joan Crawford would beat you on that scale, because she didn't kill any of HERS, either.

I never killed any of my children either, you stupid *****. I had an abortion. VERY big difference, there, genius.

Only difference is whether or not your pitiful intellect would have been sufficient to know that you'd killed your baby. Not my fault you're too pig-ignorant.

PS- On the good mother scale, I would hardly call threatening my children with the "wrath of mom" that they "know oh so well", because you "would kill them" and "kill your sons girlfriends" for having an abortion- is anywhere close to giving you June Cleaver status, you psycho fuckstick.

On the good mother scale, I would hardly call imposing a mother as stupid as you on a child good, and you do get dumber by the post, don't you? It was someone ELSE who mentioned the "wrath of mom", loser-humper. It was the same person who mentioned her son's girlfriends. I've hardly mentioned my actual family at all in this thread (and neither of my sons are old enough to have girlfriends), and that in only the most vague terms. The most direct I've been on that subject, in fact, involved a hypothetical with a 13-year-old daughter I don't even HAVE.

I honestly don't know which would be better for your poor spawn: to take after his ignorant slattern of a mother, or the piss-poor drunken batterer she spread her legs for. I DO know I feel sorry for him either way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I never killed any of my children either, you stupid *****. I had an abortion. VERY big difference, there, genius.

No, there's not. A = A.

Your offspring = you children


to end a life = to kill

Awww poor baby. Stop killing billions of sperm every time you have sex with yourself, then you dumb ****.

PS- Offspring are those that are BORN, not those that are conceived. Or else a woman with 5 failed pregnancies would have 5 offspring that died. Nope, that doen't sound quite right to me.. GEE I wonder why..

A woman who had five miscarriages DOES have five children who died, as any woman so unlucky would tell you, if she could bring herself to talk to you without spitting. I'm sorry this is so difficult to understand for a woman who hates her own femaleness so badly, but MOST women actually love their unborn children and want them and mourn them when they have a miscarriage, rather than viewing them as a horrible curse imposed on them by an unfair universe.

It must suck to be at war with your own biology. Of course, it must suck to have a room-temperature IQ and think the dog can impregnate you, too.