What should abortion laws be?

[Bern80]

What do you mean by "as a form of birth control"? Do you mean doctors who perform abortions as elective procedures? Just curious, there.

As in for reasons that are not medically necessary I would presume.

 

[JD_2B]

LMAO! Just took a peek at some of the haters' posts. Wow. So, now, I got pregnant by a drunk who I did not know, and begging for a child support check???

REALLY!!!

Because last time I checked, I was fucking MARRIED to my LATE ex husband, you fucking dipshits.

God almighty, if that was not the most pathetic attempt at.. I dont even know what. But it was pathetic, at best, that's for sure. LMAO!!!!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Abortion harms another.

Another organism is not your body.


By definition.


So your position fails by your own criteria.

lol... appealing to fetus is a person etc

Do we really need to stick the definition of person up here for the upteenth time? i guess so.

Main Entry: per·son
Pronunciation: \ˈpər-sən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosōpa, plural of prosōpon face, mask — more at prosopopoeia
Date: 13th century

1 : human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>
2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : guise
3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>
5 : the personality of a human being : self
6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection

Let's look at these various definitions one by one and see if fetus meets any of the criteria.

1) Most definately (though this one horribly confused JD)

2)No, but then again a lot born individuals would be ruled out as well as it dependent on a specific context

3)Debateable depending on your relgious beliefs

4) Definately again

5)Again debateable. Does a fetus at some point have a concept of self? Heck, does an infant really have a concept of self?

6)Believe it or not case law indicates that the unborn indeed do have rights. Legal Status of the Unborn And before you make the lame excuse that JD does and attack the site rather than critically examining what is written, just please read what is written

7)A fetus could again be considered a person under this context.

This should be incontravertible proof that an unborn child indeed is a person. The only two definition that don't pass any muster at all are the religious one and the context of guise. But again both are context sensative and would require elimination of many many more than just the unborn if they were sole definition of personhood. The likes of you and JD believe you have this justification based on fact when it comes to personhood and justifying abortion as a result. But you just plain don't. You need to come up with a different rationale as to why the unborn should not be afforded legal protection against late term abortion for convenience because saying it's okay because they aren't persons simply is untrue.

You have more patience than I do. Personally, at this point I'd tell these lackwits to go buy their own dictionary.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What do you mean by "as a form of birth control"? Do you mean doctors who perform abortions as elective procedures? Just curious, there.

First she didn't know that dogs can't impregnate humans. THEN she didn't know that the fetus has a separate blood supply from his mother's. NEXT she couldn't figure out what the definition of "person" was. And NOW she has no clue what "birth control" is (which probably explains how she keeps getting knocked up).

Oh, yeah. All KINDS of worthy of respect, she is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

LMAO! Just took a peek at some of the haters' posts. Wow. So, now, I got pregnant by a drunk who I did not know, and begging for a child support check???

REALLY!!!

Because last time I checked, I was fucking MARRIED to my LATE ex husband, you fucking dipshits.

God almighty, if that was not the most pathetic attempt at.. I dont even know what. But it was pathetic, at best, that's for sure. LMAO!!!!

Thought she had us on ignore. Maybe she had as much trouble figuring that out as she did the difference between canines and human beings.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

Any bets as to when she asks again about the fetal blood supply?

 

[GHook93]

What do you mean by "as a form of birth control"? Do you mean doctors who perform abortions as elective procedures? Just curious, there.

Yea I heard this argument before. I have never bought it, its too illogical. They claim some crazy soles will use abortion as a form of birth control. That they are reckless and then just abort the baby when they get knocked up and do it over and over again. First, there might be a percent of a percent that does this (meaning maybe 1 out of a million). Second, this would be the stupidest form of birth control, because not only is it expensive, but your putting yourself through surgery!

For the prolifers these illogical claim only hurts your argument.

 

[Bern80]

What do you mean by "as a form of birth control"? Do you mean doctors who perform abortions as elective procedures? Just curious, there.

Yea I heard this argument before. I have never bought it, its too illogical. They claim some crazy soles will use abortion as a form of birth control. That they are reckless and then just abort the baby when they get knocked up and do it over and over again. First, there might be a percent of a percent that does this (meaning maybe 1 out of a million). Second, this would be the stupidest form of birth control, because not only is it expensive, but your putting yourself through surgery!

For the prolifers these illogical claim only hurts your argument.

From Pro's post on page 68:

Social Reasons (given as primary reason)
- Feels unready for child/responsibility 25% - Feels she can't afford baby 23% - Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities 19% - Relationship problem/Single motherhood 8% - Feels she isn't mature enough 7% - Interference with education/career plans 4% - Parents/Partner wants abortion <1% - Other reasons <6.5% TOTAL: 93%

How is that not using abortion as birth control? Aren't the same reasons given for abortion the same reasons that someone uses other forms of birth control? I think the exact opposite is what is illogical to beleive (and the stats back that up). That most abortions don't occur because of an unwanted pregnancy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Any bets as to when she asks again about the fetal blood supply?

Oh, if only she would ASK, instead of aggressively stating, in no uncertain terms, something that's completely and utterly wrong.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What do you mean by "as a form of birth control"? Do you mean doctors who perform abortions as elective procedures? Just curious, there.

Yea I heard this argument before. I have never bought it, its too illogical. They claim some crazy soles will use abortion as a form of birth control. That they are reckless and then just abort the baby when they get knocked up and do it over and over again. First, there might be a percent of a percent that does this (meaning maybe 1 out of a million). Second, this would be the stupidest form of birth control, because not only is it expensive, but your putting yourself through surgery!

For the prolifers these illogical claim only hurts your argument.

I hate to break it to you, but 1) there ARE crazy souls out there who do exactly that, as you yourself even point out with your "percent of a percent" remark, and 2) using it even ONCE just because you "don't want a baby right now" is using it as birth control.

Oh, and 3) when did we ever accuse women who get abortions of being the brightest lights on the midway? While I'll grant that most of them are probably just scared and wigged out by an unplanned pregnancy, that's still not the most intelligent, clear-thinking time of one's life to be making a decision, anyway.

 

[Seer Travis]

Firstly, the idea of a "poll" on any issue is entirely irrational and insane.

The number of citizen-slaves that believe in or support any issue in no way suggests legitimacy (or lack thereof) in said issue.

Now, firstly we must look at what abortion entails, and why it is not only legal, but societally sponsored.

What is abortion claimed to be?
A medical procedure that aborts the would-be human child before it becomes a new human life. It is claimed that this procedure does not constitute murder and it is a benevolent procedure that shows what a modern and decent society we live in.

Is there any Truth in these claim? No! This explanation does not fir the known facts of abortion.

Here is the Forbidden Truth, which I will impeccably argue and prove is correct :
**

Approx. two days after the successful combining of the egg and sperm, a new life form of the same species as the biological creators attaches itself to the wall of the womb, and begins to grow. Even at this point it is a scientific fact that it is alive. In the case of humans, we now have a entirely new and unique human life form.

"Abortion" is the societally sponsored and malevolent mass-murder of helpless and innocent children by society. All a single abortion entails is the murder of a human being. The label "abortion" should not even exist. The Truth-based and legitimate term would be "murder". Every single abortion constitutes the murder of a new human being.

Abortion is sponsored and promoted by society and societal leaders for the primary reason that they know that most citizen-slaves are filled with immense but suppressed, denied and deep-seated sadistic impulses, rage and frustration because of their life experiences living in a human society.

They know that now and again these things boil to the surface, and can cause harm to their society via damage to infrastructure, murders, serious assaults etc. Adult citizen-slaves need outlets for their anger and frustrations.

Men have things like boxing, wars and hunting. Although females are involved in these activities, men are much greater represented and promoted in these activities. So it was decided that females needed and exclusive outlet. Since the family unit structure, marriage, "couple" and sacred mommy delusional institutions were already in place, societal leaders simple tacked on another new form of child abuse : A mother could legally murder her womb-trapped child. Societal leaders know that it is easier to make new lie-based policies based on the already popular lies-based policies, dogmas, institutions etc.

That said, some individual females actually believe in these lies, and do not consciously realize that they have murdered a human child.

So, that is the Forbidden Truth on abortion.
**

This is utterly insane and immoral on a societal level. It is the genocide of children.

All the scientific and philosophical arguments prove that abortion in a murder act. I know all the arguments, and all the tricks. I am ready to argue the Truth as above.

 

[FA_Q2]

There are 72 pages before this one where your arguments are addressed. This is a fairly old thread and you would do better to create a new one if you want more debate but be warned, the pro choice people here will brook very little in the way of actual debate.

To your post (and as covered earlier), this all depends on when you define human existence to start. Most people agree that it happens somewhere between the first and second trimester when the brain begins to function and the 'human' in us begins to develop. The idea that it is alive before that is moot, killing a living fly is not murder and killing a 2 celled fetus is not ether. It is all going to hinge on what you consider 'human' and finding when that begins.

To me human is in the mind, not the DNA so I do not care before the brain develops into an individual but after I do not believe in non life saving abortions.

 

[Bern80]

There are 72 pages before this one where your arguments are addressed. This is a fairly old thread and you would do better to create a new one if you want more debate

This thread should suffice.

but be warned, the pro choice people here will brook very little in the way of actual debate.

Firstly, there is no need for warnings because not only am I aware of most aspect of human derangements, I am also Untouchable and thus nothing can harm Me.

Second, "pro-choice" is an utterly insane, lie-based and ridiculous self-deluding label. The correct terms are "pro-abortion" and most accurately "Womb-trapped child societal genocide promoters".


No, it is nothing to do with definitions, because concrete objective science and philosophical Truths can resolve the matter.


That is because they are self-deluding, Truth-hating inferiors. There is no legitimacy to this "human experience" argument.


All three ideas here are incorrect. Even a three day old womb trapped child is a new and unique human life form.

It is all going to hinge on what you consider 'human' and finding when that begins.

No, that is not an important factor, as I principally prove using comparative logic on My website. Consciousness is not an important factor in the Truth that abortion is the murder of a human child regardless of its age in the womb.

There is no reason why lack of consciousness should matter, and even so, the womb trapped child WILL become conscious.

Further, a patient undergoing a serious operation is not conscious, and has no awareness. I know, because I have been there Myself. Why then cannot we murder a patient in a hospital during an operation without uproar? A dead body HAD consciousness, so we can only then argue that the patient would have woken up in the future. But so would have the womb trapped child.

To me human is in the mind, not the DNA so I do not care before the brain develops into an individual but after I do not believe in non life saving abortions.

You are incorrect, then. The DNA argument has little to nothing to do with this matter, in fact it can be ignored entirely and it will not effect the argument.

The biological tests done to assert the scientific facts on abortion are to do with cell biology, and not DNA testing, although these test were carried out in favour of the anti-abortion position.

Just for the sake of showing that I am relatively objective person, YOU are evidence that many pro-lifers are just as whacked out as pro-abortionists. You claim science is on your side but I imagine you would hard pressed to find a legitmate scientist whi claim that an organization of cells it what constitutes a human being.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Seer Travis, respectfully, your evidence is not factual, objective, or relevant most of the time.

Thanks.

 

[Bern80]

Just for the sake of showing that I am relatively objective person, YOU are evidence that many pro-lifers are just as whacked out as pro-abortionists. You claim science is on your side but I imagine you would hard pressed to find a legitmate scientist whi claim that an organization of cells it what constitutes a human being.

It is typical of you broken and Truth-hating citizen-slaves to reject and falsely mock Truth and it's messenger.

All the scientific facts support Truths perfectly, and no such facts challenge My Truths.

I never said a scientist would say anything, that is your strawman.

So, we have a strawman and a personal attack to found a dismissive argument. Pathetic.

No you don't believe in truth. Much as you would like and organization of cells to be a human being, it is not. My belief is that happens at some point in the gestation process, but to call the intital combination and cell division of egg a sperm a human being is simply inaccurate. Abortion at that point simply isnt' killing a human being, which is why there is no standng to make a legal issue out of abortion at that point.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just for the sake of showing that I am relatively objective person, YOU are evidence that many pro-lifers are just as whacked out as pro-abortionists. You claim science is on your side but I imagine you would hard pressed to find a legitmate scientist whi claim that an organization of cells it what constitutes a human being.

It is typical of you broken and Truth-hating citizen-slaves to reject and falsely mock Truth and it's messenger.

All the scientific facts support Truths perfectly, and no such facts challenge My Truths.

I never said a scientist would say anything, that is your strawman.

So, we have a strawman and a personal attack to found a dismissive argument. Pathetic.

No you don't believe in truth. Much as you would like and organization of cells to be a human being, it is not. My belief is that happens at some point in the gestation process, but to call the intital combination and cell division of egg a sperm a human being is simply inaccurate. Abortion at that point simply isnt' killing a human being, which is why there is no standng to make a legal issue out of abortion at that point.

Religious opinion is divided and confused as well.

For example, Latter Day Saints (orthodox Mormons) believe every soul must have a body and be born, thus an abortion would only set back a soul's entrance to this mortal world. Yet the LDS church generally opposes abortion.

Go figure.

 

[Bern80]

It is typical of you broken and Truth-hating citizen-slaves to reject and falsely mock Truth and it's messenger.

All the scientific facts support Truths perfectly, and no such facts challenge My Truths.

I never said a scientist would say anything, that is your strawman.

So, we have a strawman and a personal attack to found a dismissive argument. Pathetic.

No you don't believe in truth. Much as you would like and organization of cells to be a human being, it is not. My belief is that happens at some point in the gestation process, but to call the intital combination and cell division of egg a sperm a human being is simply inaccurate. Abortion at that point simply isnt' killing a human being, which is why there is no standng to make a legal issue out of abortion at that point.

Religious opinion is divided and confused as well.

For example, Latter Day Saints (orthodox Mormons) believe every soul must have a body and be born, thus an abortion would only set back a soul's entrance to this mortal world. Yet the LDS church generally opposes abortion.

Go figure.

lol, don't get me started on the fucked up-ness that is organized religion.

 

[JBeukema]

Second, "pro-choice" is an utterly insane, lie-based and ridiculous self-deluding label. The correct terms are "pro-abortion" and most accurately "Womb-trapped child societal genocide promoters".

Good to know you're not a troll or moron and you're here for honest and intelligent discussion

There is no reason why lack of consciousness should matter,

So how much time and how many resources should be wasted keeping tissues alive in a braindead body?

Further, a patient undergoing a serious operation is not conscious, and has no awareness.

They can be self-aware and some report dreaming. Also, we cannot know that they have no merely forgotten any self-generated images. So long as their brain functions continue, we can only err on the side of caution and assume that the mind to which those processes give rise continues to exit.

 

[JBeukema]

You claim science is on your side but I imagine you would hard pressed to find a legitmate scientist whi claim that an organization of cells it what constitutes a human being.

Unless you ask a biologist or geneticist and get the definition of a human organism.

Your choice of vocabulary is detrimental to your arguments, despite the validity of the point you're trying to make.

 

[Bern80]

You claim science is on your side but I imagine you would hard pressed to find a legitmate scientist whi claim that an organization of cells it what constitutes a human being.

Unless you ask a biologist or geneticist and get the definition of a human organism.

Your choice of vocabulary is detrimental to your arguments, despite the validity of the point you're trying to make.

Conversely, well phrased sentences don't inherently make one credible either.......