ABORTION.......

I read because I am, by nature, curious. Your insinuations are odious and childlike reeking of testostrone poisoning.
MA said

Quote:

I have to disagree with you. There are some non-religionists that have not done any slamming, just as there are religionists that have. It's all a matter of everyone taking responsibility for their own actions and we all decide whether we can do it or not.

and you RL are a prime example why I disagree with MA. quoting a comedy record of Bill Cosby to dis me is marginally responsible for a 12 year old, it's hardly befitting an adult.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

I read because I am, by nature, curious. Your insinuations are odious and childlike reeking of testostrone poisoning.
MA said

Quote:
I have to disagree with you. There are some non-religionists that have not done any slamming, just as there are religionists that have. It's all a matter of everyone taking responsibility for their own actions and we all decide whether we can do it or not.

and you RL are a prime example why I disagree with MA. quoting a comedy record of Bill Cosby to dis me is marginally responsible for a 12 year old, it's hardly befitting an adult.

If you call it a "slam" for me to say in a fun, though somewhat sarcastic way, that I disagree with you, ...........well you've got a much thinner skin than I had thought.

BTW I did not mean to insinuate anything. I wish to state it outright. I think your protestations about "having zero interest" and "never forming opinions based on what you have heard" are demonstratably false.

You have interest, or you would not be here.

You form opinions the same way everyone else does --- based on hearing, reading and deciding between various points of view.

Your protestations are false. No insinuation there.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Arji, so, since Mesquite ignored every point--I think because he couldn't address them without looking like a pro-abortionist, and he is more interested in bashing me anyway--at what point does the developing person become a baby arji? Is that human creature emerging from the mother's womb not a baby? If not, what is it?

Hi Foxfyre,

That's a very good point. There is no distinguishable difference between the unborn who is 5 or 10 or 15 minutes from birth than the baby who was just born.

So at what "magic moment" do pro-abortionists think that something happens to change the status from one who can easily be exterminated to one who is deserving of protection?

If only the location of the child has changed, why is this the difference between life and death for this innocent one?

0 Replies

Exactly. Why is a premature baby a baby at, say, eight months and a nine month old that is not yet born be considered only a fetus that can be destroyed? The only difference being one is inside and one is outside. Everything else is equal.

0 Replies

Hey.

I'm wondering where y'all are talking about where abortion is legal when the fetus is 8-9 months old!? Except for emergencies; where is that practised as a rule?

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

Hey.

I'm wondering where y'all are talking about where abortion is legal when the fetus is 8-9 months old!? Except for emergencies; where is that practised as a rule?

We are responding, primarily, to Frank's claim that a fetus is a fetus until the moment that is fully emerges from the birth canal.

0 Replies

Quote:

We are responding, primarily, to Frank's claim that a fetus is a fetus until the moment that is fully emerges from the birth canal.

I don't want to answer for Frank, but a fetus is not a person LEGALLY until it is fully emerged from the birth canal. Except in exceptional cases, I think that the vast majority of people would not approve of aborting a seven month old fetus. that is why the law wisely sets a time limit for legal abortions to occur. I would have to agree that the product of a six or seven month pregnancy is qualitatively different than a month old fetus.

0 Replies

Frank may be the only one to think this, but he has flatly stated that this is his believe.

Where IS Frank, these days, anyhow?

0 Replies

Thanks Phoenix, you said what was on my mind Smile

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Quote:
We are responding, primarily, to Frank's claim that a fetus is a fetus until the moment that is fully emerges from the birth canal.

I don't want to answer for Frank, but a fetus is not a person LEGALLY until it is fully emerged from the birth canal. Except in exceptional cases, I think that the vast majority of people would not approve of aborting a seven month old fetus. that is why the law wisely sets a time limit for legal abortions to occur. I would have to agree that the product of a six or seven month pregnancy is qualitatively different than a month old fetus.

Hi Phoenix,

What is the "qualitative difference" to which you refer? Do you think that a 6 or 7 month old is a person that is worthy of protection?

At what point did that "difference" between the month old and the 6 month old take place?

Are you saying the abortion should not be allowed at 6 or 7 months?

0 Replies

Quote:

Are you saying the abortion should not be allowed at 6 or 7 months?

If you are looking to paint me into a corner, I am not buying into that. I have always believed, (even way before we got into this discussion), that the time for a woman to decide whether she wants to abort a pregnancy is in the early part of the process.

I do think though, that in cases where the mother's life or health is in danger, or in other exceptional cases, that even partial birth abortion , IMO, is an acceptable option. This happens very rarely, but there are those who have turned the issue into a red herring.

0 Replies

This thread started as such. IMO.

0 Replies

Oh, (jumping the gun, before someone slams me), I still believe that the woman has the right to decide to do what she wants with her own body, up until the time of birth.

What I wrote in my last post was my own personal opinion, of what I believe is a responsible, appropriate thing to do. But I would not dream of forcing my opinion on another woman.

0 Replies

I think most of us have been posting our own personal opinions and not forcing our opinions on women. We just don't agree with their choices.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

I think most of us have been posting our own personal opinions and not forcing our opinions on women. We just don't agree with their choices.

I dunno about that. I think that there are people who are lobbying for changes in laws regarding abortions, based on their own personal opinions.

0 Replies

There are eye witness accounts of nurses standing on on the so-called partial birth abortions and who witnessed perfectly healthy babies killed as they emerged from the womb? Why? Because there was a minimal risk to the mother--no more risk than is present in many live births--and/or the woman didn't want a scar either during the birth or via C-section. She just didn't get around to taking care of it earlier or for whatever reason wanted the experience of being pregnant but not of being a mother. Sometimes a woman has her baby killed just because she is tired of being pregnant.

Everybody knows it is legal to kill a baby at any stage of development even if most of it has already emerged from the birth canal.

Nobody wants to make abortion for any reason illegal. Every single one of us, in varying degrees, knows there are circumstances when abortion is simply necessary.

But there are an awful lot of us who cannot justify killing a baby out of convenience, and think it should neither be legal nor socially acceptable to do so. For us it is a trade off between the unalienable rights of a woman to determine her own destiny and the unalienable rights of a person who is on the way to being born. The woman can most often make her choice prior to pregnancy occuring. The baby cannot.

0 Replies

Hi Phoenix,

If you simultaneously hold that the unborn is a person at any given point but that abortion should still be legal at that point, you are already in a corner whether I paint you there or not.

I could never understand how a person could say, 'Yes it's a human being at X point , but if it's exterminated it's no skin off my nose. That's somebody else's business.'

0 Replies

Well, some justify it by saying that it is legal, RealLife.

But the fact is, we have changed what is and is not legal in the past based on the general population's changing sensibilities re what is and what is not moral and/or ethical. For instance just in my lifetime it was once legal to make black people sit in the balconies of theatres, sit in the back of the bus, and use different drinking fountains from everybody else. The fact that it was legal sure didn't make it right. And once the ethical and moral sensibilities of people kicked in about that, it was no longer legal.

0 Replies

Hi Everyone!

Hope you all had a great weekend!

I hear Frank is on a sabbatical for a few days? At least I think they meant Frank.

I have to agree with Fox's last post here. This does explain so well why those against abortion feel we should be lobbying to change the laws.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
I think most of us have been posting our own personal opinions and not forcing our opinions on women. We just don't agree with their choices.

I dunno about that. I think that there are people who are lobbying for changes in laws regarding abortions, based on their own personal opinions.

That very well may be so. I just don't think that everyone should be lumped into the same pot.

0 Replies

ABORTION.......

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know