Abortion.What do you think about it?

Is a child who has been born still developing also?

What has this to do with abortion? When the infant is born, it becomes its own individual.

So a fetus is not a baby because they are different words, right?
No, there is a different medical terminology for a fetus,
an embryo and a born baby.

Then also a 'son' could never be a 'boy or a 'youngster', nor could a 'daughter' ever be a 'girl' because THOSE ARE DIFFERENT WORDS TOO. Of course.You are talking about individuals that are born already

Now it makes sense.
I hope so

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Yes, I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned for a number of reasons.

The most important is that it legalizes the killing of the unborn.

By denying the unborn his personhood (similar to the Dred Scott decision) the court defined away his right to live.

It is also a very poorly decided and poorly written decision , from a legal standpoint.

The suit was filed on a false premise

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/17717/roe_vs_weddington.html?comment=true

and the judges 'found' rights in the Constitution which aren't there.

Yeah, it should be repealed.

The state laws regarding abortion would be reinstated. Most states had outlawed abortion, but not all.

However today with 35 years of huge advances in fetalogy and medical knowledge of the status of the unborn, I would expect even those few blue states that had legalized it would now severely restrict it after not too long a time.

As I told joefromchicago, I have consistently held that abortion to save the life of the mother is a valid exception.

Doctors who violate abortion laws should do time and lose their medical license. Other abortion providers should do the time also. Lots of it. It should be so prohibitive that few will dare to try to take advantage of women and turn a $$ profit from the woman's fear and embarrassment.

Men should have to support the children that they produce or give up their parental rights.

Adoption should be low cost and low hassle. Not a get-rich for lawyers and not an endless treadmill of foster care that empowers bureaucrats, with appropriate checks and protections against predators.

I think you are mentally blinded by your religion and your lantent hostile towards women in general. You are, in fact, a far greater risk to society
than any pro choice activist ever can be.

0 Replies

CalamityJane wrote:

Is a child who has been born still developing also?

What has this to do with abortion? When the infant is born, it becomes its own individual.

So a fetus is not a baby because they are different words, right?
No, there is a different medical terminology for a fetus,
an embryo and a born baby.

Then also a 'son' could never be a 'boy or a 'youngster', nor could a 'daughter' ever be a 'girl' because THOSE ARE DIFFERENT WORDS TOO. Of course.You are talking about individuals that are born already

Now it makes sense.
I hope so

As Lucy Van Pelt would say, "Don't you know sarcasm when you hear it, Charlie Brown?"

Your weak semantic argument that 'a fetus is not a baby' is ludicrous, as the other ludicrous examples that I provided serve to illustrate very well.

Medical terminology which describes an age and stage of physical development cannot remove one's personhood, except in the eyes of a pro-abortion zealot.

Why would one 'not be a person' simply based on his age or size?

Similar zealots have sought to extend the logical outcome of this reasoning beyond birth.

Peter Singer of Princeton teaches that a baby is not a person until he is 30 days old (but full rights for animals). Do you agree with him? On what basis can you disagree since he is using an arbitrary age to define 'personhood' , just as you are?

Check out Hentoff's article on Singer.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff091399.asp

http://reason.com/0012/rb.the.shtml

It is a cop-out to accuse me of 'religious bias' (since I have cited no religious argument, only legal and medical ones). Such a lazy, cheap shot. What do you say to Hentoff who is pro-life and an atheist?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

snood wrote:
Real Life, if you had your way, what would happen? would Roe V. Wade be overturned? What is your deal, man?

Yes, I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned for a number of reasons.

The most important is that it legalizes the killing of the unborn.

By denying the unborn his personhood (similar to the Dred Scott decision) the court defined away his right to live.

It is also a very poorly decided and poorly written decision , from a legal standpoint.

The suit was filed on a false premise

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/17717/roe_vs_weddington.html?comment=true

and the judges 'found' rights in the Constitution which aren't there.

Yeah, it should be repealed.

The state laws regarding abortion would be reinstated. Most states had outlawed abortion, but not all.

However today with 35 years of huge advances in fetalogy and medical knowledge of the status of the unborn, I would expect even those few blue states that had legalized it would now severely restrict it after not too long a time.

As I told joefromchicago, I have consistently held that abortion to save the life of the mother is a valid exception.

Doctors who violate abortion laws should do time and lose their medical license. Other abortion providers should do the time also. Lots of it. It should be so prohibitive that few will dare to try to take advantage of women and turn a $$ profit from the woman's fear and embarrassment.

Men should have to support the children that they produce or give up their parental rights.

Adoption should be low cost and low hassle. Not a get-rich for lawyers and not an endless treadmill of foster care that empowers bureaucrats, with appropriate checks and protections against predators.

Well, you had a lot of "should bes" in that post, so let me share something I think is a "will be":
If abortion is made illegal again, it will continue to happen in unregulated, unprofessional places. And that won't solve jack.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

I think what you said is predicated on some hooey, myself. What the hell has my hypothetical world where a man does childbirth got to do with your "threat to a man's sense of masculinity"?

The thing is, even if you discount the "threat to masculinity" argument there will still be men that argue against abortion, just as there are women that argue against abortion.

Furthermore, I see people are avoiding the "rhythm method" of contraception that I talked about. No one supports it then?

0 Replies

There's nothing to support Wolf.

Contraception is not on my radar. It reduces the relationship between men and women to a mechanical or chemical pragmatism.

One doesn't wear a flak jacket unless bullets are flying.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

real life wrote:
snood wrote:
Real Life, if you had your way, what would happen? would Roe V. Wade be overturned? What is your deal, man?

Yes, I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned for a number of reasons.

The most important is that it legalizes the killing of the unborn.

By denying the unborn his personhood (similar to the Dred Scott decision) the court defined away his right to live.

It is also a very poorly decided and poorly written decision , from a legal standpoint.

The suit was filed on a false premise

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/17717/roe_vs_weddington.html?comment=true

and the judges 'found' rights in the Constitution which aren't there.

Yeah, it should be repealed.

The state laws regarding abortion would be reinstated. Most states had outlawed abortion, but not all.

However today with 35 years of huge advances in fetalogy and medical knowledge of the status of the unborn, I would expect even those few blue states that had legalized it would now severely restrict it after not too long a time.

As I told joefromchicago, I have consistently held that abortion to save the life of the mother is a valid exception.

Doctors who violate abortion laws should do time and lose their medical license. Other abortion providers should do the time also. Lots of it. It should be so prohibitive that few will dare to try to take advantage of women and turn a $$ profit from the woman's fear and embarrassment.

Men should have to support the children that they produce or give up their parental rights.

Adoption should be low cost and low hassle. Not a get-rich for lawyers and not an endless treadmill of foster care that empowers bureaucrats, with appropriate checks and protections against predators.

Well, you had a lot of "should bes" in that post, so let me share something I think is a "will be":
If abortion is made illegal again, it will continue to happen in unregulated, unprofessional places. And that won't solve jack.

Hi Snood,

There's no doubt that you are right.

I agree that no matter what law you have (against rape, robbery, murder, fraud, etc) , someone is going to break that law.

But we cannot stop having laws just because someone will break them.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Furthermore, I see people are avoiding the "rhythm method" of contraception that I talked about. No one supports it then?

I don't care if people use birth control or not.

True contraception (that which prevents conception or fertilization) is not a problem.

Some 'contraceptive' methods are actually abortifacient in fact.

They do not truly prevent conception, but they prevent the fertilized egg from implanting, etc. -- causing an abortion.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
Furthermore, I see people are avoiding the "rhythm method" of contraception that I talked about. No one supports it then?

I don't care if people use birth control or not.

True contraception (that which prevents conception or fertilization) is not a problem.

Some 'contraceptive' methods are actually abortifacient in fact.

They do not truly prevent conception, but they prevent the fertilized egg from implanting, etc. -- causing an abortion.

Like the rhythm method, as proposed by the Catholic Church as an alternative to condoms. (Journal of Medical Ethics, vol 32, p 335). The rhythm method ends up leading to a lot of embryonic deaths.

Perhaps you should start campaigning against the rhythm method first because surely more embryos die due to that method of contraception than abortion? (It costs far more to abort than to do rhythm method).

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I didn't want to miss the opportunity to point out that you continued the same line of questions that you claimed to have ended, (such as abortion to save the life of the mother, which is seldom a factor in abortion in the USA).

It's not surprising that, when faced with a difficult question that might bring to light some of the inherent contradictions of your position, you choose to whine about how unfair or trivial the question is. We've seen this sort of thing before.

But that's ok, I understand that you don't want to respond to these hypotheticals because you are uncomfortable with the answers that you might have to give. Let me, then, ask you a non-hypothetical: what is your position on the birth control pill?

real life wrote:

Meanwhile you are strenuously avoiding discussion of anything relevant to the overwhelming majority of abortions-- such as convenience abortions and the personhood of the unborn.

As I've said before, I don't care about those issues. It's not that I'm avoiding them, it's that I find them inconsequential. But, to make you happy, you may assume (for the purposes of argument) that I take the following positions:
1. all abortions are performed for purely frivolous reasons;
2. life begins at the moment of conception.

I understand why you think that (2) is important to your position, but why is (1) of any importance? Why does it matter that women choose to have abortions for reasons of convenience? If women universally chose abortion for reasons other than convenience, would you then support abortion?

real life wrote:

Doctors who violate abortion laws should do time and lose their medical license.

Lose their medical license? Why stop there? If a fetus/embryo/blastocyst is a living human being, then abortion is murder and an abortionist is a murderer. In most states, that means that an abortionist could face life imprisonment or the death penalty. Why, then, aren't you advocating capital punishment for abortionists?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Lose their medical license? Why stop there? If a fetus/embryo/blastocyst is a living human being, then abortion is murder and an abortionist is a murderer. In most states, that means that an abortionist could face life imprisonment or the death penalty. Why, then, aren't you advocating capital punishment for abortionists?

To take the concept even further, we must put those whom practice rhythm method contraception to death too, for they are also causing death. Though, it would probably be for manslaughter and not murder.

0 Replies

I love those Michael Clancy photos but that web site is baffeling!

"They don't want you to see it [the photo]" blahblahblah.

That is one of the most famous, widely seen photographs of the 20th century.

I know that anti-abortion web sites all use the photo because Clancy doen't make them pay to use it but I really think they should rethink their position on using it.

Something like 5% of fetus' die during this surgery. They would all survive without it.

0 Replies

Wolf wrote-

Quote:

Furthermore, I see people are avoiding the "rhythm method" of contraception that I talked about. No one supports it then?

I avoided it the first time to save your face but you repeated the challenge and I answered-

Quote:

There's nothing to support Wolf.

Contraception is not on my radar. It reduces the relationship between men and women to a mechanical or chemical pragmatism.

One doesn't wear a flak jacket unless bullets are flying.

And you have no comment to make so far.

BTW-It must be all of 30 years since Germaine Greer said that the logic of the Catholic position demanded that sanitary towels be baptised in case they held an early spontaneously aborted fetus where sexually active Catholics were concerned.

Joe wrote-

Quote:

1. all abortions are performed for purely frivolous reasons;
2. life begins at the moment of conception.

That's where to start from because both are true.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Quote:
There's nothing to support Wolf.

Contraception is not on my radar. It reduces the relationship between men and women to a mechanical or chemical pragmatism.

One doesn't wear a flak jacket unless bullets are flying.

And you have no comment to make so far.

Ultimately there is no point in me commenting on your comment.

What do you want me to say? That from this, I deduce that you only believe in abstinence as a form of not getting pregnant? That you, in effect, believe in an ideal that does not work well in practice?

Oh, I know, the abstinence supporters say that abstinence if you stick to it. So do condoms if you use them properly everytime you have sex. The problem of course is, how many people can stick to abstinence?

Yes, I realise I forgot to camouflage the little trap I set up and you decided to put me in my place because of it. Well, woop-de-doo.

Doesn't change the fact that no one here is making a big stink about something far more insidious than abortion, especially not the pro-lifers.

The answer?

Not very many, judging from the situation in Uganda and those other African countries where policies focus exclusively on abstinence.

Quote:

It reduces the relationship between men and women to a mechanical or chemical pragmatism.

By the way, the above is an assertion that is so far without any proof. As is the below assertion.

Quote:

Quote:
1. all abortions are performed for purely frivolous reasons;
2. life begins at the moment of conception.

That's where to start from because both are true.

0 Replies

Spendius is an advocate of abstinence....

...because that is the only kind of sex he gets!

Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Spendius is an advocate of abstinence....

...because that is the only kind of sex he gets!

That's the only kind of sex I get too, but you don't hear me advocating it...

0 Replies

It's not as bad as you think if you define it properly between consenting adults.

Don't make a case out of defining abstinence your way because that gets tautological. One might abstain from too much sugar in the tea but not from the tea.

FA wrote-

Quote:

...because that is the only kind of sex he gets!

What kind do you get FA? Can it be classed as sex?

Wolf wrote-

Quote:

That's the only kind of sex I get too, but you don't hear me advocating it...

Well you should do if you want to reduce abortion.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Lose their medical license? Why stop there? If a fetus/embryo/blastocyst is a living human being, then abortion is murder and an abortionist is a murderer. In most states, that means that an abortionist could face life imprisonment or the death penalty. Why, then, aren't you advocating capital punishment for abortionists?

To take the concept even further, we must put those whom practice rhythm method contraception to death too, for they are also causing death. Though, it would probably be for manslaughter and not murder.

Death? Death of what?

0 Replies

JOE from Chicago Quote:

I take the following positions:
1. all abortions are performed for purely frivolous reasons;
2. life begins at the moment of conception.

.........................................................................................................
RESPONSE:

Life does begin at the moment of conception, when the sperm (haploid cell ) fertilizes the egg (haploid cell) and the organism now become a diploid organism.

No! All abortions are NOT performed for purely frivolous reasons. Would you call a little 13 year old girl, pregnant because her father couldn't "help" himself, a FRIVOLOUS reason?

You're too naive, to really be from Chicago!

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

It's not as bad as you think if you define it properly between consenting adults.

Don't make a case out of defining abstinence your way because that gets tautological. One might abstain from too much sugar in the tea but not from the tea.

FA wrote-

Quote:
...because that is the only kind of sex he gets!

What kind do you get FA? Can it be classed as sex?

Oh yeah!!! And plenty of it.

If you were a bit less a stuffed shirt...I might describe a typical romp so you could enjoy it vicariously.

But the qualifier "if you were a bit less a stuffed shirt" is a hard one for you to get by.

0 Replies

Abortion.What do you think about it?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know