Is abortion really wrong?

My "flexible language" .... is unimportant...........

The words are utterly UNimportant to the facts of the matter. [/u][/i]

My arguments are medical facts, something you have provided none of.

RL:

Quote:

My arguments are medical facts, something you have provided none of.

Come now real life - not too high and mighty -

your arguments are also rife with sensational scenarios and hyperbole.

RL - Your "medical" facts have been pretty weak.

I'm not sure you should base your credibiity on them. I can do surgery with a "razor sharp" scapel, or a dull rusty one. The selection of the sharp and clean tool is not to increase someone's pain, or to torture as you seem to put it. You're being sensational. The fetus is not cut into smaller pieces for amusement or in spite of it, it's because the fetus is too large to be removed as one piece.

You make this whole thing seem as if there is a league of sociopathic doctors on the loose just looking for their next victim, and they want to do as much damage as possible. It's not true.

Can't get anyone from the left to say something is wrong? A bold statement from you sir.

You can't even give creedence that someone would not want a child.

You think that women who are "irresponcible" should have to deal with a child.

You treat it like it's a punishment. Ridiculous. Children should not be used to facilitate punishment. Any child brought into this world should have the right to be loved and cared for, not resented or neglected.

You do not advocate for those rights as well as you claim.

Lots of folks would prefer a little neglect if the alternative is that they are dead.

Show one medical fact that I've gotten wrong.

Diest TKO wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
RL - Your "medical" facts have been pretty weak.

Show one medical fact that I've gotten wrong.

Diest TKO wrote:

I'm not sure you should base your credibiity on them. I can do surgery with a "razor sharp" scapel, or a dull rusty one. The selection of the sharp and clean tool is not to increase someone's pain, or to torture as you seem to put it. You're being sensational. The fetus is not cut into smaller pieces for amusement or in spite of it, it's because the fetus is too large to be removed as one piece.

Nonsense.

Saline abortions are completed with the dead child's entire body being removed as one piece.

Partial birth abortions (done in the third trimester when the child is the largest) are completed with the dead child's entire body being removed as one piece (except the brain), and it is a much larger piece than in D&C abortions.

It appears that it is you who are weak on the medical facts.

Abortion 'doctors' advertise heavily to maximize their business, which is a highly profitable one.

Liberals on these forums have refused to admit that things such as terrorism and cannibalism were inherently wrong.

I'm not sure why you have put this word in quotation marks, or who you think you are quoting, but it wasn't me.

Perhaps you should read the posts before you respond.

However, killing the child is not the answer.

Lots of folks would prefer a little neglect if the alternative is that they are dead.

Compared to you who thinks it's ok to kill them, I'm doing pretty well.

Okay, I see I missed a lot while I was gone from this thread!

Snood had some good points I thought. So I decided I will try not to talk to the wind anymore.

One comment to Real life:

real life wrote:

Lots of folks would prefer a little neglect if the alternative is that they are dead.

This is what really, really irks me. You seem to believe that any sort of life is better than a choice to abort. Okay. Well, I disagree. Some sorts of life are horrible. Some sorts of life are - well, **** right from the beginning. And there is no need for it.

'A little neglect' is in all actuality something much different than that.

Others may think that adopting out is a noble, selfless deed. I don't. Not at all.
It's no different morally, in my books, from choosing abortion.

Might as well air the entire dirty laundry: Real life, have you ever helped to care for a baby born addicted to cocaine, or something similiar? Yes, these children exist.

Some would be better off never being born. My opinion. A life of suffering - for what? For nothing. Except to calm the nerves of a few weak stomached morally-righteous ****.

I'm sure that is horrifying to you, but I feel the same way about your opinions on this. So let's just say that there is no logical reasoning or way to change each others views via a frigging internet forum.

Like I said before, it is a matter of the heart. You see and live something - your views can change forever.

peace out

Some would be better off never being born. My opinion.

You have alzhiemers.

real life wrote:

Show one medical fact that I've gotten wrong.

It's not the inaccuracy of what you present, it's what's implied by it. Stating that Fetus has it's own unique DNA doesn't give weight to the removal of choice.

I intend to irk you some more then.

1. Since you[/u] think that someone else's[/u] life 'must' be horrible, why does that give you the moral right to kill them?

While you deplore pro-lifers for 'denying a woman's choice', you approve denying the unborn any choice regarding any thing, ever -- including whether they[/u] would choose to live (even if it is in a situation where you[/u] would not prefer to live).

flushd wrote:

Some would be better off never being born. My opinion.

2. Yes, it is your opinion[/i] and you force your opinion on the unborn, whether they would share your opinion or not. Not only your opinion, but your choice for the entire course of their lives -- a short life and a painful, bloody death.

3. Yes, you are 'pro-choice' -- for yourself but not necessarily for everyone.

4. You think abortion and adoption are morally equivalent? Pathetic.

And your solution to crack babies is to kill them.

OK then. Perhaps you can answer the question I posed earlier.

5. If the unborn is simply a piece of property that the woman can do with as she wishes ( that is the position that you advocate, isn't it?), then if the woman chooses to have the baby operated on in utero and maimed, doesn't she have a right to do so?

Or if she chooses to smoke crack and give birth to a helpless addict, isn't she simply exercising her 'choice' as you have defined it?

She is treating the unborn as chattel, just as you advocate should be perfectly legal.

What's wrong with this picture? It's the one you painted.

Yamhill boy awakens after 22 months in coma

YAMHILL, Ore. (AP) - During the 22 months when her young son lay in a Gresham nursing home, trapped in an unexplainable coma, Yamhill resident Carla Rivers turned down offers from prospective buyers of the small, hot-pink motorcycle that he had loved.

"We knew he'd want to ride it again," Rivers said.

And, after two years of visits to his sick bed and prayers from their church and cards from the school friends Devon Rivers left behind when he was sickened with his mysterious illness, the 11-year-old awoke.

Until Oct. 7, 2004, Devon Rivers was an active, happy child, who loved Scouts and sports, school and church, riding his bike and playing with his baby brother, Brakken. He was the kid of kid that when he ran out of things to put together, he took things apart so he could put them together again.

All that changed the day his mother and father rushed him to the emergency room, where doctors made an initial diagnosis of rheumatic fever and prescribed antibiotics.

Five days later, Devon's condition worsened and he started having trouble breathing on his own. On Oct. 17, he lapsed into the coma.

Medics sent samples of Devon's spinal fluid to labs across the country, trying to figure out what was causing his illness. But every test - from West Nile virus to lead poisoning - came back negative.

Doctors guessed he had a viral illness. But they never were able to pinpoint what it was or what had caused it.

Eventually, he was moved to a pediatric nursing care center, where he received daily physical therapy that kept his muscles from atrophying and his joints from locking up.

Yet every time doctors checked on him, they had the same prognosis: Devon was in a persistent vegetative state, and it was doubtful that he would ever recover.

For two years, friends and family members shuttled back and forth between Yamhill and the nursing home, bearing stuff animals and posters, blessings and prayers.

Carla Rivers visited her son at least twice a week, carrying on a one-sided conversation on the assumption that coma victims retain their hearing.

One Friday in late August, she told Devon the family was heading for Utah for a wedding.

As she spoke, she remembered, it seemed as though her son was actually looking at her, and that his breathing seemed different, as if he weren't relying so much on the tracheal tube.

A few days later, the Rivers family got the news: Devon was indeed breathing on his own, a very positive sign.

In the weeks since then, Devon has made a great deal of progress, so much that his parents are hoping he'll soon be able to relearn skills like using a spoon and brushing his teeth.

His parents say it all seems like a "walk on water" miracle.

"We want to know what's going on with him, when he can come home, what more we can expect," Rivers said.

Information from: News-Register



(Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

real life wrote:

I intend to irk you some more then.

1. Since you[/u] think that someone else's[/u] life 'must' be horrible, why does that give you the moral right to kill them?

While you deplore pro-lifers for 'denying a woman's choice', you approve denying the unborn any choice regarding any thing, ever -- including whether they[/u] would choose to live (even if it is in a situation where you[/u] would not prefer to live).

flushd wrote:

Some would be better off never being born. My opinion.

2. Yes, it is your opinion[/i] and you force your opinion on the unborn, whether they would share your opinion or not. Not only your opinion, but your choice for the entire course of their lives -- a short life and a painful, bloody death.

3. Yes, you are 'pro-choice' -- for yourself but not necessarily for everyone.

4. You think abortion and adoption are morally equivalent? Pathetic.

And your solution to crack babies is to kill them.

OK then. Perhaps you can answer the question I posed earlier.

5. If the unborn is simply a piece of property that the woman can do with as she wishes ( that is the position that you advocate, isn't it?), then if the woman chooses to have the baby operated on in utero and maimed, doesn't she have a right to do so?

Or if she chooses to smoke crack and give birth to a helpless addict, isn't she simply exercising her 'choice' as you have defined it?

She is treating the unborn as chattel, just as you advocate should be perfectly legal.

What's wrong with this picture? It's the one you painted.

Hey, I numbered stuff so I can reply and we can keep track of it.

1. It gives me the moral right to abort a fetus growing in my body bc it is my body.

2. Yes, it is my right to choose that if I wish.

3. Right - for myself. Pro-choice assures that others get the chance to decide for themselves. If one chooses to keep her child, that is her choice. If she chooses abortion, that is her choice.

4. Yes, I do think they are morally equivalent. Pathetic? That's your feelings on it - not mine.

5. No, a fetus is not a piece of property. It is a part of a woman's body, heart, and mind - literally! Anything a woman chooses for the fetus she also is choosing for herself, just as any decision about the mother is also a choice for the fetus.

However, a woman is grown and has a fully developed mind, and has been socially 'educated' or 'indoctrinated' or 'cultured' or however you'd like to say it. So she must make the intellectual and moral decisions.

Will all women choose well? Nope.

"if a woman chooses to smoke crack and give birth to a helpless addict, isn't she simply exercising her choice as you have defined it?"

-No, she isn't. A woman still has a basic human responsibility to herself, her body, and the soceity she lives in. Smoking cocaine is an illegal for good reason. It is not within her choice to pump her own body full of illegal drugs, become a drain in soceity, and not be able to care for any children she may bear.

I suppose we could make it illegal to give birth to crack babies - but wait! Smoking cocaine even if you are not pregnant is already a crime!

real life wrote:

Liberals on these forums have refused to admit that things such as terrorism and cannibalism were inherently wrong.

You're kidding me. well if you need some satisfaction, I'll be your first. terrorism and canibalism are inherently wrong.

So if crack was legal, it'd be ok with you?

How 'bout if we change crack to heroin, and make the woman a European, in a locale where heroin use is not criminal?

If the unborn is 'part of the woman's body' (which , medically speaking , it is not, since it has it's own unique DNA) , then doesn't she have the right to do with it anything she wishes?

To be consistent, you'd have to agree that she does.

If not, aren't you denying her choice?