# Proof for the pro abortion crowd



## sitarro (Jan 16, 2007)

More proof for the pro abortion crowd proving that before actual birth those fetuses just aren't human(sarcasm). Go to this site to see the most amazing ultrasound images ever created!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...n_page_id=1799&ct=5&expand=true#StartComments

A crowded womb
By NATASHA PEARLMAN - More by this author »Last updated at 16:12pm on 16th January 2007



A silicone model of fraternal twins - who have their own placenta and amniotic sac


Twins appear to kiss in the womb
Health news
Climate change is making hayfever season arrive early
British scientists find 'superbug cure'
Fertility watchdog accused of 'playing to cameras'
Common cold virus could destroy cancer tumours
Fertility watchdog to rule on chimeras
Read Diane Payne's breast cancer blog
Have your say
Do you think organic food is better for your health?
Yes
No
More polls » 
Boards & chat
I can't stop blushing! 
Join the debate » 
A twin leans over and kisses the cheek of her sister in a heart-warming picture that would not be out of place in any family home.

Yet these siblings are a not even born and the astonishing images have been captured on a new 'four-dimensional' ultrasound scan of the womb.

Gallery
 See the stunning 4D scans
 More Good Health features

The scans are a highly developed form of traditional ultrasound where very high frequency sound waves are used to produce images of what is inside the body.

As with older forms of ultra-sound, sound waves a emitted from a transducer, or probe, which is placed on the mother's abdomen and then moved to 'look at' areas in the uterus. These sound waves bounce back off the foetus, helping to create a 'picture' of the child on a screen.

The new 4D scan us ses the same frequency of sound waves w as in a normal ultrasound. But the sound waves are directed from many more angles, producing a 'real-time' video of the foetus as it moves and allowing scientists to say the images are in four dimensions.

This advanced technology has allowed scientists to capture the development of foetuses like never before, including twins and triplets jostling for space in the womb while grasping each other's hands and even faces.

The images have also allowed scientists to create life-size silicone models and astonishing computer-generated images of the multiple foetuses, some of which are seen in the pictures shown here.

For the first time, it has also been possible to see detailed pictures of 'vanishing twin syndrome' - where a foetus dies and is re-absorbed into the womb, often in the early stages of pregnancy.

Doctors estimate this occurs in 11 per cent of pregnancies. Some scientists have suggested that 'vanishing twin syndrome' occurs because of a lack of nutrients, so the mother's body naturally 'loses' one or more foetus in order to boost the survival of the others.

Scientists have also been able to examine a variety of twin called a 'mirror' twin, which occasionally occurs when embryos split. This means that while one twin is left-handed, the other is right-handed. But in extreme cases it can lead to one twin having its heart on the left, while the sibling has their heart on the right.

London-based obstetrician Professor Stuart Campbell, who is the pioneer of 4D scans in Britain, performed the scans for a National Geographic documentary.

He says: 'It was fascinating to see the babies in more detail than ever before. I was amazed at the detail in the faces - smiles, blinking - and the interaction between multiple foetuses.'

The scans were used to particular effect when charting the progress of the naturally conceived, identical quadruplets of Julie Carles, 38, whose story was revealed exclusively in the Mail last year.

The scans showed the four fetal bodies developing in minute detail - it is even possible to see their eyelids opening - as well as their developmental patterns as they jostle for space in the womb.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 16, 2007)

I predicted before that new ultrasound tech will decimate the pro-abortionists. When I saw my kids on regular ultra sound years ago it brought the whole issue to light for me.


----------



## Merlin (Jan 16, 2007)

Living cells? Yes, definitely. But no more important than a living cell in a wart. (Yet)


----------



## Puddles (Jan 16, 2007)

Pro-abortion?? Talk about spinning, manipulating and being just plain irrational and illogical....I don't think anyone is pro-abortion, try pro-choice or it-doesn't-concern-me-so-I'll-mind-my-own-business spin.

What a woman (especially a woman you have no connection to whatsoever) does with HER body, is not anyone else's business but her's and her partner's...even then, the ultimate decision _should _be HERS.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 16, 2007)

Puddles said:


> Pro-abortion?? Talk about spinning, manipulating and being just plain irrational and illogical....I don't think anyone is pro-abortion, try pro-choice or it-doesn't-concern-me-so-I'll-mind-my-own-business spin.
> 
> What a woman (especially a woman you have no connection to whatsoever) does with HER body, is not anyone else's business but her's and her partner's...even then, the ultimate decision _should _be HERS.



What about the guy who owns 1/2 of the baby? What about the baby? You conveniently forgot them.


----------



## wiggles (Jan 16, 2007)

Puddles said:


> Pro-abortion?? Talk about spinning, manipulating and being just plain irrational and illogical....I don't think anyone is pro-abortion, try pro-choice or it-doesn't-concern-me-so-I'll-mind-my-own-business spin.
> 
> What a woman (especially a woman you have no connection to whatsoever) does with HER body, is not anyone else's business but her's and her partner's...even then, the ultimate decision _should _be HERS.









Can't get enough of 'em.


----------



## Puddles (Jan 16, 2007)

glockmail said:


> What about the guy who owns 1/2 of the baby? What about the baby? You conveniently forgot them.



Owns???  So now people are property?  I didn't realize we can own each other.   

Well if you want to use that draconian mentality, then:
a) it's not baby, it's a fetus
b) while the fetus is in the mother's womb it's HER property, therefore SHE owns it fully
c) when the man can carry a fetus to term and give birth then he owns it


----------



## glockmail (Jan 16, 2007)

Puddles said:


> Owns???  So now people are property?  I didn't realize we can own each other.  ....


  First you claim a fetus is not a human, so I call it property for you (what else would it be). Now to you its a person again. 

At least you are consistently inconsistent.


----------



## Puddles (Jan 16, 2007)

glockmail said:


> First you claim a fetus is not a human, so I call it property for you (what else would it be). Now to you its a person again.
> 
> At least you are consistently inconsistent.



Nice try but you know that's not true.  I made the fetus remark AFTER you said "What about the guy who owns 1/2 of the baby?" to which I then replied how do you own a baby.  Want to try another way to spin it?


----------



## sitarro (Jan 16, 2007)

Puddles said:


> Nice try but you know that's not true.  I made the fetus remark AFTER you said "What about the guy who owns 1/2 of the baby?" to which I then replied how do you own a baby.  Want to try another way to spin it?



Hey puddle,
 Did you bother to look at the ultrasound picture on the site? Are those triplets not babys? Don't they have everything you have? How inconvenient to actually have the technology to see inside the womb to get a better understanding of what the woman has the choice of getting rid of in a way that kills that life. These triplets are not a cancerous growth or a wart, they are little humans. It's the year 2007, when women and soon hopefully men, have a huge variety of ways to prevent a pregnancy from happening and yet you want to continue the draconian act of killing little humans for convenience..... how very caring of you.

Oh by the way, Glock has a very good point.... if the woman decides to have the child the father, whether ever allowed to see the child, will be legally responsible for the cost until said child turns 18.....how very fair of you.

Your arguments are weak at best.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Jan 16, 2007)

Puddles said:


> Pro-abortion?? Talk about spinning, manipulating and being just plain irrational and illogical....I don't think anyone is pro-abortion, try pro-choice or it-doesn't-concern-me-so-I'll-mind-my-own-business spin.
> 
> What a woman (especially a woman you have no connection to whatsoever) does with HER body, is not anyone else's business but her's and her partner's...even then, the ultimate decision _should _be HERS.



Honestly this depends entirely on what you think of the fetus.  If it is a little human then what she chooses effects the entire life of another human.  If you don't think it is human, then you believe it is some other thing that deserves no consideration.

Personally, I still believe we should remove the fetus in an attempt to incubate it ex-utero.  I know fully that most would die at the beginning of this new way.  But it would, in the end as the new science progressed, give actual choice rather than solely the choice to end life or to self-incubate.

Imagine as women could choose whether to carry naturally or to incubate ex-utero...  Imagine the idea that women could have children, like men, without ever leaving work to recuperate or for pregnancy related illness.  They could also choose to give the fetus up for later adoption, all without having to kill the child.  

We would need to open up adoption laws to make it more accessible so that the children would not end up parentless if they are later allowed to incubate fully....

*sigh*

If you honestly understand that other people believe in their souls that these are children, you would also understand that to those who believe that way there is absolutely no excuse to allow their death for convenience in any way.  The whole "It's HER body" thing seems to fail when you think of the slaughter of children.  For those that believe that way, that is what it appears to be.


----------



## manu1959 (Jan 16, 2007)

Puddles said:


> Pro-abortion?? Talk about spinning, manipulating and being just plain irrational and illogical....I don't think anyone is pro-abortion, try pro-choice or it-doesn't-concern-me-so-I'll-mind-my-own-business spin.
> 
> What a woman (especially a woman you have no connection to whatsoever) does with HER body, is not anyone else's business but her's and her partner's...even then, the ultimate decision _should _be HERS.



and the human fetus....


----------



## Puddles (Jan 16, 2007)

sitarro said:


> Hey puddle,
> Did you bother to look at the ultrasound picture on the site? Are those triplets not babys? Don't they have everything you have? How inconvenient to actually have the technology to see inside the womb to get a better understanding of what the woman has the choice of getting rid of in a way that kills that life. These triplets are not a cancerous growth or a wart, they are little humans. It's the year 2007, when women and soon hopefully men, have a huge variety of ways to prevent a pregnancy from happening and yet you want to continue the draconian act of killing little humans for convenience..... how very caring of you.



I never said if I was pro abortion or not...you know why?  Because it doesn't concern me, at least not at this point and if it did, I wouldn't want anyone preaching to me about their _opinions _on the matter.  Another woman getting an abortion IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS and it' s not yours either.  

Why you feel the need to force your opinions on others?


Some food for thought.  All those who are so against abortion (an abortion that doesn't concern you), why you would rather have 2 selfish and unloving parents bring a child into this world?  The chances of that kid being abused or neglected are higher.  Often abused/neglected kids turn to a life of crime or they create dependency on social programs, social programs which you probably don't support or want..or probably have been cut from federal/state funding.  Who will care for these unwanted children?  Isn't our society already over-burden.

"Society does not need more children; but it does need more loved children". - Garret Hardin


----------



## MissileMan (Jan 16, 2007)

no1tovote4 said:


> If you honestly understand that other people believe in their souls that these are children, you would also understand that to those who believe that way there is absolutely no excuse to allow their death for convenience in any way.  The whole "It's HER body" thing seems to fail when you think of the slaughter of children.  For those that believe that way, that is what it appears to be.



I will find it difficult to take these people seriously until they demonstrate more interest in preventing unwanted pregnancies and less interest in trying to impose their sense of sexual morality.

BTW, where are the ultrasounds of these twins from the first trimester?


----------



## Puddles (Jan 16, 2007)

What's also interesting, is that the same people who are 'pro life'  also support the death penalty and lack of gun control...oh the irony


----------



## MissileMan (Jan 16, 2007)

Puddles said:


> What's also interesting, is that the same people who are 'pro life'  also support the death penalty and lack of gun control...oh the irony



Apples and oranges.


----------



## Puddles (Jan 16, 2007)

MissileMan said:


> Apples and oranges.



How?  Instead of killing an unborn baby, you kill a fully developed adult with a life and family?


----------



## wiggles (Jan 16, 2007)

MissileMan said:


> I will find it difficult to take these people seriously until they demonstrate more interest in preventing unwanted pregnancies and less interest in trying to impose their sense of sexual morality.
> 
> BTW, where are the ultrasounds of these twins from the first trimester?



I'm really much more pro-birth control options and common sense sex education than I am pro-abortion. I'd really rather no one ever have an abortion. That doesn't sound like a good time at all. 
And someone who wouldn't mind getting an abortion, who would get one cavalierly, probably shouldn't be a mother anyway.


----------



## manu1959 (Jan 16, 2007)

Puddles said:


> How?  Instead of killing an unborn baby, you kill a fully developed adult with a life and family?



who did the unborn baby kill?

sound like you would prefer to kill the innocent and let the mass murder live


----------



## Puddles (Jan 16, 2007)

manu1959 said:


> who did the unborn baby kill?


That's a very simplistic an naive view on abortion.  Tell me, would YOU be willing to pay for and support the baby once it's born??  I highly doubt it, so why do you feel the right to place judgement on what someone else decides to do with _their _fetus?



> sound like you would prefer to kill the innocent and let the mass murder live



So now you're assuming that all people on death row are mass murders? They couldn't possibly be innocent? 

The point is, you're trying to play 'god' by picking and choosing who gets to live and die.  

Two wrongs don't make a right.   Killing someone out of revenge is never the answer.

On one hand you're trying pretend like you really care about a fetus because it's so valuable and blah, blah but on the other hand you're ready to kill a human because you believe him to be an enemy.  Very logical indeed.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Jan 16, 2007)

MissileMan said:


> I will find it difficult to take these people seriously until they demonstrate more interest in preventing unwanted pregnancies and less interest in trying to impose their sense of sexual morality.
> 
> BTW, where are the ultrasounds of these twins from the first trimester?



Got no clue where the picture is, wasn't my link and isn't my dog to hunt.  

You can "find it difficult" as much as you want.  Not all of those who feel that way push sexual morality.  You can pretend that way to make yourself feel better, but it doesn't change the reality that many feel that way without attempting to force "sexual morality" on others.  Just because those who want to push that morality are the loudest doesn't mean they are the only ones.

Just like those who create violent protest aren't the only people on the left...  Killing lumberjacks isn't the regular action of those who care for the environment.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Jan 16, 2007)

Puddles said:


> What's also interesting, is that the same people who are 'pro life'  also support the death penalty and lack of gun control...oh the irony



I've always found it equally interesting that those who refuse to limit abortion support the life of the convicted...  

You can roll your eyes all you want, but an early-stage human life is about as innocent as you can get.

I'd prefer Supermax Prison for those convicted of that type of thing over death.

And yes, I would be willing to adopt a child to save its life, I have twice adopted a child, one my own nephew and it was to save a life...


----------



## glockmail (Jan 17, 2007)

Puddles said:


> Nice try but you know that's not true.  I made the fetus remark AFTER you said "What about the guy who owns 1/2 of the baby?" to which I then replied how do you own a baby.  Want to try another way to spin it?


 You own a baby by 1) creating it and 2) taking responsibility for it. Now is a fetus a human or not?


----------



## glockmail (Jan 17, 2007)

Puddles said:


> What's also interesting, is that the same people who are 'pro life'  also support the death penalty and lack of gun control...oh the irony



The death penalty and gun ownership by law abiding citizens have both been proven to deter crime and save lives. Abortion have been proven to destroy lives.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 17, 2007)

Puddles said:


> That's a very simplistic an naive view on abortion.  Tell me, would YOU be willing to pay for and support the baby once it's born??  ....


 Its always about money for you Liberals. Isn't it?


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 17, 2007)

glockmail said:


> The death penalty and gun ownership by law abiding citizens have both been proven to deter crime and save lives. Abortion have been proven to destroy lives.


Abortion has also been said to lower the crime rate, by some, at least.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 17, 2007)

Puddles said:


> What's also interesting, is that the same people who are 'pro life'  also support the death penalty and lack of gun control...oh the irony



Absurd.  Your comparisons are completely dishonest.

An unborn human being has done nothing to warrant being murdered except exist.

The death penalty is punishment by law for committing a crime.

A gun is a tool no more or less dangerous than the person who uses it.  The gun doesn't choose anything.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 17, 2007)

The ClayTaurus said:


> Abortion has also been said to lower the crime rate, by some, at least.


 But you have no idea by who and in what context?


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 17, 2007)

glockmail said:


> But you have no idea by who and in what context?


Of course I do. And yes, I understand Bill Bennett's "context."


----------



## Puddles (Jan 17, 2007)

glockmail said:


> You own a baby by 1) creating it and 2) taking responsibility for it. Now is a fetus a human or not?



You're responsible for a baby, you don't own one.  No one has the ability or th right to own anyone...I can't believe you're even arguing this.  Can't you just admit you mis-spoke?



glockmail said:


> The death penalty and gun ownership by law abiding citizens have both been proven to deter crime and save lives. Abortion have been proven to destroy lives.



  

It seems like having to repeat stuff for you, is a theme with you:


> Some food for thought. All those who are so against abortion (an abortion that doesn't concern you), why you would rather have 2 selfish and unloving parents bring a child into this world? *The chances of that kid being abused or neglected are higher. Often abused/neglected kids turn to a life of crime or they create dependency on social programs, social programs which you probably don't support or want..or probably have been cut from federal/state funding. Who will care for these unwanted children?* Isn't our society already over-burden.
> 
> "Society does not need more children; but it does need more loved children". - Garret Hardin



Also, the US is the only "developed" country who still uses capital punishment and has one of the highest crimes...so much for deterring crime and saving lives


----------



## Puddles (Jan 17, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Absurd.  Your comparisons are completely dishonest.
> 
> An unborn human being has done nothing to warrant being murdered except exist.
> 
> ...



You consider it dishonest because you would have to re-evaluate your thinking...your life..everything and then realize you have been lying to yourself, because "pro-life" isn't really about life at all.  

It's about you forcing your way/opinion on to others...it's about power.  If it was really about life, you wouldn't want to kill any human life, regardless for what they have done.  

The worst part is that you're equating a fertilized egg & sperm (majority of abortions are done within the first 3 months) with that of a fully developed human being...you can't even tell the difference.

Lastly, none of you have been able to address what you propose to do with the baby AFTER IT'S BORN...why is that?  Because you care more about getting your way then actually caring for a actual born being.  Ironically, the same baby you 'saved' from abortion, could be sentenced to death row after leading a life of crime because there was no one to love or care for him.

*It's never been about the baby or the fetus for you guys, it's always about exercising power and control over others.*


----------



## glockmail (Jan 17, 2007)

The ClayTaurus said:


> Of course I do. And yes, I understand Bill Bennett's "context."


 Apparently not, as evidenced by your ignorant post.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 17, 2007)

Puddles said:


> [1]You're responsible for a baby, you don't own one.  No one has the ability or th right to own anyone...I can't believe you're even arguing this.  Can't you just admit you mis-spoke?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. In my world I OWN my KIDS and my WIFE. Apparently you have an issue with that mentality, but I aint gonna change, so I suggest that you move on to issue 2.

2. It seems like having to repeat stuff for you: Now is a fetus a human or not?


----------



## Puddles (Jan 17, 2007)

glockmail said:


> 1. In my world I OWN my KIDS and my WIFE. Apparently you have an issue with that mentality, but I aint gonna change, so I suggest that you move on to issue 2.
> ?



Out of curiousity, does your wife and parents OWN you?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jan 17, 2007)

Puddles said:
			
		

> The worst part is that you're equating a fertilized egg & sperm (majority of abortions are done within the first 3 months) with that of a fully developed human being...you can't even tell the difference.



You can hear the heartbeat only 21 days after conception. 
http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,9851,00.html



			
				Puddles said:
			
		

> You're responsible for a baby, you don't own one. No one has the ability or th right to own anyone...I can't believe you're even arguing this. Can't you just admit you mis-spoke?


If, as you said, you believe you're responsible for a baby, then why would you _kill _it?  
Is that what you call _responsibility_?


----------



## Puddles (Jan 17, 2007)

ScreamingEagle said:


> ible for a baby, then why would you _kill _it?
> Is that what you call _responsibility_?




For some people, that _might _be the most responsible for.  For example, 2 selfish people who are incapable of looking after themselves (holding down a job, relationship, home, paying bills, etc), let alone a child, that _may _be the most responsible option for them...the thing is, it is _their _choice not yours, not mine and I don't think anyone is any position to judge anyone else, especially on something so personal as this.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 17, 2007)

Puddles said:


> Out of curiousity, does your wife and parents OWN you?


 Wife does, parents no longer. Now is a fetus a human or not?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jan 17, 2007)

Puddles said:


> For some people, that _might _be the most responsible for.  For example, 2 selfish people who are incapable of looking after themselves (holding down a job, relationship, home, paying bills, etc), let alone a child, that _may _be the most responsible option for them...the thing is, it is _their _choice not yours, not mine and I don't think anyone is any position to judge anyone else, especially on something so personal as this.



Then why not put the baby up for adoption?  Wouldn't that be more responsible?

I thought you were against killing, like with the death penalty.  

And what about the baby's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?


----------



## glockmail (Jan 17, 2007)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Then why not put the baby up for adoption?  Wouldn't that be more responsible?
> 
> I thought you were against killing, like with the death penalty.
> 
> And what about the baby's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?


 Apparently unless the baby is a registered Democrat he don't want it around.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jan 17, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Apparently unless the baby is a registered Democrat he don't want it around.



Yeah, libs find it better to vote using a dead person.


----------



## Puddles (Jan 17, 2007)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Then why not put the baby up for adoption?  Wouldn't that be more responsible?


Why would that be more responsible?  How can you guarantee that the baby will be adopted and not in some state foster care program?  What makes you think that couples who are spending hundreds of thousands on fertility drugs and treatments to have their own baby (own flesh and blood), will pay to adopt a baby who came from god knows where?  Many people think like this unfortunately.



> I thought you were against killing, like with the death penalty.
> 
> And what about the baby's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?



I am but I don't consider aborting an embryo (not a baby) killing.

As I said before, most abortions (90%) occur in the first trimester at which time the fertilized egg & sperm are not a fetus but a blastocyst; a small hollow ball of cells and then a embryo. 

You cannot possibly compare this (embryo): 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




with this 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




They are NOT the some.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 17, 2007)

Puddles said:


> .... Many people think like this unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> ......



No, apparently only cetrain people do, as there is always a shortage of children to adopt, and a long waiting list for hopeful parents.

The only good thing about abortion is that the majority of women who do this are Democras, hence the democrat Party is aborting itself to oblivion.

BTW I'm still waiting for an answer to my question: is a fetus a human or not?


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 17, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Apparently not, as evidenced by your ignorant post.


I disagree, and challenge you to prove otherwise. What did Bill Bennett mean by saying that aborting every black baby in america would lower the crime rate" other than that aborting every black baby in america would lower the crime rate?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jan 17, 2007)

Puddles said:


> Why would that be more responsible?  How can you guarantee that the baby will be adopted and not in some state foster care program?  What makes you think that couples who are spending hundreds of thousands on fertility drugs and treatments to have their own baby (own flesh and blood), will pay to adopt a baby who came from god knows where?  Many people think like this unfortunately.
> 
> I am but I don't consider aborting an embryo (not a baby) killing.
> 
> ...



I believe adoption is more responsible than killing the child.  Why would it not be?  Because you can't _guarantee _a good life for a child?  Hey, is anything in this world really guaranteed?

Obviously you do not think an embryo is a human being.  However, at 22 days it has a beating heart.  At what point do you think it is human?


----------



## glockmail (Jan 17, 2007)

The ClayTaurus said:


> I disagree, and challenge you to prove otherwise. What did Bill Bennett mean by saying that aborting every black baby in america would lower the crime rate" other than that aborting every black baby in america would lower the crime rate?


  You were the one who brought up the issue and don't know 1/2 of it. I'm not surprised. You'll have to listen to that portion of the broadcast in its entirety. I'm not about to waste my time explaining it to you.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 17, 2007)

ScreamingEagle said:


> ...At what point do you think it is human?


 When it votes Democrat.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 17, 2007)

Puddles said:


> You consider it dishonest because you would have to re-evaluate your thinking...your life..everything and then realize you have been lying to yourself, because "pro-life" isn't really about life at all.
> 
> It's about you forcing your way/opinion on to others...it's about power.  If it was really about life, you wouldn't want to kill any human life, regardless for what they have done.
> 
> ...



Nice little rant.  I said your comparisons are dishonest.  Not only dishonest, but irrelevant to the topic of abortion.

Beyond that, you have no clue what I think except what you have assumed.  

An unborn child has NO CHOICE in the decision.  It is made based on the convenience of the host.

A criminal sentenced to death CHOOSES to commit a crime that carries with it the penalty of forfeiture of life.  The criminals actions are conscious choice.  He could choose to not commit the crime and he would not be sentenced to death.

A gun doesn't choose to do anything.  The person who uses it does.  Trying to blame death on the weapon itself is absolutely ridiculous.

If you can't see the difference, it's because you don't want to.

Better a child be raised in an orphanage and have a chance at life than murdered with no chance at all.

Your role-reversal argument ain't selling here.  Just another dishonest argument.  It's all about you pro-choice types wanting to have the power of life or death as it suits your whims or convenience.

So save your little rants for someone who can't see right through them.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 17, 2007)

glockmail said:


> You were the one who brought up the issue and don't know 1/2 of it. I'm not surprised. You'll have to listen to that portion of the broadcast in its entirety. I'm not about to waste my time explaining it to you.


I have. Your refusal to offer anything concrete is telling.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 17, 2007)

Puddles said:


> What's also interesting, is that the same people who are 'pro life'  also support the death penalty and lack of gun control...oh the irony



and I find it interesting that you view the two groups as if there isn't a difference.  Here's a hint, one is innocent and one isn't. See if you can figure out which is which


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 17, 2007)

Puddles said:


> That's a very simplistic an naive view on abortion.  Tell me, would YOU be willing to pay for and support the baby once it's born??  I highly doubt it, so why do you feel the right to place judgement on what someone else decides to do with _their _fetus?



Clear something up for me.  Why is it a fetus in the womb and a baby outside the womb?  Or just hard for you to say baby when it's in the womb?





Puddles said:


> So now you're assuming that all people on death row are mass murders? They couldn't possibly be innocent?



I have enough faith that we get it right. 



Puddles said:


> The point is, you're trying to play 'god' by picking and choosing who gets to live and die.
> 
> Two wrongs don't make a right.   Killing someone out of revenge is never the answer.



It's not revenge, it's ridding society of a burden (there's one parralel to abortion i guess)



Puddles said:


> On one hand you're trying pretend like you really care about a fetus because it's so valuable and blah, blah but on the other hand you're ready to kill a human because you believe him to be an enemy.  Very logical indeed.



Your phrasing speaks volumes.  But it is quite logical one has unlimited potential and is completly innocent, the other has squander their potential and is not innocent.


----------



## Puddles (Jan 17, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Nice little rant.  I said your comparisons are dishonest.  Not only dishonest, but irrelevant to the topic of abortion.
> 
> Beyond that, you have no clue what I think except what you have assumed.


My "little rant" was not geared to you specifically. I used 'you' in general terms and I should've specified that in my post.

You might find my comparison dishonest, that is your choice but from my POV it isn't.



> A criminal sentenced to death CHOOSES to commit a crime that carries with it the penalty of forfeiture of life.  The criminals actions are conscious choice.  He could choose to not commit the crime and he would not be sentenced to death.


That's not the point. It doesn't matter if YOU think he deserves to die because he committed a crime.  The point is that on one hand you pretend you value life (hence you're against abortion) but with the other you are ready to kill a human being (that is actually OUTSIDE THE WOMB)...that's hypocrisy at its worst.



> A gun doesn't choose to do anything.  The person who uses it does.  Trying to blame death on the weapon itself is absolutely ridiculous.


Of course that's ridiculous.  Especially when I never suggested that.  However, guns are intended and used for kill living beings, whether they be human or animals.  Again, you don't value you life if you choose to kill or harm a living being for whatever reason and that's usually what bearing arms implies...that's just my opinion and you can disagree with it until the cows come home....I also don't want to go into this any further as it will derail the topic at hand.




> Better a child be raised in an orphanage and have a chance at life than murdered with no chance at all.





ScreamingEagle said:


> I believe adoption is more responsible than killing the child.  Why would it not be?  Because you can't _guarantee _a good life for a child?  Hey, is anything in this world really guaranteed?
> 
> Obviously you do not think an embryo is a human being.  However, at 22 days it has a beating heart.  At what point do you think it is human?



I'm going to answer these together since I'm going to say the same thing.  I know this line of thinking is not popular or common but just try for one moment if you can open your minds and think about life from a different perspective other than what's been taught to you.

Why is having any kind of life (one of misery, abuse, torture, etc) more important or valuable than having a life of quality?  Why is being born or being alive so important that it should triumph over happiness or quality? 

Who has told us life is so precious and valuable and that is a miracle? Religion?   Our parents?  Media?  Who?

Do you think the millions living in poverty, where every day is a struggle to find food, water and shelter is a miracle and they should be lucky to be alive?  If so,why?  Why should they be lucky?  In the grander scheme of things, what will they have accomplished? 

If each fertilized egg and sperm were meant to live, there would be no miscarriages, no deaths during birth...heck people would live for ever if life was sooooo valuable as we have been fooled into believing.

I know many of you arguing this point also have a strong belief in god.  So tell me, if god and heaven are so wonderful, why fear death so much?  Or is it a fear of meeting your creator?

Sorry I know this is a huge tangent but I believe it all ties into why people are so strong-headed about their stance abortion.

Also, how an embryo be hurt by being aborted when they never felt or knew about it in the first place?   How can you claim to know what a bunch of cells and DNA feels?  It makes absolute no sense.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 17, 2007)

Puddles said:


> > Some food for thought. All those who are so against abortion (an abortion that doesn't concern you), why you would rather have 2 selfish and unloving parents bring a child into this world? The chances of that kid being abused or neglected are higher. Often abused/neglected kids turn to a life of crime or they create dependency on social programs, social programs which you probably don't support or want..or probably have been cut from federal/state funding. Who will care for these unwanted children? Isn't our society already over-burden.
> >
> > "Society does not need more children; but it does need more loved children". - Garret Hardin



The above makes a fatal assumption.  That the path to the future is a straight line and pre-set.  In fact their are an infinite number of paths that lead to it based on peoples choices/environmental circumstance, etc.  You are dooming an innocent essentially because you believe you can predict the future.  Hell, you may even be right in a lot of cases, but where do you draw the line?  You allow an abortion because their life MIGHT not turn out all roses?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 17, 2007)

Puddles said:


> You consider it dishonest because you would have to re-evaluate your thinking...your life..everything and then realize you have been lying to yourself, because "pro-life" isn't really about life at all.
> 
> It's about you forcing your way/opinion on to others...it's about power.  If it was really about life, you wouldn't want to kill any human life, regardless for what they have done.



not true.  Definitions of terms are based often on association.  I would argue the vast majority of people when hearing the word pro-life immediatly think about the abortion debate.  You are the one trying to make it encompass an entirely different debate to substiate your argument.  



Puddles said:


> The worst part is that you're equating a fertilized egg & sperm (majority of abortions are done within the first 3 months) with that of a fully developed human being...you can't even tell the difference.



what about the minority (not performed in first tri-mester) are they human or not?  At what point within those 9 months do you set a point such that it is convenient for your argument.  The fact that you can't tell the difference doesn't mean their isn't one.





Puddles said:


> Lastly, none of you have been able to address what you propose to do with the baby AFTER IT'S BORN...why is that?  Because you care more about getting your way then actually caring for a actual born being.  Ironically, the same baby you 'saved' from abortion, could be sentenced to death row after leading a life of crime because there was no one to love or care for him.



It could also be a nobel prize winner. There are any number of options other than abortion.



Puddles said:


> *It's never been about the baby or the fetus for you guys, it's always about exercising power and control over others.*


[/QUOTE]

an extremely bold (and incorrect) assumption


----------



## sitarro (Jan 17, 2007)

Puddles said:


> For some people, that _might _be the most responsible for.  For example, 2 selfish people who are incapable of looking after themselves (holding down a job, relationship, home, paying bills, etc), let alone a child, that _may _be the most responsible option for them...the thing is, it is _their _choice not yours, not mine and I don't think anyone is any position to judge anyone else, especially on something so personal as this.



Why don't those selfish people use birth control, wouldn't it be cheaper than paying for an abortion and the guilt that follows the mother for the rest of her life? Every woman that I have known that had an abortion regreted it and many became severly depressed. 

People that want to adopt a child are going to Russia, China and if they are a Hollywood idiot, to Africa......obviously there are plenty of good people wanting to adopt.

It is 2007, there just isn't any reason to get pregnant if you don't want to.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 17, 2007)

Puddles said:


> That's not the point. It doesn't matter if YOU think he deserves to die because he committed a crime.  The point is that on one hand you pretend you value life (hence you're against abortion) but with the other you are ready to kill a human being (that is actually OUTSIDE THE WOMB)...that's hypocrisy at its worst.



Why am I required to value all life equally regardless of the choices one has made with their life?  Obviously i value an innocent life full of potential over a murderer or a drug addict.




Puddles said:


> I'm going to answer these together since I'm going to say the same thing.  I know this line of thinking is not popular or common but just try for one moment if you can open your minds and think about life from a different perspective other than what's been taught to you.
> 
> Why is having any kind of life (one of misery, abuse, torture, etc) more important or valuable than having a life of quality?  Why is being born or being alive so important that it should triumph over happiness or quality?
> 
> ...



The answer is simple. No one can predict the future.  Might some people have less 'fun' or even be miserable, starving etc.  you bet, but that is not pre-ordained from birth.  It sounds to people such as myself that you're saying well their life is gonna suck anyway so why have a life at all.

It seems to me that more and more some people have this notion that you are entitled to a worry free life.  You are not entitled to happiness, only the pursuit of it. to answer the early question in this paragraph it not a question of life and how much happiness may be derived from it, but a the snuffing out of an enormous amount of potential based on what you 'think' the outcome may be.  You are certainly right that people born into a poor environment have the deck stacked against them in the happiness dept., but it is also a segement of society where some of the greatest members of it have come...because of their struggle with adversity.


----------



## Puddles (Jan 17, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> The above makes a fatal assumption.  That the path to the future is a straight line and pre-set.  In fact their are an infinite number of paths that lead to it based on peoples choices/environmental circumstance, etc.  You are dooming an innocent essentially because you believe you can predict the future.  Hell, you may even be right in a lot of cases, but where do you draw the line?  You allow an abortion because their life MIGHT not turn out all roses?



That's a really good and valid point and perhaps I'm being too negative.  But ultimately what I'm getting at, is that only the people involved (mother and father) should be making that decision.  It shouldn't be made for them by laws.


----------



## Puddles (Jan 17, 2007)

sitarro said:


> Why don't those selfish people use birth control, wouldn't it be cheaper than paying for an abortion and the guilt that follows the mother for the rest of her life? Every woman that I have known that had an abortion regreted it and many became severly depressed.



In an ideal world one would hope that would be the case.  But we live in place filled stupid people and where mistakes happen...birth control fails, condoms break, men rape women, fathers rape daughters...how can anyone force a woman to give birth to baby when she's totally against it?

As for the guilt, yes she will have to live with that for the rest of her life probably but that would be her issue, not mine or yours...that's part of the consequences of having an abortion (for most).



> People that want to adopt a child are going to Russia, China and if they are a Hollywood idiot, to Africa......obviously there are plenty of good people wanting to adopt.


I think adoptions is easier, faster and cheaper overseas ...probably because corrupt governments profit from it, that's why folks opt to go abroad not because there's a shortage here.  Also, a lot of couples want new boards or babies...not a kids who is like 7.  But you're right, there are good people wanting to adopt, but not enough.



> It is 2007, there just isn't any reason to get pregnant if you don't want to.


I'm pretty sure there's disclaimers on birth control pills and condom packaging that states that it's not 100% effective.


----------



## Puddles (Jan 17, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> not true.  Definitions of terms are based often on association.  I would argue the vast majority of people when hearing the word pro-life immediatly think about the abortion debate.  You are the one trying to make it encompass an entirely different debate to substiate your argument.



So just because one hears the phrase 'pro-life' and thinks of the abortion debate, my argument becomes dishonest?  I don't think that's fair at all.  All scenarios revolve around life.   



> what about the minority (not performed in first tri-mester) are they human or not?  At what point within those 9 months do you set a point such that it is convenient for your argument.  The fact that you can't tell the difference doesn't mean their isn't one.



The minority of abortions performed after the first trimester are usually done for medical reasons, particularly if the woman's life is endanger...even then a lot of women will take the risk.

A lot of you automatically assume that a woman decides on whim to get an abortion.  I'm sure most have a very difficult time with it and it's something they have put a lot of thought into, including weighing all other options.  This is why I'm a huge advocate of respecting others' decisions and mind our own business.



> an extremely bold (and incorrect) assumption



I beg to differ


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 17, 2007)

Puddles said:


> That's a really good and valid point and perhaps I'm being too negative.  But ultimately what I'm getting at, is that only the people involved (mother and father) should be making that decision.  It shouldn't be made for them by laws.



I know I have responded to a lot of different posts by you, but this is my central way of thinking on the issue.  In a certain sense I am even pro-choice.  i do believe you should be able to do whatever you want with your body.  But when you have an abortion you are deciding what happens to your body as well as someone elses and we have all kinds of laws against that, rightfully so.  Someone else who can not speak or defend for themselves.  In every other facett the expectation of parents is they make decisions for their children until they can make their own and that they make the 'best' decisions for the child (key phrase: "for the child" not for themselves). 

I think the rationalization that their life is probably not going to turn out well is a very slippery slope, and besides you are not entitled to a risk free/happy existence in the first place.  In fact if you perserver through it, you will probably be that much better a human being.

My own personal debate is when does life begin within that 9 mos in the womb? When you're endowed with sentience/conscience/soul, whatever?  As soon as the sperm fertalizes the egg?  I can't get myself to go for the last one mainly because it makes the anti-abortion argument tough because logically then there shouldn't even be birth control because one has to admit you're disrupting potential there as well.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 17, 2007)

Puddles said:


> I beg to differ



Fine, but you know nothing about me and my pursuit(lack of) for power.


----------



## manu1959 (Jan 17, 2007)

Puddles said:


> You consider it dishonest because you would have to re-evaluate your thinking...your life..everything and then realize you have been lying to yourself, because "pro-life" isn't really about life at all.
> 
> It's about you forcing your way/opinion on to others...it's about power.  If it was really about life, you wouldn't want to kill any human life, regardless for what they have done.
> 
> ...



it is so ironic that you condem people for this and yet for you it is all about control and power to be able to kill a fetus that has no power or control


----------



## Puddles (Jan 17, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Fine, but you know nothing about me and my pursuit(lack of) for power.



Sometimes people don't realize what really drives them to be so passionate about something, is power and control...and I'm not proposing that's true for you or anyone else, it's just a general observation.


----------



## Puddles (Jan 17, 2007)

manu1959 said:


> it is so ironic that you condem people for this and yet for you it is all about control and power to be able to kill a fetus that has no power or control



LOLOL...actually that's pretty sad if that's what you got from it....but then again some people need to spin things in order for it to fit their agenda or when they are unable to make their argument with some substance.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jan 17, 2007)

Puddles said:
			
		

> Why is having any kind of life (one of misery, abuse, torture, etc) more important or valuable than having a life of quality? Why is being born or being alive so important that it should triumph over happiness or quality?



Of course a life of misery and abuse is not more valuable than a life of quality.  However, without life at all there is no chance for either to happen.  



> Who has told us life is so precious and valuable and that is a miracle? Religion? Our parents? Media? Who?



I don't think anybody needs to _tell _you that your life is precious to you.  Or would it be OK if someone just dropped by today and killed you?  



> Do you think the millions living in poverty, where every day is a struggle to find food, water and shelter is a miracle and they should be lucky to be alive? If so,why? Why should they be lucky? In the grander scheme of things, what will they have accomplished?



Who are you to judge about the lives of others and decide who is lucky or not?  You self-righteous liberals think you have the right to decide about the lives of others and whether they are important or not.  Are you important?  Have you accomplished anything worthwhile enough to allow you to keep on living?  What if others didn't think so?  Think about that.  Somebody could just decide you weren't important enough and kill you.  In America we believe in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness even if we don't have much.  Unfortunately not so for millions and millions of unborn babies with _Roe v. Wade _ on the books.



> I know many of you arguing this point also have a strong belief in god. So tell me, if god and heaven are so wonderful, why fear death so much? Or is it a fear of meeting your creator?



So you don't fear death?  How about we off you today, since you're such a brave, death-defying liberal! 



> Also, how an embryo be hurt by being aborted when they never felt or knew about it in the first place? How can you claim to know what a bunch of cells and DNA feels? It makes absolute no sense.



Guess you've never heard about the "silent scream".  



> Sometimes people don't realize what really drives them to be so passionate about something, is power and control...and I'm not proposing that's true for you or anyone else, it's just a general observation.



Does this mean you are passionate about a woman's CHOICE because she (or her demanding boyfriend) would have the _power and control _over the life and death of a tiny helpless human being?



> LOLOL...actually that's pretty sad if that's what you got from it....but then again some people need to spin things in order for it to fit their agenda or when they are unable to make their argument with some substance.



So why don't you quit _your _spinning and give us some real substantial answers.  Like at exactly what point do you consider an embryo to be a human being worth saving and why.  And do you think a fetus is human or not?


----------



## Gunny (Jan 18, 2007)

Puddles said:


> My "little rant" was not geared to you specifically. I used 'you' in general terms and I should've specified that in my post.
> 
> You might find my comparison dishonest, that is your choice but from my POV it isn't.
> 
> ...



How can you claim to know what an unborn humn being feels?  That works TWO ways, not just yours.

I find the premise of your argument ridiculous.  Life has no value.


----------



## sitarro (Jan 18, 2007)

Puddle,

 Have you ever talked to poor people? I have, I lived near some very poor people living totally on the handouts the government gave them. They weren't suffering, they were actually some of the happiest people I have known. Of course they weren't destitute but they had no real income coming in and three generations were living in the same house.

An interesting experiment for you would be to go to some orphanages and foster homes and do a poll. Ask those kids if they wish that their mother had killed them, would that make them happier. Would their lives be better?


----------



## Puddles (Jan 23, 2007)

Ok I was right...most of you could not or did not want to understand what I was getting at.  For your information, I wasn't saying that a life of misery or misfortune is not a valuable life or one worth living.


----------



## Annie (Jan 23, 2007)

Puddles said:


> Ok I was right...most of you could not or did not want to understand what I was getting at.  For your information, I wasn't saying that a life of misery or misfortune is not a valuable life or one worth living.



So what WERE YOU SAYING?


----------



## glockmail (Jan 23, 2007)

Puddles said:


> Ok I was right...most of you could not or did not want to understand what I was getting at.  For your information, I wasn't saying that a life of misery or misfortune is not a valuable life or one worth living.


 Gee, it seems that the majority here constantly misunderstands you. We must be a bunch of dummies!


----------



## eots (Jan 23, 2007)

101 USES FOR A DEAD (or live) BABY by Olga Fairfax, Ph.D . When I ...101 USES FOR A DEAD (or live) BABY by Olga Fairfax, Ph.D . When I saw the first ad on TV advertising collagen-enriched cosmetics I was speechless. ...
www.skepticfiles.org/mys2/deadbaby.htm 

http://www..skepticfiles.org/mys2/deadbaby.hmt

i searched cosmetic ads after reading this and sure enough i found products that said...contains fetal collagen


----------



## Emmett (Jan 23, 2007)

ever happened to the argument of personal responsibility?

Here is a dumb suggestion. If you don't want to be having to make a decision about rather to have or to kill a baby, don't have unprotected sex!

Now I know this is a complicated answer that COMPLETELY settles the ENTIRE issue of abortion, but I tend to do that at times. I realize it is expecting an awful lot for Democrats to remember to have a condom handy when having sex. Yes I said democrats because basically Republicans do not have abortions. 

Eliminate3 the problem at it's source.

Oh yeah the argument that it takes away from the moment to have to stop AND PUT ON A CONDOM. I know you want to act impulsively, sort of like the way lefties do everything, imppulse! Hmmmmmmmm!


----------



## Hamiltonian (Jan 23, 2007)

eots said:


> 101 USES FOR A DEAD (or live) BABY by Olga Fairfax, Ph.D . When I ...101 USES FOR A DEAD (or live) BABY by Olga Fairfax, Ph.D . When I saw the first ad on TV advertising collagen-enriched cosmetics I was speechless. ...
> www.skepticfiles.org/mys2/deadbaby.htm
> 
> http://www..skepticfiles.org/mys2/deadbaby.hmt
> ...



Where do you think the collagen comes from in the Jello that you eat?  Babies of course


----------



## Shattered (Jan 24, 2007)

Emmett said:


> ever happened to the argument of personal responsibility?
> 
> Here is a dumb suggestion. If you don't want to be having to make a decision about rather to have or to kill a baby, don't have unprotected sex!
> 
> ...




Don't be silly.. Things "just happen", you know.. One should not be held responsible for "accidents", and should not be "forced to change their entire lives because of one  **mistake**"..  Sheesh.  Where's the sympathy and understanding?

(pulls tongue out of cheek and wanders off)


----------



## eots (Jan 24, 2007)

Priests for Life > More Abortion PhotosMore Abortion Photos. The following are photographs of aborted babies, most killed in the second and third ... Click here to See What Abortion Looks Like! ...
www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/ - 9k


----------



## glockmail (Jan 24, 2007)

Those photos are damning evidence to the murderous pro-abortionists out there.


----------



## eots (Jan 24, 2007)

modern day version of the human sacrifice id say...


----------



## Merlin (Jan 24, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Those photos are damning evidence to the murderous pro-abortionists out there.



Wheres the evidence? I didn't see any in the pictures. When the umbilical chord is cut and they start breathing oxygen, then they will be babies, not before.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 24, 2007)

Merlin said:


> Wheres the evidence? I didn't see any in the pictures. When the umbilical chord is cut and they start breathing oxygen, then they will be babies, not before.



Well for one thing neither poster said what they are evidence of.  I guess they're evidence of abortions.  Some may argue that they are evidence of abortionss grotesqueness, but I guess that depends on your definition of grotesque.

One thing i would like cleared up though is why you and other "pro-choicers" insist on making this black and white distinction between what constitutes a baby or not a baby (fetus, sack of cells, etc.).  My opinion is that it's the only way pro-choicers can reationalize the hypocrisy that is "pro-choice".

For the pro-choice argument (I should get to choose what happens to my body) to work the baby/fetus/sack of cells can not be a person because their argument is that a person should get to choose what they want to do with their body.  Logically then if the baby/fetus/sack of cells is a person and an abortion is preformed they have negated their own argument because they have deprived the baby/fetus/sack of cells of the ability to make a choice.

For me it is somewhat a question as to difference over time, meaning how different was that fresh out of the womb baby a minute ago when it was in the womb? Not very.  Personally I don't know exactley where that line is where a bunch of cells becomes of conscious person.  I am fairly certain however that this transformation is not an instantaneous one that occurs the momnent before the baby was out of the womb.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 24, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Well for one thing neither poster said what they are evidence of.  I guess they're evidence of abortions.  ....


They are evidence of murder.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 24, 2007)

Merlin said:


> Wheres the evidence? I didn't see any in the pictures. When the umbilical chord is cut and they start breathing oxygen, then they will be babies, not before.




So if you are on life support then I can kill you and I won't be prosecuted for murder?


----------



## sitarro (Jan 24, 2007)

Merlin said:


> Wheres the evidence? I didn't see any in the pictures. When the umbilical chord is cut and they start breathing oxygen, then they will be babies, not before.



That is about as silly as anything I have ever read on this board. Did you look at the pictures Merlin? Or did you refuse to in an attempt to keep from coming to the realization just what an abortion is.

 I find it amazing that the assholes that perform this "service" could possibly have the word Doctor before their name, they are much closer to Nazis as far as I'm concerned. It is 2007, there is absolutely no reason that this should be performed as a convenience for the incubator that carries the child, I refuse to call someone that could consider this a mother. I am incredibly shocked that any woman could look at these pictures and proudly proclaim it's her choice. SICK!


----------



## eots (Jan 24, 2007)

Merlin said:


> Wheres the evidence? I didn't see any in the pictures. When the umbilical chord is cut and they start breathing oxygen, then they will be babies, not before.



the article i posted says over the last 10 yrs there have been 15 baby's that survived the procedure living for up to 6 hours


----------



## Merlin (Jan 24, 2007)

sitarro said:


> That is about as silly as anything I have ever read on this board. Did you look at the pictures Merlin? Or did you refuse to in an attempt to keep from coming to the realization just what an abortion is.
> 
> I find it amazing that the assholes that perform this "service" could possibly have the word Doctor before their name, they are much closer to Nazis as far as I'm concerned. It is 2007, there is absolutely no reason that this should be performed as a convenience for the incubator that carries the child, I refuse to call someone that could consider this a mother. I am incredibly shocked that any woman could look at these pictures and proudly proclaim it's her choice. SICK!



Yes, I looked at the pictures and saw many of them just like it. As far as I'm concerned they could pull the fetus out, knock it in the head, cut the chord and put it in the garbage can. Once they let it start breathing, it becomes a person and if killed, put the killer in the electric chair and turn the juice on.


----------



## eots (Jan 24, 2007)

Merlin said:


> Yes, I looked at the pictures and saw many of them just like it. As far as I'm concerned they could pull the fetus out, knock it in the head, cut the chord and put it in the garbage can. Once they let it start breathing, it becomes a person and if killed, put the killer in the electric chair and turn the juice on.





Late-Term Babies Born Alive after Abortions Are Left to Die in Canadian Hospitals

By Liz Townsend

Several Canadian hospitals routinely abort late-term unborn babies or leave them to die if they are born alive during the procedure, according to press reports. The discovery of this practice has led to a firestorm of controversy across the country.
Articles about the babies' deaths in one Alberta hospital has led to reports of similar late-term abortions and subsequent live births in another Alberta hospital and in British Columbia. There are no national laws in Canada protecting unborn babies from abortion at any stage, but it is illegal to cause a baby's death during labor or after birth, according to Alberta Report. Police in Calgary, Alberta, have launched an investigation to determine if laws were broken there, the Toronto Globe and Mail reported.

These late-term abortions are usually performed by artificially inducing labor with drugs, which cause the baby to be expelled whole from the uterus. Most of the time, the babies die before being delivered, but not always.

In British Columbia, at least 16 babies have survived late-term abortions since 1995, all dying within six hours after birth, according to figures released by the province's chief coroner. Most of these occurred at B.C. Women's Hospital in Vancouver, the B.C. Catholic reported.

Again, officials claimed the abortions were all done for "genetic reasons," according to the Catholic. Chief Coroner Larry Campbell said his office would not conduct investigations into the deaths, insisting he could only "investigate death if unexpected," the Catholic reported.

Edmonton, Alberta's Royal Alexandra Hospital also performs such late-term abortions. According to the Edmonton Journal, hospital communications manager Donna Angus "did not know how many late-stage abortions are done but she did confirm some aborted fetuses live for short periods after birth is induced."

The most detailed information about these late-term abortions came from nurses in Calgary's Alberta Foothills Hospital, who were forced to assist in the abortions and to stand idly by while the newborn babies slowly perished without medical treatment. The nurses told their story to journalist Marnie Ko of Alberta Report under a promise of anonymity to protect their jobs.

One nurse, referred to as "Catherine," told of a baby who survived an abortion last August, five weeks before the mother's due date. "The mother didn't want the baby, so we took turns rocking and holding it for 12 hours until it finally died," she said, according to Alberta Report. "Nurses were only allowed to comfort the suffering infant, but this did not even include feedings."

Nurse "Sanders" told of an 18-week-old unborn baby diagnosed with "a chromosomal problem" who was born alive after an abortion earlier this year. "While the mother cried, the baby was trying to breathe, slowly taking in air, struggling for each breath," she told Alberta Report. "She suffered for 30 minutes."

The nurses said that in March the hospital placed women receiving late-term abortions in the same ward as new mothers, ordering the nurses who previously cared for mothers and newborn babies to also assist in abortions, according to Alberta Report. Although Norma Kirkham, senior operating officer of Alberta Foothills Hospital, told Ko that "every effort is made to allow nurses to get out of [abortions]," the nurses disagreed.


----------



## eots (Jan 24, 2007)

. 
Signatures: 3,914 
Goal: 25,000 
Deadline: 11-5-2004 
See Full Petition 
Email this Petition 
November 5, 2003 was a dark day for pro-choice America. President Bush became the first president to criminalize an abortion procedure since Roe vs. Wade established a woman's constitutional right to a safe and legal abortion in 1973. 

 This late-term abortion ban is just the first piece of legislation in Bush's anti-woman, anti-choice agenda. The real goal of this Administration is to chip away at Roe vs. Wade, one bill at a time, until it is completely overturned and we are once again living in the dark ages of illegal, botched abortions. 

But we live in the 21st century, and we will not go back! 



oh where gong back to the dark ages and beyond back to the days of ritual child sacrafice....becaue most of the time thats what it is, concerns over money ,possessions and prestige and for these things a life is sacraficed
rather than sacrafice 9 months of ones life t give a lifetime to someone else
can you imagine a hell more real than these baby's that survive the procedure to come into this world with no love  scared .hurt in pain grievously wounded
left alone for 5hrs  struggling clinging desperately to....life


----------



## glockmail (Jan 25, 2007)

Merlin said:


> Yes, I looked at the pictures and saw many of them just like it. As far as I'm concerned they could pull the fetus out, knock it in the head, cut the chord and put it in the garbage can. Once they let it start breathing, it becomes a person and if killed, put the killer in the electric chair and turn the juice on.


 Stated like a true Nazi. I'm still waiting for a response to post 80.


----------



## Merlin (Jan 25, 2007)

glockmail said:


> So if you are on life support then I can kill you and I won't be prosecuted for murder?



To answer this question, "YES, AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE STOMACH FOR IT, AT LEAST BRING ME A GUN"!!!! And if you like, you can stand there and watch. Quantity of life don't make diddley squat. Its quality. People put too much emphasis on life. If my Mom would have aborted me I wouldn't have known anything about it.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 25, 2007)

Merlin said:


> To answer this question, "YES, AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE STOMACH FOR IT, AT LEAST BRING ME A GUN"!!!! And if you like, you can stand there and watch. Quantity of life don't make diddley squat. Its quality. People put too much emphasis on life. If my Mom would have aborted me I wouldn't have known anything about it.


1. We disagree on the quality of life issue because I feel that the person who's life it is should make that choice.
2. But what I'm really interested in is that if someone is on life support that is no indication by itself that when they get off and through re-hab they will go back to normal work and play. This is the correct analogy to the fetus about to be born. So with that I ask you again, if you were on life support with an excellent prognosis and I shot you through the brain, should I be prosecuted for your murder?


----------



## Merlin (Jan 25, 2007)

glockmail said:


> 1. We disagree on the quality of life issue because I feel that the person who's life it is should make that choice.
> 2. But what I'm really interested in is that if someone is on life support that is no indication by itself that when they get off and through re-hab they will go back to normal work and play. This is the correct analogy to the fetus about to be born. So with that I ask you again, if you were on life support with an excellent prognosis and I shot you through the brain, should I be prosecuted for your murder?



I'll try to answer that as best as I can, but I don't think I can be as objective as an outsider looking in. I need a new heart but I am not a candidate for it for a couple of reasons. First one is a berth defect of abnormally small arteries. I was sent home to die twice, the first time in 1998. At that time the claim was that stints wouldn't help and would kill me trying to get it in because they were larger than my arteries. (that has since changed and I am full of them) I told the Dr. to try anyway because if he didn't, I would probably wind up doing something myself. He finally agreed and my family said all our goodbyes and they wheeled me in. I woke up and the Dr. told me that the stints slid right thru the grease. Another reason I'm not a candidate is, I smoke and have for 62 years and I'm sure not going to quit now. And I don't care what the prognosis is, I'm "NOT" going on life support, period. Yes, if you killed me, you would probably be prosecuted for murder, all though I wouldn't want you to be. I quit hunting years ago because I don't want to kill anything. I even quit butchering my own hogs because it got to where it bothered me. I now buy my lard from another source. To reiterate, I don't think a fetus is a living, viable human being until it draws it's first breadth. Then it is as much alive as anything ever born and I would try to protect it as much as I would anything else on this earth. That is my opinion and it is unchangeable and non negotiable.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 25, 2007)

Merlin said:


> I'll try to answer that as best as I can, but I don't think I can be as objective as an outsider looking in. I need a new heart but I am not a candidate for it for a couple of reasons. First one is a berth defect of abnormally small arteries. I was sent home to die twice, the first time in 1998. At that time the claim was that stints wouldn't help and would kill me trying to get it in because they were larger than my arteries. (that has since changed and I am full of them) I told the Dr. to try anyway because if he didn't, I would probably wind up doing something myself. He finally agreed and my family said all our goodbyes and they wheeled me in. I woke up and the Dr. told me that the stints slid right thru the grease. Another reason I'm not a candidate is, I smoke and have for 62 years and I'm sure not going to quit now. And I don't care what the prognosis is, I'm "NOT" going on life support, period. Yes, if you killed me, you would probably be prosecuted for murder, all though I wouldn't want you to be. I quit hunting years ago because I don't want to kill anything. I even quit butchering my own hogs because it got to where it bothered me. I now buy my lard from another source. To reiterate, I don't think a fetus is a living, viable human being until it draws it's first breadth. Then it is as much alive as anything ever born and I would try to protect it as much as I would anything else on this earth. That is my opinion and it is unchangeable and non negotiable.



Well I'm sorry for your poor health but if you started smoking when you were 15 that makes you 77 which is a long life, especially with someone with a congenital defect. I think that you understand that you would be in much better health if it wasnt for your choices on smoking and diet. And that's good too because that's about personal responsibility, a concept that I push for vehemently here and in real life.

Correct me if Im wrong, but your position is if you go on life support- with an excellent prognosis- and I kill you then, I would be prosecuted legally, although you would not want me to be prosecuted. In other words, I should be allowed to make the choice that you should live or die solely because you cannot breathe on your own at the moment that I pull the trigger. Am I correct?

Also based on your last sentence am I correct that you consider yourself closed- minded?


----------



## sitarro (Jan 25, 2007)

Merlin said:


> I'll try to answer that as best as I can, but I don't think I can be as objective as an outsider looking in. I need a new heart but I am not a candidate for it for a couple of reasons. First one is a berth defect of abnormally small arteries. I was sent home to die twice, the first time in 1998. At that time the claim was that stints wouldn't help and would kill me trying to get it in because they were larger than my arteries. (that has since changed and I am full of them) I told the Dr. to try anyway because if he didn't, I would probably wind up doing something myself. He finally agreed and my family said all our goodbyes and they wheeled me in. I woke up and the Dr. told me that the stints slid right thru the grease. Another reason I'm not a candidate is, I smoke and have for 62 years and I'm sure not going to quit now. And I don't care what the prognosis is, I'm "NOT" going on life support, period. Yes, if you killed me, you would probably be prosecuted for murder, all though I wouldn't want you to be. I quit hunting years ago because I don't want to kill anything. I even quit butchering my own hogs because it got to where it bothered me. I now buy my lard from another source. To reiterate, I don't think a fetus is a living, viable human being until it draws it's first breadth. Then it is as much alive as anything ever born and I would try to protect it as much as I would anything else on this earth. That is my opinion and it is unchangeable and non negotiable.



Sorry about your health problems Merlin, just having to deal with the health care industry is torture in itself, hopefully you are as comfortable as possible. 

I don't understand your views on the unborn( kind of a silly term since a human being is a human being at all stages of it's life). Do you really believe that because a child in the womb breaths in a different way than the child a second later that comes through the birth canal and breathes it's first breath of air(polluted as it is) , it makes it less than human? What is it? It looks like a human, acts like a human.... you don't think it's a fish do you.


----------



## Merlin (Jan 25, 2007)

sitarro said:


> Sorry about your health problems Merlin, just having to deal with the health care industry is torture in itself, hopefully you are as comfortable as possible.
> 
> I don't understand your views on the unborn( kind of a silly term since a human being is a human being at all stages of it's life). Do you really believe that because a child in the womb breaths in a different way than the child a second later that comes through the birth canal and breathes it's first breath of air(polluted as it is) , it makes it less than human? What is it? It looks like a human, acts like a human.... you don't think it's a fish do you.



Thank you. You summed up my feelings pretty good. I believe it is just living cells until it breaths own it's own, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Merlin (Jan 25, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Well I'm sorry for your poor health but if you started smoking when you were 15 that makes you 77 which is a long life, especially with someone with a congenital defect. I think that you understand that you would be in much better health if it wasnt for your choices on smoking and diet. And that's good too because that's about personal responsibility, a concept that I push for vehemently here and in real life.
> 
> Correct me if Im wrong, but your position is if you go on life support- with an excellent prognosis- and I kill you then, I would be prosecuted legally, although you would not want me to be prosecuted. In other words, I should be allowed to make the choice that you should live or die solely because you cannot breathe on your own at the moment that I pull the trigger. Am I correct?
> 
> Also based on your last sentence am I correct that you consider yourself closed- minded?



That is everything in a nutshell, all wrapped up pretty. But I hope I make my own decision to die when I refuse to go on life support. My orders are on file everywhere I have medical attention of no life support and "Do Not Resuscitate". Yes, I am very closed minded on this subject. (and a few more that is very controversial)


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 25, 2007)

Merlin said:


> Yes, I am very closed minded on this subject. (and a few more that is very controversial)



That is a very strange thing to admit to.  To know that you are close minded implies that you are more interested in maintaining a belief (whether true or not) than finding the truth itself.  Extended to the abortion debate, if it were found to be unequivocably true that a person is a person even if in the womb you would not want to know, lest you be forced into quite the paradox.


----------



## Merlin (Jan 26, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> That is a very strange thing to admit to.  To know that you are close minded implies that you are more interested in maintaining a belief (whether true or not) than finding the truth itself.  Extended to the abortion debate, if it were found to be unequivocably true that a person is a person even if in the womb you would not want to know, lest you be forced into quite the paradox.



That is so close to the truth that you win the prize money.


----------



## T-Bor (Jan 30, 2007)

Abortions a good thing. Overpopulation is a bad thing.  Keep using those coat hangers ladies.  T-bor out.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 30, 2007)

T-Bor said:


> Abortions a good thing. Overpopulation is a bad thing.  Keep using those coat hangers ladies.  T-bor out.


  Too bad your Mum didn't think that way.


----------



## Darwins Friend (Jan 30, 2007)

One can only wonder how long it will be before young males are convicted for self-pleasing and wasting their seed.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 31, 2007)

Darwins Friend said:


> One can only wonder how long it will be before young males are convicted for self-pleasing and wasting their seed.


  You must have yours stored up in a drum?


----------



## Darwins Friend (Jan 31, 2007)

glockmail said:


> You must have yours stored up in a drum?



Yes, but at 76 - it's a very small drum.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 31, 2007)

Darwins Friend said:


> Yes, but at 76 - it's a very small drum.


 If you had started when you were 13 you would have had a nice, big one!


----------



## Darwins Friend (Jan 31, 2007)

glockmail said:


> If you had started when you were 13 you would have had a nice, big one!



 

Yeah - guess that's true, but all that comes out now is dust.  It's sad when the evidence of your love life can be cleaned up with a Swiffer.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 31, 2007)

Before this I only heard of farting dust.


----------



## Darwins Friend (Feb 1, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Before this I only heard of farting dust.



I have many talents.


----------



## Jimmyeatworld (Feb 1, 2007)

glockmail said:


> You must have yours stored up in a drum?



....ewwwwwww.


----------



## Jimmyeatworld (Feb 1, 2007)

Darwins Friend said:


> One can only wonder how long it will be before young males are convicted for self-pleasing and wasting their seed.



One could only wonder how someone could come to that conclusion. With no egg, the seed doesn't create anything.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 1, 2007)

Jimmyeatworld said:


> One could only wonder how someone could come to that conclusion. With no egg, the seed doesn't create anything.



and vis versa


----------



## Hamiltonian (Feb 1, 2007)

Jimmyeatworld said:


> One could only wonder how someone could come to that conclusion. With no egg, the seed doesn't create anything.



Perhaps he is asking where does life begin?  Does a fertilized embryo that can't possibly develop into a baby because of a structural defect count as a human life?  This comes into play more when talking about stem cells than abortion though.  



			
				Bern80 said:
			
		

> and vis versa


There are some caveats actually.  There is proof of concept of somatic cell nuclear transfer, where the DNA in an egg is replaced by DNA from a cell in the body.  This can lead to possibilities like therapeutic drug treatments, organs grown in a dish, or reproductively cloned human beings.


----------



## Darwins Friend (Feb 1, 2007)

No, actually - I wasnt asking anything.  It was an attempt at humor.  Young boys wanking - the church condemning them to burning in Hell for Eternity?  You know - men getting blamed for everything?


----------



## glockmail (Feb 1, 2007)

Darwins Friend said:


> No, actually - I wasnt asking anything.  It was an attempt at humor.  Young boys wanking - the church condemning them to burning in Hell for Eternity?  You know - men getting blamed for everything?



Oh, cum now. A rabid Liberal like yourself is much more cerebral than that. You must be confused at what you really meant.


----------



## Darwins Friend (Feb 3, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Oh, cum now. A rabid Liberal like yourself is much more cerebral than that. You must be confused at what you really meant.



BAHHHAAAAAHAAAHHAAAA!!!


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Feb 3, 2007)

Puddles said:


> Pro-abortion?? Talk about spinning, manipulating and being just plain irrational and illogical....I don't think anyone is pro-abortion, try pro-choice or it-doesn't-concern-me-so-I'll-mind-my-own-business spin.
> 
> What a woman (especially a woman you have no connection to whatsoever) does with HER body, is not anyone else's business but her's and her partner's...even then, the ultimate decision _should _be HERS.



If its part of her body, then why can a person be charged for manslaughter or murder if one causes that part of her body to cease to exist? Can I be charged for murder if I cut her hands off?


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Feb 3, 2007)

Merlin said:


> Living cells? Yes, definitely. But no more important than a living cell in a wart. (Yet)



AHhh, cmon, you're beyond that silly arguement by now arent you?

Warts dont have a seperate and unique DNA, and respitory system from the body its attatched to.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Feb 3, 2007)

Puddles said:


> I never said if I was pro abortion or not...you know why?  Because it doesn't concern me, at least not at this point and if it did, I wouldn't want anyone preaching to me about their _opinions _on the matter.  Another woman getting an abortion IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS and it' s not yours either.



Yea, same concept was used during the halocaust.

And the irony is that pro abortionists defend one who is guilty of murder, and wish to condemn to death those who are innocent and guilty of nothing.

Missle man, so, are you saying that people shouldnt be opposed to murder unless they are willing to rectify the situation that is causing a person to consider murdering another?


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Feb 3, 2007)

Originally Posted by glockmail  
So if you are on life support then I can kill you and I won't be prosecuted for murder?



Merlin said:


> To answer this question, "YES, AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE STOMACH FOR IT, AT LEAST BRING ME A GUN"!!!! And if you like, you can stand there and watch. Quantity of life don't make diddley squat. Its quality. People put too much emphasis on life. If my Mom would have aborted me I wouldn't have known anything about it.



Actually, the question should include, "so you dont mind if I crush the skull of someone you love who is on life support?"

Fact is, life is not defined by if a person is breathing, but by heart activity or lack of.

If you think quality of life determines if someone should be able to continue to live, then, who decides? Yep, you do speak as a true Nazi.


----------



## MissileMan (Feb 3, 2007)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Missle man, so, are you saying that people shouldnt be opposed to murder unless they are willing to rectify the situation that is causing a person to consider murdering another?



Explain how reducing unwanted pregnancies is NOT the most effective way to prevent abortions.  If those opposed to abortion aren't willing to employ any and all available methods of preventing unwanted pregnancies, IMO it demonstrates that they are more concerned with sexual morality, not preventing abortion.  In such cases, they should just STFU.


----------



## MissileMan (Feb 3, 2007)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Fact is, life is not defined by if a person is breathing, but by heart activity or lack of.



ACTUALLY, it's brain function or lack there of.


----------



## glockmail (Feb 5, 2007)

Puddles said:


> Nice try but you know that's not true.  I made the fetus remark AFTER you said "What about the guy who owns 1/2 of the baby?" to which I then replied how do you own a baby.  Want to try another way to spin it?


  How else should I interpret your post 4?


----------



## glockmail (Feb 5, 2007)

Darwins Friend said:


> BAHHHAAAAAHAAAHHAAAA!!!


 It looks like I've made your day.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Feb 6, 2007)

MissileMan said:


> Explain how reducing unwanted pregnancies is NOT the most effective way to prevent abortions.  If those opposed to abortion aren't willing to employ any and all available methods of preventing unwanted pregnancies, IMO it demonstrates that they are more concerned with sexual morality, not preventing abortion.  In such cases, they should just STFU.



Nice dodge.
The right to vote on an issue should never be dictated by a citizens involvement or lack of, in the issue.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Feb 6, 2007)

MissileMan said:


> ACTUALLY, it's brain function or lack there of.



Nope. Actually, its both, however, we do sometimes see people who are braindead, but their body continues to live. However, if the heart stops, opppps.


----------



## MissileMan (Feb 6, 2007)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Nice dodge.
> The right to vote on an issue should never be dictated by a citizens involvement or lack of, in the issue.



There was no dodge on my part.  I'm still waiting for your explanation.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Feb 7, 2007)

MissileMan said:


> Explain how reducing unwanted pregnancies is NOT the most effective way to prevent abortions. .



Never said it was or wasnt.



MissileMan said:


> If those opposed to abortion aren't willing to employ any and all available methods of preventing unwanted pregnancies, IMO it demonstrates that they are more concerned with sexual morality, not preventing abortion. .



Again, so that means if I oppose murder, then I am responsable for employing any and all available methods fro preventing situations that would cause someone to want to murder somebody?

How does opposistion to abortion make people restrict their sexual immorality?





MissileMan said:


> In such cases, they should just STFU.


----------



## MissileMan (Feb 7, 2007)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Again, so that means if I oppose murder, then I am responsable for employing any and all available methods fro preventing situations that would cause someone to want to murder somebody?



If you truly oppose murder, you shouldn't be opposed to the employment of any legal method available to prevent murders.



LuvRPgrl said:


> How does opposistion to abortion make people restrict their sexual immorality?


I am of course referring to the "abstinence-only sex education" crowd, the very ones who are the most vocal about stopping abortion.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Feb 7, 2007)

MissileMan said:


> If you truly oppose murder, you shouldn't be opposed to the employment of any legal method available to prevent murders..



You didnt answer the question.
Not being opposed to methods to prevent an action is NOT the same as doing any and all things possible to prevent it.
Not being opposed is passive, doing any and all things is assertive.




MissileMan said:


> I am of course referring to the "abstinence-only sex education" crowd, the very ones who are the most vocal about stopping abortion.



so?

Enviormentalists are the most vocal for saving forests,
most vegetarians are enviormentalists. Therefor enviormentalists oppose eating meat. Doesnt correlate.


----------



## MissileMan (Feb 8, 2007)

LuvRPgrl said:


> You didnt answer the question.
> Not being opposed to methods to prevent an action is NOT the same as doing any and all things possible to prevent it.
> Not being opposed is passive, doing any and all things is assertive.



You're being a bit too literal in paraphrasing my argument.  When I said willing to do what ever is necessary to prevent unwanted pregnancies I was referring to sex education and access to birth control.  Since my original wording seems to have clouded my meaning, I'll restate it with greater clarity.

Since preventing unwanted pregnancies would be the most effective method to reduce the number of abortions, those who are opposed to abortion should not oppose anything that would contribute to the reduction of unwanted pregnancies.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Feb 13, 2007)

MissileMan said:


> You're being a bit too literal in paraphrasing my argument.  When I said willing to do what ever is necessary to prevent unwanted pregnancies I was referring to sex education and access to birth control..



Imagine that, I actually interpeted what I THOUGHT you meant was what you actually said. Us conservatives have a habit of doing that, 


MissileMan said:


> Since my original wording seems to have clouded my meaning, I'll restate it with greater clarity..



Thats implying there was any clarity to begin with.




MissileMan said:


> Since preventing unwanted pregnancies would be the most effective method to reduce the number of abortions, those who are opposed to abortion should not oppose anything that would contribute to the reduction of unwanted pregnancies.



Well, you know, some people just happen to think that sex outside marriage is sinful, and they dont think they should do anything to promote that. Yep, those rascally Christians. So, now ,,,,if a Christian thinks sex outside marriage is immoral, and refuse to do anything to promote it, then they are "forcing" their sexual morals on others?

And I will bet you are one of those who is always screaming how Christians dont practice their own Christianity so well themselves.

So, lets sumize,,,if a Christian thinks abortion is immoral, and sex outside marriage is immoral, then:

By refusing to promote sex outside marriage in order to prevent more unwanted pregnancies, that makes them hypocrites and that they really are only trying to force their sexual morality on others?

What you do with your logic is FORCE them to compromise on one of their beliefs.
 On the other hand, the Christians merely say, we believe abortion is immoral, sex outside of marriage is immoral, and that the best way to prevent abortions is not to have sex unless you are married.
That is consistent.

But you call them hypocrites and liars unless they are willing to compromise on one of their beliefs. And, by the way, it is very simple for both of their beliefs to practiced at the same time, while the legal abortion crowd claims to believe in "live and let live", but dont seem to be so willing to bestow the "...let live..." part on unborn children.

And you know, if you want to resort to the pedantric idea that the unborn chld isnt an individual human being, that only lowers your credibility in the scientific, biologic realm.

DNA is the legal and biological method of identifying an individual, and every unborn child has his or her own different  DNA than the mother,  at the moment of conception.


----------



## MissileMan (Feb 13, 2007)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Imagine that, I actually interpeted what I THOUGHT you meant was what you actually said. Us conservatives have a habit of doing that,
> 
> 
> Thats implying there was any clarity to begin with.
> ...



Education in birth control is NOT promoting pre-marital sex any more than education in safe driving is promoting street racing.  It's been proven again and again and again that abstinence-only sex education doesn't work.  The expectation that it can is as unrealistic as the ideology that spawns such nonsense.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Feb 15, 2007)

MissileMan said:


> Education in birth control is NOT promoting pre-marital sex any more than education in safe driving is promoting street racing.  .



Thats an odd analogy coming from you.,

So, it appears that the similarities are: education in birth control = education in safe driving, and pre marital sex = street racing.

I TOTALLY agree.

Street racing is dangerous, selfish, and immoral, 




MissileMan said:


> It's been proven again and again and again that abstinence-only sex education doesn't work.  The expectation that it can is as unrealistic as the ideology that spawns such nonsense.



During a  vast majority of our countries history, pre marital sex was NOT the norm. If we were to get back to where pre marital sex was unusual and rare, then certainly the numbers of abortions would have to decrease dramatically.
  But of course the desire for non marital sex is so strong, that  allowing the killing of innocent unborn children by the millions is a small price to pay, as far as the heartless liberals and feminists are concerned, 

ITs part of the reversal of values, where the created are put above the creator, where animals and the enviorment become more valuable than people.  This all eminates from the delusional minds of liberals, where brutal, vile and evil rapists, torturers and murderers of 7 year old girls, lives are given more value than those of innocent babies who are butchered by abortionists who suck out their brains, then cut off their arms and legs to make removal easier. WHere aborted babies manage to survive, but then, WHILE OUTSIDE THE WOMB, are tossed aside to die, crying, begging for their lives, pleading to the very ones who are suppose to protect and nurture the life of the helpless and innocent, but who in fact torture and kill them instead. Yes, torture, as no anathesia is used, but torturing mass murderers to save the lives of other innocents is inhumane.

Where it is not considered abnormal for a man to be unable to attain an erection when viewing a stripping Angela Jolie, but the guy can become aroused by the thought of another man putting his penis up his ass.

WHere millions of Africans have died because of malaria when the enviormentalists stopped the use of DDT, because their concern for the enviorment was prioritized ahead of the lives of little boys, girls, their mothers and fathers.

Where common sense is non existent inso that the so, soooooooo obvious needs of children to have a mother and father is rejected by the left, who claim a child only needs loving parents, and their gender is irrelvant. WHich also follows from the false concept that there is no differences between men and women.

Where guns are labeled as evil, but the person who used it to murder innocent women and children is considered a product of his enviorment and no more evil than a lion that kills and eats its prey.

Where God is considered evil because He gave us the choice to love or to do evil, and when WE choose evil, God is blamed and reviled instead of the one who is choosing to commit the evil, and then when a person does do something extraordinary, the person and his followers beat their chests declaring what a magnificent person he/she is, look at the great things they have done, all the while refusing to acknowledge that those things were only accomplished because God had given the person the skills, physical and mental to be able to carry it out.


----------



## Hamiltonian (Feb 15, 2007)

LuvRPgrl said:


> During a  vast majority of our countries history, pre marital sex was NOT the norm. If we were to get back to where pre marital sex was unusual and rare, then certainly the numbers of abortions would have to decrease dramatically.
> But of course the desire for non marital sex is so strong, that  allowing the killing of innocent unborn children by the millions is a small price to pay, as far as the heartless liberals and feminists are concerned,



Do you have any sort of proof for this?  I've seen historical data analysis done on the Puritans when they came to America.  They compared the date of birth of the first child of a married couple with their marriage date, and found a surprising result.  This result is that about 1/3 of the babies were born less than nine months after the marriage, which would seem to indicate there was always premarital sex, and it was even rather prevalent in the so "morally righteous" Puritan community.

Now this data was from a textbook which I had so long ago, and no longer own, so I'm unable to cite its source to you.  I was wondering if I could see those statistics you had that asserted the supposedly sexually repressed Puritans did not have prevalent premarital sex.


----------



## MissileMan (Feb 16, 2007)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Thats an odd analogy coming from you.,
> 
> So, it appears that the similarities are: education in birth control = education in safe driving, and pre marital sex = street racing.
> 
> ...



Are you then abandoning the fallacious argument that sex-education promotes pre-marital sex?




LuvRPgrl said:


> During a  vast majority of our countries history, pre marital sex was NOT the norm. If we were to get back to where pre marital sex was unusual and rare, then certainly the numbers of abortions would have to decrease dramatically.



I don't know what planet you live on, but pre-marital sex has never been rare.  What you did see however was pregnancy leading to a quick marriage.  To suggest pre-marital sex is some new-fangled social disorder is ridiculous and baseless.  

You can argue until your head explodes, but you can't refute this fact:  The most effective way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies.  The most effective way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is through effective use of contraception.


----------



## Gurdari (Feb 17, 2007)

One cannot discuss what to do with something inside a woman's body without infringing on her right to sovereignty over her person. 

Any discussion of unborn babies, fetuses, genetic material, cellular masses, unformed life, human potential, etc. are irrelevant until the woman's body is no longer the 'arena'. 

Anything inside my body is nobody else's beeswax. Well, except for those coke-filled condoms I swallowed, those I have to return.


----------



## glockmail (Feb 18, 2007)

Gurdari said:


> One cannot discuss what to do with something inside a woman's body without infringing on her right to sovereignty over her person.
> 
> Any discussion of unborn babies, fetuses, genetic material, cellular masses, unformed life, human potential, etc. are irrelevant until the woman's body is no longer the 'arena'.
> 
> Anything inside my body is nobody else's beeswax. Well, except for those coke-filled condoms I swallowed, those I have to return.



So the man who donated the sperm has no right to the child?


----------



## Gurdari (Feb 18, 2007)

glockmail said:


> So the man who donated the sperm has no right to the child?



Not while it's in someone elses body.


----------



## glockmail (Feb 19, 2007)

Gurdari said:


> Not while it's in someone elses body.


 Like you have no right to your money when its in the bank?


----------



## Gurdari (Feb 19, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Like you have no right to your money when its in the bank?



It does feel that way sometimes...
But if I pulled it out right now, the bank, and my money would be in the same shape. 

I wouldn't be infringing on the bank's rights by taking my money out at any time. Plus... the money is 100% mine, I only keep it in their system. 
Now if a man conceived a child, and lent it to a woman to hold, it would be his right to decide the fate.


----------



## glockmail (Feb 19, 2007)

Gurdari said:


> It does feel that way sometimes...
> But if I pulled it out right now, the bank, and my money would be in the same shape.
> 
> *I wouldn't be infringing on the bank's rights by taking my money out at any time.* Plus... the money is 100% mine, I only keep it in their system.
> Now if a man conceived a child, and lent it to a woman to hold, it would be his right to decide the fate.


  So the man should be able to take out his fetus at any time, right? Or at least his portion. Even if the woman wanted to keep hers.


----------



## Gurdari (Feb 19, 2007)

glockmail said:


> So the man should be able to take out his fetus at any time, right? Or at least his portion. Even if the woman wanted to keep hers.



? I think my example made sense... money was MY property, not mine and the bank's. Pulling money out would do anything to the money, nor would dividing the money into smaller pieces. 

So, it's not HIS fetus, it's all hers - like everything else that's part of her body is hers.


----------



## glockmail (Feb 19, 2007)

Gurdari said:


> ? I think my example made sense... money was MY property, not mine and the bank's. Pulling money out would do anything to the money, nor would dividing the money into smaller pieces.
> 
> So, it's not HIS fetus, it's all hers - like everything else that's part of her body is hers.



But it wouldn't be in there if not for him. So technically he has 1/2 of the rights.


----------



## Gurdari (Feb 19, 2007)

glockmail said:


> But it wouldn't be in there if not for him. So technically he has 1/2 of the rights.



It wouldn't be there if not for him, so because it is entirely part of her body, like everything else that is part of her body, it belongs to her. Technically.

Any part of you that isn't yours?


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Feb 19, 2007)

Gurdari said:


> One cannot discuss what to do with something inside a woman's body without infringing on her right to sovereignty over her person.
> 
> Any discussion of unborn babies, fetuses, genetic material, cellular masses, unformed life, human potential, etc. are irrelevant until the woman's body is no longer the 'arena'.
> 
> Anything inside my body is nobody else's beeswax. Well, except for those coke-filled condoms I swallowed, those I have to return.



Well, thats simply not true. NO rights are unrestricted. When two rights become conflicting, one has to prevail. I think most would agree the right to a persons life trumps any right to sovereignty over her body, which, by the way, I have never read in the Constitution anyways.

People lose their right to sovereignty over their body all the time. If she doesnt want to forfeit that right, dont have sex. If I dont want to forfeit my right to spend my paycheck how I want, then I need to make sure I dont get any women pregnant.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Feb 20, 2007)

MissileMan said:


> Are you then abandoning the fallacious argument that sex-education promotes pre-marital sex?.



How can I abandon something I never stated?






MissileMan said:


> I don't know what planet you live on, but pre-marital sex has never been rare..


I didnt say it was rare. I said it wasnt the norm. You do seem to be ignoring the fact that teens are having sex at younger and younger ages, more often, and having their menstrual cycles start at a much earlier age. Not to mention, more women are waiting til later to get married, or not marry at all. ALL of which lead to more unwanted pregnancies, yet ALL of those are things the liberals support. So, apparently liberals dont support reducing unwanted pregnancies.


MissileMan said:


> What you did see however was pregnancy leading to a quick marriage.  To suggest pre-marital sex is some new-fangled social disorder is ridiculous and baseless.
> 
> You can argue until your head explodes, but you can't refute this fact:  The most effective way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies.  The most effective way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is through effective use of contraception.



WOW,,,not necessarily so. Those are VERY ABSOLUTE statements.


----------



## glockmail (Feb 20, 2007)

Gurdari said:


> It *wouldn't be there if not for him, so because it is entirely part of her body*, like everything else that is part of her body, it belongs to her. Technically.
> 
> Any part of you that isn't yours?



There's a small gap in your logic, I think (in bold). Since the fetus is not of identical makeup of the mother, but the combination of the two people, then it belongs to both people. Unless of course the female did not give the male permission to place sperm in her body (in spite of any inherent risks of getting pregnant.)

As usual, it comes down to a personal responsibility thing.  Conservatives insist that individualstake responsibility for their own actions, while liberals refuse to accept responsibility.


----------



## MissileMan (Feb 20, 2007)

LuvRPgrl said:


> How can I abandon something I never stated?



Check out post 127.





LuvRPgrl said:


> WOW,,,not necessarily so. Those are VERY ABSOLUTE statements.



Because they are ABSOLUTELY true...feel free to refute them though.


----------



## Hamiltonian (Feb 20, 2007)

LuvRPgrl said:


> I didnt say it was rare. I said it wasnt the norm. You do seem to be ignoring the fact that teens are having sex at younger and younger ages, more often, and having their menstrual cycles start at a much earlier age. Not to mention, more women are waiting til later to get married, or not marry at all. ALL of which lead to more unwanted pregnancies, yet ALL of those are things the liberals support. So, apparently liberals dont support reducing unwanted pregnancies.



Do you know why women are marrying later?  The main reason is now that women are considered equal to men.  They are becoming educated at colleges and entering the workforce, which makes it harder for them to find time for marriages.  Do you support forcing women out of the workforce, or do you just expect liberals to support that?

So how do liberals support teens having sex at a younger age?  I've never seen that on any of their talking points.


----------



## Gurdari (Feb 20, 2007)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Well, thats simply not true. NO rights are unrestricted. When two rights become conflicting, one has to prevail.



Yes - the person whose body is the arena of debate in this case. 
The woman's.



LuvRPgrl said:


> I think most would agree the right to a persons life trumps any right to sovereignty over her body, which, by the way, I have never read in the Constitution anyways.



Most? We don't. I think they are one in the same... sovereignty over your own body encompasses your right to life. The Constitution is not the source of all logic, or wisdom, and it has been changed a few times hasn't it?



LuvRPgrl said:


> People lose their right to sovereignty over their body all the time. If she doesnt want to forfeit that right, dont have sex. If I dont want to forfeit my right to spend my paycheck how I want, then I need to make sure I dont get any women pregnant.



People lose that right all the time? When did you lose it?
How does having sex forfeit your rights? 

I haven't forfeited anything.


----------



## sitarro (Feb 20, 2007)

If the father has no rights or responsibility when the baby human is inside the mother, why should he have responsibility once the baby is born? I don't think it is a matter of being able to have it both ways. The father can't force the woman to have an abortion because he can't afford child support. Once again the male and the baby get screwed.

What is amazing is that if a couple gets a puppie together and the woman decided that she can't have a puppie in her life right now, she wants to kill her puppy.......... liberals would have a shit attack.....PETA would organize a protest, the blood suckers from the ACLU would stick their nose in it and she would end up charged with cruelty to animals.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Feb 21, 2007)

sitarro said:


> If the father has no rights or responsibility when the baby human is inside the mother, why should he have responsibility once the baby is born? I don't think it is a matter of being able to have it both ways. The father can't force the woman to have an abortion because he can't afford child support. Once again the male and the baby get screwed.
> 
> What is amazing is that if a couple gets a puppie together and the woman decided that she can't have a puppie in her life right now, she wants to kill her puppy.......... liberals would have a shit attack.....PETA would organize a protest, the blood suckers from the ACLU would stick their nose in it and she would end up charged with cruelty to animals.



The pro abortion crowd has no consistency or logic behind their agenda.
Fact is, they have other agendas which supercede their pro abortion stance, and come into conflict with OTHER aspects of the pro abortion issue but not their own personal aspect of the pro abortion issue.

For example, NOW, which supports women gaining power demand that the woman has the choice, that its part of her body, that only she can decide before and after birth what will happen with the baby. But that comes into conflict with those who want a person who kills the "unborn fetus" to be able to be charged with murder. Now, the unborn is either an individual human or not. As they say, you cant be kinda pregnant, you cant be kinda human.
    SO, if it is an INDIVIDUAL HUMAN, then it can be murder if it is killed. But the problem is that, then it means its NOT part of the womans body, it simply cant be both, and therefore she loses the "complete 100% control and rights of whatever happens to the fetus while in the womb" concept NOW wants.

The pro abortionists never answer all of the questions brought up. They only answer some of them.

So, please, pro choicers, which of the two choices above, would you eliminate? The woman has complete say so because its part of her body? Or, the person who kills the fetus can be charged with murder because it is an individual human being (one cannot be charged for murder if they lop off a persons ear-ask Mike Tyson)?

They also cannot point to a specific time when it becomes an individual human being. Pro lifers do, point of conception. Pro abortionists are all over the map, when the cord is cut, when it breathes air, when its viable in the womb, brain activity starts,

They claim we are hypocrites because many support the death penalty. SO WHAT? Its irrelevant, they resort to that because they have such a weak arguement on the real issue. So what, ok, lets say the pro lifers are hypocrites and wrong about the death penalty, that doesnt change the abortion arguement one bit.
The same goes for the claim we wont adopt the unborn babies. SO WHAT, it doesnt change the arguement against abortion one iota whether they are right or wrong about the adoption issue.

ALL science is continuing to come into the side of pro life. They simply cannot respond to the fact that at conception, the fertlilized egg has its own seperate DNA (which is the legal and biological number one consistent factor in deciding a persons identity) and its own gender. 
         If a scientist took a part of a womans body, any part, her DNA would match, EXCEPT the fetus. 
   No other part of a womans body can be removed and continue to live on its own. 
   No other part of the womans body will show that it is actually male. Yea, oh, that penis growing inside me, oh, its just another part of me. 
    No other part of her body will remove itself permanently within a short period of time, GUARANTEED. 
    No other part of her body has a seperate respiration rate, and the ability to contain and develope diseases and genetic defects without directly affecting the other parts of her body. 
    No other part of her body is completely unregulated and unconnected to her nervous system. 

In science, when deciding if something fits a definition, it depends on how much of it fits the description of other items within that definition. A great example is pluto. Pluto had been defined as a planet because it had more aspects  that fit the definition than didnt. However, recent revelations of Pluto have taken it off that perch. It was always precarious to start with. The extra info tilted it off. If an item has too many aspects that dont fit a defintion, then it is not part of that defining group. A part of a womans body, the fetus simply has too many, and too many MAJOR aspects that dont fit the definition.

IT simply is not part of her body. It is an individual human being, and anyone who argues otherwise is stupid, ignorant, or has their head in the sand and is delusional.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Feb 21, 2007)

MissileMan said:


> Check out post 127..


can you post my actual quote?







MissileMan said:


> Because they are ABSOLUTELY true...feel free to refute them though.


Actually, abstaining from intercourse unless you want a baby, is more likely to assure no unwanted pregnancies, since we all know condoms and all other methods of birth control do not have a 100% success rate.

But aside from that, why is it that a pregnancy being unwanted is enough to justify killing the baby? I have many unwanted bills, can I just toss them?


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Feb 21, 2007)

Gurdari said:


> One cannot discuss what to do with something inside a woman's body without infringing on her right to sovereignty over her person.
> 
> Any discussion of unborn babies, fetuses, genetic material, cellular masses, unformed life, human potential, etc. are irrelevant until the woman's body is no longer the 'arena'.
> 
> Anything inside my body is nobody else's beeswax. Well, except for those coke-filled condoms I swallowed, those I have to return.


So, if I steal some of your diamonds, then I can have them inserted under my skin and you cant do anything to have them retrieved?   Hmmm, thought so...


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Feb 21, 2007)

Hamiltonian said:


> Do you know why women are marrying later?  The main reason is now that women are considered equal to men.  They are becoming educated at colleges and entering the workforce, which makes it harder for them to find time for marriages.  Do you support forcing women out of the workforce, or do you just expect liberals to support that?
> 
> So how do liberals support teens having sex at a younger age?  I've never seen that on any of their talking points.



There are many reasons women are marrying later. Not just the one you state.
"equal to men"??? what exactly does that mean? MOST people dont believe that.
I dont support FORCING them out of the workplace, but I do support those who want a wife who is not in the workforce.

hahahah, liberals dont support teens having sex? Well, they dont do it directly, but indirectly. Kinda like, I dont support people driving cars, I merely build roads. But you will never hear me say people should have the right to drive cars and pollute, you see, I actually build these huge roads for people to walk and bicycle on (rightttttttttt)


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Feb 21, 2007)

Gurdari said:


> Yes - the person whose body is the arena of debate in this case.
> The woman's..


right to sovereignty over ones body is not the same as right to life. People lose their sovereignty all the time (imprisoned) without losing their right to life. Right to life supercedes right to sovereignty.





Gurdari said:


> Most? We don't. I think they are one in the same... sovereignty over your own body encompasses your right to life. The Constitution is not the source of all logic, or wisdom, and it has been changed a few times hasn't it?.


nope, sovereignty is  encompassed BY right to life.
But it is the source of all our laws and rights. So, where is this right to sovereignty in the Constitution?





Gurdari said:


> People lose that right all the time? When did you lose it?
> How does having sex forfeit your rights?
> 
> I haven't forfeited anything.


I ;havent lost it, I didnt say all people lose it, so why do you assume I did?
Men lose that right when they impregnate a woman.
WOman lose it when they are impregnanted by a man.
Sex CAN forfeit that life by creating another life. That life, and its right to life, supercedes the sovereignty right. The two collide while in the womans body.
You have a right to free speech. But people have a right to be protected in public arena. So, your free speech rights collide with the safety in public rights when in a theatre, you are not given the right to yell FIRE ! ALL rights have limitations, none have carte blanche.
Right to life is forfeited when you illegally take anothers life, there are not too many other examples, if any. but that is one.
right to sovereignty is forfeited when anothers right to life will be taken away by enforcing the right to sovereignty.


----------



## glockmail (Feb 21, 2007)

LuvRPgrl said:


> The pro abortion crowd has no consistency or logic behind their agenda.......


I think they do, actually; it's just not part of their stated agenda. 

Like all Liberals, abortionists want less human life on the planet. This explains their support of global warming issues, The UN, ignorance of Islamo-fascism, and hatred of capitalism.


----------



## Gurdari (Feb 21, 2007)

LuvRPgrl said:


> right to sovereignty over ones body is not the same as right to life. People lose their sovereignty all the time (imprisoned) without losing their right to life. Right to life supercedes right to sovereignty.




Not exactly - can we do experiments on prisoners against their will? Can we harvest their organs for medical procedures? They have sovereignty OVER THERE OWN BODY, not general sovereignty...



LuvRPgrl said:


> nope, sovereignty is  encompassed BY right to life.
> But it is the source of all our laws and rights. So, where is this right to sovereignty in the Constitution? .



Again, no. You just stated that prisoners have a right to life (most) but no sovereignty - so how can a right they do NOT have encompass one they do?




LuvRPgrl said:


> I ;havent lost it, I didnt say all people lose it, so why do you assume I did?
> Men lose that right when they impregnate a woman.
> WOman lose it when they are impregnanted by a man.
> Sex CAN forfeit that life by creating another life. That life, and its right to life, supercedes the sovereignty right. The two collide while in the womans body.



Sorry - you have to back this stuff up... somehow... unless they are just opinions, give me some logical reason why the woman's sovereignty is forfeited - that's our real debate here.



LuvRPgrl said:


> You have a right to free speech. But people have a right to be protected in public arena. So, your free speech rights collide with the safety in public rights when in a theatre, you are not given the right to yell FIRE ! ALL rights have limitations, none have carte blanche.
> Right to life is forfeited when you illegally take anothers life, there are not too many other examples, if any. but that is one.
> right to sovereignty is forfeited when anothers right to life will be taken away by enforcing the right to sovereignty.



I agree with the free speech thing, but how does that relate? Either you believe you are the authority over your own body - or you think someone else is. I am the authority over my body...


----------

