Abortion: A Sad Reality

[PoliticalChic]

The biggest argument over abortion isn't whether or not it's okay to kill a human being. The biggest argument over abortion is at what time "life begins". Those on the far right seem to believe life begins at conception. Those on the far left seem to believe life begins when a fetus can live independently of the mother's womb. What moderates on both sides are doing is trying to come to a compromise as to when it's okay to have an abortion. The loud minority on the left and right are only muddying the water, and creating more division than is needed.

Those on the right want to tell a woman she must have that baby, and then when she does and cannot support it, they call her a welfare leech. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Exactly. I am so sick and tired of seeing some people argue that funding planned parenthood is welfare and then making the argument that welfare is broken because it encourages women to have children. wtf?

I am so sick and tired of seeing some people pretending that there is no way to avoid pregnancy.


C'mon....try hard: bet you can think of several.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Guess what, she throws it out of her body in the first two trimesters-

IT DIES!!!!!!!

Which makes it her body, her choice. Period.

By avoiding the question, I'll assume you have no way to dispute the fact that the baby is clearly not.....as you claimed....'her body.'


This is not about when or if the separate individual can survive. We'll leave up to medical science.

My point....proven....is that she is killing a discrete individual.....a separate entity.





At this point you can choose any of the moral, legal, or political arguments in the thread....

...but the truth is that the most attractive aspect of Liberalism....for many folks....is that you can create a private morality that excuses any behavior.

Including killing a baby for convenience.



My work here is done.

I thought you right wingers were against being mandated to being responsible for others, separate entities? You don't want others leeching off of you against your will, no?

Congrats!


In the race for the most stupid and incoherent post.....I'm won't say you're the clear winner....but, heck, you're right up there!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

At this point you can choose any of the moral, legal, or political arguments in the thread....

...but the truth is that the most attractive aspect of Liberalism....for many folks....is that you can create a private morality that excuses any behavior.

Including killing a baby for convenience.

Right wingers like to pretend that women who have abortions are all liberal, immoral and killing babies for convenience. All of these assumptions ignore the facts which are that most of the women having abortions are not immoral teenagers, but in fact mature adults, the majority of whom are married or in a committed relationship and poor.

They are not "killing babies" out of convenience, they are terminating unintended pregnancies for reasons because their families cannot, under the current economic conditions for the poor in the USA today, afford to carry, bear or raise that child. Current right wing economic policies are not family friendly in any way and there are no plans for changing that situation anytime soon.

Since most right-wingers are not in favour of mandated maternity leave and guarantees that workers can return to their jobs, and believe that employers should have the right to fire a pregnant worker, it is disingenuous of you to claim to care about the children who are lost due to abortion.

I'm tired of this phony, holier than thou attitude on the part of people who don't support family friendly employment practices. Your insincere moral outrage is disgusting.

Could not have said it better. How can you possibly argue with this? (Unless, of course, you want to punish women)

See post #236, brainless.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nope.

Life would indicate viability outside the woman's body.

Which in most cases, is simply not the case, at least not until the third trimester.

Well, I'll give you credit, that's the first time I've gotten an answer to that question.

So, just to be sure, you're saying that a fetus, arms and legs moving, brain functioning, DNA-specific, is not human life.

Is that correct?

.

A fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks.

But it's still not a 'life'?

This is your dimocrap mentality, people. This is why we had to kill over a quarter million of the motherfuckers in the Civil War.

Same mentality. Same, exact mentality. Nee-groes ain't human like you and me. They're property.

That's a bit of irony coming from the poster who just said that the quality of education in this country, state by state, can be measured by the percentage of black people in any given state.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My point....proven....is that she is killing a discrete individual.....a separate entity.

Except that it is not separate. It is attached to her body. If it was separate, it wouldn't need to be attached her via the umbilical cord, would it?

How about handcuffs? That make two people one?


Of course it is a separate being.
Did you want to explain the different fingerprints? DNA? Blood types?



And this: In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.


Makes you look like a dope, doesn't it?

Sperm and egg both have half the chromosomes that the father or mother have; I guess that makes them separate beings.

 

[Beaconoftruth]

Well, I'd say that the reason most people are pro-choice due to practicality. Would the nation be better off with an unwanted population. It's immoral but more-so irresponsible.

Then I noticed this:

The fact of the matter is, those who don't believe in God don't have any morality.

Meh, most atheists are chaotic neutral. In all seriousness though, the majority of fundamentalist pro-lifers are knight Templars that would have no qualms against bombing an "axis of evil" nation (killing many innocents) or electrocuting a criminal. They might brush it off as a necessary evil, but after many conversations with fundamentalist individuals, I can safely say that they believe ANYTHING and EVERYTHING God says is moral and righteous... if taken the wrong way, that is the worst evil... most people that are immoral are offended when their morality is taken into question.

 

[lakeview]

Those on the right want to tell a woman she must have that baby, and then when she does and cannot support it, they call her a welfare leech. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Exactly. I am so sick and tired of seeing some people argue that funding planned parenthood is welfare and then making the argument that welfare is broken because it encourages women to have children. wtf?

I am so sick and tired of seeing some people pretending that there is no way to avoid pregnancy.


C'mon....try hard: bet you can think of several.

Who said there is no way to avoid pregnancy? Link it, quote it, whatever you need to do to show where someone said that.

 

[Dragonlady]

3. " Current right wing economic policies are not family friendly...."
You lying simpleton.
Right wing economic policies are known as 'capitalism.'

"Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=05

I live in a capitalistic country but one which respects families and individuals and requires employers to do the same.

We also respect women enough to allow them the unfettered right to make their own decisions regarding their families. Because of the support of our society, more women chose to have their babies.

We have a country which is pro-family. Families are the foundation and the bedrock of our economy. Americans like to say they support family values but they put capitalism ahead of families every single time.

 

[Jackson]

I really wish people could change their mind on this issue.

We live in america and with that comes a thing called "freedom". The law of the land is the constitution, not the bible. You far right wingnuts need to understand that,..

You are talking superficial politics. Meaningless words like "far right wing nuts" have no context when you are talking about human lives. Do you get that?

The word "morality means nothing to you, but what about

YOUR life. what if you had been aborted, or aborted but saved at the last minute except the arms couldn't be reattached after they were severed. Damn. Hate when that happens. Oh well. Next... No big deal just like all abortions. You could live without arms, couldn''t you?

Now, you are going to say I am a sicko for saying that. What is more sick that taking a life away, but not giving it back?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Exactly. I am so sick and tired of seeing some people argue that funding planned parenthood is welfare and then making the argument that welfare is broken because it encourages women to have children. wtf?

I am so sick and tired of seeing some people pretending that there is no way to avoid pregnancy.


C'mon....try hard: bet you can think of several.

Who said there is no way to avoid pregnancy? Link it, quote it, whatever you need to do to show where someone said that.

It's the implication of support for 'planned parenthood' abortion centers.

Connect the dots.

 

[clevergirl]

The most common age of women seeking abortions are 20 to 24 year old women. Most are unmarried.

From the link you posted:

32% of women seeking abortions were 20 to 24 years of age, 25% were 25 to 29 years old. Only 15% were teenagers. 60% of the women seeking abortions had one of more live children. The figures also said that only 15% of the women were married, but these figures did not differentiate women living in a committed relationship with a partner outside of marriage. Other studies I've seen indicate that more than half of the women seeking abortions are married or living in a committed relationship.

My objection to the use of "convenience" is not because this word makes me uncomfortable, but because it's not true. The pregnancy is not "inconvenient", it puts the children and the family at risk. The risk of losing one's job, home and the ability to provide for your family is not an inconvenience, it's a horror.

Right wingers use the term convenience to make it easier to condemn the woman for making a difficult choice. It's to make YOU feel better about opposing the abortion because it wasn't necessary, it was convenient.

If you really are passionate about wanting to save babies, then make it easier for women to have and care for the children. Don't force them to risk the health and well being of their exisiting families in order to carry the child to term.

You continue to want to ignore the economic realities of the working poor in order to continue to condemn these women for their choice in terminating a pregnancy so YOU make it easy for yourself to ignore the real reasons for their choices.

I repeat: countries with a strong social safety net, mandated maternity leave and job guarantees have much lower abortion rates than the US, even though there are fewer restrictions on abortion than in the US. Obviously women will choose to have babies, if their existing families are not being put at risk by doing so.

Ignoring these facts won't make them go away. Blaming these women for choosing to terminate their pregnancies, and making it more difficult to obtain an abortion, won't change their choices.

What is a medical abortion? It is the deliberate termination of life. Women who seek them are desperate- but many are also just selfish. Speaking of stats- How many women use abortion as a form of birth control?

Here is the stat: More than 97% of ALL abortions happen for the convenience it affords the woman. NO ONE in THIS country is faced with homelessness due to pregnancy. Every state has Free medical; Free Food programs; Free money; Reduced Housing and utilities; Free Cell phones- Free gas cards; Free child care; etc etc etc!

The majority of women are young- very young- THE MAJORITY are young enough to stay on their parents health care plan - I have also seen "studies". Studies can paint stats into puzzles they want to project. I linked the CDC because its black and white numbers.

The right to kill should not be tied to perfect world ideals. Fight for changes, but stop justifying killing human beings merely for the inconvenience of their life VS your circumstances. Adoption IS the best viable alternative not death!

 

[PoliticalChic]

3. " Current right wing economic policies are not family friendly...."
You lying simpleton.
Right wing economic policies are known as 'capitalism.'

"Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=05

I live in a capitalistic country but one which respects families and individuals and requires employers to do the same.

We also respect women enough to allow them the unfettered right to make their own decisions regarding their families. Because of the support of our society, more women chose to have their babies.

We have a country which is pro-family. Families are the foundation and the bedrock of our economy. Americans like to say they support family values but they put capitalism ahead of families every single time.

"....the unfettered right to make their own decisions regarding their families."

They have the right to not get pregnant.


Why didn't you write it this way?
"...the unfettered right to make their own decisions regarding when and which babies they'd like to do away with."




At least Obama admitted an affinity for infanticide.
He appointed Peter Singer as his adviser.
that President Obama appointed Professor Peter Singer as his heathcare advisor.
Peter Singer Joins Obama's Health Care Administrators : I Am Not a Fan of Peter Singer Story & Experience
Peter Singer Joins Obama's Health Care Administrators : I Am Not a Fan of Peter Singer Story & Experience

a. "Singer once wrote, "because people are human does not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals." He not only advocates abortion but also killing disabled babies up to 28 days after they are born. In his book "Practical Ethics," he wrote, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.... Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Often, it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics," Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 191.




C'mon you coward....have the guts to say what you mean, what Peter Singer says.

 

[clevergirl]

Except that it is not separate. It is attached to her body. If it was separate, it wouldn't need to be attached her via the umbilical cord, would it?

How about handcuffs? That make two people one?


Of course it is a separate being.
Did you want to explain the different fingerprints? DNA? Blood types?



And this: In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.


Makes you look like a dope, doesn't it?

Sperm and egg both have half the chromosomes that the father or mother have; I guess that makes them separate beings.

Stupid much?

The fact is that abortion kills a human being at its most vulnerable stage of life- That is scientific fact.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How about handcuffs? That make two people one?


Of course it is a separate being.
Did you want to explain the different fingerprints? DNA? Blood types?



And this: In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.


Makes you look like a dope, doesn't it?

Sperm and egg both have half the chromosomes that the father or mother have; I guess that makes them separate beings.

Stupid much?

The fact is that abortion kills a human being at its most vulnerable stage of life- That is scientific fact.

So what? What's in a name? You name a 2 celled zygote a human being, what does that accomplish?

 

[clevergirl]

[


Joe, is a fetus an innocent human life?

.

Nope.

Life would indicate viability outside the woman's body.

Which in most cases, is simply not the case, at least not until the third trimester.

At what age does a child outside the womb remain "viable" without the need of another human being? 4,5,6?

Up to what age may we kill them for being in need of another for sustenance?

Oh maybe you mean "breathing" on its own- not actual viability-viability- but independent breathing. But that's just silly -every human being goes through the fetal stage and you do know that in this stage you don't breathe... The fetus is exchanging gases and is very viable and capable of doing this. It has set up its own circulatory system to be compatible with its mother's. They both involuntarily, but are scientifically destined to- exchange gases via diffusion.

The fetus becomes viable the moment it attaches to the uterus. At this point the fetal human IS viable- it is alive. Medical abortions can kill it- But location should never be an excuse to kill another human being.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am so sick and tired of seeing some people pretending that there is no way to avoid pregnancy.


C'mon....try hard: bet you can think of several.

Who said there is no way to avoid pregnancy? Link it, quote it, whatever you need to do to show where someone said that.

It's the implication of support for 'planned parenthood' abortion centers.

Connect the dots.

Do you know why countries like France and Germany and the Netherlands have such low abortion rates?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


Joe, is a fetus an innocent human life?

.

Nope.

Life would indicate viability outside the woman's body.

Which in most cases, is simply not the case, at least not until the third trimester.

At what age does a child outside the womb remain "viable" without the need of another human being? 4,5,6?

Up to what age may we kill them for being in need of another for sustenance?

Oh maybe you mean "breathing" on its own- not actual viability-viability- but independent breathing. But that's just silly -every human being goes through the fetal stage and you do know that in this stage you don't breathe... The fetus is exchanging gases and is very viable and capable of doing this. It has set up its own circulatory system to be compatible with its mother's. They both involuntarily, but are scientifically destined to- exchange gases via diffusion.

The fetus becomes viable the moment it attaches to the uterus. At this point the fetal human IS viable- it is alive. Medical abortions can kill it- But location should never be an excuse to kill another human being.

The fact that anti-abortionists cannot even tell the difference between a just fertilized human egg and a 5 year old child is about all you need to know about the intellect of the average anti-abortionist.

 

[clevergirl]

Sperm and egg both have half the chromosomes that the father or mother have; I guess that makes them separate beings.

Stupid much?

The fact is that abortion kills a human being at its most vulnerable stage of life- That is scientific fact.

So what? What's in a name? You name a 2 celled zygote a human being, what does that accomplish?

It is 100% human and it is alive- and after the zygote attaches (3-7) days it becomes a viable human being at the earliest stages of development- You were a small fetus then a bigger fetus,,,and now you are a grown and stupid fetus- If your mother had aborted you- it would not have changed the fact that you were alive and 100% you- she gave you nothing but residence and sustenance once you came into being- she continued to do so until you left home.

Unless you are still living in her basement~

 

[clevergirl]

Nope.

Life would indicate viability outside the woman's body.

Which in most cases, is simply not the case, at least not until the third trimester.

At what age does a child outside the womb remain "viable" without the need of another human being? 4,5,6?

Up to what age may we kill them for being in need of another for sustenance?

Oh maybe you mean "breathing" on its own- not actual viability-viability- but independent breathing. But that's just silly -every human being goes through the fetal stage and you do know that in this stage you don't breathe... The fetus is exchanging gases and is very viable and capable of doing this. It has set up its own circulatory system to be compatible with its mother's. They both involuntarily, but are scientifically destined to- exchange gases via diffusion.

The fetus becomes viable the moment it attaches to the uterus. At this point the fetal human IS viable- it is alive. Medical abortions can kill it- But location should never be an excuse to kill another human being.

The fact that anti-abortionists cannot even tell the difference between a just fertilized human egg and a 5 year old child is about all you need to know about the intellect of the average anti-abortionist.

Apart from development and location- explain the difference scientifically. You are the one who wants to talk viability- I broke it down for you.

Come on gees with the big mouth- explain it

 

[NYcarbineer]

At what age does a child outside the womb remain "viable" without the need of another human being? 4,5,6?

Up to what age may we kill them for being in need of another for sustenance?

Oh maybe you mean "breathing" on its own- not actual viability-viability- but independent breathing. But that's just silly -every human being goes through the fetal stage and you do know that in this stage you don't breathe... The fetus is exchanging gases and is very viable and capable of doing this. It has set up its own circulatory system to be compatible with its mother's. They both involuntarily, but are scientifically destined to- exchange gases via diffusion.

The fetus becomes viable the moment it attaches to the uterus. At this point the fetal human IS viable- it is alive. Medical abortions can kill it- But location should never be an excuse to kill another human being.

The fact that anti-abortionists cannot even tell the difference between a just fertilized human egg and a 5 year old child is about all you need to know about the intellect of the average anti-abortionist.

Apart from development and location- explain the difference scientifically. You are the one who wants to talk viability- I broke it down for you.

Come on gees with the big mouth- explain it

I am not talking about viability. I am talking about whether or not you have the common sense to see and acknowledge that there is a significant material difference between taking a medication that prevents a fertilized human egg from attaching to the uterine wall,

and murdering your five year old child.