Abortion: A Sad Reality

[TemplarKormac]

OK Vernon

The causing harm to the fetus is not in the biological definition so its not a necessity.

But the woman wants the parasitic relationship ended. So your question has been answered.

'nuff said.

You're a mess man, absolutely hilarious. You have no way to argue me, yet you insist on doing so. You're meandering. First, "the fetus is part of her body" then when that was debunked, you said "Rob Ford needs to be aborted!" Now you say "the woman wants this parasitic relationship ended." First, it isn't a relationship, it's a biological process brought on by complex mechanisms and chemical interactions, second, you don't know what the woman wants. So stop acting like you do.

The woman is at an A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N clinic paying $500.00 dollars to have the clump of cells removed but no one at the Clinic knows what the woman wants.

So what are they supposed to do?

A) perform the abortion

or

B) call a member of the American Taliban to change her mind


decisions, decisions, decisions..............

.

You're ranting. Furthermore, your references to me as the "American Taliban" has invalidated your argument. Scientifically speaking, you and are are a clump of cells. Trillions of cells make up our skin, our muscles, our bones, our blood and etc. So, should we be aborted too? Yours is a blatantly idiotic assertion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've simply proven that abortions take another human being's life.

You've haven't proven anything other than your unfailing belief in your own importance.

A fetus is not a human being, it is a potential human being. A lot can happen to a fetus on the way to becoming a human being which is why women have so many miscarriages. There is basis in religion or at law for considering a fetus to be a human being. This is a construct on the part of those who wish to curtail women's freedom to determine her own path in life and make her a slave to her biology.

Those with any intellectual capacity can see that fetal rights are being used by those with an agenda to control women's sexuality. Countries which genuine care about the babies being aborted, don't restrict abortion, they assist women in chosing to carry those babies to term. As a result, they have lower rates of abortion than the US.

The American way is to make it difficult to obtain abortion, but not to provide maternity leave, or to prevent women who become pregnant, from being fired.

1. "You've haven't proven anything other than your unfailing belief in your own importance."
Hmmmm......possibly.


2. "A fetus is not a human being, it is a potential human being."
That's exactly the feeling I have about you.


3. "A lot can happen to a fetus on the way to becoming a human being...."
You mean like running into folk with your attitude....


4. A general and true statement is that a foetus IS a human being unless folks like you have their way.


5. "... those who wish to curtail women's freedom to determine her own path in life and make her a slave to her biology."

Meaning as opposed to savages who want to make sure that she can kill any baby...right up to as it's being born.
Raise your paw.



6. "Countries which genuine care about the babies being aborted, don't restrict abortion, they assist women in chosing (sic) to carry those babies to term."

"Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state as a tool to limit free thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime.. the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts.."
Newspeak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So.....newspeak isn't fictional after all.


7. I'm not a Liberal, so my answer is not to mandate restrictions. It is simply to make the point that the foetus is a human being and abortion is a euphemism for killilng one's son or daughter.

Chris Christie made the point that he changed his view when he say an ultrasound of the baby.
Folks like you should, the same.


There's nothing wrong with you that couldn't be cured with
a little Prozac and a polo mallet.

 

[Contumacious]

You're a mess man, absolutely hilarious. You have no way to argue me, yet you insist on doing so. You're meandering. First, "the fetus is part of her body" then when that was debunked, you said "Rob Ford needs to be aborted!" Now you say "the woman wants this parasitic relationship ended." First, it isn't a relationship, it's a biological process brought on by complex mechanisms and chemical interactions, second, you don't know what the woman wants. So stop acting like you do.

The woman is at an A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N clinic paying $500.00 dollars to have the clump of cells removed but no one at the Clinic knows what the woman wants.

So what are they supposed to do?

A) perform the abortion

or

B) call a member of the American Taliban to change her mind


decisions, decisions, decisions..............

.

You're ranting. Furthermore, your references to me as the "American Taliban" has invalidated your argument. Scientifically speaking, you and are are a clump of cells. Trillions of cells make up our skin, our muscles, our bones, our blood and etc. So, should we be aborted too? Yours is a blatantly idiotic assertion.

Chill out dawg. Quit dissing me.

I understand your frustration.

The Rev. Sun Myung Moon spent many years indoctrinating you. Now you find that it was all bullshit.

Oh well, and so it goes.

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Neurokinin B is the same mechanism used by parasitic nematodes in order to avoid detection by the immune system of their host.

HIV uses the same principle.

Is the woman a criminal for killing parasites and viruses?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

So....your dumb answer is that a human baby is equivalent to a virus?”

By golly you gotit.

I can not believe that some one said earlier that you couldn't handle the truth.


"Here Lies The Pillsbury Dough Boy. He will rise again."

.

.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX7APc7roeQ]Lego smack test - YouTube[/ame]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

.

Can't live outside a woman's body, it's not "life". This is the standard the Court applied in Roe, and it's a pretty good one.

Well, ya got me, I don't know how to respond. A fetus, arms and legs moving, brain functioning, DNA-specific, is not life. I was expecting some kind of spin, but I must admit I wasn't expecting abject denial.

Okay, thanks, nowhere else to take this one.

.

It is not within the purview of the Supreme Court to play King Solomon, and it has wisely and appropriately elected not to do so.

Consequently, the Court has correctly determined that prior to viability, the state lacks the authority to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not.

And, also wisely, the Court left the issue of life to each individual to decide for himself in his own good conscience, free from interference by the state.

As such, the issue is not about life, but the appropriate relationship between government and those governed.

Citizens are at liberty to debate what constitutes life and when human life begins in the context of philosophy and religion. But no court or government enjoys a similar privilege to the extent that it may compel citizens to abide by any determination made.

Therefore, it is not the role of the Supreme Court to solve the problem of abortion, or to decide when life begins, or at what point in development that life might manifest ‘rights,’ the Court’s sole responsibility in this matter is to safeguard the civil liberties of citizens from the unwarranted encroachment of the state, and to leave the task of solving the problem of abortion to the political and democratic process.

 

[Contumacious]

2. "A fetus is not a human being, it is a potential human being."That's exactly the feeling I have about you.

I recognize your debate technique.

The "when losing an argument become incoherent" one.

.

 

[lakeview]

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.

I think you've got this backward. Support for planned parenthood, or any other organization that deals in contraception, indicates a belief that there is a way to avoid pregnancy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Amend the Constitution if you want to criminalize abortion.

 

[JoeB131]

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?

.

Can't live outside a woman's body, it's not "life". This is the standard the Court applied in Roe, and it's a pretty good one.

Well, ya got me, I don't know how to respond. A fetus, arms and legs moving, brain functioning, DNA-specific, is not life. I was expecting some kind of spin, but I must admit I wasn't expecting abject denial.

Okay, thanks, nowhere else to take this one.

.

You can take it for what it is... the legal, medical, scientific and even BIBLICAL interpretation.

 

[JoeB131]

2. "A fetus is not a human being, it is a potential human being."That's exactly the feeling I have about you.

I recognize your debate technique.

The "when losing an argument become incoherent" one.

.

Naw, she's incoherent most of the time....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Amend the Constitution if you want to criminalize abortion.

Rather than the time, expense, and energy to ‘criminalize’ abortion, instead find a way to end the practice.

 

[clevergirl]

Can't live outside a woman's body, it's not "life". This is the standard the Court applied in Roe, and it's a pretty good one.

Well, ya got me, I don't know how to respond. A fetus, arms and legs moving, brain functioning, DNA-specific, is not life. I was expecting some kind of spin, but I must admit I wasn't expecting abject denial.

Okay, thanks, nowhere else to take this one.

.

It is not within the purview of the Supreme Court to play King Solomon, and it has wisely and appropriately elected not to do so.

Consequently, the Court has correctly determined that prior to viability, the state lacks the authority to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not.

And, also wisely, the Court left the issue of life to each individual to decide for himself in his own good conscience, free from interference by the state.

As such, the issue is not about life, but the appropriate relationship between government and those governed.

Citizens are at liberty to debate what constitutes life and when human life begins in the context of philosophy and religion. But no court or government enjoys a similar privilege to the extent that it may compel citizens to abide by any determination made.

Therefore, it is not the role of the Supreme Court to solve the problem of abortion, or to decide when life begins, or at what point in development that life might manifest ‘rights,’ the Court’s sole responsibility in this matter is to safeguard the civil liberties of citizens from the unwarranted encroachment of the state, and to leave the task of solving the problem of abortion to the political and democratic process.

Wrong:

The Court made decisions based on faulty science and faulty law.

The Court argued that the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution grant an individual a right to privacy against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in a "zone of privacy." Thus privacy was granted to a woman's decision to have an abortion. Further, the court ruled that prenatal life was not enough to grant the fetus the protection that "persons" receive under the law, citing the lack of a consensus of when protections were given to fetuses in criminal and civil law. Finally, the decision did not preclude narrower state laws that would stop abortions from being done once the fetus was termed medically viable. This question of viability still remains today though as medical techniques get more advanced the window of viability has increased calling into question this part of the ruling.

Further it is clear that science has allowed a much younger age of viability outside the womb to occur and we now have case law siding with fetal life in criminal and civil law.

It's time to overturn Roe and protect fetal life.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The woman is at an A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N clinic paying $500.00 dollars to have the clump of cells removed but no one at the Clinic knows what the woman wants.

So what are they supposed to do?

A) perform the abortion

or

B) call a member of the American Taliban to change her mind


decisions, decisions, decisions..............

.

You're ranting. Furthermore, your references to me as the "American Taliban" has invalidated your argument. Scientifically speaking, you and are are a clump of cells. Trillions of cells make up our skin, our muscles, our bones, our blood and etc. So, should we be aborted too? Yours is a blatantly idiotic assertion.

Chill out dawg. Quit dissing me.

I understand your frustration.

The Rev. Sun Myung Moon spent many years indoctrinating you. Now you find that it was all bullshit.

Oh well, and so it goes.

.

HA!

I can't help it if you feel 'dissed' by the truth. In that case, you shall be 'dissed' even further.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

I think you've got this backward. Support for planned parenthood, or any other organization that deals in contraception, indicates a belief that there is a way to avoid pregnancy.

If they were teaching abstinence, why do they brag about how many abortions they've performed?

Lame. Perhaps it is you who needs to connect the dots.

 

[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.

Fetuses aren't people. Sorry.

But this is a pretty silly argument. If you could take the fetus out of the woman it's in and put it inside a dumb-ass bible thumping moron who can't mind his own fucking business, then you might have an argument.

It's one thing to say you should take care of a child, it's another to say, YOU MUST take care of this child whether you want to or not.

You see, this is what you guys never get to. Exactly how do you enforce your policy once you make it? Are you going to send pregnant women to jail for having abortions? Or even thinking about having one?

I posted on page 17 a recounting of how the dictator of Romania tried to do exactly that, and failed miserably. Birth rates actually DROPPED.

Saying a fetus is "not people" means what? What is the human fetus? I can tell you that it is a complete human organism- just like you and that would be 100% correct. It is not an adult- it is at the fetal stage- development is the only thing that separates. No different than outside the womb when it is an infant-

Funny thing about language is that abortions used to be call infanticide- but it suits the pro abortionist to call it a fetus. Words however do not change what it is. A completed human being at its earliest stages of development- again a 100% accurate scientific fact.

I note you didn't bother to answers my questions Joe- It's because to do so would show your barbarianism and stupidity laid bare- and even you would have to look at it.

Illegal abortions would be handled the way they always were- we don't pay for them, we don't claim them as a right-

But mostly we make it loud and clear that they are human beings not blobs of cells- they are deserving of the opportunity that loud mouthed assholes such as your self have...the right to live!

 

[Cecilie1200]

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,..

And abortion has nothing to do with the Constitution. You far-left wingnuts need to understand THAT.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

It is? WHY is that the biggest argument, given that, scientifically speaking, this has not been in question for quite some time? Is it, perhaps, because people want to hide from the truth to try to continue justifying doing what they want to do? Or is it just that people on the left are so indoctrinated into being unthinking, uninformed morons that it's completely out of hand now?

FYI, there's no such thing as "compromise" on scientific fact. It either is, or it isn't. Whether or not you think it's "moderate" is irrelevant.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Or a troll sock.

And I will always believe that it is between a woman and her doctor. Period.

Always? So what you're saying is that you're so dogmatic and fanatical on the subject, that you choose to be willfully oblivious to facts, should you encounter any that run contrary to what you want to be true?

THAT'S certainly revealing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

One third of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion or, as it's more commonly known, a miscarriage. If God doesn't believe in abortion, why do women miscarry?

What the hell kind of logic is THIS? People also get struck by lightning, but I'm pretty sure that's not an indication that it's morally correct for me to go around electrocuting people.

FYI, if your belief system requires you to employ THIS as the height of thinking and reason, it's wrong. End of story.

This notion that abortion is murder is a recent invention of right wing zealots. There is no prohibition in the Bible to a woman ending a pregnancy or inducing a miscarriage. In fact, there is a passage on scripture that says if a man harms a woman who is with child and she miscarried, the man shod pay compensation to the child's father, but if the woman should die from the attack, then the man is a murderer and should be punished as such.

This notion that "Biblical times were like THIS, and that's the final word on knowledge, science, and fact; we cannot adjust for anything learned since then . . . if it will contradict whatever it is I want to rationalize" is a recent invention of left-wing zealots. Were there trained obstetricians in Biblical times? Sonograms? Pregnancy tests that were accurate in the first month after conception? No? Then would you mind telling me why people who think the Constitution is obsolete because it's 200 years old suddenly think biology and medicine should bow before Bible-age understandings of pregnancy?

Abortion isn't a matter of convenience. By and large, it's a matter of economics. Half the women who have abortions are married and already have other children, and cannot afford another mouth to feed, or cannot afford time off work to carry and give birth to the new baby.

Ahh, the ever-popular "fuck evidence, statistics, and studies; I'll just state that the world is the way I want it to be, and that'll be enough" argument. The OP is right: why on Earth can't we come to a sensible compromise with such rational opponents?

Only in the minds of right wingers are abortions a matter of convenience. The truth is much sadder.

If the truth you're referring to is your loss of 40 IQ points every time you open your mouth on the subject of abortion, you're at least correct about how sad it is.

 

[Stashman]

Not only do I fully agree with the OP, but I will even take it a bit further. First off God does NOT make mistakes. In a Christian point of view I believe that only God creates a life, so only He can take one. Abortion in any case is wrong, including cases of rape, incest, or death of the mother. God does NOT make mistakes period!