Abortion: A Sad Reality

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Abortion: A Sad Reality

What’s a ‘sad reality’ is that there are those on the right who have no desire to end abortion, and perceive it instead as a political weapon.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As a pro-Life'er, in my opinion the only time we should consider terminating the life of an unborn baby is when the life of the mother would be in danger.

These babies are God's creation and deserve an opportunity to life just like the rest of us have had. Why should we deny them something which we all have?

In our society, the unborn child is the most vulnerable as he cannot defend himself, thus we must ensure that we do everything in our power to ensure his safety. If that means shutting down abortion clinics, so be it.

To those who would contemplate having an abortion, may I suggest that they instead allow the baby a chance to live, and give him up for adoption afterwards. Many folks cannot conceive children of their own, and usually wind up looking overseas to adopt a child. What better way to a happy ending. A couple gets to adopt a child without the need to go overseas, and a child is spared his life.

Everyone is pro-life.

Which is why if one is opposed to abortion, he should also be opposed to ‘shutting down abortion clinics,’ as this will in no way bring the practice to an end, and abortions would continue at current levels.

Rather than advocating for a ‘solution’ that is not a solution, that also violates Americans’ civil liberties, why not come up with an actual solution that will realize the desired goal.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

On a side note, has anyone ever seen an atheist/agnostic rejoin the flock of Christianity? Because personally I haven't, as such I am inclined to believe that they cannot be saved.

Which is consistent with the hateful arrogance you exhibit, along with a significant number of other Christians.

 

[Mr. H.]

Over 1 million of our progeny flushed down the sewer each and every year.

If I could have a million kids, I'd keep 'em.

Kids ARE the darndest things.

Waste not want not, eh?

Where do all these pre-born end up anyway? In a landfill?

This reminds me of when my wife's pregnancy suddenly became nil at around two months gestation. Our son died inside, and the doc did abide. I inquired about the disposition of my child, and was told that the "tissue" was issued. To the landfill.

I pity you sorry fucks who treat children as trash. And later praise Al Sharpton and Jesse Jack when they mourn over dead bodies. Yet, you mourn not over the dead pre-born. You sorry and irrevocably indolent fuck brains.

 

[Chris]

Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. - Ayn Rand

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

Both a fetus and a newborn are incapable of supporting themselves outside of the womb. So the flaw in the far lefts argument is that if the newborn is just as helpless as the fetus, then both of them are by their logic not a sentient human being. Life begins when the heart starts beating within the developing unborn child. Since, by that logic, no person born or unborn can live without a heart. It is why the heart is the first thing to form during gestation, or about the 5th week of pregnancy. All the nutrients need to be pumped through the unborn child's developing body for it to continue to develop. Scientifically speaking, your life begins at the first heartbeat.

Fairly major difference.

ANYONE can care for a baby once it's been born. It's not compelling anyone to do so.

But when a fetus is still in a woman's womb, and you tell her she must carry it to term, even if it got in there because she was gang-raped, then it is compulsion of the worst kind.

I thought you guys were about "Freedom"?

If you leave a fetus alone and a toddler alone ex utero, they will both die from lack of nutrition. So to say one is a form of life and the other isn't is, to put it mildly, incorrect. But freedom to me is the baby's freedom as well as the mother's to have an existence. Or does the life (in life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) guarantee in the Constitution only apply to the mother?

I think women are being compelled to have abortions. I've noticed a big difference between 'pro choice' and 'pro abortion' over the years. The former is to have a choice either or, the latter is to have an abortion as the only recourse, thus eliminating the 'choice' aspect.

As for rape, incest and the otherwise health of the mother, I am not heartless. She has a choice to abort or keep the child. Should she revere life, she will keep it, should she not be able to bear the pain that child represents, she has a right to abort it.

Yes, indeed, Joe, I am about freedom. In all senses of the word. But I'll be damned before I give up my reverence for life, mature or not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[

Both a fetus and a newborn are incapable of supporting themselves outside of the womb. So the flaw in the far lefts argument is that if the newborn is just as helpless as the fetus, then both of them are by their logic not a sentient human being. Life begins when the heart starts beating within the developing unborn child. Since, by that logic, no person born or unborn can live without a heart. It is why the heart is the first thing to form during gestation, or about the 5th week of pregnancy. All the nutrients need to be pumped through the unborn child's developing body for it to continue to develop. Scientifically speaking, your life begins at the first heartbeat.

Fairly major difference.

ANYONE can care for a baby once it's been born. It's not compelling anyone to do so.

But when a fetus is still in a woman's womb, and you tell her she must carry it to term, even if it got in there because she was gang-raped, then it is compulsion of the worst kind.

I thought you guys were about "Freedom"?

...and 'less government.'

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

Both a fetus and a newborn are incapable of supporting themselves outside of the womb. So the flaw in the far lefts argument is that if the newborn is just as helpless as the fetus, then both of them are by their logic not a sentient human being. Life begins when the heart starts beating within the developing unborn child. Since, by that logic, no person born or unborn can live without a heart. It is why the heart is the first thing to form during gestation, or about the 5th week of pregnancy. All the nutrients need to be pumped through the unborn child's developing body for it to continue to develop. Scientifically speaking, your life begins at the first heartbeat.

Fairly major difference.

ANYONE can care for a baby once it's been born. It's not compelling anyone to do so.

But when a fetus is still in a woman's womb, and you tell her she must carry it to term, even if it got in there because she was gang-raped, then it is compulsion of the worst kind.

I thought you guys were about "Freedom"?

...and 'less government.'

Funny, Clayton, you want the government out of the bedroom, but ask it to regulate and or endorse abortive rights. Say what now? How can you have one and the other? Seeking approval from the government as asking for more government. It contradicts the whole idea of a woman having a 'choice' ya know?

Get the picture?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[

Both a fetus and a newborn are incapable of supporting themselves outside of the womb. So the flaw in the far lefts argument is that if the newborn is just as helpless as the fetus, then both of them are by their logic not a sentient human being. Life begins when the heart starts beating within the developing unborn child. Since, by that logic, no person born or unborn can live without a heart. It is why the heart is the first thing to form during gestation, or about the 5th week of pregnancy. All the nutrients need to be pumped through the unborn child's developing body for it to continue to develop. Scientifically speaking, your life begins at the first heartbeat.

Fairly major difference.

ANYONE can care for a baby once it's been born. It's not compelling anyone to do so.

But when a fetus is still in a woman's womb, and you tell her she must carry it to term, even if it got in there because she was gang-raped, then it is compulsion of the worst kind.

I thought you guys were about "Freedom"?

If you leave a fetus alone and a toddler alone ex utero, they will both die from lack of nutrition. So to say one is a form of life and the other isn't is, to put it mildly, incorrect. But freedom to me is the baby's freedom as well as the mother's to have an existence. Or does the life (in life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) guarantee in the Constitution only apply to the mother?

I think women are being compelled to have abortions. I've noticed a big difference between 'pro choice' and 'pro abortion' over the years. The former is to have a choice either or, the latter is to have an abortion as the only recourse, thus eliminating the 'choice' aspect.

As for rape, incest and the otherwise health of the mother, I am not heartless. She has a choice to abort or keep the child. Should she revere life, she will keep it, should she not be able to bear the pain that child represents, she has a right to abort it.

Yes, indeed, Joe, I am about freedom. In all senses of the word. But I'll be damned before I give up my reverence for life, mature or not.

Prior to viability, yes:

Before viability, the State's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

The Casey Court wisely left this decision to the individual to decide, as the state lacks the authority to do so.

Consequently, those who seek to make abortion illegal place their trust in the state over that of the individual, and are indeed not advocates of freedom.

 

[uhkilleez]

The abortion argument is an old one, I need not read the OP nor those in between, I am solely interested in the response to my own opinion.

First and foremost, I am a man. I do not deserve the right to tell a woman when and where she ought to bear child. In this part of morality, the decision need be left solely to women.

In my own experience, I would not abort my own child. I would not approve of the abortion of my own child. I have always taken the precautions to refrain from conceiving my own child, and in contemporary status I lack the means to bear my own child.

In the greater philosophical standpoint, especially in terms of your own child, you must consider whether or not it is beneficial to expose your child to today's society. At this moment, I think not, and I envy the aborted fetuses in greatness, never having to endure the complications and redundancies of life; never having to look with an above average intellect at a sub-intellectual problem. In this sense I wish I were dead already, but in the sense of being robbed of my childhood I do not. It takes one to beget the other, which makes it easy for me as a male to pass the buck to the opposite sex.

What we need to analyze as opposed to our own moral standards on the subject is the consequence our decisions hold. Whom will take care of these children if not those whom can not bear their own? What small a percentage is this? It is only in this subject can I begin to comprehend the opinion of PETA as it decimates 75% of its political refugees, at times the most humane way of dealing with life is an easy death.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Fairly major difference.

ANYONE can care for a baby once it's been born. It's not compelling anyone to do so.

But when a fetus is still in a woman's womb, and you tell her she must carry it to term, even if it got in there because she was gang-raped, then it is compulsion of the worst kind.

I thought you guys were about "Freedom"?

If you leave a fetus alone and a toddler alone ex utero, they will both die from lack of nutrition. So to say one is a form of life and the other isn't is, to put it mildly, incorrect. But freedom to me is the baby's freedom as well as the mother's to have an existence. Or does the life (in life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) guarantee in the Constitution only apply to the mother?

I think women are being compelled to have abortions. I've noticed a big difference between 'pro choice' and 'pro abortion' over the years. The former is to have a choice either or, the latter is to have an abortion as the only recourse, thus eliminating the 'choice' aspect.

As for rape, incest and the otherwise health of the mother, I am not heartless. She has a choice to abort or keep the child. Should she revere life, she will keep it, should she not be able to bear the pain that child represents, she has a right to abort it.

Yes, indeed, Joe, I am about freedom. In all senses of the word. But I'll be damned before I give up my reverence for life, mature or not.

Prior to viability, yes:

Before viability, the State's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

The Casey Court wisely left this decision to the individual to decide, as the state lacks the authority to do so.

Consequently, those who seek to make abortion illegal place their trust in the state over that of the individual, and are indeed not advocates of freedom.

Then why do 36 states charge someone with double murder if they kill a pregnant woman? And did I say anything about making abortion illegal? Take the tin foil hat off please. Also please take the time to look this law over:

18 U.S.C. §1841

(a)

(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

(2)

(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.

(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that—

(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or

(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.

(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:

(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844 (d), (f), (h)(1), and (i), 924 (j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153 (a), 1201 (a), 1203, 1365 (a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241 (a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.

(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848 (e)).

(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—

(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

The law acknowledges the fetus to be a human being, and even allows for the woman to have a choice to abort the unborn child without pain of penalty under the law. Liberals, please exit stage left.

 

[uhkilleez]

The fetus is irrelevant. Many would claim the hardship you save the fetus through abortion is worth the risk of being established a murderer. Upon analyzing humanity in its current state, I can't help but agree.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Also for future reference,

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989)

Which is a United States Supreme Court decision on July 3, 1989 upholding a Missouri law that imposed restrictions on the use of state funds, facilities, and employees in performing, assisting with, or counseling on abortions. The Supreme Court in Webster allowed for states to legislate in an area that had previously been thought to be forbidden under Roe v. Wade.

The Supreme Court's decision

The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the lower court, stating that:

1. The court did not need to consider the constitutionality of the law's preamble, as it is not used to justify any abortion regulation otherwise invalid under Roe v. Wade.

2. The prohibitions on the use of public employees, facilities, and funds did not violate any of the Court's abortion decisions, as no affirmative right to the use of state aid for nontherapeutic abortions existed. The state could allocate resources in favor of childbirth over abortion if it so chose.

3. Provisions requiring testing for viability after 20 weeks of pregnancy were constitutional, but those limiting abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy were unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_v._Reproductive_Health_Services

 

[Noomi]

If you leave a fetus alone and a toddler alone ex utero, they will both die from lack of nutrition.

BUT - no one is FORCED to care for the baby, are they? And if you remove a fetus from a woman, it will likely die, but not from lack of nutrition - it will die because the attachment to the host, ie; the mother, has been severed. It will not be able to breathe on its own.

 

[Noomi]

The law acknowledges the fetus to be a human being, and even allows for the woman to have a choice to abort the unborn child without pain of penalty under the law. Liberals, please exit stage left.

But not a legal person with rights...

 

[TemplarKormac]

The fetus is irrelevant. Many would claim the hardship you save the fetus through abortion is worth the risk of being established a murderer. Upon analyzing humanity in its current state, I can't help but agree.

How wrong you are. The fetus has the same right to life as the mother does. If the child is conceived though consensual means with another consenting adult, she should be forced to carry to full term. So yes, the 'fetus' is relevant.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The law acknowledges the fetus to be a human being, and even allows for the woman to have a choice to abort the unborn child without pain of penalty under the law. Liberals, please exit stage left.

But not a legal person with rights...

Sure, tell that to the people who passed this law:

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Noomi]

The fetus is irrelevant. Many would claim the hardship you save the fetus through abortion is worth the risk of being established a murderer. Upon analyzing humanity in its current state, I can't help but agree.

How wrong you are. The fetus has the same right to life as the mother does. If the child is conceived though consensual means with another consenting adult, she should be forced to carry to full term. So yes, the 'fetus' is relevant.

Consent to sex does not mean consent to pregnancy...

 

[Noomi]

The law acknowledges the fetus to be a human being, and even allows for the woman to have a choice to abort the unborn child without pain of penalty under the law. Liberals, please exit stage left.

But not a legal person with rights...

Sure, tell that to the people who passed this law:

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is not related to abortion, though.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you leave a fetus alone and a toddler alone ex utero, they will both die from lack of nutrition.

BUT - no one is FORCED to care for the baby, are they? And if you remove a fetus from a woman, it will likely die, but not from lack of nutrition - it will die because the attachment to the host, ie; the mother, has been severed. It will not be able to breathe on its own.

Thus making my point. Neither can survive without the support of the mother. But somehow one isn't life and the other is. Funny how that works.