Abortion: A Sad Reality

[TemplarKormac]

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.

It recognizes them as human beings, Noomi.

 

[Noomi]

But not in relation to abortion. If the law saw a fetus as a person, then legally, the law would have to ensure that women who have abortions be charged. The law cannot say that a fetus is a person in one instance, and a non person in another. That would be hypocritical...

 

[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.

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

Uhh, yeah it does. If you don't make sure your man is wearing his rubbers, then I must assume you wanted the pregnancy. If the condom breaks, it isn't anyone's fault, (Sarcasm well perhaps the child's of course /sarcasm) If the mother is healthy, and capable of child birth and if she conceives by means that exclude rape or incest, she should be made to carry it.

The logic I use here is that if you're putting yourself into a situation where you run the risk of getting pregnant, and you do, while not wanting to; that's tough.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But not in relation to abortion. If the law saw a fetus as a person, then legally, the law would have to ensure that women who have abortions be charged. The law cannot say that a fetus is a person in one instance, and a non person in another. That would be hypocritical...

You'll have to take that up with the members of Congress who wrote the law. Read it carefully:

"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."

 

[JoeB131]

[

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?

The mother is legally recognized as a person. A fetus is not.

A fetus can't live outside of it's mother for more than a few minutes. A toddler can live for days, and anyone can make the decision to feed it or not to feed it. You can't compell someone to feed it. Again, this is kind of the argument you guys make against the welfare state and ObamaCare- how DARE you MAKE me be responsible for others.

[
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.

Really? I mean, I expect that kind of batshittery to come out of Koch-ergrrls mouth...

Frankly, if you guys really wanted women to choose life, you'd support universal healthcare, you'd support family and medical leave, you'd support a lot of stuff you don't. Instead you say, "Every man for himself" and wonder why some women do exactly that.

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.

But why should that make any difference,i if you believe in an absolute stupidity that fetuses are the same as people? The fetus didn't rape anyone. Once you say, "Yes, that is too difficult for you to bear", then really, any reason she gives for that being too difficult to bear becomes okay. YOu are trapped in the contradictions of your own logic, which is what happens when you give a fetus more rights than the woman it is in.

[
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.

In short, your fairy stories are more important than your commitment to freedom.

If a woman doesn't believe in God and doesn't think her kidney bean sized fetus is anything other than, "That problem I need to take care of", you would deny her her freedom based on your beleifs.

 

[Heterosexual]

My mother aborted my sibling.

 

[uhkilleez]

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...

Uhh, yeah it does. If you don't make sure your man is wearing his rubbers, then I must assume you wanted the pregnancy. If the condom breaks, it isn't anyone's fault, (Sarcasm well perhaps the child's of course /sarcasm) If the mother is healthy, and capable of child birth and if she conceives by means that exclude rape or incest, she should be made to carry it.

The logic I use here is that if you're putting yourself into a situation where you run the risk of getting pregnant, and you do, while not wanting to; that's tough.

When it comes to you, Kormack, it's easy for you to say force should be imposed upon those other than you. I know women, and even hope to date women more morally onsight than you, for they undergo the same circumstance in which you impose on another without the privilege of counting themselves out on the pain. I know for sure, should the circumstances be reversed, a man such as yourself would look upon force with much scrutiny especially when considered against a man who slipped the condom off without her foresight.

It is easy to impose punishment upon others you will never have to face, it is entirely different to impose the same punishment while looking it in the face. You are a man, you have no right to tell a woman when and wear to bear child, and you have no right to decide for the child whether it would rather live or die.

 

[clevergirl]

Thank god we'll have free birth control in a month, and abortions will be cut. The anti abortion zealots live on another planet...going back to 5-10k deaths from hatchett jobs is not the answer- a joke...

You are a fucking joke.

Birth control has been FREE since the 70's! It has been all BUT FREE for the last two decades at a cost of 9 bucks a month to those who don't qualify for FREE....meanwhile back at the ranch, abortion clinics have been scuttling and misappropriating billions of federal dollars to pay for millions of abortions at a cost to tax payers- idiot!

The pro life groups want one thing...to protect the life of the babies In Utero from the Dr.'s of death.

 

[clevergirl]

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.

Life begins at conception- viability begins at implantation- a matter of about 3 days.

Viability outside the womb begins when a child can independently take care of itself without care...perhaps 5 or 6 years of age...no?

 

[uhkilleez]

Thank god we'll have free birth control in a month, and abortions will be cut. The anti abortion zealots live on another planet...going back to 5-10k deaths from hatchett jobs is not the answer- a joke...

You are a fucking joke.

Birth control has been FREE since the 70's! It has been all BUT FREE for the last two decades at a cost of 9 bucks a month....meanwhile back at the ranch abortion clinics have been scuttling and misappropriating billions of federal dollars to pay for millions of abortions at a cost to tax payers- idiot!

The pro life groups want one thing...to protect the life of the babies In Utero from the Dr.'s of death.

Your are full of shit and I am young enough to prove it. My ex-partner and I were responsible enough to use birth control pills in addition to condoms. Had she not been compelled to the IUD which very well may have played a role in her inability to conceive, we may have our own children today. Birth control has hardly been affordable since the 70s, and if you honestly think it has then I must conclude you are mentally retarded. It is anything but affordable.

 

[clevergirl]

But not in relation to abortion. If the law saw a fetus as a person, then legally, the law would have to ensure that women who have abortions be charged. The law cannot say that a fetus is a person in one instance, and a non person in another. That would be hypocritical...

How is it then that in some states that support abortion, does the state file manslaughter charges against someone who kills an unborn child?

 

[clevergirl]

Thank god we'll have free birth control in a month, and abortions will be cut. The anti abortion zealots live on another planet...going back to 5-10k deaths from hatchett jobs is not the answer- a joke...

You are a fucking joke.

Birth control has been FREE since the 70's! It has been all BUT FREE for the last two decades at a cost of 9 bucks a month....meanwhile back at the ranch abortion clinics have been scuttling and misappropriating billions of federal dollars to pay for millions of abortions at a cost to tax payers- idiot!

The pro life groups want one thing...to protect the life of the babies In Utero from the Dr.'s of death.

Your are full of shit and I am young enough to prove it. My ex-partner and I were responsible enough to use birth control pills in addition to condoms. Had she not been compelled to the IUD which very well may have played a role in her inability to conceive, we may have our own children today. Birth control has hardly been affordable since the 70s, and if you honestly think it has then I must conclude you are mentally retarded. It is anything but affordable.

Fuck you- I used "free birth control" when I was younger- and at 9 bucks a month its about as cheap as it gets for those who make too much to get it free!

NIXON: EXPANDING FAMILY PLANNING

Both Democratic and Republican leaders in Washington support expanding family planning services and research in the U.S. and internationally. President Richard Nixon declares birth control a national priority and seeks "adequate family planning services [for] … all those who want them but cannot afford them."

In 1970, Congress passes and President Nixon signs into law Title X of the Public Health Service Act, which makes contraceptives available regardless of income and provides funding for educational programs and research in contraceptive development. Later, Congress broadens Title X's mandate to provide community-based sex education programs and preventive services to unmarried teenagers at risk of pregnancy. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/history-and-successes.htm

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

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?

The mother is legally recognized as a person. A fetus is not.

A fetus can't live outside of it's mother for more than a few minutes. A toddler can live for days, and anyone can make the decision to feed it or not to feed it. You can't compell someone to feed it. Again, this is kind of the argument you guys make against the welfare state and ObamaCare- how DARE you MAKE me be responsible for others.

[
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.

Really? I mean, I expect that kind of batshittery to come out of Koch-ergrrls mouth...

Frankly, if you guys really wanted women to choose life, you'd support universal healthcare, you'd support family and medical leave, you'd support a lot of stuff you don't. Instead you say, "Every man for himself" and wonder why some women do exactly that.

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.

But why should that make any difference,i if you believe in an absolute stupidity that fetuses are the same as people? The fetus didn't rape anyone. Once you say, "Yes, that is too difficult for you to bear", then really, any reason she gives for that being too difficult to bear becomes okay. YOu are trapped in the contradictions of your own logic, which is what happens when you give a fetus more rights than the woman it is in.

[
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.

In short, your fairy stories are more important than your commitment to freedom.

If a woman doesn't believe in God and doesn't think her kidney bean sized fetus is anything other than, "That problem I need to take care of", you would deny her her freedom based on your beleifs.

So, what does attacking my faith have to do with abortion, precisely?

 

[uhkilleez]

You are a fucking joke.

Birth control has been FREE since the 70's! It has been all BUT FREE for the last two decades at a cost of 9 bucks a month....meanwhile back at the ranch abortion clinics have been scuttling and misappropriating billions of federal dollars to pay for millions of abortions at a cost to tax payers- idiot!

The pro life groups want one thing...to protect the life of the babies In Utero from the Dr.'s of death.

Your are full of shit and I am young enough to prove it. My ex-partner and I were responsible enough to use birth control pills in addition to condoms. Had she not been compelled to the IUD which very well may have played a role in her inability to conceive, we may have our own children today. Birth control has hardly been affordable since the 70s, and if you honestly think it has then I must conclude you are mentally retarded. It is anything but affordable.

Fuck you- I used "free birth control" when I was younger- and at 9 bucks a month its about as cheap as it gets for those who make too much to get it free!

NIXON: EXPANDING FAMILY PLANNING

Both Democratic and Republican leaders in Washington support expanding family planning services and research in the U.S. and internationally. President Richard Nixon declares birth control a national priority and seeks "adequate family planning services [for] … all those who want them but cannot afford them."

In 1970, Congress passes and President Nixon signs into law Title X of the Public Health Service Act, which makes contraceptives available regardless of income and provides funding for educational programs and research in contraceptive development. Later, Congress broadens Title X's mandate to provide community-based sex education programs and preventive services to unmarried teenagers at risk of pregnancy. History & Successes

The only thing I have to say to you is this, "Since when was $9 a month ever free?"
It has only increased tenfold since your last need for use, you are too distant from the facts to be relevant.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

Uhh, yeah it does. If you don't make sure your man is wearing his rubbers, then I must assume you wanted the pregnancy. If the condom breaks, it isn't anyone's fault, (Sarcasm well perhaps the child's of course /sarcasm) If the mother is healthy, and capable of child birth and if she conceives by means that exclude rape or incest, she should be made to carry it.

The logic I use here is that if you're putting yourself into a situation where you run the risk of getting pregnant, and you do, while not wanting to; that's tough.

When it comes to you, Kormack, it's easy for you to say force should be imposed upon those other than you. I know women, and even hope to date women more morally onsight than you, for they undergo the same circumstance in which you impose on another without the privilege of counting themselves out on the pain. I know for sure, should the circumstances be reversed, a man such as yourself would look upon force with much scrutiny especially when considered against a man who slipped the condom off without her foresight.

It is easy to impose punishment upon others you will never have to face, it is entirely different to impose the same punishment while looking it in the face. You are a man, you have no right to tell a woman when and wear to bear child, and you have no right to decide for the child whether it would rather live or die.

Force? Yes, when the folly is yours. Do I suggest flogging them or jailing them? No. But if you take the risk, you should be responsible for the consequences for taking that risk. In my mind you forfeit your right to choose the moment you have unprotected sexual intercourse or the condom breaks, or when you choose to have sex in the first place. Risk is risk. Life is a gamble, one after the next. I for one have no mercy on those who take such a risk knowing full well what the results could be. Obviously, abstinence and self restraint are a lost art in this day and age.

"Should the circumstances ever be reversed," you say. Well then, I will take the time to ignore this path down a slippery slope. A child is a human being, and by rights neither man nor woman should be able to dictate whether it lives or dies. That decision belongs to the family for which the child belongs. Somehow, we show more reverence to the unborn of other species of mammalia, but not to our own kind. We acknowledge them as belonging to their own kind, but when we see one of our own? "Oh it's not human." Should you find yourself in a situation where you wanted the child but your GF, wife, partner (what have you) didn't, perhaps you would look harder and use more scrutiny when allowing a woman so much latitude with the life of an unborn child.

It's funny, I have way more morals that a lot of other people do. I have refused to engage in any relationships with women for the reason that they do not share in common with me that convictions that guide my moral compass. For my age, at 26, I have a far superior grasp of morality than other people in my age group. Just because I do not believe in their right to have abortions willy nilly, does not make me any more or less moral than the woman.

You're right, I don't know what it is to be a woman, and no offense, I don't care to know. But I also notice how men are afforded little say so in the fate of the child, when they contributed the other half of the unborn child's chromosomal DNA. In some cases, the man wants the child but the woman doesn't. His body, no. His DNA, yes. See the difference? See where it is no longer just her right to choose? Mind you, I make exceptions for extenuating circumstances, saying for deadbeat dads (in that case I feel like he should be forced to help pay for an raise the child by court order) rape, or incest.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your are full of shit and I am young enough to prove it. My ex-partner and I were responsible enough to use birth control pills in addition to condoms. Had she not been compelled to the IUD which very well may have played a role in her inability to conceive, we may have our own children today. Birth control has hardly been affordable since the 70s, and if you honestly think it has then I must conclude you are mentally retarded. It is anything but affordable.

Fuck you- I used "free birth control" when I was younger- and at 9 bucks a month its about as cheap as it gets for those who make too much to get it free!

NIXON: EXPANDING FAMILY PLANNING

Both Democratic and Republican leaders in Washington support expanding family planning services and research in the U.S. and internationally. President Richard Nixon declares birth control a national priority and seeks "adequate family planning services [for] … all those who want them but cannot afford them."

In 1970, Congress passes and President Nixon signs into law Title X of the Public Health Service Act, which makes contraceptives available regardless of income and provides funding for educational programs and research in contraceptive development. Later, Congress broadens Title X's mandate to provide community-based sex education programs and preventive services to unmarried teenagers at risk of pregnancy. History & Successes

The only thing I have to say to you is this, "Since when was $9 a month ever free?"
It has only increased tenfold since your last need for use, you are too distant from the facts to be relevant.

I'd love to see your refutation of these facts. Ad hominem will get you nowhere here.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Strangely enough, we can be the arbiters and purveyors of life, but never for once consider the future of the life that grows inside the womb.

 

[uhkilleez]

Fuck you- I used "free birth control" when I was younger- and at 9 bucks a month its about as cheap as it gets for those who make too much to get it free!

The only thing I have to say to you is this, "Since when was $9 a month ever free?"
It has only increased tenfold since your last need for use, you are too distant from the facts to be relevant.

I'd love to see your refutation of these facts. Ad hominem will get you nowhere here.

Are you honestly going to rely on the ad hominem argument? Please enlighten me to which of my opinions are fallacious and I will gladly destroy your false logic.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The only thing I have to say to you is this, "Since when was $9 a month ever free?"
It has only increased tenfold since your last need for use, you are too distant from the facts to be relevant.

I'd love to see your refutation of these facts. Ad hominem will get you nowhere here.

Are you honestly going to rely on the ad hominem argument? Please enlighten me to which of my opinions are fallacious and I will gladly destroy your false logic.

You are seriously barking up the wrong tree my friend.

"You are far too distant from the facts to be relevant." Argumentum ad hominem is when you attack the poster instead of the post. You essentially referred to clevergirl as stupid and irrelevant.

In my world you back up these claims, you don't sit there and expect people to believe them.

As for your other claim is concerned, the most expensive form of birth control pills are in the neighborhood of 20-40 bucks, which for most women are mildly or totally affordable. Now, if you wish to make more opinions for me to consider logically fallacious, please, continue. I will be happy to snap you back to reality.

 

[uhkilleez]

I'd love to see your refutation of these facts. Ad hominem will get you nowhere here.

Are you honestly going to rely on the ad hominem argument? Please enlighten me to which of my opinions are fallacious and I will gladly destroy your false logic.

You are seriously barking up the wrong tree my friend.

"You are far too distant from the facts to be relevant." Argumentum ad hominem is when you attack the poster instead of the post. You essentially referred to clevergirl as stupid and irrelevant.

In my world you back up these claims, you don't sit there and expect people to believe them.

As for your other claim is concerned, the most expensive form of birth control pills are in the neighborhood of 20-40 bucks, which for most women are mildly or totally affordable. Now, if you wish to make more opinions for me to consider logically fallacious, please, continue. I will be happy to snap you back to reality.

+
I attacked the post as opposed to the poster, as far as I am concerned. She spent her two cents and has since forth been unheard of. It wasn't that she was stupid, merely that she was relevant to a time in which preceded our own both in terms of the measure of care as well as the affordability of medication. You would simply love to see me consider her stupid in order to solidify your own arguments, but no matter the feeling of either party the same truth remains the same. The question, really, is motives.

In the form of your last admission, you know nothing of the facts. I have lived in this life, and I have paid the price for condoms as well as birth control in a baptist and even poor home. I know with absolute certainty that the bare minimum on birth control is $100 through planned parenthood, and even though that is what we both wanted, it was never enough for uncle sam. A complacent people do not make a cooperative people, and where birth control was once considered free it is now considered a privilege. I will pick up on this topic tomorrow when I am fully sober and better rested, for now I bid you a due and best of luck in contradicting me come morning; you will soon find that which i profess to be truth has little to do with goodness and less to do with godliness, so goodluck.