Abortion, expanded

[Anguille]

I find it remarkable that anyone who claims a fetus or and embryo has a right to life would deny that right to some just because they resulted from a rape.

How is that the fault of the fetus or embryo?

I completely agree, but if it came to an 11 year old rape victim... well, sometimes I think we have to be reasonable and understanding.

Immie

How is that being reasonable and understanding to the fetus or embryo?

 

[Sky Dancer]

I find it remarkable that anyone who claims a fetus or and embryo has a right to life would deny that right to some just because they resulted from a rape.

How is that the fault of the fetus or embryo?

I completely agree, but if it came to an 11 year old rape victim... well, sometimes I think we have to be reasonable and understanding.

Immie

How is that being reasonable and understanding to the fetus or embryo?

If the fetus or embryo is going to be aborted anyway, isn't it better that the woman be safely alive?

How is it reasonable to the fetus or embryo that results from a rape? It isn't.

Legal abortion beats both dying in a back alley.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

I find it remarkable that anyone who claims a fetus or and embryo has a right to life would deny that right to some just because they resulted from a rape.

How is that the fault of the fetus or embryo?

Simple. If the sex isn't voluntary, the pregnancy is involuntary. And involuntary servitude is unconstitutional.

 

[Care4all]

I find it remarkable that anyone who claims a fetus or and embryo has a right to life would deny that right to some just because they resulted from a rape.

How is that the fault of the fetus or embryo?

Simple. If the sex isn't voluntary, the pregnancy is involuntary. And involuntary servitude is unconstitutional.

so essentially, are you saying, if the girl has sex by choice, she should be forced to have her child...as some sort of punishment for having unprotected sex?

but if she is forced to have sex, then killing her child is acceptable, because she should not be punished?

i am not certain that makes sense, when those that are prolife supposedly are saving a separate human beings life?

why wouldn't the child to be of a raped woman still be a separate human beings life to save?

it implies the child to be, really means nothing to you, and only controlling the woman's life that you don't approve of does....?

care

 

[Cecilie1200]

How does Pro-choice before conception work? When a woman becomes pregnant she has conceived a child. No matter what stage of it's development it is the making of a human being. When a child is birthed it can breath on it's own and continue to process food through it's system on it's own, however it cannot completely survive on it's own, because it needs a caretaker, whomever that might be, to feed it, and provide the proper environment and stimulation for it to survive.

I find it remarkable that anyone would challenge the integrity of the stages of life of a fetus when they have no intention of bringing it to full term, yet cherish the same fetus/baby when it is wanted. What this does essentially is lower the standard of the value of life to simple arbitration if not convenience. Human life is not dispensible.

Pro-choice should be, under controllable responsible circumstances, the choice not to potentially become pregnant when having a child is not intended.

Anne Marie

You've just put your finger on why I almost never participate in polls on here: they're generally devised by someone who's constitutionally incapable of composing them without drowning them in their own personal prejudices. And this one was worse than most.

 

[Luissa]

giving the fact that the creator of the poll is pro life you would think you would feel differently cecilie? lol

 

[Cecilie1200]

giving the fact that is not the choice I am refering to I would say you are the stupid one.
Why don't you check on his second option moron. " pro choice until a certain point of developement"
There is a clue for ya!

Which is far from the "pro-choice" you and your ilk would like to consider it, and we both know it. Don't think for a second that anyone with a brain larger than a pea (translated: anyone who isn't you) doesn't see you frauds running around claiming that people who actually favor severe restrictions on abortion that you would NEVER agree to or accept are "pro-choice" so that you can disingenuously include their numbers into support for unlimited abortion. I could just as easily - and a hell of a lot more honestly - claim them for the side of "abortion is horrible, and should be virtually nonexistent".

So stuff THAT "clue" in your crack pipe and smoke it.

Where did I state that I am for unlimited abortion? Where did I state my opinion on abortion in this thread at all?

Yes, because I enter every thread with my memory wiped totally clean of any and all previous encounters with posters, and therefore can have no idea what their opinions, attitudes, and intelligence levels are outside of the contents of that one thread.

Spare me. Been there, done that, not fooled.

 

[Luissa]

Which is far from the "pro-choice" you and your ilk would like to consider it, and we both know it. Don't think for a second that anyone with a brain larger than a pea (translated: anyone who isn't you) doesn't see you frauds running around claiming that people who actually favor severe restrictions on abortion that you would NEVER agree to or accept are "pro-choice" so that you can disingenuously include their numbers into support for unlimited abortion. I could just as easily - and a hell of a lot more honestly - claim them for the side of "abortion is horrible, and should be virtually nonexistent".

So stuff THAT "clue" in your crack pipe and smoke it.

Where did I state that I am for unlimited abortion? Where did I state my opinion on abortion in this thread at all?

Yes, because I enter every thread with my memory wiped totally clean of any and all previous encounters with posters, and therefore can have no idea what their opinions, attitudes, and intelligence levels are outside of the contents of that one thread.

Spare me. Been there, done that, not fooled.

then tell me my opinion on abortion?because from your previous statement I am thinking you have no idea what it is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I find it remarkable that anyone who claims a fetus or and embryo has a right to life would deny that right to some just because they resulted from a rape.

How is that the fault of the fetus or embryo?

I completely agree, but if it came to an 11 year old rape victim... well, sometimes I think we have to be reasonable and understanding.

Immie

You might want to restrain yourself a bit from automatically equating your personal opinions with a universal standard for "reasonable and understanding". Not everyone instantly assumes the "reasonable and understanding" action in such a case is abortion.

I also have to say that the kneejerk response of leaping to extreme cases is threadbare and bordering on offensive.

 

[Care4all]

How does Pro-choice before conception work? When a woman becomes pregnant she has conceived a child. No matter what stage of it's development it is the making of a human being. When a child is birthed it can breath on it's own and continue to process food through it's system on it's own, however it cannot completely survive on it's own, because it needs a caretaker, whomever that might be, to feed it, and provide the proper environment and stimulation for it to survive.

I find it remarkable that anyone would challenge the integrity of the stages of life of a fetus when they have no intention of bringing it to full term, yet cherish the same fetus/baby when it is wanted. What this does essentially is lower the standard of the value of life to simple arbitration if not convenience. Human life is not dispensible.

Pro-choice should be, under controllable responsible circumstances, the choice not to potentially become pregnant when having a child is not intended.

Anne Marie

You've just put your finger on why I almost never participate in polls on here: they're generally devised by someone who's constitutionally incapable of composing them without drowning them in their own personal prejudices. And this one was worse than most.

hahahahaha!

JB is prolife cecille!???

guess your theory failed on this one!

 

[Cecilie1200]

I completely agree, but if it came to an 11 year old rape victim... well, sometimes I think we have to be reasonable and understanding.

Immie

How is that being reasonable and understanding to the fetus or embryo?

If the fetus or embryo is going to be aborted anyway, isn't it better that the woman be safely alive?

How is it reasonable to the fetus or embryo that results from a rape? It isn't.

Legal abortion beats both dying in a back alley.

Who said anything about fetuses that were going to be aborted anyway? Where was THAT in the previous posts?

And good GOD, will you kneejerk fear mongers PLEASE spare us the panicked alarms about apocryphal "back alleys"? I am so TIRED of the disingenuousness of this. Until you can actually find me ONE documented case of a woman dying in a "back alley" abortion because she couldn't get one from a licensed physician prior to Roe v. Wade, you need to frigging STOP trying to hammer on everyone's buttons with this shit.

If you can't conduct your debates on logical, honest grounds, don't debate at all.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

I find it remarkable that anyone who claims a fetus or and embryo has a right to life would deny that right to some just because they resulted from a rape.

How is that the fault of the fetus or embryo?

Simple. If the sex isn't voluntary, the pregnancy is involuntary. And involuntary servitude is unconstitutional.

so essentially, are you saying, if the girl has sex by choice, she should be forced to have her child...as some sort of punishment for having unprotected sex.

Punishment has nothing to do with it. Every adult knows that, no matter how careful they are, there's always the chance the woman could get pregnant. If a couple has sex at all, both of them have to accept responsbility for the consequences - which IMO means not taking a third life just because it happens to be an inconvenience for the next 9 months.

but if she is forced to have sex, then killing her child is acceptable, because she should not be punished?

According to the Constitution, yes.

why wouldn't the child to be of a raped woman still be a separate human beings life to save?

When medical technology gets to the point where we can remove an embryo and keep it alive for someone else, the law might change. I would hope that it does.

it implies the child to be, really means nothing to you, and only controlling the woman's life that you don't approve of does....?

And I've shown how you'd be wrong. Abortion is always homicide, but one of the great tragedies of life is that sometimes homicide is justifiable or even necessary.

 

[Cecilie1200]

giving the fact that the creator of the poll is pro life you would think you would feel differently cecilie? lol

No, "lol", because unlike you, I don't decide right and wrong based on pandering to my own personal partisan opinions. I participate in virtually NO polls on this board, regardless of the creator and whatever agenda he might be pushing with it. Again unlike you, I do not consider agreeing with me to automatically convey generalized wisdom on a person. Frequently, I consider it to mean merely that that person happened to stumble into the right answer without any idea how he got there. And I certainly don't think agreeing with me makes a person any less susceptible to coloring their polls with their prejudices.

If you had ever learned to be even the slightest bit logical or dispassionate or objective, you would know this already, which only serves to highlight the aforementioned differences between you and me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Where did I state that I am for unlimited abortion? Where did I state my opinion on abortion in this thread at all?

Yes, because I enter every thread with my memory wiped totally clean of any and all previous encounters with posters, and therefore can have no idea what their opinions, attitudes, and intelligence levels are outside of the contents of that one thread.

Spare me. Been there, done that, not fooled.

then tell me my opinion on abortion?because from your previous statement I am thinking you have no idea what it is.

If you're really going to try to pose as someone who favors restrictions, let alone severe restrictions, on abortion, play your game alone. I'm even more bored by this pretense than I normally am by your posts, and believe me, that's saying something.

 

[sidneyworld]

I find it remarkable that anyone who claims a fetus or and embryo has a right to life would deny that right to some just because they resulted from a rape.

How is that the fault of the fetus or embryo?

If you are addressing me, then for the record, the only circumstances I would agree with abortion is if there is any danger to the mother. Anything else is an extremely difficult decision when the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest that should not be arbitrated in any court of law.

But for that matter, I don't believe abortion should have to regulated by an established precedent in the Constitution. We don't own our children so property rights should not have been asserted in protecting a woman's right to choose. And as far as right to privacy, that in itself does not cover the rights, any expressed rights of that unborn human being.

Abortion constitutionally devalues the value of human life no matter how it's applied under whatever circumstances. It should never have become an expressed right because it challenges a human being's right of procreation, but only if it is desires, which actually undermines the integrity of procreation and the inherent rights of that child.

Anne Marie

by stating you are only for abortion if it endangers the mother you are stating the rights of the mother are more important than the unborn child. And by your standards would still be denying the child of it's rights.

Yes, an actually it is moral to save the mother if the pregnancy would otherwise kill her. She is already alive and it's the baby inside of her that's potentially killing her. The rights side to the mother on a purely medical standpoint. To allow the baby to live at the inevitable death of the mother, as the only possible prognosis is also defying moral conduct. In accident cases where the pregnant mother is badly hurt, doctors will make an attempt to birth the baby while attempting to save the mother. But if such a procedure would conceivably kill the mother as a direct effect, such as blood loss, or excessive added trauma, the mother would be saved. If the mother is close to death with no connection to her preganancy, and if it is at all possible, she will be kept on life support, to bring the baby to a close enough term of a safe birth.

Anne Marie

 

[sidneyworld]

..... which by the way begs the question of abortion doctors and their hippocratic oath. hmmm.. Funny how liberals in this country have successfully managed to legislate such a morally defective procedure as a constitutional cirvumvention, not in the best interest of all human life including the unborn, as was expressly intended in this oath.

You just gotta laugh!

Anne Marie

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you are addressing me, then for the record, the only circumstances I would agree with abortion is if there is any danger to the mother. Anything else is an extremely difficult decision when the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest that should not be arbitrated in any court of law.

But for that matter, I don't believe abortion should have to regulated by an established precedent in the Constitution. We don't own our children so property rights should not have been asserted in protecting a woman's right to choose. And as far as right to privacy, that in itself does not cover the rights, any expressed rights of that unborn human being.

Abortion constitutionally devalues the value of human life no matter how it's applied under whatever circumstances. It should never have become an expressed right because it challenges a human being's right of procreation, but only if it is desires, which actually undermines the integrity of procreation and the inherent rights of that child.

Anne Marie

by stating you are only for abortion if it endangers the mother you are stating the rights of the mother are more important than the unborn child. And by your standards would still be denying the child of it's rights.

Yes, an actually it is moral to save the mother if the pregnancy would otherwise kill her. She is already alive and it's the baby inside of her that's potentially killing her. The rights side to the mother on a purely medical standpoint. To allow the baby to live at the inevitable death of the mother, as the only possible prognosis is also defying moral conduct. In accident cases where the pregnant mother is badly hurt, doctors will make an attempt to birth the baby while attempting to save the mother. But if such a procedure would conceivably kill the mother as a direct effect, such as blood loss, or excessive added trauma, the mother would be saved. If the mother is close to death with no connection to her preganancy, and if it is at all possible, she will be kept on life support, to bring the baby to a close enough term of a safe birth.

Anne Marie

While I agree that it really is a purely personal decision when it comes down to "either/or", I should point out that that is almost never the case when speaking of "medical necessity" in abortion. It is vanishingly rare for a living, potentially viable fetus to directly be a danger to the life of his mother. More often, it is something else that is endangering the mother's life (cancer is one that comes up a lot), and immediate, effective treatment of that condition conflicts with the healthy continuation of the pregnancy.

 

[Care4all]

Simple. If the sex isn't voluntary, the pregnancy is involuntary. And involuntary servitude is unconstitutional.

so essentially, are you saying, if the girl has sex by choice, she should be forced to have her child...as some sort of punishment for having unprotected sex.

Punishment has nothing to do with it. Every adult knows that, no matter how careful they are, there's always the chance the woman could get pregnant. If a couple has sex at all, both of them have to accept responsbility for the consequences - which IMO means not taking a third life just because it happens to be an inconvenience for the next 9 months.

According to the Constitution, yes.

why wouldn't the child to be of a raped woman still be a separate human beings life to save?

When medical technology gets to the point where we can remove an embryo and keep it alive for someone else, the law might change. I would hope that it does.

it implies the child to be, really means nothing to you, and only controlling the woman's life that you don't approve of does....?

And I've shown how you'd be wrong. Abortion is always homicide, but one of the great tragedies of life is that sometimes homicide is justifiable or even necessary.

but according to our constitution, unborn children did not achieve personhood or protection via the bill of rights /constitution, under the constitution...they were not considered protected and i don't believe that was changed...these things were left up to legislators of each state...and not untill the middle of the 1800's did the states begin to make abortion illegal prior to ''quickening''....?
fyi!
IT WAS LEGAL at the time of our constitution and founding fathers up until the point of quickening....up until the point of the baby to be's first kick....those women who could not afford the 9th kid as example, would get a mixture of drugs from the drugist or midwife, that made them abort....early on in pregnancy.

THIS WAS Common Law of which all the states followed on this, until they started writing their own individual state law on it when a very strong evangelical movement came about...

so, i take issue that you say abortion is unconstitutional because at the time of the creation of the constitution, it was legal, up until...quickening....and the founding fathers made no mention of including the UNBORN in the constitution's protections???
**
not legal in the sense of it writen in to law as a ''right'' but legal in the sense that it was not punished or talked about for the most part...

 

[Ravi]

I don't see how you can force a woman to bear a child against her will without agreeing that the state is responsible for the existence of said child for at least 18 years. And must pay for the upkeep of the child.

 

[Care4all]

If you are addressing me, then for the record, the only circumstances I would agree with abortion is if there is any danger to the mother. Anything else is an extremely difficult decision when the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest that should not be arbitrated in any court of law.

But for that matter, I don't believe abortion should have to regulated by an established precedent in the Constitution. We don't own our children so property rights should not have been asserted in protecting a woman's right to choose. And as far as right to privacy, that in itself does not cover the rights, any expressed rights of that unborn human being.

Abortion constitutionally devalues the value of human life no matter how it's applied under whatever circumstances. It should never have become an expressed right because it challenges a human being's right of procreation, but only if it is desires, which actually undermines the integrity of procreation and the inherent rights of that child.

Anne Marie

by stating you are only for abortion if it endangers the mother you are stating the rights of the mother are more important than the unborn child. And by your standards would still be denying the child of it's rights.

Yes, an actually it is moral to save the mother if the pregnancy would otherwise kill her. She is already alive and it's the baby inside of her that's potentially killing her. The rights side to the mother on a purely medical standpoint. To allow the baby to live at the inevitable death of the mother, as the only possible prognosis is also defying moral conduct. In accident cases where the pregnant mother is badly hurt, doctors will make an attempt to birth the baby while attempting to save the mother. But if such a procedure would conceivably kill the mother as a direct effect, such as blood loss, or excessive added trauma, the mother would be saved. If the mother is close to death with no connection to her preganancy, and if it is at all possible, she will be kept on life support, to bring the baby to a close enough term of a safe birth.

Anne Marie

yep, the mother takes preference ALWAYS in cases you mentioned, because she is born already...it puts her slightly ahead of the child to be, who hasn't been born yet...the Doctor's rules are to help mother first...might even be some kind of code for them or oath for them?

care