Obama to Lift Ban on Overseas Abortion Funding

[Valerie]

Just what are you trying to justify, evil white man?

I just like this side of the argument better

Well, it certainly is the safer argument to make for a white male, evil or otherwise.

 

[Anguille]

then It is ALSO your body before become a fruit bearer .

Are you saying a woman should be punished for having sex by being made to bear a child?

no--and I dont think a child is punishment either.

Then explain what you mean by "if you do not want fruit, dont allow yourself to be pollinated."

It's sounds like you're saying if you don't want to get pregnant don't have sex.

 

[Dr Grump]

yes---It's very normal to assist humans to continue to develop .
It's abnormal to try to stop them from developing.

I thought we were talking foetus's? Now we're talking humans. Make up your mind....

 

[dilloduck]

Well, it certainly is the safer argument to make for a white male, evil or otherwise.

I imagine grump is pretty safe arguing his side.

I could help him but that would wreck all the fun.

 

[pegwinn]

What punishment? If she doesn't want a kid, then prevent the pregnancy in the first place. She may then sleep all over town if she wishes.

Since when do you get to exercise a right that infringes on another persons rights?

Shit happens Phil. Yep, my wife is 42 and my oldest kid is 25....... And I agree with your last part, if only the anti-abortionists would listen I think you missed the point. Her right to "choice" cannot logically or morally infringe on the baby's right to live. (and no, a foetus is not a person....yet) Yes it is. Page 17, post 244, the labels are explained.

And, back on topic, which enumerated power allows taxpayer dollars to be spent overseas on this or any other program?

 

[WillowTree]

A 5 year old is a developing human----kill them too ?

Does a five year old breath by itself? Try again....

oh, so by those standards anything that dosen't breathe on it's own dosen't deserve to live. So if the five year old stops breathing no problemo..

 

[Care4all]

I agree. And you make a good point that they are not among us till they are born.
Until they are born they are part of the woman who is pregnant. Her body, her property. No one else's.

So the difference between a 6 1/2 month in the womb, and one that is delivered prematurely is what?? Air exposure? UV Light?? Magic pixie dust in the c-section scar that suddenly makes a "life" difference?

Neither can survive on their own....

I'll tell you the difference... there is NONE

A 6 1/2 month old fetus in the womb does not breathe and is dependent on the woman's body in whom it is located. It takes nutrients from her body.

A prematurely born baby exists apart from the woman's body from which it was born. It is no longer a part of her body, thus no longer her property.

I'm surprised I should have to spell out those obvious facts to you.

BTW Too much money and effort is spent on try to keep the very early preemies alive. It's sick. Doctors are just experimenting on them.

well anguille, on this, we disagree....

there is a point, in which the foetus can survive outside of the womb without the mother. On record, there is a 22 week old prematurely born baby girl that survived. She was hospitalized for many months....maybe even a year, but she went home from the hospital with her mother some time last year....i remember reading the article on it, and seeing it on the 24/7 news.

This is possible now, because we have computers that help us manufacture needles small enough to fit easily in to a premie's veins to administer the drugs/ and food/ and nutrients needed for their survival.

i can assure you, when a woman miscarries at 5 or 6 months, she is devastated and mourning the loss of her baby.

my next door neighbor lost a daughter at 5 months and mourned!

my secretary lost a set of fraternal twins at 7 months and she and her husband were shattered beyond despair....for the loss of their babies....

the idea that a foetus at 2 1/2 months is the same as a viable foetus at 5 1/2 is not logical, in the medical sense!!!! At least not to me!!!!

care

 

[dilloduck]

yes---It's very normal to assist humans to continue to develop .
It's abnormal to try to stop them from developing.

I thought we were talking foetus's? Now we're talking humans. Make up your mind....

oh man grump---it was YOU who described a foetus as a "developing human "

 

[Dr Grump]

I think you missed the point. [/COLOR]Her right to "choice" cannot logically or morally infringe on the baby's right to live. (and no, a foetus is not a person....yet) Yes it is. Page 17, post 244, the labels are explained.

No, I did not miss your point. It becomes a baby after it is delivered. That aside, I find this a bit of a strawman, because most abortions happen in the first trimester whne it has hardly developed. I looked at post 244 and there was no explanation. However, I have seen z-boing post a definition and it is a developing human, not human. Do you look at an egg and see a chicken, Phil?

And, back on topic, which enumerated power allows taxpayer dollars to be spent overseas on this or any other program?

You're thinking short term. If you spend money educating third-world countries about sex education, I'm pretty sure it's cheaper than sending aid to said countries when they become severely over populated due to lack of education on the matter...

 

[Anguille]

What punishment? If she doesn't want a kid, then prevent the pregnancy in the first place. She may then sleep all over town if she wishes.

Since when do you get to exercise a right that infringes on another persons rights?

Abstinence or tubal ligation are the only 100% reliable methods for a woman not to prevent pregnancy. A woman simply cannot sleep all over town or even sleep just with her husband without risking pregnancy.

Since when does a fetus get to exercise a right which infringes on a pregnant woman's rights? Since never, is when. Fetuses have no rights.

 

[Dr Grump]

oh man grump---it was YOU who described a foetus as a "developing human "

That's right, a developing human, not a human. See my egg and chicken analogy. you'll get there. It ain't that hard to understand is it??

 

[dilloduck]

What punishment? If she doesn't want a kid, then prevent the pregnancy in the first place. She may then sleep all over town if she wishes.

Since when do you get to exercise a right that infringes on another persons rights?

Abstinence or tubal ligation are the only 100% reliable methods for a woman not to prevent pregnancy. A woman simply cannot sleep all over town or even sleep just with her husband without risking pregnancy.

Since when does a fetus get to exercise a right which infringes on a pregnant woman's rights? Since never, is when. Fetuses have no rights.

when she consents to sex

 

[eots]

What punishment? If she doesn't want a kid, then prevent the pregnancy in the first place. She may then sleep all over town if she wishes.

Since when do you get to exercise a right that infringes on another persons rights?

Abstinence or tubal ligation are the only 100% reliable methods for a woman not to prevent pregnancy. A woman simply cannot sleep all over town or even sleep just with her husband without risking pregnancy.

Since when does a fetus get to exercise a right which infringes on a pregnant woman's rights? Since never, is when. Fetuses have no rights.

they are just lazy ignorant sluts..birth control is 98-99%... the dumb hoes just are not using any in most cases...because they are stupid ..drunk..or both...just face it

 

[WillowTree]

What punishment? If she doesn't want a kid, then prevent the pregnancy in the first place. She may then sleep all over town if she wishes.

Since when do you get to exercise a right that infringes on another persons rights?

Abstinence or tubal ligation are the only 100% reliable methods for a woman not to prevent pregnancy. A woman simply cannot sleep all over town or even sleep just with her husband without risking pregnancy.

Since when does a fetus get to exercise a right which infringes on a pregnant woman's rights? Since never, is when. Fetuses have no rights.

obviously.

 

[Anguille]

I'm happy with Obama's decision to allow groups that discuss abortion as an option to be included in receiving international assistance. If it's already budgeted; I have no problem with these groups receiving it as well. However I don't argue with those that said earlier that we have a lot of problems in this country that the foreign aid could be going to instead. I agree that we should make sure our own citizens are taken care of first with any federal monies.

I am also glad that Obama repealed the gag order. With it we were deceiving and thus harming women in other countries who came to American charitable organizations for help.
And I do agree that we should be taking care of poor Americans first. But helping others in other countries does help us in the end. If third world countries can slow down their population growth, they can have a better chance at becoming economically viable and thus, less impoverished people will be crossing our borders illegally.

 

[Anguille]

A 5 year old is a developing human----kill them too ?

Does a five year old breath by itself? Try again....

oh, so by those standards anything that dosen't breathe on it's own dosen't deserve to live. So if the five year old stops breathing no problemo..

stops breathing is not the same as never having taken a breath of life.

 

[dilloduck]

Does a five year old breath by itself? Try again....

oh, so by those standards anything that dosen't breathe on it's own dosen't deserve to live. So if the five year old stops breathing no problemo..

stops breathing is not the same as never having taken a breath of life.

you are correct---they are different.

 

[WillowTree]

oh, so by those standards anything that dosen't breathe on it's own dosen't deserve to live. So if the five year old stops breathing no problemo..

stops breathing is not the same as never having taken a breath of life.

you are correct---they are different.

yep, the difference? live vs dead.

 

[AllieBaba]

I think you missed the point. [/COLOR]Her right to "choice" cannot logically or morally infringe on the baby's right to live. (and no, a foetus is not a person....yet) Yes it is. Page 17, post 244, the labels are explained.

No, I did not miss your point. It becomes a baby after it is delivered. That aside, I find this a bit of a strawman, because most abortions happen in the first trimester whne it has hardly developed. I looked at post 244 and there was no explanation. However, I have seen z-boing post a definition and it is a developing human, not human. Do you look at an egg and see a chicken, Phil?

And, back on topic, which enumerated power allows taxpayer dollars to be spent overseas on this or any other program?

You're thinking short term. If you spend money educating third-world countries about sex education, I'm pretty sure it's cheaper than sending aid to said countries when they become severely over populated due to lack of education on the matter...

So tell me the difference between a "baby" delivered to a loving family at 6 months...and a "fetus" killed and taken from the womb. What's the diff?

 

[Anguille]

well anguille, on this, we disagree....

there is a point, in which the foetus can survive outside of the womb without the mother.

"Can", most likely it can. But is not yet doing so. Till it is, it is part of the woman's body.

Do you think fetuses at that stage should be removed from the woman's body and treated as if they were preemies? Then put out for adoption? Do you think that is possible to do that to a woman without causing her worse harm than an abortion? Suppose the woman flat out does not want to give birth? Is there any justification in forcing her to do so?

i can assure you, when a woman miscarries at 5 or 6 months, she is devastated and mourning the loss of her baby.

Most do. This not news to me.