What should abortion laws be?

[rdean]

^ Has nothing to do with this subject. Those groups you are referring to are nut jobs, the few but the loud and are talking about immunization policy not abortion. The general populous does not feel this way.

Once again, I put fourth an option in the very first post – allow abortions up to the end of the first trimester. That is one possible solution. If you believe that there is a better solution then put it forward AND STATE YOU’RE REASONING. If you believe there is error in what I suggested then POINT IT OUT AND STATE YOUR REASONING. Since you have failed to do anything of the sort I can only surmise that you have no idea why you support your pov nor truly have you even put forward what you truly believe in. If all you have is rhetoric then leave. If you have some input, we have been waiting.

oops, that was at rdean, you posted while I was typing pro

Not sure I understand. What I do understand is that for the right, abortion is not an option at any time. Not even the morning after pill.

 

[FA_Q2]

The spermatozoa has unique characteristics is alive and constitutes an integral part of the fetus. Just like the fetus has the POTENTIAL to create a human being so does the spermatozoa.

Any guy caught jerking off must be arrested for performing an abortion without a license.

We need to protect the babies.

.

How can you be so purposely stupid? Doesn't it hurt? It sure hurts to read it.

The sperm and ovum cease to be as distinct entities when they combine to form a new human organism. neither is a human organism- they are simply human germ cells. A fetus is a distinct living organism that is genetically human- a human being by definition.

This has been explained countless times and either you're purposely being retarded or you're simply not smart enough to caerry on a meaningful and honest discussion.

The fetus is not a distinct entity. To be distinct, or a human "being", or an organism whatsoever, one must be capable of adapting to different environments, which zygotes cannot do. HUMANS can survive in air, and cannot survive in an perpetual underwater state. Zygotes can ONLY survive in the uterus. Thus, a zygote is NOT THE SAME THING as a human being because it CANNOT hold its breath, and breathe air.

A person on a ventilator is DIFFERENT- so don't try to argue semantics on this one. A person on a ventilator CAN have their nose and mouth sealed off for a few seconds, and immersed in water, thereby doing the same thing as a conscious person would do if they held their breath and went underwater.

Women are life support systems, at least loosely defined, and even if the embryo was carefully removed, it would NOT be capable of surviving the environment that all human beings CAN survive without the aide of a parent encasing them, to do so.

And furthermore- DEAD people are no longer human "beings" either. They are human corpses, once they die. Yes they have human DNA, but if they cease from being capable of functioning, or breathing on their own, or having a blood pressure (a pulse) without support, they are, by all accounts DEAD. There is no BEING left in them. No sense in keeping them alive based on some technicality. The right to die is just as important as the right to life.. and the right to life should never be construed as an entitlement to live.

I have already pointed out that the “women are life support systems” is a failing defense for late and partial birth abortions, which you have stated you support. As a viable fetus (not the 20 week fetus you tried to straw man but a fully functioning 8 or 9 month old fetus) can be removed with a c-section and live completely disconnected with few complications.

We have also covered the distinct organism argument earlier. A fetus IS a distinct organism by ANY definition. The debate is over when it receives protection. A few believe at the moment it is created, some like me and pre believe that brain development is the defining factor and it seems you believe that breath is what defines its rights. What I fail to understand and what you have put no points against is WHY breath is this defining factor. There is no difference between a child moments before the first breath and moments after. YOU CANNOT ‘STICK IT BACK IN’ as you have said earlier at any point after birthing has starts and I cannot see the reasoning that a fetus’s ability to survive IN the womb has any bearing on abortion. I at least understand the viability argument, though I do not agree.

What happens if someone's born kid/ or fetus needs an organ or tissue? Do you think that the parents should be forced to give up their own bodily autonomy to keep that kid alive, based on some ridiculous nonsensical entitlement to the working parts of another person's body, that you associate with the right to life?? No way!! I can't explain autonomy in a way that is any more simplistic for you..

That is a piss poor example as it would require you to permanently loose a part of your body and is not part of the natural process of child birth. A better example would be your parents. They were likely born before Infant formula existed. Do you, then, feel that it would be perfectly acceptable for a mother to withhold her breast milk and allow her newborn to starve to death since, after all, breast milk IS part of the mother’s body and the child has no right to it.

 

[JD_2B]

Once again, I go through the posts and not a single Conservative has any solution other than, "Make abortion illegal". Nothing to help the mother. Nothing to help the child.

It's like they are saying, "get it born and then screw it, it's not MY problem. I did MY job by making it illegal. I'm though. Next!"

Once again, you go through the posts and only see what you want to see. Why do you even bother with an interactive medium when you only interact with your own paranoia and bigotry? You could do that offline and save a lot of board space.

I'm sure you believe what you say, too bad you couldn't link any corroborating evidence.

I have seen Democrats with solutions, even Obama. Solutions other than abortion.

While Obama supports a woman's right to choose, he has stated many times that he is against abortion, but until women have a viable alternative, then he has to support women's rights.

Republicans simply don't care about consequences. They would rather see their own children die than to reconsider their ideology. We know that with the HPV Virus:

HPV is an increasingly common sexually transmitted disease and one that scientists say is linked to 70% of all cases of cervical cancer.

An STD Vaccine For All Girls? - TIME

if you are good folks who raise your daughter to be chaste and pure until she reaches her marriage bed, she won't need this."

------------

They would rather see their kids die. Hey, if they are raised "right", they won't have sex.

Don't waste your time on Proletarian or Cecile. Prolet has posted all of ONE opinion, and then continued to do nothing but berate and belittle everyone with a different opinion, who back their conclusions up with fact. Cecile is much the same way, as far as ad hominems go, but at least has some (albeit biased and subjective) evidence for her opinions. I think she is narrow minded, but Proletarian is absolutely closed off to discussion on the matter, and his posts are a total waste of breath, and energy for all involved to even entertain. Cecile is almost there.. she just has a lot of pent up hate and anger over it. He supports abortion to 12 weeks gestation, but will call a woman a baby killer if they don't regret it, even if done in his own subjective time frame.
Cecile seems to be much the same way, as well...

In spite of what the two claim to "support", they don't act like they support it at all. LMAO!! Whats new.. That's the anti abortion agenda for ya. Both seem to be victims of the anti abortion haters of america, who do nothing but cause people to believe things that are not fact based, or scientific/ peer reviewed, and generally most people like this get their emotional knee jerk reactions from a bunch of pictures of fetal porn posted by websites like priests for life and abort73, operation rescue, etc.. Priests for life has circulated pictures of an anti abortion protester holding an "aborted fetus", which was said to be like 3 months gestated, when in actuality, based on it's size, and later confirmed, it was a LATE term stillborn fetus, not even an aborted one in the first place.

Then there are the pictures out there of actual aborted fetuses and embryos, that are about the size of a nickel, and the photographer uses a special camera to zoom in on the body parts, showing the facial features that look something like an alien, but are human enough in structure that they cause an emotional reaction in anyone who would look at them.
Part of science is separating personal feelings for actual fact, and the reason these websites post so many photos is because they know that it will cause people to let their emotions take over and not use as much logic as a result. It is very much a form of manipulation and trickery. If they did not list those pictures, and only listed their abortion "facts" the way they do, people would not be so quick to hate other people over it. It is really really a big problem, this whole anti abortion misguidance system.

 

[xsited1]

What should abortion laws be?

I give my money to Planned Parenthood under one condition:

Report: Planned Parenthood Apologizes for Encouraging Donation Aimed at Aborting Black Babies - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

 

[JD_2B]

How can you be so purposely stupid? Doesn't it hurt? It sure hurts to read it.

The sperm and ovum cease to be as distinct entities when they combine to form a new human organism. neither is a human organism- they are simply human germ cells. A fetus is a distinct living organism that is genetically human- a human being by definition.

This has been explained countless times and either you're purposely being retarded or you're simply not smart enough to caerry on a meaningful and honest discussion.

The fetus is not a distinct entity. To be distinct, or a human "being", or an organism whatsoever, one must be capable of adapting to different environments, which zygotes cannot do. HUMANS can survive in air, and cannot survive in an perpetual underwater state. Zygotes can ONLY survive in the uterus. Thus, a zygote is NOT THE SAME THING as a human being because it CANNOT hold its breath, and breathe air.

A person on a ventilator is DIFFERENT- so don't try to argue semantics on this one. A person on a ventilator CAN have their nose and mouth sealed off for a few seconds, and immersed in water, thereby doing the same thing as a conscious person would do if they held their breath and went underwater.

Women are life support systems, at least loosely defined, and even if the embryo was carefully removed, it would NOT be capable of surviving the environment that all human beings CAN survive without the aide of a parent encasing them, to do so.

And furthermore- DEAD people are no longer human "beings" either. They are human corpses, once they die. Yes they have human DNA, but if they cease from being capable of functioning, or breathing on their own, or having a blood pressure (a pulse) without support, they are, by all accounts DEAD. There is no BEING left in them. No sense in keeping them alive based on some technicality. The right to die is just as important as the right to life.. and the right to life should never be construed as an entitlement to live.

I have already pointed out that the “women are life support systems” is a failing defense for late and partial birth abortions, which you have stated you support. As a viable fetus (not the 20 week fetus you tried to straw man but a fully functioning 8 or 9 month old fetus) can be removed with a c-section and live completely disconnected with few complications.

I understand that entirely- but the fact that they CAN be removed does not mean that they SHOULD be removed. Remember again.. A right to live is not an entitlement to.
Also, an 8 or 9 month fetus can also "die" in the uterus, or be born at full term, as a stillbirth. So I have to say that this is not necessarily a fully functioning organism. I do agree that it would be pretty dumb and cold to abort something that late in the game, but I don't hate on people for doing it. Everyone has their reasons, and I respect that. I brought up the 20 week thing, because I am sick of hearing about "viability", and want to hammer that point home. You are not ONLY against 8 and 9 month abortions, but are against much earlier abortions as well, as you have said. I want to help cover those seemingly gray areas for you, as much as you need. Clearly, discussing it and asking for links and facts, you WANT us to give you truths that you are not getting from your anti abortion sites or friends or groups. We are happy to educate you, here. =)

Should We Get Genetic Counseling?

Memorializing Your Infant after Miscarriage or Stillbirth

Stillbirth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have also covered the distinct organism argument earlier. A fetus IS a distinct organism by ANY definition. The debate is over when it receives protection. A few believe at the moment it is created, some like me and pre believe that brain development is the defining factor and it seems you believe that breath is what defines its rights. What I fail to understand and what you have put no points against is WHY breath is this defining factor. There is no difference between a child moments before the first breath and moments after. YOU CANNOT ‘STICK IT BACK IN’ as you have said earlier at any point after birthing has starts and I cannot see the reasoning that a fetus’s ability to survive IN the womb has any bearing on abortion. I at least understand the viability argument, though I do not agree.

I have put facts forward as to why the breath is a factor. Once it fucking breathes (lather, rinse repeat) it CANT go BACK INSIDE OF THE WOMAN. Hence, it is self supporting, self sustaining, alive, a LIFE, and individual, an entity, a human being. How many times do I have to repeat this? The air in the fetus' blood is NOT it's own air. It is the mother's air, that is a SHARED resource, and if she LOSES her ability to breathe, then the fetus stops growing. Hence, a fetus is NOT an individual, it is not self supporting, it is not an entity in and of itself, it is not a LIFE, or a being. I have only said this about a thousand times in this thread. Ignore it if you want, but do not claim that this is not factual information or that I am not backing my claims up.

What happens if someone's born kid/ or fetus needs an organ or tissue? Do you think that the parents should be forced to give up their own bodily autonomy to keep that kid alive, based on some ridiculous nonsensical entitlement to the working parts of another person's body, that you associate with the right to life?? No way!! I can't explain autonomy in a way that is any more simplistic for you..

That is a piss poor example as it would require you to permanently loose a part of your body and is not part of the natural process of child birth. A better example would be your parents. They were likely born before Infant formula existed. Do you, then, feel that it would be perfectly acceptable for a mother to withhold her breast milk and allow her newborn to starve to death since, after all, breast milk IS part of the mother’s body and the child has no right to it.

[/QUOTE]

A newborn would not HAVE to starve to death, just because the mother chose not to breastfeed, or in many cases, could not breastfeed. This is a social expectation, not an entitlement or a requirement on the mother's part, for a born baby to survive, even if formula did not exist. In many societies, and even in the US, there are women available who are more than happy to continue pumping their own breasts, long after their own babies have been weaned, or breastfeeding another person's baby if needed.
It DOES take a village. Always has, always will. The child does NOT have a "right" to the breast, or any other portion of someone else's body. To say otherwise is completely lacking respect for women, and expecting women to lose all of their own personal respect.
A child can also be adopted by a family who is pregnant, or breastfeeding and that woman can breastfeed the adopted baby. Do you deny any of these facts??
You have to accept that the rights to a body are individual, and autonomous. Everyone has the right to make their OWN decisions as to who does what with their body parts and fluids. Nobody, not even their offspring, is entitled to any piece of that pie.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Don't waste your time on Proletarian or Cecile. Prolet has posted all of ONE opinion,

Yes, unlike you, I don't don't chave to change my argument every time someone points out that a dog

can't get a woman pregnant.

and then continued to do nothing but berate and belittle everyone with a different opinion, who back their conclusions up with fact. Cecile is much the same way, as far as ad hominems go, but at least has some (albeit biased and subjective) evidence for her opinions. I think she is narrow minded, but Proletarian is absolutely closed off to discussion on the matter,

(F)inding information on fetal brain development has been difficult and I remain open to evidence indicating a different timeline.

When another user asserted that a later point in time would be more in accordance with the available evidence, I simply asked for the poster's source so I could consider the poster's information. Such was not posted to my knowledge.

Both seem to be victims of the anti abortion haters of america, who do nothing but cause people to believe things that are not fact based, or scientific/ peer reviewed,

says the woman who thinks her dog can get her pregnant and dead babies grow

 

[rdean]

What should abortion laws be?

I give my money to Planned Parenthood under one condition:

Report: Planned Parenthood Apologizes for Encouraging Donation Aimed at Aborting Black Babies - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

I'm going to assume that if it comes from Fox news it's anti Obama.

 

[JD_2B]

Don't waste your time on Proletarian or Cecile. Prolet has posted all of ONE opinion,

Yes, unlike you, I don't don't chave to change my argument every time someone points out that a dog

can't get a woman pregnant.

and then continued to do nothing but berate and belittle everyone with a different opinion, who back their conclusions up with fact. Cecile is much the same way, as far as ad hominems go, but at least has some (albeit biased and subjective) evidence for her opinions. I think she is narrow minded, but Proletarian is absolutely closed off to discussion on the matter,

(F)inding information on fetal brain development has been difficult and I remain open to evidence indicating a different timeline.

When another user asserted that a later point in time would be more in accordance with the available evidence, I simply asked for the poster's source so I could consider the poster's information. Such was not posted to my knowledge.

Both seem to be victims of the anti abortion haters of america, who do nothing but cause people to believe things that are not fact based, or scientific/ peer reviewed,

says the woman who thinks her dog can get her pregnant and dead babies grow

This peer reviewed genetics study shows that Humans and Dogs share the same ancestry. I can assure you, it may not be possible TODAY, but it has been possible in the past, as these recent genetics study show.

Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog : Article : Nature

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Damn, you're stupid...

Canidae and Hominidae cannot interbreed and never were capable of interbreeding. They are of different classes (that's a level on the phylogenetic tree) and the common ancestor was neither canidae nor hominidae.

This is not middle school and I don't get paid to tech you elementary biology or evolution. Since you've shown repeatedly that you have no idea what you're talking about, all further posts you make will be disregarded as spam.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The spermatozoa has unique characteristics is alive and constitutes an integral part of the fetus. Just like the fetus has the POTENTIAL to create a human being so does the spermatozoa.

Any guy caught jerking off must be arrested for performing an abortion without a license.

We need to protect the babies.

.

How can you be so purposely stupid? Doesn't it hurt? It sure hurts to read it.

The sperm and ovum cease to be as distinct entities when they combine to form a new human organism. neither is a human organism- they are simply human germ cells. A fetus is a distinct living organism that is genetically human- a human being by definition.

This has been explained countless times and either you're purposely being retarded or you're simply not smart enough to caerry on a meaningful and honest discussion.

The fetus is not a distinct entity. To be distinct, or a human "being", or an organism whatsoever, one must be capable of adapting to different environments, which zygotes cannot do. HUMANS can survive in air, and cannot survive in an perpetual underwater state. Zygotes can ONLY survive in the uterus. Thus, a zygote is NOT THE SAME THING as a human being because it CANNOT hold its breath, and breathe air.

Let me get this straight. To be an organism, and a distinct entity, one must be able to adapt to different environments. And yet you then state that humans can survive in air, and not underwater. Wouldn't that mean, by your logic, that their inability to adapt to water means they aren't organisms? Does the fact that fish can only survive in water and not on land make THEM not oganisms?

I'm afraid I'm just not seeing the logic behind "Being able to survive only in the environment for which you are designed means you are not an organism".

Oh, and who told you that all humans, by definition, must respirate in a certain way? Humans AFTER A CERTAIN POINT IN DEVELOPMENT respirate in that way. Before that point, they're designed to perform their respiration via the umbilical cord. This is like saying that a fetus isn't human because it doesn't look like an adult human. You're going to penalize him for being at one stage of life instead of another?

A person on a ventilator is DIFFERENT- so don't try to argue semantics on this one. A person on a ventilator CAN have their nose and mouth sealed off for a few seconds, and immersed in water, thereby doing the same thing as a conscious person would do if they held their breath and went underwater.

I don't think anyone needs to talk about ventilators. The simple, inescapable fact is that not being an adult does not mean the fetus isn't human. It just means he's not an adult. He is what all humans are AT THAT STAGE OF LIFE. You can no more deny the humanity of a fetus based on his lack of adult development than you can deny the humanity of an infant because he hasn't learned adult bladder control.

Women are life support systems, at least loosely defined, and even if the embryo was carefully removed, it would NOT be capable of surviving the environment that all human beings CAN survive without the aide of a parent encasing them, to do so.

Um, no, ALL human beings CANNOT survive that environment. Fetuses can't. And you don't get to impose your arbitrary standard of "To be human, you must live in THIS environment THIS way" on nature and science. Show me somewhere that science makes that distinction, or give it up.

And furthermore- DEAD people are no longer human "beings" either.

Who said they were?

They are human corpses, once they die. Yes they have human DNA, but if they cease from being capable of functioning, or breathing on their own, or having a blood pressure (a pulse) without support, they are, by all accounts DEAD.

You're listing us signs by which we know that someone is dead, not the actual definition of "dead". A fetus does not meet the actual criteria for "dead".

There is no BEING left in them. No sense in keeping them alive based on some technicality. The right to die is just as important as the right to life.. and the right to life should never be construed as an entitlement to live.

I still haven't figured out what you think the right to live is if not an entitlement to live. "You have the right to life, but that doesn't mean you actually get to live!" I think I'm not alone in saying, "What the fuck?!"

What happens if someone's born kid/ or fetus needs an organ or tissue? Do you think that the parents should be forced to give up their own bodily autonomy to keep that kid alive, based on some ridiculous nonsensical entitlement to the working parts of another person's body, that you associate with the right to life?? No way!! I can't explain autonomy in a way that is any more simplistic for you..

Well, I'm sure none of us expect YOU to give enough of a rat's ass about your kids to inconvenience yourself by donating a kidney, or even a pint of blood. I believe I have said before that I pity your child if he ever exceeds the limit where Mommy thinks he's convenient to her life, based on what happened to the last one who got in her way. Most of us, however, would not need to be "forced" to help our children.

Aside from marveling at your pathological hatred of your femaleness, your reproductive system, and your own offspring, I honestly can't see any other point to this paragraph . . . not that discernible points are a requirement with you.

 

[Care4all]

When the Bald eagle was on the endangered species list, it was ALSO ILLEGAL to kill or to damage any of the Bald eagle's fertilized eggs....the crime and punishment were EQUAL...why is that JD?

 

[Yukon]

ABORTION is legal, get over it.

 

[Father Time]

When the Bald eagle was on the endangered species list, it was ALSO ILLEGAL to kill or to damage any of the Bald eagle's fertilized eggs....the crime and punishment were EQUAL...why is that JD?

Because the law is not required to be consistent or sensical.

 

[JD_2B]

When the Bald eagle was on the endangered species list, it was ALSO ILLEGAL to kill or to damage any of the Bald eagle's fertilized eggs....the crime and punishment were EQUAL...why is that JD?

That doesn't change the fact that Bald Eagles often push their eggs or born birds out of the nest prematurely. What are you going to do? Imprison a bird? Also- Humans are not going to be on any endangered species any time soon, so the analogy (aside from the bird's decision making being completely autonomous) is completely moot.

Also, it should be noted that it was not only illegal to damage the eggs, but to touch them at all, was considered molesting. The only thing you can touch of a protected species is their fecal matter, or any feathers that have been molted/ skin shedded, etc. The EPA makes certain exceptions in good faith, like if you pick up a Gopher Tortoise, who is crossing the road, and ensure that it gets dropped off on the side of the road it was headed in- they dont care if you do that. A Segura Cactus (the kind that grows "arms", in Arizona) is also protected. You can't even dig one up and replant it without getting special permissions first.

Anyhoo...

 

[☭proletarian☭]

When the Bald eagle was on the endangered species list, it was ALSO ILLEGAL to kill or to damage any of the Bald eagle's fertilized eggs....the crime and punishment were EQUAL...why is that JD?

That doesn't change the fact that Bald Eagles often push their eggs or born birds out of the nest prematurely.

So you should be allowed to kill babies becausethis

Florida Woman Kills Son, Self at Gun Range - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

? A Segura Cactus (the kind that grows "arms", in Arizona) is also protected. You can't even dig one up and replant it without getting special permissions first.

WTF is a Seguara? I never heard of such a thing?

I like saguaro, though.

 

[JD_2B]

Damn, you're stupid...

Canidae and Hominidae cannot interbreed and never were capable of interbreeding. They are of different classes (that's a level on the phylogenetic tree) and the common ancestor was neither canidae nor hominidae.

This is not middle school and I don't get paid to tech you elementary biology or evolution. Since you've shown repeatedly that you have no idea what you're talking about, all further posts you make will be disregarded as spam.

The common ancestor was primates. Read the article. There is also evidence that suggests that humans and wolves procreated about 10,000- 14,000 years ago, which is thought to be how dogs were created in the first place. The only reason we don't know more than we do is because we lack sufficient technology to read the genetic sequences, in dogs and humans, because dogs have been reproduced so specifically within their breeds, that they have very breed specific genetics, and so each breed takes a lot of individual attention to check out their genomes.

PS- Don't respond to my posts if you dont agree and are just going to call me an idiot or something. My whole point to all that "dog- human breeding" comment was more of an illustration than anything. If a dog- human was inside of a person, would it then be a human being with rights?? Obviously that is beside the point, but I want to show how some people think that certain people have special rights over others. In your case, a fetus seems to have rights over a woman.

 

[JD_2B]

When the Bald eagle was on the endangered species list, it was ALSO ILLEGAL to kill or to damage any of the Bald eagle's fertilized eggs....the crime and punishment were EQUAL...why is that JD?

That doesn't change the fact that Bald Eagles often push their eggs or born birds out of the nest prematurely.

So you should be allowed to kill babies becausethis

Florida Woman Kills Son, Self at Gun Range - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

? A Segura Cactus (the kind that grows "arms", in Arizona) is also protected. You can't even dig one up and replant it without getting special permissions first.

WTF is a Seguara? I never heard of such a thing?

I like saguaro, though.

No- Killing babies is murder. Abortion is not. Stop making moot analogies.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

No- Killing babies is murder. Abortion is not. Stop making moot analogies.

Killing a German in Germany in 1942 was murder, killing a Jew was not.

All are homicide by definition. Stop playing pathetic word games- you're not smart or literate enough to play linguistic mindfuck with me.

 

[rdean]

Still waiting for conservatives to have more of a suggestion than, "Make abortion illegal". What happens to the kids? The mother?

 

[K9Buck]

I believe that all abortion is immoral and evil unless the mother's life is in danger. I know my stated perspective on this issue will likely earn me the scorn and hatred from the enlightened, tolerant, sanctimonious, peace-loving left in this forum. But it is what I believe. Needless to say, the vast majority of abortions are done out of convenience. In other words, the woman/couple don't want the "burden" or the "punishment" (as our enlightened leader Obama put it) of a baby.

Now I'll duck for cover.