What should abortion laws be?

[☭proletarian☭]

I believe that the moment the baby breathes its own air, it becomes alive

Until it breathes, the fetus is pushed by the woman, to get it out

Fail.

Actually, full fledged consciousness may not actually begin for a full five minutes following initial breathing, if the umbilical cord cannot be cut in time. See it takes five minutes for the veins to collapse and stop circulating in the infant, after birth, if the umbilical cord is not cut. Regardless of whether babies in this instance are fully cognitive or not until five minutes after birth, we still consider them to be living beings, based on the fact that they are now, for all rational, legal, and scientific purposes, generally self sustaining individuals, as the umbilical cord CAN be cut, if there was any issue, and the baby CAN get artificial ventilation if needed.

Eight..because whether the cord is cut effects whether they're sentient

 

[☭proletarian☭]

?????????????? You make no fucking sense. Hilarious!!! Since when are chairpersons, salespeople, and spokespersons, not fucking PEOPLE?? BOY OH BOY!!!

Yeah what prolet said. I'm not sure how much more basic I can make it for you. You response to my definition is the equivalent of saying that ANY thing defined as a person is either a chairperson, or spokesperson, salesperson, etc. All of those things are persons, but not all persons are those things. Clear enough for ya?

Nope. I have never heard of, seen, or gotten any kind of orders, understandings, knowledge, or otherwise from a fetusperson, so to me this is all emotionally charged rhetoric on your side's behalf. =)

 

[☭proletarian☭]

JD, would you want a paramedic to begin treating you because it's plausible that you're not yet dead and you could be saved? Saying it's plausible doesn't mean you aren't dead.

In medicine, we are always to err on the side of caution.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Also, a fetus's brain could not at all be affected by headphones being put on the woman's ears, so the entire premise of the study is ridiculous, at best.

Could it be effected by being in the blast zone of a MOAB?

Is that the thing that the police use to blast noise into crowds for riot control?

GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JD_2B]

Is a fetus alive? yes. Is it human? yes. It is a "being" in fact, there is a flash of electricity that happens at the point of conception that last time I looked, doctors were unable to explain.

My son stood larger than life, the sun dancing on his hair, his eyes sparkling as he laughed with his teammates in all the bravado only teamates can share. Grinning from ear to ear, ahead in a major semi-pro football game, my son was radiant with the joy of it, and I thanked God for days such as this.

I once had the RIGHT to kill him. For a second I imagined him not there.

That thought shot through my body like ice and anger at women like Nancy Pelosi welled up inside. What kind of monster would fight to kill innocents? What sick and twisted people are these to campaign that our tax dollars be used to MURDER men like my son, to confuse young teens carrying children, to convince them they aren’t children at all but worthless cells. Those poor teens and young women have no idea what they’re doing and how they would regret it for the rest of their lives.

Personal testimony
Abortion: young and deceived by Jen Shroder

Comparing a fetus to a born person and posting a picture, is nothing more than an appeal to emotional rhetoric, and would not be at all considered by any person who uses objectivity to think things out, unlike you, who clearly allows pictures of six year olds to determine your reasoning behind why YOU FEEL that a blob of tissue is somehow a person.

 

[Bern80]

Yes I believe that women should not be criminally prosecuted for making decisions that affect their bodies, lives, or spirit, just because someone somewhere deems that certain movements of a fetus are equivalent to the movements of a conscious being.


Yes, that is true. I believe that the building blocks to attaining consciousness are present prior to birth, prior to the fetus completing all of the necessary prerequisites required of involuntary bodily function, before it can achieve sentience.

That some think movement equals consciousness is not the reason they believe women should be prosecuted. That is being intellectually dishonest and/or obtuse. Regardless the next question are is the former belief (that women shoudl never prosecuted no matter when the pregnancy is terminated0 at all dependent on the later (when consciousness occurs)? You gave a conditional response to this below......

The next thing I ask is do you recognize what your position means in terms of the point at which one becomes conscious and do you recognize that it's not a logical position? You have stated you believe consciousness manifests itself immediately after birth by the act of breathing. You would then have to show that somehow taking a first breathe triggers a level of consciousness at which you would find killing the baby prosecutable. You would have to show that breathing somehow measurably changes one's awareness, understanding, neurology etc.. Can you do that?

As I have said many many times, Legally- probably not. I would personally, however, remain open minded to the woman having a limited array of SOCIALLY acceptable reasons to terminate the pregnancy, for the same Personal moral reasons that I have today, none of which include anything to do with fetal rights, or the fact that the fetus was (hypothetically speaking) conscious. There is such a thing as anesthesia, so the consciousness of the fetus is truly a moot point, as far as I am concerned.

If legally it doesn't change your position, that is if you KNEW that a child was, pre-birth, a concsious human being, would you not be forced to admit, given your first statement above that, that is an instance in which murder should be legal?

I think that there is no logical reason to believe that a fetus can process and reason and understand ANYTHING, or that it can make voluntary movements, which would be hazardous to not only itself, but the woman who is carrying it. This can only logically happen when it is born.

This is an argument you should really drop as a condition of abortion because you would be hard pressed to show that a baby immediately after birth is measurably better at reasoning, understanding, making voluntary movements, etc. than it is immediately pre-birth.

So now, you are changing your argument about dependence on the mother, regarding her responsibility (which, by the way, I responded to in a very civil way, and was practically burned at the stake for saying that being responsible for a baby is societal, and not necessarily the mother's responsibility).

And yes- the dependence on the world's society to be available to care for it and such, is far different from it's dependence on the mother to be ALIVE, HEALTHY AND UNHARMED, in order for it to grow. Society may have a hundred people caring for that baby, who can all get sick and die, while they are caring for that baby, but the baby will not die, also. This is not so with the woman carrying a ZEF. You HAVE to admit that to yourself. It is MUCH MUCH DIFFERENT.

I didn't change anything. YOU presumed I was referring to the mother's level of responsibility toward the child pre-birth and after birth. Repsonsibility of the mother can be debated, the child's dependence on the mother can't. I corrected you pointing out that I was not referring to the mother's responsibility to the child, but to the child's dependance on the mother. I made that point because you had been making arguments concerning the autonomy of the fetus and had brought up time and time again it's dependence on what the person carrying it does to herself and by extension to the baby.

And no there is no difference between the mother and the rest of society in terms of a child's level of dependence. The child is dependant on others for survival, period. When in the womb it is wholly dependent on the mother. When outside our society has been set up such that that is still largely the case. By and large the mother does not get to say 'okay society I did my part now it's all yours.' The child really doesn't care or have the capacity to care about who does that. If you want to talk about responsibility, what right do you have to hold the rest of society responsible for a choice they didn't make?

You are unbelievable. Instead of giving a rational response, you again resort to factless emotional rhetoric, and abusive language that suggests that all women who abort must immediately be "life takers", who have no sense of "responsibility", and use, exclusively "poor judgment". Thinly veiled attack. Not cool.

Remembering that we are only talking about consensual encounters here, if it gets to that point. 4 months into a pregnancy and you find yourself having to choose to abort the pregnancy it means you didn't do an awful lot of things that could have prevented you from having to make that choice at that point. I don't know how that can be defined any other way than irresponsible. That is not an emotional response. It is what it is. If you believe as I do, that at some point in the pregnancy that fetus is a human being and that is the point you decide to abort then yes, you are holding another life responsible, by putting the negative consequences of your actions on him/her.

Yes I understand that. That does not mean that the ones who were too ignorant about birth control to use it should be criminalized for having to save for three months to have a fourth month abortion, or that those who were on birth control, causing them to have two periods a year, should be criminalized, for not wanting a pregnancy, and not knowing until they were 6 months along, that a pregnancy was present. I agree that it sucks, but that is too bad. It is especially too bad for a woman who makes that kind of decision, as 1:16,000 of those Third trimester abortions end in death for the woman, as it is. That doesn't mean that it should not be her right to go ahead and abort it. Some men say they have had a vasectomy, just to have unprotected sex, even when they knew that the woman was not on birth control. There are a lot of naive and even stupid people in this world, and they shouldn't be treated as criminals for making unhealthy decisions.

It is not my intent to hold them criminally accountable for poor decision making. It is my intent to hold them criminally accountable for taking another human life.

Nope. I have never heard of, seen, or gotten any kind of orders, understandings, knowledge, or otherwise from a fetusperson, so to me this is all emotionally charged rhetoric on your side's behalf. =)

All you had to say is that you don't understand how you used false logic. You're not gonna get this one I guess so we best move on.

 

[JD_2B]

JD, would you want a paramedic to begin treating you because it's plausible that you're not yet dead and you could be saved? Saying it's plausible doesn't mean you aren't dead.

Doesn't mean I am, either. It is inconclusive, so as long as I do not have a DNR order, then the paramedic is required to make an attempt, based on the plausibility that I could be saved. Again, in this case, it rests solely upon whether I have a DNR order or not, and has absolutely nothing to do with the "plausibility" of a fetus having sentience, as stated in a medical journal, verbatim. Plausibility of something being true does not equate to conclusively resulting in it being empirically true.

In medicine, we are always to err on the side of caution.

Always.

So, on the side of caution, I say that anyone not wanting to gain weight, or any more weight than they have already, or not wanting to go through extremely painful childbirth, then they have every right to err on the side of caution, and terminate as soon as the opportunity presents itself.

 

[JenT]

Is a fetus alive? yes. Is it human? yes. It is a "being" in fact, there is a flash of electricity that happens at the point of conception that last time I looked, doctors were unable to explain.

My son stood larger than life, the sun dancing on his hair, his eyes sparkling as he laughed with his teammates in all the bravado only teamates can share. Grinning from ear to ear, ahead in a major semi-pro football game, my son was radiant with the joy of it, and I thanked God for days such as this.

I once had the RIGHT to kill him. For a second I imagined him not there.

That thought shot through my body like ice and anger at women like Nancy Pelosi welled up inside. What kind of monster would fight to kill innocents? What sick and twisted people are these to campaign that our tax dollars be used to MURDER men like my son, to confuse young teens carrying children, to convince them they aren’t children at all but worthless cells. Those poor teens and young women have no idea what they’re doing and how they would regret it for the rest of their lives.

Personal testimony
Abortion: young and deceived by Jen Shroder

As I watched another shouting fest that was most abortion threads a horrible thought hit me.

I could make a worthless appeal to emotion right now.

The thought jolted through my body like a defibrillator. What kind of slow witted dolt would result to such cheesy drek? What kind of a person would result to just trying to tug on the heartstrings, and hurl insults, instead of attempting to argue their side? What kind of a person does it take to just run around screaming bloody murder (literally) at confused teens, and everyone else. As I looked down from my high horse at such people I could not help but shake my head in disgust.

Sorry, were you saying something?

Yep, that the POLITICIANS are the murderers, and they are. If you read the rest of it at the site, you would know that. The politicans and the voters that vote for them, hopefully they'll think twice about that.

Cheesy drek? I'm expressing the emotions I felt as I watched my son playing football. Fortunately the whole world didn't hound me to abort him like they did the first.

How about you FT? Ever pressure a woman to abort an unexpected surprise? If so, you probably listened to the convenient lie that it's not a being as well. It was easy to do, I fell for it until it came down to it.

So did the father of my first. He's changed his mind, though, since seeing his son's picture. Those fetuses are reality, FT, they're our children. They might not be fighting wars for us yet, or paying for your medicare, but it's the beginning of them, in the womb. Once they are conceived, they are here.

But if you were duped into believing otherwise, well, it's happened to the majority of us. And too many of us have paid way too high a price for being young, insecure and trusting in the wrong people.

Lois Capps KNOWS though. She was a nurse administering to young poor children, and she came out preaching to kill them. If ever there were humans close to monsters, that would be it, right along with Hitler. I honestly hope she reconsiders what she does and seeks Christ, for her own sake.

This is my first, he's going to have carry way more than his share of burden to care for the elderly because so many elderly aborted their own. Will he be paying extra taxes for you or did you let yours live?

 

[JenT]

Is a fetus alive? yes. Is it human? yes. It is a "being" in fact, there is a flash of electricity that happens at the point of conception that last time I looked, doctors were unable to explain.

My son stood larger than life, the sun dancing on his hair, his eyes sparkling as he laughed with his teammates in all the bravado only teamates can share. Grinning from ear to ear, ahead in a major semi-pro football game, my son was radiant with the joy of it, and I thanked God for days such as this.

I once had the RIGHT to kill him. For a second I imagined him not there.

That thought shot through my body like ice and anger at women like Nancy Pelosi welled up inside. What kind of monster would fight to kill innocents? What sick and twisted people are these to campaign that our tax dollars be used to MURDER men like my son, to confuse young teens carrying children, to convince them they aren’t children at all but worthless cells. Those poor teens and young women have no idea what they’re doing and how they would regret it for the rest of their lives.

Personal testimony
Abortion: young and deceived by Jen Shroder

Comparing a fetus to a born person and posting a picture, is nothing more than an appeal to emotional rhetoric, and would not be at all considered by any person who uses objectivity to think things out, unlike you, who clearly allows pictures of six year olds to determine your reasoning behind why YOU FEEL that a blob of tissue is somehow a person.

You're kidding, right?

Being pregnant is a cold hard fact.

And that picture of my three year old WAS that blob of tissue.

You can't subjectively rhetoric that away.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Oh, my God in Heaven. I think evolution is a steamy pile of crap, and even I know more about it than this.

Assuming one believes in evolution, a common ancestor does NOT mean that humans and canines ever interbred. It means that a completely different animal species divided down two completely different lines that eventually led to humans and canines.

As far as similar genetic structure goes, so what? I seem to recall hearing that we share genetic similarities with dandelions, too. Do you believe that humans and dandelions interbred at some point? Were you impregnated by the weeds in your front yard?

The question is not something you imply that is so absurd as to indicate that it is common or current, or something that happened specifically between a canine and human, but that genetic interbreeding is entirely possible. Even that it is possible that humans intermingled with wolves so much back in prehistoric times, that the two created the dog- now considered mans best and most loyal friend.

There is a lot of anthropological history behind the relationship between humans and wolves, and then humans and dogs. Dogs as a species, have only been known to be around for about 10,000 years, while wolves and humans lived together, and hunted-gathered together for thousands of years before then.

Anyways, whether dogs were or weren't made as a result of some weird interbreeding situation, from way back when, the fact remains- if a human and a dog were to have the capacity of interbreeding (or a gorilla, or a chimp, etc- It doesn't matter to me, what species- if you want to keep the technically impossible separate from the technologically feasible, that is all you) then the conceived organism that results is still no less human than any other.

Yes, and if the moon were made of green cheese, dairy prices would be a lot lower. And I am just as likely to dignify THAT childish fantasy with my time and argument as I am your insane notion that humans and dogs can interbreed or have ever been able to interbreed in the past. Oh, and for the record, your attempt to get past your blatant show of ignorance by pretending you never really said that was both lame and unsuccessful.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My contention stands firm, that sentience and the beginning of the individual's life begins at birth, by the act of breathing.

What world do you live in?

I have proven that the heart cannot beat or bring oxygen to cells without breathing to occur

The heart can beat without breathing being present. *holds breath*

Moron.

Not to mention the fact that, despite JD's elementary school-level understanding, not all creatures respirate in the same way that adult humans do. Doesn't mean they don't respirate, or that they're not alive.

 

[Cecilie1200]

BTW, if your child's father is deceased and paternity was established before his death (child support order should do it) then your underaged child is entitled to survivor's benefits. And it's quite a chunk. Call your local social security office.

Yeah!! Thanks- He already gets death benefits- but he has to share with the four other kids that his so called dad "serial fathered" as well. Amazing, his dad- Speaking of whores, Daddy-O had COUNT THEM- Five kids (mine was the first, and the only one within wedlock) with FOUR moms. Un-fucking real.

My son gets less money through death benefits than he would have gotten from the minimal child support order his dad started paying from birth. Considering the 35K in back child support owed, also, I will come out in the negative, anyways.
It's okay though- The death benefit comes every month on the same day, and I know it can be counted on, which is more than I can say for his dad- ever. Good riddance to him. I am only sorry that it was a stroke. He was 30 when he had it- and had JUST turned 30. That creates a serious family history for my son, and a major health risk. Ever since, we have been especially careful about eating habits and exercise. Daddy was a fatty, and I do not want my little pumkin to balloon out into a full fledged pumpkin like his dickweed dad. Obviously that could lead to early death for my son, so I am doing everything possible to steer him clear of that kind of tragedy.

But yea- thanks for the information. How considerate of you, for thinking about that and sharing. =)

I'm not sure, but it sounds to me like Allie's "survivor benefits" and what you call "death benefits" might be one in the same, so your son might already be receiving all he will get.

Now... please don't take this wrong, but from the description of "Daddy-O", I think you picked a real loser. I can only guess at the answer to this, but (if you don't feel this is too personal) was he still married to you when some or all of the others children came along?

Happy New Year Lawyer_to_Be may this year bring tons of joy to you and your son,

Immie

Her apparently splendiferous taste in men explains a great deal, like her pathological hatred of being a woman, and her curious desire to believe she could have been impregnated by a dog.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I know all kinds of stuff about biological development,

All evidence to the contrary

What was that quote from Ronald Reagan about "knowing so many things that aren't so"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

JD, would you want a paramedic to begin treating you because it's plausible that you're not yet dead and you could be saved? Saying it's plausible doesn't mean you aren't dead.

In medicine, we are always to err on the side of caution.

Well, according to Dr. JD's worldview, if she has a heart attack, we should all just let her lie there, because once her heart stopped beating, she was dead and that was it. So we're perfectly justified in shrugging and saying, "Oh, well. That sucked", and walking away, rather than starting CPR to get her heart beating again.

I for one am extremely glad that the real world isn't drawn in the simplistic crayon strokes of JD's worldview.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

JD, would you want a paramedic to begin treating you because it's plausible that you're not yet dead and you could be saved? Saying it's plausible doesn't mean you aren't dead.

Doesn't mean I am, either. It is inconclusive, so as long as I do not have a DNR order, then the paramedic is required to make an attempt, based on the plausibility that I could be saved.

Then a doctor is also required to try to preserve the life of the child and not kill it. Thanks for demonstrating that we are to err on the side of caution- you just refuted your own post.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

For the record, if I have a heart attack and you're not sure I'm dead, CPR would be appreciated... Thank you in advance you erring on the side of caution.

 

[JD_2B]

Yes I believe that women should not be criminally prosecuted for making decisions that affect their bodies, lives, or spirit, just because someone somewhere deems that certain movements of a fetus are equivalent to the movements of a conscious being.

Yes, that is true. I believe that the building blocks to attaining consciousness are present prior to birth, prior to the fetus completing all of the necessary prerequisites required of involuntary bodily function, before it can achieve sentience.

That some think movement equals consciousness is not the reason they believe women should be prosecuted. That is being intellectually dishonest and/or obtuse. Regardless the next question are is the former belief (that women shoudl never prosecuted no matter when the pregnancy is terminated0 at all dependent on the later (when consciousness occurs)? You gave a conditional response to this below......

Do you or don't you want women to be criminalized for obtaining (illegal) abortions outside of your subjective field of acceptance? Answer the question.

The next thing I ask is do you recognize what your position means in terms of the point at which one becomes conscious and do you recognize that it's not a logical position? You have stated you believe consciousness manifests itself immediately after birth by the act of breathing. You would then have to show that somehow taking a first breathe triggers a level of consciousness at which you would find killing the baby prosecutable. You would have to show that breathing somehow measurably changes one's awareness, understanding, neurology etc.. Can you do that?

If a woman decided to abort a pregnancy, during the time when the fetus is deemed to be potentially conscious, and was therefore illegal, what should her punishment be? Can you ANSWER that? Because really, we have been discussing the rest for weeks, and no matter what response I have given you, your ultimate retort will be that it is *I* who is being illogical, even despite the fact that the only "evidence" you have given on fetal sentience has been inconclusive. Clearly, neither of us can prove that any event, either scientific or divine, happens at the moment of birth and breathing.
I will admit that my belief that the baby is sentient at birth is PARTIALLY religious in nature, but that makes no difference in the discussion whatsoever, being that your belief that killing is wrong, is also religious in nature as well. We both belong to a country/world that is primarily religious, which means that even if we do not admit to being religious, there is absolutely no doubt that religious views will affect out personal value systems, even when those have been decided on the basis of free thought, which, of course, is entirely relative, in and of itself. I have, in no way, ever BASED a claim that fetuses are not sentient on the BIBLICAL belief that born babies become living beings when they first are awarded the breath of life. The biblical understanding came AFTER I realized that fetuses could NOT possibly make voluntary, conscious movements in the uterus, and still be capable of succeeding in the gestation and birthing process.

The question of abortion *being illegal* is ABSOLUTELY a question of how you think the woman should be punished. Answer the question.

As I have said many many times, Legally- probably not. I would personally, however, remain open minded to the woman having a limited array of SOCIALLY acceptable reasons to terminate the pregnancy, for the same Personal moral reasons that I have today, none of which include anything to do with fetal rights, or the fact that the fetus was (hypothetically speaking) conscious. There is such a thing as anesthesia, so the consciousness of the fetus is truly a moot point, as far as I am concerned.

If legally it doesn't change your position, that is if you KNEW that a child was, pre-birth, a concsious human being, would you not be forced to admit, given your first statement above that, that is an instance in which murder should be legal?

No! I just SAID that this was a PERSONAL view. Women should not be criminalized for making choices that affect their bodies, and their lives, either personally or otherwise, just because a group of other people think that what is inside of her is, according to your sources, and the basis of your hypothetical here, only REALLY "plausibly" sentient. THE WOMAN IS SENTIENT. That is a CERTAINTY. So, whether the fetus who required her blood and air to grow, and continue to be "hypothetically sentient" is sentient or not, my LEGAL view on the matter is that SHE is not to be treated as some kind of perpetual baby oven, and imprisoned for choosing otherwise, in any stage of the pregnancy. It is HER blood, and HER air, and HER uterus, and sentience does not change that biological certainty, in any scope of a legal argument.

How would she be punished if this sort of thing was TRULY considered "murder", in your opinion? How do you think the woman should be punished for making this decision? Answer.

This is an argument you should really drop as a condition of abortion because you would be hard pressed to show that a baby immediately after birth is measurably better at reasoning, understanding, making voluntary movements, etc. than it is immediately pre-birth.

And no study or source you have found has shown that this type of activity exists pre-birth, but in SEVERAL of your sources, you have shown that pre term infants DO show better reactions than their fetal counterparts. YOU showed this. YOU are the only one who is solidifying MY arguments, through your own half assed, despondent attempts at belittling them, all because you cannot deal with this EMOTIONALLY.

I realize that a 9 month gestated fetus looks like and is the same size as a 3 week old preemie that was born three weeks early. The three week OLD baby shows MORE response than the fetus does. YOUR SOURCES SAY SO.
My opinion is that there is a higher power that neither one of us might ever understand or fully grasp, at work here. There is NO explanation of logic as to why and how this phenomenon occurs. That does not make it impossible. And YOUR sources PROVE that.

I didn't change anything. YOU presumed I was referring to the mother's level of responsibility toward the child pre-birth and after birth. Repsonsibility of the mother can be debated, the child's dependence on the mother can't. I corrected you pointing out that I was not referring to the mother's responsibility to the child, but to the child's dependance on the mother. I made that point because you had been making arguments concerning the autonomy of the fetus and had brought up time and time again it's dependence on what the person carrying it does to herself and by extension to the baby.

Social dependence does not equal physical dependence. You cannot get past the fact that physical dependence for a fetus is a reliance on the mother being alive, period. Socially, the person caring for a baby can die, and the baby will still live for an indefinite period of time. Truly, you need to get PAST this.

And no there is no difference between the mother and the rest of society in terms of a child's level of dependence. The child is dependant on others for survival, period. When in the womb it is wholly dependent on the mother. When outside our society has been set up such that that is still largely the case.

Again- if the person with the social responsibility died, then baby would cry, the person would be found, in a matter of days (generally speaking) and the baby would have the capability of growing up into adulthood. This is NOT how it works with fetuses. Move the fuck on, brother.

By and large the mother does not get to say 'okay society I did my part now it's all yours.' The child really doesn't care or have the capacity to care about who does that. If you want to talk about responsibility, what right do you have to hold the rest of society responsible for a choice they didn't make?

Ah a sociological conundrum. Actually, because there are so many people in society who do not want to have more biological children, or cannot have biological children, then surrogate parents are often used, and even more than this, mothers (and fathers) who are carrying a fetus will sign papers voluntarily giving their child, once born alive, the parental rights to that child. Society DOES make the choice. OFTEN. I have a "long lost Aunt" who we found out lives in Scotland. The story goes like this: My grandfather used to beat my grandma. My grandma, at one point, needed some friendly good touch, and love.. She went off and fell in love with another guy, while she was married to the shitstain we DONT really call "gramps". (I refer to him as Harry). This was in the 1940s. She already had three kids, and knew that she could not go home to Harry with a bulging belly, so she asked a friend to take care of one of her existing three girls. (My Aunt). So the friends adopted her. My grandma moved somewhere (I have no idea where). My Aunt was never really happy with the situation, but seems to be a happy, well adjusted adult, with a full family who loves her, now. She wants nothing to do with our family, of course. The feelings involved with being "given up" are very much akin to "unwantedness", even though the family that cared for her and loved her, definitely did WANT her. The choice was not pushed on them. It was voluntary.
Society does not take kids based on involuntary servitude.
Furthermore, to claim that a woman who is 8 or 9 months pregnant should not abort, along with these statements above, is much akin to saying that she should not put the child up for adoption, also. What is WRONG with this picture? Talk about lacking logic. Good Grief!!!

Remembering that we are only talking about consensual encounters here, if it gets to that point. 4 months into a pregnancy and you find yourself having to choose to abort the pregnancy it means you didn't do an awful lot of things that could have prevented you from having to make that choice at that point. I don't know how that can be defined any other way than irresponsible. That is not an emotional response. It is what it is. If you believe as I do, that at some point in the pregnancy that fetus is a human being and that is the point you decide to abort then yes, you are holding another life responsible, by putting the negative consequences of your actions on him/her.

And having consensual sex, and being a person who does not have a period but every few months, one might not ever notice that they even missed one to begin with. Women are not, and should not be prosecuted for being sexually active, just because YOU think that they should be taking a weekly fucking pregnancy test.. My word. The only arguments for negative actions you are even discussing here is the sole fact that MOST women do not sit there and test themselves for pregnancy every freaking week. Get through it!! That is PREPOSTEROUS AND OUTRAGEOUS!!!

Yes I understand that. That does not mean that the ones who were too ignorant about birth control to use it should be criminalized for having to save for three months to have a fourth month abortion, or that those who were on birth control, causing them to have two periods a year, should be criminalized, for not wanting a pregnancy, and not knowing until they were 6 months along, that a pregnancy was present. I agree that it sucks, but that is too bad. It is especially too bad for a woman who makes that kind of decision, as 1:16,000 of those Third trimester abortions end in death for the woman, as it is. That doesn't mean that it should not be her right to go ahead and abort it. Some men say they have had a vasectomy, just to have unprotected sex, even when they knew that the woman was not on birth control. There are a lot of naive and even stupid people in this world, and they shouldn't be treated as criminals for making unhealthy decisions.

It is not my intent to hold them criminally accountable for poor decision making. It is my intent to hold them criminally accountable for taking another human life.

Ok so how should women who abort in the 4th month be punished then?? Go ahead, and answer the question.

Nope. I have never heard of, seen, or gotten any kind of orders, understandings, knowledge, or otherwise from a fetusperson, so to me this is all emotionally charged rhetoric on your side's behalf. =)

All you had to say is that you don't understand how you used false logic. You're not gonna get this one I guess so we best move on.

Oh really- please DO TELL us what kinds of knowledge and such a fetusperson can share with the rest of us? YOU ARE DODGING THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO LOGICAL ANSWER.

And pissing me off in the process.

 

[JD_2B]

JD, would you want a paramedic to begin treating you because it's plausible that you're not yet dead and you could be saved? Saying it's plausible doesn't mean you aren't dead.

In medicine, we are always to err on the side of caution.

Well, according to Dr. JD's worldview, if she has a heart attack, we should all just let her lie there, because once her heart stopped beating, she was dead and that was it. So we're perfectly justified in shrugging and saying, "Oh, well. That sucked", and walking away, rather than starting CPR to get her heart beating again.

I for one am extremely glad that the real world isn't drawn in the simplistic crayon strokes of JD's worldview.

Google "DNR" order, you fucking halfwit.

 

[JD_2B]

My contention stands firm, that sentience and the beginning of the individual's life begins at birth, by the act of breathing.

What world do you live in?

I have proven that the heart cannot beat or bring oxygen to cells without breathing to occur

The heart can beat without breathing being present. *holds breath*

Moron.

Not to mention the fact that, despite JD's elementary school-level understanding, not all creatures respirate in the same way that adult humans do. Doesn't mean they don't respirate, or that they're not alive.

A fetus get's it's oxygen from a vein that goes from the mother to the fetus.
But, hey, if attacking me personally, because I happen to know that, makes you somehow feel important- then have a blast!! =)

 

[eots]

pictures really do speak a thousand words...dont they

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql_7jnp--UE&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

Late-Term Abortions