What should abortion laws be?

[AllieBaba]

I don't think brain dead is a scientific term, at any rate. I know it isn't a definite one.

 

[Immanuel]

Brain dead... would be as I understand it a natural death. I would also understand that this would mean that the child would be born and then determined to be still born.

Braindeath does not always lead to the death of the body. The brainstem will keep the heartand lungs going even if the rest of the brain is gone.

But, my understanding is that brain death is defined as death.

I am not aware of this being an issue at birth, not to say that it is not, so I don't know that my answer is sufficient or even correct. I do know of the defect called Hydroencephalitis (I think that is it) where the child is born without a brain (or is it only the brainstem) but these children do not as far as I know live.

What do you want me to say? Mom should be forced to give birth and endure the extremely short life of such a child? No effing way I would do that to any mother!

In cases such as this, I tend to realize that I don't know what is best in every case.

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

We have become way too far removed from death.

Everyone has to deal with death at some point, including women who get pregnant. I mean, we'll all at some point have to deal with the painful death of our parents...should we therefore execute them before they become a burden, cost us money, and cause us pain?

 

[JD_2B]

I will go back to JD’s First post as the rest are a rehash of the same post.

So, my assertion that it is not a *person* until the moment it takes it's first breath makes you angry? Oh and please do not confuse "person" with "human". I do not claim that a fetus is not human. It most certainly is HUMAN, it simply is not A PERSON.

To say that a fetus is A PERSON, is to entitle it to rights that are impossible to enforce for it. The non-viable fetus is subjected to every danger that it's PERSON, THE WOMAN carrier is subjected to experiencing, including death, injury, and destruction by the organism's outside world. For a fetus, the outside world is everything beyond the uterus, and of course, everything that is introduced TO the uterus, which happens to be by the choice OF said carrier woman. So, if she smokes Crack, or has HIV, or even has a few drinks one night- the fetus is subjected to die as a result. If the woman is hit by a car, in a train, ship, or plane wreck, or is caught in a bad storm and electrocuted, even, that fetus is ABSOLUTELY not going to have any opportunity to get away. The FETUS does not have a livelihood to protect- there is nobody to hold it, to cuddle it, to talk to it, or to nurture it. All there is, is the woman who carries it. THIS is why the fetus is considered a part of the woman's body- because it is contained within it- and is also why a fetus will never have independent rights, because it IS CONTAINED IN SOMEONE'S BODY.
Before an egg hatches, it is NOT A CHICK. It is STILL an egg, dude. Got it?

Do not try and argue semantics with me. It makes debate impossible. Replace each human with person and my statement still stands. The first breath is a ridiculous argument that you cannot uphold. There is no difference between an infant that is in the womb at 9 months and one that has been out of the womb for 10 seconds other than location.

I agree that a 9 month gestated fetus should be birthed. I personally cannot see myself ever aborting at this stage. However, the argument you have here is emotional, not one based on anything factual. See, you can't adopt a fetus while it is still in it's mothers uterus, without taking her with it. I would like to see that happen. LMAO!!
And, it is not RIGHT to force a woman to have a C-section or induce a delivery, just because you want her to have a live birth.

Oh and lets be clear about the differences between a live birth and the birth of a "viable" fetus.
A viable fetus isn't very fucking viable if it is born in a taxicab, or out in the middle of nowhere, in some mud hut somewhere, where access to life support is not available, now is it.

Partial birth abortions take a fetus that CAN survive completely outside the womb and kills them.

I understand that, and while I agree that those are immoral, I will not say that they should be illegal. There are a lot of things that are immoral that should not be illegal.
If a woman does not want something inside of her, she should not be under some morally based legal obligation (based on the average emotional person thinking that removing it using force is wrong or immoral) to keep it there.

We do know many of the characteristics of a fetus before birth (and asking for absolute is intellectually dishonest as there are VERY few absolutes in this world). If you cared to do a little research, we can and have recorded brain activity of fetuses before and it is surprising what you can deduct from many of the studies that has been conducted on fetuses. You would also be surprised at how well we can interpret brain activity. Do not use ambiguity to hide behind. Just because YOU don’t know what is going on does mean it is not happening.

And just because you want to believe it IS happening, does not mean that, either. Stop being so subjective. Everything that you claim about my assertion is equally true about your own. Since there is NOT A CHANCE that we can figure out if the fetus is truly sentient, then it stands to reason that the only person who TRULY matters in the pregnancy, is the sentient woman carrying it.

Read the statements I made again. I said that breathing was a non issue to the definition of what it is to be human. You do not consider a dog human yet it breaths. Your argument is way off base here. As pointed out by others, YOU need to take health 101 before preaching it here.

You love to twist my words around dont ya..
I never said that anything that breathes is a human. I said that we do not become alive until we breathe.
Keep flaming me, though.. Its hilarious!! =)

NO, you are being ignorant. You argue for the woman’s side of choice because SHE does not need to take responsibility for the act of having a child and IGNORE the fact that the man is REQUIRED to take said responsibility if she does decide to have a child.

She doesn't have to take responsibility for the act of having a child, if she chooses not to have a child. That is true. Also, he doesn't have to take responsibility for the act of having a child, if she doesn't have the child. That is also true.
And, no- the man is not required to take responsibility if she decided to have the child. If she gives that child up for adoption, then she is letting him off the hook.. and as long as paternity has been established (if he gave a crap he would take this test of course) then he would also have to sign the adoption papers.
Not only that, but he can ask her to release him from parental responsibility, including child support- which he probably will not pay, even if he did not get the release. Delinquent child support also goes unenforced 95% of the time, anyways.
From a sociological perspective, yes, both parents SHOULD be accountable for every birth that they are party to causing.
If two people have sex, YES it is MATING, and the natural thing that sometimes happens when people mate, is that the female gets pregnant with the male's offspring.
Men have FAR more choice than women tend to have when it comes to baby making and parenting.
Hell, men can sit in a fucking jacuzzi for a half hour a night, which kills their sperm off almost completely, putting them at about 1/10th of the active sperm counts of a man who is diagnosed with a "low sperm count". And this would cause a man to be able to avoid having kids. Naturally.

Why the fuck would they bitch about getting a woman pregnant, or having to pay child support???? Why are you WHINING about this so much, really!!

What does the law say to a man if they want to keep a child and the man does not want it or to pay child support? They say tough shit you shouldn’t have been screwing around. Why do you continually bring the man into this when the man is already required to take the responsibility of his actions?

Not really.. 95% of the uncollected child support will always be uncollected child support. It is totally unenforced.
How the fuck is this REQUIRING a man to take responsibility for his actions???
You whiny little bitch.

WOW did you completely miss the mark here. I did not say you need to go without treatment. If you have a head injury of course you would get treatment. You would still have to live with the lost brain function as a consequence if it was a bad head injury. Same with pregnancy, you are offered many forms of care such as prenatal doctor visits and those wonderful vitamins everyone gets but you still have to live with the consequences of your actions, the child.

You see- pregnancy is actually a MEDICAL CONDITION, which can happen as a result to having sex, the act that you claim is a risk to which every WOMAN should accept the potential consequences of pregnancy, esophagal erosion, gestational diabetes, weight gain, and financial distress.
As long as we are discussing potential, I would hope that you keep in mind those potential effects for the woman as well. If you do not, then I guess you are the one here who is at a loss. I am sorry that you don't appreciate women as much as I do.

As I said before, NO IT DOES NOT. Currently it only goes ONE way, as in I am required to care for a baby I do not want but you can just kill it off if you do not want to care for it.

Bullshit. You can change jobs, or become self employed, and not use a bank account, or switch bank accounts often. That doesn't cause the baby that is YOURS to be less cared for- it just raises everyone else's taxes, and puts that baby and its mother on welfare, medicaid, etc.

I wonder how many asshole dirtbag deatbeats there are on this very board who are delinquent on their child support, and still bitch about the US deficit- continually pointing at welfare as the reasoning.
Just because a person has a societal responsibility towards a person, does not force anyone to actually live up to that responsibility. Elderly people in nursing homes are abused and neglected as much as babies and children are. In fact, humans are notorious for neglecting and abusing their species, throughout the ages. Whats new here...
Wah wah wah.. WTF do you know.. LOL

Hmmmm…. Absolute drivel. Do you have a point or do you simply want to insult me?

I am not insulting you. All you do is flame flame flame here. I apologize to all of womankind for people like you.

Ohhhh So all we have to do is get hooked on CRACK or something, and we are in the clear, because we are SUCH WEAK LITTLE BITCHES and only the DUMBEST MOST FUCKED UP BITCHES should be allowed to avoid prosecution for "killing" their "protected" offspring??

You are a TOTAL misogynist. Did you know that???

Again, that has nothing to do with what I said. This is a continuous habit with you. If you are to quote me, please make your statement pertain to what I said. It seems that all you are trying to do is demise people that place an argument against what you belive.
You are a TOTAL misanthropist. Did YOU know that???
As far as I can tell your argument is that women should have control over their bodies and that personal responsibility should have no bearing on the choices we make. Fetuses are not people and can be discarded at will based on the fact they do not breath! Is that it!

Honey, if a woman pays for an abortion, then she IS taking responsibility for it. She just isn't mothering it, or giving it 9 months of her life. That is the difference that you do not seem to be able to make a connection on.

We are not saying that the fetus is a PART of her body, but it is within a part of her body, and does affect her entire body, and way of life. As such, she has the right to decide whether it should remain there, for the expected duration of time, or if it should be removed prior, thereby ending (terminating) her state of being pregnant.

The fetus also can't breathe. It cannot be adopted by another family, it cannot be saved if the woman it depends so highly on dies, and it is absolutely and completely prone to ceasing from growing (living, if you will- but without a death certificate, I hardly call this logical) by all of the above.

 

[Contumacious]

Exactly.

PS...I would love anyone who refers to a baby as a parasite to please provide a link to a scientific study which proves it is a parasite.

S: (n) parasite (an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host)

That's a link?

LINK

 

[☭proletarian☭]

A viable fetus isn't very fucking viable if it is born in a taxicab, or out in the middle of nowhere, in some mud hut somewhere, where access to life support is not available, now is it.

No baby survives if you leave it on a mountain to die. What's your point?

If a woman does not want something inside of her, she should not be under some morally based legal obligation (based on the average emotional person thinking that removing it using force is wrong or immoral) to keep it there.

Kinda late to decide you don't want to have a baby when we get to killing your child after birth or morons like you crying that it's wrong for a woman to have to see what her baby looks like when she kills it at4 or 6 months gestation.

That's what birth control is for. There's only one wy a woman's ever een known to get pregnant.

Since there is NOT A CHANCE that we can figure out if the fetus is truly sentient, then it stands to reason that the only person who TRULY matters in the pregnancy, is the sentient woman carrying it.

Since we can't know whether you're sentient, that means there's no reason to object to me killing you, right?

You love to twist my words around dont ya... I said that we do not become alive until we breathe.

And the basic facts of biology prove you wrong. Nobody has to twist anything; there's no way we could make you look more stupid than you make yourself look.

She doesn't have to take responsibility for the act of having a child,

That's what this is all about, isn't it? You not taking responsibility for something you've done because you can't face your own actions.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

S: (n) parasite (an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host)

That's a link?

LINK

Let me google that for you

 

[JD_2B]

Brain dead... would be as I understand it a natural death. I would also understand that this would mean that the child would be born and then determined to be still born.

Braindeath does not always lead to the death of the body. The brainstem will keep the heartand lungs going even if the rest of the brain is gone.

But, my understanding is that brain death is defined as death.

I am not aware of this being an issue at birth, not to say that it is not, so I don't know that my answer is sufficient or even correct. I do know of the defect called Hydroencephalitis (I think that is it) where the child is born without a brain (or is it only the brainstem) but these children do not as far as I know live.

What do you want me to say? Mom should be forced to give birth and endure the extremely short life of such a child? No effing way I would do that to any mother!

In cases such as this, I tend to realize that I don't know what is best in every case.

Immie

Only in cases such as this?? Because you sound like you think you do know what is best for the mother, in certain subjectively picked cases.

I am not picking on you, either. Just keeping it real, here..

How is anyone supposed to know (aside from lacking a brain) that a fetus is not already brain-dead, or impaired beyond capability of sustainment of life outside of the uterus, caused by damage from some kind of undetectable anomaly in the placenta/ fetus/ mother?

Do you support abortion in cases where the fetus might have severe mental impairment? Obviously you do, in certain types of cases or impairment of disability. Which ones do you NOT support the woman's choice to abort in, and why are these cases not significant enough to you, that a woman should have to endure the pain of watching their child grow up with (or die within days or weeks of birth as a result of) such an impairment?

And speaking of emotional trauma, in regards to damaged fetuses, or fetuses with dysfunction- why is one ailment greater than another, in your opinion, to the mental and financial health of a woman?
Why shouldn't she end it when she has the chance, and try again later, for a healthy baby?

Another thing- if a woman is already financially impaired (which is the case with most abortions) or already has all the children she wants, for the time being, why should that be some kind of "inexcusable reasoning", to you- for her to choose not to have her next pregnancy come to term, as opposed to her conceiving a ZEF which ended up lacking a brain?

Finally- for what purpose does a fetal brain serve itself, the woman, and our society? Why is so much importance placed on it, by pro lifers?

Thanks, Immie.. Talk to you soon..

 

[Contumacious]

That's a link?

LINK

Let me google that for you

Was that so hard?

.

 

[obama2ndterm]

Abortion has a law and it's legal.

 

[Contumacious]

Why is so much importance placed on it, by pro lifers?

We are pro-lifers - we support women's lives.

I believe that you are referring to the fascist enslavers. They want to impose their repressive victorian views on society.

1- men who have no testosterone on board hence are not fucking;

2- sexually unappealing women who are , you guessed it, not fucking.

So the the "baby" issue is nothing more than a subterfuge for the real issue: we are not fucking and neither will you.

.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Just keeping it real, here..

JD, any trace of reality left your posts when you started talking about your dog getting you pregnant

 

[FA_Q2]

I agree that a 9 month gestated fetus should be birthed. I personally cannot see myself ever aborting at this stage. However, the argument you have here is emotional, not one based on anything factual. See, you can't adopt a fetus while it is still in it's mothers uterus, without taking her with it. I would like to see that happen. LMAO!!
And, it is not RIGHT to force a woman to have a C-section or induce a delivery, just because you want her to have a live birth.

Oh and lets be clear about the differences between a live birth and the birth of a "viable" fetus.
A viable fetus isn't very fucking viable if it is born in a taxicab, or out in the middle of nowhere, in some mud hut somewhere, where access to life

As a matter of fact, in many cases it does. My son was born almost an entire month early and he did not need any medical attention. Though he was born in a hospital and had jaundice he was put in our arms and never left them until we left the hospital, no doctors did more than look at him.

Conceivably, you could take a child several months early and still have it come to term in medical care without the mother. Your position is rather than force a woman to undergo a simple procedure or suffer through a day of live birth we should force a child to be cut into small pieces! Your attacks and language are not covering for the straw man. You still are lacking an argument for personal responsibility.

I understand that, and while I agree that those are immoral, I will not say that they should be illegal. There are a lot of things that are immoral that should not be illegal.
If a woman does not want something inside of her, she should not be under some morally based legal obligation (based on the average emotional person thinking that removing it using force is wrong or immoral) to keep it there.

You’re damn right it should be illegal and there is not a SINGLE GOD DAMN ARGUMENT OUT THERE THAT RESONABLE SUPPORTS PARTAL BIRTH ABORTIONS AS THEY ARE ACCOMPLISHED DURING THE BIRTHING PROSESS. Got that. It is coming out already and in some cases IS out. That is the insane argument you are making here. If that is your true belief, then please late abort yourself…

Sorry, the nasty side of me comes out when you condone partial birth abortions as they are obviously murder. It is the single largest travesty about the abortion issue.

And just because you want to believe it IS happening, does not mean that, either. Stop being so subjective. Everything that you claim about my assertion is equally true about your own. Since there is NOT A CHANCE that we can figure out if the fetus is truly sentient, then it stands to reason that the only person who TRULY matters in the pregnancy, is the sentient woman carrying it.

I pointed out in my earlier post that what you say is untrue. We have active brain activity and can reasonable determine what said activity indicates. Since you are lazy and incompetent at actual sourcing

Fetal Psychology

Fetal Brain Activity – 28 Weeks Pregnant « Graphoniac

http://cds.ismrm.org/ismrm-2000/PDF3/0875.pdf - A medical journal on fetal brain response to music

There are a lot more but you can go looking for some yourself.

She doesn't have to take responsibility for the act of having a child, if she chooses not to have a child. That is true. Also, he doesn't have to take responsibility for the act of having a child, if she doesn't have the child. That is also true.
And, no- the man is not required to take responsibility if she decided to have the child. If she gives that child up for adoption, then she is letting him off the hook.. and as long as paternity has been established (if he gave a crap he would take this test of course) then he would also have to sign the adoption papers.
Not only that, but he can ask her to release him from parental responsibility, including child support- which he probably will not pay, even if he did not get the release. Delinquent child support also goes unenforced 95% of the time, anyways.
From a sociological perspective, yes, both parents SHOULD be accountable for every birth that they are party to causing.
If two people have sex, YES it is MATING, and the natural thing that sometimes happens when people mate, is that the female gets pregnant with the male's offspring.
Men have FAR more choice than women tend to have when it comes to baby making and parenting.
Hell, men can sit in a fucking jacuzzi for a half hour a night, which kills their sperm off almost completely, putting them at about 1/10th of the active sperm counts of a man who is diagnosed with a "low sperm count". And this would cause a man to be able to avoid having kids. Naturally.

Why the fuck would they bitch about getting a woman pregnant, or having to pay child support???? Why are you WHINING about this so much, really!!

And that was the point. Are you really that dense? The man has no choice to shove off the responsibility; it is ALL on the woman. SHE gets to decide whether or not the man is allowed to put the child up for adoption, have an abortion, or even to release him from the obligation. I did not whine about this at all, I believe the man should be held accountable. IT WAS YOU THAT WHINED THAT THE SAME SHOULD NOT GO FOR THE WOMAN. YOU think that a woman should not be held accountable for getting pregnant; all she has to do is get an abortion. You fail to realize that the woman should also be held accountable.

Not really.. 95% of the uncollected child support will always be uncollected child support. It is totally unenforced.
How the fuck is this REQUIRING a man to take responsibility for his actions???
You whiny little bitch.

Show a SINGLE statistic here. Shut the fuck up if all you are going to do is LIE. Wagers are garnished, homes taken and the law comes back to a man that does not pay with an iron fist. I have seen it before.

Honey, if a woman pays for an abortion, then she IS taking responsibility for it. She just isn't mothering it, or giving it 9 months of her life. That is the difference that you do not seem to be able to make a connection on.

Excellent, if you have a child and I don’t want to take care of it I will just hire a hit man, that is taking responsibility after all.

The fetus also can't breathe. It cannot be adopted by another family, it cannot be saved if the woman it depends so highly on dies, and it is absolutely and completely prone to ceasing from growing (living, if you will- but without a death certificate, I hardly call this logical) by all of the above.

As stated above, in many partial birth abortions (which you seem to support and all your arguments go out the window) and late term abortions it can. It has already been pointed out to you that there are many children who survive their mother while in the womb from an accident or other tragedy. I fail to see how the lack of a death certificate actually means anything either. If you fail to get one you never were truly alive!!! PROOF JESUS IS A MYTH – he could not have been alive as he does not have a death certificate.

Another thing- if a woman is already financially impaired (which is the case with most abortions) or already has all the children she wants, for the time being, why should that be some kind of "inexcusable reasoning", to you- for her to choose not to have her next pregnancy come to term, as opposed to her conceiving a ZEF which ended up lacking a brain?

That is why the first trimester term. Is that really to much strain on you that you can’t decide in that time frame?

JD, any trace of reality left your posts when you started talking about your dog getting you pregnant

Wrong thread

 

[Cecilie1200]

love my child, and want another one,

Are you going to tell them you killed the first one so you could save up enough money for a new iPod?

I hope JD's kid never pisses her off, since she apparently believes that the "personhood" of children begins and ends with whether or not their mothers like them and find them convenient.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The reason Black Market's thrive is government regulation: Prohibiting Alcohol and Abortion is Government Regulation.....(nothing to do with rape, murder and theft)

It has everything to do with rape and murder, especially since abortion involves terminating a human life ans is therefore homicide by definition. To argue that one form of homicide should not be restricted because it cannot be stopped is to argue that all homicide- and all other acts- should be unrestricted because they too are impossible to stop in all instances.

It's a really stupid argument that only a retard or an anarchist (which may imply retardation) would ever forward in seriousness.

I thought I'd try to see the arguement from another angle.

You're one of the many whose minds have been set so concretly, that there can be no intelligent conversation with you about the subject: Abortion is Homocide. This absurd notion is ok, only if you ignore the fact that Homocide victims are not inside anyone else's womb.

****unsubscribe****

I wasn't aware that location was a factor in homicide laws.

FYI, abortion isn't homicide precisely because it's not illegal. It's killing, not murder.

I also wasn't aware that a willingness to pretend that facts don't exist was required for intelligent conversation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're one of the many whose minds have been set so concretly, that there can be no intelligent conversation with you about the subject: Abortion is Homocide. This absurd notion is ok, only if you ignore the fact that Homocide victims are not inside anyone else's womb.

Why do so many people who want to kill their unborn children refuse to open a dictionary?

Because it's frigging hard to rationalize something you know is wrong if you're not able to blur definitions and distinctions.

 

[AllieBaba]

That's a link?

LINK

Let me google that for you

So what we're saying here is there's no need for evidence? We should just take your word, or prove your point ourselves?

Thanks, I generally assume people who can't back up their bullshit are full of...bullshit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So cumisdelicious thinks a roundworm is part of cummy's own anatomy?

Go join JD is remedial biology.

HUH?

They are both parasites and subjected to be removed by the host organism at any time.

.

Nice topic-hop. "I can't sustain the argument that being inside someone's body makes one part of that body, so I'll just skip over and pretend we were talking about the right to evict."

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is more than that. It is taking another life that is totally independent of you and throwing it away because of inconvenience. That is the crux of the issue. The true scary part is many of those are willing to brutally kill a child by chopping them up into pieces at birth out of that inconvenience of putting them up for adoption. The fact there are people that defend that position really shows the depths of depravity of this society and the unwillingness to accept the consequences of the lives we lead.

The day you can adopt an embryo, and take it home with you, without taking the woman as well, let me know.

Are you high? Hello, donated eggs and/or sperm are often used for in-vitro.

Becoming An Egg Donor

Very true.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Exactly.

PS...I would love anyone who refers to a baby as a parasite to please provide a link to a scientific study which proves it is a parasite.

look up the definition of a parasitic relationship

Parasitism - an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures

Without the added factor of some other problem, such as lack of adequate nutrition or a health problem on the mother's part, pregnancy does not harm the mother. Indeed, a woman's body is designed for pregnancy to occur.