What should abortion laws be?

[JenT]

How can you people be so stupid?

Why can't you just agree to disagree? Instead of resorting to an ad hominem attack, why not explain to me just what is wrong with the approach I have pointed to above? You really think that outlawing the elective abortion procedure is going to do any good? Again, this is an issue that concerns one's own body. Homicide and rape do not figure into this in any way, shape, matter or form. Oh, and I said nothing at all about rape; don't put words in my mouth.

Exactly what I spent 60+ pages dealing with on this thread alone, before finally putting him on ignore, lol..

The extremists on this thread will of course threaten your life just the way proletarian did to you- as a means of comparing a born person being tortured, raped and killed to a born person ending a pregnancy by choice.

This is just one in a zillion examples of the illogical, meaningless emotional hyperbole used by the psychotic antis in this thread.

Oh and just you wait- they will start calling you non sentient and a bad parent with neglected or abused kids, just because you advocate for decriminalizing late term abortions too. And this will be from the very person who claims she would hurt her own children and their girlfriends, should any of her son's girlfriends attempt to abort.

They won't say these things to a man, of course. Only to a woman.. And they claim to not be misogynists. HA! Yeah.. that's a laugh!!!

Somebody threatened your life?

Who called you non-sentient and a bad parent?

 

[Cecilie1200]

okay but if we haven't all done that, we've felt like it before...

No, I can't say that I've ever felt like having a melodramatic, adolescent flounce out of a thread, vowing never to return.

Really? Melodrama rocks, so does flouncing, adolescent or otherwise

Turns out that when you hit a certain age, you just don't have the energy left for that crap. Who knew?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why can't you just agree to disagree? Instead of resorting to an ad hominem attack, why not explain to me just what is wrong with the approach I have pointed to above? You really think that outlawing the elective abortion procedure is going to do any good? Again, this is an issue that concerns one's own body. Homicide and rape do not figure into this in any way, shape, matter or form. Oh, and I said nothing at all about rape; don't put words in my mouth.

Exactly what I spent 60+ pages dealing with on this thread alone, before finally putting him on ignore, lol..

The extremists on this thread will of course threaten your life just the way proletarian did to you- as a means of comparing a born person being tortured, raped and killed to a born person ending a pregnancy by choice.

This is just one in a zillion examples of the illogical, meaningless emotional hyperbole used by the psychotic antis in this thread.

Oh and just you wait- they will start calling you non sentient and a bad parent with neglected or abused kids, just because you advocate for decriminalizing late term abortions too. And this will be from the very person who claims she would hurt her own children and their girlfriends, should any of her son's girlfriends attempt to abort.

They won't say these things to a man, of course. Only to a woman.. And they claim to not be misogynists. HA! Yeah.. that's a laugh!!!

Somebody threatened your life?

Who called you non-sentient and a bad parent? (though I would have to say aborting a child sorta seems like a fail in parenting)

For the record, Prole and I had a discussion about whether her lack of sentience made her a non-person, so that would be both of us. I know I consider her the poster child for bad parenting for exactly the reason that killing one of your children is an epic fail in the parenting department. No one ever threatened her life, though.

 

[bobbcat]

if you are for the personal freedom to make your own choices about your body, how do you reconcile that with not giving ANOTHER life the choice to live?

By the mere fact that it is not a choice I would ever make. I cannot make that choice for another woman, however. Again, regardless of the law, women who are determined to terminate their unwanted pregnancies are going to do so. Far better it be for women to grow up with a strong sense of personal responsibility and a strong support system that prompts them not to seek the elective abortion procedure as a means to cope with the dilemma of the unwanted pregnancy.

If outlawing unacceptable behaviors does nothing to deter people from doing them, why do we bother to outlaw anything?

Some people are not deterred one bit by the fact that something is against the law. Elective abortion is not against the law, so not sure why you are comparing it to things which are against the law.

 

[Bern80]

By the mere fact that it is not a choice I would ever make. I cannot make that choice for another woman, however. Again, regardless of the law, women who are determined to terminate their unwanted pregnancies are going to do so. Far better it be for women to grow up with a strong sense of personal responsibility and a strong support system that prompts them not to seek the elective abortion procedure as a means to cope with the dilemma of the unwanted pregnancy.

That answer doesn't reconcile the issue with your position. Forget about the subject matter for a second. You have to recognize in the basest form that you hold two beliefs that can't be held simultaneously. You can't be a cheerleader for personal choice when the result of exercising that choice has the potential to deprive another of personal choice.

You didn't address the other contradiction either. That you said no one else should have control over the decisions one makes with regards to one's body. Well if an unborn baby is another life and it's body and you allow abortion you most certainly are allowing someone else to make decision that affect another's body.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Nothing like spewing potty-mouthed drivel in lieu of a 'debate' to illustrate an utter failure to forge a reasonable argument.

You need to grow up, prole.

Edited to say thanks to mod for removing prole's unnecessary, profanity-laced flame from above.

Everything you said (that is, every post of JD's you parroted) was refuted.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Didn't this ignorant trollop storm off with her thong in a twist, vowing never to return? Worse than bad Mexican food for repeating on you, I swear.

Are you insulting my lunch?


The menudo wasn't that old...


Okay, I lied, I had carne asada for lunch. They only have menudo on the weekends.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

of course, using your argument that it's 'not up to anyone else to sit in judgement' of a matter that's 'an example of taking another's life, it follows that it's for noone to judge or intervene when i break into your house, rape you for seven hours, cut open your belly, strew your intestines around the room while you're still alive, and finally cut your throat and watch you die.

bad analogy if i ever saw one. You are right though about the use of 'judge' in this context. I should have used instead the term 'intervene.'

interesting that you overlook how the rates of elective abortion could be reduced other than outlawing the procedure (education, pregnancy counseling, etc.). I wonder too if you overlook the notion that outlawing elective abortion will do nothing at all to stop women who are determined to terminate their unwanted pregnancies from doing so.

if outlawing unacceptable behaviors does nothing to deter people from doing them, why do we bother to outlaw anything?

legalize rape! Jb_2d and bobbcat agree!

 

[☭proletarian☭]

They won't say these things to a man, of course. Only to a woman.. And they claim to not be misogynists. HA! Yeah.. that's a laugh!!!

Someone tell this bitch she's retarded. I've said the same thing to male posters on this very forum in the past.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I would have to say aborting a child sorta seems like a fail in parenting

 

[JenT]

Thanks but I deleted it

I seriously don't mean to criticize anyone that's had an abortion. I think anyone that has, has been taught to look at it in a way that makes it seem okay. I think a lot of women are suffering under the burden of it even if on the surface they deny the reality of it.I've had that choice offered to me and in a way, I was weak in that even if I could logically try to believe what planned parenthood was pushing, I couldn't do it. Was that weakness? To not follow through what you try to logically reason out?

But it's that needling memory of ignoring the resistance that sorrows women. A woman could accept the error if she didn't remember that at the time, she knew not to, but did it anyway. I can't imagine anyone actually went through an abortion without a second thought, and it's that second thought that is like a monkey on their back constantly beating them up with the guilt.

But we have ALL made mistakes. We've all done things we regret. It's why Christ came, to take on the mistakes that we've all made. The baby isn't suffering, he or she is secure in HIm. The only one suffering is the woman that was lied to and should have been supported in her hour of need.

My argument is not with the woman that's been misled, but with the politician that makes a profit or a vote out of deceiving generations of women and promotes the continuation of genocide. I think we all need to watch out for women like Lois Capps, who used to be a school nurse that distributed glasses to the needy. Then she turns around and fights with everything she's got for abortion and I gotta wonder, was she handing out glasses to little kids thinking they never should have been born? What makes a woman do that? Sick.

 

[Svarstaad]

. . .

The primary law is eloquent, and comprehensive.

"Hurt nobody"

DNA is the foundational basis of all life. DNA serves an analogous purpose for human life as a radio receiver serves for discernment of coherent and intelligent information broadcast by means of radio frequencies.

When a radio receiver is turned off, the intelligent, coherent radio frequency information is still extant.

Just like radio frequency coherent and intelligent information, Life is everywhere; coherent and intelligent. Without a "body" we cannot discern that coherency and intelligence.

Just like the coherent intelligence of radio frequencies that cannot be discerned until "tuned" with a "receiver" and manifested into discernible information through "speakers," DNA is the "receiver" that transmutes, (acts as a "conduit"), intelligent life into this physical dimension, to make that intelligent life discernible to our senses.

When life, a living soul, manifests itself through DNA, when did that life become a "living soul" to you?

I think that life was "alive" before the DNA was created, and is just as much "alive" when there are only one or two cells, with DNA, as when there are a trillion cells with DNA, which we recognize as a child or adult.

When do you apply the primary law, "Hurt Nobody?"

When you feel like it?

When you can get others to agree with you that it is o.k. to hurt somebody? does that really make it o.k.?

"Hurt nobody"

Just my thoughts about the matter.

. . .

 

[JD_2B]

Why can't you just agree to disagree? Instead of resorting to an ad hominem attack, why not explain to me just what is wrong with the approach I have pointed to above? You really think that outlawing the elective abortion procedure is going to do any good? Again, this is an issue that concerns one's own body. Homicide and rape do not figure into this in any way, shape, matter or form. Oh, and I said nothing at all about rape; don't put words in my mouth.

Exactly what I spent 60+ pages dealing with on this thread alone, before finally putting him on ignore, lol..

The extremists on this thread will of course threaten your life just the way proletarian did to you- as a means of comparing a born person being tortured, raped and killed to a born person ending a pregnancy by choice.

This is just one in a zillion examples of the illogical, meaningless emotional hyperbole used by the psychotic antis in this thread.

Oh and just you wait- they will start calling you non sentient and a bad parent with neglected or abused kids, just because you advocate for decriminalizing late term abortions too. And this will be from the very person who claims she would hurt her own children and their girlfriends, should any of her son's girlfriends attempt to abort.

They won't say these things to a man, of course. Only to a woman.. And they claim to not be misogynists. HA! Yeah.. that's a laugh!!!

Somebody threatened your life?

Who called you non-sentient and a bad parent?

I had an abortion when I was 18, but I am the proud parent of an 11 year old boy.

I think Cecile and Proletarian were the main culprits when it comes to calling me a non sentient organism, and a bad parent, etc, all because either of my having an abortion (which Cecile is so against, she would admittedly hurt her own children/ children's girlfriend over) or my standing up to people who want to see women incarcerated and their bodies turned into evidence chambers, based on what time of their pregnancy they chose to end it, or miscarried.
These people want fetuses to have rights. It is not just about abortion, then. Anyone who has a stillbirth could be imprisoned, based on them smoking, or being a lousy driver, or eating or drinking something that wasn't so good for them, or any number of stupid decisions that people make on a day to day basis.

The thing is- as long as it is a FETUS, it is not an individual. It is inside of another human being, without whom being alive, it could die. There is no guarantee of a fetus getting prompt medical treatment if the woman was to cease from breathing and having a heartbeat. Even with fetal entitlement laws, there STILL would be no guarantee that a fetus will survive a pregnancy. Fetuses should not have legal entitlements at all. People hate me for saying this- but I don't say it because I hate fetuses. I say it because I respect women too much to see them having to deal with legal problems over stillbirths that maybe could have been avoided. There is no way of knowing whether that stillbirth was the direct result of the woman's actions, or something that occurred for another reason that could not be helped.
Ultimately, people should not be punished and imprisoned for being stupid, and whether that stupidity destroys their own fetus, or not, is totally irrelevant. It is the woman's body that she has control over. She is not sorry that she can't control the feelings of people who are overemotional about HER miscarriage or stillbirth, or sometimes, abortion. All she can control is her own body, and her own emotions. Why would anyone want to take any of that away from her?

 

[Bern80]

The thing is- as long as it is a FETUS, it is not an individual. It is inside of another human being, without whom being alive, it could die. There is no guarantee of a fetus getting prompt medical treatment if the woman was to cease from breathing and having a heartbeat. Even with fetal entitlement laws, there STILL would be no guarantee that a fetus will survive a pregnancy. Fetuses should not have legal entitlements at all. People hate me for saying this- but I don't say it because I hate fetuses. I say it because I respect women too much to see them having to deal with legal problems over stillbirths that maybe could have been avoided. There is no way of knowing whether that stillbirth was the direct result of the woman's actions, or something that occurred for another reason that could not be helped.
Ultimately, people should not be punished and imprisoned for being stupid, and whether that stupidity destroys their own fetus, or not, is totally irrelevant. It is the woman's body that she has control over. She is not sorry that she can't control the feelings of people who are overemotional about HER miscarriage or stillbirth, or sometimes, abortion. All she can control is her own body, and her own emotions. Why would anyone want to take any of that away from her?

Whether you are reading these or not again this position makes zero sense logically. The argument in the first couple of sentences that essentially abortion is justified because of the fetus' level of dependence on the mother. The problem is that level of dependence barely changes from pre-birth to post. The reality remains after birth that without someone's care there is no gauruntee the baby will survive. In fact without care post birth it will also die. You make the arguments that someone will take over for the mother. That's just wishful thinking an also no garuntee. The new born child's high level of dependence is the same. The needs of the child are now simply meat in different forms. I just make doesn't make any sense that that distinction justfies abortion on one hand but not another.

You have respect for women? Then you ought to have enough respect for them and yourself to hold them to a higher standard. Not one where you have to remain incredibly ignorant an irresponsible for the decision to abort to get to that point in pregnancy.

We control people's bodies all the time......when they behave in ways that negatively effect others. We all understand how you have qualified fetus' to make your rationalization. Unfortunately it is simply a false argument. You argue the dependence of the child is the justification yet this level of dependence doesn't change. It seems to be that since the child is and can be dependent only on one person is what justifies abortion in your eyes, but for the life of me I don't see how that is logical either. Your position is confusing because you don't stick to one rationale. First it's because fetus is not a person, despite that the dictionary tacitly says it is. Then it's dependence but that doesn't really work either for the reasons above.

 

[bobbcat]

You have to recognize in the basest form that you hold two beliefs that can't be held simultaneously. You can't be a cheerleader for personal choice when the result of exercising that choice has the potential to deprive another of personal choice.

What I recognize is that, yes, the right of the woman to have choice does indeed override the unborn child's choice to stay alive. If one looks at the elective abortion procedure being that of just another form of birth control, I along with most other people, am offended by that. No one, IMO, should utilize this procedure for that purpose. Rest assured though that there are cases where women seek the procedure for reasons other than birth control, such as genetic anomalies, health issues, complications of pregnancy. How nice it would be if physicians who perform the procedure stuck to just those cases. I would very much like to see that happen.

 

[Bern80]

You have to recognize in the basest form that you hold two beliefs that can't be held simultaneously. You can't be a cheerleader for personal choice when the result of exercising that choice has the potential to deprive another of personal choice.

What I recognize is that, yes, the right of the woman to have choice does indeed override the unborn child's choice to stay alive. If one looks at the elective abortion procedure being that of just another form of birth control, I along with most other people, am offended by that. No one, IMO, should utilize this procedure for that purpose. Rest assured though that there are cases where women seek the procedure for reasons other than birth control, such as genetic anomalies, health issues, complications of pregnancy. How nice it would be if physicians who perform the procedure stuck to just those cases. I would very much like to see that happen.

Then we agree on justifiable reasons for abortion. But two questions remain:

You acknowledge as I do that at some point in the pregnancy another life is at stake, so what rational is there for the choice of one overriding another?

Secondly, if we agree on when abortion is justified (and thus not justified as well) and that another life is at stake, why do you disagree on making none justifiable abortions a legal offense? How is killing what you call a life inside the womb justified, when taking one outside of the womb is not?

 

[Care4all]

A chicken is not an egg, though a fertilized egg will become a chicken, they still are NOT the same....they have the potential to be the same, but at certain stages, are not the same...

There is MORE VALUE given to a person that is BORN than to a human that has not been born or birthed. (This is not something that I have made up or even necessarily believe, but is the norm in our society, imo)

(In a fertility clinic that is burning, Firemen will rescue those that are alive working there FIRST, then, if they can, will rescue the fertilized, frozen embryos)

There is a stage where the fetus is viable, able to survive outside of the womb, though still in the womb...they are as equal as a person that is born already, imho and all protections should be afforded to them, to keep them alive.... I DO NOT for the life of me, understand why anyone would need to abort their child in the latter months of their pregnancy...???? Why they had to wait until their fetus was fully formed before deciding they did not want them....is beyond me....

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The thing is- as long as it is a FETUS, it is not an individual.

Did she ever define 'person' other than 'a non-fetus'?

It is inside of another human being, without whom being alive, it could die.

'Without whom being alive'?

There is no guarantee of a fetus getting prompt medical treatment if the woman was to cease from breathing and having a heartbeat.

There's no guarantee of JD getting prompt treatment either.

Even with fetal entitlement laws, there STILL would be no guarantee that a fetus will survive a pregnancy.

There's no guarantee a baby won't suffer from SIDS or JD won't suddenly suffer cardiac arrest. eusa_pray

Ultimately, people should not be punished and imprisoned for being stupid,

Yes, they should, when their gross stupidity causes harm to another. I believe the term is 'gross negligence' in legal parlance.

All she can control is her own body

You just argued against abortion right now.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If one looks at the elective abortion procedure being that of just another form of birth control, I along with most other people, am offended by that. No one, IMO, should utilize this procedure for that purpose.

Yet you're defending a woman who said.

Abortion IS birth control.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If outlawing unacceptable behaviors does nothing to deter people from doing them, why do we bother to outlaw anything?

Some people are not deterred one bit by the fact that something is against the law. Elective abortion is not against the law, so not sure why you are comparing it to things which are against the law.

Yes, SOME people have no respect for the law, that's true. Most people, however, do. We don't outlaw things with the expectation that it will entirely eliminate those behaviors, as two seconds of logical thought should tell you. We outlaw things in order to deter as many people as possible, either by moral/social pressure or by making the behavior too costly to indulge in.

And since we're talking about what abortion law SHOULD be, I really, really doubt you don't understand why parallels are being drawn between abortion and other undesirable behaviors which are already outlawed. While I don't doubt from the posts I've seen so far that you're none too bright, I'm not buying this level of obtuseness you're trying to sell.