What should abortion laws be?

[JD_2B]

Neither does the room have to deal with your feeding, shelter, healthcare, education, personal/moral/ethical upbringing for at least the next 18 years.

Nor does she, that is what adoption is for. The only inconvenience suffered is the carrying and delivery and I feel that is not take precedence to being cut up into small pieces and thrown away. Heck, pain killers are not even used for partial birth abortions and I can’t see death by chemicals as being pleasant.

If a doctor told some parents that their son had an 85% chance of gaining consciousness and becoming sentient, you would leave the decision up to the parents about whether to “pull the plug” or not?

Look, at that point the brain is still in existence and functioning, just not fully. You may disagree but the possibility of gaining a “self” is not the issue for me and pro, it is the attaining it in the first place. In your example the child is not brain dead, there is no recovering from brain death. That is a coma and coma patients are not brain dead. They retain no new memories in most cases but they are still functioning at some level.

No rdean , you’re the only one here who is being facetious and it is not appreciated. We are attempting to have an intelligent conversation here.

Well, technically speaking, if the kid does not have a living will, which I don't even think a minor CAN have one anyways, then even a kid who has an 85% chance of regaining consciousness can be removed from life support.
Life support is a sociological responsibility, not a RIGHT.

A person can have a major head injury, not be brain dead, but have swelling, and the parents can choose to not allow them to even START being on life support.
The parents can choose whether the person even gets a blood transfusion, if they want, or if the person should be on a ventilator, or get mouth to mouth, even. Its a little thing called a DNR order (no not resuscitate) and the VAST majority of those, for kids, come from parents and doctors.

It is not KILLING or MURDERING someone to remove them from their source of life support, or to deny them life support technology. People may have the right to life, but they do not have an entitlement to live.

Tough shit. Deal with it.

 

[JD_2B]

I believe that the decision should be the mothers until that child qualifies for a birth certificate. At which point killing the child is murder.

Ignoring the bullshit at the end of your post, answer me this: What fundamental aspect of the child's very nature changes from the moment before the head starts to crown to the moment the last toe leaves the woman's body?

It breathes, and sustains its own life.

 

[JD_2B]

at one point it's still stuck in the mother. At the other it isn't.

at one point you're in a room, at the other you aren't. Your location has changed. Your nature has not changed.

Now stop being purposely retarded and answer the question.

women are not fucking rooms, dillrod. They're people.

 

[JD_2B]

What is wrong with those ideas??? You are too short sighted to see that ALL you want is to control the woman's life- and it has nothing to do with abortion whatsoever.

I want to control a woman's life to the extent I want to control anyone's life who is planning to take the innocent life of another. Period.

The only thing that has become apparent here is that you are to narrow minded to even consider changing your warped definition of life as is it clearly different than the accepted defintion posted.

INNOCENT LIFE OF ANOTHER..

Lets dissect that inference, shall we??

Another, means (first and foremost) that there is an OTHER PERSON involved.

No there is no OTHER involved. There is just one. The fetus is not an OTHER to anyone. It is not the father's OTHER child, until it is born, and becomes a BEING.

Any place the woman goes, the fetus (who is inside of her) goes, too. EVEN A FUNERAL HOME.

Thus, the fucking fetus is not an OTHER, it is one and the same, because it is subjected and prone to any ailment or condition the woman experiences that might endanger her own life. If her life was NEVER endangered to the extent that the fetus would cease from growing, then you might actually have an "other" argument here.. but you DONT.

The right to life is NOT (Lather rinse, and look in the fucking mirror and repeat this to yourself) an entitlement to LIVE.

 

[rdean]

Neither does the room have to deal with your feeding, shelter, healthcare, education, personal/moral/ethical upbringing for at least the next 18 years.

Nor does she, that is what adoption is for. The only inconvenience suffered is the carrying and delivery and I feel that is not take precedence to being cut up into small pieces and thrown away. Heck, pain killers are not even used for partial birth abortions and I can’t see death by chemicals as being pleasant.

If a doctor told some parents that their son had an 85% chance of gaining consciousness and becoming sentient, you would leave the decision up to the parents about whether to “pull the plug” or not?

Look, at that point the brain is still in existence and functioning, just not fully. You may disagree but the possibility of gaining a “self” is not the issue for me and pro, it is the attaining it in the first place. In your example the child is not brain dead, there is no recovering from brain death. That is a coma and coma patients are not brain dead. They retain no new memories in most cases but they are still functioning at some level.

No rdean , you’re the only one here who is being facetious and it is not appreciated. We are attempting to have an intelligent conversation here.

Except there are way more children than couples who want children. Even less with some states banning gay and single parent adoption.

Without abortion, there would be even more children to overwhelm the system.

Sorry, that was NOT a plan, it was a "wish".

As dumb as the everyone called my plan, it was the ONLY one so far. The anti abortion childrens lottery.

 

[Bern80]

What is wrong with those ideas??? You are too short sighted to see that ALL you want is to control the woman's life- and it has nothing to do with abortion whatsoever.

I want to control a woman's life to the extent I want to control anyone's life who is planning to take the innocent life of another. Period.

The only thing that has become apparent here is that you are to narrow minded to even consider changing your warped definition of life as is it clearly different than the accepted defintion posted.

INNOCENT LIFE OF ANOTHER..

Lets dissect that inference, shall we??

Another, means (first and foremost) that there is an OTHER PERSON involved.

No there is no OTHER involved. There is just one. The fetus is not an OTHER to anyone. It is not the father's OTHER child, until it is born, and becomes a BEING.

Any place the woman goes, the fetus (who is inside of her) goes, too. EVEN A FUNERAL HOME.

Thus, the fucking fetus is not an OTHER, it is one and the same, because it is subjected and prone to any ailment or condition the woman experiences that might endanger her own life. If her life was NEVER endangered to the extent that the fetus would cease from growing, then you might actually have an "other" argument here.. but you DONT.

The right to life is NOT (Lather rinse, and look in the fucking mirror and repeat this to yourself) an entitlement to LIVE.

Then all you had say was 'yes you are right about my warped definition'. How a child is less human 30 seconds before it is out of the womb is beyond me and most other rationale 'beings'. It can feel, it is aware. It can live on it's own if necessary. The difference, is it's location. That's it. It is not one in the same. It is human being living inside another human being. For you to define as less than that to protect the 'sacred' rights of a mother to have change of heart seconds before giving birth is absolutely disgusting. Given that, I think there's a better argument for YOU to be not granted 'other'-hood than an unborn child

 

[JD_2B]

I want to control a woman's life to the extent I want to control anyone's life who is planning to take the innocent life of another. Period.

The only thing that has become apparent here is that you are to narrow minded to even consider changing your warped definition of life as is it clearly different than the accepted defintion posted.

INNOCENT LIFE OF ANOTHER..

Lets dissect that inference, shall we??

Another, means (first and foremost) that there is an OTHER PERSON involved.

No there is no OTHER involved. There is just one. The fetus is not an OTHER to anyone. It is not the father's OTHER child, until it is born, and becomes a BEING.

Any place the woman goes, the fetus (who is inside of her) goes, too. EVEN A FUNERAL HOME.

Thus, the fucking fetus is not an OTHER, it is one and the same, because it is subjected and prone to any ailment or condition the woman experiences that might endanger her own life. If her life was NEVER endangered to the extent that the fetus would cease from growing, then you might actually have an "other" argument here.. but you DONT.

The right to life is NOT (Lather rinse, and look in the fucking mirror and repeat this to yourself) an entitlement to LIVE.

Then all you had say was 'yes you are right about my warped definition'. How a child is less human 30 seconds before it is out of the womb is beyond me and most other rationale 'beings'. It can feel, it is aware. It can live on it's own if necessary. The difference, is it's location. That's it. It is not one in the same. It is human being living inside another human being. For you to define as less than that to protect the 'sacred' rights of a mother to have change of heart seconds before giving birth is absolutely disgusting. Given that, I think there's a better argument for YOU to be not granted 'other'-hood than an unborn child

Again, the right of a 9 month old fetus to be born, does not give it some entitlement to live. Just because it can, does not mean it will. And it does not mean that the parents and doctors and taxpayers all have to pay to put that child through resuscitation methods, and life support, if things don't go as planned, either. Technology is not a fucking entitlement, and neither is the state of being or BECOMING (in this case) alive.

Also, I do not claim that the fetus is a non human. It simply is not a human "being". I do not agree that any woman who were to choose to destroy the fetus's capability of surviving on its own outside of the uterus, just seconds before it is born, or days, even, is humane or moral. I am not an AMORAL person. I simply understand that different people make choices that are immoral and that I disagree with all the time, and "how bad" that choice is, is entirely subjective.

Lets talk about sin, for instance. You pro lifers are always talking about the "innocent" life- and that is very much a religious deal for you..

But when was the last time you lied? I fucking HATE liars. So does God. Just as much as he hates murderers. Believe it. He wrote the fucking commandments, not you.

When was the last time you looked at a person of the opposite sex and even imagined having sex with them?? That is a fucking sin, too, by God.

When was the last time you slept with a married or divorced woman? Sin!!

When was the last time you wished you had something that someone else has, or said "Must be nice!!!" Sin sin sin....

When was the last time you advocated for the death penalty? Wrath- another sin.

When was the last time you said "God Damnit!!" Sinner.

Don't you DARE try to compare ABORTION (which is not at all murder, the biiiiiible telllllllllls meeee sooooo) or MURDER (an actual sin) to any of the other deadly sins, you fucking hypocrite.

 

[Bern80]

Again, the right of a 9 month old fetus to be born, does not give it some entitlement to live. Just because it can, does not mean it will. And it does not mean that the parents and doctors and taxpayers all have to pay to put that child through resuscitation methods, and life support, if things don't go as planned, either. Technology is not a fucking entitlement, and neither is the state of being or BECOMING (in this case) alive.

The problem is you have zero credible basis for any of this. You can't claim a potential 'being' isn't entitled to live, less so than an actual being, without defing what a potential being is in the first place. The fact of the matter is simply this. You would not condone the murder of an innocent human being. You happen to also hold a belief that woman should also have the right to choose whenever for whatever reason. Somehow those two things must be reconciled. So you have chosen to to define an unborn child as less than a human being. Problem solved. Problem is just because you want it to be that way doesn't make it so.

But let's assume it does. Unfortunately your argument above is a contradiction in of itself. After all if one is not entitled to technology that helps one become a being, how can they also be entited to use technology to prevent one from being?

Also, I do not claim that the fetus is a non human. It simply is not a human "being". I do not agree that any woman who were to choose to destroy the fetus's capability of surviving on its own outside of the uterus, just seconds before it is born, or days, even, is humane or moral. I am not an AMORAL person. I simply understand that different people make choices that are immoral and that I disagree with all the time, and "how bad" that choice is, is entirely subjective.

This is purely semantics. A desperate and disgusting attempt to reconcile, irreconcilable beliefs. How is a human less being (first I hope you read that twice and listen to how absolutely ridiculous it sounds) before it is out of the womb than after?

Lets talk about sin, for instance. You pro lifers are always talking about the "innocent" life- and that is very much a religious deal for you..

But when was the last time you lied? I fucking HATE liars. So does God. Just as much as he hates murderers. Believe it. He wrote the fucking commandments, not you.

When was the last time you looked at a person of the opposite sex and even imagined having sex with them?? That is a fucking sin, too, by God.

When was the last time you slept with a married or divorced woman? Sin!!

When was the last time you wished you had something that someone else has, or said "Must be nice!!!" Sin sin sin....

When was the last time you advocated for the death penalty? Wrath- another sin.

When was the last time you said "God Damnit!!" Sinner.

Don't you DARE try to compare ABORTION (which is not at all murder, the biiiiiible telllllllllls meeee sooooo) or MURDER (an actual sin) to any of the other deadly sins, you fucking hypocrite.

Quoting scriptuire or christianity only works under the assumption that the person you are debating actually defines themselves as a christian. You assumed incorrectly. My sense of right and wrong doesn't come from some book or religion. Murder is simply defined. The taking of an innocent life. It is you that is playing semantic games so you can sleep at night and tell yourself I didn't kill a human being, I didn't kill a human being. As I said before anyone who can and believe it, shoudl ask themselves whether they themselves deserve to be counted among us human beings.

 

[JD_2B]

Again, the right of a 9 month old fetus to be born, does not give it some entitlement to live. Just because it can, does not mean it will. And it does not mean that the parents and doctors and taxpayers all have to pay to put that child through resuscitation methods, and life support, if things don't go as planned, either. Technology is not a fucking entitlement, and neither is the state of being or BECOMING (in this case) alive.

The problem is you have zero credible basis for any of this. You can't claim a potential 'being' isn't entitled to live, less so than an actual being, without defing what a potential being is in the first place. The fact of the matter is simply this. You would not condone the murder of an innocent human being. You happen to also hold a belief that woman should also have the right to choose whenever for whatever reason. Somehow those two things must be reconciled. So you have chosen to to define an unborn child as less than a human being. Problem solved. Problem is just because you want it to be that way doesn't make it so.

If people are not prosecuted/ investigated for having a late term miscarriage, then they shouldnt be prosecuted for having an abortion. This is because a fetus is in fact prone to ceasing from continuing its existence in the uterus at any given time. A right to life is not an entitlement to live. This is a fact, and you simply do not want to face it. Semantics is another story- I refuse to argue in circles about this though. I simply refuse to allow you to play the semantics game just because you feel that a fertilized egg is a fucking person.

But let's assume it does. Unfortunately your argument above is a contradiction in of itself. After all if one is not entitled to technology that helps one become a being, how can they also be entited to use technology to prevent one from being?

HA I knew you would say that. I must be psychic. You and the semantics game. Geez.
It all comes down to "take the risk, suffer the consequence" right? As if women are the sexual gatekeepers, which we are not.

Nothing AT ALL, in this world, is entitled to the use of my body, to grow. PERIOD. I am, however, an autonomous being, and can do any number of things, including doing a belly flop off of a high dive, to cause that pregnancy to cease. This is a fact. This is exactly what I would do if I didn't want a pregnancy, and abortion was made illegal. And in the first few weeks, I would accompany this activity with a hearty helping of Vitamin C and Paprika, both of which can induce miscarriage in the first few weeks. THAT is the point to all of this. Even if technology is unavailable, it is not REQUIRED to have an induced miscarriage. So, the fetus is not entitled to it, and neither are women.. but that does not make the fetus autonomous, or the woman any less autonomous. The fetus is PRONE to the fact that it is inside of the woman. The woman might not even know it exists.. So if she goes a' climbing and takes a little fall of 15 feet, and her belly hits the rock wall, then bam its all over for your dear innocent little fetusmeister. Too bad so sad.

Also, I do not claim that the fetus is a non human. It simply is not a human "being". I do not agree that any woman who were to choose to destroy the fetus's capability of surviving on its own outside of the uterus, just seconds before it is born, or days, even, is humane or moral. I am not an AMORAL person. I simply understand that different people make choices that are immoral and that I disagree with all the time, and "how bad" that choice is, is entirely subjective.

This is purely semantics. A desperate and disgusting attempt to reconcile, irreconcilable beliefs. How is a human less being (first I hope you read that twice and listen to how absolutely ridiculous it sounds) before it is out of the womb than after?

Again, I am not the one playing semantics here- you are. I think it is disgusting to choose this, also.
I also think it is disgusting to lie and to cheat, to steal, and to fantasize about women who are not your wife, to beat on women, to get beat on, etc..
I could care less whether the world's belief was that a fetus was a human being before it is born or was not. It still is in the woman's body and as such, is prone to the ceasement of growth, by her life decisions that SHE is ALWAYS allowed to make.
Also, 10 seconds before it comes out, or the head to toe thing, as long as it has NOT taken a breath of air yet, it can technically GO BACK INSIDE, and grow a little while longer. This is entirely possible, as we have seen in videos of fetal surgery.
If it HAS taken a breath, it cannot go back inside, because it is a fully autonomous human being and individual at that point.
Reconcile that to yourself, and stop living in some kind of odd fantasy world where embryos can be adopted without the mother's body encasing it, as well.

Lets talk about sin, for instance. You pro lifers are always talking about the "innocent" life- and that is very much a religious deal for you..

But when was the last time you lied? I fucking HATE liars. So does God. Just as much as he hates murderers. Believe it. He wrote the fucking commandments, not you.

When was the last time you looked at a person of the opposite sex and even imagined having sex with them?? That is a fucking sin, too, by God.

When was the last time you slept with a married or divorced woman? Sin!!

When was the last time you wished you had something that someone else has, or said "Must be nice!!!" Sin sin sin....

When was the last time you advocated for the death penalty? Wrath- another sin.

When was the last time you said "God Damnit!!" Sinner.

Don't you DARE try to compare ABORTION (which is not at all murder, the biiiiiible telllllllllls meeee sooooo) or MURDER (an actual sin) to any of the other deadly sins, you fucking hypocrite.

Quoting scriptuire or christianity only works under the assumption that the person you are debating actually defines themselves as a christian. You assumed incorrectly. My sense of right and wrong doesn't come from some book or religion. Murder is simply defined. The taking of an innocent life. It is you that is playing semantic games so you can sleep at night and tell yourself I didn't kill a human being, I didn't kill a human being. As I said before anyone who can and believe it, shoudl ask themselves whether they themselves deserve to be counted among us human beings.

Dollface- even those who are not "innocent" can be murdered.

This is how I know your claim stems from a religious POV.

Also, Murder is a legal term, and not what happens when a pregnancy ceases to exist.

I didnt kill anything, lol.. I saw a blob of (growing) tissue that was ready to be removed from MY UTERUS. I paid some doctors to have it removed, and am thankful that I did. I actually sleep quite well, thanks. =)

Fuck off if you want to be abusive and call women who choose when to have children murderers and assume that they should lose sleep over it or suddenly be counted as anything less than human beings. You are only saying those things because your words come from an emotional kneejerk reaction to abortion, and a longing to control and continue to abuse women as a whole. You are an abuser. Merry Christmas, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is not KILLING or MURDERING someone to remove them from their source of life support, or to deny them life support technology. People may have the right to life, but they do not have an entitlement to live.

Tough shit. Deal with it.

Then, by your own terms, late term abortions should be illegal as much of the time they are viable. In abortions, you are NOT removing the life support, you are either introducing a life ending chemical or you are going in and cutting the spinal cord at the base and then cutting the dead fetus up to remove it. Removing it from life support would be through labor or c-section. You have yet to uphold your insane belief in partial birth and late term abortions.
Or have you stopped responding because you realize you have no case?
“Tough shit. Deal with it.”

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If people are not prosecuted/ investigated for having a late term miscarriage, then they shouldnt be prosecuted for having an abortion.

If people aren't charged for driving a car when someone else crashes into them, then they shouldn't be charged for shooting someone in the face.

See how retarded what you just said is?

THAT is the point to all of this. Even if technology is unavailable, it is not REQUIRED to have an induced miscarriage. So, the fetus is not entitled to it, and neither are women

Wait... so now you're saying that you have a right to kill anyone you have the ability to kill because you have the ability to kill them?

I also think it is disgusting to... beat on women,

But not to kill a chi.ld immediately after birth, so long as the umbilical cord is still attached- an act you defended in another thread.

I could care less whether the world's belief was that a fetus was a human being

And some people could care less whether the world thinks blacks are human beings. That's not an argument.

Also, 10 seconds before it comes out, or the head to toe thing, as long as it has NOT taken a breath of air yet, it can technically GO BACK INSIDE, and grow a little while longer. This is entirely possible, as we have seen in videos of fetal surgery.
If it HAS taken a breath, it cannot go back inside, because it is a fully autonomous human being and individual at that point.

Why are you so stupid?

Reconcile that to yourself, and stop living in some kind of odd fantasy world where embryos can be adopted without the mother's body encasing it, as well.

But when was the last time you lied? I fucking HATE liars. So does God.

Like you lying about what yyou've said and lying about the definition of life?

Just as much as he hates murderers.

Perhaps you should take that up with him.

When was the last time you looked at a person of the opposite sex and even imagined having sex with them?? That is a fucking sin, too, by God.

What you just said is a lie.

I didnt kill anything, lol.. I saw a blob of (growing) tissue

You said nothing grows that's not alive. Ergo that to which you refer was alive. You caused it to cease to be alive, to die. Ergo, you killed it. If you did nothing wrong, why can't you admit to what you've done? If you don't know what you did was wrong, why can't you face it?

 

[Contumacious]

I love this post.

The first point,

Shoots you and JD right out of the water and destorys your lame attempts to defend killing babies through this thread (and JD's defense of killing a baby so long as the umbilical cord isn't cut). You just aregued that only two of the positions stated in this thread are valid and meet your criterion: Min and that of those who oppose abortion in all instances.

INDIVIDUAL not fetus

Awesome. Now you wish to argue that parents shouldn't have to feed or clothe their children. Just so you know, babies die if you never feed them. That would be killing your baby by any sane definition. So your earlier assertion makes the rest of you post- well, bullshit.

We are talking about FETUSES not children or babies,

.

Get a dictionary, Noah Webster.

From Merriam-Webster Online:

fetus - an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

baby - an extremely young child

child - an unborn or recently born person; a son or daughter of human parents

Sure sounds to ME like different words for the same thing.

You are talking about entities that have the POTENTIAL to become human beings.

So why stop at the moment of conception, why not assign a police officer to every man to prevent them from jerking off and killing "babies"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You are talking about entities that have the POTENTIAL to become human beings.

So why stop at the moment of conception, why not assign a police officer to every man to prevent them from jerking off and killing "babies"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

.

It's official. You're too retarded to be in this thread. Now get out.

 

[Contumacious]

You are talking about entities that have the POTENTIAL to become human beings.

So why stop at the moment of conception, why not assign a police officer to every man to prevent them from jerking off and killing "babies"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

.

It's official. You're too retarded to be in this thread. Now get out.

It's official. You're too retarded to be in this thread. Now get out.

.

 

[Bern80]

If people are not prosecuted/ investigated for having a late term miscarriage, then they shouldnt be prosecuted for having an abortion. This is because a fetus is in fact prone to ceasing from continuing its existence in the uterus at any given time. A right to life is not an entitlement to live. This is a fact, and you simply do not want to face it. Semantics is another story- I refuse to argue in circles about this though. I simply refuse to allow you to play the semantics game just because you feel that a fertilized egg is a fucking person.

'Prone to ceasing'? You really are grasping now. By that lame excuse 'abortion' should be allowed after birth as well. Babies are quite prone to ceasing then as well without constant care.

HA I knew you would say that. I must be psychic. You and the semantics game. Geez. It all comes down to "take the risk, suffer the consequence" right? As if women are the sexual gatekeepers, which we are not.

When you choose a behavior you choose the consequences. A potential consequence of sex is pregnancy.

Nothing AT ALL, in this world, is entitled to the use of my body, to grow. PERIOD. I am, however, an autonomous being, and can do any number of things, including doing a belly flop off of a high dive, to cause that pregnancy to cease. This is a fact. This is exactly what I would do if I didn't want a pregnancy, and abortion was made illegal. And in the first few weeks, I would accompany this activity with a hearty helping of Vitamin C and Paprika, both of which can induce miscarriage in the first few weeks. THAT is the point to all of this. Even if technology is unavailable, it is not REQUIRED to have an induced miscarriage. So, the fetus is not entitled to it, and neither are women.. but that does not make the fetus autonomous, or the woman any less autonomous. The fetus is PRONE to the fact that it is inside of the woman. The woman might not even know it exists.. So if she goes a' climbing and takes a little fall of 15 feet, and her belly hits the rock wall, then bam its all over for your dear innocent little fetusmeister. Too bad so sad.

So a baby 30 seconds before breach is less autonomous than a baby that has been born? Again you obviously are too emotionally unbalanced to see te ridiculousness of your position.

If it HAS taken a breath, it cannot go back inside, because it is a fully autonomous human being and individual at that point.
Reconcile that to yourself, and stop living in some kind of odd fantasy world where embryos can be adopted without the mother's body encasing it, as well.

Taking a breathe is what defines one as autonomous? Try again.

Dollface- even those who are not "innocent" can be murdered.

This is how I know your claim stems from a religious POV.

Sorry. You 'know' incorrectly. I am not really a religious person in the traditional sense. I believe there could be a higher power. But my sense of right and wrong is not derived from that. It does not take some religious perpsective to know that your position is morally wrong AND legally wrong.

I didnt kill anything, lol.. I saw a blob of (growing) tissue that was ready to be removed from MY UTERUS. I paid some doctors to have it removed, and am thankful that I did. I actually sleep quite well, thanks.

That would depend entirely on the term of the pregnancy. Again how one can look at a baby as 'blob of growing tissue' minutes before both, have it born, then miraculously change ones view into having it be a full fledged human being suggest severe mental issues on your part.

Fuck off if you want to be abusive and call women who choose when to have children murderers and assume that they should lose sleep over it or suddenly be counted as anything less than human beings. You are only saying those things because your words come from an emotional kneejerk reaction to abortion, and a longing to control and continue to abuse women as a whole. You are an abuser. Merry Christmas, and may God have mercy on your soul.

And your words don't come from an emotional postion. Your's HAVE to come from an emotional postion because there isn't any objective or logical position that can call a baby something less than a human life minutes before it is born thus justifying abortion on a whim up to that point. I don't have a problem with woman and am not an abusive person. I have problem with SPECIFIC woman who want to call themselves a human life and not recognize that at some point in the pregnancy that 'thing' as you like to call is also a human life. If there really is a God It ain't me honey who is going to need to worry about his mercy. If you believe in god do you honestly think that he/she/it believes a baby does not achieve human life status sometime before it is born?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

JD can't live with what she's done, so she has to lie to herself about what it was she did. It's that simple.

 

[Contumacious]

And your words don't come from an emotional postion. Your's HAVE to come from an emotional postion because there isn't any objective or logical position that can call a baby something less than a human life minutes before it is born thus justifying abortion on a whim up to that point.

Why is it important to you that the woman does not abort "on a whim" minutes before the fetus is born?

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

INDIVIDUAL not fetus







We are talking about FETUSES not children or babies,

.

Get a dictionary, Noah Webster.

From Merriam-Webster Online:

fetus - an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

baby - an extremely young child

child - an unborn or recently born person; a son or daughter of human parents

Sure sounds to ME like different words for the same thing.

You are talking about entities that have the POTENTIAL to become human beings.

So why stop at the moment of conception, why not assign a police officer to every man to prevent them from jerking off and killing "babies"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

.

No, we are not talking about "potential human beings". We're talking about human beings. They're not suddenly, at some undefined later point, going to acquire human DNA. They already have it at the moment of conception. And by definition, they are already beings.

Being - 1 a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things c : conscious existence : life
2 : the qualities that constitute an existent thing : essence; especially : personality
3 : a living thing; especially : person

I am not even going to dignify that ignorant, "I was smoking in the boys' bathroom during biology class" argument about sperm somehow being equivalent to a separate organism by giving it an answer for the 243rd time since I joined this board. Go look up one of the other multiple times I have covered it. Better yet, take your uneducated self off to your local community college and enroll in a remedial biology class so you don't sound like such an utter and complete dumbfuck when you come on this board. I would be embarrassed to be evidencing such a complete ignorance of basic, junior-high level knowledge in public.

 

[Cecilie1200]

JD can't live with what she's done, so she has to lie to herself about what it was she did. It's that simple.

The she needs to take her rationalization and self-justification up with her psychiatrist and stop dumping it on the rest of us. This is not her group therapy session, and we're not in the business of boosting her self-esteem for having killed her baby.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And your words don't come from an emotional postion. Your's HAVE to come from an emotional postion because there isn't any objective or logical position that can call a baby something less than a human life minutes before it is born thus justifying abortion on a whim up to that point.

Why is it important to you that the woman does not abort "on a whim" minutes before the fetus is born?

.

Gee, let's think. Why would it be important to anyone that a life not simply be ended because someone is cranky and having a bad day?