oy! not another abortion post, i hate these :/ and i usually like all of your post OP.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, unless it's medically necessary.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It is disgusting, but it's morally the same as any other abortion. Whether you think that's wrong or right is irrelevant.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Morally the same? Pro-choice or pro-abortion people don't see the child as having a soul in the womb, or as not being a person. Partial and live birth abortion are having the woman give birth, and then killing it as it is born. It's so blatantly wrong, it's ridiculous that it isn't against the law. All citizens have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What happened to that?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It is against the law. According to Wikipedia, not legal in America, which is where I'm guessing you're from based on the quote.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes; however, Obama has voted to make in its favor, as have the people he put in office, so there is not a huge doubt in my mind that very soon it will be legal...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

*sigh* I doubt very much that Obama has ever voted in favor of partial birth or live birth abortions, or else it would have been big news during the campaign and since then. Anyways, the supreme court would need to overturn it's 2007 decision to make it illegal, which is doubtful considering how the court is currently full of activist conservatives. Besides, you said "Its ridiculous that it isn't against the law."

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah. I had heard that it was legal, but I didn't look into it. All I'm trying to say is that it's wrong, legal or not. Let's hope so.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

welll technically aren't they not even citizens? Don't u need a birth certificate for that... So they don't have any rights yet :p

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Hardly.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So we can kill illegal immigrants and any other sort of legal aliens because "aren't they not even citizens.... So they don't have any rights yet"?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So you're telling me that killing the fetus is okay, but a few hours later when it's born it's blatantly wrong? The baby/fetus feels the exact same sensation. I agree it's disgusting, but it's not more of an injustice.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I never said killing the fetus ok. As a matter of fact, I am strongly against any abortion in any case. However, the fact of the matter is that many people don't believe that a fetus (most especially in the first trimester) has a soul. That I cannot fully prove to them, though I disagree; I believe that human life is sacred, developed or not. This post was meant to be a middle ground for pro-abortion and pro-life people; that we can all agree that killing the living child, at least, when it is out of the womb, is BLATANTLY wrong. As in, wrong no matter how you look at it. You can't still claim that the child has no soul or does not feel pain when it is clearly alive.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But you said that it was morally different than any other abortion, which is false.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

oh, and the child doesn't feel pain. It would be heavily sedated.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It doesn't matter if the child feels pain or not, though often it is not sedated. It is still murder. What difference does that statement make?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, I believe it is morally worse than in the womb abortions, because I was attempting to find a middle ground between these two groups of people. Personally, I believe that they are all wrong. But we can all agree that killing a kid when it has been born is horrendous. And who are you to say what is and isn't morally different from anything else?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm not writing any moral codes, but please explain why abortion is MORE wrong via intact dilation and extraction. From what I understand, you only believe that to appease the pro-choice population.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't believe that. I am making the statement to find middle ground and to find what we have in common; what is so blatantly wrong that only one demon-possessed could claim its fallacy. It's like a Venn Diagram. What I believe is a broad circle in which many things are morally and ethically wrong with abortion. This post is a small circle within those beliefs.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I said "It is disgusting, but it's morally the same as any other abortion. Whether you think that's wrong or right is irrelevant." You said: "Moraly the same? . . ." Oh, and while I don't support abortion, using the phrase "only one demon-posessed could claim its fallacy" in reference to anything makes you sound like a religious nut.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I AM a religious nut. What's that do for ya? Like I said, I cannot fully prove that a child has a soul in the womb. While it is my firm belief that he/she does, and deserves a chance at life, even I cannot be 100% sure, because only God knows that. However, I can tell you without a doubt that a post-birth child, a small kid that has fully begun its human life, DOES have a soul. That is why I believe that while all abortions are wrong (my belief), partial and live birth are somewhat worse because it is OBVIOUS that the child has a soul and is capable of life.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It doesn't do anything for me, but you won't get anywhere debating if people see you as a religious nut. And you cannot prove that anything has a soul, so your point is moot. It's definitely not OBVIOUS. Me:" please explain why abortion is MORE wrong via intact dilation and extraction. " You: "I don't believe that" You (later): " while all abortions are wrong (my belief), partial and live birth are somewhat worse". Do you see the contradiction? You can be religious without being a nut. In fact, I am.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Every human being has a soul. That is evident. I suggest you not even go there. You obviously don't understand my point. I believe all abortions are wrong, but I cannot prove that an unborn child has a soul. There is a low, but uncertain possibility that I am incorrect, and that the needless slaughtering of this unborn child is perfectly moral/not really harming or taking away a human soul. Very unlikely, but possible. For that reason, I cling more tightly to the procedure I am 100% positive is amoral and wrong, and find the common ground that most of us can agree on. Because there is no question in this, except for people who have some mental issue, it is all I can say that is most definitely wrong. If I could say the same for other abortions, there would not be so many debates and arguments on here about it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And also, I don't particularly care for that title, no. Then again, a lot of people see me as a nut because of what I believe in. Faith in God has that effect on people.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ha the poor guy/girl is confused, I understand what @330205 (PurpleKneeSox): is saying, and 2Infinity seems to be being difficult on purpose, so Purple this is my advice, you should quit now and also you are arguing to prove that killing babies is wrong... What can you say to a person who supports killing babies? You don't have to be a religious nut to say that killing (let alone innocent babies), is morally wrong.... 2Infinity and beyond you should scroll down a little bit and argue with some of the other people's post, if you still have the energy after typing all that

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't think 2Infinity neccessarily supports killing babies. I do agree, however, that he/she is confused. Hopefully that last post somewhat cleared things up for them, but if not, there is not much hope left but for him/her to repeatedly reread what I've written and hope it clicks.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I support first trimester abortion when the fetus doesn't even look human, doesn't even have a heartbeat, and can't feel pain. Anything much after that is wrong.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Nah, I wouldn't say so. For those of you who believe that life is the most precious thing in existence, I could see where you would say that, but there's plenty of life going around so I don't see why we need to fight about killing a few organisms. The human species won't be endangered by these abortions, so I don't much care. I'll probably revoke some of that later, but those are my thoughts as of this moment.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I think any abortion is wrong, unless it's a life or death situation for the mother...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Hmm, there are plenty of people out there who are willing to die for others let alone their child, all those soldiers in the middle east, are sacrificing their lives so American's can continue to live and let live, not kill... It does not matter when the abortion happens, but that it did, because by aborting you are depriving a person of life, imagine if you had been aborted... Imagine if some of the great people in this world had been aborted, because they were only in their first trimester.... If killing innocent babies is legal, then murder should also be legal, if you kill an innocent baby who hasn't done anything wrong, then you when will you stop? Will you kill a man for insulting you?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That is the exact point I made in school when I gave a speech on abortion. I think it's wrong and it IS murder, no matter what people think. I never knew all the things the doctors did to the babies until I had to research it. The things they do are just terrible, and it isn't an easy procedure for the mom either from what I read.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

While I am 100% pro-choice when it comes to first-trimester abortions, I do think live-birth abortion is wrong. If you're going to have an abortion, at least do it in the first trimester. Don't wait to make up your mind until the baby really is old enough to have thoughts and feel pain. I'd say after the first trimester the baby should be carried to term, whether or not that means putting it up for adoption later.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Guess what, medically, there is no such thing as a partial birth abortion. It was a term made up by pro-lifers to scare the pants off people. "But "partial-birth" is not a medical term. It's a political one, and a highly confusing one at that, with both sides disagreeing even on how many procedures take place, at what point in pregnancy, and exactly which procedures the law actually bans." -NPR (Google it if you don't believe me). Since there is no clear definition of what a partial birth abortion really is, bans against partial birth abortion will be used to prevent all forms of abortion from taking place.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It may be a vague term; however, the generally accepted definition is killing the child as it is born (this is actually done by shoving scissors into the child's cranium as it emerges from the mother). Live birth, as well, is included in this post, and it is carried out by simply bringing the child to another room to suffocate/starve/whatever to death. If that's not blatantly disgusting and wrong, I don't know what is.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Sometimes, women experience severe complications late in their pregnancies. In those cases, choosing abortion may be the best way to protect their health. We can never know the circumstances that cause some women to choose abortion. It might be a very wanted pregnancy that went horribly wrong. The bottom line is this: a woman and her doctor know what's best for her – especially when her health may be jeopardized. Politicians should not be allowed to practice medicine without a license. -NARAL

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There is always the option of a C-section or induced labor; the child should be given as much of a chance as possible, and not simply killed off because it MIGHT negatively affect the mother. And on that topic, abortion because of health issues makes up less than 6% of abortions; not enough to push the idea that it should be legal simply because it is sometimes viewed as "neccessary for the mother's sake".

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The doctor and the woman should decide the best way to proceed, not a random politicain. I don't believe people should make broad generalizations like that without advanced knowledge of medicine and a full understanding of the woman's specific condition.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

My point is, there are ALWAYS other options that don't involve the murdering of an unborn child. Health complications most often arise, as you said, late in a woman's pregnancy, and if this is so, C-sections are always available. In this process, the doctor would remove the child through an incision in the abdomen, above the uterus. Again; there are always other options. C-sections alone, if applied in every relevant situation, would probably cut the percentage of abortions because of health issues in half, if not more.

by Anonymous 13 years ago