OH yes, Why do people want to save the unborn but care little about those already living. +
I remember a friend of mine speaking of an illegal abortion her mother had to make when she was young. The experience wasn't pleasant and she almost died. Anyone that thinks they can force women to not have abortion is delusional. Abortion will happen, legal or not. People only have to choose if it's going to be safe for the mother or not.
You are right vic. I dont know how long you have been around, but before roe v wade, illeagal, unsafe abortions mamed and often killed many desperate women. That was unexceptable then as it is now.
I believe no one has the right to object to women making that hard choice unless they have adopted or fostered unwanted children. Most of these pro lifers are men who havent a clue or women who want to force their precieved high moral standards on women who dont want to hear it.
If anyone thinks that most women do this procedure on a whim, they are mistaken. It is difficult
But in the end, it is the womans choice and burden to bare.
This law is nearly 50 years old, it has saved lives and prevented undo suffering. People just need to leave it lie.
Planned parenthood has reduced the abortion rate noticeably. Thats is going to hevrepeal also. So, more back alley abortions and more young, frightened women using coathangers, all subjecting these women to danger and hummiliation
Wow....old post. But...exactly.
And how many unwanted or desperate children have you fostered or adopted?
A three year old in the system isnt so difficult.
How irresponsible is a 14 year old girl who is raped?
Doesnt matter if it's 6 or 60. I know exactly who you are. The idea of forcing a child to carry a rapists fetus is unconscionable and barbaric.
Punishing the rapist is a whole different matter.
So...it's murder. But maybe okay under the right circumstances?
Your platform falls to pieces.
I believe there should be a time limit. Except if the womens life is in danger.
Even if everyone is careful crap happens. I'd rather avoid a new life suffering than keeping some puritan ideal.
Killing a new life doesn't avoid it - it murders it.
It's better to be murdered when you're not born yet than to die in the cold and hunger or from disease.
I see you're studying biology.
Obviously not philosophy or ethics.
How would you know the 'best time to die'? Seems a bit presumptuous to me. And, how is it that you get to decide ?
If you were forced to die what would you prefer? A man with a gun slowly approaching you and about to murder you horribly or die without knowing how when or not feeling anything.
It's not the best choice, but raising a child is not easy, why ruin the life of an idiotic couple and a poor child because the idiots didnt want to use a condom because it doesnt feel as good?
I'd personally prefer life to be stopped when the baby is no bigger than a king shrimp, the decision falls on the couple.
If the government decides what happens then they better pay up for that child's life, only way i see it fair.
How about Mommy and Daddy paying for their own abortion? Reasonable compromise?
Oh definitely, the government isn't responsible for one's screw ups.
Then, let's start there. Keep it legal, but pay for your own. No public money to pay for abortions. No funding of Planned Parenthood. OK?
I think it's fair yes, why should the public pay for the screw up of someone else? Most people can afford condoms or at worst a single day after pill. Some people just don't realize how serious it is.
Thanks for your open mindedness on the topic!
I'm glad we agree, I understand that it is technically murder but at least it's not anyone suffering, just avoiding to give them a chance of life. Sometimes it just seems better to not risk it, if it were me I wouldn't want my child to suffer because I'm an idiot. I want to have children when I'm married and can financially afford to raise them and have a family environment doing so.
We were doing so well.
Sunny, please don't try to justify taking the life of another person. Especially, one as innocent as an unborn.
I understand, you stand your ground well, by no means am I implying that this is the best way, I see it more as a mercy killing. The best way to solve this is only 1, to avoid pregnancy.
I could say the same for you on many things as well, friend.
You're bugging a post from a year ago, do you realize that? Besides I dont want to argue anything with you because you just end up crapping on what I say and just continue thinking what you think as always and refuse to hear out my points. I'm not doing this again, I'm not looking for a fight.
A close minded person like you never changes, it's either your belief or none other, I have a better chance explaining meiosis to a chimpanzee.
I am open minded about both points of view, if you ACTUALLY read what I say sometimes you'd get it trough your head, still you show no compromise to try to understand others and hatefully disagree like an infant having a temper tantrum.
I've always said that abortion is a difficult question to answer and that aborting a fetus is not the better choice but neither is abortions getting forbidden and then leaving those people fend by themselves.
So true. It's amazing how many people say their neighbors problems are none of their business, but they have no problem butting in to tell me what I can or can't do with MY body. Old, fat, white conservative men NEVER cease to amaze, do they?
With YOUR body? Are you talking about aborting yourself? Maybe I got this whole abortion thing all wrong then. See - I always thought people were trying to abort other people's bodies.
Ah, my first response from an old, fat, white conservative man. lol Thanks for stopping by!
Let me guess. You are an unemployed minority transgender, living off the old fat white conservative men's taxes. Not really a surprise to most of us.
You wish Jimmy!
Old? Well that's relative - I'm probably older than you (judging by your displayed IQ) - but with only a couple gray hairs I think I'm still somewhat near my prime.
Fat? Hardly. I'm 5'9", 165lbs.
you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, are ya?
Oh no, honey. Just because you AREN'T the sharpest tool in the shed. You can get on your high horse all you like. It STILL doesn't make you RIGHT.
And as far as the last part of your comment goes, YOU CAN FUCK OFF YOU FUCKIN' IDIOT. AND YOU CAN SHOVE YOUR SELF RIGHTEOUS ATTITUDE RIGHT UP YOUR ASS, ALONG WITH WHERE YOU KEEP YOUR HEAD.
I think this is the same argument gun-advocates have been making for years they just apply it to a different issue.
I agree, I just think this applies to a heckuva lot more than abortions.
Vic that is a very true statement.
Removing a fetus from your own body has nothing to do with 'killing a baby'.
What did that baby ever do to you and when do you decide a fetus is a baby?
I've often wondered this too. There must be a magical little snow elf somewhere, that flies down from the clouds and sprinkles enchanted sentience dust on the fetus - transforming it into a human being with real value and worth. If I could only get a picture of it though.
It between the woman whose body contains the fetus and her advisors.
No all I am doing is hoping women will retain the right to make their own moral value decisions.
Decisions based on her own ethics and the advice of their own doctors, life partners and spiritual advisors/
I would hate to see anyone forced to follow your or some government officials religious or personal doctrines.
Freedom to choose - that's what most "libertarians" are all about - liberty.
I have studied latin
and "fetus" (is of course a 4th declension noun/adjective)
It is used mostly in surviving text to mean fruit or bearing fruit (adj), it is also is used to mean 'root', 'sucker', or 'sapling'. It appears often in text.
Fetus was used mostly in reference to plants, but also for many animals and for peoples that were considered inferior to Romans. Example: Horace's "Germania quos horrida parturit fetus"
It was not applied to human embryo in utero until the 1600s.
So you are making the decision for all mankind that a fetus is an independent human being with all the inherent rights. Says you.
I am making no such decision. I am stating that I don't have the knowledge or the authority to make that choice, and neither does any elected official. It is between each woman and her advisors.
You can attempt to align my position with nazism, but it would work.
Your position is clearly aligned with authoritarianism and dogma - and you can wiggle out of that.
You clearly find this topic to be emotionally complex. So I will not try to dissuade you from your conviction. Please know that it is just as emotional for those who hold the opposite view from you.
Call me a nazi doesn't make you right, and calling Jewish people 'jews' makes you sound less sincere.
I think you are the one caught up in dogma.
That, and cold, heartless attitude toward human life.
I'll pray for you.
It does not feel heartless to let people make their own choices. If/when I have to choose I think I would favor life. But I won't force another to make that choice.
How about Mommy paying for her own abortion? You good with that? Cuz, I think that is a great starting point for compromise.
Fine. But, planned parenthood does much more than perform abortions. No funding for abortions and keep funding for other services and we have a deal.
And no federal ban
Vic - I'm a nice guy - I'm NOT a stupid guy.
Money NOT spent on A is saved to spend on B. NO public funding of Planned Parenthood.
These are the same monsters that were caught selling baby parts! Most people find that disgusting. Others may have special pate' recipes. Which are you?
I am the one who cares about people not money.
You don't appear to give a rats ass about the babies being murdered though, do you?
Seems this old conservative white man is the one concerned about people to me!
Again with the mistaken equivocation of fetuses with 'babies' . Time to move on, your old argument is flawed. Go back to your 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' argument, it makes more sense than whatever you are trying to pull here.
Make no mistake about it Vic - a fetus in a human womb, is human. It never misses. It's true 100% of the time. Been that way for quite a while now.
There is a deference between 'human' and 'a human'.
A footprint might be human but it is not a human.
And you accused me of playing word games earlier.
Vic, when an abortion is performed, it's the baby that dies, not his footprint.
It's not a baby. It's a potential baby. Unless every time you flush a sperm cell you are flushing a baby
Time to review your biology Vic. Sperm alone does not make a baby.
Once an ovum is fertilized - it is alive and even at this stage of development has all the necessary DNA to human. I understand that it doesn't look like an adult human - it's merely because it's in early development.
I need to question your input on the whole topic when you're thinking that sperm cells are babies.
"Removing a fetus from your own body has nothing to do with 'killing a baby'."
I'm not sure I agree with that, I never understood this argument. You're ending a life, or perhaps the possibility of a life.
Still the woman's prerogative though. The life is ended to protect the life of the carrier no less. No entirely dissimilar than the form of self-defense carved out under stand your ground laws.
I know people on both sides of the aisle don't like the way that sounds, but that's basically what it is.
The life is left at the mercy of the mother in the same way a home-invader's life is left at the mercy of the home-owner, no?
Potential life, not life.
Extend that to every sperm cell.
Every time a women has a menstrual cycle and doesn't carry a fetus to term a 'potential' life is wasted?
Not quite the same, I don't need an abortion to guarantee I don't conceive immaculately, I only need an abortion to guarantee I don't give birth.
But you've missed my point, I think.
I think I do and we seem to disagree on the definition of 'a life'
My point is the law already upholds the use of lethal force as a means of self-defense with respect to living, external agents. This principle would undoubtedly extend to the unborn residing within a free agent.
Whether people realize it or not, both choicers and lifers support the principle, some just apply it selectively.
The semantic argument is an unnecessary cognitive distortion used to make the resulting cognitive dissonance of holding such inherently contradictory positions more palatable. I think we're all a little less intellectually honest as a result of these mental contortions.
Sorry but the 'dictionary' is about a accurate as asking your aunt Betty.
Actually no. Only the pregnent woman's opinion counts. Mine doesn't matter in the least.
I respect your opinion. Too bad you don't respect mine. I disagree with yours.
Of course abortions could be banned.
We could also ban public money paying for abortions. That way Mommy can pay for the murder of her own child. How's that for compromise?
Seems like an idea whose time has come. Let that blood be on your hands.
Nice try Vic. Saving lives does not cause bleeding.
Back alley abortions do
Back alley abortions don't save lives.
Correct again. Back alley abortions cause bleeding. So you endorse bleeding. I get it.
You got yourself kind of tied up in a pretzel there Vic! Must be all those twisting of words and junk.
So you agree that you are a cruel man who puts his own mental comfort above the physical well-being of others. Cool.
To a deceitful person such as yourself, I'm sure I can appear cruel.
To a cruel person such as yourself I am sure I can appear deceitful.
Lies are lies - to anyone.
Like all of human history?
Possibly. If someone murders a human. But this post is about fetuses.
I oppose the murder of humans. Any person who was born is a human. An unborn fetus is not 'a human' it is a potential human.
A fingernail clipping is human. It is not "a human" an acorn is alive. It is not "a life".
Comparing those arguments to Nazism might serve your emotional needs but It is not logical.
I think you can ban late term abortions and change the term to infanticide.
Bullshit. Even when a brain hasn't developed?
That's like saying: "You can never ban murders, you can only ban safe murders. You can never stop potential murderers from making their own choices."
I define murder as the unjustified taking of an innocent life.
Yes we can ban it (as we currently ban murder). Then, anyone who still chooses to do it, will be outside the law and will need to pay for their crime.
So anyone who kills a human is commenting murder, I agree; including state executioners, and armed forces personnel. But those are 'safe murders', done with government approval.
Not quite. Anyone who unjustly kills another human being, is committing murder. Soldiers & executioners are exempt - provided the person they're killing justly deserves it.
That's what this site is about. You've got one about killing humans, I've got one about fetuses.
Let's be accurate here: You don't just have an opinion about fetuses in general, but about killing human fetuses. I don't see that our topics are any different, just our conclusions.
Fetus - an unborn offspring of a mammal.
I assumed we were talking about humans. You didn't specify, but I don't know of any controversy regarding the abortion of other mammals.
Ask around, I am willing to bet you'll find people even more 'liberal' than me that would say we should ban killing all animals, even bacteria!
But that's beside the point - in this context you are right, unborn.
So, to be clear, [since you admitted in another thread that you don't feel a need to be honest] the topic of this thread is the abortion of human lives, right?
I didn't say I didn't 'need' to be honest, I said I cannot tell the truth, and neither can you, because there is no truth.
And no. The topic of this OP is the banning of the abortion of human pregnancy.
I see. How many babies survive the termination of pregnancy Vic? And, are you really comfortable with making such asinine distinctions without difference?
Clearly I am as comfortable stating that a pregnancy is not a baby as you are stating that a pregnancy is a baby.
If a women is pregnant it might result in the birth of a baby. If the pregnancy is terminate than their is no baby.
A baby is outside the womb. A fetus is inside the womb. Why do you insist on playing word games?
A baby is a baby regardless of it's location.
You can't compare a fetus with a grown human being who realizes what is happening, it's not the same, if you are forcing people to have a child they can not afford you better pay for it then.
Why? What's the difference between a human fetus and a grown human - other than size?
The difference is that when a doctor tries to scrape you out with tools you wont be screaming in horror because you will be the size of a shrimp who's not developed yet, you dont see, hear, feel, know. A grown human is someone formed and someone knowing someone who understands what is happening. I see abortion as a mercy killing, it's not a better choice, some people who are not ready for kids still make it well enough but I can't stand the idea of bringing a child to this Earth and being a scumbag who can't give it a good life and forcing it to suffer.
Pain and screaming in horror is bad, right? Does that mean we could legalize murder if we just gave the victim a muscle relaxer first? How about shooting people in their heads while they sleep? I bet they won't scream nor feel a thing.
Mercy killings? Then you must also agree with the Nazi ideology of "mercy killing" the mentally ill. Many of them don't really understand what's going on either (trust me - I've met a few). Somehow you think you're in the driver's seat in determining whether or not another person's life is worth living. How would you know how things will work out? Are you omniscient?
An abortion due to "not being ready for kids" is a euphemism for a convenience abortion.
Why are you trying to make me look bad in your arguments? I'm trying to be respectful to you, I try to understand your point of view. What don't you understand in stopping life before it occurs, the nazi is something else entirely, you keep seeing no difference between a grown man and a fetus, should I use childish examples like you? Why don't you give a fetus the right to vote a gun and a pack of Cuban cigars? I'm not going to discuss this with you any further as you have no intention of trying to understand me. And I have no intention of conversing with someone so petty and so persistent to win their argument that they would paint the other person as some sadistic Nazi no less. If you can't see the big picture because of your petty rivalry with opinions then it's not worth talking to someone like you.
I'm not trying to make you look bad - just your argument. Because it's a very bad argument. There is objective right and wrong - and infanticide is objectively wrong.
"What don't you understand in stopping life before it occurs"
The only way you can stop it before it occurs is thru abstinence. Once the sperm fertilizes the egg, life has begun and must be protected.
Of course I see physical and mental differences between a man and a baby, but we're not debating whether or not the baby can vote, drive a car or smoke - we're debating whether it's life has any value at all.
The Nazis were an excellent example of subjective morality - which is what you seem to be relying on for your argument right now (i.e. better to die as a baby rather than be raised by parents who don't love you, etc.).
Wars, juries, welfare, all examples of subjective morality. There are few if any examples of truly objective morality.
What do you mean...ban safe abortions?
Those assisted by competent medical professionals performed in certified medical facilities.
I was afraid that's what you'd say.
Not many ppl would go for abortions that were unsafe.
When abortions were illegal many did. If they become illegal again, many will.
Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s range from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. Prior to Roe v. Wade, as many as 5,000 American women died annually as a direct result of unsafe abortions.
How much birth control was available and paid for by the government in the 50's and 60's? The decisions and choices have become so prevalent in today's world that abortion should be an absolute last resort. People need to be much more responsible when their choices involve a human life. Abortions should not be a method of birth control.
The number of abortions performed in 2016 was the lowest in recorded history, so you are correct.
Those are brave women. Maybe...maybe not.
Most women are very brave
But to think of dying as a result of an abortion...that seems unconscionable.
I don't know why you conservatives think fetuses are 'babies'.
So we are even.
That logic being that no one knows why another person thinks what they think. See we agree.
I know; people will always murder other people. History show it.
and they will always try to empower governments that push their morals on everyone else while claiming that the best course is to keep government out of our private affairs yet making loud value judgments like 'fetuses are people' or 'taxes are theft'. History shows it.
There's an interesting bit regarding outlawing abortions ... and the "enabling legislation" is REALLY requires ... in the fictional book "Hope" (available from JPFO.org)