VA senate pushes through ultrasound/personhood bill (abortion related, slightly rapey)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

Small Government Conservatives: Small enough to fit snugly inside your uterus. Well, literally the vagina in this case I guess.

Seekster:

Because its not their life. Do you believe someone else has the right to determine what you will do in your life without your tacit or given consent?

Which is why you're against the death penalty in all cases. Which is why you're against unjust wars like Iraq. Which is why you're against the common contraceptive pill which can 'abort' a fertilised egg after conception (which you believe is when life begins, right?) by preventing implantation into the womb lining.

Right? I just wanna be clear. Don't wanna misunderstand.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

The GOP supermajority in the Virginia state senate this week has voted to require any woman wanting an abortion to have a trans-vaginal ultrasound before and during the procedure in order to attempt to dissuade them from having it. This is to be done without the consent of the woman.

Well they do an ultrasound before and sometimes during the procedure anyway. I think this issue is that the woman is being "forced to watch". Which is silly to mandate, I'd toss my cookies if I saw them cutting up my insides for any procedure.

As part of the same package they have also included a personhood bill that defines life as beginning at fertilisation. That is fucking idiotic in and of itself and opens up a whole host of legal and tax issues irrespective of it's idiocy anyway.

Oh that's a can of worms. I can't wait until people start claiming their unborn kid as a tax deduction. And of course it would pretty much force IVF clinics out of your state.

And it gets messier from there...very dumb.

Though there are a few escapists that will applaud these bills I'm sure I shall not be responding to them.

Then why start a thread if you don't want to discuss it? Seems silly

Tree man:

Seekster:

Tree man:

Why?

Because its not their life. Do you believe someone else has the right to determine what you will do in your life without your tacit or given consent?

No, but I'm not talking about a human, I am talking about something that cannot think,feel nor emote in any way.

Then you aren't talking about a fetus (except in maybe the very earliest stages of development) or else you need to clarify what the words "think", "feel", and "emote" mean to you specifically.

Furthermore, it is significant to point out that the line between a fetus and a baby is arbitrary (even the Justice who wrote the majority opinion for Roe v Wade said so...appropriately enough since his opinion was the foundation for that decision instead of the constitution but I digress). At what point does a fetus become a baby and why? A baby is a human being yes?

Seekster:

Tree man:

Seekster:

Because its not their life. Do you believe someone else has the right to determine what you will do in your life without your tacit or given consent?

No, but I'm not talking about a human, I am talking about something that cannot think,feel nor emote in any way.

Then you aren't talking about a fetus (except in maybe the very earliest stages of development) or else you need to clarify what the words "think", "feel", and "emote" mean to you specifically.

Furthermore, it is significant to point out that the line between a fetus and a baby is arbitrary (even the Justice who wrote the majority opinion for Roe v Wade said so...appropriately enough since his opinion was the foundation for that decision instead of the constitution but I digress). At what point does a fetus become a baby and why? A baby is a human being yes?

No, A fetus does not develop an active lymphoid system until into the very late stages of pregnancy and its synapses do not function until later in pregnancies, it is not a human when it is in the womb until it is just about to be born.

So again, why don't you abort it, it cannot think, it cannot feel any physical pain and there is no emotion present so why not kill it?

Polarity27:
(BTW, this needs to be said: our governor is the odds-on pick for VP nominee, if Romney wins the nomination. The Republican VP nominee could be a man who thinks it's okay to force women to be raped with plastic sticks for the crime of wanting a legal medical procedure. If you-- any of you-- are seriously okay with this, that disgusts me.)

Honestly i think this disqualifies him at the national level. His thesis was controversial enough already, now he'd also have to answer being the governor who state-sponsored rape.

Kendarik:
Well they do an ultrasound before and sometimes during the procedure anyway. I think this issue is that the woman is being "forced to watch". Which is silly to mandate, I'd toss my cookies if I saw them cutting up my insides for any procedure.

The issue is that a transvaginal ultrasound requires a device to be inserted into the vagina. Most of the time this isn't necessary and the ultrasound image can be taken through less invasive means.

A proposed amendment to this bill would have left it to the doctor's discretion to decide which method to use. It was voted down, which is completely senseless unless you're trying to forcibly penetrate every woman seeking an abortion.

Amnestic:
Small Government Conservatives: Small enough to fit snugly inside your uterus. Well, literally the vagina in this case I guess.

Seekster:

Because its not their life. Do you believe someone else has the right to determine what you will do in your life without your tacit or given consent?

Which is why you're against the death penalty in all cases. Which is why you're against unjust wars like Iraq. Which is why you're against the common contraceptive pill which can 'abort' a fertilised egg after conception (which you believe is when life begins, right?) by preventing implantation into the womb lining.

Right? I just wanna be clear. Don't wanna misunderstand.

"Small enough to fit snugly inside your uterus. Well, literally the vagina in this case I guess."

Small? It gets bigger (not government, that was a dirty joke and I apologize but I thought it was funny).

None of those things have ANYTHING to do with this issue. My position is consistent. Life, particularly human life, is sacred and should not be carelessly discarded. For this reason abortion, the death penalty, and war should only be considered as options in rare worst-case scenarios.

Also I am torn on the issue of when life begins. Some say conception and I do not agree or disagree with that. I usually go with implantation but I am not certain where I would put it. What I am certain of is that by the time you get to the second trimester you are dealing with a baby and talk of abortion past that point (except in the aforementioned worst case scenarios) is right out.

Tree man:

Seekster:

Tree man:

No, but I'm not talking about a human, I am talking about something that cannot think,feel nor emote in any way.

Then you aren't talking about a fetus (except in maybe the very earliest stages of development) or else you need to clarify what the words "think", "feel", and "emote" mean to you specifically.

Furthermore, it is significant to point out that the line between a fetus and a baby is arbitrary (even the Justice who wrote the majority opinion for Roe v Wade said so...appropriately enough since his opinion was the foundation for that decision instead of the constitution but I digress). At what point does a fetus become a baby and why? A baby is a human being yes?

No, A fetus does not develop an active lymphoid system until into the very late stages of pregnancy and its synapses do not function until later in pregnancies, it is not a human when it is in the womb until it is just about to be born.

So again, why don't you abort it, it cannot think, it cannot feel any physical pain and there is no emotion present so why not kill it?

I answered two of your questions (perhaps more but lets say two) now answer two of mine.

1. Do you believe a human baby is a human being?

2. At what point does a fetus become a baby and why?

Hmmm, I did have some arguments for abortion that I was going to address to Seekster, but apparently about 5 people got there before me.

Sometimes it's annoying that this board is so devoid of right wing people with which I can debate.

So yeah, throw in another vote for "this still is ridiculous, the USA is still stuck in the past in this issue, and the republican party still seems to have the mindset of 'ew, vaginas are yucky'"

I am not equipped to deal with this thread without totally losing my shit.

This is bad.

Anyone who would support it, for any reason, is bad.

I'm going to go away from here now, and wish that I didn't share a species with these cretins.

Heck, I don't know. I think that a pregnant teen probably doesn't understand the magnitude of decision she is about to make, but I don't think this is the way to show it to her.

Seekster:
I don't watch videos in place of an argument. If there is something you want to argue make that argument yourself.

I should probably write a transcript, then, because SisyphusRedeemed (a philosophy professor at some university, not sure which) absolutely nails the issues involved.

As far as we can tell a person does not feel pain when they are executed by guillotine so then why did we ever get rid of such a painless method of execution (assuming you are actually going to keep execution which like abortion should only even be considered in the worst cases if it is used at all). After all life, particularly human life (perhaps due to our bias as we are all human here) is sacred and should not be ended lightly.

I think we're mostly in agreement on what you wrote, but I'm pretty sure you missed my point, which was nothing more and nothing less than that fetuses don't "suffer". They also, up until a very short time before their birth, don't think, react, solve spatial geometry puzzles, or question their own existence. Their brain is just not developed enough to do that yet. This is a big part of why I don't consider most fetuses "people".

First off I would very much like to see where Santorum said rape is a gift from God because every little context flag I have just went up when you mentioned that. (My money is on he said something to the effect of a baby being a gift from God, something I would agree with).

Google is your friend; the results are full of these things. Here's a good one (mostly because it has the original source right at the bottom in video form). A somewhat more full quote is this:

"I believe and I think that the right approach is to accept this horribly created, in the sense of rape, but nevertheless, in a very broken way, a gift of human life, and accept what God is giving to you."

Which is slightly better than the words ripped from context (as he seems somewhat apologetic about it), but still really, really, really bad, and really problematic. Beyond that, though, lies the real problem: this position that those who would support such personhood amendments often hold is genuinely logically necessary if you assume that a fetus is a person, with said rights involved, and proceed to treat it as such, as outlined above.

Second of all, personally I don't go as far as conception, I think the earliest I will go is implantation but once you have an actual fetus my view is that abortion at that point is morally unacceptable except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger and perhaps in cases of rape or incest but I am torn on those issues.

I still don't see how any of these pose a real issue in terms of the morality of killing what appears to be morally equivalent to, say, a member of your family.

Also, implantation, far more than conception, begs the question: "Why stop there?"

I am sure you don't think of yourselves that way, you arent psychopaths after all. However if you support killing babies you would be baby killers, thats why the word "fetus" is used more often, yes in some context it is used properly but other times its a euphemism.

It's only extremely rarely used as a euphemism; for the most part, "fetus" is the scientifically accurate descriptive term. In fact, the other direction is more commonly true (calling a Zygote or Blastocyst "fetus"), but that's out of general laziness more than anything else. Calling a fetus a "baby" is simply inaccurate.

Rape is not the fault of the baby. Besides there is something called the morning after pill that can prevent life from forming in the first place.

The morning after pill is opposed by staunch pro-lifers in a way that, say, condoms are not, because it has the potential to cause an "abortion" by thinning the uterus lining and preventing the fertilized egg from getting to the wall at all. Such personhood amendments would create extreme legal difficulty on this count.

*reads the rest and holds up a hand*

Wait a moment, I think a lot of our disagreements are based on a misunderstanding of the views of the other where we use assumptions to fill in the gaps. Tell me what you believe about abortion and I will respond with what I believe about abortion and we can go from there. Lets not have our disagreements based on misunderstanding.

Fair enough.

I believe that where human life starts should be determined by the scientific/biological definition of "life" (found here[1]). It's worth noting, again, that stimulus-response is not truly present until the third trimester.

However, life is only part of the issue - I believe that human life is not enough to work with. A living human does not necessarily have all the rights a living human person does. The difference is fine, but non-trivial; for more details look up Peter Sanger. When does a baby become a person? In my opinion, approximately when it becomes capable of self-awareness, which is generally at some point around age 2. Until then, it has certain rights as a living being (protection from abuse, for example; protection from murder)...

I'm honestly still not 100% certain about how my epistemology in regards to abortion is set up. I've still got some thinking to do on the issue, and I'm well aware that my criteria for personhood puts me on pretty damn shaky ground (not being a person until well after birth just feels off for me as well, no worries, I'm not completely insane). I do however know that it makes absolutely no sense to give a being which science wouldn't even yet class as "alive" the same rights as you or me.

-

But the breaking point of the whole abortion debate to me is a key word that you saw me use earlier: "Believe". You see, I believe that human life starts approximately in the third trimester, because that's where my definition of life starts. I don't know this, because it isn't a very clear issue. Other people with other definitions have different reasonings. When you get into the issue of human rights, it gets even more unclear - do you have to just be a living human to get those rights, or do you have to have some other qualifications as well (as Peter Sanger would claim)? What are these rights? Does a woman's right to her own body trump the fetus's right to life?

These are all highly subjective questions with no clear, well-defined answer. All we have to go on is people's beliefs, their moral convictions. And now let me ask you: if all you have to go on is your moral convictions and beliefs, how can you possibly enforce that on everyone else? How can you, in a society that thrives on religious and personal freedom, claim that your beliefs trump the beliefs of someone else in the field of law? You can't. And as such, the only reasonable choice is to let each individual decide for themselves what their moral convictions are on the issue, and whether or not they feel comfortable with it. This is why I am pro-choice, and why I would be pro-choice even if I considered a fetus to be alive from the first week on[2]. And yes, this is something relatively specific to Abortion - things like theft, murder, and whatnot have far more clear-cut reasonings against them.

As for the snide comments about America and common sense, hey at least we don't do things like sell milk in bags (Canada), or think Internet access is a human right (Finland I believe), or make it a crime to talk about certain things that are politically incorrect or even hurtful (France, Germany).

Laugh all you want about that kind of thing, but the fact remains:
image
You guys are just fucking silly. :V

[1] Keep in mind that the 7th criteria is taken in more of a "potential" sense; i.e. "it could, given full aptitude, be able to reproduce during its lifetime"
[2] With that in mind, there is a certain group I feel should be banned from having abortions. Seeing as it is up to each individual to decide, those who picket, protest, or litigate against abortions should be legally prohibited from having them, because they clearly feel that abortion is not something which can be morally justified; they clearly see it as murder. What's more likely: that they change their extremely hardline stance on that issue, or that they're willing to kill someone to ensure that their lives aren't ruined? Only half joking on both points. ^_^

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
Fuck being a rational person. In all these "Fuck women, us men are so fucked" threads I get raged at for thinking differently, and in threads like these I get a stream of angry women running after me: "THIS ISNT ABOUT MEN!!! ITS ABOUT WOMEN!!! BAAAAWWWWWW IM SO OPPRESSED THE WHOLE WORLD IS OUT AGAINST FEMALES AND ONLY FEMALES"...

As I said, stuff like this is a general problem. People want to decide not only what doctors stick into women, but also what men decide to stick in themselves, and if im such a sexist pig for saying that, I dunno. What I do know is that I am done with little girls who stamp their feet on the ground screaming "ME ME ME ME".

Polarity27 is a stream? I don't think there really are Polarities 1-26 running around here.

...

Nobody said that The Man doesn't affect men. This particular issue, however isn't about men.[1] People haven't all magically forgotten than men exist because they are discussing something else. Not absolutely everything has to be about men all the time, and discussions about other things other than men don't have to be constantly derailed or men will shrivel up and die. You're not being oppressed by the hordes of "little girls" if they want to discuss their own problems for a change, as opposed to yours.

...

What the creators of this (and Seekster) seem to have missed is that this bill won't actaully help the semi-stated aim. As a rule, women do not decide to have abortions for the lulz. Asking them if they are sure they want to do this, making them have ultrasounds and waiting periods and the like is not going to convince them that you know better than them about what they should do to their bodies.

If you want to punish the uppity womenz for deciding what to do with their own bodies, then raping them is a decent way to go about it. But that's all it's good for.

[1] Well, except that it's something that men should be opposed to, even if it doesn't affect them

There's three things I have to say about this, all on how bad the VA Senate thinks this is right(though I do not live there).

1) It goes against the First Amendment. I do not believe in the Christian faith, and this law is based on said faith. Therefore, it is Christian belief being force-fed onto those who do not follow that faith.

2) I don't remember what passage I read it from in the Bible, but didn't the Bible say that a fetus is a human being (baby)when God cleared the nasal passages? So prior to the clearing of the nasal passages, it is not considered a human being, right?

3) I love how the Republicans keep saying they want smaller, and smaller, government. But then they put in a law that not only enlarges the government, but also makes it intrusive on private family matters. So not only are they liars, they are hypocrits and, practically, tyrants.

I've heard of this. Thought it was shitty then, think it's shitty now.

They think seeing the life is gonna make women change their minds. I don't ever plan on getting pregnant 'cause I don't want kids. But if it were to happen, I am more than prepared to go through with it, see the life in there and say: "that's nice. Off to go kill it now."

Yeah... it's cold. But this shit is jacked up.

As if the nation needed any more proof that when a Republican says he's for small government, he's lying...

WTF is wrong with that whole fucking party these days?

Forgive me if I snip for size

Stagnant:
-snip-

"This is a big part of why I don't consider most fetuses "people"."

Careful, you could extend a lot of that to heavily retarded people.

I think the personhood idea goes too far but abortion is such a travesty I am willing to support that and then later correct a few things I don't like, than hold out for something closer to my views.

My mother told me something similar to what Santorum said. She believes abortion is immoral even in cases of rape. I am on the fence when it comes to abortion in cases of rape.

"I still don't see how any of these pose a real issue in terms of the morality of killing what appears to be morally equivalent to, say, a member of your family.

Also, implantation, far more than conception, begs the question: "Why stop there?""

What do you mean?

"It's only extremely rarely used as a euphemism; for the most part, "fetus" is the scientifically accurate descriptive term. In fact, the other direction is more commonly true (calling a Zygote or Blastocyst "fetus"), but that's out of general laziness more than anything else. Calling a fetus a "baby" is simply inaccurate."

Fair enough, but the question is raised, when does a fetus become a baby? There has to be a solid reason for whatever point and time you give. "Viability" makes some sense buts not set in stone. A baby that is not viable maybe viable if born in a hospital with better equipment for example.

Yes when it comes to contraceptives I diverge with many pro-life people. I will grant that its morally questionable given that contraceptives are a way to dodge personal responsibility for most people (not all mind you) but compared with abortion it is infinitely more desirable to prevent life from coming into existence than to terminate life.

The scientific definition of life doesnt really work because of the reproduction requirement unless you make an exception. Also I am given to understand that fetuses have been observed reacting or at least appearing to react to certain stimuli (variations in temperature for example).

You believe a baby does not become human until age 2? So why give exceptions on things like murder to a Baby 1 year after birth but not to one 6 months before birth (I don't know when is the latest you would approve of an abortion that doesnt involve a threat to the life of the mother?)

Well ok I can respect you for thinking about the issue. I'm thinking about when I think life and human life begins. I have concluded that a human life begins sometime prior to the birth (after all what is so significantly different for a human baby 1 day before the birth as 1 day after the birth?)

I think we can agree that there are a lot of questions that need answering. However I would argue that until we have those questions answered it is best to avoid harm to the unborn except in cases where the mother's life is in danger.

I think it behooves us to consider what Norma McCorvey (aka Roe, from Roe v Wade) said in her book about when she become Pro-life.

"I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. 'Norma', I said to myself, 'They're right'. I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth - that's a baby!

I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception'. It wasn't about 'missed periods'. It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion - at any point - was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear."

As for the cute graph, hey if I had time, the work ethic to make something useless outside of an internet pissy contest, and the necessary photoshop skills I could make a chart that shows the US is better than your country too.

On a second look, the graph only shows that the US doesn't fit the trend which to an American such as myself brings out the whole "Heck yeah we do our own thing, Go America!" bit. We are wealthy and have a lot of people who for some reason don't believe in evolution. How is any of this relevant?

cobra_ky:

Kendarik:
Well they do an ultrasound before and sometimes during the procedure anyway. I think this issue is that the woman is being "forced to watch". Which is silly to mandate, I'd toss my cookies if I saw them cutting up my insides for any procedure.

The issue is that a transvaginal ultrasound requires a device to be inserted into the vagina. Most of the time this isn't necessary and the ultrasound image can be taken through less invasive means.

A proposed amendment to this bill would have left it to the doctor's discretion to decide which method to use. It was voted down, which is completely senseless unless you're trying to forcibly penetrate every woman seeking an abortion.

It would make more sense to the let the doctor pick the appropriate method. Still, getting to freaked out about "being penetrated" by a medical instrument is silly under the circumstances (the abortion requires a whole bunch of stuff be stuck up there, including other things penetrating the cervix). I still think that's just emotional spin those against the law are using to manipulate people.

I don't disagree that the law is meant to be hateful and punitive, and its wrong on the face of it, but I don't see the type of instrument as the big problem.

Seekster:

My mother told me something similar to what Santorum said. She believes abortion is immoral even in cases of rape. I am on the fence when it comes to abortion in cases of rape.

The only justifications for believing abortion is immoral is if you have religious reasons or if you believe the fetus is an innocent human. If you believe those things then abortion is just as wrong for rape/incest/etc because its still an innocent human and your religion still says so.

The fact that you question if there MAY be exceptions to your belief should make you really consider how much you believe whichever of those foundations support your belief against abortion.

Fair enough, but the question is raised, when does a fetus become a baby? There has to be a solid reason for whatever point and time you give. "Viability" makes some sense buts not set in stone. A baby that is not viable maybe viable if born in a hospital with better equipment for example.

When it comes out of the mother. That's really the only definitive point. Everything else, as you point out, is an arbitrary and imprecise line in the sand.

The scientific definition of life doesnt really work because of the reproduction requirement unless you make an exception. Also I am given to understand that fetuses have been observed reacting or at least appearing to react to certain stimuli (variations in temperature for example).

Many plants do that too. Heck, even really simple plants like grass can react to environmental conditions. So yes, its alive, but I don't feel bad about cutting grass into pieces.

Well ok I can respect you for thinking about the issue. I'm thinking about when I think life and human life begins. I have concluded that a human life begins sometime prior to the birth (after all what is so significantly different for a human baby 1 day before the birth as 1 day after the birth?)

That is the core question. The birth is however the only "hard" date so it makes sense for it to be a dividing line. Personally the Jewish law on abortion has seemed right to me since the day I read it.

It's a good balance, and it makes sense to me.

I think we can agree that there are a lot of questions that need answering. However I would argue that until we have those questions answered it is best to avoid harm to the unborn except in cases where the mother's life is in danger.

You will never answer those questions. I'd rather avoid harm to the person we already KNOW is a full person.

I think it behooves us to consider what Norma McCorvey (aka Roe, from Roe v Wade) said in her book about when she become Pro-life.

I've known grandmothers who had abortions when they were young who to their death said it was the right thing and they had no regrets. It behooves us to consider them too.

pyrate:
Forcing a women to have a medical procedure that is 100% unnecessary goes against everything America is suppose to stand for.

Interestingly, almost all ultrasounds aren't really necessary as a part of a healthy pregnancy, but thanks to pro-life groups, the act has been trainjacked and used as a means of creating "personhood" narratives surrounding the fetus. Most people get them done anyway, as a means of creating these familial narratives themselves.

Of course, this has the effect of essentially erasing the mother from the equation since all the pictures show is a blob floating in a black abyss, but hey, who cares about her, amirite? /sarcasm

evilneko:
As if the nation needed any more proof that when a Republican says he's for small government, he's lying...

WTF is wrong with that whole fucking party these days?

Republicans just want a government so small they can place a miniture security guard in a woman's uterus.

OT: I facepalm not only at the article but at everything Seekster said. This isn't about aborting a baby, it's about aborting a fetus. If you abort it early then there's no moral or ethical issues. You abort it before it becomes a baby.

chewbacca1010:

Interestingly, almost all ultrasounds aren't really necessary as a part of a healthy pregnancy, but thanks to pro-life groups, the act has been trainjacked and used as a means of creating "personhood" narratives surrounding the fetus. Most people get them done anyway, as a means of creating these familial narratives themselves.

Ultrasounds at key points in a pregnancy are the only way to judge to see if it is a healthy pregnancy. They tell you about weight, size, identify many possible birth defects (some of which are correctable during the pregnancy, some you need a doc standing by for when you give birth), etc. They are also the best way for the doctor to get a clear read on fetal heartbeat.

Kendarik:

Seekster:

My mother told me something similar to what Santorum said. She believes abortion is immoral even in cases of rape. I am on the fence when it comes to abortion in cases of rape.

The only justifications for believing abortion is immoral is if you have religious reasons or if you believe the fetus is an innocent human. If you believe those things then abortion is just as wrong for rape/incest/etc because its still an innocent human and your religion still says so.

The fact that you question if there MAY be exceptions to your belief should make you really consider how much you believe whichever of those foundations support your belief against abortion.

Fair enough, but the question is raised, when does a fetus become a baby? There has to be a solid reason for whatever point and time you give. "Viability" makes some sense buts not set in stone. A baby that is not viable maybe viable if born in a hospital with better equipment for example.

When it comes out of the mother. That's really the only definitive point. Everything else, as you point out, is an arbitrary and imprecise line in the sand.

The scientific definition of life doesnt really work because of the reproduction requirement unless you make an exception. Also I am given to understand that fetuses have been observed reacting or at least appearing to react to certain stimuli (variations in temperature for example).

Many plants do that too. Heck, even really simple plants like grass can react to environmental conditions. So yes, its alive, but I don't feel bad about cutting grass into pieces.

Well ok I can respect you for thinking about the issue. I'm thinking about when I think life and human life begins. I have concluded that a human life begins sometime prior to the birth (after all what is so significantly different for a human baby 1 day before the birth as 1 day after the birth?)

That is the core question. The birth is however the only "hard" date so it makes sense for it to be a dividing line. Personally the Jewish law on abortion has seemed right to me since the day I read it.

It's a good balance, and it makes sense to me.

I think we can agree that there are a lot of questions that need answering. However I would argue that until we have those questions answered it is best to avoid harm to the unborn except in cases where the mother's life is in danger.

You will never answer those questions. I'd rather avoid harm to the person we already KNOW is a full person.

I think it behooves us to consider what Norma McCorvey (aka Roe, from Roe v Wade) said in her book about when she become Pro-life.

I've known grandmothers who had abortions when they were young who to their death said it was the right thing and they had no regrets. It behooves us to consider them too.

I believe abortion is morally wrong religion or no religion.

"When it comes out of the mother. That's really the only definitive point. Everything else, as you point out, is an arbitrary and imprecise line in the sand."

So what is so different about a baby 1 day before the birth compared with 1 day after the birth, I mean in terms of their development not location? Incidentally are you generally against late term abortions or partial-birth abortions?

"Many plants do that too. Heck, even really simple plants like grass can react to environmental conditions. So yes, its alive, but I don't feel bad about cutting grass into pieces."

Grass is a plant, humans are animals so there is a degree of bias involved there but honestly that sort of bias is justifiable (same reason PETA shouldnt win their lawsuit on behalf of the Sea World Orcas). A fetus on the other hand is closer to a human being than a dog is and you can't even kill legally kill your own dog (I think legally a dog is considered property but then there are animal cruelty laws to consider). Is it too much to ask for a fetus, a living creature that will become a human if left to develop naturally without any human interaction, to have at least the same rights as a dog? (I believe a fetus is entitled to many more rights than a dog and I love dogs but lets start there and work our way up).

Never heard of that Jewish law before but I have to disagree with it.

"You will never answer those questions. I'd rather avoid harm to the person we already KNOW is a full person."

Then invest in sex education and contraceptives, abortion is not an acceptable practice from a moral standpoint. Besides I already told you that in a case where the mother's health is in danger abortion is justifiable (still immoral but justifiable).

"I've known grandmothers who had abortions when they were young who to their death said it was the right thing and they had no regrets. It behooves us to consider them too."

I showed you my anecdotal evidence, if you want to cancel it out lets see yours from an equally relevant source.

Xan Krieger:

evilneko:
As if the nation needed any more proof that when a Republican says he's for small government, he's lying...

WTF is wrong with that whole fucking party these days?

Republicans just want a government so small they can place a miniture security guard in a woman's uterus.

OT: I facepalm not only at the article but at everything Seekster said. This isn't about aborting a baby, it's about aborting a fetus. If you abort it early then there's no moral or ethical issues. You abort it before it becomes a baby.

I am not comfortable with everything that the personhood argument brings but at least it would end legalized abortion on demand and anything that does that, short of violence, I can and will support. Abortion on demand is, in my opinion, a travesty on the level of slavery. A war had to be fought to end slavery in the USA, I don't think we will need to go THAT far to end abortion on demand but in general if something is against abortion and doesnt involve violence then I will support it even if I am not entirely comfortable with it. That is the extent to which I oppose abortion on demand.

Seekster:
"This is a big part of why I don't consider most fetuses "people"."

Careful, you could extend a lot of that to heavily retarded people.

I don't see quite how... People in permanent vegetative states, maybe, but that's also kinda been decided (although I wouldn't put it past you to expect Terry to still be on life support).

I think the personhood idea goes too far but abortion is such a travesty I am willing to support that and then later correct a few things I don't like, than hold out for something closer to my views.

"Travesty". Interesting choice of words.

My mother told me something similar to what Santorum said. She believes abortion is immoral even in cases of rape. I am on the fence when it comes to abortion in cases of rape.

I still don't get why. If we presume that abortion is wrong, we've already determined that the fetus's right to life trumps the woman's right to control over her body; why does it matter where the fetus came from? If the fetus has a right to life, why does it matter if it was forcibly placed there in the slightest?

"I still don't see how any of these pose a real issue in terms of the morality of killing what appears to be morally equivalent to, say, a member of your family.

Also, implantation, far more than conception, begs the question: "Why stop there?""

What do you mean?

The assumption behind the right to life of the fetus is, most commonly, that the fetus is a person, and as such commands human rights such as the right to life. As a person, it is indistinguishable from any other person, and as such aborting and killing it is wrong. This is true whether or not the woman wants it there.

Fair enough, but the question is raised, when does a fetus become a baby? There has to be a solid reason for whatever point and time you give. "Viability" makes some sense buts not set in stone. A baby that is not viable maybe viable if born in a hospital with better equipment for example.

I think the official terminology "baby" is used when it is finished being born, and not often before.

Yes when it comes to contraceptives I diverge with many pro-life people. I will grant that its morally questionable given that contraceptives are a way to dodge personal responsibility for most people (not all mind you) but compared with abortion it is infinitely more desirable to prevent life from coming into existence than to terminate life.

Ugh, this is a whole different can of worms I am not going to open right now. Suffice it to say that I completely and utterly disagree with this in just about every way.

The scientific definition of life doesnt really work because of the reproduction requirement unless you make an exception. Also I am given to understand that fetuses have been observed reacting or at least appearing to react to certain stimuli (variations in temperature for example).

The scientific definition of life's requirement of "able to produce viable offspring" does not have the prerequisite "now". We can all agree that an infertile woman is alive, no? Or a 3-year-old toddler? This requirement, in general, means something closer to "an average, adult individual of the species would be capable of bringing forth viable offspring either alone or with another average, adult individual of the opposite sex". Scientists aren't dumb enough to craft a definition which excludes any woman over 60 - they tend to know what they're doing.

As I linked before, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecology brought out a paper showing that there has been no scientific proof and no reason to believe that fetuses respond to stimuli before very late in their development (in the 24th week, a stage where the total percentage of abortions varies, depending on your source, from less than 1% to 0.08%; i.e. almost negligible).

You believe a baby does not become human until age 2? So why give exceptions on things like murder to a Baby 1 year after birth but not to one 6 months before birth (I don't know when is the latest you would approve of an abortion that doesnt involve a threat to the life of the mother?)

Okay first of all please stop conflating baby with fetus. Second of all, as I mentioned, this is a part of my epistemology that I myself am very confused over.
The latest I would approve of an abortion which is born out of the want of the mother (as opposed to medical necessity or extreme circumstances) is the 24th week, the most generous figure offered by RCOG's study as the time where the Fetus becomes capable of stimulus-response (although it is possible that I am simply misreading, in which case I may have to push it back even further).

Well ok I can respect you for thinking about the issue. I'm thinking about when I think life and human life begins. I have concluded that a human life begins sometime prior to the birth (after all what is so significantly different for a human baby 1 day before the birth as 1 day after the birth?)

I think we can agree that there are a lot of questions that need answering. However I would argue that until we have those questions answered it is best to avoid harm to the unborn except in cases where the mother's life is in danger.

And I think that that's a combination of opinions and beliefs, and that, as a man who claims to value "small government", you really should take another look at these paragraphs:

But the breaking point of the whole abortion debate to me is a key word that you saw me use earlier: "Believe". You see, I believe that human life starts approximately in the third trimester, because that's where my definition of life starts. I don't know this, because it isn't a very clear issue. Other people with other definitions have different reasonings. When you get into the issue of human rights, it gets even more unclear - do you have to just be a living human to get those rights, or do you have to have some other qualifications as well (as Peter Sanger would claim)? What are these rights? Does a woman's right to her own body trump the fetus's right to life?

These are all highly subjective questions with no clear, well-defined answer. All we have to go on is people's beliefs, their moral convictions. And now let me ask you: if all you have to go on is your moral convictions and beliefs, how can you possibly enforce that on everyone else? How can you, in a society that thrives on religious and personal freedom, claim that your beliefs trump the beliefs of someone else in the field of law? You can't. And as such, the only reasonable choice is to let each individual decide for themselves what their moral convictions are on the issue, and whether or not they feel comfortable with it. This is why I am pro-choice, and why I would be pro-choice even if I considered a fetus to be alive from the first week on. And yes, this is something relatively specific to Abortion - things like theft, murder, and whatnot have far more clear-cut reasonings against them.

I think it behooves us to consider what Norma McCorvey (aka Roe, from Roe v Wade) said in her book about when she become Pro-life.

"I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. 'Norma', I said to myself, 'They're right'. I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth - that's a baby!

I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception'. It wasn't about 'missed periods'. It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion - at any point - was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear."

Nothing against you or the woman in question, but if this is a person grasped by the firm grip of reason and logic, then I am a beef wellington ensemble with toast. All it really comes down to is one person coming, via her own reasoning, biases, and prejudices, to a certain opinion on a certain topic. I could post an anecdote about a woman struggling with her own convictions, deciding to get an abortion, and having her eyes opened by the experience - they're out there, and abortion doctors tend to have a fair number of them. But this? This is of no value to me. It's like someone "suddenly realizing" that Mohammed is calling to them.

As for the cute graph, hey if I had time, the work ethic to make something useless outside of an internet pissy contest, and the necessary photoshop skills I could make a chart that shows the US is better than your country too.

On a second look, the graph only shows that the US doesn't fit the trend which to an American such as myself brings out the whole "Heck yeah we do our own thing, Go America!" bit. We are wealthy and have a lot of people who for some reason don't believe in evolution. How is any of this relevant?

I guess my tongue was too far in my cheek on that one...

Seekster:
A human does not have the right to kill a fetus because they are not convenient.

Do you even believe that yourself? Nobody has an abortion for fun, or because it's more conventient.

You have no idea what you're talking about here. You don't even have the guts to go out there and fix that critical lack of knowledge by going to find someone who's pregnant after being raped, and find out just who the people are you're casually passing judgement about.

Seekster:
Whoever says or believes that is simply morally wrong from any religious or secular understanding of morality.

Okay mister Morality, you are the expert, so you tell me; how do I describe a bunch of idiots who violate other people's human rights and the US constitution by denying them even the freedom over their own body, and actively work to force their religion onto others through laws?

I was going for christofascists because they oppose freedom so vehemently, show all the other traits of fascism in their ideas, and act out of Christianity.

Seekster:

I believe abortion is morally wrong religion or no religion.

So then what makes it even possibly morally right if a rape is involved?

"When it comes out of the mother. That's really the only definitive point. Everything else, as you point out, is an arbitrary and imprecise line in the sand."

So what is so different about a baby 1 day before the birth compared with 1 day after the birth, I mean in terms of their development not location? Incidentally are you generally against late term abortions or partial-birth abortions?

Before the birth, inside the body. After the birth, outside. Before birth 100% dependent on mom. After birth, no longer dependent on mom. It's a pretty clear line, the only clear line really.

I believe, as many do, that there is a sliding scale in play. You are more human like in month 9 than on day 9. I find 3rd trimester abortions very unsettling. I don't think I'd ban them though, but it would take a heck of a lot for me to have one at that point.

"Many plants do that too. Heck, even really simple plants like grass can react to environmental conditions. So yes, its alive, but I don't feel bad about cutting grass into pieces."

Grass is a plant, humans are animals so there is a degree of bias involved there but honestly that sort of bias is justifiable (same reason PETA shouldnt win their lawsuit on behalf of the Sea World Orcas). A fetus on the other hand is closer to a human being than a dog is and you can't even kill legally kill your own dog (I think legally a dog is considered property but then there are animal cruelty laws to consider). Is it too much to ask for a fetus, a living creature that will become a human if left to develop naturally without any human interaction, to have at least the same rights as a dog? (I believe a fetus is entitled to many more rights than a dog and I love dogs but lets start there and work our way up).

But you CAN legally kill your own dog. As long as you do it in a human way. You can also legally give your dog an abortion, if it is done in a safe way.

Never heard of that Jewish law before but I have to disagree with it.

It's very very old law, been in place as far back as we have records, based on a line from Torah and reinforced and strengthened by most major Jewish experts on law ever since.

"You will never answer those questions. I'd rather avoid harm to the person we already KNOW is a full person."

Then invest in sex education and contraceptives, abortion is not an acceptable practice from a moral standpoint. Besides I already told you that in a case where the mother's health is in danger abortion is justifiable (still immoral but justifiable).[/quote]

The two are not mutually exclusive. You can have sex ed and abortion. Sex ed and contraceptives don't stop all pregnancies.

I'm interested to see you say "health" and not "life" this time. So if it will be upsetting to women's mental health you are pro abortion?

"I've known grandmothers who had abortions when they were young who to their death said it was the right thing and they had no regrets. It behooves us to consider them too."

I showed you my anecdotal evidence, if you want to cancel it out lets see yours from an equally relevant source.

Do you understand why anecdotal evidence is without value?

But fine, a three second google gives this result if you want someone else's anecdote that is published since you don't believe mine http://theclicker.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/10/10372314-20-years-after-abortion-chelsea-handler-has-no-regrets

Here, have a whole website of anecdotes http://www.thanksabortion.com/

TheGuy(wantstobe):
-snip-

There is nothing more I'd like than to give these people a piece of my mind, however as I was looking over the bill to get started on that, look at what I found.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=121&typ=bil&val=hb462

Abortion; informed consent. Requires that, as a component of informed consent to an abortion, to determine gestation age, every pregnant female shall undergo ultrasound imaging and be given an opportunity to view the ultrasound image of her fetus prior to the abortion. The medical professional performing the ultrasound must obtain written certification from the woman that the opportunity was offered and whether the woman availed herself of the opportunity to see the ultrasound image or hear the fetal heartbeat. A copy of the ultrasound and the written certification shall be maintained in the woman's medical records at the facility where the abortion is to be performed. This bill incorporates HB 261.

As far as I can tell, this is more or less what was passed (I found the full wording here, but that opening line pretty much gets the gist of it). Nowhere in there does it say the type of ultrasound the woman must get. I still think this is very despicable either way, but where are people getting the idea that they are requiring a transvaginal ultrasound?

No, see it's totally OK. See, by allowing women to not be raped, the religious beliefs of Catholics were being violated. This bill is actually GOOD for the equality of everyone. Just not women, because really, their rights aren't important as long as a MINORITY gets to have their beliefs forced on everyone else.

Here is what I propose. Everyone who voted for this should have a soup can forcibly inserted into their anus, so they could better understand what they were voting for. The women should also have one shoved up their vagina, because it's even more appalling that they also agreed with it when it is THEIR rights under fire. After all, in a representative democracy we expect politicians to understand the issues they support, right?

Stagnant:

Seekster:
"This is a big part of why I don't consider most fetuses "people"."

Careful, you could extend a lot of that to heavily retarded people.

I don't see quite how... People in permanent vegetative states, maybe, but that's also kinda been decided (although I wouldn't put it past you to expect Terry to still be on life support).

I think the personhood idea goes too far but abortion is such a travesty I am willing to support that and then later correct a few things I don't like, than hold out for something closer to my views.

"Travesty". Interesting choice of words.

My mother told me something similar to what Santorum said. She believes abortion is immoral even in cases of rape. I am on the fence when it comes to abortion in cases of rape.

I still don't get why. If we presume that abortion is wrong, we've already determined that the fetus's right to life trumps the woman's right to control over her body; why does it matter where the fetus came from? If the fetus has a right to life, why does it matter if it was forcibly placed there in the slightest?

"I still don't see how any of these pose a real issue in terms of the morality of killing what appears to be morally equivalent to, say, a member of your family.

Also, implantation, far more than conception, begs the question: "Why stop there?""

What do you mean?

The assumption behind the right to life of the fetus is, most commonly, that the fetus is a person, and as such commands human rights such as the right to life. As a person, it is indistinguishable from any other person, and as such aborting and killing it is wrong. This is true whether or not the woman wants it there.

Fair enough, but the question is raised, when does a fetus become a baby? There has to be a solid reason for whatever point and time you give. "Viability" makes some sense buts not set in stone. A baby that is not viable maybe viable if born in a hospital with better equipment for example.

I think the official terminology "baby" is used when it is finished being born, and not often before.

Yes when it comes to contraceptives I diverge with many pro-life people. I will grant that its morally questionable given that contraceptives are a way to dodge personal responsibility for most people (not all mind you) but compared with abortion it is infinitely more desirable to prevent life from coming into existence than to terminate life.

Ugh, this is a whole different can of worms I am not going to open right now. Suffice it to say that I completely and utterly disagree with this in just about every way.

The scientific definition of life doesnt really work because of the reproduction requirement unless you make an exception. Also I am given to understand that fetuses have been observed reacting or at least appearing to react to certain stimuli (variations in temperature for example).

The scientific definition of life's requirement of "able to produce viable offspring" does not have the prerequisite "now". We can all agree that an infertile woman is alive, no? Or a 3-year-old toddler? This requirement, in general, means something closer to "an average, adult individual of the species would be capable of bringing forth viable offspring either alone or with another average, adult individual of the opposite sex". Scientists aren't dumb enough to craft a definition which excludes any woman over 60 - they tend to know what they're doing.

As I linked before, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecology brought out a paper showing that there has been no scientific proof and no reason to believe that fetuses respond to stimuli before very late in their development (in the 24th week, a stage where the total percentage of abortions varies, depending on your source, from less than 1% to 0.08%; i.e. almost negligible).

You believe a baby does not become human until age 2? So why give exceptions on things like murder to a Baby 1 year after birth but not to one 6 months before birth (I don't know when is the latest you would approve of an abortion that doesnt involve a threat to the life of the mother?)

Okay first of all please stop conflating baby with fetus. Second of all, as I mentioned, this is a part of my epistemology that I myself am very confused over.
The latest I would approve of an abortion which is born out of the want of the mother (as opposed to medical necessity or extreme circumstances) is the 24th week, the most generous figure offered by RCOG's study as the time where the Fetus becomes capable of stimulus-response (although it is possible that I am simply misreading, in which case I may have to push it back even further).

Well ok I can respect you for thinking about the issue. I'm thinking about when I think life and human life begins. I have concluded that a human life begins sometime prior to the birth (after all what is so significantly different for a human baby 1 day before the birth as 1 day after the birth?)

I think we can agree that there are a lot of questions that need answering. However I would argue that until we have those questions answered it is best to avoid harm to the unborn except in cases where the mother's life is in danger.

And I think that that's a combination of opinions and beliefs, and that, as a man who claims to value "small government", you really should take another look at these paragraphs:

But the breaking point of the whole abortion debate to me is a key word that you saw me use earlier: "Believe". You see, I believe that human life starts approximately in the third trimester, because that's where my definition of life starts. I don't know this, because it isn't a very clear issue. Other people with other definitions have different reasonings. When you get into the issue of human rights, it gets even more unclear - do you have to just be a living human to get those rights, or do you have to have some other qualifications as well (as Peter Sanger would claim)? What are these rights? Does a woman's right to her own body trump the fetus's right to life?

These are all highly subjective questions with no clear, well-defined answer. All we have to go on is people's beliefs, their moral convictions. And now let me ask you: if all you have to go on is your moral convictions and beliefs, how can you possibly enforce that on everyone else? How can you, in a society that thrives on religious and personal freedom, claim that your beliefs trump the beliefs of someone else in the field of law? You can't. And as such, the only reasonable choice is to let each individual decide for themselves what their moral convictions are on the issue, and whether or not they feel comfortable with it. This is why I am pro-choice, and why I would be pro-choice even if I considered a fetus to be alive from the first week on. And yes, this is something relatively specific to Abortion - things like theft, murder, and whatnot have far more clear-cut reasonings against them.

I think it behooves us to consider what Norma McCorvey (aka Roe, from Roe v Wade) said in her book about when she become Pro-life.

"I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. 'Norma', I said to myself, 'They're right'. I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth - that's a baby!

I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception'. It wasn't about 'missed periods'. It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion - at any point - was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear."

Nothing against you or the woman in question, but if this is a person grasped by the firm grip of reason and logic, then I am a beef wellington ensemble with toast. All it really comes down to is one person coming, via her own reasoning, biases, and prejudices, to a certain opinion on a certain topic. I could post an anecdote about a woman struggling with her own convictions, deciding to get an abortion, and having her eyes opened by the experience - they're out there, and abortion doctors tend to have a fair number of them. But this? This is of no value to me. It's like someone "suddenly realizing" that Mohammed is calling to them.

As for the cute graph, hey if I had time, the work ethic to make something useless outside of an internet pissy contest, and the necessary photoshop skills I could make a chart that shows the US is better than your country too.

On a second look, the graph only shows that the US doesn't fit the trend which to an American such as myself brings out the whole "Heck yeah we do our own thing, Go America!" bit. We are wealthy and have a lot of people who for some reason don't believe in evolution. How is any of this relevant?

I guess my tongue was too far in my cheek on that one...

I think the word travesty is an appropriate term to apply to the practice of legalized abortion on demand.

"If the fetus has a right to life, why does it matter if it was forcibly placed there in the slightest?"

At the core of the abortion issue is the issue of personal responsibility. If you have sex thats your choice and you through a behavior your consent to the risks involved in that behavior. Obviously rape is not chosen nor is there consent which why the matter is debated.

"I think the official terminology "baby" is used when it is finished being born, and not often before."

I think that differs depending on who you ask.

"The scientific definition of life's requirement of "able to produce viable offspring" does not have the prerequisite "now"."

Well then the reproduction requirement would be fulfilled by a fetus because a fetus will become a human on its own without interference through natural process.

"And I think that that's a combination of opinions and beliefs, and that, as a man who claims to value "small government""

The fact that conservatives are willing to make an exception on this issue consistently should be a clue to just how important it is. People thought after Roe v Wade opposition to abortion would slowly die away, it has not and in fact opposition has gone up and down over time with no clear pattern (it also depends on what question is asked, ie. Do you oppose abortion vs Do you support a woman's right to choose?)

Blablahb:

Seekster:
A human does not have the right to kill a fetus because they are not convenient.

Do you even believe that yourself? Nobody has an abortion for fun, or because it's more conventient.

You have no idea what you're talking about here. You don't even have the guts to go out there and fix that critical lack of knowledge by going to find someone who's pregnant after being raped, and find out just who the people are you're casually passing judgement about.

Seekster:
Whoever says or believes that is simply morally wrong from any religious or secular understanding of morality.

Okay mister Morality, you are the expert, so you tell me; how do I describe a bunch of idiots who violate other people's human rights and the US constitution by denying them even the freedom over their own body, and actively work to force their religion onto others through laws?

I was going for christofascists because they oppose freedom so vehemently, show all the other traits of fascism in their ideas, and act out of Christianity.

One of the most common reasons given for why people have an abortion is because it doesnt fit in with their life plans or they don't want another baby. So yes that translates to abortion because having a baby would be inconvenient. I assume that nobody find an abortion fun.

As it so happens I had a religion teacher in Catholic School who was raped and opposed abortion in cases of rape.

And yes I have done a great deal of my own research on the subject so you cant argue my opposition to abortion is based on ignorance.

First of all many legal experts including Supreme Court justices have said that there is no constitutional right to an abortion. Unfortunately they have not said so in a Supreme Court case (yet). Seriously read up on Roe v Wade. I said it was the greatest mistake the Supreme Court made since the Dred Scott decision not just because I disagree with it.

Secondly a woman has a right to choose. She chose to take the risk of getting pregnant, she chose not to use proper contraception. Neither she nor anyone else gets to choose to take the life of an unborn baby or a human fetus without a very good reason for doing so. "Its not in my plans right now" is NOT a good reason. If you don't want the child put them up for adoption, thats what Roe ended up doing.

Seekster:
snip

Now wait just a second. You previously made this statement:

"All life is sacred and we should do everything we can to preserve it."

Do you fully agree with it and its every implication?

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
snip

Now wait just a second. You previously made this statement:

"All life is sacred and we should do everything we can to preserve it."

Do you fully agree with it and its every implication?

Not out of context no I will not agree with that statement out of context.

Seekster:

Not out of context no I will not agree with that statement out of context.

I'm going to ask you again. Do you believe that all life is sacred?

Seekster:

reonhato:

Seekster:

While in Principal I am against this sort of thing, since it would in theory at least decrease the number of abortions I am for it in practice. We have a law like that in Texas right now. It got challenged in court but last I heard the Ultrasound law won the challenge.

As for the person hood thing, yeah that seems like a good idea in principle but they need to tack on a few exceptions like for birth control and maybe abortion in the absolute worst case scenario (life of the mother is in danger).

As a conservative I don't normally like intrusive government but for abortion I will make an exception because Roe v Wade was the biggest mistake the Supreme Court has made since Dred Scott and any and all measures short of actual violence (those idiots who try and bomb abortion clinics) should be taken to save as many lives as possible, I mean both the unborn and their mothers, until someday Roe v Wade is overturned and I believe someday it will be, because the abortion debate is never going to go away.

typical you are free to live however you want as long as you live exactly how my religion tells you to

the day roe v wade is overturned (very unlikely) is the day america becomes no different to all the islam countries who run on sharia law

Who said anything about religion? I would be firmly against abortion, particularly abortion on demand, if I were a militant atheist too. Why? Because whether you believe in God or not life is a sacred thing and should not be so callously tossed aside just because the existence of a life would be an inconvenience.

Yeah because Roe v Wade gave women the right to drive and to walk around without burkas and to not be beaten for giving birth to a girl instead of a boy (sarcasm).

the issue is a religious issue, you have your beliefs on abortion because of your religious indoctrination. to deny there is a clear connection between religion and the legal question of abortion would be laughable

http://everydaychristian.com/blogs/post/7449/

here are some great numbers from a poll from a christian research group, they dont even try to hide the fact that a persons faith has a dramatic impact on how they view abortion. note that your view is only supported by 15% america wide, 78% though if you only ask evangelical christians.

america is suppose to be a secular country, to ban abortion based obviously on religious opinion would be unconstitutional, its amazing how often you republicans spout how so much of what obama and the "liberals" do is unconstitutional, yet one of your loudest and public issues clearly goes against the very idea of secularism.

Seekster:

Amnestic:
Small Government Conservatives: Small enough to fit snugly inside your uterus. Well, literally the vagina in this case I guess.

Seekster:

Because its not their life. Do you believe someone else has the right to determine what you will do in your life without your tacit or given consent?

Which is why you're against the death penalty in all cases. Which is why you're against unjust wars like Iraq. Which is why you're against the common contraceptive pill which can 'abort' a fertilised egg after conception (which you believe is when life begins, right?) by preventing implantation into the womb lining.

Right? I just wanna be clear. Don't wanna misunderstand.

"Small enough to fit snugly inside your uterus. Well, literally the vagina in this case I guess."

Small? It gets bigger (not government, that was a dirty joke and I apologize but I thought it was funny).

None of those things have ANYTHING to do with this issue. My position is consistent. Life, particularly human life, is sacred and should not be carelessly discarded. For this reason abortion, the death penalty, and war should only be considered as options in rare worst-case scenarios.

Also I am torn on the issue of when life begins. Some say conception and I do not agree or disagree with that. I usually go with implantation but I am not certain where I would put it. What I am certain of is that by the time you get to the second trimester you are dealing with a baby and talk of abortion past that point (except in the aforementioned worst case scenarios) is right out.

BULL... SHIT...

1) "Life, particularly human life, is sacred and should not be carelessly discarded."

2) "None of those things have ANYTHING to do with this issue."

Answer his question. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN IRAQI CIVILIAN AND A NEWLY FERTILIZED EMBRYO, IN YOUR EYES?

The answer I'm guessing comes straight from George Orwell:

"Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others."

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked