Abortion

Miscarriages and intentional baby-killing by the vicious mother are not the same. Any woman who could kill her baby is a soulless monster with an evil spirit imo. :(

If I were to follow your warped sense of belief, a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy is also intentionally killing her "baby" when she has the embryo, as well as her fallopian tube, removed.

:rolleyes:
 
If I were to follow your warped sense of belief, a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy is also intentionally killing her "baby" when she has the embryo, as well as her fallopian tube, removed.

I'm not discussing that. This is a thread on "Abortion". Abortion is killing an innocent baby. Spin it any way you want. You know my view.
 
I'm not discussing that. This is a thread on "Abortion". Abortion is killing an innocent baby. Spin it any way you want. You know my view.

Why won't you discuss it? The "baby" is just as innocent in an ectopic pregnancy and deserves the chance to live as much as any other baby, right?

Your view is that abortion of any kind is immoral and should be made illegal. Do you think women who have an ectopic pregnancy are "evil" for aborting their foetus?
 
Bells, do you know if R84U6 works on ectopic pregnancy?

If it does how many women each year wouldnt have to lose there falopian tubes.
 
Why won't you discuss it? The "baby" is just as innocent in an ectopic pregnancy and deserves the chance to live as much as any other baby, right? Your view is that abortion of any kind is immoral and should be made illegal. Do you think women who have an ectopic pregnancy are "evil" for aborting their foetus?

Because it's trolling/hijacking the topic of the thread. The topic is abortion--baby killing. My views have not changed.
 
Bells, do you know if R84U6 works on ectopic pregnancy?

If it does how many women each year wouldnt have to lose there falopian tubes.

I don't think it would work on ectopic pregnancies. As far as I am aware, the RU486 works by inducing the uterus into menstruating. An ectopic pregnancy usually requires immediate surgery, otherwise it could rupture the fallopian tube causing severe damage and possible death to the mother. Either way, the woman will lose the fallopian tube in the majority of cases, unless caught very very early, but that is rare. As a result, the greater majority of women do end up losing their fallopian tube.
 
JOEBIALEK:

Life begins at the point of conception. No one can deny that after a human being is conceived it will develop into the very same being as those debating this issue.

No. From memory, about 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage.

Abortion today is used primarily as a birth control of convenience because people are too self-centered to take precautions.

Got any evidence at all for that?

What ever happened to taking responsibility for one's actions in this country? Is it too much to ask a woman who has conceived to place the child into adoption?

Adoption often does not guarantee a good life.

We need to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and get back to cherishing life in this country. For a country that murders it's children cannot be far from self destruction.

Do you support the death penalty? It is amazing how many people who claim to be "pro-life" are "anti-life" at the same time when it comes to "criminals".

Do you eat meat? It is amazing how many people who claim to be "pro-life" are "anti-life" at the same time when it comes to killing animals.

Just checking if you are morally consistent.


ABS:

I am a strong supporter of the concept of choice, and thus consider myself to be pro-choice.

...

In support of the choice to live or not also follows that other individuals should not be allowed to force either of those conditions upon another individual...

Has it occurred to you that no baby has a choice in its conception? It has no choice as to whether it comes into existence.

The child's right to decide if it lives or not is being violated, and the violators of said rights should be punished.

The "child's" potential decision not to live was taken away before the issue of abortion came up.

Really, though, it is nonsense to ascribe wants to a foetus. It is not conscious.


sandy:

What is all this "choice" language? It's baby-killing.

Baby killing requires a baby. A foetus is not a baby.

Life begins at conception. No spinning.

Life exists well before conception. Sperm and ova are alive, although most never come together to form a foetus.

You're not really concerned about life, are you? You probably eat animal meat. You probably support the death penalty. You certainly at least eat vegetables. So, life isn't the real issue, is it?


Lou Natic:

It is bullshit to think clinically slaughtering a baby is fine just because it hasn't flopped out of a vulva yet.

At what point, in your opinion, is there a "baby"?

I'm conflicted in that I think more babies should be destroyed, ESPECIALLY white trash (and other colours of trash) babies, so abortion is seemingly perfect.

You can judge whether a baby will be "white trash" in utero, can you?

Amazing.

Ofcourse, sensible mature couples should be able to get an abortion if there's something wrong with the baby. For example, I would like to marry a redhaired woman, but I don't want a redhaired son (redhaired daughter or son of another hair colour would be fine), so if we had a redhaired son I would like to have him killed in the womb, out of the view of my precious cherry haired wife, and before the little ranga freak damages her unusually pink lady parts which vividly contrast with the unusually white porcelain skin surrounding them.
I don't see a problem with that.

So any killing is fine, as long as you approve of it? You obviously lack any moral compass other than your own self-interest.
 
Because it's trolling/hijacking the topic of the thread. The topic is abortion--baby killing. My views have not changed.

And the removal of a foetus from a fallopian tube is abortion Sandy, and as a result, it does "kill the baby". If you are unable or unwilling to answer the question, just say so. It is a valid question in this topic. You have claimed that aborting a foetus under any circumstance is murder, do you view a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy to be a murderer when she 'aborts' her foetus?

If you believe all forms of abortion is baby killing, why are you not able to answer a simple enough question?
 
How sad:( I wonder if they have ever thought of using key hole surgury through the uterus, but maybe its the pregnancy its self that causes the damage. Its a terrible thing to have to put someone through. I know an 17 year old girl who thought she was going in to have her apendics removed but when she was under they found out that the pain was caused because the folopian tube had wraped itself around the overie. The overie was dead and she will probably lose the other one. What made it worse was a) she never knew thats what they had done b) the hospital had no womens health ward so she ended up in the meternity ward and c) she really wanted to have kids and there is only about a 1% chance of her EVER falling pregnant:(
 
What would things be like if Sandy got her way?

Reproductive self-determination was quashed, however, with Ceausescu's rise to power in 1965. In order to expand the country's industrial and economic sectors, Ceausescu needed vast new ranks of Romanian citizens. To fill these ranks, Ceausescu issued Decree 770, which outlawed contraception and abortion for women under 40, unless they had already given birth to four or more children.

From 1966 onward, procreation became a civic duty for all fertile Romanian women. As encouragement, Ceausescu bestowed extraordinary titles upon "dutiful," childbearing women — "Heroine Mother" for having 10 or more children, "Maternal Glory" for having seven to nine children, and the "Maternity Medal" for having five or six children. Between 1967 and 1972, more than two million "children of the decree" were born.

Women and Children Last

Weaving clips from popular cinema, propaganda films, and documentary footage with candid first-person interviews with women, doctors, nurses, and abortion providers, Iepan's film investigates what happened to the women and children who bore the brunt of the 23-year history of Decree 770.

The film details the state's vested interest in women's fertility. As the female narrator suggests, men at every level of government became obsessed with the date of a woman's last menstrual period. In factories, women were rounded up for surprise gynecological exams. The government levied a special tax on childless couples and unmarried citizens over age 25. All miscarriages were investigated. Romania was, as one writer later put it, "an anti-abortion police state."

With no access to contraception, many women turned to the only option available to them — illegal abortion. A vast underground network of abortion providers emerged after 1966 — many of the providers untrained and some so unscrupulous and deadly that, as one OB/GYN in the film says, they were no better than serial murderers. Statistics suggest that only one out of every 10 abortion providers during Ceausescu's regime held a medical degree.

Under Ceausescu, maternal morbidity in Romania reached unprecedented numbers, with illegal abortions accounting for more than 80 percent of maternal deaths. Indeed, tens of thousands of Romanian women died from illegal abortion under Decree 770. Countless more were rendered infertile from unsafe procedures. Iepan, who worked on Children of the Decree for more than six years, sees his film as "an homage paid to these women."

For children of this time, the situation was equally bleak. Thousands of children of the decree were abandoned by families who could no longer care for them, as were disabled or mentally ill children. The population of orphanages and state-run institutions swelled after 1966, and as Romania's economy withered in the 1980s, so did these children's living conditions. As the film reveals, images of the truly horrifying conditions in Romania's state-run institutions spread quickly around the world and heralded the end of the Ceausescu regime.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/issues-action/global-inequality/abortion-ban-12990.htm

Communist dictator knew how to get things done! What a glimpse into paradise!

In case the religiously insane manage to take over, keep these handy ladies.
 
Last edited:
How sad:( I wonder if they have ever thought of using key hole surgury through the uterus, but maybe its the pregnancy its self that causes the damage. Its a terrible thing to have to put someone through. I know an 17 year old girl who thought she was going in to have her apendics removed but when she was under they found out that the pain was caused because the folopian tube had wraped itself around the overie. The overie was dead and she will probably lose the other one. What made it worse was a) she never knew thats what they had done b) the hospital had no womens health ward so she ended up in the meternity ward and c) she really wanted to have kids and there is only about a 1% chance of her EVER falling pregnant:(

Well you can't really get it out without removing it. The fertilised egg implants itself into the fallopian tube. Sadly, the majority of women are not even aware of it until they begin to feel the pain. I've heard some women describe the pain as being worse than natural childbirth and passing a kidney stone. Having gone through both in the past, I never want to even imagine how painful it would be. If the woman is lucky, it is caught before it grows to the point where it becomes painful.

Repo Man said:
Communist dictator knew how to get things done! What a glimpse into paradise!
It's a terrifying thought.
 
At what point, in your opinion, is there a "baby"?
Since the context is how wrong it is to kill them, I'd say as soon as they are an organism operating with intent to survive.
As soon as they have nerve endings which make them recoil away from painful stimulus. This indicates they are actively avoiding death and wanting to live, and so I think a baby should be considered a baby from a murder standpoint at that moment.
When we can determine they want to live.
This is very early on.

Any other disctintion is entirely superficial, based more on how comfortable we are killing the baby than the baby itself, it's capacity to suffer or it's desire to live.

We can kill something that looks like a newborn marsupial, it's not far from a worm in appearance, big deal, don't want to inconvenience a woman over something that looks like that.
But once it starts looking like a little person, that's getting a bit much. And forget about it once it is a tangible entity out in the air that can stare into our face and grab our finger.
They're all arbitrary moments of significance, like I said based on how disturbing it is for us to think of them being impaled on the end of a wire hanger.
Not how terrifying or painful it is for them to be on the hanger.
 
Lou Natic:

Since the context is how wrong it is to kill them, I'd say as soon as they are an organism operating with intent to survive.
As soon as they have nerve endings which make them recoil away from painful stimulus. This indicates they are actively avoiding death and wanting to live, and so I think a baby should be considered a baby from a murder standpoint at that moment.
When we can determine they want to live.
This is very early on.

Any other disctintion is entirely superficial, based more on how comfortable we are killing the baby than the baby itself, it's capacity to suffer or it's desire to live.

Ok, fine.

So, now you've looked at half of the equation. You've decided when the baby has interests worth protecting.

Now, what about the other side of the equation? Does the mother ever have interests that need to be taken into account in making a decision for or against an abortion? And whose decision should it be: hers or the state's (perhaps different for different circumstances)?
 
here is an idea instead of abortions we create plants that nurture the babies and than when they are just right we kill them harvest their meat and give it to places like africa to solve world hunger there 2 problems solved
 
The baby starts looking like a little person at 6 weeks. Have you seen the abortion pictures? They're graphic but VERY accurate. Warning: graphic....

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/pictures.html

This is what a 6 week old "baby" looks like:

66-28.gif

http://www.birth.com.au/Info.asp?class=6634&page=8#

The images you Sandy are nothing but trumped up and look decidedly fake to me, all with the single purpose of getting an emotional response. I doubt you would get the same response if you actually posted images of what embryo's actually look like in those early stages. At 6 weeks, its heartbeat might, and it's a big might, be able to be detected through an ultrasound. Otherwise it literally just looks like an empty dark splotch on the ultrasound.

Well Sandy, what of those who get abortions when they have an ectopic pregnancy? Still can't answer that question? You do realise that women can go up to 8+ weeks with an ectopic pregnancy before having the foetus removed. Are these women murderers as well?
 
Last edited:
More anti-abortion dishonesty

Sandy said:

Miscarriages and intentional baby-killing by the vicious mother are not the same.

What if the mother is a smoker? A heavy drinker? A cocaine or heroin user?

Consider your exchange with Bells:

Bells: If I were to follow your warped sense of belief, a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy is also intentionally killing her "baby" when she has the embryo, as well as her fallopian tube, removed.

Sandy: I'm not discussing that. This is a thread on "Abortion". Abortion is killing an innocent baby. Spin it any way you want. You know my view.

Now, the premise justifying the anti-abortion argument is the assertion that life begins at conception, and therefore the organism is endowed with certain, inalienable rights, including primarily the right to life.

Yet you refuse to discuss the extended implications of what this means? Is it because the issue becomes too complicated for you to figure out? Or maybe you are capable of seeing how complicated the situation becomes, and are unwilling to have that discussion because you don't like what it suggests?

Would you be willing to collect your own menses for monthly review by a qualified healthcare professional? Sign, on a regular basis, documents for the public record under penalty of perjury declaring that you have had no sexual contact between certain dates?

What kind of taxes would you be willing to pay to establish the relevant bureaucracy and enforce laws based on the premise that life, with its inalienable rights, begins at conception?
 
Back
Top