at 3 weeks? dont think so
Abortion
- Thread starter Anarcho Union
- Start date
- Status
at 3 weeks? dont think so
Mod Hat - Cleanup note
Mod Hat — Cleanup note
I'm not finished with this one yet, but I have need to be elsewhere very soon.
I think the problems in this thread are obvious. Do me a favor, please, and move on with more useful discussion of the subject? I would much appreciate it.
I'll finish the cleanup and pen the action notes later.
Mod Hat — Cleanup note
I'm not finished with this one yet, but I have need to be elsewhere very soon.
I think the problems in this thread are obvious. Do me a favor, please, and move on with more useful discussion of the subject? I would much appreciate it.
I'll finish the cleanup and pen the action notes later.
And yet you are argueing to do so.
What if the woman was raped? What if she cant support the child?
Necro, until a baby is in the last few months of growth, it is not alive.
I am 110% pro-choice. However I'm unsure how I would handle an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. I would like to say I'd do the saintly thing and keep it. But keeping it would be illogical for me. Adoption would leave me with a much much more bitter taste in my mouth so I guess abortion would be the best option. At this stage in my life of course. But maybe I would keep it who knows :shrug:
Wow. Thats twisted
NECROSHADE 50
Registered Member
she can send it for adobtion but still it doesnt give here the right to do it
NECROSHADE 50
Registered Member
really who goes for abortion
only idiots
only idiots
Brain death is the moment you are legally dead. Shouldn't brain life be the moment you are legally alive? I would say that a fetus should not be considered legally human until it has a working brain. That at least clears up the first couple of weeks to have abortions if you want them.
We're going to have to start allowing abortions if we want to control the world population, btw. If we don't, then wars that come about due to food shortages will kill at least as many adults as the abortions kill fetuses.
We're going to have to start allowing abortions if we want to control the world population, btw. If we don't, then wars that come about due to food shortages will kill at least as many adults as the abortions kill fetuses.
If asserting my self will is twisted, yeah, I am twisted, and I wear that label proudly.
Whether its defned as a "bein" or not... as long as its atached to the woman... im for her havin complete control over its life or death.!!!
Say that you do deside aborton is killin a innocent human... woud you still be pro-choise.???
This is interesting. I am an engineer and I work with other engineers whom I've always assumed were more enlightened than the average bear. I am wrong. On many counts. The idea came up that US Federal funds were going to be spent, as part of our new health care bill, on abortions. The two other engineers in the room shouter "IT'S MURDER" with some fury and rage behind their voices. One is religious, the other is not. I was stunned. I tried talking a bit more but they would listen to nothing.
So, the following points for the less enlightened among you:
1) Murder is legally defined as "The illegal killing of a person" and is broken down into many different degrees and types. Look it up. Therefore, abortion is not murder, since it is legal. If you can't apply the definition of a simple word correctly, you should STFU and stay out of any discussion, as should have my ridiculous coworkers.
2) Now, abortion is definitely killing. It is, in fact killing a human lifeform of some kind. From zygote to newborn, it is a human life form. But it is not a person, by definition. Please look up the legal/philosophical criteria for "personhood" if you doubt it.
3) Let's just suppose that an undifferentiated ball of stem cells were a person. Is abortion then morally wrong? No. It clearly is not. The question is one of the sovereign right of a person to control what happens to his or her body. In the case of a fetus (which is in every objective sense, a parasite) the well-being of the mother (a fully realized person) dominates the rights of the being that is completely physically dependent on her.
What's funny is that the same conservatives that insist on "less government" would inflict totalitarian control of another human being on what amounts to a whim.
What's even funnier is that the conservative and christian DFs* that make up most of the US mob think that their silly bible prohibits abortion. Ha!. The few references to the unborn lead one to actually think that the bible would endorse abortion to avoid the suffering that results from being born into an untenable situation. And the one explicit reference to the loss of a fetus (somewhere in Exodus) levies at worst, a fine for causing the loss of the fetus, whereas damage to the mother is met with eye-for-eye, tooth-for-tooth, life-for-life penalties.
4) Christian variations on "ensoulment" can place it before conception ("I knew thee before the womb...") at conception, at "quickening" (when the fetus starts to move), at actual birth, and sometimes not for more than a month after birth.
With all of this in mind, realize that your decisions - especially if you're men - affect the welfare of millions upon millions of women who are at risk of death from pregnancy, and the welfare of newborns knowingly born into abject poverty and suffering for their short, miserable lives. Where are your morals really?
So, anyone who is making asinine knee-jerk judgements on abortion and even worse, influencing the course of events by voting against pro-choice candidates even though thet my be the best qualified, please go now and perform a retroactive self-abortion.
P.S. I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion (which would be ridiculous. I have personal experience with the painful results of this choice re a close relative). The pro-choice movement does as much or more to promote birth control. Unlike most stupid religions that deny human nature and prohibit effective birth control an even lie about it (the current pope for example?)
*Dumbfucks
So, the following points for the less enlightened among you:
1) Murder is legally defined as "The illegal killing of a person" and is broken down into many different degrees and types. Look it up. Therefore, abortion is not murder, since it is legal. If you can't apply the definition of a simple word correctly, you should STFU and stay out of any discussion, as should have my ridiculous coworkers.
2) Now, abortion is definitely killing. It is, in fact killing a human lifeform of some kind. From zygote to newborn, it is a human life form. But it is not a person, by definition. Please look up the legal/philosophical criteria for "personhood" if you doubt it.
3) Let's just suppose that an undifferentiated ball of stem cells were a person. Is abortion then morally wrong? No. It clearly is not. The question is one of the sovereign right of a person to control what happens to his or her body. In the case of a fetus (which is in every objective sense, a parasite) the well-being of the mother (a fully realized person) dominates the rights of the being that is completely physically dependent on her.
What's funny is that the same conservatives that insist on "less government" would inflict totalitarian control of another human being on what amounts to a whim.
What's even funnier is that the conservative and christian DFs* that make up most of the US mob think that their silly bible prohibits abortion. Ha!. The few references to the unborn lead one to actually think that the bible would endorse abortion to avoid the suffering that results from being born into an untenable situation. And the one explicit reference to the loss of a fetus (somewhere in Exodus) levies at worst, a fine for causing the loss of the fetus, whereas damage to the mother is met with eye-for-eye, tooth-for-tooth, life-for-life penalties.
4) Christian variations on "ensoulment" can place it before conception ("I knew thee before the womb...") at conception, at "quickening" (when the fetus starts to move), at actual birth, and sometimes not for more than a month after birth.
With all of this in mind, realize that your decisions - especially if you're men - affect the welfare of millions upon millions of women who are at risk of death from pregnancy, and the welfare of newborns knowingly born into abject poverty and suffering for their short, miserable lives. Where are your morals really?
So, anyone who is making asinine knee-jerk judgements on abortion and even worse, influencing the course of events by voting against pro-choice candidates even though thet my be the best qualified, please go now and perform a retroactive self-abortion.
P.S. I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion (which would be ridiculous. I have personal experience with the painful results of this choice re a close relative). The pro-choice movement does as much or more to promote birth control. Unlike most stupid religions that deny human nature and prohibit effective birth control an even lie about it (the current pope for example?)
*Dumbfucks
^ I agree with your stance. Even if it is at a point where it has some consciousness, we should keep that in perspective. Which is more important? The real, existing life of the woman, who has school/family or a career to negotiate, or the mere potential life of something that has just enough sentience to wiggle its legs??
do i believe in it? i believe it happens...i had one a long time ago, and it was the worst thing i've ever done, imo. it was a horrific cop out.
do i believe it should be legal? i don't feel great about living in a country that says it's an ok thing to do, and i sure as fuck don't want my tax dollars paying for the tragic results of what is most often immensely irresponsible behavior. but that seems to be our government's role more and more.
do i believe it should be legal? i don't feel great about living in a country that says it's an ok thing to do, and i sure as fuck don't want my tax dollars paying for the tragic results of what is most often immensely irresponsible behavior. but that seems to be our government's role more and more.
Let's check definitions here...
Abortion that is legal is performed in the first/ second trimester.
In the first trimester, that is not really a baby in there...
In the second, it's not yet developed into a baby though it can be called a fetus.
But by the third, we are shadowing that creature that will be what we bundle in a blanket. In all reality, it is as much a baby is and we are not allowed to throw newborns in the trash if we decide we don't want 'em.
Abortions after 22 weeks are illegal.
There is a Separation that occurs. A woman has a right to do what she wants with her body? Not always . For one example, the law requires she protect her body by wearing a seatbelt. If a woman had that right-- such laws wouldn't apply to women.
And also, that's not just HER body. The body of the baby is a separate body. So while she can CLAIM the "Right" to do what she wants with her body, that doesn't mean she has the right to do whatever she wants with her childs body.
By the third trimester, the fetus is considered to be developed enough to be protected. To the best of my knowledge, third trimester abortion is not legal. Correct me if I am wrong.
Abortion that is legal is performed in the first/ second trimester.
In the first trimester, that is not really a baby in there...
In the second, it's not yet developed into a baby though it can be called a fetus.
But by the third, we are shadowing that creature that will be what we bundle in a blanket. In all reality, it is as much a baby is and we are not allowed to throw newborns in the trash if we decide we don't want 'em.
Abortions after 22 weeks are illegal.
There is a Separation that occurs. A woman has a right to do what she wants with her body? Not always . For one example, the law requires she protect her body by wearing a seatbelt. If a woman had that right-- such laws wouldn't apply to women.
And also, that's not just HER body. The body of the baby is a separate body. So while she can CLAIM the "Right" to do what she wants with her body, that doesn't mean she has the right to do whatever she wants with her childs body.
By the third trimester, the fetus is considered to be developed enough to be protected. To the best of my knowledge, third trimester abortion is not legal. Correct me if I am wrong.
Not correct. A seatbelt is not a being that is a part of her body. It can not threaten her health by causing her to die when she takes it off. Also, I believe seatbelt and helmet laws, if challenged, could easily be found to be unconstitutional. I think they're a good idea personally, but I should not be forced to wear a device I don't wish to wear.
Here you go, the whole page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_vs_wade
So uhh... what was your point?
I agree. I am against the seat belt laws. Even so, in spite of many minor challenges, they stand.
But not correct for the reasons you gave?
No.
If a person has the right to do whatever they want with their body, then they have the right to hurl it through a windshield.
- Status