Abortion: Right or Wrong?

[Dawkinsrocks]

If you believe abortion is a crime who do believe is the victim?

 

[palerider]

As you say palerider a foetus is as human as an actual person.

But also as human as a corpse.

Sorry guy. Your attempt to equate a living human being with one who is dead only serves to highlight the inherent weakness of your argument. While the dead do have legal standing, and certain rights, the right to live is not among them.

Why has a few brainless cells the right to life?

Do you believe asking the same inane question ad nauseum constitutes a rational argument? I have told you over and over. Because unborns, at any stage of development are living human beings.

You are arguments are that confused.

I can only imagine how confusing everything must be to you. Do feel free to bring forward any part of my argument that confuses you or you do not think is perfectly clear and I will be happy to clarify. It is interesting to note that you are the first person who ever suggested that my arguments were confused, and it is my bet that you will not be able to bring forward any part of my argument that is actually confusing.

You tend to say things that you can't back up. Your suggestion that I said that I would not lose sleep if an innocent person were executed for example was a bald faced lie. This suggestion that my argument is confused is once again, simply a thing that you claim in lieu of any actual argument.

 

[palerider]

If you believe abortion is a crime who do believe is the victim?

Both the woman and the child.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You see , there you go again.

You are calling a foetus a child.

Do you call a child an adult when you need to get all emotive in argument?

This represents the desperation of the 'pro-lifers'

It is hysterical use of language.

 

[palerider]

You see , there you go again.

You are calling a foetus a child.

Do you call a child an adult when you need to get all emotive in argument?

This represents the desperation of the 'pro-lifers'

It is hysterical use of language.

From title 18 of the US code:

"`(d) As used in this section, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'."

How about that? Seems I am not using emotive language at all. It seems that even the US code describes unborns, at any stage of development, as a child.

I am afraid that if you can't form your arguent against exact legal language, then you really have no argument at all. If we were before a judge and you objected for the reason of emotive language, the judge would point you to title 18 of the US code and inform you that the use of the word child when describing an unborn at ANY stage of development was not "emotive" and over rule your objection.

You depend on a couple of catch phrases dawkins and they are all you have. You have no actual argument and it seems that your catch phrases are falling like flies.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I couldn't care less what is written there.

A fotues is not a child.

If you can't see that distinction it is no surpise that your views are confused and you cannot make a consistent pro-life argument that encompasses all life.

Or even all human life

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I don't know what the US code is but it doesn't seem to contribute to the illegality of abortion so your quotation is academic at best and actually disingenuous

 

[palerider]

I couldn't care less what is written there.

Of course not. It destroys your argument. You reject hard science. You reject the law. You reject anything, without regard to its credibility in favor of your faith. You do realize that you are arguing from nothing more than a position of faith don't you?

Faith is defined as belief that is not based on proof. Obviously, you can not prove any of the claims you make in defense of your position so your argument is one of faith. Faith is nice but unfortunately, it does not hold in the face of hard science or law that states explicitly that it is wrong.

A fotues is not a child.

Prove it. If you can, by all means do it. It is time to put up or shut up.

You talk and talk like a parrot on a stick but so far, you have not proven squat. Can you prove any of your wild claims or not? If you can, then step up and do it. If you can't, why are you here.

 

[LiberatarianMommy]

I believe a woman has the right to make the devastating decision whether to have an abortion up to 3 months of pregnancy. At 3 months the baby inside you has a developed nervous system. It can feel, past that they can hear your voice, and dream! It should be a crime after that point to have an abortion! 3 months is plenty of time to make a decision. Let's say the woman doesn't find out until after 3 months, I've heard plenty of stories of woman not even knowing they were pregnant until birth! There is always adoption! There are plenty of couples who can't have a baby of their own and dream of taking in that baby. We should better educate our children on safe sex by showing them what being a parent really is. The reality show "the baby borrowers" did just that! Really the only way I believe an abortion after 3 months is ok, is if the mother's life is in jeopardy, both may not even make it through birth.

 

[Pandora]

I believe a woman has the right to make the devastating decision whether to have an abortion up to 3 months of pregnancy. At 3 months the baby inside you has a developed nervous system. It can feel, past that they can hear your voice, and dream! It should be a crime after that point to have an abortion! 3 months is plenty of time to make a decision. Let's say the woman doesn't find out until after 3 months, I've heard plenty of stories of woman not even knowing they were pregnant until birth! There is always adoption! There are plenty of couples who can't have a baby of their own and dream of taking in that baby. We should better educate our children on safe sex by showing them what being a parent really is. The reality show "the baby borrowers" did just that! Really the only way I believe an abortion after 3 months is ok, is if the mother's life is in jeopardy, both may not even make it through birth.

I do not agree with abortion at all except for if the womans life is truly at risk of being lost. Pregnancy in the tubes exc.

BUT

I would settle for your 3d month thing in a heartbeat, its a million times better than the current way its done at would be at least a compromise.

 

[samsara15]

I thought the second trimester was a reasonable guideline, Roe Versus Wade. However, with severe birth defects or the threat to a mother's life / future health, I would extend that. I always place the interest of the mother's already existing life ahead of the infant's yet-to-be potential life.

 

[Pandora]

I thought the second trimester was a reasonable guideline, Roe Versus Wade. However, with severe birth defects or the threat to a mother's life / future health, I would extend that. I always place the interest of the mother's already existing life ahead of the infant's yet-to-be potential life.

What kind of birth defects are you talking about? Here in Oregon a couple is taking their doctor to court because he let them have a downs syndrome baby and they want a few million dollars becasue they would have aborted the baby had they known it wasnt perfect.

I would adopt a downs syndrome baby, they are as human as anyone else.

Also, no one here who is for partial birth abortion will explain to me how making a woman deliver a breech baby is going to help save her life, or why holding the babies head inside the woman till the baby can be killed can ever save a womans life.

you said you are ok with the partial birth abortion if the womans life is at risk. Please explain to me why its better to make a sick and dying woman deliver breech and why it helps her live to hold the babies head in her till the baby is dead then let the dead baby finish being born.

I can fully understand why a dying woman might need a C section or why they might need to deliver (normally) earlier than their due date but I can not find any reason partially birthing then killing the baby can or would ever help any womans at risk life.

 

[samsara15]

My wife was an adoptee, but she supports abortion rights. If you had not been born, you would not be able to regret it.

 

[samsara15]

I am certainly no expert on birth defects, but some are pretty terrible, such as a baby without a head, and similar problems.

Yes, you can adopt babies with Down's Syndrome, but I wonder what happens to that child when you or the adoptive parents become old and die. Can children with Down's Syndrome ever become fully self-supporting? Without you around to support them, who will? Again, I am no expert on the subject.

Nor am I an expert on the partial birth abortion you describe. I assume the doctor usually does what is best for all, lacking specific knowledge of each individual case.

 

[Pandora]

I am certainly no expert on birth defects, but some are pretty terrible, such as a baby without a head, and similar problems.

Yes, you can adopt babies with Down's Syndrome, but I wonder what happens to that child when you or the adoptive parents become old and die. Can children with Down's Syndrome ever become fully self-supporting? Without you around to support them, who will? Again, I am no expert on the subject.

Nor am I an expert on the partial birth abortion you describe. I assume the doctor usually does what is best for all, lacking specific knowledge of each individual case.

I am no expert on Down's Syndrome either but we take chances every time any baby is born. A perfectly healthy child could die of crib death, get in a car wreck and become horribly deformed or develop retardation and need help long past the parents life.

Then again there are people like one of my older brothers who is 49 now and has always lived with mom or a sister. When my mother dies what will become of him? I personally think he will commit suicide because he just can’t live on his own, but not because of retardation or Down's syndrome... he just is very needy.

About partial birth abortion, just use basic common sense, logic and reasoning. Try really hard to think of any reason a sick and dying woman could benefit from a forced breech delivery, then try to find any reason why holding the head of the child inside the woman’s body till the child can be killed before you let the rest of the baby be born could ever even in one single case save a woman’s life. If anyone can come up with a real excuse how this could save a woman’s life I will concede that there are cases when a partial birth abortion can save the life of a mother.

I have honestly and sincerely tried very hard to come up with even one reason or example of how a partial birth abortion could save a woman’s life and I can not come up with a single reason or example. It would not even have to be a real life example; just a hypothetical example would work just fine.