US Becoming Pro-Life

[pocketfullofshells]

I wish you could just talk. All you seem to do is throw personal insults.

well at least they are fact based

 

[GenSeneca]

Then you should be thinking about how to open the mind that differs from your POV,

I have made my case and you have no rebuttle. I'm not going to waste time trying to 'open the minds' of people like yourself, those who are on the fence about the topic can look at what each of us brings to the table and decide for themselves who makes the stronger case in support of their conclusions.

instead of giving your OWN closed mind conclusions,

That is what you have offered... My mind is open to logical discourse.

or castigating the other POV.

If you make a claim and then cannot back the claim, its not a castigation of your opinion to point out your failings.

Or thinking about why the other person's mind is closed to your POV.

I simply don't care. Anyone who is not open to reason is a waste of time to argue with.

There are many avenues.

But so far, I have only come to one logical conclusion: The life of an individual begins at conception. None have been willing, or able, to disprove that claim on logical, scientific or biological grounds. The only disputes seem to arise from the unknowable, and unprovable, concepts of philosophy and theology.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

I did just that:

It would appear you do not have a problem with a woman having an abortion even moments before she would otherwise give birth: At any time, for any reason.

Way back at the beginning of this thread I stated that I thought the movement about 'America' becoming more "Pro-Life" could indeed be from the misguided/misinformation about stem-cell research and the 'FEAR THAT THE RELIGIOUS-RIGHT-WING-NUT JOBS' had about that newest research!

NO, I don't have a problem with a woman having a late term abortion...because the ability to have that is decided between her and her doctor...and those medical records are 'SEALED' {not for public display nor for public gossip...and the main reason that our anal retentive over zealous Kansas Attorney General went after Dr. Tillers medical records in the first place...but some on here seem to have missed that whole original reason...and cling to the broader views of "DR. TILLER WAS ACCUSED AND HE MUST BE DOING SOMETHING WRONG" - read any and all of Pandoras post and you'll get my drift}!

Here's another question for you:

Does the father of the child have any rights or say in the decision to abort?

Since I'm not privy to the inner finite workings between the Doctor and the woman...I wouldn't know what takes place between the parents either...but I would hope that they would be on the 'same page' about this horrendous 'CHOICE' that they would have to make. Please, Don't make it sound like they are deciding what menu item to select...until you walk the walk...don't judge the impact!!!

If you don't think the father has any rights prior to the birth of the child, do you think he should be responsible (financially or otherwise) for the child once its born?

Since it is a medically possible to achieve a pregnancy without the 'sperm donors' approval...{ie. Octo-MOM} I don't know what/how a state would/will determine who's responsible for financial aid for that/those children!

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

GenSeneca Said: But so far, I have only come to one logical conclusion: The life of an individual begins at conception. None have been willing, or able, to disprove that claim on logical, scientific or biological grounds. The only disputes seem to arise from the unknowable, and unprovable, concepts of philosophy and theology.

NAY, NAY...you have posted an opinion and many disagree with your 'OPINION' you do not have any medical FACT to support your OPINION and that is as valid as ours when we say that 'LIFE BEGINS WHEN THE BABY IS BORN AND TAKES IT'S FIRST LIFE SUSTAINING BREATH'...our opinions here today are not what the doctors think about during delivery and when they have that life in their hands!!! Sorry GenSeneca, your opinion wouldn't hold or matter during a delivery.

 

[samsara15]

A closer look? I included that information in my post... Unlike yourself, I like to be honest and accurate.

I don't think it should be illegal in all circumstances... But don't let the facts get in the way of your delusions.

Perhaps you're one of the hardcore left-wing-nuts, part of the 22%, who think abortion should be "legal in all circumstances"... Oh wow, look at that... 23% is higher than 22%... Imagine that... even on the extreme ends of the issue the Pro-Lifers are winning.

Since when does being part of 22/23% make one a 'hard core left-wing nut? That's almost a quarter of the American population. I would venture to say that most of the Right Wingers who post here fall into a smaller segment of the public than that - does that make them 'hard core Right-Wing' nuts? You apply a double standard, Seneca.

 

[GenSeneca]

Since when does being part of 22/23% make one a 'hard core left-wing nut? That's almost a quarter of the American population. I would venture to say that most of the Right Wingers who post here fall into a smaller segment of the public than that - does that make them 'hard core Right-Wing' nuts? You apply a double standard, Seneca.

Actually, I pointed out that the 23% who said it should be illegal in all circumstances were also extremist nutjobs. And there are more of those nutjobs than you 22% 'anytime for any reason' extremist nutjobs.

 

[GenSeneca]

NO, I don't have a problem with a woman having a late term abortion...

So you disagree with Roe v Wade. The courts set viability as a benchmark for when abortion is, and isn't, acceptable.

Since I'm not privy to the inner finite workings between the Doctor and the woman...I wouldn't know what takes place between the parents either...but I would hope that they would be on the 'same page' about this horrendous 'CHOICE' that they would have to make.

You hope... but when they are not on the same page you defer all rights to the woman and the man has no say in whether or not his child should live.

...until you walk the walk...don't judge the impact!!!

I'm not being judgemental. If there is judgement taking place, its coming from those of you who think the child and the father have no rights during a pregnancy. You have judged them both to be irrelevent to the womans "right" to choose.

Since it is a medically possible to achieve a pregnancy without the 'sperm donors' approval...{ie. Octo-MOM} I don't know what/how a state would/will determine who's responsible for financial aid for that/those children!

I didn't ask about octo-mom. I asked about the father of an unborn child who is given no right to "choice" as to whether or not his child will be aborted. The same rightless father who is held responsible for the welfare of the child if its born.

NAY, NAY...you have posted an opinion and many disagree with your 'OPINION' you do not have any medical FACT to support your OPINION

That is incorrect. My premises and conclusions are logically sound and fully supported by scientific fact. If they were not, then you could cite scientific facts to debunk them, but you cannot.

and that is as valid as ours

This is simply equivocation. My opinion is backed by logic and science, yours appears to be backed by emotion and popular sentiment.

when we say that 'LIFE BEGINS WHEN THE BABY IS BORN AND TAKES IT'S FIRST LIFE SUSTAINING BREATH'...

When you say that... you are placing yourself in the extreme minority opinion and in opposition to the findings of the court in Roe v Wade.

our opinions here today are not what the doctors think about during delivery and when they have that life in their hands!!!

Sorry GenSeneca, your opinion wouldn't hold or matter during a delivery.

Red Herring. I've never tried to argue that my opinion would matter during a delivery. My opinion is on when the life of an individual begins.

Perhaps you should take it down a notch with the shouting and try not to be so emotional.

 

[samsara15]

Actually, I pointed out that the 23% who said it should be illegal in all circumstances were also extremist nutjobs. And there are more of those nutjobs than you 22% 'anytime for any reason' extremist nutjobs.

That makes up 45%, roughly half on one side and half on the other. 45% of the US public are extreme nuts jobs, in your opinion? You are certainly being fair, GeneralS! Hats off to you. LOL

 

[GenSeneca]

That makes up 45%, roughly half on one side and half on the other. 45% of the US public are extreme nuts jobs, in your opinion? You are certainly being fair, GeneralS! Hats off to you. LOL

I am fair. To say it should be allowed in all circumstances is extreme. To say it shouldn't be allowed in any circumstances is extreme.

I'm sure in your Progressive world its only "fair" to characterize those on the right as extremist nutjobs when both sides have an extremist position.

 

[samsara15]

I am a Left Liberal, GenSeneca, based on political preference tests. I'm not afraid of the word Left or Liberal.

Do you ever wonder WHY we might think abortion should be allowed under all circumstances?

Do you think your paltry arguments amount to persuasion? Surely you jest. Any of us can search the internet, and find on it a wondrous array of arguments to support any position on anything, pro or con, from people who can argue far more eloquently than any of us. We chat here, because it is good for all of us to get some exposure to other POVs, but conversions are rare events.

 

[PLC1]

I have always thought of a soul as the part of you that has you’re personality. What makes you different from your brother or parent exc. I remember I was 5 months pregnant with my son when I got my first ultra sound and he was sucking his thumb and kicking his feet. To me he was expressing his personality. Though I have no way to prove it, its my personal feelings.

In the first two months the baby in a womb has a heart, lungs exc. its more than a blob of jelly.


You know in all these posts that you and I have exchanged and you have exchanged with Gen I have read where you think its ok to have an abortion but I have never read where you draw the line. Maybe you don’t have a line.

Ill tell you where I draw the line, please tell me where you draw the line.


I dislike abortion for any reason except if being pregnant will kill the mother or host as they say, but I am not going to argue about a person having an abortion in the first 3 months unless the person brags that they do it as a means of birth control. Then I don’t mind going on my usual rant.

I draw the line at partial birth abortion at 5/6 months as reasonable and only if continuing the pregnancy would kill the woman. If a woman is 7 months pregnant or more then the baby is perfectly viable, and the woman should have induced labor or c-section and let the child be adopted out if they really don’t want the baby.

A 5 or 6 month baby would never or at least almost never be viable so if a woman would literally die carrying the baby any longer than the 5 or 6 months as sad as it is, the abortion would be necessary.

Though I would say instead of partially birthing it then stabbing it in the back of the head they should at least kill it as pain free and humane as we do our pets.

When if ever do you draw the line on abortions?

I think you've drawn the line pretty well when it comes to abortions. My view and yours are pretty much the same.

Now, would you try to impose your view of abortion on the rest of society by force of law, or would you try to limit the number of abortions through education, birth control, persuasion, or whatever?

Personally, I would follow the second path.


It seems to me that the issue of abortion is highly complex, which is what makes it so controversial.

If life begins at conception, then it follows that abortion at any stage of development is tantamount to killing a human being. If the practice is outlawed, however, that merely drives it underground. Some nations that have outlawed abortion have higher rates than we do. How, though, can we justify legalizing the killing of human beings? There is no easy answer to that one, is there?

If life begins at some point during pregnancy, then it follows that any abortion should be performed before that time. So, how do we prove just when life begins? If life begins at conception, then why should an early term abortion be any different from a late term one? If it is different from a legal standpoint, does that reflect science, logic, religion, or simply a political compromise?

And yet, I think most of us would agree that aborting a days old embryo is not the same as partial birth abortion.

Then there is the question of in vitrio fertilization. Does the process kill off all of the embryos that are not implanted, or does it give a chance for life to the one that is? Does that process involve killing human beings? If life really begins at conception, then it must. So, should in vitrio be discouraged as well, even though it provides a chance for otherwise childless couples to have a baby?

 

[Pandora]

I think you've drawn the line pretty well when it comes to abortions. My view and yours are pretty much the same.

Now, would you try to impose your view of abortion on the rest of society by force of law, or would you try to limit the number of abortions through education, birth control, persuasion, or whatever?

Personally, I would follow the second path.

Yes I would, if I could impose my views on late term abortion after the 7th month when its clear the child is viable. I would not say a woman can not deliver early if she had health issues, I just don’t think killing a child is the answer. Deliver the baby put it in an incubator and adopt it out if the mother does not want it.

If the woman had health issues and could not continue a pregnancy in the 5th month or 6th month I would rather see a more humane way to kill the child than the current standards but would not deny a woman her ability to abortion if her life was at risk by carrying a child, and a child at that age is not viable that I know of.

I would change my opinion if we developed technology and a 5 or 6 month in the womb baby could become viable, then I would put it to the same standards as I think it should be with a 7 month or older viable child.

I would also do the second also…..education is important.

Before you get upset that I am willing to impose my views on a person by making them either kill the child more humane if they are too young to be viable or letting the child be birthed and not stabbed in the back of the head but adopted out instead, understand that I would also impose my views on beating a child, sexually molesting a child or killing an infant at birth that you did not want, or throwing a newborn in a trash can. Some people don’t hold my views on those things but I would still be willing to impose them.

But I would not ban early abortions; no matter how much I don’t like them. I would rather educate people about them. I would though ban tax payer funded abortions. And I am for states rights when it comes to offering abortions. There will always be places like California and New York and the arm pit state Jersey who are willing to abort, but some places like South Dakota who does not want to be a part of it, should not have to. Just like tiler the baby killer was one of the few who offered to kill your baby and baptize them in the same day and people came from all over to let him do it, there will always be a place where women can have the baby killed, no need for back alley abortions when you have California, Oregon and New York and probably 48 of the other states as well.

 

[Pandora]

Then there is the question of in vitrio fertilization. Does the process kill off all of the embryos that are not implanted, or does it give a chance for life to the one that is? Does that process involve killing human beings? If life really begins at conception, then it must. So, should in vitrio be discouraged as well, even though it provides a chance for otherwise childless couples to have a baby?

In vitriol bothers me, why can’t they just fertilize one egg and if it does not take then try again? They do it to so many eggs then freeze them, give them to scientists to slice and dice. I would never do that. I have no problem with fertilizing the egg you want to have implanted but I don’t like cloning eggs for experiments or to just save time/money. And what I find very sick is some women will have several fertilized eggs implanted in them and select and abort the ones they don’t want later. That is sad and disgusting.

 

[PLC1]

Yes I would, if I could impose my views on late term abortion after the 7th month when its clear the child is viable. I would not say a woman can not deliver early if she had health issues, I just don’t think killing a child is the answer. Deliver the baby put it in an incubator and adopt it out if the mother does not want it.

If the woman had health issues and could not continue a pregnancy in the 5th month or 6th month I would rather see a more humane way to kill the child than the current standards but would not deny a woman her ability to abortion if her life was at risk by carrying a child, and a child at that age is not viable that I know of.

I would change my opinion if we developed technology and a 5 or 6 month in the womb baby could become viable, then I would put it to the same standards as I think it should be with a 7 month or older viable child.

Actually, most late term abortions would not have to happen, regardless of the health of the mother. Once the fetus is viable outside of the womb, the great majority of them could be saved through a c section. When you look at medical science, there would be very few cases in which a late term abortion would be justified, The procedure is legal under certain circumstances because of political compromises, not because of any logical need.

I would also do the second also…..education is important.

Before you get upset that I am willing to impose my views on a person by making them either kill the child more humane if they are too young to be viable or letting the child be birthed and not stabbed in the back of the head but adopted out instead, understand that I would also impose my views on beating a child, sexually molesting a child or killing an infant at birth that you did not want, or throwing a newborn in a trash can. Some people don’t hold my views on those things but I would still be willing to impose them.

OK, all of that is consistent. If a fetus is old enough to be viable, then there should be no difference between killing it and killing a newborn. Therefore, the procedure should be outlawed. However....

But I would not ban early abortions; no matter how much I don’t like them. I would rather educate people about them. I would though ban tax payer funded abortions. And I am for states rights when it comes to offering abortions. There will always be places like California and New York and the arm pit state Jersey who are willing to abort, but some places like South Dakota who does not want to be a part of it, should not have to. Just like tiler the baby killer was one of the few who offered to kill your baby and baptize them in the same day and people came from all over to let him do it, there will always be a place where women can have the baby killed, no need for back alley abortions when you have California, Oregon and New York and probably 48 of the other states as well.

If life begins at conception, as you contend, then why is an early abortion any different from a late term abortion?

 

[samsara15]

Could we reach some sort of concensus that abortion is Ok in the the first and second trimesters? And then limit this discussion to when it might or might not be Ok, after that point, life of mother in danger, dead baby, severe birth defects, et al?