Which is why I asked. And yes you called me a hypocrite for having that position. How am I a hypocrite when i say person at conception, but will allow exceptions for rape/incest/danger to the mother? You are saying oh you support killing people who came about because of rape/incest/danger to the mother? No I'm saying at that point she can choose whether to remain pregnant or not, as she had zero choice in the act that led to her becoming pregnant. Oh what aboit born eprsons can we kill them too? Absolutely not, after the decision is made to have the baby, you lose the option to terminate on demand. You can not change your mind after week 24. - - - Updated - - -
So in that case then the man must be saying to the woman, if you let me have sex with you-you might get pregnant and so you must accept that if you do get pregnant you agreed to it . .absurd notion. BTW: Informed Consent - Assent to permit an occurrence, such as surgery, that is based on a complete disclosure of facts needed to make the decision intelligently, such as knowledge of the risks entailed or alternatives. Do tell me when the 'complete disclosure of facts' is discussed .. is it prior to sex, during or after? and even if you could swing that past the gullible, you still cannot get past the fact that consent to one person for an action is not consent, implied, informed or otherwise, for a separate person (as pro-lifers believe a zef is) for a different action. Consent is not transferable. Each person must gain individual consent for themselves. and that consent is ongoing, a person may revoke consent at anytime, for any reason or even no reason at all as is their right. As I said in my reply - Problem is you haven't provided a single thing to substantiate your opinion that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, until you do I will see it as nothing more than your opinion, and that is fine for you on a personal level .. but not when you enter a debate and are trying to change the law
whether she had a choice is not relevant to the fact that the zef has done nothing to warrant its death, if it is a person from conception then it is entitled to due process and equal protection of the law, to say that the act of the man dictates whether the zef can live or not IS a hypocritical position. That would be like executing a murderers son for his fathers crimes, and again I need to remind you that I have NEVER said that danger to the female is a hypocritical position to hold on abortion, so please stop adding that in to your replies. - - - Updated - - - Yet again the elephant in the room is ignored. No baby has ever been torn limb from limb, or had its brains sucked out or had its head crushed in an abortion.
Very first thing I said is that si why I asked, where else did I mention your position? Yes they have late term partial birth abortions, it was common practice, I believe that way has been outlawed and they use saline solution now to burn them to death.
If you are attempting (but failing) to accurately describe intact D&X, it has been illegal for a decade. Read Coreen Costello's Congressional testimony if you don't believe the procedure was humane: http://www.amberdragonflypress.com/march/abortion_stories.htm#coreen
How can you say the procedure is humane one second. And then say something isn't a human life the next. Why wouldn't torn limbs be ok? Its not really a person...right? Or is it? I have to say ....that testimony wasn't credible. Christian and conservative....right. Obviously not.
With all these weird postings (quotation errors) your response has somewhat confused me, please elaborate. Partial birth is a misrepresentation of the actual procedure, the correct name is an intact, dilation and extraction (IDX), partial birth is a political term not a medical one, and there are/were no babies killed in this procedure, a fetus is not a baby when the term baby is used correctly, pro-lifers do not use the term correctly, they use it for its projected emotional appeal, and no elective IDX procedures are performed .. strangely enough it was used only for two of the things you have stated abortion is justified for .. a life threat to the female and/or fetal disability incompatible with life. I also wonder how anyone can say 1.2% of all abortions performed in the USA is a "common practice"
Dilation and Extraction (D and X) This abortion is also used on mid and late term babies, from 4 to 9 months gestation. Ultrasound is used to identify how the unborn baby is facing in the womb. The abortionist inserts forceps through the cervical canal into the uterus and grasps one of the baby’s legs, positioning the baby feet first, face down (breech position). The child’s body is then pulled out of the birth canal except for the head which is too large to pass through the cervix. The baby is alive, and probably kicking and flailing his legs and arms. The abortionist hooks his fingers over the baby’s shoulders, holding the woman’s cervix away from the baby’s neck. He then jams blunt tipped surgical scissors into the base of the skull and spreads the tips apart to enlarge the wound. A suction catheter is inserted into the baby’s skull and the brain is sucked out. The skull collapses and the baby’s head passes easily through the cervix. http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/how-are-abortions-done the air is removed from the fetus' skull, causing decompression of the body, which is then extracted through the vaginal canal with tools Read more: http://www.ehow.com/about_6169857_late-term-abortion.html#ixzz2tdMK3fNm Dilation and Extraction (D&X) is another late-term method. The Doctor dismembers the fetal part that has been brought out of the vagina and removes it. The rest of the fetus remains in the uterus while dismemberment occurs. There is "wide disagreement within the medical community, and little data on whether the procedure (D&X) is safer than others or even whether it should be performed http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/late_term_abortion.htm
1.2% of 1 million is 12,000 thats 25 or so a day, pretty common. found a link that says it was used only only 2200 times still 3 a day http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Intact_dilation_and_extraction.html what do you want me to elaborate on, now im confused. Yes medical term is nice nice, but when the baby's head is sticking out of the vagina and then the doctor crushes it's skull, that's not very nice. Please show me where no elective IDX procedures are performed. Yes danger to the mother and fetus are acceptable for abortion, but if both can be saved why kill the fetus, abort it and try to save it.
would you really expect a known biased site to be acceptably as evidence. BTW I know what a D & X is, the fact still remains not a single baby is killed in this procedure. Oh look a site that actually uses the correct term for the unborn .. a fetus. Still not seeing any 'babies' killed though. Though it is incorrect in two of its assertions .. one in the physical risks and one in the mental risks. and the only un biased site cited and they actually uses the correct terminology .. Fetus/fetal .. not 'baby' No idea why you posted any of this as I didn't say anywhere that D&X was not used or that I didn't know what it was, all you have done is prove my point that no 'babies' are killed in a D&X procedure. So we have an obvious biased site that uses 'baby', we have a semi-biased site that does not - even though it has two other errors on it - and we have one single un biased university site that doesn't use the false term of baby when referring to a fetus. so thank you for proving my point for me.
have a look here..it's debatable that at four weeks it looks like a baby , but it is human looking http://www.medicinenet.com/fetal_development_pictures_slideshow/article.htm 8 weeks it is unmistakable and if i saw my daughter at this stage i would rewfer to her as a baby can we abort 12 week old baby fetuses legally..? hopefully not at 16 weeks…please… 20 weeks if you cannot see this is a baby then i wonder
How is that a contradiction? No it isn't a person, you have admitted that yourself. Then you should know, it isn't unusual for Christian and conservative women to become pro-choice when they are the ones in need of an abortion. "In 2011, the Guttmacher Institute reported that 65 percent of women having abortions self-identified as Christian; 37 percent as Protestant and 28 percent as Catholic...The overwhelming majority of the approximately 1 million abortions performed every year are by Christians." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bethany-blankley/abortion-do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do_b_1102198.html
so tell me have you ever went to a fetus shower? have you ever asked a women when is her fetus due date was have you ever asked is your fetus going to be a boy or a girl
Cady...if a liberal progressive suddenly decided that abortion was murder and that all life is valuable and should be protective-----are they liberal???
Don't members of political parties have similar world views? What is wrong with my answer? You seem to think all Christians are supposed to be pro-life and that isn't true at all.
Do you think all conservatives have to think alike on every issue? You seem to. Is that because you are all told what to think by conservative think tanks?
You can't even answer my question. So you must be running from the fact....that a person who believe a fetus is a human life, believes that it should be protected and that to kill it is murder---can not be called a Liberal Progressive.
