How could you kill your own baby ?

What happened to "it's the mothers right to decide what to do with her unborn child in her body"?

I'm not sure why people have their heads up someone elses parts. It's none of your business. It's a private, personal matter between the mother and, perhaps, the father. If they want to, they go through with it. If they do not, they do not. Why do you feel the need to decide for them what is moral and what is not?

 

Because there's a baby up there.

It's the business of the government to protect the innocent.

No more private than any other form of child abuse. I'm glad you recognize that the father should have some role, but I doubt any other pro-choicers in this forum would concur.

As for a "personal decision", you might see this thread, where Blackrook made an excellent point:
http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/259254-if-you-dont-like-slavery-dont-own-slaves.html

Why does a woman - one without any particular health issues - feel the need to decide that getting rid of her fetus is moral?

 

I think it's an over looked issue that it is actually the father or male partner who tends to want the abortion or push for the abortion. Abortion is not just a female issue or a female sentiment. That seems to be a general misconception...

but, still, I think you are over-sensitivizing this issue. Worse, you don't see or likely don't care to be bothered about the long term. What happens when you force the mother to carry through with a pregnancy she doesn't want? What is the state of the child's life when he is passed through adoption or whatever?

I think it's wrong to force the mother to pass a child she doesn't want. It comes close to a form of rape- physically, and emotionally. While it is certainly not a "clean issue" or an easy decision of morality, I don't see any more virtue in aborting an unborn child than I do in forcing it's birth.

 

The child is going to have to pass out, one way or the other.
We pro-lifers just want it to grow a little bit more before it comes out.

I think we have all agreed in another thread that, absent the woman's choice, childbirth is clearly better than abortion.

Think about it. If one of your close female friends was knocked into a coma for 6 months, and it was discovered after she had been knocked unconscious that she was unexpectedly pregnant, and the decision was up to you, what would you choose for her on her behalf? Abort, because she probably will not want the baby? Suppose you know her very well, and she is the type of woman who would probably choose abortion if she found out she was pregnant.

 

It doesn't matter what you all agreed on.

 

Really? You truly believe just becasue you pull something out of your arse it becomes valid? Why not attempt at least some basic honesty and understanding of the topic first before making such stupid remarks?

We all have the same right to make decisions about all matters that have an effect on our health. Do you really not know this?

Ultimately it is none of your business why any woman has an abortion.

It is not a claim it is fact. Only so called lifers can function without a brain and that is truly a special circumstance, but human beings need organs to sustain their own life. Try to take a basic biology class, it may shed some light on this for you.

Nobody has a right to life. If there was a right to life it would be defined somewhere, but it is not. Are you in support of universal health care?

More misleading and confusing tripe from you. Why not provide the data of how many abortions take place after 21 weeks and for what reason, instead of spewing this nonsense?

and when totally unble to formulate a coherent argument fall back on "dehumanize" tripe.

the terms are only vague to those who are unable to grasp the most basic concepts of out laws.

 

I meant the right not to be killed.

And if you want to talk about universal healthcare... Why do you think the insurance company and government regulators know better than the patient, but a woman knows best if her health is threatened by a pregnancy?

Choicers are unable to define those terms in an objective way. In what way does a newborn baby have "consciousness" that a 19 week old fetus does not?

 

where is that right specified?

Yea I can see your confusion. Universal healthcare does not involve insurance or government regulators. People get the healthcare they need period.

 

Low income children already get free healthcare, so your point is moot.

 

The point is not moot as no one is talking about income low or high or children. The right to life was the last issue. However your evasion is not moot, it is quite revealing about your approach to the debate.

 

Yeah, the Language of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and the several State's Fetal Homicide Laws which followed it have changed all that. Or, if you like - they are a major step in the process of changing all of that.

Do you deny that - had the language of the UVVA been available for the SCOTUS to consider - prior to Roe - that they would have been compelled to consider the fact that it does treat a child in the womb as a "person" by making it a crime of "murder" to illegally kill one?

I added the words above - in Prom's comment - in parentheses.








though the minority usually are[/QUOTE]

 

It would have made no difference only to make the lawmakers laughing stock. None of the laws you cite bring any new facts or even ideas to the table. That they simply are choosing to define a fetus for the purposes of that law something that is not hardly changes reality. They could use the same method to redefine a turnip as a person for the purposes of a specific law. That however would not magically turn the turnip into a person.
Why do you think the there is not a single other aspect of personhood applied to fetuses in light of those laws? Even in the most restrictive states fetuses can not be counted as dependents. Why not if they are persons?

 

and is this a fact or not, does a woman have the right to make decisions affecting her body, of is it you only want to remove that decision when it involves pregnancy.
What other individual rights do we not believe in?

Again true, haven't seen anyone disagree that it is a relatively rare situation, but it does happen or do you think it doesn't?
The only person who has a difficulty deciding when late-term is-is you, most here take late-term to mean post viability.

True again, can a 15 week old fetus survive outside of the womb . .whether that means it isn't a person is still up for debate, as you (sometimes) say it is a person at conception, we disagree.
Abortion is legal in the USA no matter the stage or the reason, it is the states that have the right to impose restrictions if they wish, federal law does not make abortion illegal at any stage.

You mean like you do for DS Newborns, so does a fetus have self-awareness, is it sentient, is it an independent entity . .be great to see your evidence to support it is any of those things instead of your usual drivel.

A statement like that requires proof, or are you just lying as usual.

Yep, just as the law does .. got a problem with that try to get the law changed.

Again this requires some proof, I have never seen anyone say society NEEDS abortion. As to the tax payers money and overpopulation it is the pro-lifers who scream blue murder when increases in taxes are brought up .. after all the counldn't really careless about it after the birth. Do you not agree that the earths population is too high and climbing, is that a fallacy or is it true.
I certainly don't want to "let in as many immigrants as possible", but not for the same racist reasons as you.
You need to read the constitution where it does not differentiate between life, liberty and property, so your assertion that life is more important than the others, is just that, your fabricated assertion.

 

Obviously, science clearly shows that the fetus is a human organism, therefore, the woman has no right to kill it.

Despite his many horrible racist statements, on the issue of abortions, Anders Hoveland clearly has way more morals and common sense than you do.

 

how about actually providing the evidence, or links to it, instead of just saying there is evidence.

Of course a sperm and egg grow, Jesus H Christ you really do know nothing about human biology do you.

How about a little education -

Show, with medical links how a fetus meets the criteria of an organism . .your usual unsupported responses are not required.

 

Then it should be simple for you to provide the evidence to support your assertion, should it not, or is that above your capability.

From someone who hasn't EVER shown an ounce of common sense .. I will take this as it is deserved, with a pinch of salt.

 

Check out this thread thread, I explain this perfectly over there.

Here's this link for you.

http://www.politicalforum.com/abort...g-any-stage-development-human-organism-2.html

 

They actually haven't changed a single thing . .as far as I am aware abortion is still legal and it is still illegal for any state to ban it, sure they may have made some BS laws that attempt to ban it via the back-door, but the big one still remains as I believe it will for the foreseeable future.

Yep totally deny it, especially as people far better qualified than you or I have already stated that both Roe & UVVA can easily exist side by side in law without conflicting.

 

There is no "back door" anything going on.

We (those of us who oppose abortion and who want to see it banned) aren't hiding anything.

In fact, we want to get these challenges before the courts as soon as we can.

Okay... since we have no way of re-living the past, we are just going to have to get a case in front of them now - to have them reconcile the two - and then see where it goes from there.

Of course, that wouldn't necessarily be the end of it either... but I want to get a case in front of them anyway.

 

You mean your direct lift from a pro-life site, which is not YOUR explanation at all.. how about something not biased, how about a peer reviewed study conducted by a recognized university

 

It was a scientific explanation. It wasn't like statistics or anything like that, which can sometimes be very biased. That pro-life site did not claim to cite any statistics or anything like that. It just explains what an organism is.

 

If it is a scientific explanation where are the links to the source data that supports it, if you took the time and trouble to actually read a scientific paper you will find that all the sources cited in the item are numbered and listed .. this piece of pro-life propaganda is nothing more than the opinion of a pro-lifer. So the question remains are you intellectually honest enough to actually take the time to find a scientific peer reviewed paper that supports your (or the article copied) premise.

I have already shown you that a fetus does not meet 3 of the four criteria that defines an organism, now can you dispute that with actual evidence or not.

 

If I had stated without using a link what an organism was, it would still be coming from a pro-lifer (which is me). Therefore, anything that I say is totally biased and irrelevant. And while it's true that non-pro life sites can explain what an organism is, only a pro-life site can explain what an organism is in relation to why the fetus is an organism. Have fun living in your fantasy world of denial. I know that you are very afraid of your argument falling apart, so you do everything that you can to ignore any logical opinion. Even a biology textbook would agree that the fetus is an organism.

Does that pro-life site state true scientific information? Yes. Regardless of whether or not that site is pro-life, pro-choice, or neither, it still states true facts.

 

NOW THAT IS THE TRUTH.

Thanks for demonstrating again your total lack of understanding science or anything scientific. You see, science its findings and conclusions do not depend on your or my beliefs. They stand on their own merit.

And what do you call the world of ignorance you believe in?

Yet you are unable to show any counter arguments to anything.

But you have not had one yet.

How would you know? You have never read one or understand the subject.

After all they can not put on the internets what is not true and I am a French model.

 

I couldn't care less if it came from a deaf dwarf with tierets so long as the source material is linked to, in case you don't know (which you obviously don't) these articles you link to get their information from other sources, most honest articles cite their sources usually by a number notation within the main text and then a corresponding list at the end of the article showing the source of the material used.

What complete BS .. so now you are saying that pro-life sites are better qualified to say what something is than those qualified to do so .. exactly what school do you attend because they are failing you badly.

Let me know when you actually come up with a logical opinion because so far all I have seen from you is your assumptions on things you know nothing about..

Yep for kindergarden kids.

no it states an opinion without any source material to back it up .. and I'd say the same for any site that did the same.