During the holocaust the nazis would also say they were performing a service by exterminating the jews. Sanger was the one who wanted abortion introduced she thought this was a good way to reduce the number of blacks, she was a racist. Why do poor people need abortions?. Happiness does not coincide with wealth. How is anyone defending the murder of medical practitioners?, where did you get that from?. It is people who support abortion that are taken away the reproductive rights. We are trying to defend the lives of the youngest and most vulnerably, your excuse is to say they are not people. No one is bringing religion into it. Tell me when did your life begin?, the very first moment of your life?.
No they didn't. No she didn't. Both rich and poor people need abortions, but only poor people need help to get them. read previous posts. Rubbish. In what way? they're not people. churchmouse is. When I was born.
diamond lil said, What service are they providing? What happens during this service? I never said she did. She set out to get rid of a portion of the population she discriminated against….minorities, poor, handicapped. Sounds like Hitler doesn't she? Odd eh…that they are there to just get rid of black babies. Never…I do not condone violence. And anyone who kills anyone deserves to be in prison…so don't put words into my mouth that are not their. Tillers killer….is behind bars where he should be. I am not taking away reproductive rights….because I am against abortion. Pregnancy only last nine months…not a lifetime…and women should have the right to have what they created…a new life…or put it up for adoption. But the pro-choice group here would say….oh adoption is so traumatic..then the woman would have to think about her child her whole life. Believe me if she kills it…what do you think she will be left with? IYO they are non people…in mine and science they are living human beings. Tell me what happened in the Scott Peterson trial. What was the decision of the jury? How many lives is he sitting on death row for? His wife and a nonperson in her womb? Or his wife and his unborn son, as they called Connor by name….You would think that Connor was a nonperson in the womb. Not so. Unfortunately, the only thing you do bring to the table is religion.[/QUOTE]
diamond lil said, Yes they did….they provided a lot of services….killing and experimenting medically on the handicapped, poor, on minorities. He felt they were a drain on society…just like Sanger did. She set out to get rid of these people who dragged society down…that tainted the population. She wanted them sterilized so they would not reproduce. She wanted them taken out of society and put in camps…isolated from the rest of the perfectly white population. LMAO…..not true. No one needs an abortion to solve a problem. Killing is not the answer…that is why your position is so so sad and demented. And I can't debate abortion without bring God into the equation.
of the first "Godwin's Law" post AS I have said again and again - big difference between actual people and only potentially people. A fertilised egg has only a potential to be human - it has more potential to be waste matter even without human interference
Then please tell me the exact moment a person becomes a person?. Is it something arbitary and very vague, or is there an exact moment in time?. After conception how long is it, do we need a stop watch, one second before a certain time has passed and is still not a person then one second after it is?. As far as I can see, no pro-abortionist can give an exact moment, but maybe you can enlighten me.
At viability it is that simple. But honestly after birth because I know enough about this subject to know that there are times when there IS no choice and it is either abort one or lose both - something that does happen in Ireland and it is about time you got those creaky old celibate males OUT of a discussion which should only involve the woman and the medical officer caring for her
Bowerbird enslaves women…she is not pro-choice…she wants to deny them abortions based on her bias and morality.
Where do you get the idea Christians cannot judge the actions of others? From that misused biblical quote about "judge not...". News flash, atheist, that only means don't be a hypocrite and be prepared to have foisted upon you, what you yourself meet out to others. Any genuine religious person knows this.
Amen We have ever right to judge someones words and actions. We can't judge anyones heart…even our own.
Enough said But I am not an atheist either, I do not live in your country I do not have to conform to the mores of your society So why bother bringing this junk to the debate table?
Enough said But I am not an atheist either, I do not live in your country I do not have to conform to the mores of your society So why bother bringing this junk to the debate table?
Lols! Anyone who attempts to "win" an argument through this sort of false entrapment fails. The main reason for failure is that the readers of sites like this are usually over 16 years of age and can see that such tactics are valueless. I stated what I stated and it was clear and unambiguous but because some seem to have difficulty I will elaborate. "Personhood" comes at viability - whenever that is - but personally I do not see that as making an impact upon any abortion decision - for me it is irrelevant. Abortion sometimes has to be done even up to shortly before birth (although in that case it is more correctly termed a "termination of pregnancy) and in some rare rare cases AT birth - google up "obstructed labour and foetal decapitation" - a procedure that fortunately, is virtually not required in the developed world any more. http://www.ptolemy.ca/members/archives/2008/Surg Alt C-Section/index.html#T4 http://medind.nic.in/jaq/t06/i2/jaqt06i2p113.pdf Sometimes, and more often than we would wish - the choice is not ours, not the doctors and not even the woman's is it simply the choice that has to be made to either save one or lose both. And THIS is where laws, and moralists, and over hyped "pro-life" hypocrites should stay out of the situation
At viability thats very vague, could you please elaborate. So you are telling me the location of the child is the defining thing in whether the baby is a person or not. If the baby is in the womb then it is not a person outside the womb it is a person. Tell me what is the difference apart from the location of the baby?. The vast majority of people here are opposed to abortion. What are you speaking of celibate old men for?. Ireland is the safest place for a pregnant woman to be, we ensure the well being of both mother and child.
Yup! no problem with that. And until you can hold a conversation with an embryo I really do not think that assigning "personhood" has any bearing whatsoever. It is a red herring because even it the foetus WERE allocated "personhood" it would not change my opinion Those who do not work in the field should stay out of this conversation Easy to claim a low maternal mortality rate if your statistics are not accurate http://www.medicalindependent.ie/page.aspx?title=maternal_death_–_into_the_great_unknown And it is not just me saying your figures are off because they are below what would be expected for uncontrollable events such as amniotic emboli
Bowerbird said, And those of you who have not had abortions should stay out of this as well. Have you had an abortion…or are you an abortionist? if not…why don't you leave?
I beg to disagree…my statement was right on and I should be able to ask it. What is in question here is credibility and knowledge. Sean was told this….."Those who do not work in the field should stay out of this conversation" by Bowerbird. In that case…..my statement stands true based on her remark. If you have not had an abortion…then what makes anyone an authority? In that case everyone should leave with the exception of myself and one other. That is not baiting. I would like Bower to answer my question.
Having an abortion doesn't make one an authority on abortion any more than having brain surgery makes one a brain surgery authority.
I actually said a lot more and am used to people on AGW denialism cherry picking because they have little else to go on. Addressing me in this manner could be considered "baiting" under the rules of this forum. But I will answer although Cady as done a masterly job of doing so. I have an issue with people who do not have an adequate cognitive construct in relation to the this area of health and who are sourcing "information" from biased and agenda ridden sites. But then I have the same issue with people who refuse vaccinations for their children based on what they have read on some half baked site or other. And please note that at no time have I specified whom I was/am referring to or even if those people were/are active and present on the board
Yea, walking out my front door is life threatening. Eating is life threatening. The term "reasonable" is used over and over in legal parlances. So, if a doctor has a reasonable belief that the womans life is in danger above and beyond the ordinary pregnancy, then abortion shall not be legal. I dont remember once, any doctor in the 7 births I have been at, giving any indication whatsoever, that the mothers life is in danger, quite the opposite actually. . WOmen have home birthing all the time, apparently they dont think it is life threatening.
Until you have your first disaster. Home birthing!! And you have seen what 7?? Wow!! Home birthing are LOW risk pregnancies {{{{{{{{{{{{{{shudder}}}}}}}}}}}}}} Do you realise a woman can lose 700 mls a MINUTE during post partum haemorrhage? Have you read the statistics for maternal mortality - now Australia has a LOW maternal mortality and we still lose an average of 2 -3 women a month. Don't even go there with the Stats for Sierra Leonne
