“Viability” is a fluid concept, and entirely dependent upon our technology. It is currently possible to keep a fetus alive outside of the womb after only about 22 weeks of gestation. Next year that number may drop to 20 weeks. In the future it may be possible to gestate a fetus from zygote to infant entirely in an artificial incubator, which will make the issue of “viability” entirely moot, because every fertilized egg will be theoretically viable. [/quote]
Then if it is viable , by all means remove it and place it where it is wanted
[/quote]
So your real criteria is whether or not a human being is wanted, not whether or not it’s a human being. You are for the killing or unwanted human beings. You don’t give a rats ass about a human life, you only care if that human life is “wanted”. Be honest.[/quote]
I am not for killing any one or thing . I think abortion could be the best alternative some could expect if they brought a baby into the world .
I think wanted is a CRUCIAL element in raising a happy well adjusted child
“Viability” is a fluid concept, and entirely dependent upon our technology. It is currently possible to keep a fetus alive outside of the womb after only about 22 weeks of gestation. Next year that number may drop to 20 weeks. In the future it may be possible to gestate a fetus from zygote to infant entirely in an artificial incubator, which will make the issue of “viability” entirely moot, because every fertilized egg will be theoretically viable. [/quote]
Then if it is viable , by all means remove it and place it where it is wanted
[/quote]
So your real criteria is whether or not a human being is wanted, not whether or not it’s a human being. You are for the killing or unwanted human beings. You don’t give a rats ass about a human life, you only care if that human life is “wanted”. Be honest.[/quote]
I am not for killing any one or thing . I think abortion could be the best alternative some could expect if they brought a baby into the world .
I think wanted is a CRUCIAL element in raising a happy well adjusted child
[/quote]
We’re not talking about the best case for raising a child, talking about letting it live. And you are for killing anyone because you support an action that kills human beings. The fact that it is a human life trumps all.
“Viability” is a fluid concept, and entirely dependent upon our technology. It is currently possible to keep a fetus alive outside of the womb after only about 22 weeks of gestation. Next year that number may drop to 20 weeks. In the future it may be possible to gestate a fetus from zygote to infant entirely in an artificial incubator, which will make the issue of “viability” entirely moot, because every fertilized egg will be theoretically viable. [/quote]
Then if it is viable , by all means remove it and place it where it is wanted
[/quote]
So your real criteria is whether or not a human being is wanted, not whether or not it’s a human being. You are for the killing or unwanted human beings. You don’t give a rats ass about a human life, you only care if that human life is “wanted”. Be honest.[/quote]
I am not for killing any one or thing . I think abortion could be the best alternative some could expect if they brought a baby into the world .
I think wanted is a CRUCIAL element in raising a happy well adjusted child
[/quote]
We’re not talking about the best case for raising a child, talking about letting it live. And you are for killing anyone because you support an action that kills human beings. The fact that it is a human life trumps all.[/quote]
I am not talking about best case scenario . I am talking about reality . I talking about drug addiction , poverty, abuse and many other scenarios that could make death a better option for a child than living
I am not talking about best case scenario . I am talking about reality . I talking about drug addiction , poverty, abuse and many other scenarios that could make death a better option for a child than living
[/quote]
And THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS! The truth at last! Death is better for a kid then living in a perceived ‘bad situation’.
I am not talking about best case scenario . I am talking about reality . I talking about drug addiction , poverty, abuse and many other scenarios that could make death a better option for a child than living
[/quote]
And THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS! The truth at last! Death is better for a kid then living in a perceived ‘bad situation’.[/quote]
there you go skipping several words from zygote to the elderly in one fell swoop .
child
CHīld/
noun
noun: child; plural noun: children
1.
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
synonyms: youngster, little one, boy, girl;
baby, newborn, infant, toddler;
cherub, angel;
schoolboy, schoolgirl;
minor, junior, preteen;
son, daughter, descendant;
informalkid, kiddie, tot, tyke, young ?un, lad, rug rat, ankle-biter;
derogatorybrat, guttersnipe, urchin, gamin, gamine;
literarybabe, babe in arms;
offspring, progeny, issue, brood, descendants
"a well-behaved child"
I am not talking about best case scenario . I am talking about reality . I talking about drug addiction , poverty, abuse and many other scenarios that could make death a better option for a child than living
[/quote]
And THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS! The truth at last! Death is better for a kid then living in a perceived ‘bad situation’.[/quote]
there you go skipping several words from zygote to the elderly in one fell swoop .
[/quote]
Well you did not put those words in, for me to skip in the first place. And from zygote to elderly, it’s the same human being. Prove to me you were a different human being when you were in the zygote stage, than you are now…
And you said “…could make death a better option for a child than living”, which pretty much proves that you know for a fact that in utero, there is a living human being there, but rather than exposing it to an unpleasant environment, it’s better off dead. You painted yourself into a corner with that one hoss. There is no way out of it now.
Right, that’s it.
I’m not having this. I’m not having either of you making dishonest, snarky comments where the life of a child is in question.
There is a moral difference between a fiscal conservative saying this and anybody else.
You see, I find it difficult to look at a child in poverty because I know I can’t do anything about it, and that makes me a weakling.
Conservatives find it difficult because they know they could. And that makes them cowards.
The issue here is that you cannot ask a woman to carry a child against her will. And banning abortion doesn’t make that any less likely. It makes it more dangerous.
The actual figures, I think, are immaterial. Let me ask you a question:
What crime would you not permit if it led to a reduction in its occurence?
The fact is that at some point, we have to draw a line in the sand and say ‘this is where we go no further’. And where children’s and women’s lives are at stake, we’ve crossed that point a long time ago.
There are no easy answers here, but what we cannot have is a situation where we decide, on a blanket basis, that abortion is illegal, or unavailable, because that constitutes a breach of basic human rights.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You are aware it is illegal to kill a child
child
CHīld/
noun
noun: child; plural noun: children
1.
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
synonyms: youngster, little one, boy, girl;
baby, newborn, infant, toddler;
cherub, angel;
schoolboy, schoolgirl;
minor, junior, preteen;
son, daughter, descendant;
informalkid, kiddie, tot, tyke, young ?un, lad, rug rat, ankle-biter;
derogatorybrat, guttersnipe, urchin, gamin, gamine;
literarybabe, babe in arms;
offspring, progeny, issue, brood, descendants
"a well-behaved child"[/quote]
Yup, and outside an abortion clinic, it’s illegal to kill a human in the fetal stage. Otherwise explain to my why Scott Peterson is serving time for double murder, when he killed his pregnant wife.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
Right, that’s it.
I’m not having this. I’m not having either of you making dishonest, snarky comments where the life of a child is in question.
There is a moral difference between a fiscal conservative saying this and anybody else.
You see, I find it difficult to look at a child in poverty because I know I can’t do anything about it, and that makes me a weakling.
Conservatives find it difficult because they know they could. And that makes them cowards.
The issue here is that you cannot ask a woman to carry a child against her will. And banning abortion doesn’t make that any less likely. It makes it more dangerous.
[/quote]
Ask a woman to carry a child against her will? Well you need to argue with nature on that one. We didn’t design the reproductive process.
Abortion by definition is dangerous. It’s a procedure that kills another human being.
You would have to have actual proof of a causal relationship between legalization and crime to have any grounds to make such a claim. Not correlation, causal. Second, for your logic to hold water at all, you would have to concede to legalize murder. Simply because people do it anyway, does not mean that something should then be permissible.
Abortion being legal breaches the most basic human right, the right to live. This is not a complicated issue. You want to make it complicated so you can justify the right to terminate another human life at will. You want to be able to kill when it’s inconvenient for you that another person lives. It’s a very simple answer, you are just on the wrong side of it.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You are aware it is illegal to kill a child
child
CHīld/
noun
noun: child; plural noun: children
1.
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
synonyms: youngster, little one, boy, girl;
baby, newborn, infant, toddler;
cherub, angel;
schoolboy, schoolgirl;
minor, junior, preteen;
son, daughter, descendant;
informalkid, kiddie, tot, tyke, young ?un, lad, rug rat, ankle-biter;
derogatorybrat, guttersnipe, urchin, gamin, gamine;
literarybabe, babe in arms;
offspring, progeny, issue, brood, descendants
"a well-behaved child"[/quote]
Yup, and outside an abortion clinic, it’s illegal to kill a human in the fetal stage. Otherwise explain to my why Scott Peterson is serving time for double murder, when he killed his pregnant wife.[/quote]
I am guessing he is guilty of the murder of his wife an unborn child .
You have a better case with Castro punching the mother in the stomach to case the baby to abort. I do not know if you notice or not but once you are deemed public enemy regardless of guilt (1) they will get you with everything . It just goes to show you how good our justice system actually works (EYE ROLL)
[quote]Ask a woman to carry a child against her will? Well you need to argue with nature on that one. We didn’t design the reproductive process.
Abortion by definition is dangerous. It’s a procedure that kills another human being. [/quote]
So is childbirth. A large percentage of fetuses- if you’re wondering how large, it’s fair to say most fetuses- don’t make it to term anyway. That almost always happens a long time before they become viable, but then so do most abortions.
Nope, sorry. What I want is for people like you to stop cutting welfare. But you’re right- it’s very simple. The decision over whether a woman carries a child to term or not is a medical matter between her and her doctor, and you and I have no say whatsoever in it whether we like it or not. I don’t get to vote another human being out of existence, even if I wanted to, and you don’t get to interfere with a woman’s reproductive rights. That simple.
Seriously, it’s high time this issue stopped being a political football. Watching both sides wax lyrical about these issues to their drivelling hordes makes me feel fucking angry.
[quote]Ask a woman to carry a child against her will? Well you need to argue with nature on that one. We didn’t design the reproductive process.
Abortion by definition is dangerous. It’s a procedure that kills another human being. [/quote]
So is childbirth. A large percentage of fetuses- if you’re wondering how large, it’s fair to say most fetuses- don’t make it to term anyway. That almost always happens a long time before they become viable, but then so do most abortions.
Nope, sorry. What I want is for people like you to stop cutting welfare. But you’re right- it’s very simple. The decision over whether a woman carries a child to term or not is a medical matter between her and her doctor, and you and I have no say whatsoever in it whether we like it or not. I don’t get to vote another human being out of existence, even if I wanted to, and you don’t get to interfere with a woman’s reproductive rights. That simple.
Seriously, it’s high time this issue stopped being a political football. Watching both sides wax lyrical about these issues to their drivelling hordes makes me feel fucking angry.[/quote]
A miscarriage is not the same thing as an abortion.
The decision to carry a child to term can be a medical issue, but it isn’t alwaysa medical issue.
Not even necessarily a miscarriage- sometimes the zygote fails to implant.
If we’re going to play the ‘slippery slope’ game, then you might as well consider masturbation to be murder.
Fair enough, but if the decision is economic or moral, it still doesn’t follow that anybody else has a say in it. I might think that it’s better for a child to be poor than never to have been born, but I don’t get to tell that to the mother.
The right to choose when and where to have children. Please don’t ask me to explain the obvious.
I don’t actually want to debate this, because I think it’s sick.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
Not even necessarily a miscarriage- sometimes the zygote fails to implant.
If we’re going to play the ‘slippery slope’ game, then you might as well consider masturbation to be murder.[/quote]
A miscarriage, zygote failing to implant, etc… are all naturally occuring. Where in nature does a pair of clamps & a vacuum end a pregnancy? Sperm is not a human being.
[quote]
Fair enough, but if the decision is economic or moral, it still doesn’t follow that anybody else has a say in it. I might think that it’s better for a child to be poor than never to have been born, but I don’t get to tell that to the mother. [/quote]
We should not have a say on whether a man and woman want to make a baby, but we should have a say on whether or not they want to end that babies life. We do this all the time.
[quote]
The right to choose when and where to have children. Please don’t ask me to explain the obvious.
I don’t actually want to debate this, because I think it’s sick. [/quote]
Ya, I don’t see anything about the right to choose when and where to exterminate a baby. Why is that “right” greater than said babies “right” to live.
Let’s be real. 99% of abortions are done out of convenience to the mother & father. 99% of the time it’s a way to avoid the repercussions and responsibilities of their actions.
For the proabortionists, why is it unreasonable for the anti-abortionist to ask that the choice when and where to have kids be made before a life is created?
Nope, sorry. What I want is for people like you to stop cutting welfare. But you’re right- it’s very simple. The decision over whether a woman carries a child to term or not is a medical matter between her and her doctor, and you and I have no say whatsoever in it whether we like it or not. I don’t get to vote another human being out of existence, even if I wanted to, and you don’t get to interfere with a woman’s reproductive rights. That simple.
Seriously, it’s high time this issue stopped being a political football. Watching both sides wax lyrical about these issues to their drivelling hordes makes me feel fucking angry.[/quote]
False. I, for one, am not using this as a political issue. It is, and has always been, properly viewed as an ETHICAL issue. If you want to talk about grandstanding politicians then ok–but that’s not the issue, and ethics =/= politics. Like it or not, you failed to address the ethical issue at hand. Varq has his own take on this, but he is addressing–in part at least–the core question.
Ethical questions are the fundamental ones which medical matters and law questions execute, or purport or aim to execute.
And finally–unless you are going to make a cogent argument on welfare, please leave the red herring at the door. The two issues are nowhere near related in terms of ethics as you have voiced the matter.
This obviously hits close to home for you as it does many people on both sides of the issue. I would ask, however, that you make a case for your opinion on the fundamental ethical dilemma.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
Not even necessarily a miscarriage- sometimes the zygote fails to implant.
If we’re going to play the ‘slippery slope’ game, then you might as well consider masturbation to be murder.[/quote]
WRT masterbation being murder/sperm. This is fallacious and you know it. Again please leave the fallacious pseudo argument at the door.
Fair enough, but if the decision is economic or moral, it still doesn’t follow that anybody else has a say in it. I might think that it’s better for a child to be poor than never to have been born, but I don’t get to tell that to the mother.
The question to murder somebody walking along the road is a moral question, do you not have a say in it? Perhaps not because you are not inside the mind of the perpetrator, but the question at hand is, does society have a say in that ethical question? Societies (meaning “mass members of society”) routinely give say in ethical and moral questions, even those in which many members of the society are not facing the ethical choice themselves. It happens all the time, in all cultures, across thousands and thousands of years.
You have the burden of proof to show why 5000+ years of this should be in this one case prohibited.
The right to choose when and where to have children. Please don’t ask me to explain the obvious. [/quote]
The question for you is–does or does not the decision to have sex between two consenting adults constitute the right to choose? It obviously prima facie does. If not I would like to hear why not. And don’t bother bringing up rape because I will grant that premise to you–but more importantly it accounts for a miniscule part of the whole.
your decision to have sex, and to acknowledge the risks
your decision to use or not use protection, and to acknowledge the risks.
These are voluntary decisions made by two human beings in what essentially amounts to a social contract, either very short term (i.e. one night stand) or long term. But they are mutual and voluntary, which constitutes a choice.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
For the proabortionists, why is it unreasonable for the anti-abortionist to ask that the choice when and where to have kids be made before a life is created?[/quote]
It isn’t unreasonable to ask, but do you think it works? I think it only works on people who wouldn’t have an abortion in the first place.