This is What's Wrong With Abortion

[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:…who’s pro-abortion here? Abortion is limited by law already, and altough the law does not prevent excesses, it does the job just fine. If you want to limit the number of abortions performed you start by educating children and make contraception readily available, not by denying 150 million people basic human rights. Just think: if Roe vs Wade gets overturned, you can never say “Land of the Free!” anymore…

“Choices” can be limited when your “choice” effects others. I can’t shoot my neighbor in the foot, so we aren’t free by your ignorant definition of freedom anyway.

I would retort with some disparaging remark about the stat of your country, but I honestly don’t find it important enough to even Google much less read about. But thanks for your thoughts anyways.

…it isn’t disparaging if indeed abortion is outlawed, because that means that half your countries population lost it’s right to self determination, and is subject to the state. A fetus is not an other, it may become an other, but until it reaches a certain point in it’s development, it’s not an other and therefore does not have the same rights a living, breathing person has…

The Fetus
At this point the embryo is developed enough to call a fetus. All organs and structures found in a full-term newborn are present.

Weeks 9 to 12 – 3 inches, 1 ounce: The head comprises nearly half of the fetus? size and the face is well formed. The eyelids close now and will not reopen until about the 28th week. The tooth buds for the baby teeth appear. The genitalia are now clearly male or female.

Weeks 13 to 16 – 6 inches: These weeks mark the beginning of the second trimester. A lthough the skin of the fetus is almost transparent, fine hair develops on the head called lanugo. The fetus makes active movements, including sucking, which leads to some swallowing of the amniotic fluid. A thin dark substance called meconium is made in the intestinal tract. The heart beats120-150 beats per minute and brain waves detectable.

Weeks 17 to 20 – 8 inches: Eyebrows and lashes appear and nails appear on fingers and toes. This is an exciting time for the parents: The can mother feel the fetus moving (“quickening”) and the fetal heartbeat can be heard with a stethoscope.

Weeks 21 to 24 – 11.2 inches, 1 lb. 10 oz.: All the eye components are developed, footprints and fingerprints are forming, and the entire body covered in cream-cheese-like vernix caseosa. The fetus now has a startle reflex.

Weeks 25 to 28 – 15 inches, 2 lbs. 11 oz.: Now we are entering the third trimester. During these weeks, we see rapid brain development. The nervous system is developed enough to control some body functions, and the eyelids open and close. A baby born at this time may survive, but the chances of complications and death are high.

Weeks 29 to 32 – 15 -17 inches, 4 lbs. 6 oz.: These weeks see further development towards independent life: There is a rapid increase in the amount of body fat and the fetus begins storing its own iron, calcium, and phosphorus. The bones are fully developed, but still soft and pliable. There are rhythmic breathing movements present, the fetal body temperature is partially self-controlled, and there is increased central nervous system control over body functions.

Weeks 33 to 36 – 16 -19 inches, 5 lbs. 12 oz. to 6 lbs. 12 oz.: The lanugo (body hair) begins to disappear. A baby born at 36 weeks has a high chance of survival.

Weeks 37 to 40 – 19 - 21 inches 7 or 8 pounds: At 38 weeks, the fetus is considered full term. It fills the entire uterus, and its head is the same size around as its shoulders. The mother supplies the fetus with the antibodies it needs to protect it against disease.

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/genpsyfetaldev.html

[/quote]

That’s a slippery slope…So when does life begin? Inquiring minds want to know.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
orion wrote:

I must inform you that “smoking up a doobie” can get you arrested in the Netherlands too.

If it contains tobacco.

http://forum.poppies.org/index.php?showtopic=16087

Priceless.

Plus, FYI there has never been a documented case of a licensed Austrian prostitute with HIV.

Well, there you go. Legalizing things makes them safer.

Once abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will perform abortions. Outlaws with dirty tools and far less medical training than the Haitian hack in the linked story.[/quote]

Hmmm, so if we legalize rape, would it be safer? You said it, I didn’t.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
But doesn’t welfare help to support the innocent children of families that are in poverty (the rest of your list I fully agree with so am having trouble drumming up an argument here)[/quote]

No, social services is there to take care of children. Welfare is there mostly to take care of the lazy. Imagine if we diverted all welfare money to helping kids instead.

…life starts with awareness, imo. That means that when the brain is developed enough to be aware, that’s when life starts. So, after week 23 or thereabouts…

[quote]pat wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Scott Peterson is in prison for double murder…One of the murders was his unborn son.

how does that work now? If you want it, it’s a life, but if you don’t, it’s not a life.

It is a paradox of the law…Terminating a pregnancy out side the haven of an abortion clinic, can get you prosecuted for murder…So technically, you can only off your offspring in designated areas legally.
Go punch a pregnant woman in the gut hard enough to kill her baby and see what you get in a court of law. [/quote]

…it’s not a paradox at all Pat. A woman has every right to decide what happens with her fetus within a certain time frame. It’s not for someone else to decide what happens to it. That’s why you’re prosecuted if you willingly
caused an involuntary abortion…

[quote]pat wrote:
Varqanir wrote:

Well, there you go. Legalizing things makes them safer.

Once abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will perform abortions. Outlaws with dirty tools and far less medical training than the Haitian hack in the linked story.

Hmmm, so if we legalize rape, would it be safer? You said it, I didn’t.[/quote]

You’re forcing me to recycle my jokes.

“We already have legalized rape, Pat. We just call it ‘marriage.’”

[cue laugh track]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Scott Peterson is in prison for double murder…One of the murders was his unborn son.

how does that work now? If you want it, it’s a life, but if you don’t, it’s not a life.

It is a paradox of the law…Terminating a pregnancy out side the haven of an abortion clinic, can get you prosecuted for murder…So technically, you can only off your offspring in designated areas legally.
Go punch a pregnant woman in the gut hard enough to kill her baby and see what you get in a court of law.

…it’s not a paradox at all Pat. A woman has every right to decide what happens with her fetus within a certain time frame. It’s not for someone else to decide what happens to it. That’s why you’re prosecuted if you willingly
caused an involuntary abortion…

[/quote]

Then the charge would be something akin to destruction of property. Murder implies you killed another human being having all the rights thereof.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pat wrote:
Varqanir wrote:

Well, there you go. Legalizing things makes them safer.

Once abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will perform abortions. Outlaws with dirty tools and far less medical training than the Haitian hack in the linked story.

Hmmm, so if we legalize rape, would it be safer? You said it, I didn’t.

You’re forcing me to recycle my jokes.

“We already have legalized rape, Pat. We just call it ‘marriage.’”

[cue laugh track][/quote]

Not according to the married people I know. It sounds like a good way to remain celebrate to me.

Besides rape is legal if you call it surprise sex.

[quote]ephrem wrote:
pat wrote: That’s a slippery slope…So when does life begin? Inquiring minds want to know.

…life starts with awareness, imo. That means that when the brain is developed enough to be aware, that’s when life starts. So, after week 23 or thereabouts…

[/quote]

So if somebody is in a coma they are not alive? They certainly aren’t aware. Sorry that definition doesn’t really work. Certainly person is useless with out a brain, but If i shove a brain in a can, it’s not a person…Could be a tasty meal, but not a person. There is more to a person than just brain activity. Since not all gestation’s are the same, some awareness may come earlier or later.

If you have seen films of abortions, even early on the fetus writhes at it is getting mutilated. Like any living thing, it strives for survival, even when technically not aware. It sure knows it’s being cut up. It’s hard to say “Oh that’s not a person” and a couple of weeks later Viola! it suddenly a person.

[quote]ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Scott Peterson is in prison for double murder…One of the murders was his unborn son.

how does that work now? If you want it, it’s a life, but if you don’t, it’s not a life.

It is a paradox of the law…Terminating a pregnancy out side the haven of an abortion clinic, can get you prosecuted for murder…So technically, you can only off your offspring in designated areas legally.
Go punch a pregnant woman in the gut hard enough to kill her baby and see what you get in a court of law.

…it’s not a paradox at all Pat. A woman has every right to decide what happens with her fetus within a certain time frame. It’s not for someone else to decide what happens to it. That’s why you’re prosecuted if you willingly
caused an involuntary abortion…

[/quote]

If it is murder for somebody to kill a woman’s fetus, but perfectly ok to murder it herself, how is that not a paradox. The life she is taking is not her own…It is either a person or it is not, there is no kinda, sorta here. Person or not a person. It’s murder or it’s not.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pat wrote:
Varqanir wrote:

Well, there you go. Legalizing things makes them safer.

Once abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will perform abortions. Outlaws with dirty tools and far less medical training than the Haitian hack in the linked story.

Hmmm, so if we legalize rape, would it be safer? You said it, I didn’t.

You’re forcing me to recycle my jokes.

“We already have legalized rape, Pat. We just call it ‘marriage.’”

[cue laugh track][/quote]

No that’s just legalized man abuse. If wify don’t wanna, you ain’t gettin’ shit. If you take it, she’ll come and cut it off at night, then fuck your friends.

[quote]pat wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
Why do people care about this so much?

Is it because they see babies as innocent and human life as sacred?

How then do they not care so much about wars waging all over the world, and “collateral damage” caused - shouldn’t you be fighting against war with all your energy?

Collateral damage from war is not the topic at hand, but most of us do care about that as well. Feel free to start a thread about that.
At 40+ million babies killed and counting by “legal” abortion, the casualty rate is much higher than any war. Only Stalin legally killed more people.[/quote]

I think Mao would be very dissapointed that you are ignoring him.

[quote]pat wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
orion wrote:

I must inform you that “smoking up a doobie” can get you arrested in the Netherlands too.

If it contains tobacco.

http://forum.poppies.org/index.php?showtopic=16087

Priceless.

Plus, FYI there has never been a documented case of a licensed Austrian prostitute with HIV.

Well, there you go. Legalizing things makes them safer.

Once abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will perform abortions. Outlaws with dirty tools and far less medical training than the Haitian hack in the linked story.

Hmmm, so if we legalize rape, would it be safer? You said it, I didn’t.[/quote]

Yes it would be safer for both the rapist and the victim. But the two are not exactly comparable.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
But doesn’t welfare help to support the innocent children of families that are in poverty (the rest of your list I fully agree with so am having trouble drumming up an argument here)

No, social services is there to take care of children. Welfare is there mostly to take care of the lazy. Imagine if we diverted all welfare money to helping kids instead.[/quote]

Then their parents would use it to pay for cable subscriptions. I agree that some people who are below the poverty line are there because they are lazy.

I am however happy for a proportion of my wages to go to helping people who are less considerate than myself regardless of the fact that a proportion are in that situation due to their own stupidity.

I guess that just makes me a good Christian (well apart from the believing in god bit.)

[quote]pat wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Scott Peterson is in prison for double murder…One of the murders was his unborn son.

how does that work now? If you want it, it’s a life, but if you don’t, it’s not a life.

It is a paradox of the law…Terminating a pregnancy out side the haven of an abortion clinic, can get you prosecuted for murder…So technically, you can only off your offspring in designated areas legally.
Go punch a pregnant woman in the gut hard enough to kill her baby and see what you get in a court of law.

…it’s not a paradox at all Pat. A woman has every right to decide what happens with her fetus within a certain time frame. It’s not for someone else to decide what happens to it. That’s why you’re prosecuted if you willingly
caused an involuntary abortion…

If it is murder for somebody to kill a woman’s fetus, but perfectly ok to murder it herself, how is that not a paradox. The life she is taking is not her own…It is either a person or it is not, there is no kinda, sorta here. Person or not a person. It’s murder or it’s not.
[/quote]

I agree that the person that deliberately kills a 20 week old fetus by punching a woman in the gut should not be charged with murder. (where I the father I am sure I would disagree but that is why the victim doesn’t judge cases).

This doesn’t mean the guy should not get an extremely hefty sentence, but technically he has not murdered a living breathing person with full rights.

Abortion is a paradox but rightly so, it should be argued on a case by case basis, you can’t come up with black and white laws for a grey area.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
But doesn’t welfare help to support the innocent children of families that are in poverty (the rest of your list I fully agree with so am having trouble drumming up an argument here)

No, social services is there to take care of children. Welfare is there mostly to take care of the lazy. Imagine if we diverted all welfare money to helping kids instead.

Then their parents would use it to pay for cable subscriptions. I agree that some people who are below the poverty line are there because they are lazy.

I am however happy for a proportion of my wages to go to helping people who are less considerate than myself regardless of the fact that a proportion are in that situation due to their own stupidity.

I guess that just makes me a good Christian (well apart from the believing in god bit.)[/quote]

Liberals measure compassion by how many people they can give welfare to, conservatives measure compassion by how few need it.

I’m fine with giving my money to the less fortunate to help them on their feet. I’m not okay with the government stealing what I do have to give and squandering it.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
But doesn’t welfare help to support the innocent children of families that are in poverty (the rest of your list I fully agree with so am having trouble drumming up an argument here)

No, social services is there to take care of children. Welfare is there mostly to take care of the lazy. Imagine if we diverted all welfare money to helping kids instead.

Then their parents would use it to pay for cable subscriptions. I agree that some people who are below the poverty line are there because they are lazy.

I am however happy for a proportion of my wages to go to helping people who are less considerate than myself regardless of the fact that a proportion are in that situation due to their own stupidity.

I guess that just makes me a good Christian (well apart from the believing in god bit.)

Liberals measure compassion by how many people they can give welfare to, conservatives measure compassion by how few need it.

I’m fine with giving my money to the less fortunate to help them on their feet. I’m not okay with the government stealing what I do have to give and squandering it.

[/quote]

I guess I have a foot in both camps then, I want to ensure that people who need aid get it whilst working to minimise the need. (you don’t need to be either or.)

And the government isn’t stealing your money. They work for you, they are your government. If you don’t like the policy, vote differently, start your own party or move somewhere else.

I don’t like paying taxes but I see them as necessary. If I didn’t I would be living in Jersey or Monaco.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
But doesn’t welfare help to support the innocent children of families that are in poverty (the rest of your list I fully agree with so am having trouble drumming up an argument here)

No, social services is there to take care of children. Welfare is there mostly to take care of the lazy. Imagine if we diverted all welfare money to helping kids instead.

Then their parents would use it to pay for cable subscriptions. I agree that some people who are below the poverty line are there because they are lazy.

I am however happy for a proportion of my wages to go to helping people who are less considerate than myself regardless of the fact that a proportion are in that situation due to their own stupidity.

I guess that just makes me a good Christian (well apart from the believing in god bit.)

Liberals measure compassion by how many people they can give welfare to, conservatives measure compassion by how few need it.

I’m fine with giving my money to the less fortunate to help them on their feet. I’m not okay with the government stealing what I do have to give and squandering it.

I guess I have a foot in both camps then, I want to ensure that people who need aid get it whilst working to minimise the need. (you don’t need to be either or.)

And the government isn’t stealing your money. They work for you, they are your government. If you don’t like the policy, vote differently, start your own party or move somewhere else.

I don’t like paying taxes but I see them as necessary. If I didn’t I would be living in Jersey or Monaco.[/quote]

I’m not an anarchist like some on this board. Not to through my hat in with faux-ultra-cons, but the best form of government is the one that governs the least.

I think the government should be like a good officiating crew in sports, invisible, but present. The are there to make sure the playing field is level, not pull for the underdog or take points from the team that’s scoring and give to the team that is getting trampled. In the financial world the stripped shirts make up the rules as the go to force the game to be close.

The less you work the more the stripped jerseys are on your side.

fair comment, the problem is that we elect the government based on a tv popularity contest so the chances of getting people who want to stay in the background are pretty slim.

I think Billy Connelly had it right when he said that the desire to be a politician should preclude you from the race.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
fair comment, the problem is that we elect the government based on a tv popularity contest so the chances of getting people who want to stay in the background are pretty slim.

I think Billy Connelly had it right when he said that the desire to be a politician should preclude you from the race.[/quote]

Some smart guy once told me, we were screwed once politician became a career opportunity.