the abortion thread

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Look, I agree with you on the abortion thing, but this isn't a very solid argument. The reason you can't do those things isnt because it's your body. It's because by doing that you'd infringe on the rights of other people. They would see you naked, etc as it's PUBLIC and it belongs to everyone. You're allowed to do those things in private because at that point, it bothers no one else.

 

While I personally think that a fetus is a person as well, and that you're infringing on it's rights to live by aborting it, there is an argument the opposite way and is what prompted me to say that this entire debate boils down to when you believe life begins.

 

You can think/say/feel what you want, but please try and not make those of us who agree with you look like backwards, close minded idiots by using that kind of argument.

 

I think that you have some good thoughts on this one and I can tell you that this is not necessarily the right forum for such an argument. Don't get discouraged if you are or are not getting the right reception on this.

 

Better to take it offline, but not in this setting.

[Me_2006 14]

I think that you have some good thoughts on this one and I can tell you that this is not necessarily the right forum for such an argument. Don't get discouraged if you are or are not getting the right reception on this.

 

Better to take it offline, but not in this setting.

Oh trust me, there's not a damn thing that could happen on here to discourage me from anything. It's pretty apparent that most people here are just looking to get a rise out of someone. I learned even on the main bored that this isn't the place for any kind of serious discussion for the most part and have eventually learned the few posters who you can carry on an actual debate with. It's the people who pencil us all in the same way because we're pro-life or whatever that I worry about reading posts like that. Idiocy sticks out, logic is often lost.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Oh trust me, there's not a damn thing that could happen on here to discourage me from anything. It's pretty apparent that most people here are just looking to get a rise out of someone. I learned even on the main bored that this isn't the place for any kind of serious discussion for the most part and have eventually learned the few posters who you can carry on an actual debate with. It's the people who pencil us all in the same way because we're pro-life or whatever that I worry about reading posts like that. Idiocy sticks out, logic is often lost.

 

Well, I don't want you to get discouraged into thinking that there is no value here. There are some folks here who offer some very valuable assessments on quite a few things (life, science, relationships, etc.). However, you seem to have a good base at home and I would hate to have a heated debate like this one discourage your participation.

 

I am willing to bet that you and I don't agree on several things. I am also willing to bet that we could agree to discuss those items. I may sound old in this statement, but I hope that I have the same discourse with my kids (and I have tried it).

[Strike 5,515]

A newborn baby can't live outside of the womb on it's own either. It will die within days if it were to have to fend for itself. A newborn baby is just as dependent on it's mother to survive as a baby inside the womb is.

 

As noted this is a stupid argument. It's even stupider because it's not true. A baby is dependent on SOMEONE after birth, not necessarily it's mother. A baby never need see it's mother again after birth. Inside the womb it is dependent on it's mother.

[Savage Beast 1]

While I personally think that a fetus is a person as well, and that you're infringing on it's rights to live by aborting it, there is an argument the opposite way and is what prompted me to say that this entire debate boils down to when you believe life begins.

 

Life begins on conception though, so it does not boil down to this. It boils down to moral law, not life.

 

Human life is created on conception, and basic human biological science proves it. The abortion debate is not about whether a human fetus is alive, but rather whether a woman's rights supersede the rights of a human fetus. Since a human fetus can't speak for itself, and a grown woman can speak for herself, then it's pretty clear that the law defends the strong, and condemns the weak and defenseless. Abortion is a very cold blooded and cowardly law to be able slay the weak and preserve the strong.

[kilroy69 1,245]

A woman's rights should ALWAYS supersede the rights of a fetus. Its her body.

[Savage Beast 1]

A woman's rights should ALWAYS supersede the rights of a fetus. Its her body.

 

It's not her body being destroyed, it's the human fetus that is living in her body being destroyed. Again, the law may dehumanize a fetus, but biology does not. It's a wicked and evil moral law, and has nothing to do with human life, because a fetus is a live human fetus, and biological science says so.

[kilroy69 1,245]

It's a wicked and evil moral law

You have the right to your opinion however wrong it may be.

[surferskin 30]

i guess this thread has changed a lot of minds. it's a good thing kilroy decided to make the 1001st thread on this. though it may not have accomplished the obvious goal, it did however make kilroy look even dumber than his geek club picture... HERE...which was no easy task.

[porkbutt 893]

the baby killers lost this thread

[Frank M 181]

Life begins on conception though, so it does not boil down to this. It boils down to moral law, not life.

 

Human life is created on conception, and basic human biological science proves it. The abortion debate is not about whether a human fetus is alive, but rather whether a woman's rights supersede the rights of a human fetus. Since a human fetus can't speak for itself, and a grown woman can speak for herself, then it's pretty clear that the law defends the strong, and condemns the weak and defenseless. Abortion is a very cold blooded and cowardly law to be able slay the weak and preserve the strong.

 

The prevailing law of the land is that a woman may have an abortion if she so desires, whatever the reason. You can moan about the unfairness of it all you want, but at this point and time, her rights supersede the rights of the fetus she carries.

 

And a majority of people support that right.

[surferskin 30]

The prevailing law of the land is that a woman may have an abortion if she so desires, whatever the reason. You can moan about the unfairness of it all you want, but at this point and time, her rights supersede the rights of the fetus she carries.

 

And a majority of people support that right.

what law would that be? the right to "privacy"? because i don't remember congress ever passing an abortion law.

[Frank M 181]

what law would that be? the right to "privacy"? because i don't remember congress ever passing an abortion law.

 

Is there a law on the books banning abortion in the United States?

 

I know people who favor banning abortion get in a twist about supposed fabricated rights as a result of Roe v Wade, but it still doesn't change the fact that any woman can get an abortion in this country if she wants to.

 

But you're right. Congress never passed an "abortion law". They never passed a law giving me the right to shop at whatever grocery store I choose, either, but I still have that choice.

[hoytdwow 202]

It's nice to see that rationality leads zealotry in this pole

 

[surferskin 30]

But you're right. Congress never passed an "abortion law". They never passed a law giving me the right to shop at whatever grocery store I choose, either, but I still have that choice.

was that ever "illegal" before the supreme court decided to legislate from the bench? c'mon, if you're going to make a strawman, you can do better than that.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

was that ever "illegal" before the supreme court decided to legislate from the bench? c'mon, if you're going to make a strawman, you can do better than that.

 

What?

 

Abortion had been legal right up until the law challenged in Roe v. Wade. The SCOTUS took that into consideration (read the ruling sometime) and ruled that the law making it illegal was unconsitutional. That is not legislating from the bench, that is doing their job.

[surferskin 30]

What?

 

Abortion had been legal right up until the law challenged in Roe v. Wade. The SCOTUS took that into consideration (read the ruling sometime) and ruled that the law making it illegal was unconsitutional. That is not legislating from the bench, that is doing their job.

abortions weren't always legal in the US, correct?

[porkbutt 893]

It's nice to see that rationality leads zealotry in this pole

 

yeah "women's choice" is rational.

 

 

also, maybe we should change it to baby seals or albino pigeons or something. then all the libbo queers will vote against killing them.

[Frank M 181]

was that ever "illegal" before the supreme court decided to legislate from the bench? c'mon, if you're going to make a strawman, you can do better than that.

 

 

I'm not making a strawman. I'm saying you're right, there is no law passed guaranteeing the right to an abortion. The right is guaranteed, though.

[TheNewGirl 1,481]

Interesting stuff from wiki:

 

Activities of Norma McCorvey (Roe in Roe v. Wade)

Norma McCorvey became a member of the pro-life movement in 1995; she now supports making abortion illegal. In 1998, she testified to Congress:

 

“ It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the "right" to abortion out of legal thin air. But Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told me that what I was signing would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, "Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible." Sarah never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control. We talked about truly desperate and needy women, not women already wearing maternity clothes.[5] ”

 

As a party to the original litigation, she sought to reopen the case in U.S. District Court in Texas to have Roe v. Wade overturned. However, the Fifth Circuit decided that her case was moot, in McCorvey v. Hill.[57] In a concurring opinion, Judge Edith Jones agreed that McCorvey was raising legitimate questions about emotional and other harm suffered by women who have had abortions, about increased resources available for the care of unwanted children, and about new scientific understanding of fetal development, but Jones said she was compelled to agree that the case was moot. On February 22, 2005, the Supreme Court refused to grant a writ of certiorari, and McCorvey's appeal ended.

 

 

State abortion bans

On March 6, 2006, hoping to directly challenge Roe v. Wade, South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds signed into law a pro-life statute which made performing abortions a felony. That law was subsequently repealed in a referendum held on November 7 of the same year.[58] On February 27, 2006, Mississippi’s House Public Health Committee voted to approve a ban on abortion, but that bill died after the House and Senate failed to agree on compromise legislation.[59]

 

Several states have enacted so-called "trigger laws" which "would take effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned."[60] Those states include Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota.[61] Other states have passed laws to maintain the legality of abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned, and those states include California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada and Washington.[61]

[surferskin 30]

I'm not making a strawman. I'm saying you're right, there is no law passed guaranteeing the right to an abortion. The right is guaranteed, though.

no, you were actually. again, abortions used to be illegal in this country and all of a sudden they weren't...with zero new laws passed. your grocery shopping analogy sucked.

[TheNewGirl 1,481]

There is a law, it's the Fourteenth Amendment. Making abortions illegal infringes on the Fourteenth Amendment:

 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Telling me that I can't do what I want to my body violates my constitutional rights as a human being living/born in this country.

 

ETA: The debate generally comes in here, as well...the fetus is a human living in this country, why are we violating it's right to a healthy birth, etc.

 

Just saying, I can see both sides of the coin on this one, but making abortion illegal would have greater affect on our country, and not neccessarily in a good way. I am pro-choice simply because it may not be MY choice to get an abortion, but someone else might want/need to make that choice at some point in their lives, and who am I to tell them that their choices are wrong.

[hoytdwow 202]

also, maybe we should change it to baby seals or albino pigeons or something. then all the libbo queers will vote against killing them.

 

actually, to make the analogy at least logically comprehensible, don't you mean letting baby seals or albino pigeons have abortions?

 

oh wait, you godfreaks are by default logically incomprehensible. I forgot.

[surferskin 30]

There is a law, it's the Fourteenth Amendment. Making abortions illegal infringes on the Fourteenth Amendment:

Telling me that I can't do what I want to my body violates my constitutional rights as a human being living/born in this country.

babe, try an keep up please. that amendment was passed a LONGGGG time ago and abortions were STILL illegal after it was ratified. that was my point, of course the SCOTUS interpreted that to mean abortions are "legal" but it really wasn't their place. there should have been an actual law that could be voted on by the congress that referred specifically to abortion.

[Bill E. 703]

I'm a nutjob who believes that abortion should be legal, but that men get equal reproductive rights to women. That is to say, with very few exceptions (some already noted) - two people created that pregnancy, it should take agreement of the two to destroy it.

 

Run with that one.

 

Nope. You gave away your spooge. Kind of like a gift. You knew what might happen and what your responsibility might be when you gave it away. You really do not have a right to say what can be done with said gift once it is given.

[wiffleball 4,790]

I'm willing to guess that the heartbeat would come well before a lot of moms to be would ever even know they were prego. Women can have erratic periods, be emotional and have swelling breasts for whole lot of different reasons other than just being knocked up.

 

My school of thought is that if a fetus is physically able to survive outside of a womb, then it can't be aborted. Anything before that is a mother's decision to make.

 

 

Your first point is valid. However, I think if you're sexually active and not on contraceptive measures, AND you don't want to have children, you have a responsibility to get yourself tested. I know it's short window, but it's the best I can think of and still stay consistent with current law. I'm pro-choice to an extent, but it seems consistent and logical that stopping a beating heart may be equated to murder.

 

As to your 2nd point, that's a tough one. For example, I was 2 months premature with the "RH" factor (killer back in the day) and had to have 7 transfusions when I was born. Back in the day, I was not supposed to live. They gave me last rights AND baptism on my first day. Now, RH is cured with a simple shot and premature babies are thriving earlier and earlier. On the other hand, perfectly healthy full term babies just up and die shortly at or after birth. So, I just don't know how you determine whether "a fetus is physically able to survive outside of a womb".

 

The good news is that the majority (almost 60%) of abortions are done at or before week 8. While a heartbeat is present, brain activity is not. Much like Gutterboy.

[wiffleball 4,790]

Here's an interesting little statistic:

 

Abortion rates 2000-2001 by ethnicity:

 

Black women: 49 per 1,000

 

Hispanic women: 33 per 1,000

 

White Chicks: 13 per 1,000

 

Very surprised at the Hispanic chicas given the Catholic influences in that community.

 

On the other hand, Black women are killing Black babies at almost 4 times the rate of white women. Given that black men only comprise 5-6% of the total US population as it is right now and given that as much as one in three black men are in prison or jail (or probation) at any one time. This leads to a very troubling finding:

 

In 20 years, the NFL is gonna suck.

[TheNewGirl 1,481]

babe, try an keep up please. that amendment was passed a LONGGGG time ago and abortions were STILL illegal after it was ratified. that was my point, of course the SCOTUS interpreted that to mean abortions are "legal" but it really wasn't their place. there should have been an actual law that could be voted on by the congress that referred specifically to abortion.

 

 

There's no reason to get snarky with me. I am trying to participate in this discussion.

 

 

There will never be a "vote" that applies specifically to abortion, becuase no one can agree. Hence, the debate.

[wiffleball 4,790]

Life begins on conception though, so it does not boil down to this. It boils down to moral law, not life.

 

Human life is created on conception, and basic human biological science proves it. The abortion debate is not about whether a human fetus is alive, but rather whether a woman's rights supersede the rights of a human fetus. Since a human fetus can't speak for itself, and a grown woman can speak for herself, then it's pretty clear that the law defends the strong, and condemns the weak and defenseless. Abortion is a very cold blooded and cowardly law to be able slay the weak and preserve the strong.

 

Says who? Not the courts. Not the bible. Don't impose your personal morality as some kind of fact. I've read every single one of the bible quotes related to this assertion and not ONE says that "life begins at conception".

 

You're entitled to your opinion, just don't assert it as fact. Conception is no more life than the start of the assembly line is a radio.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

abortions weren't always legal in the US, correct?

 

In many states, there were anti-abortion laws put into place to replace English common law. They had varying degrees of banning and punishments.

 

I would also note that during those times, women couldn't even vote.

[wiffleball 4,790]

I would also note that during those times, women couldn't even vote.

 

The good old days. Hillary wouldn't stand a chance back then.

[surferskin 30]

There's no reason to get snarky with me. I am trying to participate in this discussion.

There will never be a "vote" that applies specifically to abortion, becuase no one can agree. Hence, the debate.

isn't that a great reason to have a vote? seems like a better option than 9 unelected judges with lifetime appointments deciding.

[wiffleball 4,790]

There's no reason to get snarky with me. I am trying to participate in this discussion.

There will never be a "vote" that applies specifically to abortion, becuase no one can agree. Hence, the debate.

 

 

I tell ya, nothing changes a Christian Fundamenalists' view on abortion more than when his girlfriend pees on a stick.

[kutulu 1,676]

ABORT!! ABORT!!

[porkbutt 893]

actually, to make the analogy at least logically comprehensible, don't you mean letting baby seals or albino pigeons have abortions?

 

oh wait, you godfreaks are by default logically incomprehensible. I forgot.

who's a godfreak? i just happen to think killing little babies is wrong.

[Frank M 181]

no, you were actually. again, abortions used to be illegal in this country and all of a sudden they weren't...with zero new laws passed. your grocery shopping analogy sucked.

 

I was saying you're right. By all means, keep being a d1ck, though.

[surferskin 30]

I was saying you're right. By all means, keep being a d1ck, though.

oh, i will...it's my right.

[Frank M 181]

oh, i will...it's my right.

 

Actually, it's your nature.

[TheNewGirl 1,481]

Your first point is valid. However, I think if you're sexually active and not on contraceptive measures, AND you don't want to have children, you have a responsibility to get yourself tested. I know it's short window, but it's the best I can think of and still stay consistent with current law. I'm pro-choice to an extent, but it seems consistent and logical that stopping a beating heart may be equated to murder.

 

As to your 2nd point, that's a tough one. For example, I was 2 months premature with the "RH" factor (killer back in the day) and had to have 7 transfusions when I was born. Back in the day, I was not supposed to live. They gave me last rights AND baptism on my first day. Now, RH is cured with a simple shot and premature babies are thriving earlier and earlier. On the other hand, perfectly healthy full term babies just up and die shortly at or after birth. So, I just don't know how you determine whether "a fetus is physically able to survive outside of a womb".

 

The good news is that the majority (almost 60%) of abortions are done at or before week 8. While a heartbeat is present, brain activity is not. Much like Gutterboy.

 

I completely disagree with your post.

 

if you're sexually active and not on contraceptive measurse AND you dont' want kids...then you need to get on the pill or use condoms - NOT get an abortion. Sexual active people who don't want kids have a responsiblility to make sure that they don't get/get someone pregnant. It's not their responsiblity to "get tested." It's their responsibility to prevent that pregnancy if they are haivng sex, and ESPECIALLY if they don't want kids.

 

Brain activity IS present at 8 weeks. Can a fetus think for itself? Not really. However, to say that there is no brain activity present is asinine. Nervous system cells are among the first to develop, and there are stem cells that become nervous systems cells (brain, spinal column, and nerve cells) present at 4 WEEKS. FOUR.

 

There are numerous studies out there that show that fetuses can indeed feel pain and see light sources at 10 to 12 weeks (this is still within the first trimester when abortion is legal).

 

As for babies surviving outside the womb, every pregnancy has about a 75% chance of making it full term, while if you're at 34 weeks, it's closer to 90 or more percent. Those stats kind of point out that many babies have an excellent chance of surviving outside of the womb. Once you're past around 24 to 28 weeks, it goes up. A fetus pretty much resembles a small human being at 13 weeks. Between 13 and 40 weeks, all it does is get bigger. For what it's worth, a heartbeat can be found around 5 weeks. That goes to show that there is SOME brain activity at 5 weeks.

[Bigtraine 30]

When I look at all the douchbags, tools and fockfaces walking around today I wish there had been a lot more abortions done. I guess that makes me pro choice.