Quote :

"Oh look, a strawman. good work!"

The claim "Hitler didn't murder anyone" would be disputed by just about anyone. It's an apologistic claim to say otherwise.

Quote :

"You can't define murder as being the unlawful killing of a person only when it suits your argument "

so then I change it. woopty FUCKING do. the point is the same god damned thing. end of your point. all you have is SEMANTICS. semantics to cover the MURDER of the unborn. because they are inconvenient. you'll forgive me if I'm not crying a river over semantics at this point. The fucking DICTIONARY even shows that murder is a term that exists in and out of the legal system. You wanna go back and reargue WHATEVER THE FUCK that was. fine. find it, and I'll clarify. WOOPTY FUCKING DO. the point is the same.

Quote :

"To be for something that cannot be undone if the accusations and convictions are proven incorrect, you must have a lot of faith in the justice system."

Actually, I have very little faith in it. But murdering the innocent 100% of the time versus killing the innocent after due process 5% of the time is hardly a fair comparison.

Quote :

"You made a claim. Back it up. "

It's in THIS FUCKING THREAD. You've read it. You know it's fucking true. I'm not doing more work to please you.

Quote :

"You realize that medication can be used to induce an abortion/miscarriage."

At which point you have murdered a child if you knew you were pregnant and meant to kill the child

[Edited on July 18, 2011 at 8:47 PM. Reason : ]

7/18/2011 8:41:32 PM

Quote :

""I think that all decisions regarding abortion should be restricted to women" yep. perfectly rational idea. because the woman is the only one affected here. yep."

Once again, the unparalleled elaboration skills!

So who else in involved?

7/18/2011 10:15:07 PM

Quote :

"The claim "Hitler didn't murder anyone" would be disputed by just about anyone."

So, is your defense really going to be that "anyone" who doesn't know the meaning of the word "murder" is going to dispute me because they don't know the meaning of "murder?" Really?

Who exactly is this "anyone?" The same people who think killing cows for food is murder? The same people who think picking apple from a tree and eating it is "murder?"

Quote :

"so then I change it."

So you're a huge fucking troll who changes his position and you change definitions of words when it suits you? Good to know.

Quote :

"The fucking DICTIONARY even shows that murder is a term that exists in and out of the legal system."

The fucking DICTIONARY isn't defining murder in the same way that you're defining...

Quote :

"You wanna go back and reargue WHATEVER THE FUCK that was. fine. find it, and I'll clarify."

Please define the word murder. Do you view it as meaning the illegal murder of someone? Do you define it as being inhumane/barbarious killing of someone? Or do you define it as the immoral killing of someone?

Please, clarify this COMMON FUCKING DEFINITION and try to legitimize your usage of the word "murder."

Quote :

"At which point you have murdered a child if you knew you were pregnant and meant to kill the child"

So if you don't know absolutely, they should be charged with manslaughter and receive 5-15 years?

7/18/2011 10:58:42 PM

There is no Abortion issue. No one has the right to tell another person how to live.

7/19/2011 1:50:09 PM

HAH!!!!

Quote :

"let's see... natural occurrence versus ripping the unborn out and directly causing the death. hmmmm. That's akin to saying "people die all the time when they are 20. there's no need to prosecute someone for murdering a 20 year old"

I forgot how The Abortion Issue brings the lols. So what, you think that killing a 20 year old is the same as aborting an 8 week old fetus? Seriously?

7/19/2011 2:24:55 PM

Quote :

"So, is your defense really going to be that "anyone" who doesn't know the meaning of the word "murder" is going to dispute me because they don't know the meaning of "murder?" Really? "

Let's take a straw poll, then. Did Hitler murder 6 million jews? Yes or No? Hands in the air please...

Quote :

"So who else in involved?"

Let's see, the one about to be murdered? The father? just two off the top of my head.

Quote :

"So you're a huge fucking troll who changes his position and you change definitions of words when it suits you? Good to know."

no, because I don't even know WHAT the fuck you were talking about. It's not "trolling" to clarify a position.

Quote :

"The fucking DICTIONARY isn't defining murder in the same way that you're defining..."

yes. yes it is. #5. damn, that was hard!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder
Then wikipedia... note that it says IMMORAL as well as unlawful. holy shit. in other words, it's a concept that is both in and outside of law. wow!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

Quote :

"Please define the word murder."

please show me what the fuck we were talking about before and I'll show why it wasn't murder. But, also, please keep saying that Hitler and OJ didn't murder people.

Quote :

"So if you don't know absolutely, they should be charged with manslaughter and receive 5-15 years?"

If you've got legitimate reason to know, then you should be charged with murder. Why else would you be taking such a pill. Oh, hop hum, think I'll take a few abortion pills today... Ho hum...

Quote :

"There is no Abortion issue. No one has the right to tell another person how to live."

wat?

Quote :

"I forgot how The Abortion Issue brings the lols. So what, you think that killing a 20 year old is the same as aborting an 8 week old fetus? Seriously?"

The point. You missed it. The LOLs were in the original statement saying that it was A-OK to kill something because it dies all the time at that age. I showed how absurd that statement was

[Edited on July 19, 2011 at 3:31 PM. Reason : ]

7/19/2011 3:31:18 PM

Quote :

"Let's see, the one about to be murdered? The father? just two off the top of my head."

And you're not included!

7/19/2011 3:34:04 PM

oh, well. I guess I'm also not included in the person being shot at in a drive by or being the shooter. No need to make a law about that. I'm also not included in the victim or perpetrator of a robbery. No need to make a law about that. Nope.

7/19/2011 3:35:04 PM

Since you obviously need some hand-holding here I'll rephrase my question to something more direct. Do you believe that the in vitro fertilization process is murder? And yes, this is relevant whether or not you choose to acknowledge that fact or not.

7/19/2011 3:35:05 PM

The 24 hour time cube is also relevant. Why? Because I say it is. So discuss it!

7/19/2011 3:35:42 PM

It's a straightforward question. Are your beliefs so pliable that you dare not answer?

7/19/2011 3:40:00 PM

LOL LOL LOL

This is what ruins politics these days. People get so stuck on principles that they refuse to bend and compromise.

If pro choice ended tomorrow it would not have a catastrophic effect on women, just as the way the abortion laws act now do not have a catastrophic toll on "murder".

7/19/2011 3:59:06 PM

Question for all Pro-life supporters:

Are you also against In Vitro ferilization (IVF)?

I find it facinating that many Pro-Life activist will support parents unable to bear their own children to seek fertility treatment like IVF when normally a termination of one or more of the embryo's are involved within the uterus when physicians find multiple embryo's have taken.

Other embryo's created are frozen, indefinitely in a cyro bank, or destroyed.

Should this fertility treatment be deemed illegal as well?

7/19/2011 5:27:57 PM

That has been brought up before, and the pro-lifers dodge the argument.

I'm anti abortion personally, just FYI, but pro-choice when it comes to public policy.

7/19/2011 5:43:14 PM

Quote :

"If pro choice ended tomorrow it would not have a catastrophic effect on women"

I know. they'd have to actually think about what happens when they refuse to shut their legs.

Quote :

"That has been brought up before, and the pro-lifers dodge the argument."

No, no one has even tried to explain the relevance before until now.

7/19/2011 5:53:28 PM

Quote :

"I know. they'd have to actually think about what happens when they refuse to shut their legs."

The Point. You missed it. (lol again, they just keep coming)

Abortion clinics are not used as frequently as you are spilling blood over. A lot of women decide to just keep the baby. That is what I am saying.

7/19/2011 5:56:52 PM

Should IVF be a viable option for couples wanting to have children of their own?

If you outlaw abortion this will not be an option. Fertility treatments that include but aren't limited to Embryo transfer, IVF, etc will not be an option anymore.

You aren't just taking the choice away from mothers wanting to abort a pregancy, you are also taking away the choice for couples to create one.



[Edited on July 19, 2011 at 6:01 PM. Reason : .]

7/19/2011 5:59:10 PM

Quote :

"No, no one has even tried to explain the relevance before until now."

So what you admit is that you needed someone to paint you a fucking picture instead of actually having a well thought out position fortified by solid convictions. What's amusing is that you still didn't answer the question. You would have at least had a shred of credibility by also admitting that IVF was murder as much as abortion given your stated very narrow interpretation of when life begins. Instead, you continue looking like a bloviating buffoon. And here's where you merely whine and cry ad hom.

7/19/2011 6:16:37 PM

Quote :

"Let's take a straw poll, then. Did Hitler murder 6 million jews? Yes or No? Hands in the air please..."

No. He killed, immorally, 6 million jews.

Quote :

"yes. yes it is. #5. damn, that was hard! http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder Then wikipedia... note that it says IMMORAL as well as unlawful. holy shit. in other words, it's a concept that is both in and outside of law. wow! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder"

#5 says:

Quote :

"to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously."

An earlier part of the discussion was:

Quote :

" merbig: [quote]So now you're trying to define murder as the immoral killing of someone?"

aaronburro-I know. how I dare I try to use a COMMON FUCKING DEFINITION of the word. So common that it's actually in the dictionary![/quote]

Inhumane and barbarous is not the same as immoral.

As far as wikipedia goes, hello, 24.63.136.181. Nice edit.

Quote :

"If you've got legitimate reason to know, then you should be charged with murder. Why else would you be taking such a pill. Oh, hop hum, think I'll take a few abortion pills today... Ho hum..."

What if you want to take it to just be on the safe side?

7/19/2011 9:35:41 PM

Quote :

"So what you admit is that you needed someone to paint you a fucking picture instead of actually having a well thought out position fortified by solid convictions. What's amusing is that you still didn't answer the question. You would have at least had a shred of credibility by also admitting that IVF was murder as much as abortion given your stated very narrow interpretation of when life begins. Instead, you continue looking like a bloviating buffoon. And here's where you merely whine and cry ad hom. "

aaronburro answer a question when the answer obviously is damaging to his argument? BWAHAHAHAHAH. In before he calls it irrelevant.

7/20/2011 5:14:42 PM

AHA, OMG, I made a post at the bottom of page 6 about why adoption would not work for certain populations. Anyway, I said two out of three when I meant one out of three. 1 out of 3 is what is reported by anti-abortion groups, not 2 out of 3.

This slightly changes the post a bit, but the gist remains the same.

I can't believe I got that flipped though.

7/23/2011 10:31:25 PM

^

Quote :

"I we outlaw abortion, the adoption scenario only works out for certain groups. Black women account for a disproportionate number of abortions. For instance, they accounted for 45 percent of abortions in NC in 2006, but they make up only 21.6 percent of the population. Furthermore, I've seen reports (keep in mind, they're from anti-abortion agencies) that supposedly 2 out of 3 black pregnancies are terminated with abortion. Of course, of the 1 out of 3 pregnancies that are not aborted, some of those may end up in adoption or miscarriage so even the 1 out of 3 is not guaranteed to result in a child that grows up with the biological family. On the other end of things, black people disproportionately do not qualify to adopt. So what we end up with is a lot of black babies available for adoption and not a lot of black parents able to adopt. If we banned abortion and attempted to replace it with adoption, obviously the racial disparity between adoptable babies and adoptive families would get even greater. In fact, if we imagine a world where abortion is outlawed and adoption is used instead, following the current statistics to their theoretical ends...we could see a country in which the majority of black children are raised in non-black homes (or foster/group homes). Of course, this would never happen! There would be a major intensification of the backlash against adoption in the black community. Black women would be discouraged from ever even considering adoption and would have to keep their unwanted pregnancies or seek an illegal/dangerous abortion instead. So adoption as an alternative to illegal abortion would be a privilege primarily reserved for white women and the white families who are able to adopt."

could use some copy edit

7/23/2011 11:25:54 PM

should govt buy people contraceptives? I want the pro-lifers to respond and actually justify their position.

Apparently this is being discussed in Washington. Something about getting insurance to fund contraceptives.

And in case anyone was unclear about the evidence, it's more expensive for insurance rate payers as well as government programs to NOT pay for contraceptives. You would have to be an idiot to think otherwise.

7/25/2011 7:52:39 AM

this thread = tl;dr

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/07/implications-nebraskas-illconceived-fetal-pain-law.html

thought this article might be of interest

7/27/2011 4:55:58 PM

Quote :

"Abortion clinics are not used as frequently as you are spilling blood over."

murder doesn't happen as frequently as you bitch and moan about it. Thus, there's no need to worry about it or make laws against it.

Quote :

"So what you admit is that you needed someone to paint you a fucking picture instead of actually having a well thought out position fortified by solid convictions."

I wasn't going to research IVF just to make you happy. If you had a point, you should have fucking made it instead of being obtuse.

Quote :

"What's amusing is that you still didn't answer the question."

Maybe because I had to form an opinion. What a shocker. I know you like to fire from the hip, but I don't. Having said that, given that the removal of the embryos is 100% analogous to abortion, I see no difference. But, that's something partially separate from IVF. Assuming we had a perfect technology where only one implanted embryo survived, then there would be no need to cull the rest, and then your question would, again, be irrelevant. Now, obviously, that's not the case. The only "out" could be to claim that the extra embryos represent a "health risk" to the mother, but I'd think that's a weasely way out. I'd say it's functionally the same, and we should endeavor to find methods that don't require the implantation of multiple embryos.

Quote :

"No. He killed, immorally, 6 million jews."

so you, too, will not step up to plate and call murder murder.

Quote :

"Inhumane and barbarous is not the same as immoral."

I predict this was a brilliant strawman set up by taking one quote and stringing it to another unrelated one.

Quote :

"As far as wikipedia goes, hello, 24.63.136.181. Nice edit."

Not my IP address. You lose.

Quote :

"What if you want to take it to just be on the safe side?"

The fuck? Why would you take an abortive pill "to be on the safe side" if you have no legitimate reason to know? That's absurd, and you know it.

Quote :

"should govt buy people contraceptives? I want the pro-lifers to respond and actually justify their position."

I'm OK with the gov't making contraceptives available to at-risk groups of people who otherwise might not be able to afford them.

Quote :

"Something about getting insurance to fund contraceptives."

Insurance? No. That just continues down the road of making insurance be what it's not supposed to be.

7/28/2011 3:35:08 AM

So In Vitro Fertilization is mass murder then? God damn you're retarded, but at least you're consistent.

7/28/2011 11:21:17 AM

Quote :

"Insurance? No. That just continues down the road of making insurance be what it's not supposed to be."

You've lost that battle anyway. Insurance is a huge number of things that you probably don't want it to be, and it's only going to get worse. I would personally rather see plans axe Viagra before contraception.

Plus, you're not giving any thought to the cost. There are some methods that will run you a pretty penny, and I would have similar hesitation about seeing health insurance plans covering those.

But condoms. Condoms are so cheap they should pretty much be given out to anyone who wants them. This is pretty much already done, but I want to hear if you agree or not.

Quote :

"I'm OK with the gov't making contraceptives available to at-risk groups of people who otherwise might not be able to afford them."

Sure, this should be a matter of what-to-who-at-what-cost.

Latex condoms, however, are so cheap at this point that arguing against doesn't make sense in just about any context unless it's some kind of religious or moral objection.

7/28/2011 12:10:04 PM

Quote :

"Latex condoms, however, are so cheap at this point "

When is the last time you went by the drug store and bought some? They cost more than you'd think. I have no idea why they cost that much, but they are fairly expensive.

7/28/2011 4:06:05 PM

^ that is a good point. I think it is unsurprising that the consumer market would be charging more than it needs to... obviously. And honestly I think that a grocery store or gas station would opt to put a floor on the price in order to make $$ when someone wanders in for a... desperation purchase. In other words, at some point someone is going to walk into the store willing to pay up to like $10 for even just one condom, because you know... mood and all.

Just because I'm curious I Googled about this:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/ten-little-known-facts-about-condoms-planned-parenthood-35210.htm

Quote :

"The condom is one of the most accessible and inexpensive forms of birth control available. The cost of condoms is as low as $0.04 per unit.[8] "

Their reference is: UNAIDS. (2010). Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic 2010. Geneva: UNAIDS.

Now, what does this mean? Obviously someone in the world gets bulk orders for 4 cents per condom. I really doubt that it's just inherently cheaper in India than the US or something silly like that. I would really hope that Planned Parenthood itself would release figures for how much it spends on bulk condom purchases, just so that it can say to people "look how little this costs!"

7/28/2011 5:26:35 PM

Quote :

"North Carolina lawmakers pass abortion law over veto (Reuters) - Women seeking an abortion in North Carolina will have to wait 24 hours, receive counseling and be presented with an ultrasound image of the fetus under an informed consent law passed on Thursday over the governor's objections. Democratic Governor Beverly Perdue had vetoed the measure. But the state Senate voted on Thursday to override the veto, two days after the House of Representatives took similar action, which means the bill is now law and will take effect in October. North Carolina joins 25 other states that require pre-abortion counseling that goes beyond basic medical "informed consent," according to Elizabeth Nash, public policy associate with Guttmacher Institute in Washington. It is the tenth state to include the additional requirement of an ultrasound, which has drawn legal challenges in several states, Nash said. The North Carolina law will require that an ultrasound image be presented and the sound of the fetal heartbeat be offered, though a woman is free to look away and ignore an explanation and medical description of what is on the screen. Perdue, a Democrat and North Carolina's first female governor, vetoed the bill on June 27. In her veto message, she called the legislation a "dangerous intrusion into the confidential relationship that exists between women and their doctors." Republican Representative Ruth Samuelson, the primary sponsor of the bill, has defended it as providing crucial information for women who are making a major and irrevocable decision. "

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/28/us-abortion-northcarolina-idUSTRE76R6LW20110728

7/28/2011 5:37:50 PM

Quote :

"so you, too, will not step up to plate and call murder murder."

I will not apply an incorrect term to something in a desperate attempt to appeal to people's emotions as you are doing.

Quote :

"I predict this was a brilliant strawman set up by taking one quote and stringing it to another unrelated one."

Let me requote again:

Quote :

" merbig: So now you're trying to define murder as the immoral killing of someone?""

Your direct response to the statement:

Quote :

"aaronburro: I know. how I dare I try to use a COMMON FUCKING DEFINITION of the word. So common that it's actually in the dictionary!"

Brilliant? Perhaps. Strawman. Definitely not.

And here's a picture in case you're still confused:

Quote :

"Not my IP address. You lose."

Amazing coincidence that part was amended onto the wikipedia article after I referenced it when it was absent well over a year.

Quote :

"The fuck? Why would you take an abortive pill "to be on the safe side" if you have no legitimate reason to know? That's absurd, and you know it."

People take the morning after pill to be on the safe side...

Quote :

"Thus, there's no need to worry about it or make laws against it."

You have no logical reason for wanting to outlaw abortion.

Quote :

"When is the last time you went by the drug store and bought some? "

He makes a thread in CC every time he gets laid. We see a thread every 1 to 2 years. I'm sure the pack he bought will last a lifetime given his history and stupidity. Besides, I think he's more concerned about getting a job right now.

^ Jeeze our legislature sounds like a bunch of 4chan trolls dictating that a doctor basically goes:

"I'm just going to leave this here:

"

[Edited on July 28, 2011 at 7:35 PM. Reason : .]

7/28/2011 7:29:25 PM

Quote :

"Republican Representative Ruth Samuelson, the primary sponsor of the bill, has defended it as providing crucial information for women who are making a major and irrevocable decision."

This is fucking horseshit. This isn't about information; a woman getting an abortion can ask for any and all of these if she so wishes. It's about injecting bullshit theology into our lives unrequested and unneeded. It's the height of arrogance and stupidity to suggest that women getting abortions are not informed and acutely aware of the gravity of their decision. Bravo, NC Republicans.

7/29/2011 9:15:37 AM

How many jobs will this create?

7/29/2011 1:12:07 PM

This isn't going to make a damn bit of difference. The first thing that you do at an OBGYN is to see the baby and hear the heartbeat, and most women are going to go see a doctor when they learn that they are pregnant.

7/29/2011 1:22:07 PM

I thought NC GOP was going to focus on job creation rather than building a nanny state and trying to legislate morality based on their religious beliefs. I guess I was wrong. Down with the NC GOP in 2012!

7/29/2011 1:25:29 PM

Quote :

"I thought NC GOP was going to focus on job creation rather than building a nanny state and trying to legislate morality based on their religious beliefs."

And since we are forcing the people to be informed with the reasoning from the defenders of this law, why don't we make food places give out pictures of cows and sounds of mooing that come with cow products? I bet that would solve the obesity problem in the US...

7/29/2011 1:35:15 PM

I just want to say that not all IVF procedures involve selective reduction. In fact, there are major consequences for doctors who go over the recommended limit. I believe most organizations recommend two embryos at a time (at most).

7/29/2011 1:50:21 PM

^ Yes, there are guildlines that suggest no more than 3 embryos are to be implanted into the uterus, but they choose these embryos from multiple embryos they created in the lab. They select the healthiest looking embryos to implant. On average 6-8 embryos are created in the lab and the "best" 3 are used. The others are either frozen, destroyed or die.


More embryos are destroyed/frozen (and never implanted) in fertility labs than any abortion clinics. I find it funny that most Pro-lifers storm Planned Parenthood and other Women's Clinics and never think to walk over and picket Fertility Clinics.

7/31/2011 3:41:45 PM

well aren't the embryos single celled? A consistent view to hold on abortion is that killing embryos is fine but killing fetuses beyond X date is murder.

I think the vast majority of us oppose partial birth abortion, as well as being perfectly permissive of the killing of unfertilized eggs and sperm. The entire "abortion issue" lies in the ground between those two.

partial birth abortion is just about infanticide IMO. I wouldn't have a problem with someone directly calling it that. Now, there are consistent ethical arguments to say infanticide should be allowed or should be allowed in some cases too. I don't know of anyone who has proposed that yet, but I do think aaronburro would have a keyboard heart attack if they did.

7/31/2011 9:43:06 PM

no, its anything after fertilization that is at issue here. If any pro-lifer concedes abortion post conception, then they have no valid argument to be against a later abortion.

7/31/2011 11:59:00 PM

Quote :

"no, its anything after fertilization that is at issue here. If any pro-lifer concedes abortion post conception, then they have no valid argument to be against a later abortion."

That's just plain stupid.

Even pro-choice people are generally against infanticide. Is there then something special about the baby coming out of the vaginal canal? It suddenly has legal protection after the point it's legs make it through? That's just as stupid as requiring that all fertilized eggs have legal protection. There are fertilized eggs that don't successfully implant and go out with the period.

If pro-life people are going to argue something as stupid as that a fertilized egg deserves protection, then they might as well protest any given lump of stem cells that people are using for research.

Every consistent view has some hazy line somewhere.

8/1/2011 12:28:28 AM

Quote :

" Is there then something special about the baby coming out of the vaginal canal?"

Yes. At this point is is no longer a direct medical concern for the woman carrying it. It's rights are no longer trumped by the woman's right to her own bodily autonomy. The physiology of the fetus is wholly irrelevant. It's not infanticide until it's an infant and it's not an infant until it's out of the mother's body.

All the argumentation about zygotes' and embryos' physiology is just to emphasize the ridiculousness of considering early-stage gestating humans as people. Going on pure physiology, there most likely is a point considerably before fullterm birth where the baby's brain and neural systems don't differ from an infant. But the true issue is the woman's autonomy.

None of this suggests that more than a fraction of abortions are late-term anyway. Nor more than a tiny fraction of abortions are done for unjustified reasons. The desire to ban all abortions is unscientific, unjustified by the actual practice of abortions in this country, and entirely motivated by religious nonsense.

8/1/2011 9:18:22 AM

Quote :

"Yes. At this point is is no longer a direct medical concern for the woman carrying it. It's rights are no longer trumped by the woman's right to her own bodily autonomy. The physiology of the fetus is wholly irrelevant. It's not infanticide until it's an infant and it's not an infant until it's out of the mother's body."

I'm not an expert, so I'm asking you: How different is abortion of a fetus from artificially induced delivery within a week or so of the due date?

I give you the autonomy arguments, there is a difference between a fetus that requires the mother to carry it through a significant fraction of pregnancy, versus one that has just come out or can be pulled very soon. If the fetus can live without the aid of the mother on short notice, then technically, society has the ability to care for the child, should it be willing to do so (and generally it is in the wealthy half of the world).

It just seems to me that for a very late term pregnancy, there is little physical difference to the mother between aborting it and delivering it. In that case, it seems like you get in some very tenuous territory to claim that the baby needs the mother.

8/1/2011 1:10:40 PM

The difference is the choice of the mother.

Quote :

"It just seems to me that for a very late term pregnancy, there is little physical difference to the mother between aborting it and delivering it. In that case, it seems like you get in some very tenuous territory to claim that the baby needs the mother."

I'm not saying there's any physical difference between the two. If a full term pregnant woman were to just disappear and leave the fetus behind it would survive with care, no problem. I'm never claiming that a full term or even a near full term fetus needs the mother to survive. But that pregnancy is a medical issue for the mother and forcing her to have one procedure over another is an infringement of her bodily rights.

I'm not sure anyone disagrees with this, they just disagree with the notion that the woman's rights trump the fetus' rights. For me, this is the case up to the point where the fetus is no longer a medical issue for the woman.

8/1/2011 5:31:02 PM

Quote :

"It's the height of arrogance and stupidity to suggest that women getting abortions are not informed and acutely aware of the gravity of their decision. Bravo, NC Republicans."

qft

Honestly, it's insulting that they assume women don't know what abortion is and need to have it "explained" to them.

8/1/2011 6:48:18 PM

I don't believe they really think that. They just know that can't get all abortions banned so they try to wedge legislation in edgewise to get the ball rolling.

8/1/2011 7:08:23 PM

Quote :

"^ Yes, there are guildlines that suggest no more than 3 embryos are to be implanted into the uterus, but they choose these embryos from multiple embryos they created in the lab. They select the healthiest looking embryos to implant. On average 6-8 embryos are created in the lab and the "best" 3 are used. The others are either frozen, destroyed or die. More embryos are destroyed/frozen (and never implanted) in fertility labs than any abortion clinics. I find it funny that most Pro-lifers storm Planned Parenthood and other Women's Clinics and never think to walk over and picket Fertility Clinics."

I know that, I just thought he was referring to implanted embryos. Then again, I'm not the type to consider the fertilized embryos anything more than a clump of cells because I don't believe life starts at conception. :\

8/2/2011 3:57:50 PM

You would think more people would think like that, but when Pro-Lifers try to also argue that the morning after pill is an "abortion pill" and that life begins at conception .With that being argued then it is important to note that more embryo's are destroyed in IVF (even if it's outside the uterus) than in abortion clinics.

I am pro-choice, but I'm also against partial birth abortion (in instances where the mothers health is not threatened).

The point in which the fetus could survive outside the uterus is where I draw the line. Until then, being pregnant is nothing more than a parasitic medical condition.

8/2/2011 5:45:22 PM

I guess that's why I hate having to answer where I draw the line.. because not every baby is going to be able to survive at the same point in time. Yeah you could draw the line at an arbitrary week of development (like some people) or maybe pick a developmental milestone (like when surfactant develops on the lungs), but I guess I keep thinking of other possibilities.

I mean, I guess you could say there should be a given point in time when you consider special medical facilities being able to keep some very premature children alive... But on a side note, I do love when people get all up in arms and act like a 20 week old fetus is the same as an infant. I wish they would google a picture of a 20 week old fetus then come back to me and try to say it's "like a normal baby." (Yes, I have had someone say that before)


There's a reason these youngins are supposed to cook for 38+ weeks and not 20 -.-


(Not ranting at you, just in general )

8/2/2011 11:31:02 PM

Quote :

"But that pregnancy is a medical issue for the mother and forcing her to have one procedure over another is an infringement of her bodily rights. I'm not sure anyone disagrees with this, they just disagree with the notion that the woman's rights trump the fetus' rights. For me, this is the case up to the point where the fetus is no longer a medical issue for the woman."

I don't have a problem with the health of the mother taking priority in basically all circumstances. But still, there is going to be some point at which getting the baby out alive or dead doesn't make a difference to the health of the mother. At that point society should be able to say "if you don't want it we're taking it"

8/3/2011 9:21:33 AM