• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

That "Thing's a Baby"

What Is That Thing a Partial Birth Abortion Kills?

  • A Baby

    Votes: 18 66.7%
  • A Mass of Cells

    Votes: 9 33.3%

  • Total voters
    27
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
And my heart bleeds for them, then. Why is a person not present at the time of the crime being executed, especially when the punishment of rape is typically a short stint in jail? Couldnt the baby serve ninth months then be released for time served and ten years probabtion? They almost never repeat the crime they didn't do before then.



Perforted condoms is a subset of the class of causes known as "failed contraception". And if the manufacturer of the condom is not subject to execution when they fail, why is a person not in existence when the material failure occured required to pay the maximum penalty?

Damn, there's that "P" word. More koi koming soon!

Careless slut might work. Bimbo has lots of fun possibilities. Lots of possibilities if you're into labels. The relevant question is "why does the baby have to pay the price", not "what should we call the careless one?"

I deliberately set a distinction between "birth control" and "condoms", because things like the Pill, Depo Provera, IUDs, etc., do not protect against STDs, and condoms do, to a certain extent at least.

Fetuses/babies created as a result of rape....my personal opinion on this, if I were raped, I certainly wouldn't want to keep a child when I don't know anything about the father, or his medical history, and I couldn't give a child produced through rape up for adoption, either, again because of the lack of a complete parental medical history. I couldn't just pass on a child to some other person/couple and not give them any clue as to what potential illnesses/disorders/etc the child could be at risk for.

And in any case, why should a child have to sit in an orphanage waiting to be adopted, hating themselves because obviously their parents hated them if they gave them away, wondering if anyone can love them if their biological parents couldn't? Why should they feel like a lesser person because they don't have a "real" mommy and daddy?

No one's asking a "baby" to pay a price, unless we're talking about this hypothetical child given up for adoption (see above), or a pregnancy terminated after 23 weeks (other than a natural miscarriage). As I've stated before, for the purposes of debating about abortion, I don't consider a fetus a "baby" until after 23 weeks, when it actually has the possibility of sustaining life on its own, outside of the womb, without the aid of respirators (though respirators are sometimes needed, but that's always a possibility....I myself was born by C-section at 32 weeks, to save my life, and was on a respirator and in an incubator for a good month).
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So? Perception isn't reality. Reality is reality. People are notoriously unsane creatures that lie to themselves to hide from unpleasant truths. Women deciding to kill their own babies need to use words that don't sound like they're deciding to kill their own babies. Goes without saying.
Your reality is not the reality of everyone in the world.


Changing the words doesn't alter the reality of a dead baby, though, does it?

Again, not everyone views it as a baby at that stage.



No. It's not. A miscarriage is the extraction of an already dead baby.

An abortion kills the baby, then extracts it.


Actually, a miscarriage is the spontaneous expulsion of an unviable fetus, otherwise known as a spontaneous abortion.

Intact dilation and extraction is used when the miscarriage happens after a point in the pregnancy where the fetus cannot be expelled naturally, i.e. it's too large.

That little, teensy weensy difference is the reason why miscarriages are not supportive arguments for abortions of any type. I did mention that already in the post I wrote in response. Why did you fail to understand that difference then?

Going to bed. Good night, all.

No one is saying that miscarriage is a supportive argument for abortion.....I said it is viable in the case of the procedure pro-lifers call "partial birth abortion", or, the D&X as mentioned above.

I'm done trying to explain this for now. Perhaps another pro-choice advocate can explain it better than I can.
 
Hornburger said:
I believe that it is a baby because after conception it is injected with DNA, a fundamental component of what makes a human human. Just because something isn't developed (like not having thoughts, feelings, etc., or being more than a clump of cells) doesn't mean it isn't alive; it just means it's not developed yet.


Actually pretty much everything shares the same DNA information.... It is how it is arranged that determines what kind of creature will develop. For instance you can find the same DNA in a fish that you can in a human.

Also DNA exists in female ova and male sperm. Are these things humans? If they are then you better go out and demand that women stop having their menstral cycles because their killing their babies.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Was Tookie's head stuck someplace it shouldn't have been?

Can we not stray from the poll on the first responding post, please?:doh


Sorry.

But I know where this thread is going to go.... Everybody is going to start calling each other hyocrites and get peeved. Then the examples of other life situations start coming in and hey... we've got a battle royal with a cherry on top!
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
It's people like that that justifies any movement to shoot all lawyers.

People like me? I voted "baby" ...and if you're you're up for it, I wouldn't mind engaging in a little lawyer huntin'.
 
The Real McCoy said:
Do you have a proposal to combat the poverty problem?

Well you wouldn't like it, it has a lot to do with casting capitalism aside and pretty much offering things like food, housing, education in professional, skilled labor and trade positions and health care for free. And when these people get a job an actual living wage would be neccessary. There's too many CEO's and Presidents lining their pockets with bonuses and salary increases that they didn't have to earn to get. Just look at NWA, asking their pilots to take a 50% paycut while the company files backruptcy. This hasn't affected their top exec's salary one bit... in fact they just made around 20,000,000.00 a peice after consolitating the companies stock. Not to mention the american companies sending jobs over seas because they can pay the people there next to nothing.

I'd also like to see countries adopt manditory military service for everyone like Sweden does. It would teach people skills and discipline before their even out of high school.
 
Deegan said:
Sorry, I couldn't smell her from the comfort of my computer desk.:roll:


Ahhh. The mental masturbations of the misogynist.

I knew that is why you're against abortion! You don't like women! In fact you hate them!

Jeez, even gay men don't HATE women!

Creepy!
 
Saboteur said:
Well you wouldn't like it, it has a lot to do with casting capitalism aside and pretty much offering things like food, housing, education in professional, skilled labor and trade positions and health care for free. And when these people get a job an actual living wage would be neccessary. There's too many CEO's and Presidents lining their pockets with bonuses and salary increases that they didn't have to earn to get. Just look at NWA, asking their pilots to take a 50% paycut while the company files backruptcy. This hasn't affected their top exec's salary one bit... in fact they just made around 20,000,000.00 a peice after consolitating the companies stock. Not to mention the american companies sending jobs over seas because they can pay the people there next to nothing.

I'd also like to see countries adopt manditory military service for everyone like Sweden does. It would teach people skills and discipline before their even out of high school.

As.. umm.. Militant as it sounds.......

I kinda agree with that one, the discipline learned in the military is a major factor in who I will be "tomorrow" ( I say tomorrow because for right now im an unemployed bum waiting for Police Academy to start).
Also, may military service will slim up the future generations of America and we will stop being the fattest country in the world...lol
 
Saboteur said:
Well you wouldn't like it, it has a lot to do with casting capitalism aside and pretty much offering things like food, housing, education in professional, skilled labor and trade positions and health care for free. And when these people get a job an actual living wage would be neccessary.

Ahh... the perfect recipe for disaster.
 
Saboteur said:
Ahhh. The mental masturbations of the misogynist.

I knew that is why you're against abortion! You don't like women! In fact you hate them!

Jeez, even gay men don't HATE women!

Creepy!

No, you just have a dirty mind, I was actually referring to the scent of a woman, perfume, body lotion, the soap they use, there is a distinct smell. I love women dearly, especially my wife, I don't know why I'm even dignifying this with a response.......
 
Stace said:
I deliberately set a distinction between "birth control" and "condoms", because things like the Pill, Depo Provera, IUDs, etc., do not protect against STDs, and condoms do, to a certain extent at least.

Not a distinction relevant to the discussion.

Stace said:
Fetuses/babies created as a result of rape....my personal opinion on this, if I were raped, I certainly wouldn't want to keep a child when I don't know anything about the father, or his medical history, and I couldn't give a child produced through rape up for adoption, either, again because of the lack of a complete parental medical history. I couldn't just pass on a child to some other person/couple and not give them any clue as to what potential illnesses/disorders/etc the child could be at risk for.

I'm perfectly willing to leave the rape case off the table because while it's logically indefensible from the point of view of the child, the above argument also has merit, has a higher emotional loading, and, for this thread, doesn't alter the definition of the word "baby".

Stace said:
And in any case, why should a child have to sit in an orphanage waiting to be adopted, hating themselves because obviously their parents hated them if they gave them away, wondering if anyone can love them if their biological parents couldn't? Why should they feel like a lesser person because they don't have a "real" mommy and daddy?

Yes, it's much better to clear out all the orphanages because the kids are loaded with self-pity. Kill'em all and end their misery. :roll:

Stace said:
No one's asking a "baby" to pay a price,

True enough, no one's asking the child, they're simply killing it. Isn't that the heart of the abortion debate in a nutshell?

Stace said:
I don't consider a fetus a "baby" until after 23 weeks, when it actually has the possibility of sustaining life on its own, outside of the womb, without the aid of respirators (though respirators are sometimes needed, but that's always a possibility....I myself was born by C-section at 32 weeks, to save my life, and was on a respirator and in an incubator for a good month).

Well, that's what this thread really is all about. When does it become a baby? Steen, the inspiration for this thread, can't answer the question because his answer will be laughable in the face of his support of infanticide aka "partial birth abortion".

Myself, I know perfectly well that "baby" isn't a technical term but a malleable word in common usage whose intent is derived from context. If one guy walking down the beach nudges his friend and points to a well endowed girl saying "look at those babies", he's not talking about a wee child in diapers. Hence calling a fetus a "baby" isn't incorrect, it merely lacks precision and gains emotional inertia.

Denying that a human fetus isn't a human being is merely nonsense, even though again "human being" is a word as slippery as "baby".
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Not a distinction relevant to the discussion.



I'm perfectly willing to leave the rape case off the table because while it's logically indefensible from the point of view of the child, the above argument also has merit, has a higher emotional loading, and, for this thread, doesn't alter the definition of the word "baby".



Yes, it's much better to clear out all the orphanages because the kids are loaded with self-pity. Kill'em all and end their misery. :roll:



True enough, no one's asking the child, they're simply killing it. Isn't that the heart of the abortion debate in a nutshell?



Well, that's what this thread really is all about. When does it become a baby? Steen, the inspiration for this thread, can't answer the question because his answer will be laughable in the face of his support of infanticide aka "partial birth abortion".

Myself, I know perfectly well that "baby" isn't a technical term but a malleable word in common usage whose intent is derived from context. If one guy walking down the beach nudges his friend and points to a well endowed girl saying "look at those babies", he's not talking about a wee child in diapers. Hence calling a fetus a "baby" isn't incorrect, it merely lacks precision and gains emotional inertia.

Denying that a human fetus isn't a human being is merely nonsense, even though again "human being" is a word as slippery as "baby".

Thank you for responding respectfully to my post.

That's kind of why I threw in that last part, to hopefully get this thread back on track. "Baby" is certainly a word that is used in many different contexts, so for the sake of this thread, I'd say it's safe to assume that we're all discussing "baby" in the sense of fetuses and such.
 
Saboteur said:
Actually pretty much everything shares the same DNA information.... It is how it is arranged that determines what kind of creature will develop. For instance you can find the same DNA in a fish that you can in a human.
Yeah, that's what I meant lol.

Also DNA exists in female ova and male sperm. Are these things humans? If they are then you better go out and demand that women stop having their menstral cycles because their killing their babies.
No becaue the two didn't join. I'm not sure how genetics and the biology works and everything, but I assume that the DNA of the egg is different from the DNA of the sperm or the ovary. So...they would be different..
 
Deegan said:
No, you just have a dirty mind, I was actually referring to the scent of a woman, perfume, body lotion, the soap they use, there is a distinct smell. I love women dearly, especially my wife, I don't know why I'm even dignifying this with a response.......

As if. :roll: I'd just owned you without even trying, and the perfume excuse doesn't make any sense. *pat* It's okay with us, but you'd better not let your wife find out what you said.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Wouldn't it have been better if she'd made the correct choice and told the guy to keep it in his pants, or in some other method prevented the pregnancy in the first place? The choice she made to kill her child had to be, at most, the SECOND most important choice she made.

Actually, they were cases of failed contraception, and assuming otherwise has only rasulted in you shooting yourself in the foot. Contrary to the fantasies of anti-choicers, women who have abortions generally aren't braindead, raging sluts who don't know what a condom is.

Oh, and the one who'd had two was a married woman at the time.
 
Deegan said:
No, you just have a dirty mind, I was actually referring to the scent of a woman, perfume, body lotion, the soap they use, there is a distinct smell. I love women dearly, especially my wife, I don't know why I'm even dignifying this with a response.......


Sorry.... saw an opportunity and took it!

I am a saboteur ya know.
 
The Real McCoy said:
Ahh... the perfect recipe for disaster.


I wanted to add that I'm not saying 'universal health care' just free for the poor.

Yo may ask where the money will come from, but I ask why do we need money?

Anyway corruption has always ruined the honor system and I don't see that ever changing. So I do agree it has disaster potential.
 
vergiss said:
As if. :roll: I'd just owned you without even trying, and the perfume excuse doesn't make any sense. *pat* It's okay with us, but you'd better not let your wife find out what you said.



Actually, they were cases of failed contraception, and assuming otherwise has only rasulted in you shooting yourself in the foot. Contrary to the fantasies of anti-choicers, women who have abortions generally aren't braindead, raging sluts who don't know what a condom is.

Oh, and the one who'd had two was a married woman at the time.

Hey, if you don't bathe, that's your prerogative, but I think most women here understand what I was trying to say. I can see how you could have misunderstood me, by I have more then made myself clear, now you're just trying to be rude, and presumptuous.:roll:
 
Saboteur said:
Sorry.... saw an opportunity and took it!

I am a saboteur ya know.

Well thanks for your understanding, if only others could be as respectful.;)
 
PBA is only like .01% of all abortions and is only done when there is something seriously wrong with the baby or mother. At this point the baby is formed and in the (very unlikely) situation where a mother chooses just not to have him/her at this point would be senseless, not to mention crude, with the brain getting sucked out. Note that I'm not arguing against the mother's right to choose, but when you have a fully formed baby you already had plenty of time beforehand to make the decision and chose not to.
 
doughgirl said:
Steen said:
"Such self-awareness doesn't happen until 3rd trimester at the earliest."
Where is the proof? You again, once again, give no proof or links, YOU ENVER DO......to sources.
We have had many sources here regarding the thalamocortical tract. That you don't remember and instead spew false accusations is merely evidence of your inherent dishonesty, nothing else.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=165780
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=165704
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=153431&postcount=147
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=150772
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=140233&postcount=105
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=75179

There has been lots of proof that you have lots of times outright ignored. We are not at fault for your dishonesty, so stick a sock in it.
You say its not a baby until its born.
Yes, "baby" is a developmental stage starting at birth.
Now you say its aware in the third trimester...........
Rather, I am saying that it does not have the physical possibility of awareness before 3rd trimester.
please make your mind up one way or another.........
utter nonsense. It can certainly show awareness without having reached the "baby" stage of development. Your artificial dichotomy here is outright false.
Can something be aware of itself in the womb if its nothing like you say until after birth?
I have not said that it is "nothing" so once again you are LYING. As we have come to expect from you.
Your somethin else..........
There you are, talking to the mirror again.
 
Deegan said:
And if she fills her hole with cheeseburgers, and her heart explodes, will she then say, "I made my choices, no one tells me I made mistakes" You risk your life child, everytime you make these decisions, this is not getting a tooth filled, this is serious!:roll:
There is still no child, your revisionist linguistic hyperbole none withstanding. That aside, it doesn't matter a hill of beans to her that YOU are having moral hickups about a medical procedure.

But when you insist that women MUST feel some form of remorse or guilt after an abortion, then you would be outright lying. SO I hope this is not what you indicate here?
Deegan said:
I don't assume, I have talked with a number of women, and none have said it was something they did not have to seriously consider.
That certainly doesn't prove regret or guilt, though. Is this a habit of yours, this spewing non-answers?
Deegan said:
How the heck should I know why your friend is a irresponsible street walker, with no care, or regard for safe sex, am I expected to now have ESP?:roll:
Well, you are claiming she is a street walker. So you MUST be claiming that you have esp to know this. hence, your claim is very silly and hypocritical, ranting about what you are admitting to begin with!
Deegan said:
You're the one who brought this miserable example of a woman to the discussion, now fight for this tramp, or just keep your trap shut!:roll:
With you prolifers it always seem to be about hate mongering. How sad.
Deegan said:
Tact? You must be kidding, what kind of tact does it take to have three abortions, and not think a thing about them?
Normal tack. Not your hysterical hate mongering misogyny.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Not one is done to save the life of the mother.
Medical evidence, please.
C-sections are both quicker and less stressful. They're done to kill the baby.
Your claim is stupid. The D&X procedure is done before viability.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Partial birth abortions can happen through the end of the third trimester. There's absolutely no limitations allowed. Not a one. A perfectly healthy nine-month baby can be murdered simply by forcing her to be born ass backwards and keeping her head jammed inside until they suck out her brain.
An utter and complete lie, showing how dishonest prolifers really are. The D&X procedure is a second-trimester procedure, prolife scumbag lies none withstanding. It is only done during the time when the fetal head is proportionally much wider than the fetal torso. Once the shoulders grwo to near proportion of the head, the benefits to the cervix are diminished, and the MUCH easier and faster procedure of simply inducing contractions is used instead.

Your lie is more evidence of how much prolifers lie ALL THE TIME.
Babies.

Brains.

Butt first.

Killing.

These are allowed choices in the world you wish to live in?
Your rambling lies are irrelevant to reality.
 
Back
Top Bottom