• 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!

No unborn human needs or wants legal rights

marke said:
He's busy right now trying to clean up the Justice Department trash left behind by the incompetent slobs in the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

Then call another cop. What are you waiting for???
 
Bodhisattva said:
Killing is harm to the fetus... so what?
Click to expand...

When did an asterisk for the ideal get added? First do no harm. It doesn’t say first do no harm except for what we do not consider a legal fiction.

Bodhisattva said:
Nobody aborts a viable fetus that is able to survive on its own... why do you just make **** up?
Click to expand...

They don’t? Are you arguing late term abortion has only happened on non-viable fetus’s? What did I make up?
 
marke said:
What is it with women who want to kill their babies to protect their privacy? That sounds like mob killers killing informants in order to protect their privacy or politicians burying their enemies behind solitary jail cell doors under strict gag orders in order to keep them from revealing the politicians' dirty secrets.
Click to expand...

you should probably go back to digging in the sandbox and leave discussion to adults.
 
weaver2 said:
Ultrasound viewing before an abortion: A new study finds that for a small percentage of women, sonograms change minds.
Click to expand...
"Yet viewing the ultrasound images did influence some of the wavering women to stick with their pregnancies. Even though the number is very small, this is important to acknowledge. It means not only that forcing or pressuring women to look at their fetus will probably prevent a sliver of abortions—which is relevant for those who oppose and want to reduce abortions—but also that some women do respond to these pictures."

And these are the numbers for mothers at abortion clinics, with compulsory viewing, with no waiting period. "Save the Storks" offers voluntary ultrasounds, to the general public (i.e. not inside abortion clinics), and urges mothers to wait until the fetus is large enough that its mother finally recognizes it's a baby. As a result, they save lives every day.

If you don't already work for the abortion industry as a lobbyist or PR/marketing exec, my good weaver, you really should. Might as well get paid for marketing abortion 24/7. :shrug:
 
weaver2 said:
Usually when the discussion degenerates to this point I say something polite about your family but I think not today. I'm getting really, really tired of anti-abortion people using public discussion sites to explain the righteousness of their family and impugn with some pretty nasty snark those who abort a child they know will stress their family So big whup and a so what. One family isn't of statistical significance and your family either has miraculous health insurance or the state paid for those countless surgeries, therapies, and medical procedures. Other families, like those that gave up your sisters, are not able to access support like that and abortion is a perfectly logical and intelligent decision. Adopting or or birthing an extremely handicapped child doesn't make you any more blessed and it sure doesn't give you the right to smugly suggest they are murderers.
Click to expand...

I guess that's just the difference between us, I call it like it is when you sugar coats it. Plain and simple, its murder. When left to its natural processes that fetus will become a completely independent child and human being. It happened to you, me, everyone. Now I know why abortion is an option and I think it should be able to be accessed, just not on this grand of a scale. I don't wish a child who disabilities on anyone, but they are still humans. I'm not saying we outlaw abortion indefinitely, but abortion is a terrible action, not only for the child but for the mother as well. I wish you could meet some of these children that were born to people with hearts and accepted the challenges that came with it. I wish you would go to these children and tell them to their faces that they are not good enough for you. I fully understand that people are not able to afford to birth a defected baby, and I understand the difficulties of the process but please Weaver2, please please have a little bit of empathy. It goes a long way.
 
Blue Donkey said:
You do not want girls and women to have any privacy rights. People who support them have no interest in limiting those rights to women who abstain from having sex.
Click to expand...

Why stop at the need for privacy to kill 3rd trimester unborn babies, should mothers be given privacy to kill their living children who have physical problems or become obstacles to their social or financial life?
 
weaver2 said:
you should probably go back to digging in the sandbox and leave discussion to adults.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to get the big boys to come to their senses and stop murdering babies.
 
COTO said:
"Yet viewing the ultrasound images did influence some of the wavering women to stick with their pregnancies. Even though the number is very small, this is important to acknowledge. It means not only that forcing or pressuring women to look at their fetus will probably prevent a sliver of abortions—which is relevant for those who oppose and want to reduce abortions—but also that some women do respond to these pictures."
Click to expand...

I did acknowledge. "Meanwhile here are a few legitimate studies showing less than 2% of women change their minds. "

And these are the numbers for mothers at abortion clinics, with compulsory viewing, with no waiting period. "Save the Storks" offers voluntary ultrasounds, to the general public (i.e. not inside abortion clinics), and urges mothers to wait until the fetus is large enough that its mother finally recognizes it's a baby. As a result, they save lives every day.
Click to expand...

Tell you what, the pro-choice movement will tolerate your coercive forced viewing, forced waiting and forced birth if anti-abortion men put up the money to care for every forced birth child and cramming them into foster care is not the care I mean. You have to pay for individual, personal, stable, safe, financially secure, loving care for each and every forced birth child, the kind of care the women who aborted knew they couldn't provide.

. If you don't already work for the abortion industry as a lobbyist or PR/marketing exec, my good weaver, you really should. Might as well get paid for marketing abortion 24/7.
Click to expand...

I'm marketing choice against your single solution. I'm marketing a constitutional right you are denying. I'm marketing truth against your lies. I'm marketing the results of legitimate studies, surveys, research against the incredible stupidity of the crap anti-abortion people believe and post.

There are intelligent and reasonable reasons to regulate and control abortion. When you come up with them, pro-choice people will listen. Forcing women stay pregnant is not one of them.
 
What happened to "Life" "Liberty" and the pursuit of "happiness"?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

How is a dead- once living / aborted - unborn child / embryo / fetus / zygote / blastocysts etc / etc / who has also just had its internal organs harvested for profit able to obtain happiness if they are dead?

The reality is that abortion stands in direct opposition to the American dream.
 
weaver2 said:
The magic?

At birth, the baby's lungs are filled with fluid. They are not inflated. The baby takes the first breath within about 10 seconds after delivery. This breath sounds like a gasp, as the newborn's central nervous system reacts to the sudden change in temperature and environment.
Once the baby takes the first breath, a number of changes occur in the infant's lungs and circulatory system:
• Increased oxygen in the lungs causes a decrease in blood flow resistance to the lungs.
• Blood flow resistance of the baby's blood vessels also increases.
• Fluid drains or is absorbed from the respiratory system.
• The lungs inflate and begin working on their own, moving oxygen into the bloodstream and removing carbon dioxide by breathing out (exhalation).
BODY TEMPERATURE
After delivery, the newborn begins to lose heat. Receptors on the baby's skin send messages to the brain that the baby's body is cold. The baby's body creates heat by burning stores of brown fat, a type of fat found only in fetuses and newborns. Newborns are rarely seen to shiver.
LIVER
When the baby is born, the liver has various functions:
• It produces substances that help the blood to clot.
• It begins breaking down waste products such as excess red blood cells.
• It produces a protein that helps break down bilirubin. If the baby's body does not properly break down bilirubin, it can lead to newborn jaundice.
GASTROINTESTINAL TRACT
A baby's gastrointestinal system doesn't fully function until after birth.
URINARY SYSTEM
…After birth, the newborn will usually urinate within the first 24 hours of life. The kidneys become able to maintain the body's fluid and electrolyte balance.
Changes in the newborn at birth: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia


At that magic moment the fetus ends its complete dependence on the mother and functions as a separate person able to maintain all bodily function by itself and acquires legal rights commensurate with its age.
Click to expand...

Dependence on another shouldn't negate rights.
 
Blue Donkey said:
That is wonderful. It would be great if more churches could have abortion support ministries.

Next question: Do you accept the fact that pregnant women suffer, but nonviable humans do not?
Click to expand...

Is that your line? If the unborn is going to suffer then abortion is a no-go? Or are you for abortion with no limits?
 
Blue Donkey said:
You do not want girls and women to have any privacy rights. People who support them have no interest in limiting those rights to women who abstain from having sex.
Click to expand...

Do you think a woman's unborn child is her property?
 
Blue Donkey said:
Legally, yes. Biblically, no.
Click to expand...

Only legal up until a certain point, right?

But I'm not asking for legal or biblical opinion -- I'm asking YOUR opinion. If you were pregnant right now, would you consider your unborn child (a human) your property?
 
Ben_Casey said:
I guess that's just the difference between us, I call it like it is when you sugar coats it. Plain and simple, its murder. When left to its natural processes that fetus will become a completely independent child and human being. It happened to you, me, everyone. Now I know why abortion is an option and I think it should be able to be accessed, just not on this grand of a scale. I don't wish a child who disabilities on anyone, but they are still humans. I'm not saying we outlaw abortion indefinitely, but abortion is a terrible action, not only for the child but for the mother as well. I wish you could meet some of these children that were born to people with hearts and accepted the challenges that came with it. I wish you would go to these children and tell them to their faces that they are not good enough for you. I fully understand that people are not able to afford to birth a defected baby, and I understand the difficulties of the process but please Weaver2, please please have a little bit of empathy. It goes a long way.
Click to expand...

Don't play sainted anti-abortion male with me. I'm not a pro-choice murderer of "HUMAN LIFE JUST BECAUSE THEY (the fetuses??) DO NOT LIVE UP TO YOUR WANTS AND NEEDS AS A PARENT OR SIBLINGS SHOULD EVER BE ACCEPTED. If you think I've posted that sort of sentiment I urge you to find and post it.

Here's what I have said and you ignore. When women say they and or their family can't support a child or another chid at present 98% of those women have weighed the pro and cons and concluded that abortion is best for the family, the woman and the potential child. There is nothing cruel or sinful about aborting a 12 week, 2 inch,1/2 ounce non-sentient, non-viable, unaware fetus that is unplanned and unwanted. Considering that 75% of abortions are women at or below the poverty line the triple whammy of unplanned, unwanted and in poverty the statistics for a positive life are slim and the probability of drug abuse, child abuse, continued poverty, alcoholism and incarceration are very very high. Only an incredibly stupid person or an anti-abortion idiot would force a family into self- destruction and add one more person to the list of failed lives.

I have never claimed this sad scenario is always the case. There are women and families that go ahead with unplanned pregnancies with great success. There are families that welcome a handicapped child with love and caring. These women and their families had a choice, weighed the pros and cons and chose to give birth. But families and women who weigh the pros and cons and choose abortion are murderers who selfishly value their time , money, and need for perfect children greater than producing a baby. The only difference is that one choice is acceptable to you and other is not.

Reading your posts has left me both pissed and puzzled. How did you acquire the right to judge? Did you assume your smug self-righteousness made you judge, jury and executioners of women who abort?

"If one sins against the laws of proportion and gives something too big to something too small to carry it - too big sails to too small a ship, too big meals to too small a body, too big powers to too small a soul - the result is bound to be a complete upset. In an outburst of hubris the overfed body will rush into sickness, while the jack-in-office will rush into the unrighteousness that hubris always breeds."
Plato
 
Last edited:
Josie said:
Do you think a woman's unborn child is her property?
Click to expand...

This is one of those "yes or no only" questions. Context, instruction, feelings, attitudes, thoughts are not allowed. Just answer yes or no because you've got a fabulous gotcha rebuttal to either yes or no that seqaues beautifully into a Breitbart or Limbaugh story that proves you are a pro-choice murderer.

Nice try, but I'm not playing your game, thanks anyway.
 
Aberration said:
When did an asterisk for the ideal get added? First do no harm. It doesn’t say first do no harm except for what we do not consider a legal fiction.
Click to expand...

A doctor performing an abortion (for the vast VAST majority of abortions, since you seem to think in absolutes) is not doing any harm

They don’t? Are you arguing late term abortion has only happened on non-viable fetus’s? What did I make up?
Click to expand...

Nothing is absolute... obviously, to anybody that has spoken English for a couple of years, at least. Late term might happen is a minuscule amount for reasons or for the health of the mother... There are also some bad doctors out there... but that does not make abortion bad any more than bad lawyers make the judicial system bad or that a bad pilot makes airlines bad.
 
weaver2 said:
This is one of those "yes or no only" questions. Context, instruction, feelings, attitudes, thoughts are not allowed. Just answer yes or no because you've got a fabulous gotcha rebuttal to either yes or no that seqaues beautifully into a Breitbart or Limbaugh story that proves you are a pro-choice murderer.

Nice try, but I'm not playing your game, thanks anyway.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a bit presumptuous of you. I didn't say you could only answer yes or no.

Do you think a woman's unborn child is her property? Please -- include all context, instruction, feelings, attitudes and thoughts in your answer.
 
Josie said:
Do you think a woman's unborn child is her property?
Click to expand...

I have no idea the relevance of such a question and I do not think that I have ever heard this either.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I have no idea the relevance of such a question and I do not think that I have ever heard this either.
Click to expand...

The argument is always that a woman can do whatever she wants with her body because the government doesn't "own" her, right? And I completely agree.....until another human is involved. So if a woman has another human inside of her, does she "own" that human since he/she is in her body?
 
Josie said:
Only legal up until a certain point, right?

But I'm not asking for legal or biblical opinion -- I'm asking YOUR opinion. If you were pregnant right now, would you consider your unborn child (a human) your property?
Click to expand...

Yes, because it cannot belong to anyone else and is not a person until birth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom