• 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!

Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

yeah, no lies, you just bloviating incoherently has you confused. We are done here.

That's obvious. You've been busted and can't offer one single statement of rebuttal. Cower in your corner like the coward i've shown you to be and shut up. You've got nothing.
 
I knew this was where this discussion was headed when he started up two pages ago.

Who called it? :2wave:
 
I knew this was where this discussion was headed when he started up two pages ago.

Who called it? :2wave:
I suspect it is a law of physics that as an abortion thread grows longer, the probability that the thread descends into nothing but name calling approaches 1.

A corollary to Godwin's law, maybe?
 
I suspect it is a law of physics that as an abortion thread grows longer, the probability that the thread descends into nothing but name calling approaches 1.

A corollary to Godwin's law, maybe?

I've seen abortion threads go for 1000's of posts without devolving into the childish antics we just saw. Which is why I refrained when I saw them start from you know who.

The best one can do is report the offending posts and let the administration do its job.
 
I've seen abortion threads go for 1000's of posts without devolving into the childish antics we just saw. Which is why I refrained when I saw them start from you know who.

The best one can do is report the offending posts and let the administration do its job.
I defer to your superior experience, then. I generally try to avoid them altogether, as I believe they rarely cover much new ground, if any.
 
I defer to your superior experience, then. I generally try to avoid them altogether, as I believe they rarely cover much new ground, if any.

That is very true. I rarely visit the abortion forum anymore because they really are the same conversations had over and over again.
 
You're not for it, and i am. That you keep describing the situation as it is is not a rebuttal. We both know what the situation is and your disagreement with it in relationship to my agreement with it is NOT a logical argument. Yes, the gov't is spending your money for a procedure you don't think is ethical. Yes, i'm for it and you're against it. What now?

The next step in a "debate" would be to examine the ethical or logical basis for our opinions. For instance, we could start by establishing some agreed upon "truths":

Coercing other people into paying for things they don't want or need is unethical. Yes or no? And I'm not asking you to state, as a fact, that this is "ethical", I'm simply asking your opinion.

Doesn't make sense according to whom?

The logical progression of thought which dictates that coercing people to pay for things they do not want or need is unethical. I thought that was blatantly obvious.

Your ideology and values? I should hope it doesn't, as that'd mean you were inconsistent. It sure makes sense to me, according to my ideology and values, and you'll be hard pressed to show otherwise, but i would welcome the attempt.

Well, I suppose I just assumed you and I would share a common ethical basis which holds unjust coercion in contempt. I didn't know you liked unjust coercion.

Prove that opinions can be correct or incorrect first.

It is my opinion that two plus two equals five.

Gee, that was easy.

Then prove that my opinion on this is incorrect.

I could not prove it, I could only show it to be illogical, based upon an agreed set of moral standards, which I falsely assumed you held. Apparently, you think unjust coercion is okay. That is a fundamental disagreement that cannot be reconciled. The letter and spirit of this nation's laws do not suite you. Perhaps you should exercise your right to leave the country.

:2wave:

This should be fun.

You sound like you're having a great time reading my posts. I'm glad of it. Maybe we could be friends...:)

Nope, but three lefts do.

Mmmmm, not addressing the point.

I think that it's silly and unconstitutional.

Stop whining.

Please discuss.

I'd fight against it. Wow, what a shocker. So what? You're going to voice your opinions and "fight" against the laws with which you don't agree. I'm going to voice my opinions and "fight" against the laws with which i don't agree. This the american way.

Yes...AND?

That your law is unconstitutional would help my fight, but that's irrelevant.

Actually, the fact that such a law is unconstitutional means you would have a logical basis for your argument.

Every post of mine in this thread has been a "winner". That you suddenly notice is of no concern to me.

Touché.

It would depend on what i had previously said to which that was your reply. Did i ever say that "stop whining" was a logical refutation of anyone's position? I think not.

I must remind you that I am perfectly comfortable with you admitting that your statements are illogical. There's no need for you to insist on driving my point home, although I do appreciate it.

All i see from you is whining and more whining. Even now, as you attempt to obscure the issue in an avalanche of non-sequiturs instead of rational syllogisms, it's just more bitching and moaning. I still have yet to see one robust, logical presentation in favor of your position.

:rofl

The smack-talk is strong with this one...

With all your hemming and hawing, there's no meat amidst all the tendons and cartilage. Are we going to ever eat steak, Ethereal, or are we just going to talk about the color of the plates and the name brand of the knives?

I'd love to eat some steak. Are you paying? Where are we going?

Anybody can ask loaded questions. Who cares? All i see you doing is being obscure and rhetorical. Why not address the issue at hand? Are you so scarred of the actual issue that you feel the need to dodge with red herrings every other sentence? I explained to you the REALITY of how the process works. You don't have to answer my questions about that reality, but you can't deny it. Again, I think you should have the right to be vocal about abortion paid for with tax dollars and that i should have the right to be vocal about whatever i please and that's what make this country so great. You can say something about that or not. What do i care?

So long as you admit your question was a loaded one with no basis in sound reasoning or logic I'm in no position to complain.

Then get busy contesting it and quit pointing out such obvious points as could be picked up by any 4th grader that knows how to read the English language. You've yet to say anything at all, really. What's your point, that you can throw red herrings and non-sequiturs around all day long? Hell, people who can do that are all over the place. They hardly need to advertise.

:rofl

This is very amusing.

To a fault, it appears. You just keep stating the facts over and over that everybody already knew from the get go. Let me know when you've got something to say that isn't already blatantly obvious to every single person who takes a 2-second cursory glance at the thread title.

Splendid chat!
 
Oh, you want approval on the use of your taxpayer funds in healthcare situations? How about the case of Joe Tippler, a longterm alcoholic who is in line for a liver transplant. Should he get it? Shall we notify you of our needs before or after we see a doctor?

You just made a fantastic case against nationalized healthcare. Congratulations.
 
At least you are consistent.

I dislike it when people are somehow Pro DP, War but against Abortion. Talk about hypocrisy.
There is a huge difference between those options. In the DP case, we are not talking about an innocent life, rather an individual that has taken the life of another. The convicted person has forfeited is right to life.

In the case of a war, sure innocent people die, but it is the result of conflicts between governments. You being from the UK should appreciate the fact that the United States was willing to come to the defense of your country in 1941 after the enormous loss of life suffered by your fellow countrymen from the bombing raids of the German air force. How many more innocents would have died had the United States not intervened in that conflict?

However, abortion is the taking of an innocent life. Say what you want about the rights of the mother’s womb, but if she had taken advantage of her right to NOT get pregnant in the first place and shown some personal responsibility, she would not be in a position to make the innocent child she carries have to suffer for her sins.

The problem with abortion in the United States is that it has become a form of birth control due to its availability. If it was not so readily available, maybe more people would use better judgment and personal responsibility.
 
In the DP case, we are not talking about an innocent life, rather an individual that has taken the life of another. The convicted person has forfeited is right to life.

Not everyone who is on death row or who has been executed by the State is guilty of the crime they are being punished for. That's why Illinois had suspended its death penalty awhile ago, they found I think it was about half or so of the people on death row were there for crimes they didn't commit. The failure mode for the DP is too high.
 
Not everyone who is on death row or who has been executed by the State is guilty of the crime they are being punished for. That's why Illinois had suspended its death penalty awhile ago, they found I think it was about half or so of the people on death row were there for crimes they didn't commit. The failure mode for the DP is too high.
Yet again, we see people wanting to derail the topic. Just for the sake of argument, let's say they were caught red handed pulling the trigger, killing another person.

This thread is about the funding of abortions by the federal government thru our taxes. Someone tried to show a moral equivalence between wars, the Death penalty and abortion. I showed that there was none, but you want to argue the merits of the death penalty. Try again.
 
The next step in a "debate" would be to examine the ethical or logical basis for our opinions. For instance, we could start by establishing some agreed upon "truths":

Okay.


Coercing other people into paying for things they don't want or need is unethical. Yes or no? And I'm not asking you to state, as a fact, that this is "ethical", I'm simply asking your opinion.

No. It's perfectly ethical, in my opinion to force people to pay for things that they don't want or need. I don't want or need the roads to be kept up in Hawaii, but i should be coerced into paying for their upkeep through my tax dollars, and i am rightly so forced, as are you.

The nature of taxation is that you sometimes pay for things that you don't want or need. That's the way it works, and not only that, but i think that it's a good way for things to work.


The logical progression of thought which dictates that coercing people to pay for things they do not want or need is unethical. I thought that was blatantly obvious.

Obviously not, since i think it's perfectly fine to force people to pay for things that they don't want or need. I think that this goes without saying in a civilized society that demands taxes from its citizens.


Well, I suppose I just assumed you and I would share a common ethical basis which holds unjust coercion in contempt. I didn't know you liked unjust coercion.

I don't like unjust coercion, but sometimes it's necessary for the common good. Also, what is "unjust" or "just" changes depending on who you ask. I might think that a certain thing is "just" while you think it's "unjust". Basically, when the law declares it "just" you've got to go along or protest or whatever, but you've got to pay your taxes.


I could not prove it, I could only show it to be illogical, based upon an agreed set of moral standards, which I falsely assumed you held. Apparently, you think unjust coercion is okay. That is a fundamental disagreement that cannot be reconciled. The letter and spirit of this nation's laws do not suite you. Perhaps you should exercise your right to leave the country.

The letter and spirit of the laws suit me just fine. I'm in agreement with them, mostly, and the ones that i don't agree with i go along with in order to maintain my good standing in the citizenry. If the law changes to make my taxes pay for abortions, i'll consider it a good law, and you can do as you wish. As to showing something to be illogical, you notice that you could only do that based on a certain set of standards. When a person holds to a different set of standards, what is "logical" may be quite different, as you seem to agree. Some things that you don't consider "logical" may be perfectly logical to somebody with a different set of standards, so you research that set first. I don't claim that your stance is illogical, because it likely is, to you, from your viewpoint. I've no problem with that, just like you should have no problem recognizing that from my viewpoint, with my standards, it's logical. Your argument isn't with what is or isn't logical, as if that's some sort of set-in-stone fact, but with my standards and viewpoint. This is the entire point that i was trying to get to, and we've finally arrived.


You sound like you're having a great time reading my posts. I'm glad of it. Maybe we could be friends...:)

I don't know why not. I have plenty of friends with completely different ideological standpoints and contesting views.


Mmmmm, not addressing the point.

Oh, pardon me. Yes, yes, Ethereal, quite right, two wrongs don't make a right. By the way, wood typically floats. NOW ADDRESS THIS POINT!!


Stop whining.

I was merely stating a fact. No whining involved. Get your ears checked.


Please discuss.

What you suggested was unconstitutional. Sure, it can be changed if the constitution is amended or gone against, but it is unconstitutional. Do you need me to explain how, or what?


Yes...AND?

And, that's it. Voice your opinions. See if you can change the laws to reflect your values. What do you need, me to ship you my spare soapbox?


Actually, the fact that such a law is unconstitutional means you would have a logical basis for your argument.

Yes, it would. This was my point. If the constitution says something about a law, we should look at that.


I must remind you that I am perfectly comfortable with you admitting that your statements are illogical. There's no need for you to insist on driving my point home, although I do appreciate it.

LOL!! This is your reply to me busting you for implying that i thought something that i've never expressed!!! ha!! Look, i never said what you accused me of thinking. Get over it, and get on with your life.


So long as you admit your question was a loaded one with no basis in sound reasoning or logic I'm in no position to complain.

I have asked you NO illogical questions. If you feel i have, quote it, and explain how it seems illogical, and i will reword it for you. If you still find it illogical, i'll rephrase and try again. I'm sure that eventually we can find a way to discuss the issue without you simply labeling my questions with some description that enables you to squirm out of answering.
 
Last edited:
I still assert that if you don't like abortion, then don't get one...

I won't. And, I shouldn't be forced to pay for other people to do it, either! The "pro-choicers" in this thread are really showing their true colors. We'll all be forced to fund others' abortions. Where is the choice? :confused:
 
Yet again, we see people wanting to derail the topic. Just for the sake of argument, let's say they were caught red handed pulling the trigger, killing another person.

This thread is about the funding of abortions by the federal government thru our taxes. Someone tried to show a moral equivalence between wars, the Death penalty and abortion. I showed that there was none, but you want to argue the merits of the death penalty. Try again.

I was illustrating a logical flaw in your argument. Sorry if your argument didn't hold up to criticism. I've already well commented on the funding, look at my posts already in this thread.
 
I won't. And, I shouldn't be forced to pay for other people to do it, either!

I can see your point, and i understand why you feel this way. I think abortion should be available on demand because i think that almost all medical procedures should be available on demand. (Paid for by tax dollars, of course). I understand that this is a minority view, and that most people don't agree with me, and certainly most pro-choicers don't agree with me on this. However, i'm not going to lie about it just to be liked around here. I have the opinion that i have, and i think in the scope of tax-supported health care, it makes sense. For what it's worth, you should fight for your opinions on this issue and strive to make your voice heard. I don't really think that our tax dollars are going to fund abortion anytime soon, so it's probably not urgent or anything, but as an american you should go about voicing your concerns on this issue.


The "pro-choicers" in this thread are really showing their true colors. We'll all be forced to fund others' abortions. Where is the choice? :confused:

Not all pro-choicers want tax dollars to pay for abortions. I do, but i'm in the minority. As to your choice, you pay for all sorts of things with your tax dollars that you'd not be happy about, and have no choice in the matter. It's part of living in a country that demands taxes from its citizens. You have to pay for things that you don't approve of, because you don't decide where your tax dollars eventually go. When you vote, there's your chance to change who makes these decisions---to a degree, anyway.
 
No. It's perfectly ethical, in my opinion to force people to pay for things that they don't want or need. I don't want or need the roads to be kept up in Hawaii, but i should be coerced into paying for their upkeep through my tax dollars, and i am rightly so forced, as are you.

What's the matter with Hawaii's tax dollars? Are they broken or something? Just so we're on the same page, this question presumes that you hold personal responsibility is some sort of esteem.

The nature of taxation is that you sometimes pay for things that you don't want or need. That's the way it works, and not only that, but i think that it's a good way for things to work.

Why is it "good"? Hawaii may like its new roads but some people in Michigan just got screwed out of their money. Those tax dollars could have been utilized for any number of things directly beneficial to people living in Michigan. Helping others is not a justification for taking people's money, no matter how cruel or crass it may sound. Nobody would tolerate officials from St. Jude's Children's Hospital going around and stealing other people's money under the pretense of helping others, so why is it any different when the government engages in such activity?

Obviously not, since i think it's perfectly fine to force people to pay for things that they don't want or need. I think that this goes without saying in a civilized society that demands taxes from its citizens.

What aspect of a civilized society necessitates such a tax policy?

I don't like unjust coercion, but sometimes it's necessary for the common good.

Doing what is unjust never serves the common good. It can only give the appearance of such.

Also, what is "unjust" or "just" changes depending on who you ask. I might think that a certain thing is "just" while you think it's "unjust". Basically, when the law declares it "just" you've got to go along or protest or whatever, but you've got to pay your taxes.

Of course.

The letter and spirit of the laws suit me just fine. I'm in agreement with them, mostly, and the ones that i don't agree with i go along with in order to maintain my good standing in the citizenry. If the law changes to make my taxes pay for abortions, i'll consider it a good law, and you can do as you wish. As to showing something to be illogical, you notice that you could only do that based on a certain set of standards. When a person holds to a different set of standards, what is "logical" may be quite different, as you seem to agree. Some things that you don't consider "logical" may be perfectly logical to somebody with a different set of standards, so you research that set first. I don't claim that your stance is illogical, because it likely is, to you, from your viewpoint. I've no problem with that, just like you should have no problem recognizing that from my viewpoint, with my standards, it's logical. Your argument isn't with what is or isn't logical, as if that's some sort of set-in-stone fact, but with my standards and viewpoint. This is the entire point that i was trying to get to, and we've finally arrived.

Our country's legal and philosophical foundation is steeped in the recognition of negative rights. Forcing other people to pay for things they do not want or need seems to fly in the face of such a concept.

I don't know why not. I have plenty of friends with completely different ideological standpoints and contesting views.

Sounds like you have a lot of smart friends...

Oh, pardon me. Yes, yes, Ethereal, quite right, two wrongs don't make a right. By the way, wood typically floats. NOW ADDRESS THIS POINT!!

I'm glad you see my point.

What you suggested was unconstitutional. Sure, it can be changed if the constitution is amended or gone against, but it is unconstitutional. Do you need me to explain how, or what?

I would also argue that your position is unconstitutional. I can't find the Constitutional clause which grants the government the explicit authority to pay for medical procedures.

And, that's it. Voice your opinions. See if you can change the laws to reflect your values.

I thought I was already doing that.

What do you need, me to ship you my spare soapbox?

The only thing I require from you is base servility. A simple bow, whilst in my divine presence, will suffice.

Yes, it would. This was my point. If the constitution says something about a law, we should look at that.

We should also look to the spirit of the law, which is to say we must understand the minds of men who wrote it. Based upon what they have written and said I am disinclined to believe they would support such a thing as you have espoused.

LOL!! This is your reply to me busting you for implying that i thought something that i've never expressed!!! ha!! Look, i never said what you accused me of thinking. Get over it, and get on with your life.

I'd prefer to dwell.

I have asked you NO illogical questions. If you feel i have, quote it, and explain how it seems illogical...

I already did quote it, but I'll do it again...

You said:

It depends on the wording of the law. I imagine that i'd be vocal in some way just like you'd be vocal in some way on abortion paid for with tax dollars. I think you should have the right to be vocal about abortion paid for with tax dollars and that i should have the right to be vocal about whatever i please. That's what make this country so great. What about this process do you not like?

Your question presumes that I have some kind of problem with the aforementioned scenario regarding free speech and the exercise thereof. Nothing I have said would indicate such a bias, hence the question is illogical in its presumption.

...and i will reword it for you.

Do not presume to reward your master.

:blah:

If you still find it illogical, i'll rephrase and try again. I'm sure that eventually we can find a way to discuss the issue without you simply labeling my questions with some description that enables you to squirm out of answering.

Why would I deign to answer a question which falsely presumes what I believe? I think free speech is just lovely.
 
Let make a little demonstration about how flawed this moral relativity crap is...

One group trying to control what another person does, based on their staunch beliefs. You are entitled to think putting Jews in furnaces is murder, and so am I, but that is irrelevant to the broad sphere of other people's beliefs.

You are entitled to think enslaving blacks is wrong, and so am I, but that is irrelevant to the broad sphere of other people's beliefs.

You are entitled to think that euthanizing grandma when she gets too old to care for herself is wrong, and so am I, but that is irrelevant to the broad sphere of other people's beliefs.

See where this is going? Do you see the flaw in making this about people's feelings and beliefs? There needs to be a legal standard until such a time as science can determine with certainty both what personhood is biologically and when it is present in the fetus.

Every example you made is flawed, because believing that a 1 month old embryo is alive, sentient, and should have right is a BELIEF. Every other situation you described relates to people who have already been born.

So yeah, my point still stands... one group is trying to control another based on a BELIEF that cannot be proven.

Just because you might not believe it is murder, doesn't mean it actually isn't.

Since we cannot prove it either way, we must let people decide for themselves what the matter means. Pro-choice policy lets people who think it's murder avoid abortion, and those who don't pursue it. It's the most fair.

First trimester abortion isn't a debate to me. It's a medical procedure to alleviate a medical condition. Science can say with certainty that there is no morphological component available to the fetus at this stage that would predicate any definition of awareness. It's basically a blob of flesh who's only claims to significance are that which the woman gives it and the fact that it has a unique chemical structure in its DNA.

Getting beyond that to the 18th weeks and beyond, we have serious issue if the government is to provide funding.

This is my stance also... I wasn't aware that the gov. was going to fund post-18th week funding? It still has to adhere to Roe v. Wade and the limitations on timing.

And it's cruel, barbaric, and superior to believe that what you think should override the right to life...one of our basic founding principles.

The constitution and rights apply to those already born. Since 1/4 of pregnancies self-terminate anyway, giving embryoes the same rights as a born person makes no sense at all. Are you also proposing that we investigate every miscarriage to make sure the "right to life" wasn't denied by the mother? Please, give me a break.
 
In a ruling that was confessed to be flawed by the Justice who wrote it. Roe is bad judicial opinion and needs to be revisited in a sincere attempt at getting it right.

It's only bad because you disagree with it.

The UHC argument is just another layer to the abortion debate and it all stems from the same arguments. There is too much chatter, someone had to make a decision that best represents everyone. What the pro-life crowd wants is to deny people the choice, even though there isn't conclusive evidence that the fetus (if you can call it that within the first month) is experiencing unimaginable suffering. Asking the courts or government to preserve the "right to life" and thereby override the rights of the already-sentient, living mother, is a huge deal.

Making a pro-choice ruling is the only way to encompass pluralism. Until there is some kind of concrete evidence which proves abortion is always, universally, unethical, there should be no reason to deny women this right.

Now, what the pro-life crowd needs to do is give up their compulsion to try and control the lives of millions of other people. Although the UHC policy would force them to fund abortion, up until now there has been nothing forcing them to take part in abortions.

Sorry, you don't get to make the decision for everyone.
 
I love the "Sentient" argument, as if that justifies killing....


how sentient is a 1 month old? Prove your answer.
 
I love the "Sentient" argument, as if that justifies killing....


how sentient is a 1 month old? Prove your answer.

How sentient are a few dozen skin cells from your arm? What happens when you scratch your arm and they fly off into oblivion? Where is their right to life?

You can make the same ridiculous argument for just about anything.

The question of suffering matters a lot. It's not enough to simply demand the right to life, you must also define why, if it is indeed murder, it is unacceptable to terminate a pregnancy. One such way to measure it is the amount of suffering. Since a one month old fetus cannot even perceive pain since it lacks any form of nervous system, we can say that abortion at that stage is of no consequence to the fetus itself who lacks pertinent awareness of what is happening.

Furthermore, this tiny blob of cells doesn't even resemble a person as we know it. You would not want to cuddle with this thing that looks more like a fish, so attributing personhood to it is irrelevant.

If suffering is removed from the equation, then all we are left with is that we should preserve life just because it's life. Well, we see how humans treat life all the time. We kill it, eat it, turn it into furniture or housing, hunt it, etc. Not to mention we engage in wars to kill other humans. So life in of itself has an inconsistent value in our society.
 
How sentient are a few dozen skin cells from your arm? What happens when you scratch your arm and they fly off into oblivion? Where is their right to life?

You can make the same ridiculous argument for just about anything.


This is dumb.


I asked you a question.


prove a 24 week fetus is less "sentient" than a 1 month old. Scientifically.



The question of suffering matters a lot. It's not enough to simply demand the right to life, you must also define why, if it is indeed murder, it is unacceptable to terminate a pregnancy. One such way to measure it is the amount of suffering. Since a one month old fetus cannot even perceive pain since it lacks any form of nervous system, we can say that abortion at that stage is of no consequence to the fetus itself who lacks pertinent awareness of what is happening.

Furthermore, this tiny blob of cells doesn't even resemble a person as we know it. You would not want to cuddle with this thing that looks more like a fish, so attributing personhood to it is irrelevant.

If suffering is removed from the equation, then all we are left with is that we should preserve life just because it's life. Well, we see how humans treat life all the time. We kill it, eat it, turn it into furniture or housing, hunt it, etc. Not to mention we engage in wars to kill other humans. So life in of itself has an inconsistent value in our society.


Barbarism. We are not "other animals" and you viewing human life = to that of a cow. then I don't think we have much to discuss.
 
This is dumb.


I asked you a question.


prove a 24 week fetus is less "sentient" than a 1 month old. Scientifically.

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about a one month old BABY, but a one month old FETUS, in the first trimester. A 24 week old fetus is much more developed than a four week old one. It has a nervous system and pertinent awareness of its surroundings. It's definitely aware of pain stimulus, which is why abortions at this stage are mostly illegal around the world.

Barbarism. We are not "other animals" and you viewing human life = to that of a cow. then I don't think we have much to discuss.

That was not the point I was trying to make. My point is that we treat life with disregard whenever it suits us, including human life. There is no reason why a first trimester fetus should deserve special treatment, especially for being something that is so woefully undeveloped and less aware of its existence than a even a cow.

And it certainly is not a reason to override the rights of a living, fully developed woman.
 
I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about a one month old BABY, but a one month old FETUS, in the first trimester. A 24 week old fetus is much more developed than a four week old one. It has a nervous system and pertinent awareness of its surroundings. It's definitely aware of pain stimulus, which is why abortions at this stage are mostly illegal around the world.


So you are against abortion at 18 weeks?

Fetal Nervous System - 18 Weeks Pregnant -- Fetal Development This Week -- WhatToExpect.com

Legal in most countries...


or hell... 6 weeks

Overview: Fetal Development | Pregnancy.org


Or does the system have to be in full development before its too late to kill the human?


That was not the point I was trying to make. My point is that we treat life with disregard whenever it suits us, including human life. There is no reason why a first trimester fetus should deserve special treatment, especially for being something that is so woefully undeveloped and less aware of its existence than a even a cow.


barbaric. This thinking is whats wrong with us as a society... Simply because "others" are doing things contra to life, does not making killing your inside babies justified.




And it certainly is not a reason to override the rights of a living, fully developed woman.


I disagree. The human life inside her, would probably to in a few years.
 
I won't. And, I shouldn't be forced to pay for other people to do it, either! The "pro-choicers" in this thread are really showing their true colors. We'll all be forced to fund others' abortions. Where is the choice? :confused:

I do support public funding to Abortion.
But in US where there is ... underlining issues and emotive responses from both sides. I do not see how it is possible.

But by the same token if my Govt. ever gave pro lifers a choice on whether they wished to fund abortion or not in UK, I'd expect to be given the same choice on the Army and war.
 
So you are against abortion at 18 weeks?

I'm in favor of keeping abortion legal pre 18 weeks.

There is no concrete evidence that a fetus feels pain within that time. You cannot prove it because there is insufficient research. I'll save you the time of looking for a source. I studied this in medical school and it's ongoing. Scientific debate continue.

If the scientists don't know, then you can't possibly know for sure, and since you can't know for sure, you have no justification to illegalize abortion.

Period.

barbaric. This thinking is whats wrong with us as a society... Simply because "others" are doing things contra to life, does not making killing your inside babies justified.

It's not wrong to demand empirical evidence to justify our emotional reactions to things we dislike, especially for sweeping changes in law. Women used to be burned for being witches because they had red hair. Red hair was "evidence". Then we wisened up.

You can't assume a fetus feels pain, and pain is a strong incentive for restrictions on abortion. Since we don't know what fetal perception is for sure, there is no way I can support removing a woman's right to choose, and I certainly won't support it based on people's emotions.

I disagree. The human life inside her, would probably to in a few years.

This isn't a grammatically correct sentence, so I don't know what it means.
 
Back
Top Bottom