A question for people who are pro-abortion

I think all women should have the choice. Is it really the most humane thing to allow an unwanted child into the world when it could be spared that?

My question is about the legal procedure called 'partial birth abortion'.

I think women should be allowed to deliver the fetus normally, without an intentional breech birth, then it can be killed. It would be safer for the woman.

Doesn't anyone care about the woman?

If it isn't a baby when the head is still inside the mother, why is it a baby after the head comes out?

Shouldn't we give the mother a couple of weeks after the birth to make a decision?

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by kingofmd

 

if you don't understand this concept ...

How is the baby, with its own DNA a "part" of the womans body?

then you have no foundation from which to form an opinion.

to answer your nonsense, perhaps we should expand government control to include enforcing Child Support payments from the MOMENT of conception ??

The saddest thing is, is that your post actually received stars????

Biology 101:

Every cell in my body, every hair, blood cell, spem etc has the same DNA sequence that is unique to me and me alone. This applies to all humans. Since you are so wise, I will include 'with the exception of mutated cancer cells, identical twins or any other mutatation for that matter', to save you from another condescending response. This is how DNA can be used to convict someone. Paternity tests work in that your children will have a similar pattern as yourself, however they will not be the same as yourself.

As I stated earlier, every cell of YOUR body, has YOUR sequence and YOUR sequence alone. A "fetus" growing inside you has it's own unique sequence, therefore it is not a part of YOUR body. I even gave the example of a parasite to help out, I'm not quite certain what was incorrect about my statement?

reply to post by kingofmd


What difference does that make. An uninvited and unwelcome squatter is still and unwelcome and uninvited squatter. I have every right to evict it if I should choose to.

Originally posted by watchitburn
Bottom line:

It is not your, mine, or anyone else's business what other people do with their body.
It is especially not the right of the Govt. to have any say in the matter.

That's the problem right there. If it is considered MURDER to have an abortion, then it most definently is the Judicial systems right to prosecute.

-My main thought is, how in effin hell could you live with yourself after having an abortion? That's a child that you will never know or see because you were to damn selfish to let it live. Sad. Really effin Sad.

But hey, that's people for you. Caring more about themselves than ANYTHING. It shows in the children of today. It shows in the lack of parenting, and the lack of parents.

Originally posted by resoe26

Originally posted by watchitburn
Bottom line:

It is not your, mine, or anyone else's business what other people do with their body.
It is especially not the right of the Govt. to have any say in the matter.

That's the problem right there. If it is considered MURDER to have an abortion, then it most definently is the Judicial systems right to prosecute.

But abortion is not considered "murder" by the judicial system, so your point is moot.

-My main thought is, how in effin hell could you live with yourself after having an abortion? That's a child that you will never know or see because you were to damn selfish to let it live. Sad. Really effin Sad.

But hey, that's people for you. Caring more about themselves than ANYTHING. It shows in the children of today. It shows in the lack of parenting, and the lack of parents.

People who are planning to have a child, do so for selfish reasons. They WANT children to nurture and WANT an extension of themselves. NOT wanting a child is not selfish.

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by resoe26

Originally posted by watchitburn
Bottom line:

It is not your, mine, or anyone else's business what other people do with their body.
It is especially not the right of the Govt. to have any say in the matter.

That's the problem right there. If it is considered MURDER to have an abortion, then it most definently is the Judicial systems right to prosecute.

But abortion is not considered "murder" by the judicial system, so your point is moot.

-My main thought is, how in effin hell could you live with yourself after having an abortion? That's a child that you will never know or see because you were to damn selfish to let it live. Sad. Really effin Sad.

But hey, that's people for you. Caring more about themselves than ANYTHING. It shows in the children of today. It shows in the lack of parenting, and the lack of parents.

People who are planning to have a child, do so for selfish reasons. They WANT children to nurture and WANT an extension of themselves. NOT wanting a child is not selfish.

I know it's not 'considered' murder by the judicial system. but define murder and you'll see what is wrong with "abortion".

People who "plan" to have a child, yes maybe that is selfish. But what if the women was impregnated accidentally? then abortion is still not selfish? because they don't want the hassle of raising a child or being with the person they selpt with? That's not a selfish act?
---Letting a child live and giving it up for adoption to a family that cannot have children is a far better rational action then killing a baby.

Originally posted by windword


But abortion is not considered "murder" by the judicial system, so your point is moot.

georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov... /20040401-3.html

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act provides that, under federal law, any person who causes death or injury to a child in the womb shall be charged with a separate offense, in addition to any charges relating to the mother. (Applause.) As of today, the law of our nation will acknowledge the plain fact that crimes of violence against a pregnant woman often have two victims. (Applause.) And therefore, in those cases, there are two offenses to be punished. Under this law, those who direct violence toward a pregnant woman will answer for the full extent of the harm they have done, and for all the crimes they have committed.
..
Until today, the federal criminal code had been silent on the injury or death of a child in cases of violence against a pregnant woman. This omission in the law has led to clear injustices. The death of an innocent unborn child has too often been treated as a detail in one crime, but not a crime in itself. Police and prosecutors had been to crime scenes and have shared the grief of families, but have so often been unable to seek justice for the full offense. The American people, as well, have learned of these cases, and they urged action. The swift bipartisan passage of this bill through Congress this year indicates a strong consensus that the suffering of two victims can never equal only one offense.
..
The moral concern of humanity extends to those unborn children who are harmed or killed in crimes against their mothers. And now, the protection of federal law extends to those children, as well. With this action, we widen the circle of compassion and inclusion in our society, and we reaffirm that the United States of America is building a culture of life.

reply to post by BlueAjah


I agree that anyone who physically assaults a pregnant woman, causing her to loose the unborn child that she has chosen to carry, and is looking forward to it's arrival, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I don't, however, agree that a woman who chooses to end and unwanted pregnancy should be charged with murder, and I don't see that killing a fertilized egg or an undeveloped fetus as murder.

Women are not victims of their biology any more. As I have pointed out earlier, most conventional birth control methods abort the fertilized egg. So, to declare abortion is murder would, in effect, make birth control illegal.

reply to post by resoe26

People who "plan" to have a child, yes maybe that is selfish. But what if the women was impregnated accidentally? then abortion is still not selfish? because they don't want the hassle of raising a child or being with the person they selpt with? That's not a selfish act? ---Letting a child live and giving it up for adoption to a family that cannot have children is a far better rational action then killing a baby.

And some women do carry through with their pregnancies and give their child up for adoption. But that's a very heart wrenching experience that I wouldn't wish on anyone, little alone force upon someone.

reply to post by butcherguy

why would i google what i've experienced first hand, more than once ?
have you ever experienced gestation ??

your inability to do math is not my problem.
perhaps you should work on that ?

i didn't reference FLPP for anything more than the 'gestation' confirmation ... whatever else you found there is irrelevant.

do you need ANOTHER medical source ?
maybe a dictionary for medical professionals would help ... Merck

Pregnancy is considered to last 266 days from the time of conception or 280 days from the first day of the last menstrual period if periods occur regularly every 28 days.

266 days = 38 weeks

now please, argue your nonsense with someone who does NOT know better, ok ?
[we are not discussing 'last menstruation', we are discussing post-conception, there is a difference]

appeals courts have upheld a womans right to choose, even during the third trimester. All linked to the health of the mother.

yes, i linked that info earlier, however, you still fail to mention that the only locale where the procedure happens lawfully is DC, why ?

You are still telling me that it is illegal.

in this state, IT IS illegal beyond 24wks and you will not find a lawful procedure occurring in any hospital in this state, as i've proven previously.

i have no opinion on the procedure, it is a medical procedure and you have shown no 'lawful' application of the technique you describe.
(a criminal doing it doesn't count)

i answered your question, twice.
just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean i failed to provide one.

abortion is illegal in many parts of the world and lawfully refused in many US states.
given the above, why are folks so willing to accept the death of 2 lives, at once, every 7 minutes and then scream bloody murder when lawful abortion SAVES one ??

world-wide, illegal abortions kill a mother and child, every 7 minutes.
why is that ok ... when a lawful (clean & safe) abortion saves one of the two lives at risk ?
why do you think RvW is/was "weirdness" ??
i remember before and after, don't you ?

Guttmacher is the same as any other agenda-driven lobby ... they often mis-represent statistics, exaggerate results and are not exactly what i consider a 'reliable' source.

the ban on abortions post 24wks has been in effect for some time here and no court has over-turned it yet. as a matter of fact, they tried to pass legislation forcing sonograms and that failed.


reply to post by butcherguy
yes, i read that.
is there some hidden rule that prevents me from responding ?

btw, i happen to agree with CS in that opinion.
it would be nice to read about Pro-Lifers actively choosing Life over death.
all too often though, the stories accompanying Pro-Life affiliates involve bombings, assassinations, assault and a host of other abuses ... maybe, they are being the change they wish to see ?

not sure what you're talking about regarding the goose & gander.
which goose and which gander in this case ??

i don't attempt to control the rest of the world, if they choose to ban abortions, that is their decision and they have to live with it.
in the US, banning them is UnConstitutional and worthy the fight.
imho, Pro Choice is the only logical choice.

not breathing fire although, my eyes are getting weary from all these rolling exercises

**********************************

ok, from the abbreviated law link, notice the "Regulated" part in the 1st sentence ??
that is where the 24wk limit, heartbeat requirement and other stipulations come into play.

i know 'what' the law says, however, i challenge you to find one hospital/medical facility that will perform them (excluding emergent) within the State borders, post 24wks and with an active heartbeat.

you are confusing what the law says can be done with what a facility is willing to do.
can't have the procedure if no facility is willing to accomodate it, can you ?
[if you had bothered to review the link i posted previously, you would understand the above]

reply to post by butcherguy

They are just a non-profit organization.

yeah so ?
they also happen to publish that pregnancy is a 266 day cycle from the point of conception.
you know, 38 weeks to full term.

Have you seen me linking to church-spew?

what does this have to do with anything ?

reply to post by kingofmd

DNA sequence that is unique to me and me alone.

except for the fact that the components that created your unique DNA (X & Y) came from very specific others (traceable ones even)

hence, you must be confused.
not only was i the first to mention the parasite relevance, but which part of the child's X chromosome doesn't belong to the biological mother ?

so, since the Y is completely foreign to the body of X ... how is the new XY creation, any less of the body of X (the mother), especially when it is 100% dependant on the body of X for sustenance ?

like i said, you obviously don't comprehend the concept but keep trying

reply to post by kingofmd

btw, i read your first post when you posted it, however, i didn't find enough value in it to respond.

this nonsense was enough ...

Remember, the government has no control over a woman's body, unless she is not wearing a seatbelt, or a helmet, drunk driving, using illegal drugs, smuggling drugs internally, attempting suicide, smoking indoors, not wearing clothes in public, carrying a gun, prostituting, not attending school prior to age 16

i have yet to experience the goverment buckling my belt, applying a helmet, preventing drunk driving, snuffing my cigarettes, dressing my body in public or any of the other silliness you listed ... have you ?

reply to post by resoe26

Letting a child live and giving it up for adoption to a family that cannot have children is a far better rational action then killing a baby

in theory, i agree.
if it was such a fantastic, answers all our problems option, why do we have so many
un-adopted children all over the world ?

reply to post by BlueAjah

that has -0- to do with abortion and i'd bet if looked for it, i could find a specific exemption regarding abortion.
what you linked was the result of death by violent acts of aggression ... knife attacks, firearm deaths, gang rapes, drunk drivers and such, not abortion.

and here's a better question.
when a mother and child are dying every 7 minutes via an illegal (dirty/risky) abortion, all over the world, why is saving one of those 2 lives at risk, a bad thing ??

reply to post by Honor93

266 days = 38 weeks

I take it then that you will admit that 40 weeks in the womb is not premature.

I really would like to know what the difference is between the fetus delivered backwards with the head still inside the mother and the same being a moment later when the head slips out.

How is it okay to snip the spine one moment..... and it is murder a moment later?

I know it has been a long time, but this is what I have been looking for this whole time. You have decided that it is easier to argue about a two week time span that really means nothing. You were still talking about it a few posts up. Women are overdue every day in America.

Come on, I realize that since I am a man, I have NO right to say anything regarding pregnancy.....
BUT maybe you can help me with this one thing that I originally asked about.

reply to post by butcherguy

40wks in the womb is abnormal for any pregnancy, what's your point ?

then ask a politician, not me.
also, if you could prove that it was an accepted and lawful practice, it might be worthy a discussion.

so far, all you've shared are the horrid acts committed by a criminal, which is nothing new.

do you have a relevant question ?
or are you rehashing the acts of a criminal because you have no other reasonable argument ?

no, that's your mistake, not mine.
i have a problem with the loss of 2 lives with every illegal abortion performed, rather nit-picking by the week to swing the advantage back to killing 2 lives with every unlawful/illegal abortion

can you provide any proof of these so-called "full-term", elective abortions that are performed legally ? (hint: 3rd trimester is NOT full-term)

meanwhile, you prefer to harp on the acts of criminals ... kinda sounds like the gun control fruitcakes if you ask me.

i don't recall talking about or mentioning this ...

You were still talking about it a few posts up. Women are overdue every day in America

quote it or you're full of it.

i have no interest in justifying the acts of criminals, why do you ?

Originally posted by watchitburn
Bottom line:

It is not your, mine, or anyone else's business what other people do with their body.
It is especially not the right of the Govt. to have any say in the matter.

And yet certain groups are telling us that our children do not "belong" to us, that they "belong" to society. If this is the case, then society should decide wether the child lives or dies.

I'm not saying I agree with this. I just think its funny that people argue both sides of an issue depending on the agenda.

Originally posted by resoe26

I know it's not 'considered' murder by the judicial system. but define murder and you'll see what is wrong with "abortion".

Definition of MURDER

1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2a : something very difficult or dangerous
b : something outrageous or blameworthy

www.merriam-webster.com...

The key word is "unlawfully". At this point in time it is not unlawful to have an abortion, so it is not murder.