About Last Night (Arab Spring Texas Style)

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i'm glad that people are bothering to get involved, but i am in support of such a bill. abortion is appalling as it is, and i think it should only be available in extreme cases (such as a serious and legitimate health risk to the mother).

the above is a 20 week old unborn baby. yup, completely not murder.


Can it survive outside of the womb at 20 weeks? How can it be murder when it probably cannot survive outside of the womb?




posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 



What about rape, incest?

the amount of pregnancies from rape is far less than 1%. around 65,000 rapes occur every year that could result in pregnancy (completed rape). of those 65,000, only 5% get pregnant. if they all got abortions, that would be 3,250 total per year due to rape. that's .26% of abortions due to rape, assuming they ALL got abortions.

finding credible numbers on incest is difficult, but i highly doubt it is much higher.
edit on 27-6-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: math mistake



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 



Can it survive outside of the womb at 20 weeks?


Sure can, medical technology has come a long way when it comes to premature birth.

I do not think all abortion should be illegal, but to deny that the termination of a 20 week year old human being who is practically fully developed is not somehow unethical is kind of sad.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 



Can it survive outside of the womb at 20 weeks? How can it be murder when it probably cannot survive outside of the womb?

can a year old child survive without a parent? no. how can killing a young child be murder when leaving it alone would also result in it's death? that is the line of reasoning you travel.

it's murder when life is purposely ended. 4 weeks after conception there is a heart beat and separate circulatory system/blood type from the mother.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7

Originally posted by mrnotobc
It's sad that people feel so elated about easy access to kill their babys. I'm not saying abortion shouldn't be available, but there's a price your soul will have to pay.


What about rape, incest? Oh wait that's all just God's plan right?
Get real buddy.

This was a turning point in Texas politics. The state is already turning purple and sideshows like these just help speed things up.


No Texas is not turning "purple", however I do wonder if there would of been the same turn out in other cities. Rape, incest? Really?! We are talking 20 weeks, that is at least 4 months. I am sure if one had become pregnant by rape or incest they would not wait almost 4 months to abort.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by the4thhorseman
 


As most people have said, that's not the major issue. As I understand it the vat majority of clinics in Texas won't perform an abortion after about twelve weeks already anyway. The bigger issue is that this would close almost all the clinics in the state, removing easy access to family planning and other services for a lot of women.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7

Originally posted by mrnotobc
It's sad that people feel so elated about easy access to kill their babys. I'm not saying abortion shouldn't be available, but there's a price your soul will have to pay.


What about rape, incest? Oh wait that's all just God's plan right?
Get real buddy.

This was a turning point in Texas politics. The state is already turning purple and sideshows like these just help speed things up.


So in your mind most abortions are because of rape or incest? Of course you know that's not the case, you just don't give a f$5k. Get real.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



As most people have said, that's not the major issue. As I understand it the vat majority of clinics in Texas won't perform an abortion after about twelve weeks already anyway. The bigger issue is that this would close almost all the clinics in the state, removing easy access to family planning and other services for a lot of women.

let's be completely honest. the vast majority of abortions are carried out due to convenience, not defects, not rape, not incest, not health risks to the mother.

so...why do we need so many clinics? the only argument that can be made for abortion legally is if the mother is at serious risk, otherwise it is ending a human life through intent. it is murder for convenience.

i do not say this out of religious belief any more than i say murder is wrong out of religious belief. the reason it is allowed today is because the supreme court ruled that the right to privacy under the 14th amendment due process clause kept the "women's health" issue between her and her doctor.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
If a fetus cannot survive outside the womb then it's not an individual but rather an organism in a parasitic stage. Women have the right to their body, so at any time during a pregnancy if she chooses to no longer have a fetus feeding off her she should have the ability not to have it. If it's old enough to survive on it's own then so be it, create a law that requires that the fetus be removed and not aborted. If it's not able to survive outside of feeding off the woman's body then that means it is not an individual organism but still one still in a parasitic stage.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyofGlass
 



If a fetus cannot survive outside the womb then it's not an individual but rather an organism in a parasitic stage.

then i ask you why this does not apply to infants. an infant cannot live on it's own, so why should a mother be bothered to feed it and take care of it if she doesn't want to?

no difference.

biologically speaking it is an individual, with unique DNA, a separate circulatory system, etc. what is the difference between a "fetus" getting nutrients from the mother, and an "infant" getting nutrients from the mother?



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
An infant doesn't require a host body to feed off of for nutrients. You can feed an infant with bottles as you can feed an elderly person with feeding tubes. An infant does not require a host body for survival. The definition of a parasite is :

Noun
An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
No comment
edit on 27-6-2013 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyofGlass
 



An infant doesn't require a host body to feed off of for nutrients.


No, but it still needs another individual to take care of it for it to survive.


An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.


By that definition a child is still a parasite if its mother breast feeds it. The application of the word parasite in conjunction with a fetus of any species is intellectually dishonest.
edit on 27-6-2013 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 


A baby out in the forest that has only a mother and requires her body to survive is a parasite by all definitions. She has the right to choose her own nutrition over the infant. Biology usually kicks in and the mothers choose to feed the child, but for all purposes she has the right to choose herself.

In modern society we have bottles, therefore an infant can be fed and survive without living or feeding off another body. If a woman chooses to still allow that infant to feed that is her own prerogative and her decision as to whether she allows her body to be used that way. No one has the right to force her to feed the infant and forgo her own nutrients as she has a right to her body. The same is true of pregnancy, a woman has the right to have the parasite feeding or not. If at any point she chooses not to have it, it is her body, her health, her nutrients, and her decision whether or not she wants to be rid of it.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyofGlass
 



An infant doesn't require a host body to feed off of for nutrients.

it does require a person to feed and take care of it. so why? women's rights, eh? it's my body, and if i don't want to use it to take care of an infant i won't, you can't tell me what to do with my body.

that's the argument you're making.

an unborn child doesn't even classify as a parasite. parasites invade the body, or attach to the body, they're a separate species, and their presence generally causes harm. parasites also generally remain with the host for life, or until removed. they are not part of the natural life cycle.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyofGlass
 



A baby out in the forest that has only a mother and requires her body to survive is a parasite by all definitions. She has the right to choose her own nutrition over the infant. Biology usually kicks in and the mothers choose to feed the child, but for all purposes she has the right to choose herself.

so what you're saying is that if a mother is FORCED to choose between the life of her child, and her own life, she is allowed. i already said that if an unborn baby posed a legitimate health threat to the mother, then the mother could choose, but that is very rare.

however this is not the case with the majority of abortions. it is not an issue of life or death, but of convenience.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyofGlass
 


So one individuals rights are greater than anothers? That is what you are saying right?. Either that or that babies don't have human rights.

I'm sorry that women by cosmic happenstance have the burden of carrying children. I just do not find it ethical to kill an intelligent human being. After four weeks (which is more than enough time) of pregnancy the door should be closed unless serious complications arise.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


There are different types of parasitic behavior. Please look up adelpho-parasite. An unwanted pregnancy resulting from sperm from a male would be considered adelpho-parasitism as the fetus is of the same species and uses the host to survive. Perhaps this makes people uncomfortable but it doesn't change the behavior of a fetus inside a woman's body. You can argue the point all day but people have a right to control their own bodies. If someone doesn't want to feed something living inside them they have the right not to.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
A quick question which I've never considered. When an adult, sane, woman becomes pregnant, can anyone force her to do anything in regard to the pregnancy, or, the whatever you want to call it, which is inside of her? Conversely, can anyone prevent her from doing anything?

Is that also true for the man who impregnated her?



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I believe people have a right to control their own bodies. In the case of a woman having a fetus living off her internally, it is still a part of body until it is born or removed and living on it's own. In the case of a man requiring her to abort or to bore it is still a case of him controlling the outcome of her body. Is that unfair? Pregnancy is a lopsided biological event where the woman becomes a host to a parasitic organism, it's not an equal experience. In terms of control she has the right to not be a host if she so chooses as it is her body. In the future it is possible technology will reach the point where a fetus can be safely and easily removed and grown outside of a host body, but that day isn't today.





new topics
top topics
 
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join