The Abortion is Murder - Madness on the so called Christian Right

a reply to: Nyiah

You're taking things way too far. Don't want to take a baby to term? Don't get pregnant. Problem solved.

Can't be bothered to abstain or have your uterus removed/tubes tied/or use effective birth control methods? Be mentally prepared to take that baby to term, should you get pregnant.

Every man has dealt with this decision in their lives. If they choose to not abstain or have a vasectomy, not to use protection of some kind, or that protection fails, they're liable for that baby until they're 18. The fact that women don't want to face a similar decision, makes them look like they're weak minded.

Abortion has no place in a civil society. Of course there can be exceptions. But abortion on demand is clinical murder. The circumstances need to justify the taking of life.

a reply to: Dfairlite

So the rape victim, regardless of age, who gets pregnant as a result of being sexually assaulted, is ultimately to blame because she didn't 'problem solve' preemptively with medical procedures? O_o

What exceptions are you alluding to, and do those exceptions align with the aforementioned ones in Alabama now?

a reply to: Dfairlite

I'm in no way taking things "too far". I have in fact had my tubes tied, and if the tubal fails, which there is a small risk of that increases as time goes on (be it ectopic, or normal implantation) there still will be no third kid. I'm well within my rights post-sterilization to decide as much for myself in the event of tubal ligation failure.
You, on the other hand, are not.
I have no interest in a sexless marriage, let alone interest in a baby in my mid-30's, husband's late-40's to satisfy your or any other stranger's wants (that's too old for newborns to us, and the 2 kids we already have is plenty)

I will not be liable for, nor raise something, I made sure to try to prevent with the best iron-clad method available. And you don't get to tell me otherwise.

originally posted by: Dfairlite

Every man has dealt with this decision in their lives. If they choose to not abstain or have a vasectomy, not to use protection of some kind, or that protection fails, they're liable for that baby until they're 18.

Really????

So where do all the single mothers and absent fathers come from???

Most of those single mothers are constantly chasing child support which

never arrives.

The fact that women don't want to face a similar decision, makes them look like they're weak minded.

Or taking responsibility, You dont know their circumstances, You dont

actually think a woman sits around thinking " Oh I think I'll have an abortion

this week."

There are times in life for everyone when hard and difficult decisions

have to be made.

If you kill a pre-born Sea Turtle, you potentially face a $100,000 fine and 1 year in prison
If you kill a pre-born Bald Eagle, you face a $250,000 fine and a 2 year prison sentence
If you kill a pre-born human being, there is no penalty

If life is determined ended when the heart stops beating, why isn't life considered begun when the heart starts beating?

There are no religious connotations in here.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Rape/incest/life of mother. You know, the things that make up less than 2% of current abortions.

a reply to: Nyiah

Ectopic would be a life of the mother situation. Otherwise, yes, you should have to deal with it.

I will not be liable for, nor raise something, I made sure to try to prevent with the best iron-clad method available. And you don't get to tell me otherwise.

Yeah, that's not how this works. You put the trampoline in your back yard and guess what, you're liable. Even if you take every possible precaution. You don't get to kill someone because they might inconvenience you. It's shocking how you find that acceptable.

a reply to: eletheia

Most of those single mothers are constantly chasing child support which

never arrives.

Sadly, only about 70% of child support gets paid, it needs to be fixed.

I'm all for locking up those who habitually don't pay, or garnishing their wages or if you have another solution, let me know. But killing the kid isn't the answer. Our society has to put a bigger emphasis on family and caring for children or we're headed no where good, fast. That goes for men and women.

There are times in life for everyone when hard and difficult decisions

have to be made.

The taking of another life isn't a hard and difficult decision that has to be made. It's evil and wrong.

originally posted by: Dfairlite

Sadly, only about 70% of child support gets paid, it needs to be fixed.

I would guarantee it is a LOT lower.

I'm all for locking up those who habitually don't pay, or garnishing their wages or if you have another solution, let me know. But killing the kid isn't the answer. Our society has to put a bigger emphasis on family and caring for children or we're headed no where good, fast. That goes for men and women.

Perhaps the other half who created the fetus should be handcuffed to

the woman till she is cleared from being pregnant?

The taking of another life isn't a hard and difficult decision that has to be made. It's evil and wrong.

Well why is the man involved not concerned? If he is around the procedure

would most possibly not be needed?

Abortion has only been made safe in the last 50 or so years ago, prior to

that desperate women died regularly through sepsis of ruptured uterus's

and the use of knitting needles, crochet hooks, coat hangers, etc.

DO YOU THINK THAT WAS EASY OR A DESPERATE WOMAN?

If she couldn't get a medical one a desperate woman would resort to that.


Maybe thats a male attitude......Punish the slag for having or enjoying sex.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Rape/incest/life of mother. You know, the things that make up less than 2% of current abortions.

What's your point? Even if it were one single person, the point of contention would still apply.

Is there a reason you didn't answer the questions? Do you not have answers?

a reply to: Lucius Driftwood

If life is determined ended when the heart stops beating, why isn't life considered begun when the heart starts beating?

The heart ceasing to function is the determining factor because without it all other organs cease in their function. The brain could be in a vegetative state, in all practical purpose 'dead', but the body is kept 'alive' due to the functioning cardiovascular system. It's not a proclamation that the heart is the 'seat of the soul' like in Ancient Egypt.

What do we mean by being alive? To me it's when the fetus develops the necessary neurological structures to produce sentience. This is a product of the brain, not the heart. If we accept that definition then it's valid to state 'life' does not occur at the point of conception and requires a specified amount of time to transpire to reach that point.

That's what the scientific findings overwhelming show. The arguments in opposition to that, from my vantage point, are largely rooted in theologically defensible positions.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Nyiah

Ectopic would be a life of the mother situation. Otherwise, yes, you should have to deal with it.

I will not be liable for, nor raise something, I made sure to try to prevent with the best iron-clad method available. And you don't get to tell me otherwise.

Yeah, that's not how this works. You put the trampoline in your back yard and guess what, you're liable. Even if you take every possible precaution. You don't get to kill someone because they might inconvenience you. It's shocking how you find that acceptable.

Yes, it is how it words. It's been how it works for almost 50 years now. It's not changing any time soon because of these right wing religious nut jobs who think their loud whining is going to change how the Supreme Court views constitutional rights and the unborn.

a reply to: Nyiah

It is no perception. Human life begins at conception. Even the American College of Pediatricians agree.

When Human Life Begins

American College of Pediatricians – March 2017

ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.
...

When Human Life Begins

For a long time several of us were arguing that the left was not going to end with wanting abortion for any reason on the second trimester, but now you want abortion even on the due date for any reason, and even when the HUMAN baby survives the abortion and is born alive (which makes them newborns) demonic states like New York have made it legal for the "death practitioner" to allow the newborn to die... No longer is it a crime in New York for a criminal to cause a pregnant woman to lose her child, even if she and her husband wanted the child...

And it won't stop there, in time plenty of leftists will even agree with "after birth abortion" or the murder of newborns for any reason...

Here is the difference between your ideology and ours. You believe that the most innocent humans who can't protect themselves have no right to live. It is your belief that they are not human, and that the unborn are property of the pregnant women... Just like democrats believed for a long time that slaves were not human and were property...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

[ Human life begins at conception. Even the American College of Pediatricians agree.

Of course 'life' begins at conception. Cells are living. The important question for an ethical argument is when does sentience begin.

Here is an abstract from a study taken from the Journal of Maternal-Fetal Medicine:

The question of when the human fetus develops the capacity for sentience is central to many contentious issues. The answer could and should influence attitudes toward IVF and embryo experimentation, abortion, and fetal and neonatal surgery. For the fetus to be described as sentient, the somatosensory pathways from the periphery to the primary somatosensory region of the cerebral cortex must be established and functional. Fetal behaviour is described and the development of the underlying anatomical substrate and the chemical and electrical pathways involved in the detection, transmission, and perception of somatosensory stimuli are reviewed.

It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed.

When is the Capacity for Sentience Acquired During Human Fetal Development?

a reply to: eletheia

I would guarantee it is a LOT lower.

You would be wrong (the actual numer is 68.5% See here). But regardless, it is a problem.

Perhaps the other half who created the fetus should be handcuffed to the woman till she is cleared from being pregnant?

We used to call this marriage...

Well why is the man involved not concerned? If he is around the procedure would most possibly not be needed?

Obviously that's a case by case basis. But whether the man is concerned or not, is not relevant. Just as it wouldn't be relevant after the baby is born. Just cause dad didn't care doesn't mean mom can kill her kids.

DO YOU THINK THAT WAS EASY OR A DESPERATE WOMAN?

Both. I mean, why were they aborting their children? What were their motives in most cases?

If she couldn't get a medical one a desperate woman would resort to that.

Yes? So because it might be hard to kill someone yourself should we make hit jobs legal too?

Maybe thats a male attitude......Punish the slag for having or enjoying sex.

The man is also punished, he is liable for child support at the very least. But again, mom doesn't have to keep the baby. She just has to not kill her kid. She can put it up for adoption and the baby will be adopted rather quickly 95% of the time.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Certainly, the potential life of an individual begins at conception. But, life itself is a closed system, that neither begins or ends, as far as we understand. A lot of things have to happen before a fertilized egg becomes a born person. One of those things is the mother's permission.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Is there a reason you didn't answer the questions? Do you not have answers?

I thought my answer made the other answers self explanatory. My bad.

A rape exception would make it so that rape would be an exception and an abortion would be allowed.

The alabama law only makes an exception for life of the mother. I disagree with that. But I don't live in alabama, so not really my problem.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, it is how it works.

Not in Alabama or Missouri, now.

It's been how it works for almost 50 years now.

And? I guess that means you'll stop going after guns, won't you?

It's not changing any time soon because of these right wing religious nut jobs who think their loud whining is going to change how the Supreme Court views constitutional rights and the unborn.

Oh, the insidious nature (from the left pov) of the alabama bill is that it will require the supreme court to define when life begins. Once that happens, Roe v. wade is meaningless. Once life has an official start, there will be no way to define abortion after that other than murder. But your precious child sacrifice will still be allowed before life begins (according to what the supreme court rules).

a reply to: Dfairlite

The alabama law only makes an exception for life of the mother. I disagree with that. But I don't live in alabama, so not really my problem.

I'd like to think the compassionate position would transcend ones own neighborhood, but fine..

It's pretty well understood the intent is to push this all the way to the Supreme Court. If it passes there then it's federally enforced.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Not in Alabama or Missouri, now.

Sorry, no. Laws don't go into effect immediately, they contain a begin date. None of them are currently in effect, at this moment.

Further, all these "laws" are patently unconstitutional, and everyone knows it. They will be struck down by the courts. The Governor of Georgia acknowledged that the law would never see the light of day! This is all political theater, ramping up to the 2020 election.

And? I guess that means you'll stop going after guns, won't you?

I support the 2nd Amendment. Do you support the Constitution? How about the 14th Amendment, for starters?

Oh, the insidious nature (from the left pov) of the alabama bill is that it will require the supreme court to define when life begins.

Nope. That's not the job of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's job is to determine if the law is constitutional, and it clearly is not.