My family is against abortion and i am considering getting one what to do?

[Stephenkes]

I am planning on making an appointment for an abortion but my family is against abortion. I was going to get the abortion and tell my family i had a miscourage. However, my sister is a sergical tech and is very familiar with hospitals and the things that go on and being she knows so much pertaining to medical things i think she will know i got an abortion.

[yee-haw]

First off how old are you and may i ask why you were careless in having unprotected sex knowing you did'nt want a child?
(Unless rape)

2nd Thing i have to say is you'll find my views very stretched on this subject steph...
I truly believe it is a tragedy and murder to have an abortion...HOWEVER!!!
It's a greater tragedy for the woman not to have a right to choose... touchy subject for sure, You're gonna get some interesting comments on this.


BTW.. welcome to the funny farm we call Bullshit.

[1stoic1]

I truly believe it is a tragedy and murder to have an abortion...HOWEVER!!!
It's a greater tragedy for the woman not to have a right to choose...

Withholding the right to choose murder is a greater tragedy than murder itself? That makes no sense.

[yee-haw]

Withholding the right to choose murder is a greater tragedy than murder itself? That makes no sense.

Not what i meant, don't you agree the woman should have the right to choose?

[beelzebub]

I am planning on making an appointment for an abortion but my family is against abortion. I was going to get the abortion and tell my family i had a miscourage. However, my sister is a sergical tech and is very familiar with hospitals and the things that go on and being she knows so much pertaining to medical things i think she will know i got an abortion.

If you are a minor you may have to get parental clearance depending on your state: CLICK HERE FOR LISTING (http://parentingteens.about.com/od/teenpregfact/a/abortion_laws.htm)

If you are an adult then go talk to an expert Planned Parenthood (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/)

Make a wise choice AS it is YOUR CHOICE!!!!

Dont let anyone tell you different and ignore assholes that try to guilt trip you into doing what THEY WANT you to do!

[1stoic1]

Not what i meant,

You said that you think abortion is murder, and then proceeded to say that women not being able to abort (murder) is a greater tragedy than abortion (murder). What else could you have meant?


don't you agree the woman should have the right to choose?

Not unless there is efficacious extraction and nurturing procedures available, which is what both sides of the debate should be striving for.

[1stoic1]

Make a wise choice AS it is YOUR CHOICE!!!!

Dont let anyone tell you different and ignore assholes that try to guilt trip you into doing what THEY WANT you to do!

You think someone is an asshole for trying to minimize the death of innocents? Don't you guilt-trip (or at least attempt to guilt-trip) homophobes into believing you're not subhuman and to treat you equally? Immoral people should feel guilty.

[Patt]

I am planning on making an appointment for an abortion but my family is against abortion. I was going to get the abortion and tell my family i had a miscourage. However, my sister is a sergical tech and is very familiar with hospitals and the things that go on and being she knows so much pertaining to medical things i think she will know i got an abortion.

She won't know unless you tell her. She doesn't have transparent eyeballs that can read your thoughts you know. She will only know what you tell her. She can guess until the cows come home, but that doesn't make her right.

Personally, when put in a position where I'd have to lie to anyone, I'd be hard pressed to do that. I firmly believe the only people in this world who are on your side from beginning to end are your parents. I know it's difficult, but if I were in your shoes, I'd have to speak to them about my decision and all the ramifications of that decision. This affects the rest of your life, no matter the path you choose. There is no way around that.

[beelzebub]

Not unless there is efficacious extraction and nurturing procedures available, which is what both sides of the debate should be striving for.

You use of the word "efficacious" is superfluous given the context then the use for the word nurturing.

We are saying that a woman has the right to choose to abort... PERIOD.

[1stoic1]

You use of the word "efficacious" is superfluous given the context then the use for the word nurturing.

No, both procedures must be efficacious. If the extraction procedure harms the mother, or damages the fetus therein hurting it's chances to grow and benefit from the perfectly proficient nurture treatment, then that extraction procedure isn't efficacious.


We are saying that a woman has the right to choose to abort... PERIOD.

I noticed, and you're wrong for doing so. You have the right to do whatever you want with your own body, except if what you're doing causes harm (ie death) to another.

[beelzebub]

No, both procedures must be efficacious. If the extraction procedure harms the mother, or damages the fetus therein hurting it's chances to grow and benefit from the perfectly proficient nurture treatment, then that extraction procedure isn't efficacious.

You, obviously, don't know what that word means and/or how to use it.


I noticed, and you're wrong for doing so. You have the right to do whatever you want with your own body, except if what you're doing causes harm (ie death) to another.

A fetus is apart of the mothers body. Therefore; it is under the discretion of the mother as to whether the fetus should be carried to term or not. It is most certainly NOT yours!

[1stoic1]

You, obviously, don't know what that word means and/or how to use it.

ef·fi·ca·cious
capable of having the desired result or effect; effective as a means, measure, remedy, etc 

You see, if extraction harmed any parties, or if nurturing failed to sustain development, then those procedures would be incapable of having the desired result and ineffectual as a means. I hope this resolves your confusion.


A fetus is apart of the mothers body. Therefore; it is under the discretion of the mother as to whether the fetus should be carried to term or not. It is most certainly NOT yours!

Your argument is flawed:

A child lives in the parents' house. Therefore; it is is under the discretion of the parents as to whether the child should be fed and clothed for 18 years or not. It is most certainly NOT yours!

Obviously, parents should not be permitted to neglect their children or cast them out into the streets to die because that is vile and nonsensical, and the same is true before parturition as well.

[peepers]

Well I'm going to throw my two cents into this two. Listen hun, I'm personally against abortion, but it's up too you to make that decision. Will you be happy with that decision ten years down the road? Is it worth it in the long run? I'd go with my gut feelings on this one, and if it were me, and I had to question getting an abortion I wouldn't get it, but that's just me.

[MrJim]

OP obviously does not care about this child. She wants it gone - without getting caught - and that is that. She is the one who gets to live with that decision.

[LedZap]

The OP is in India. I was thinking Spammer at first but let it fly.

[yee-haw]

You said that you think abortion is murder, and then proceeded to say that women not being able to abort (murder) is a greater tragedy than abortion (murder). What else could you have meant?



Not unless there is efficacious extraction and nurturing procedures available, which is what both sides of the debate should be striving for.


Let me break it down real simple for your bonehead...

I do not agree with abortion, However i feel the woman should have the right to choose what she does with her body.
you understand that or do you need me to draw you a picture?

[1stoic1]

I do not agree with abortion, However i feel the woman should have the right to choose what she does with her body.


And you don't agree with abortion because, as per your own words, you think it is murder. Therefore, you think women should have the right to murder. You might want to reconsider your position on this issue.

[yee-haw]

And you don't agree with abortion because, as per your own words, you think it is murder. Therefore, you think women should have the right to murder. You might want to reconsider your position on this issue.

So maybe i mis-worded what i said but do you get my standpoint or no?

[1stoic1]

So maybe i mis-worded what i said but do you get my standpoint or no?

No, I don't. What exactly did you misword?

[MrJim]

Abortion is murder, no doubt about that. The pro-choice crowd seems to believe that this murder is acceptable considering the circumstances.

Generally, murder is only acceptable as a remedy for clear and present danger. The pro-choicers, given their stance, seem to equate childbirth to a direct threat to safety, when in most cases it is just an inconvenience.

So although I can do nothing about it, a pro-choice individual believes in allowing cold-hearted murder, and that is all there is to it.

[beelzebub]

Abortion is murder, no doubt about that.

AS abortion is lawful... not illegal. Murder has to be illegal therefore abortion is NOT murder! You are wrong here MJ.


, a pro-choice individual believes in allowing cold-hearted murder, and that is all there is to it.

Why do you wish to intercede in a woman's decision over her own body?

[beelzebub]

I'm personally against abortion, but it's up too you to make that decision.

I agree and thanks for the post.

[Carrot]

I don't know, if a petri dish of embryos was knocked over, would you really consider it to be a mass manslaughter? What if you had to choose between two week old embryos and an 8 month old feutus?

How do you rank something, by it's potential or it's current state?

How much more potentitial does a single celled zygote have over a seperate spermazoid and an egg an instant beforehand?

Couples who can't get pregnant get fertilised in vitro, multiple eggs are fertilised and any unused (not unuseable) ones are discarded, should that practice be stopped?

All I know is
0 weeks- ideal
9 months- abhorrent

Mothers life at risk (assume baby will be fine) - no doubt about allowing abortion ( I would insist)
Mother's health at risk (assume baby will be fine) - Depending on how much, and the stage of the pregnancy I would lean towards an abortion. Would you? Is that equivalent to murdering a child to save your wife?

Then, when you get into practicalities of enforcement, becase realistically abortion will always occur, and then you also have increased dustbin babies.

I definately think the allowable time sould be reduced, it can be over 20 weeks which I think is far too much (was the average 16 weeks, can't remember).
Thinking about the real world, 6-8 weeks IMO should be the maximum allowable time. Ideally 4 or less.

I also think the father should get a say, but as always with practicalities, accusations of rape etc will complicate things.

But my opinion sways.

[Carrot]

AS abortion is lawful... not illegal. Murder has to be illegal therefore abortion is NOT murder! You are wrong here MJ.

Drop that, that's just petty and not getting anywhere and does't help the argument.

Lets use "souless killing of innocents in cold blood".

[beelzebub]

Drop that, that's just petty and not getting anywhere and does't help the argument.

I wont,... its not petty its FACTUAL. ITS NOT MURDER!!!!!!!!


Lets use "souless killing of innocents in cold blood".

Well its warm blood as they are in the womb. and they (IMHO) do not have a soul as that is a misconception to begin with.

[1stoic1]

AS abortion is lawful... not illegal. Murder has to be illegal therefore abortion is NOT murder! You are wrong here MJ.


I wont,... its not petty its FACTUAL. ITS NOT MURDER!!!!!!!!

Does that mean gay marriage shouldn't be recognized because marriage was established as a union between a man and a woman and there are laws that maintain it as such?

Espousing the legal application of murder is petty because it bears no significance. Laws that are corrupt should be changed, and using precedents to curtail the severity of a wrongdoing is intellectually and morally vacuous.


Why do you wish to intercede in a woman's decision over her own body?

Why do you wish to permit murder?

[peepers]

I'm not wanting to be an asshole, but we got away from the topic of helping this girl make her decision, and the argument of pro and life choice. That doesn't seem to help her out that much in my opinion.

[Rec]

If she is underage, she should deal with her parents, if she is not, the decision is hers and the fathers. This is one arguement that MAY NOT be decided except by her, it is her act, her responsiblilty, since she was implicit in the act that brought it about, and she and the male should have to make the decision, if they are not underage or even if they are go to someone qualified to answer ALL the question entailed in the situation, physically, medically and morally. It rest in those areas, the decision can be made by noone else,,,,,,intentions whether good or bad are of and from others, not hers. The end result good or bad or indifferent will be hers alone.

[1stoic1]

I don't know, if a petri dish of embryos was knocked over, would you really consider it to be a mass manslaughter?

Yes, why wouldn't I? Perhaps mass infanticide through negligence is a more fitting description.


What if you had to choose between two week old embryos and an 8 month old feutus?

I would choose the one most likely to survive. If that is not discernable, then I would randomly select one.


How do you rank something, by it's potential or it's current state?

In the event of classifying a human being eligible for the right to life, you judge by it's current state.


Couples who can't get pregnant get fertilised in vitro, multiple eggs are fertilised and any unused (not unuseable) ones are discarded, should that practice be stopped?

Yes.


Mothers life at risk (assume baby will be fine) - no doubt about allowing abortion ( I would insist)
Mother's health at risk (assume baby will be fine) - Depending on how much, and the stage of the pregnancy I would lean towards an abortion. Would you? Is that equivalent to murdering a child to save your wife?

Of course it is equivalent.


Then, when you get into practicalities of enforcement, becase realistically abortion will always occur, and then you also have increased dustbin babies.

Crime will always occur, that doesn't change what we ought to do.

[1stoic1]

I'm not wanting to be an asshole, but we got away from the topic of helping this girl make her decision, and the argument of pro and life choice. That doesn't seem to help her out that much in my opinion.

Dissuading her from becomming a selfish homicidal cretin is helpful.

[1stoic1]

If she is underage, she should deal with her parents, if she is not, the decision is hers and the fathers. This is one arguement that MAY NOT be decided except by her, it is her act, her responsiblilty, since she was implicit in the act that brought it about, and she and the male should have to make the decision, if they are not underage or even if they are go to someone qualified to answer ALL the question entailed in the situation, physically, medically and morally. It rest in those areas, the decision can be made by noone else,,,,,,intentions whether good or bad are of and from others, not hers. The end result good or bad or indifferent will be hers alone.

Why are you granting leeway for someone to commit murder?

[Rec]

I do not support abortion, only if the mothers life in the balance. I grant nothing, as I am not the one pregnant. That being said, whatever I say, it is not my decision to kill an unborn child, and even if I said that it was a very bad wrong, how will that stop the practice of abortion? It will not for people since the beginning of time have aborted babies, killed them all sorts of ways and will as long is man is here on this planet.

I sincerely believe that it is murder from a moral stance and a scientific one, a fetus in any stage it is in holds the poteniality of being the human it is meant to be in actuality and will remain that person until death by old age or some other cause. Is this what you really want to hear? I believe it is wrong and for a normal pregancy it is murder. However, it will still be done lawfully or unlawfully and justified for all sorts of reason to make a person comfortable with the decision, but yes I feel that it is murder.

And I know what the after effects are for a woman that has life in her body, if she is capable of any feeling at all, for I have had two miscarriages, with the doctors putting me to bed and fighting for the life, and yet it still happend.....and I can tell you that emotionally and physically I felt death, loss, and for an extended period of time. Most do, but will not admitt it, because they have justified the act? I have also counseled young women that have had to work through the after effects, emotionally.

[MrJim]

AS abortion is lawful... not illegal. Murder has to be illegal therefore abortion is NOT murder!

I don't understand this logic at all. Are you actually trying to change the definition of the verb based on legality? It doesn't work that way. Sorry about that.

If it were possible for the child to ask what happened to him or her, what would the answer be? It wasn't an accident, natural causes, or any other causative explanation other than he/she was KILLED, DELIBERATELY, by a doctor acting as an agent for the mother. That's pretty cut and dry murder to me. Of course if your mind is made up that this behavior is okay, it's not going to change in the face of common sense; well, so be it.

The mother should decide what to do with her body? Maybe she should KNOW what she's doing then:


According to the best record based study of deaths following pregnancy and abortion, a 1997 government funded study in Finland, women who abort are approximately four times more likely to die in the following year than women who carry their pregnancies to term. In addition, women who carry to term are only half as likely to die as women who were not pregnant.

http://afterabortion.org/wp-content/uploads/1999/11/totaldeaths-300x196.jpg


The Finland researchers found that compared to women who carried to term, women who aborted in the year prior to their deaths were 60 percent more likely to die of natural causes, seven times more likely to die of suicide, four times more likely to die of injuries related to accidents, and 14 times more likely to die from homicide. Researchers believe the higher rate of deaths related to accidents and homicide may be linked to higher rates of suicidal or risk-taking behavior.

http://afterabortion.org/wp-content/uploads/1999/11/suicide-300x205.jpg


CERVICAL, OVARIAN, AND LIVER CANCER: Women with one abortion face a 2.3 relative risk of cervical cancer, compared to non-aborted women, and women with two or more abortions face a 4.92 relative risk. Similar elevated risks of ovarian and liver cancer have also been linked to single and multiple abortions. These increased cancer rates for post-aborted women are apparently linked to the unnatural disruption of the hormonal changes which accompany pregnancy and untreated cervical damage.

UTERINE PERFORATION: Between 2 and 3% of all abortion patients may suffer perforation of their uterus, yet most of these injuries will remain undiagnosed and untreated unless laparoscopic visualization is performed.5 Such an examination may be useful when beginning an abortion malpractice suit. The risk of uterine perforation is increased for women who have previously given birth and for those who receive general anesthesia at the time of the abortion. Uterine damage may result in complications in later pregnancies and may eventually evolve into problems which require a hysterectomy, which itself may result in a number of additional complications and injuries including osteoporosis.

CERVICAL LACERATIONS: Significant cervical lacerations requiring sutures occur in at least one percent of first trimester abortions. Lesser lacerations, or micro fractures, which would normally not be treated may also result in long term reproductive damage. Latent post-abortion cervical damage may result in subsequent cervical incompetence, premature delivery, and complications of labor. The risk of cervical damage is greater for teenagers, for second trimester abortions, and when practitioners fail to use laminaria for dilation of the cervix.

PLACENTA PREVIA: Abortion increases the risk of placenta previa in later pregnancies (a life threatening condition for both the mother and her wanted pregnancy) by seven to fifteen fold. Abnormal development of the placenta due to uterine damage increases the risk of fetal malformation, perinatal death, and excessive bleeding during labor.

SUBSEQUENT PRE-TERM DELIVERIES AND OTHER COMPLICATIONS OF LABOR: Women who had one, two, or more previous induced abortions are, respectively, 1.89, 2.66, or 2.03 times more likely to have a subsequent pre-term delivery, compared to women who carry to term. Prior induced abortion not only increased the risk of premature delivery, it also increased the risk of delayed delivery. Women who had one, two, or more induced abortions are, respectively, 1.89, 2.61, and 2.23 times more likely to have a post-term delivery (over 42 weeks). Pre-term delivery increases the risk of neo-natal death and handicaps.

HANDICAPPED NEWBORNS IN LATER PREGNANCIES: Abortion is associated with cervical and uterine damage which may increase the risk of premature delivery, complications of labor and abnormal development of the placenta in later pregnancies. These reproductive complications are the leading causes of handicaps among newborns.

ECTOPIC PREGNANCY: Abortion is significantly related to an increased risk of subsequent ectopic pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies, in turn, are life threatening and may result in reduced fertility.

PELVIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASE (PID): PID is a potentially life threatening disease which can lead to an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy and reduced fertility. Of patients who have a chlamydia infection at the time of the abortion, 23% will develop PID within 4 weeks. Studies have found that 20 to 27% of patients seeking abortion have a chlamydia infection. Approximately 5% of patients who are not infected by chlamydia develop PID within 4 weeks after a first trimester abortion. It is therefore reasonable to expect that abortion providers should screen for and treat such infections prior to an abortion.

ENDOMETRITIS: Endometritis is a post-abortion risk for all women, but especially for teenagers, who are 2.5 times more likely than women 20-29 to acquire endometritis following abortion.

IMMEDIATE COMPLICATIONS: Approximately 10% of women undergoing elective abortion will suffer immediate complications, of which approximately one-fifth (2%) are considered life threatening. The nine most common major complications which can occur at the time of an abortion are: infection, excessive bleeding, embolism, ripping or perforation of the uterus, anesthesia complications, convulsions, hemorrhage, cervical injury, and endotoxic shock. The most common “minor” complications include: infection, bleeding, fever, second degree burns, chronic abdominal pain, vomiting, gastro-intestinal disturbances, and Rh sensitization.

INCREASED RISKS FOR WOMEN SEEKING MULTIPLE ABORTIONS: In general, most of the studies cited above reflect risk factors for women who undergo a single abortion. These same studies show that women who have multiple abortions face a much greater risk of experiencing these complications. This point is especially noteworthy since approximately 45% of all abortions are for repeat aborters.

LOWER GENERAL HEALTH: In a survey of 1428 women researchers found that pregnancy loss, and particularly losses due to induced abortion, was significantly associated with an overall lower health. Multiple abortions correlated to an even lower evaluation of “present health.” While miscarriage was detrimental to health, abortion was found to have a greater correlation to poor health. These findings support previous research which reported that during the year following an abortion women visited their family doctors 80% more for all reasons and 180% more for psychosocial reasons. The authors also found that “if a partner is present and not supportive, the miscarriage rate is more than double and the abortion rate is four times greater than if he is present and supportive. If the partner is absent the abortion rate is six times greater.”

This finding is supported by a 1984 study that examined the amount of health care sought by women during a year before and a year after their induced abortions. The researchers found that on average, there was an 80 percent increase in the number of doctor visits and a 180 percent increase in doctor visits for psychosocial reasons after abortion.

INCREASED RISK FOR CONTRIBUTING HEALTH RISK FACTORS: Abortion is significantly linked to behavioral changes such as promiscuity, smoking, drug abuse, and eating disorders which all contribute to increased risks of health problems. For example, promiscuity and abortion are each linked to increased rates of PID and ectopic pregnancies. Which contributes most is unclear, but apportionment may be irrelevant if the promiscuity is itself a reaction to post- abortion trauma or loss of self esteem.

INCREASED RISKS FOR TEENAGERS: Teenagers, who account for about 30 percent of all abortions, are also at much high risk of suffering many abortion related complications. This is true of both immediate complications, and of long-term reproductive damage.

PSYCHOLOGICAL COMPLICATIONS: Increased risk for post-traumatic stress disorder, suicidal ideation and suicidal attempts, sexual dysfunction, eating disorders, child neglect and/or abuse, tendency to abuse alcohol and rugs, tendency to smoke, divorce and chronic relationship problems, and divorce/relationship complications.

(Source) (http://afterabortion.org/2000/abortion-four-times-deadlier-than-childbirth/)

[MrJim]

I would guess that most people hell-bent on abortion are probably too lazy, hard-headed, and/or ignorant to do the research themselves, but the nature of health complications associated with abortion appears to blow a huge hole in the 'let her do what she wants with her body' logic, since it's all pretty negative vs. child-rearing. The 'morning after pill' also fairs poorly:


At home and abroad, the abortion, family planning, and population control groups which seek to promote the morning after pill ignore the scientifically-proven risks of levonorgestrel (the sole active ingredient of Plan B MAP). These well-documented adverse side effects include significant weight gain (on average 15 pounds), depression, ovarian cyst enlargement, gallbladder disease, high blood pressure, respiratory disorders, increased risk of ectopic pregnancy and death. In some women, these serious adverse effects of levonorgestrel-type MAP could lead to further health risks for bulimia, anorexia, or clinical depression.

Given that the government has banned the use of many drugs, asbestos, lead paint, and a myriad of other substances based solely on the health risks of exposure, it surprises me that abortion hasn't been looked into on a health basis alone.

But yes, you guys are correct that the topic had gotten sidetracked with debating abortion, so above is some relevant material for OP to consider. Enjoy!

So you have a procedure that will kill OR (much worse) fail and seriously deform your child, and could also cause extreme harm to yourself. And should you STILL choose it, ignoring the death of your child, and ignoring the dangers of abortion? Then you are right about one thing, you shouldn't be breeding. But you shouldn't be killing babies either. So there should be a restraining order issued against your vagina - absolutely no peckers within 100 feet of this flaming black hole of selfishness, ignorance, and just blatant stupidity, period. EVER.

[sunny]

Good layout of your post Mr Jim...

I would only like to point out ONE item that I did not see on your list... if it is there, then please forgive me for repetition...

BREAST CANCER is being linked to abortions. You see... no one ever thought of telling the breasts to stop preparing themselves for nurturing an infant... once the process of pregnancy starts, so does the natural process the breasts undergo as they are preparing for nursing. Evidently, when this process is ABRUPTLY stopped, a problem begins, though it may take years to manifest.

Now, think about it. How many women do you know that have either had a miscarriage or an abortion? How many of those same women have/had breast cancer?


I am only one person... yet, every woman I know personally who has/had breast cancer DID indeed have one or the other. Is it plausable? I think perhaps.

The reason I say has/had... I have lost over ten friends due to breast cancer... now, that is sad.

[hitekredneck]

AS abortion is lawful... not illegal. Murder has to be illegal therefore abortion is NOT murder! You are wrong here MJ.

sorry bub...yer wrong....what's more is you know it.


Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
2. Slang . something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
3. a group or flock of crows.
–verb (used with object)
4. Law . to kill by an act constituting murder.
5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.


Mr jim, i commend you on your thorough research. Hopefully the OP will pay careful attention, and get all the information available before making her decision. Sunny, i feel for ya babe....i've a sister who barely survived BC and have lost quite a few friends and family members to this disease as well.

[MrJim]

Good layout of your post Mr Jim...

I would only like to point out ONE item that I did not see on your list... if it is there, then please forgive me for repetition...

BREAST CANCER is being linked to abortions. You see... no one ever thought of telling the breasts to stop preparing themselves for nurturing an infant... once the process of pregnancy starts, so does the natural process the breasts undergo as they are preparing for nursing. Evidently, when this process is ABRUPTLY stopped, a problem begins, though it may take years to manifest.

Thank you. I am just sick of hearing about the mom's body in regards to abortion, when it is actually her body that is being damaged in the process. Sort of a natural justice (GOD?) in play. Thanks for the additional info also. Maybe OP and any others reading will gain some understanding.


Now, think about it. How many women do you know that have either had a miscarriage or an abortion? How many of those same women have/had breast cancer?

My grandmother had a miscarriage. No breast cancer, though she got mouth cancer after 50 years or so of smoking w/no exhaling. She died peacefully at 74.

I haven't known anyone personally that actually went through with an abortion, though a couple of 'considerations' - I'd just slap them stupid. :D

Considering abortion is actually a disease in and of itself. We call that 'eat up with the dumbass' where I come from.


I am only one person...

I realize that you are only one person. I have the same attribute. In fact, everyone I know is only one person. It must be fate or something...


...yet, every woman I know personally who has/had breast cancer DID indeed have one or the other. Is it plausable? I think perhaps.

You bet.


The reason I say has/had... I have lost over ten friends due to breast cancer... now, that is sad.

I hate to hear it, genuinely, I do.

http://www.whyfame.com/gossip/2008/august/22/christina_applegate_double_mastectomy_but_no_babie s_main_3859.jpg

^ A disease enacted upon those breasts almost makes me an atheist, ALMOST.

[MrJim]

Mr jim, i commend you on your thorough research. Hopefully the OP will pay careful attention, and get all the information available before making her decision.

Thank you, although the research wasn't that thorough, just a Googling of common knowledge.

[MrJim]

Oh, by the way, as a follow-up to this thread, (http://www.bullshit.com/showthread.php?3752-Ultrasound-Abortion-Law) Texas' House just passed the bill requiring that all mothers considering abortion receive ultrasound results two hours preceding an abortion:


Texas is poised to enact legislation requiring women to undergo a sonogram and to listen to a doctor's description of the fetus before an abortion, following passage of the bill in the state House.

Representatives voted 103-42 to approve House Bill 15, which unlike a similar measure in the state Senate does not exempt women who are victims of rape or incest.

Seven Democrats voted in favor of the bill while one Republican, Rep. Sara Davis, voted in opposition, citing increasing government control and the intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship.

Republican Rep. Sid Miller, author of the measure, said the legislation is about providing women the chance for informed consent.

Passage was expected after the GOP gained a stronger majority and two previous failed attempts to approve a sonogram bill.

The House bill will be read and voted a final time on Monday before heading to the Senate to be reconciled with similar legislation. Gov. Rick Perry plans to sign the measure, having included the legislation among his emergency bills.

State senators passed their own sonogram bill last month, 21-10.

The Senate measure requires doctors to perform an ultrasound two hours before an abortion. They must give women the choice of viewing the ultrasound and of hearing the fetal heartbeat, but must describe of the sonogram, including details of the organs and limbs of the fetus regardless of the wishes of their patients.

In contrast, the bill authored by Republican state Rep. Sid Miller requires women to undergo a sonogram 24 to 72 hours before the procedure. The measure does not exempt pregnancies due to rape or incest, and those that involve irreversible fetal abnormality.

The Senate bill also had the time frame of 24 hours but Democrats changed this to two hours, saying the longer period of time was meant to discourage an abortion by requiring a woman to visit a clinic twice.

House Democrats on Thursday, knowing passage was imminent, tried to include dozens of amendments to make Miller's bill more acceptable.

Among them was state-sponsored healthcare or college tuition for children who were born after a woman changed her mind because of the ultrasound, an amendment proponents said would show the state's protection of a child did not stop after birth.

An amendment to provide pre-natal care for a woman who chooses not to abort after an ultrasound also failed.

Democrats criticized the House bill's use of an intrusive method of ultrasound, the trans-vaginal probe, instead of the less invasive abdominal sonogram.

“A woman who has been a victim of rape or incest would undergo the penetration of this trans-vaginal probe," Democratic Rep. Carol Alvarado was quoted by the San Antonio Current as saying during debate, explaining the procedure in detail with a vaginal probe.

"I think it's about shaming women, humiliating women and embarrassing women... Not even inmates in prison are forced to undergo such invasive procedures," Alvarado added, according to the Texas Tribune.

Democratic Rep. Rafael Anchia also blasted Miller for saying during debate that "he didn't know that his bill requires that an intrusive vaginal probe sonogram be performed on women seeking an abortion, as opposed to a non-invasive, abdominal sonogram procedure."

Anchia had pushed for including an amendment similar to one in the Senate bill, to exempt pregnancies involving fetal abnormalities. His proposal was rejected.

The Texas Medical Association had raised concerns about the bill, saying it would interfere with the doctor-patient relationship and allow non-doctors to decide on medical tests.

The association had warned of "the dangerous precedent" the law would set in the state.

The measure "would lay the foundation for future lawmakers to establish the details of the interaction between physicians and patients, and allow nonphysicians to mandate what tests, procedures, or medicines must be provided to patients and in what time frame," TMA president Susan Rudd Bailey said in a letter to state senators last month.

(Source) (http://www.allheadlinenews.com/briefs/articles/90038375?Texas%20House%20passes%20abortion-ultrasound%20bill%20without%20exceptions)

[beelzebub]

Does that mean gay marriage shouldn't be recognized because marriage was established as a union between a man and a woman and there are laws that maintain it as such?

Thats right.


Espousing the legal application of murder is petty because it bears no significance. Laws that are corrupt should be changed, and using precedents to curtail the severity of a wrongdoing is intellectually and morally vacuous.

Not it is not, because Murder is a legal term. You cant not like it and tell me how empty of morality and intelligence all you want but the FACT remains that is is a legal term. Abortion is NOT murder. It is killing.


Why do you wish to permit murder?

I stop with this statement: I believe you have NO RIGHT to tell a woman what she may or may not do with her body. Fini.

[beelzebub]

sorry bub...yer wrong....what's more is you know it.

Sorry HiTeck ... your wrong and I do know that.

[hitekredneck]

Sorry HiTeck ... your wrong and I do know that.

explain, bub....do you seriously consider abortion practices to be humane to the child? or in your case, fetus....

[beelzebub]

explain, bub....do you seriously consider abortion practices to be humane to the child? or in your case, fetus....

My reasoning is very simplistic. Murder is illegal. Since abortion is not illegal it cannot be called Murder. Humanity and morality do not come into play.

Killing yes,... murder no. My take is also voiced by many so it is not some wild delusion of my own creation.

But does this semantic battle really prove anything? I mean aren't we just parsing words?

The real direction is "Why is abortion Legal"???

[LedZap]

My reasoning is very simplistic. Murder is illegal. Since abortion is not illegal it cannot be called Murder. Humanity and morality do not come into play.

Killing yes,... murder no. My take is also voiced by many so it is not some wild delusion of my own creation.



So you admit it's killing an unborn child yet claim it's humane and moral ?

[beelzebub]

So you admit it's killing an unborn child yet claim it's humane and moral ?

I dont like it, I don't think i is immoral. I wish it wasn't necessary.

I think withholding a woman's rights over her own body for 9 months is immoral.

[LedZap]

I dont like it, I don't think i is immoral. I wish it wasn't necessary.

I think withholding a woman's rights over her own body for 9 months is immoral.

It was the womans CHOICE to have unprotected sex.

[beelzebub]

It was the womans CHOICE to have unprotected sex.

True,... now what?

[LedZap]

So killing an unborn baby human is less immoral than withholding a woman's rights over her own body in your opinion ?

[LedZap]

I don't think i is immoral.

I think withholding a woman's rights over her own body for 9 months is immoral.

I just can't understand that.How can anyone think it's not immoral to KILL a human .

[beelzebub]

I just can't understand that.How can anyone think it's not immoral to KILL a human .

What if a human was intent on doing harm to you or your family?

[LedZap]

What is a human was intent on doing harm to you or your family?

Put em in jail.

[beelzebub]

Put em in jail.

here is one for ya:

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/usa/images-2/ted-bundy-in-court.jpg

[LedZap]

Yeah , it bothers a lot of people how the "pro choice/ baby death" group feels it's not immoral to kill humans but will scream about the death penalty for human killers.

[Rec]

Bad choice here! Jeffery said that he had been raised with the idea that human life was blind, without purpose or meaning and therefore the taking of a life meant nothing to him. He saw no harm in it or wrong. Even to the point of eating the flesh. He thought that the teaching of nature being "red in claw and tooth" was literal in the human condition as well as the "animal" kingdom. Thoughts to ponder on. He later recanted that posit and confessed that what he did was beyond the pale.

See a connection here or not? If we are animals completely without the humanity, what difference would it make to a mind set like that???? One would not have a clear concept of what it is to be human or animal or the distinction between the two!!

[yee-haw]

No, I don't. What exactly did you misword?

I'm not claiming to be right.. I'm simply saying if i were a woman, I went and got knocked up i would not get an abortion.
that would be my choice because i'm against abortion i think it's wrong but the woman should have a right to make her own decision on her body.

That's my point... Fucked up subject is all i can say, Feel me dawg?

[1stoic1]

I do not support abortion, only if the mothers life in the balance. I grant nothing, as I am not the one pregnant. That being said, whatever I say, it is not my decision to kill an unborn child, and even if I said that it was a very bad wrong, how will that stop the practice of abortion? It will not for people since the beginning of time have aborted babies, killed them all sorts of ways and will as long is man is here on this planet.


Theft and rape have been around just as long, are you this passive towards those crimes as well?

[yee-haw]

Theft and rape has been around just as long, are you this passive towards those crimes as well?

Theft is bad and rape is bad..mkay??

[1stoic1]

Thats right.

So you condone both infanticide and discrimination against homosexuals. Are there any other groups that your prejudice extends to?


Not it is not, because Murder is a legal term. You cant not like it and tell me how empty of morality and intelligence all you want but the FACT remains that is is a legal term. Abortion is NOT murder. It is killing.

No, murder is not an exclusively legal term. Hitekredneck already refuted that misconception, why are you feigning ignorance? Even if it were strictly a legal term, abortion is still characteristically murder as it is the deliberate or premeditated killing of another human being, therefore abortion is merely state sanctioned murder.


I stop with this statement: I believe you have NO RIGHT to tell a woman what she may or may not do with her body. Fini.

I have no right to try to keep someone from unjustly killing another? It is the right and duty of a good Samaritan to do that very thing.

[yee-haw]

I have no right to try to keep someone from unjustly killing another? It is the right and duty of a good Samaritan to do that very thing.

I'm a good samaritan... I have'nt killed anyone since 1991.

[1stoic1]

Killing yes,... murder no. My take is also voiced by many so it is not some wild delusion of my own creation.

True, it isn't original but it is delusional just the same.


But does this semantic battle really prove anything? I mean aren't we just parsing words?

Yes it proves that protecting abortion is tantamount to protecting murder.


The real direction is "Why is abortion Legal"???

Probably because the liberal base isn't progressive enough to include abortion as murder.

[1stoic1]

I'm not claiming to be right.. I'm simply saying if i were a woman, I went and got knocked up i would not get an abortion.
that would be my choice because i'm against abortion i think it's wrong but the woman should have a right to make her own decision on her body.

That's my point... Fucked up subject is all i can say, Feel me dawg?

Can parents leave their newborn on the lawn to die as well? It's their property, afterall.

[LedZap]

Can parents leave their newborn on the lawn to die as well? It's their property, afterall.

Borderline trolling right there , son.

[1stoic1]

Borderline trolling right there , son.

How so? People should be able to expel someone from their body, resulting in death, but not their house? That's idiotic, and that is the point I was making.

[beelzebub]

So you condone both infanticide and discrimination against homosexuals. Are there any other groups that your prejudice extends to? .

You seem a little hyper.

I dont condone infanticide as I have never said an infant should be murdered. Thats illegal. Look up the word "infant" then look up the word "fetus"

Also I would never advocate against homosexuals as I am one myself.

Look you haveen't been here long and dont know people. Its nice to ask questions instead of offering accusation. You appear quick to judge those that YOU DO NOT KNOW.

[beelzebub]

Yeah , it bothers a lot of people how the "pro choice/ baby death" group feels it's not immoral to kill humans but will scream about the death penalty for human killers.

Oh no,.. not me. :-) I am in favor of the death penalty and would have gladly thrown the switch for Bundy and a number of others.

I also have no problem allowing a woman to make choices about her body.

Its her body Led not yours and you have no right to tell her what she is allowed to do with it or whatever is attached to it. No right.

[1stoic1]

You seem a little hyper.

How so?


I dont condone infanticide as I have never said an infant should be murdered. Thats illegal. Look up the word "infant" then look up the word "fetus"

in·fant 
1. a child during the earliest period of its life, especially before he or she can walk; baby.

A fetus is one of the earliest stages of life, and fetuses can't walk, but let's be certain.

child   
4. a human fetus.

It is conclusive, you condone infanticide.


Also I would never advocate against homosexuals as I am one myself.

I know that you are, which makes it rather strange.


Look you haveen't been here long and dont know people. Its nice to ask questions instead of offering accusation. You appear quick to judge those that YOU DO NOT KNOW.

Three years isn't long to you? And what is it that I don't know?

[yee-haw]

Can parents leave their newborn on the lawn to die as well? It's their property, afterall.

Wow.. is that even the same thing and i never said anything of the such..
Why are you so snappy, Damn dude relax..

[1stoic1]

Wow.. is that even the same thing and i never said anything of the such..
Why are you so snappy, Damn dude relax..

I don't think I'm being snappy, just presenting to you an equally absurd scenerio.

[beelzebub]

How so?

See all your posts. You are hopping on every comment.


in·fant  1. a child during the earliest period of its life, especially before he or she can walk; baby. A fetus is one of the earliest stages of life, and fetuses can't walk, but let's be certain. b]child    4. a human fetus. [/b] It is conclusive, you condone infanticide.

Yeah,... !?!?! This makes me think either you just dont understand or you are just up for a fight.

The infant stage is after parturition. I have said that I condone abortion which is BEFORE parturition.

Therefore YOU ARE WRONG!!!! I do not condone infanticide.

Get your terms str8 buddy.


I know that you are, which makes it rather strange.

Can gays get legally married? Not where I am at. Where they can then they are called married. Its a legal term that comes with several endowments. BOOM! Got it?


Three years isn't long to you? And what is it that I don't know?

Oh my,.. well you have been here infrequently or with a huge gap or while here; non-observant.

[1stoic1]

See all your posts. You are hopping on every comment.

It is important to address all relevant points.


Yeah,... !?!?! This makes me think either you just dont understand or you are just up for a fight.

The infant stage is after parturition. I have said that I condone abortion which is BEFORE parturition.

Therefore YOU ARE WRONG!!!! I do not condone infanticide.

Hitekredneck and myself have provided you with applicable definitions, and you refuse to acknowledge them. I think you just aren't interested in productive discourse and learning.


Can gays get legally married? Not where I am at. Where they can then they are called married. Its a legal term that comes with several endowments. BOOM! Got it?

I asked if you think gay marriage shouldn't be recognized for that reason, and you said yes. You have no desire to change discriminatory inhumane laws and improve upon precedents, therefore you condone said laws through your complacency.

[beelzebub]

Hitekredneck and myself have provided you with applicable definitions, and you refuse to acknowledge them. I think you just aren't interested in productive discourse and learning.

I see,.. so because I refuse to adhere to your version of the way you see things I am not being productive in discourse and learning.

LOL can you get any more myopic or pompous!??! LOL


I asked if you think gay marriage shouldn't be recognized for that reason, and you said yes. You have no desire to change discriminatory inhumane laws and improve upon precedents, therefore you condone said laws through your complacency.

Yep,.. if its not legal its not marriage. Thats it. If its called civil unions its not marriage. If they allow gay marriage then it is marriage.

Thats the way I see it.

What do I believe and what do I want? Thats another topic.

[MrJim]

I just can't understand that.How can anyone think it's not immoral to KILL a human .

Because they can make completely illogical statements like this:


Abortion is NOT murder. It is killing.

"No, your honor, when I shot that guy in the face, it wasn't MURDER, it was only KILLING!" :rolleyes:

[yee-haw]

I think gays should be able to wed... why is only straight people get to be miserable?

[beelzebub]

"No, your honor, when I shot that guy in the face, it wasn't MURDER, it was only KILLING!" :rolleyes:

If that was a free living human then you not only killed him you also committed murder.

see the difference now??

[beelzebub]

I think gays should be able to wed... why is only straight people get to be miserable?

Faggots sodomites should burn in hell for there perverse lovin! LOL

Led,... I just flamed myself LOL

[1stoic1]

I see,.. so because I refuse to adhere to your version of the way you see things I am not being productive in discourse and learning.

LOL can you get any more myopic or pompous!??! LOL

How is it my version? I didn't define the words.


Yep,.. if its not legal its not marriage. Thats it. If its called civil unions its not marriage. If they allow gay marriage then it is marriage.

Thats the way I see it.

What do I believe and what do I want? Thats another topic.

I asked you what you believed should be done, I didn't ask about the status quo.

[MrJim]

Even if it were strictly a legal term, abortion is still characteristically murder as it is the deliberate or premeditated killing of another human being, therefore abortion is merely state sanctioned murder.

EXACTLY! I really like this position.

[Phoenix]

Look, unless your fetus has grown a brain, it's not sentient. Tell your family to suck a dick.

[1stoic1]

If that was a free living human then you not only killed him you also committed murder.

see the difference now??

I suppose I can go kill all people on life support then.

[1stoic1]

Look, unless your fetus has grown a brain, it's not sentient. Tell your family to suck a dick.

In adition to everyone on life support, I'll kill everyone who is unconscious while I'm at it.

[MrJim]

If that was a free living human then you not only killed him you also committed murder.

see the difference now??

Not really, no. One is living in a womb, the other is outside of one. Both are human beings, and killing either should be considered murder.

If your real beef is the use of the word 'murder', then let's just say you're for 'killing babies' which actually sounds worse, if more accurate.

[MrJim]

Look, unless your fetus has grown a brain, it's not sentient. Tell your family to suck a dick.

Brain waves are detectable at 6 weeks. The brain begins forming at 3 weeks.

[beelzebub]

I suppose I can go kill all people on life support then.

Well since they don't live inside you you would have no reason.

[beelzebub]

In adition to everyone on life support, I'll kill everyone who is unconscious while I'm at it.

For what purpose? Why do it?

I can tell you why a woman does it.... why YOU?

Stop being silly ... you wont win this one.

[1stoic1]

Well since they don't live inside you you would have no reason.

They are taking up hospital resources. Women's reasons for aborting are either selfish or misguided.

[beelzebub]

Not really, no. One is living in a womb, the other is outside of one. Both are human beings, and killing either should be considered murder.

If your real beef is the use of the word 'murder', then let's just say you're for 'killing babies' which actually sounds worse, if more accurate.

Here is the difference Jim,... Abortion deals with a woman and a fetus inside her body. That fetus is dependent on the woman and if she will carry it to term then she has to endure it for about 9 months.

I say if she wants to abort it is her prerogative and YOU have no right to say what decisions she has or not.

Actually the only thing that I have a beef with is the improper use of terms. Because yall dont like abortion you call it murder or infanticide or whatever. Those are incorrect terms.

Murder has a legal connection that does not apply to abortion.

Infanticide deals with murder of children of an age beyond abortion.

[1stoic1]

For what purpose? Why do it?

I can tell you why a woman does it.... why YOU?

Stop being silly ... you wont win this one.

The arguments put forth for abortion don't really require me to have a reason.

[beelzebub]

Women's reasons for aborting are either selfish or misguided.

Thats an arrogant and presumptuous statement. How the hell do you proclaim to know what women's reasons are?

[1stoic1]

Thats an arrogant and presumptuous statement. How the hell do you proclaim to know what women's reasons are?

Because I have heard them, and unless the fetus is threatening the woman's life, there isn't really a reason that wouldn't be either selfish or misguided.

[beelzebub]

Because I have heard them, and unless the fetus is threatening the woman's life, there isn't really a reason that wouldn't be either selfish or misguided.

Oh so because you haven't heard them you PRESUME to know them (Presumptuous). And while making them up you decide to bend them with your myopic lens (Arrogant)

Just sayin....

[1stoic1]

Oh so because you haven't heard them you PRESUME to know them (Presumptuous).

That is correct and, typically enough, anyone who has your exact reaction can never seem to provide a reason that isn't selfish or misguided either. So in all probability, there isn't one.


And while making them up you decide to bend them with your myopic lens (Arrogant)

How have I done that?

[Rec]

Doesn't it all come down to value? If a thing or a human is not valued as the entity that it is, then it can be destroyed or changed from its present condition to null or voided. To change or destroy an entity is to exclude its very reason for existance or being.


One can change a rock to gravel or dust, it is then never a rock again, but something else, but loses its identity of the the thing/entity it was. If a rock cannot dream, does not have feeling, sensation, it is not animate.
However, the fetus is not a rock, it is animate with the life, force, whatever one would name it, that makes it not distinct in degree but distinct in KIND. IF our sciences tell us that or infer that life came from a animated cell that had morphed from inanimate to animate, how can the cells that are produced from a living progenitor be anything but another being of life .
When one uses the excuse that it is not human only a clump of useless cells, then the contradiction becomes one of importance. Did not all life begin with the cell? Then it is life, a potential human and nothing else. Certaintly not a rock.

The ultimate question is not about rights,but selfish choice,one of life period. Of living or death,,,,,,making a living thing through a forceful proceduce that goes against natures work,die is murder, clear and simple! Death the opposite or contrary of life, living.

[MrJim]

You know it's really kind of fucked up that preserving/destroying a child's life hinges on terms in a dictionary.

As for the whole 'what's inside a woman's body' issue, well, she didn't mind that dick that was in there so why would she mind the baby? Similarly, it will eventually come out.

So BZ has pretty much admitted that he is for killing babies because he doesn't consider it the proper use of the word 'murder'. Cause that makes sense...

[MrJim]

And while making them up you decide to bend them with your myopic lens

Why are we discussing a 'myopic lens' here?

[Rec]

One cannot fully describe life and the completeness of it, nor understand it, without full well knowing and understanding the opposite, death. A beginning or an end, and the knowledge to protect the life from the death,(end) by all means possible/ Otherwise living and life have no meaning.

[beelzebub]

Doesn't it all come down to value? If a thing or a human is not valued as the entity that it is, then it can be destroyed or changed from its present condition to null or voided. To change or destroy an entity is to exclude its very reason for existance or being.
....
The ultimate question is not about rights,but selfish choice,one of life period. Of living or death,,,,,,making a living thing through a forceful proceduce that goes against natures work,die is murder, clear and simple! Death the opposite or contrary of life, living.

Really Rec I see it as a predicament we find ourselves in.

We cannot tell a woman what she must do for 9 months just because she got pregnant.

We cannot force a woman to bear a pregnancy to term without simultaneously violating her human rights.

We can offer other choices and encourage but the decision is really hers.

We may dislike abortion but we do not have the right to force our beliefs on another that does not share them in this circumstance.

[beelzebub]

Why are we discussing a 'myopic lens' here?

LOL.... you are too funny. :D

[MrJim]

LOL.... you are too funny. :D

Honestly, I have to look up many of the words/concepts you use because I don't hear them in commonplace conversation. Sorry about that. You win the war of the dictionary. But that doesn't mean that you can't get your ass handed to you on a plate as far as the overall issue goes.

[Rec]

Really Rec I see it as a predicament we find ourselves in.

We cannot tell a woman what she must do for 9 months just because she got pregnant.

We cannot force a woman to bear a pregnancy to term without simultaneously violating her human rights.

We can offer other choices and encourage but the decision is really hers.

We may dislike abortion but we do not have the right to force our beliefs on another that does not share them in this circumstance.



Really? but we tell each other how to treat life and bodies everyday. I cannot because I dislike or do not want to see, say a black body, or yellow body, or another body that does not suit my idea of what a body should be, destroy those other bodies, can I?
What if I just hate a body that is not perfect in everyway, well, than by my rights as a human, I can call for the destruction of all non-perfect bodies around me, right? Heck no, I cannot because others rights are important too. Even a blind or deaf person that cannot see or hear is protected from my angst. New life is blind and deaf in the beginning too, now why can we kill them and not the others???? It is not a right issue, at all. It is life or death. We can argue the semantics forever, but there is still the base line that cannot change.....life or death and this day I choose life!
There needs to be more avenues for the alternative, and that is what we are missing. Make a place for the unwanted to be,,,,,,not to cease! JMO

[Phoenix]

Brain waves are detectable at 6 weeks. The brain begins forming at 3 weeks.

Excuse me for my ambigous statement. I meant when the brain is fully developed.

[Rec]

Excuse me for my ambigous statement. I meant when the brain is fully developed.


Actually, with new research and instruments enabling to see more, that time may change. And if it does,,,,,wow! What then??? just saying!

[beelzebub]

Honestly, I have to look up many of the words/concepts you use because I don't hear them in commonplace conversation. Sorry about that. You win the war of the dictionary. But that doesn't mean that you can't get your ass handed to you on a plate as far as the overall issue goes.

Well then I should apologize,.. I don't meant to be hard to understand,.. I just find some words capture what I want to say more concisely than others.

Please also don't think I am just trying to confuse. I work in education at the state level and many I work with use those and more on the regular.

[Carrot]

In the event of classifying a human being eligible for the right to life, you judge by it's current state.


It's current state -

At fertilisation (or even a week later) everyone can agree that it cannot feel pain, is not conscious, percieve it's world or comprehend it. If all you judge is it's current state then a lizard holds more value.

[beelzebub]

It's current state -

At fertilisation (or even a week later) everyone can agree that it cannot feel pain, is not conscious, percieve it's world or comprehend it. If all you judge is it's current state then a lizard holds more value.

Thanks for that excellent post.

Hows it going tuber?

[Carrot]

Thanks for that excellent post.

Hows it going tuber?

Note that I'm not saying that's te ONLY way it should evaluated, I was just surprised by stoic's response that only the current state matters, that tends t be a choicer argumet.

Not bad thanks.

[1stoic1]

It's current state -

At fertilisation (or even a week later) everyone can agree that it cannot feel pain, is not conscious, percieve it's world or comprehend it. If all you judge is it's current state then a lizard holds more value.

It's current state is that it is a human being. Unconscious people do not lose their right to life.

[Carrot]

It's current state is that it is a human being. Unconscious people do not lose their right to life.

It doesn't have the physical structure to support consciousness. We still agree that can agree that it cannot possibly feel pain, is not conscious, percieve it's world or comprehend it, or even have internal thought processes. When that happens to people, the plug is usually pulled.

Judging by some of your previous arguments, I can guess where this is heading, but I think at some level I think you can appreciate solely judging somehting on it's current state is very simplistic, and counter to your agenda.

What if, for example, for some reason the embryo stopped growing, but didn't die? Should efforts be made so that it would live as long as possible, so it lived as a non-sentient non growing embryo for however many years? I'm curious as to how you would view that.

[Rec]

Consciousness is not a material property. And define consciousness for us please? Since there are so many differing views from specialist themselves on the subject. How do we know when and where consciousness starts and really ends>

The question of it having a sufficient need for the physical does not mean that it is a necessary one for consciousness or mind to exist. We simply do not know enough yet to make such positive statements period.

[Carrot]

I do not think a single celled anything is capable on consciousness, do you?

We don't know where it starts and ends, but I think Iknow some places where it is and where it isn't .

[1stoic1]

It doesn't have the physical structure to support consciousness. We still agree that can agree that it cannot possibly feel pain, is not conscious, percieve it's world or comprehend it, or even have internal thought processes. When that happens to people, the plug is usually pulled.

Temporarily unconscious people cannot feel pain, percieve or comprehend the world, or have internal thought processes either. You're saying temporarily unconscious people are usually killed?


Judging by some of your previous arguments, I can guess where this is heading, but I think at some level I think you can appreciate solely judging somehting on it's current state is very simplistic, and counter to your agenda.

It is simplistic, I don't deny that. What is wrong with simple solutions? Trying to compound additional parameters to qualify for the right to life is problematic and unnecessary.


What if, for example, for some reason the embryo stopped growing, but didn't die? Should efforts be made so that it would live as long as possible, so it lived as a non-sentient non growing embryo for however many years? I'm curious as to how you would view that.

Yes, efforts should be made to keep it alive for as long as possible because, in addition to being human, it is also a scientific marvel.

[Rec]

I do not think a single celled anything is capable on consciousness, do you?

We don't know where it starts and ends, but I think Iknow some places where it is and where it isn't .


If it is capable of that thing called life, living, then I am open to anything else, after all, we are still in the classroom so to speak. And by the way, it is more than a simple cell, it both parents too. eh?

[Carrot]

Are you a vegetarian?

[Rec]

Are you a vegetarian?

No, why???

[Carrot]

Temporarily unconscious people cannot feel pain, percieve or comprehend the world, or have internal thought processes either. You're saying temporarily unconscious people are usually killed?

Brain dead people are.


It is simplistic, I don't deny that. What is wrong with simple solutions? Trying to compound additional parameters to qualify for the right to life is problematic and unnecessary.

Except you are weakening you own case.


Yes, efforts should be made to keep it alive for as long as possible because, in addition to being human, it is also a scientific marvel.

Right, I forgot you had trouble with abstract situations. Focus on the issue at hand.

Remove the scientific marvel bit (especially since by your reasoning you would be volating it's human rights if you studied it).

What you would have is a blob with some human dna in it, which isn't sentient, never will be and can't grow. But you wish to afford it all and every right because it contains human dna? Surely other factors come into play?

The axioms you tend to use seem fairly arbitrary and limiting at times, especially when it comes to discussion.

[Carrot]

No, why???


If it is capable of that thing called life, living, then I am open to anything else,

You tell me....

[Rec]

If you are refering to eating meat in anyway. I do not see the connection at all. The flesh of an animal contains nutrients such as protiens etc, to sustain other life. Eating human flesh will allow one to starve to death as it is of a different kind. Ideally we are better off limiting our intake of even the lean meats to a reasonable level. So what the freak are you trying to say here Carrot. Please do explain.

[Rec]

Brain dead people are.



Except you are weakening you own case.



Right, I forgot you had trouble with abstract situations. Focus on the issue at hand.

Remove the scientific marvel bit (especially since by your reasoning you would be volating it's human rights if you studied it).

What you would have is a blob with some human dna in it, which isn't sentient, never will be and can't grow. But you wish to afford it all and every right because it contains human dna? Surely other factors come into play?

The axioms you tend to use seem fairly arbitrary and limiting at times, especially when it comes to discussion.




What???? The DNA or blueprints are a shared fidelity between the male and female as a part of that blueprint. DNA information in a living species is all the potential that, that particular human being will ever have or be. Once it is actualized in the end product of the complete and individual person, it is no different. Actuality comes from the poteniality or the beginning working toward the end that is a full and complete person. The DNA is the pre-birth certificate of that new one of a kind, never to be repeated individual, and we throw that into the trash can as if it is nothing??????????????????????

[Carrot]

If you are refering to eating meat in anyway. I do not see the connection at all. The flesh of an animal contains nutrients such as protiens etc, to sustain other life. Eating human flesh will allow one to starve to death as it is of a different kind. Ideally we are better off limiting our intake of even the lean meats to a reasonable level. So what the freak are you trying to say here Carrot. Please do explain.

I say it's really not conscious at all.

You say it's a living thing, that's all that matters and you are open to anything when it comes to that.

Yet you kill animals to eat them, maybe you want to refine your point for me?

[Carrot]

What???? The DNA or blueprints are a shared fidelity between the male and female as a part of that blueprint. DNA information in a living species is all the potential that, that particular human being will ever have or be. Once it is actualized in the end product of the complete and individual person, it is no different. Actuality comes from the poteniality or the beginning working toward the end that is a full and complete person. The DNA is the pre-birth certificate of that new one of a kind, never to be repeated individual, and we throw that into the trash can as if it is nothing??????????????????????

Stoic and I are going down a fairly specific path here.

You have acknowledged that the potential plays a part, so already much of what I said in that post doesn't apply quite as much to your viewpoint anyway.

[Rec]

Stoic and I are going down a fairly specific path here.

You have acknowledged that the potential plays a part, so already much of what I said in that post doesn't apply quite as much to your viewpoint anyway.


Ok, so I will butt out as I am tired of it anyway.lol Have at it dear!!!

[1stoic1]

Brain dead people are.

Those people should be kept alive for as long as available resources will allow.


Except you are weakening you own case.

How so?


Right, I forgot you had trouble with abstract situations. Focus on the issue at hand.

How am I exhibiting any sort of trouble in dealing with abstract situations? Please provide specific examples. I'm fairly certain that I have been focusing on the issue at hand all along.


Remove the scientific marvel bit (especially since by your reasoning you would be volating it's human rights if you studied it).

It isn't a violation to make restrained observations without disrupting the living standard of the fetus if the parents consent to it. Invasion of privacy isn't an issue for something that, as you said, cannot comprehend it's world or it's self. Extinguishing the life of a living human is an issue though.


What you would have is a blob with some human dna in it, which isn't sentient, never will be and can't grow. But you wish to afford it all and every right because it contains human dna? Surely other factors come into play?

No, I don't think rights should be allotted to entities that they do not have the capacity to benefit from (ie freedom of speech), because that would be superfluous and impractical.


The axioms you tend to use seem fairly arbitrary and limiting at times, especially when it comes to discussion.

How so?

[MrJim]

Please also don't think I am just trying to confuse. I work in education at the state level and many I work with use those and more on the regular.

I can relate to some of that through my wife's stories. Most of her students come from public school transfers and their knowledge isn't that expanded.

I am attending college, however, and even with courses such as Psychology, Sociology, and Quantum Physics, we don't use a very expanded vocabulary. Professors here consider less commonly used language to be useless in debates for the simple fact that they seldom help in an argument, because when you break down a word into simple terms it still carries the same meaning. So a standpoint that uses words of a third grader is as valid as one that uses college-level vocabulary so long as the underlying argument is credible.

[beelzebub]

I am attending college, however, and even with courses such as Psychology, Sociology, and Quantum Physics, we don't use a very expanded vocabulary. Professors here consider less commonly used language to be useless in debates for the simple fact that they seldom help in an argument, because when you break down a word into simple terms it still carries the same meaning. So a standpoint that uses words of a third grader is as valid as one that uses college-level vocabulary so long as the underlying argument is credible.

Less seldom words? IN what circles are they less seldom? Professors feel that way? What kind of college is this? Anyway,... lets not go there ....

There are some words that succinctly capture what I want to say. I use them and hear them at least weekly.

What are you majoring in again? I thought you told us before but what do you want to do? - I also say "Good for Yo" for sticking with it.

[MrJim]

Less seldom words? IN what circles are they less seldom? Professors feel that way? What kind of college is this? Anyway,... lets not go there ....[/qupte]

No, let's go there. We are talking about the University of North Texas (http://www.unt.edu/) in Denton!

http://www.unt.edu/catalog/undergrad/img/university.jpg

Anywho... what I am speaking of is 'double-talk', in a nutshell. When all else fails, using vocabulary that is less prevalent among ordinary folk in order to back an opponent out of a debate. This tactic was common prior to the internet because information was not readily available (req. use of dictionary/thesaurus) ... but as it has been presented to me, the MEANING of a word is more important than the word itself, so in most instances you skim a paragraph on the lookout for double-talk -- where it is apparant that a thesaurus has been an aide -- and you catch this tactic.

[quote]What are you majoring in again? I thought you told us before but what do you want to do? - I also say "Good for Yo" for sticking with it.

Double major in Marketing and Management. Initially attended community college after being laid off in late 2008, received a scholarship from Phi Theta Kappa (http://www.ptk.org/) by achieving a 4.0 GPA, and transferred to UNT this Spring.

[hitekredneck]

ok now for some common sense...first, by definition, abortion IS murder
the woman is the one that has to live with this most difficult decision, whether you agree with abortion or not
like drugs, alcohol and crime, abortion will never cease, therefore must be kept legal and under strict medical and psychological observation to ensure the safest treatments
there needs to be more rights for fathers in the decision making

[beelzebub]

No, let's go there. We are talking about the University of North Texas (http://www.unt.edu/) in Denton!

Oh my,.. that looks like a loverly campus.


Anywho... what I am speaking of is 'double-talk', in a nutshell. When all else fails, using vocabulary that is less prevalent among ordinary folk in order to back an opponent out of a debate. -- and you catch this tactic.

No problem. I will remember you dont like me to use big words and you like me to use your "simplistic" speak when I am in debate. I will remember but don't expect me to change. This IS the way I speak.


Double major in Marketing and Management. Initially attended community college after being laid off in late 2008, received a scholarship from Phi Theta Kappa (http://www.ptk.org/) by achieving a 4.0 GPA, and transferred to UNT this Spring.

Oh good for you!

[Phoenix]

there needs to be more rights for fathers in the decision making
Why? All the father did was have an orgasm 9 months prior. Unless you invent a pill that makes men have contractions and feel like a human fucking being is squeezing out of their penis, then no. No rights for the father. No legal rights at least.

[sunny]

Just thought of something funny...

A few of these posters here would have a field day if they ever decided to post on SHT forums...


Accept the challenge or not?


http://forum.heraldtribune.com/index.php



Probably not... chicken, or just not good enough debate skills?

[1stoic1]

ok now for some common sense...first, by definition, abortion IS murder
the woman is the one that has to live with this most difficult decision,

It would only be a difficult dicision for an unbalanced person. Most people refrain from murdering an innocent person everyday with no reluctance.


whether you agree with abortion or not
like drugs, alcohol and crime, abortion will never cease, therefore must be kept legal and under strict medical and psychological observation to ensure the safest treatments


Murder must be kept legal to ensure that murderers are safe when they commit their offense? I'm not seeing the common sense you assured in your preface.

[beelzebub]

Why? All the father did was have an orgasm 9 months prior.

Because all they did is have sex ( I notice you leave that out). Its as natural as any other human action. Why do you chastise it?


Unless you invent a pill that makes men have contractions and feel like a human fucking being is squeezing out of their penis, then no. No rights for the father. No legal rights at least.

I am not advocating for the fathers right other than this: If the mother whant to abort and the father wants it she must keep it and pay for the costs of child bearing. Then once the child is free he assumes FULLL responsibility The mother is outside the agreement. I believe the converser should be true.

[1stoic1]

I am not advocating for the fathers right other than this: If the mother whant to abort and the father wants it she must keep it and pay for the costs of child bearing. Then once the child is free he assumes FULLL responsibility The mother is outside the agreement. I believe the converser should be true.

You said that nobody can tell women what to do with their bodies, not even to save a human life, but you can tell women what to do with their bodies for the sake of appeasing the fathers? Your position on this issue is not only immoral, it is inconsistent.