Abortion

A child after 22 weeks, and don't click if you don't want to be as disgusted as I currently am. Really, why are we allowing this? There are so many people that would do everything to have a child but they have to use the extremily cynical trade that is the adoption (and organ) industry and all the victims it makes. I am not religious, come from the dutch biblebelt but it never clicked with me. But when something is right it is right and this is so very very wrong.

EDIT: We've been here before and it has been very clearly ruled that pictures of late term abortions are not suitable for this site. Picture removed. BG

That is not a foethes it's a baby.

Might want to warn people a bit more before they click. Can't say I was prepared for that, though I agree it is distressing.

As for abortion, for some time I've been of the opinion that it should be made completely illegal in all cases except for medical necessity. I'm not religious, but I also don't see it as a right of man to decide over whether someone should live or never get the chance. Currently it's too easy an alternative for caution or living with consequences.

A necessity for that to work is, as you mention, that the current shambles which is the adoption system is rebuilt from the ground up. At the very least, the Dutch government doesn't support it as a realistic opportunity as a friend found out first-hand, and I wouldn't be particularly surprised if it isn't a similar situation elsewhere.

Let me make this very clear - posted photographs of aborted foetuses are not permitted, nor links to sites that host such pictures. This is an ongoing debate, and these pictures are available to the interested on many sites for the effort of a google search.

This is a PG rated site. Please feel free to continue the debate, but any breaches of the above advice will draw sanction.

:bow:

EDIT: We've been here before and it has been very clearly ruled that pictures of late term abortions are not suitable for this site. Picture removed. BG

Not with me, sorry.

That's OK. By the way, it would be helpful if you could clear your inbox so that private messages can get to you.

:bow:

What's the big deal anyhow? It's nothing more than an excised tumor- just an unwanted growth in the woman's body that a doctor removed for her. :dizzy2:

Just did a google search for it and didn't find it very disgusting/wrong at all.

To me, alot of the dissection stuff is worse, especially if you're going to med school and have to dissect cadavers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xdeathfire

Just did a google search for it and didn't find it very disgusting/wrong at all.

To me, alot of the dissection stuff is worse, especially if you're going to med school and have to dissect cadavers

---

Cadavers from a Homicide maybe.

I absolutely agree. If people can't see the pictures, they may well go around believing the bodies to be "clumps of cells"

go to www.google.com and cut and paste "abortion 22 weeks"

Well this has shocked me terribly. I heard that there are states where women have to look at their kid before an abortian and I found it cruel but I was completily wrong I never knew it was like this. I was always against it out of principle but that principle was that you buy what you break, but this is a whole lot more and there is absolutily nothing that could ever justify this especially when it is in general little more then a quik solution for being careless. This is so very very wrong I don't know where to begin I am absolutily disgusted.

It's worth pointing out that at 22 weeks you're talking about a five-and-a-half month pregnancy. That's quite late to be getting an abortion, I believe. According to 2008 numbers, only a tiny percentage of medical providers will even consider aborting a 24-week pregnancy.

I'm not taking a position, just injecting some facts.

Yeah, Lemur's right. Ron Paul refused to perform one, ever, as far as I know. At least that's what he said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

go to www.google.com and cut and paste "abortion 22 weeks"

---

To be honest, it's hard to believe that people are doing that to what is essentially a part of them...knowing it's true makes it even more terrible.

I'm generally against abortion - I'm for it only if there's been a rape and the abortion is done ASAP, before the baby has any chance to be a baby (essentially), or if the mother will otherwise almost certainly die.

What is above, however, is just terrible.

EDIT: Honestly, who would take a picture like that anyways?

Who would perform an abortion at 22 weeks?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Who would perform an abortion at 22 weeks?

CR

---

Obviously someone rather sick. Really, if it was rape, you'd think they would have had it much sooner. I'd rather not assume anything, but either there was a large chance of death to the mother, or the parents, as much as I hate to even think this...well...backed out. :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

EDIT: Honestly, who would take a picture like that anyways?

---

That would be your typical anti-abortion extremist. :2thumbsup: He'd also a make a big poster out of the image, paste it to his van, and then drive around with it. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Who would perform an abortion at 22 weeks?

CR

---

In which countries is abortion at 22 weeks allowed anyway? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

In which countries is abortion at 22 weeks allowed anyway? :inquisitive:

---

In the US for example - that's one of the reasons why you have such a strong and vocal anti-abortion movement there.
It's unfortunately an "all-or-nothing" game currently, although (at least from what I gathered here and elsewhere) a not so vocal majority would be quite willing to compromise on legal abortions during the first 8-12 weeks of pregnancy.
A pity that the extremists on both ends of the spectrum are dominating the debate and are apparently able to block a compromise. :shame:

Not here. But it shows pretty well what it could have been. 2 weeks or 22 weeks what is the difference it's taking a life, I wish the 'mothers' a grand time trying to work out what their child could have become.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

2 weeks or 22 weeks what is the difference it's taking a life,

---

If that is the case, I wonder if all those who oppose the abortion of 2 week old cells are also advocating a complete ban of alcohol for women and any smoking in the presence of women who could potentially be in the first weeks of a pregnancy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

If that is the case, I wonder if all those who oppose the abortion of 2 week old cells are also advocating a complete ban of alcohol for women and any smoking in the presence of women who could potentially be in the first weeks of a pregnancy...

---

Going to be very carefull here but I think there is a difference between being irresponsible and not taking responsibility at all. It are not just cells they are a human in progress and we just don't have the right to not allow it to live, if it is unfit for life it will die anyway and I am a lot harsher there but it should get the chance imho being alive is your most fundamental right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

If that is the case, I wonder if all those who oppose the abortion of 2 week old cells are also advocating a complete ban of alcohol for women and any smoking in the presence of women who could potentially be in the first weeks of a pregnancy...

---

Good point, I agree completely! Taking drugs while pregnant hurts the fetus tens or hundreds of times as much as it does a grown-up. Drinking or taking drugs before the 4th month is very harmful, and drinking more than one glass of wine per week after that is also risky. Better to have a mega-celebration party with getting really drunk AFTER the child is born! But then you're probably drunk/high enough by the joy of having a child anyway :2thumbsup: , no drugs can substitute the real joy and happiness that nature can give. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Going to be very carefull here but I think there is a difference between being irresponsible and not taking responsibility at all. It are not just cells they are a human in progress and we just don't have the right to not allow it to live, if it is unfit for life it will die anyway and I am a lot harsher there but it should get the chance imho being alive is your most fundamental right.

---

I am aware that we are starting to touch a somewhat fuzzy issue here - but would abortion by binge drinking simply be irresponsible and frowned upon or would it already fall under the "not taking responsibility at all" which should be forbidden by law?

If one seriously considers the abortion of 2 week old human cells to be comparable with the murder of a baby - killing the same cells by negligence should not be acceptable at all (even if you are not aware of the pregnancy - ignorance can hardly be an excuse for killing a human being).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

I am aware that we are starting to touch a somewhat fuzzy issue here - but would abortion by binge drinking simply be irresponsible and frowned upon or would it already fall under the "not taking responsibility at all" which should be forbidden by law?

If one seriously considers the abortion of 2 week old human cells to be comparable with the murder of a baby - killing the same cells by negligence should not be acceptable at all (even if you are not aware of the pregnancy - ignorance can hardly be an excuse for killing a human being).

---

In law it would be the difference between neglectance and criminal intent which we handle differently. It's ultimatily up to from which you define it to be alive, I say from the go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

In law it would be the difference between neglectance and criminal intent which we handle differently. It's ultimatily up to from which you define it to be alive, I say from the go.

---

But what if it is neglectance of a kind where you know the consequences of the neglectance will be death? Is there really any reason to treat that differently from murder? Note that in this case the neglectance also isn't inactivity, but rather a deliberate activity which will lead to this consequence, so you can't apply the principle that inactivity can't be a crime in this case.*

* OT: this principle that inactivity isn't a crime, by the way, doesn't really work as intended unless complemented with the idea that certain actions come with responsibilities and that you accept this responsibility by taking that action. For example, that getting pregnant means you have accepted the responsibility for treating your child well, whereas you have no obligations at all before you accept any responsibilities by own choice in this manner. I.e. the idea of "accepted responsibility", which I think is very sensible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

But what if it is neglectance of a kind where you know the consequences of the neglectance will be death? Is there really any reason to treat that differently from murder? Note that in this case the neglectance also isn't inactivity, but rather a deliberate activity which will lead to this consequence, so you can't apply the principle that inactivity can't be a crime in this case.*

* OT: this principle, by the way, doesn't really work as intended unless complemented with the idea that certain actions come with responsibilities, such as getting pregnant meaning you have a responsibility for treating your child well. I.e. the idea of "accepted responsibility", which I think is very sensible.

---

How much of a scumbag a drunk roadkiller may be he didn't have the intention but there is such a thing as criminal neglect and that should apply there. It's pretty bad but it's not -not going to say it-

Its funny isn't it , people say oh but what about rape cases and threats to the mothers health/life .
We don't have abortion over here ...well unless of course its a case of rape or threat to health case...in which case it goes through the courts,and medical hearings , and the courts and the courts ...and the courts and medical hearings again ...just to be sure you know as we wouldn't want any mistakes .
So while we don't have abortions we have a process that makes sure any abortions dealt with under the process are in the much later term than they would be without the ban on abortions .
It really is a no-win situation .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

How much of a scumbag a drunk roadkiller may be he didn't have the intention but there is such a thing as criminal neglect and that should apply there. It's pretty bad but it's not -not going to say it-

---

If he drugged himself drunk and went into a car, he probably knew he would be likely to cause death. But if he was so drunk he didn't know that when stepping into the car, then he knew when getting himself so drunk that this would make him lose his capability of resisting the temptation to step into a car and run somebody over, that doing so would likely cause death.

Of course he can, and should be blamed. Just drugging yourself try try and gain legitimacy for committing a horrendous crime should not be endorsed by society. Do you realize the consequences of giving milder sentences just because the murderer was drunk? That means that anyone wishing to murder someone just gets drunk before committing the crime to get a lower sentence, something which would undermine the entire justice system.

Most funny thing is how you consistently show no understanding of people who suffer their entire life and then turn mad and commit crimes, but have compassion for rich problem-free upper-class people who deliberately deprive them of self-control and commit crimes. Self-control is a precious thing that not all people have, and if those who have it don't realize how great a gift it is, then they don't deserve it, or any understanding either. I'd rather pity someone who has lived on the verge of starvation all life, bullied and never loved by any woman, who commits a murder in a sober state, than a rich bully who gets drunk, steps into a car and runs over an innocent person, and says "oops, you can't really blame me, because I was drunk".

http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/h.d.../ambulance.gif

That is a very fine ambulance you found there. I guess it means I've just lost the discussion and have to admit that you're right, which you of course are because you found the nicest ambulance picture of us both. A very fine ambulance. Perhaps you can find a picture of policecar too?

And it was just for you. Nope, you kinda lost me between abortion and my upper class.

Its probably first time when I completely agree with Fragony.
He is absolutely right. Edition of his post by BG is just ugly.
People who are for abortion can say that its ok, nothing bad happens.
You BG don't allow Fragony on showing how "ok" is it.