Late Term Abortion

[Banquo's Ghost]

We moan over the few thousand who have been killed in Iraq, while countless more are taken from us every year via late -term abortion.

Truly DA, whether one is pro-choice or pro-life, that has to be the most morally ambivalent statement of the year so far.

[Ice]

I'd say murder, although I'm sure there are always people willing to defend this.

[CountArach]

I'd say murder, although I'm sure there are always people willing to defend this.

I thought you were a libertarian?

[JAG]

I am sure he would say even libertarians understand the need for laws and intervention in the case of murder.... But we all know it isn't murder anyway (or should know)

And DA - you are right, those few thousand soldiers and few hundred thousand Iraqis are so over hyped in the liberal media. To think, millions died in WW2.

[PanzerJaeger]

I am sure he would say even libertarians understand the need for laws and intervention in the case of murder.... But we all know it isn't murder anyway (or should know)

If a fetus can live on its own out of the womb, how is it not murder?

And how many of those iraqis were killed by.... other iraqis?

[JAG]

If a fetus can live on its own out of the womb, how is it not murder?

And how many of those iraqis were killed by.... other iraqis?

Not gonna derail the thread with your second point, we have covered Iraq so much already.

As to your first, it is a cheap point which makes no sense even in your thinking on this subject. So you would quite happily state then that those fetus' which can't survive outside the womb on their own - and we have a funny way of saying 'on their own', they are hooked up and kept alive by a machine, yeah really 'on their own' - are not murdered at all. If you are to bring in, 'it is murder because it can survive at 20 weeks', surely that leaves you open to, 'well at 18 weeks when it can't survive, it isn't'.

[rory_20_uk]

To the question: If you've had sex and don't want a baby, do a pregnancy test in 2 weeks. If +ve do something about it All contraception is not 100% safe. Be an adult and accept this, or be celibate or have a hysterectomy.

Although there are cases where children are born at 24 weeks or earlier and make a full recovery and lead a full, active life, they are in the minority. Many die. Most are mild to severely handicapped. Generally a mixture of severe damage to sight, low IQ and damaged lungs. And not to mention the massive drain on resources.

NOTE to the few who are unaware: these babies go to Special Care Baby Units. They have massive medical input with special food regimes, specialised medication, monitored oxygen and light levels. They would survie less than 1 day without this.

[Ice]

I thought you were a libertarian?

Incorrect

I'm a conservative with many libertarian aspects. I would consider the being inside the woman a living a person. Thus, that person has rights. To kill that person would be murder. I'm not sure I'd also consider regular abortion murder too, but abortion after this length of time is just plain wrong.

By the way, there are plenty of libertarians who are pro-life.

I honestly can't see how killing a baby at this point wouldn't be considered murder to some people, but I guess each to his own.

[HoreTore]

I honestly can't see how killing a baby at this point wouldn't be considered murder to some people, but I guess each to his own.

It's very easy; no human, no murder.

[Ice]

It's very easy; no human, no murder.

Once again, I'll never understand that rather simplistic justification. Like I said though, whatever floats your boat.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm a conservative with many libertarian aspects. I would consider the being inside the woman a living a person. Thus, that person has rights. To kill that person would be murder. I'm not sure I'd also consider regular abortion murder too, but abortion after this length of time is just plain wrong.

My views exactly. The question is whether the right of a mother to decide what is convenient to her should take precedence over the right of a human being to live - something that shouldn't be a question at all.

Of course, if we're facing the right of the mother to live versus the right of the child to live, I'd have to go with the mother, but only if both could not be saved.

[Craterus]

My views exactly. The question is whether the right of a mother to decide what is convenient to her should take precedence over the right of a human being to live - something that shouldn't be a question at all.

Of course, if we're facing the right of the mother to live versus the right of the child to live, I'd have to go with the mother, but only if both could not be saved.

A foetus is not a human being. That implies sentience and it's a loaded word.
A foetus is a homo sapien larvae, nothing more. Whether you think they're worth saving is up to you but to bring emotive language to strengthen your point doesn't really say much.

[PanzerJaeger]

A foetus is not a human being.

Says you.

[Sigurd]

I’ll take the bait…

Yes, late term abortions should only happen if a problem is discovered that will lead to a life-time suffering for the children or a life-threatening situation for the women. In fact I think we already have this established by law here. Too bad the USA hasn’t.
Rape and abuse would be my other reason for terminating a pregnancy, but there is no reason that can’t happen within the first 8 weeks of the pregnancy.
For all other reasons: You do the deed, you should be prepared to take the consequences. Give birth to the child. If you then don’t want it, put it up for adoption.

And finally the petrol on the embers:
It should be the non-believers that should be most upset with life ending before it even began, not the believers. Those that believe in a heaven would recognize that these children would go back to the God that sent them. A life in heaven would be better than any life on earth.

[Divinus Arma]

Truly DA, whether one is pro-choice or pro-life, that has to be the most morally ambivalent statement of the year so far.

I would expect a bit of understanding towards my statement, given my background. No one can make a reasonable argument that I discount the sacrifice of my country's greatest citizens.


I will admit to a poor choice of words on my part. Allow me to clarify.

Comparing the tragedy of troop deaths in Iraq against the number of late term abortions provides a picture of just how severe the abortion problem is. 3,000 lives have been lost in this war and a near number of viable human lives are murdered annually via late term abortion. These numbers are lost on an apathetic population who is almost entirely fed the information they rely upon for political perspective.


I believe that better articulates my intent.

[Banquo's Ghost]

We moan over the few thousand who have been killed in Iraq, while countless more are taken from us every year via late -term abortion. And all for convience.

I would expect a bit of understanding towards my statement, given my background. No one can make a reasonable argument that I discount the sacrifice of my country's greatest citizens.


I will admit to a poor choice of words on my part. Allow me to clarify.

Comparing the tragedy of troop deaths in Iraq against the number of late term abortions provides a picture of just how severe the abortion problem is. 3,000 lives have been lost in this war and a near number of viable human lives are murdered annually via late term abortion. These numbers are lost on an apathetic population who is almost entirely fed the information they rely upon for political perspective.


I believe that better articulates my intent.

Thank you for the clarification, DA, and allow me to apologise for my unwarranted condemnation.

I read your original statement as if you were considering the many thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq as somehow less important than the aborted foetuses.

It was a crass misunderstanding on my part, more telling of my own prejudices. I should have considered the quality of the man posting, and I apologise again.