Late Term Abortion

[LittleGrizzly]

Would there be no right to abortion without roe vs wade or would states revert back to laws before roe vs wade ?

[Craterus]

If Roe vs Wade was overturned then Illegal Abortions would sky-rocket and there would be no protection for mothers who wish for a clean, safe abortion. That said I don't know how things were before it (Or admittedly much about what happens under it now), so feel free to correct me.

They're not mothers! *facepalm*

[Lemur]

LittleGrizzly, if Roe v. Wade were overturned the most likely scenario is that the states would sort out the laws for themselves. Either that or Congress would rush through legislation. Neither, in my opinion, would be a disaster.

[Kralizec]

I'd say restrict it.

My opinion is that women shouldn't be forced to give birth. However in that same opinion waiting till the 8th month is just plain sick, and I'm disgusted by the ease with wich some people decide that completely developed fetuses aren't worthy of being called human because they haven't left the womb yet.
Before somebody makes mention of it, I find it hard to believe that any woman of normal intelligence would not notice for more than 3 months straight that they're pregnant.

[Ice]

I'd say restrict it.

My opinion is that women shouldn't be forced to give birth. However in that same opinion waiting till the 8th month is just plain sick, and I'm disgusted by the ease with wich some people decide that completely developed fetuses aren't worthy of being called human because they haven't left the womb yet.
Before somebody makes mention of it, I find it hard to believe that any woman of normal intelligence would not notice for more than 3 months straight that they're pregnant.

Uh huh. I'd agree.

[Strike For The South]

Oh joy a Redneck convention...

Sperm = Egg = Baby... Hmmmm. Here states 1 in 4 ends in miscarriage all by itself. Isn't that in fact greater than the number of intentional abortions?

And just to reiterate: a 10 week pregnancy has a 100% chance of dying out of the uterus, as does a 15 week. By 20 weeks we're getting close to getting a living creature some of the time.

I know that nothing will alter these views - especially with the "interesting" examples that are lumped together in the post. Luckily in developed societies these are in the minority.

Natrual deaths happen all the time. Kids die from a boatload of things every year. What's your point?

[Ironside]

Natrual deaths happen all the time. Kids die from a boatload of things every year. What's your point?

I dont care if you're ready or not you made the choice and you must now live with it you must have the baby. You can put it up for adoption but you must give it life.

Or to paraphrase:

A random foetus dies. "MURDERER!!! Oh, it was a natural death." Goes away whistling completly indifferent.

Come on, give me a "Think of the children" aswell.

[CountArach]

They're not mothers! *facepalm*

Hmmm, touché...

[Strike For The South]

Or to paraphrase:

A random foetus dies. "MURDERER!!! Oh, it was a natural death." Goes away whistling completly indifferent.

Come on, give me a "Think of the children" aswell.

A miscarige is a random act of nature. Abortion is not. Saying abortion is ok becuase miscarriges happen is like saying murder is ok becuase cancer happens.

[m52nickerson]

Ok a few things. To say that life "begins" at conception or life "begins" at birth are both wrong. Life is not beginning, but merely continuing. Sperms and Ovum are alive. I find both catch phrases mis-representing.

In saying this the question become when is a fetus an viable human life. I would say that it is at 24 weeks or just after. When the fetus could survive without support from the mother.

Before this time the fetus is nothing more that part of the mother, it can't survive without her any more than your head can survive without your body.

Now Strike's example were Gram Gram dies is no were close to the same thing, since Gram Gram has been born and is not directly dependent on a single person.

[Viking]

Ok a few things. To say that life "begins" at conception or life "begins" at birth are both wrong. Life is not beginning, but merely continuing. Sperms and Ovum are alive. I find both catch phrases mis-representing.

The human being's life begins at conception yes; prior to that there was two different beings with two different halved sets of DNA. They both ceased to exist at conception.

In saying this the question become when is a fetus an viable human life. I would say that it is at 24 weeks or just after. When the fetus could survive without support from the mother.

Before this time the fetus is nothing more that part of the mother, it can't survive without her any more than your head can survive without your body.

Now Strike's example were Gram Gram dies is no were close to the same thing, since Gram Gram has been born and is not directly dependent on a single person.

So then, a siamese twin dependent on its twin's nutrition is qualified for abortion? Just goes to show that drawing the line there is arbitrary. There are also adult people who are depending on machines for survival; but that does not make them a machine.

Furthermore, if something is a natural part of the body, it has the same DNA. That is not the case with foetuses. And as for comparing with a head; that is also incorrect. The head will always need a body supporting it; while a foetus will eventually not have that need. That's the second difference between a body part and a foetus.

[Ironside]

A miscarige is a random act of nature. Abortion is not. Saying abortion is ok becuase miscarriges happen is like saying murder is ok becuase cancer happens.

And knowledge on what causes miscariage and medicine can load the dice. But that's not considered as important as cancer treatment...

Interesting that you condemn the action and not the result.

[Craterus]

So then, a siamese twin dependent on its twin's nutrition is qualified for abortion? Just goes to show that drawing the line there is arbitrary. There are also adult people who are depending on machines for survival; but that does not make them a machine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violini...ght_Experiment)

[Adrian II]

In saying this the question become when is a fetus an viable human life.

That is a legitimate question, but it is of no concern to the law.

The law is concerned with persons. Not with Siamese twins, plants or clumps of cells, however viable they may be. Only persons have rights.

Instead of defining 'life' or 'humanity' or 'viability', define 'person' and ye shall be free of unnecessary confusion and irrelevant sentiment. A woman is a person. And a woman has the unalienable right to defend her body from any intrusion by another person, be it a fetus, an embryo or a grown adult. Nuff said.

[Viking]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violini...ht_Experiment))

That got nothing to do with argument that nickerson put forth; he said that the foetus was to be considered a human being when it could survive outside the mother's womb.

[Craterus]

That got nothing to do with argument that nickerson put forth; he said that the foetus was to be considered a human being when it could survive outside the mother's womb.

No, it's to do with what you said. That's why I quoted part of your post.

[Kralizec]

That is a legitimate question, but it is of no concern to the law.

The law is concerned with persons. Not with Siamese twins, plants or clumps of cells, however viable they may be. Only persons have rights.

Instead of defining 'life' or 'humanity' or 'viability', define 'person' and ye shall be free of unnecessary confusion and irrelevant sentiment. A woman is a person. And a woman has the unalienable right to defend her body from any intrusion by another person, be it a fetus, an embryo or a grown adult. Nuff said.

I'm of the opinion that once a woman has carried a fetus for longer than a few months, she has waivered her right to cancel.

You're saying that the law only grants rights to persons (and actually many law systems enable unborn people to inherit anyway) and because unborn are not recognised as such right now, they're not to be considered. Yet when a law system doesn't allow abortion, it's denying people unalienable rights?

[Samurai Waki]

I have yet to hear an opinion from a female orgah, and as such have refrained from making any serious comment on my views regarding this snake pit.

[Strike For The South]

And knowledge on what causes miscariage and medicine can load the dice. But that's not considered as important as cancer treatment...

Interesting that you condemn the action and not the result.

Death is a sad thing. Harming a living thing is evil

[Samurai Waki]

Curious, I've never once heard you speak against your state's approval for the death sentence.

[Adrian II]

I'm of the opinion that once a woman has carried a fetus for longer than a few months, she has waivered her right to cancel.

You're saying that the law only grants rights to persons (and actually many law systems enable unborn people to inherit anyway) and because unborn are not recognised as such right now, they're not to be considered. Yet when a law system doesn't allow abortion, it's denying people unalienable rights?

I'm saying this: it does not matter whether or not you define an unborn as a person. The woman is a person. She can decide at any time to stop unwanted intrusion on her body by another person, a clump of cells, a Siamese twin, a new Adolf Hitler or a new Albert Einstein.

All the emotional appeals in this thread, both pro-choice and anti-choice, will not change that. Emotions do not define or restrict either morality or legality.

As to the anti-choice porn: imagine, for a moment, that opponents of the war in Iraq would plaster buldings and billboards with giant pictures of horribly maimed Iraqi and Afghan civilians, American and British soldiers, etcetera. Would it change your view on those wars? Not mine. The fact that people are killed as such, however, horribly, is no reason to change policy.

Morality or legality cannot be photographed.

[Strike For The South]

Curious, I've never once heard you speak against your state's approval for the death sentence.

That should read innocent human life. Harming something that has done no wrong is much diffrenent than punshing a henouis offense.

[Strike For The South]

I'm saying this: it does not matter whether or not you define an unborn as a person. The woman is a person. She can decide at any time to stop unwanted intrusion on her body by another person, a clump of cells, a Siamese twin, a new Adolf Hitler or a new Albert Einstein.

All the emotional appeals in this thread, both pro-choice and anti-choice, will not change that. Emotions do not define or restrict either morality or legality.

As to the anti-choice porn: imagine, for a moment, that opponents of the war in Iraq would plaster buldings and billboards with giant pictures of horribly maimed Iraqi and Afghan civilians, American and British soldiers, etcetera. Would it change your view on those wars? Not mine. The fact that people are killed as such, however, horribly, is no reason to change policy.

Morality or legality cannot be photographed.

To define pregnancy as intrusion is wrong. I think thats where we split. The mircale of life is not so minor inconveince for a woman it is a child. So Adrian II when does this child obtain rights to protect it form its mother or father?

[Adrian II]

To define pregnancy as intrusion is wrong. I think thats where we split. The mircale of life is not so minor inconveince for a woman it is a child. So Adrian II when does this child obtain rights to protect it form its mother or father?

From birth.

[Strike For The South]

From birth.

well sir I must respectfully disagree.

[Adrian II]

well sir I must respectfully disagree.

That's not enough. You must also respectfully observe every woman's right to freedom. Whether the law or your God say so is not relevant. You may well regard a fetus as a miracle of life, but a woman has the right to refuse your miracle. She has the right to refuse a fetus even if that fetus were Jesus Christ the Saviour himself, come to reclaim his Kingdom.

[Strike For The South]

That's not enough. You must also respectfully observe every woman's right to freedom. Whether the law or your God say so is not relevant. You may well regard a fetus as a miracle of life, but a woman has the right to refuse your miracle. She has the right to refuse a fetus even if that fetus were Jesus Christ the Saviour himself, come to reclaim his Kingdom.

No she does not have that right. As soon as the sperm hits the egg and conception happens that baby has all the rights as any other human including protection from murder. A human mother holds just as much power of the infant when its born its just outside of herm

[Samurai Waki]

and it all comes full circle. . Ms. Waki says Strike clearly doesn't have a vagina... good news

[Kralizec]

I'm saying this: it does not matter whether or not you define an unborn as a person. The woman is a person. She can decide at any time to stop unwanted intrusion on her body by another person, a clump of cells, a Siamese twin, a new Adolf Hitler or a new Albert Einstein.

All the emotional appeals in this thread, both pro-choice and anti-choice, will not change that. Emotions do not define or restrict either morality or legality.

As to the anti-choice porn: imagine, for a moment, that opponents of the war in Iraq would plaster buldings and billboards with giant pictures of horribly maimed Iraqi and Afghan civilians, American and British soldiers, etcetera. Would it change your view on those wars? Not mine. The fact that people are killed as such, however, horribly, is no reason to change policy.

Morality or legality cannot be photographed.

It's clear enough that you think that women should have unrestricted rights to abortion. But you haven't demonstrated this to be anything other than your personal opinion. You've used the word "unalienable" wich suggests that you think it's part of some Natural Law, wich I happen to think is a load of bullox.

[Adrian II]

As soon as the sperm hits the egg and conception happens that baby has all the rights as any other human including protection from murder.

That's correct, if you define it so. But just like any other human being, it does not have the right to grow in, and feed on, someone else's body.

(..) you think it's part of some Natural Law, wich I happen to think is a load of bullox.

I am so intimidated by your persuasive reasoning.

Good night.