Is elective abortion a woman taking or avoiding responsibility?

[Cozarkian]

Again, child support is awarded for the child's benefit, not the custodial parent's.

You people seem to forget that.

You do realize there is still a balancing against the parent's rights, don't you? That is why we rely upon child support rather than forced adoptions. There is no reason the law can't decide that a person can legally transfer their responsibilities to a future child prior to its conception.

 

[Paratus]

Better than being wasted. Gene therapy is the cutting edge with limitless possibilities. It bothers me that troglodytes such as yourself will benefit from breakthroughs garnered through it even though you viciously opposed it's development every step of the way.

He also seems to be missing the fact that many abortions are done because of fetal defects and wouldn't it be nice to study them to see if there's a cure that can be found.

 

[Blackjack200]

He also seems to be missing the fact that many abortions are done because of fetal defects and wouldn't it be nice to study them to see if there's a cure that can be found.

LOL! As if the fetus was ever the concern. It's all about those sluts and how ashamed they should be.

 

[CitizenKain]

So baby parts are being distributed. Calling them "fetal tissue" really doesn't change anything either.

If you see a "fetal" head sitting on your desk you're not going to say "who put that fetal tissue on my desk". So cut the crap.

So you are a liar as well as being stupid.

 

[buckshot24]

So you are a liar as well as being stupid.

Goodbye.

 

[dank69]

So baby parts are being distributed. Calling them "fetal tissue" really doesn't change anything either.

If you see a "fetal" head sitting on your desk you're not going to say "who put that fetal tissue on my desk". So cut the crap.

I tried to address this in my post. If you think there is no difference between "baby parts" and "fetal tissue," ask yourself why pro-lifers don't say "fetal tissue" when railing against PP.

 

[ivwshane]

I tried to address this in my post. If you think there is no difference between "baby parts" and "fetal tissue," ask yourself why pro-lifers don't say "fetal tissue" when railing against PP.

Fetal tissue are big words.

 

[DrDoug]

But we've already agreed that something being legal isn't a reason for accepting it. This point is vacuous and a non sequitur, so at least you have that going for you.
Nobody said it was the same thing. One thing was legal (which is your argument for not questioning abortion) and now it is illegal. Nobody is saying slavery is the same thing. I'm saying something being legal isn't a good reason for accepting it as "ok". But you probably knew that but decided to rail against it as if you didn't.

And I am under no illusions that I will convince you of any of this.
Ironic since abortion claims 3000 innocent babies every day. Were those saline solution babies I posted earlier innocent? Were they maimed?
It isn't "her body", DNA tests would confirm this.
Try to get the actual point next time. Nobody says slavery is the same thing as abortion, that was your own jumping to conclusions.

Trying to engage in a serious conversation with you is a waste of time. You don't stick to the subject, you try to equate things that are not the same, you throw in irrelevant information not germane to the issue and on and on and on... You fail at reason and your attempts to 'win' your arguments are nothing more than throwing so much shit out that people get sick of arguing with you and leave.

It's her body and I will vote to keep people like you from controlling it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So baby parts are being distributed.

No, that is a lie.

Calling them "fetal tissue" really doesn't change anything either.

If you actually believed that, you would not call it "baby parts," since the distinction is allegedly meaningless to you, and in fact they are not "baby parts."

So again, we can see that you are lying.

 

[brycejones]

It's her body and I will vote to keep people like you from controlling it.

This

 

[Cozarkian]

I tried to address this in my post. If you think there is no difference between "baby parts" and "fetal tissue," ask yourself why pro-lifers don't say "fetal tissue" when railing against PP.

Reliance on the fallacy of appeal to emotion. Incidentally, the same reason the other side prefers to say "fetal tissue" and anti-choice.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Reliance on the fallacy of appeal to emotion. Incidentally, the same reason the other side prefers to say "fetal tissue" and anti-choice.

But that is a false equivalence. It is FACTUALLY FALSE to call them "baby parts." It is factually correct to call it fetal tissue.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Really depends on each individual situation. Which is why I leave the decision up to the woman who needs to make it.

Pretty much this. No way to equate all women and all abortions in asking a question like this.

 

[Cozarkian]

But that is a false equivalence. It is FACTUALLY FALSE to call them "baby parts." It is factually correct to call it fetal tissue.

On the day my wife's obgyn confirmed my wife's pregnancy and every day thereafter, she referred to the inhabitant of my wife's uterus as a baby, not an embryo or fetus. If the medical professionals believe baby is an appropriate term, I don't think quibbling over whether it is an appropriate term is a relevant argument.

 

[abj13]

On the day my wife's obgyn confirmed my wife's pregnancy and every day thereafter, she referred to the inhabitant of my wife's uterus as a baby, not an embryo or fetus. If the medical professionals believe baby is an appropriate term, I don't think quibbling over whether it is an appropriate term is a relevant argument.

Many medical providers provide overly simplified terminology to families. They have to. Instead of telling someone about the vaccine for Streptococcus pneumoniae, physicians tell laypeople they are going to get the "pneumonia" vaccine. Factually it is incorrect calling it a pneumonia vaccine, but medical literacy only goes so far. For your story, instead of talking about true medical terms (conceptus->embryo->fetus), they said baby.

Most medical literature will fall in the same boat, of using precise medical terminology instead of generalized terminology for lay people. So your story just doesn't apply.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I see my work has already been done. Cheers.

 

[Blanky]

Considering she's killing a future human being in an often advanced state of development I would say she is avoiding responsibility.

 

[buckshot24]

Trying to engage in a serious conversation with you is a waste of time. You don't stick to the subject, you try to equate things that are not the same, you throw in irrelevant information not germane to the issue and on and on and on... You fail at reason and your attempts to 'win' your arguments are nothing more than throwing so much shit out that people get sick of arguing with you and leave.

It's her body and I will vote to keep people like you from controlling it.

You say it is "her body" and I respond directly to that but I'm not sticking to the subject? You say it is legal and I point out that this isn't a sufficient reason to simply accept something by pointing to past actions that were legal but wrong. This directly refutes your point and is completely on subject.

And I'm not equating abortion with slavery I used slavery to refute your specific point about abortion being legal as if that answers the question that it isn't wrong. Stop making stupid arguments and maybe you wouldn't get so upset.

 

[buckshot24]

I tried to address this in my post. If you think there is no difference between "baby parts" and "fetal tissue," ask yourself why pro-lifers don't say "fetal tissue" when railing against PP.

The words ARE different but they refer to the same thing and calling it "fetal tissue" doesn't change what it is.

 

[buckshot24]

On the day my wife's obgyn confirmed my wife's pregnancy and every day thereafter, she referred to the inhabitant of my wife's uterus as a baby, not an embryo or fetus. If the medical professionals believe baby is an appropriate term, I don't think quibbling over whether it is an appropriate term is a relevant argument.

But he used all caps so he must be right.

 

[MongGrel]

Goodbye.

I thought you were leaving ?

 

[Cozarkian]

Many medical providers provide overly simplified terminology to families. They have to. Instead of telling someone about the vaccine for Streptococcus pneumoniae, physicians tell laypeople they are going to get the "pneumonia" vaccine. Factually it is incorrect calling it a pneumonia vaccine, but medical literacy only goes so far. For your story, instead of talking about true medical terms (conceptus->embryo->fetus), they said baby.

Most medical literature will fall in the same boat, of using precise medical terminology instead of generalized terminology for lay people. So your story just doesn't apply.

Thank you for providing additional support for my point. As medical terminology is not required in the situation you describe, neither should it be required when discussing the morality and legality of abortions and related activity.

Language is a tool to convey understanding, not a rigid requirement to be used in attacking an argument without discussing the merits.

Calling fetal tissue "baby parts" both conveys an adequate understanding of the physical substance being discussed, and helps to convey the speaker's opinion that the physical substance bears similarity to and should be treated like the physical substance that comes from a newborn infant.

When a parent calls their grown child "my little baby" do you deride the parent for use of a medically inappropriate term?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Thank you for providing additional support for my point. As medical terminology is not required in the situation you describe, neither should it be required when discussing the morality and legality of abortions and related activity.

Language is a tool to convey understanding, not a rigid requirement to be used in attacking an argument without discussing the merits.

Calling fetal tissue "baby parts" both conveys an adequate understanding of the physical substance being discussed, and helps to convey the speaker's opinion that the physical substance bears similarity to and should be treated like the physical substance that comes from a newborn infant.

When a parent calls their grown child "my little baby" do you deride the parent for use of a medically inappropriate term?

The point is that the means must be worthy of the ends. You do not get rational policy decisions by distorting the reality that the policies are intended to address. Strict adherence to rigorous truth is the only way to give us all the best chance to make wise choices. Defending the distortion is unreasonable at best, and malicious at worst.

 

[MrPickins]

You do realize there is still a balancing against the parent's rights, don't you? That is why we rely upon child support rather than forced adoptions. There is no reason the law can't decide that a person can legally transfer their responsibilities to a future child prior to its conception.

There is no reason that the government couldn't, but there are reasons they won't, so the argument is pointless.

The balance has been struck whether you like it or not.

 

[abj13]

Thank you for providing additional support for my point. As medical terminology is not required in the situation you describe, neither should it be required when discussing the morality and legality of abortions and related activity.

Language is a tool to convey understanding, not a rigid requirement to be used in attacking an argument without discussing the merits.

Calling fetal tissue "baby parts" both conveys an adequate understanding of the physical substance being discussed, and helps to convey the speaker's opinion that the physical substance bears similarity to and should be treated like the physical substance that comes from a newborn infant.

When a parent calls their grown child "my little baby" do you deride the parent for use of a medically inappropriate term?

I think you need to reread what you wrote. Trying to have a discussion about the "morality and legality" of something using vague terms that are open to interpretation is going to do nothing but distort "understanding." The usage of "baby parts" could mean a variety of definitions, from fetal trophoblastic cells to fetal kidney cells, to the placenta to the umbilical cord. There's no way an accurate discussion of the "morality or legality" is going to stem from relying on the fallacy of appeal to emotion, as you ascribe to.

If one is going to talk about when twinning occurs during development (an essential moment of discussion when it comes to when is the conceptus a single person), an intelligent discussion would involve descriptions of how the inner cell mass splits. But by your above test, you would advocate for using "my little baby" split into two little babies does nothing but clouds the discussion in inane, imprecise, and silly choice of language.