Partial birth abortion poll

[nageov3t]

IMO, life doesn't begin until it's viable outside the womb. 3rd term abortions are murder; before that, it's just a medical procedure.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: rickn
I am against partial birth abortion, and against any abortion that isn't medically necessary. some women use abortion like it's birth control. Instead of an abortion, rip out their damn uterus

So what if one of your female soldiers in Iraq is captured and raped, and becomes pregnant? Currently she is unable to receive an abortion. The armed forces will not provide an abortion. I think that is outrageous.

 

[Tab]

Look what I found...

The only states that do provide late-term abortion are as follows...

• 
  Alaska
  Colorado
  Minnesota
  Mississippi
  Hawaii
  New Hampshire
  New Jersey
  New Mexico
  Delaware
  Utah
  Vermot
  Oregon
  West Virgina

Saying that late-term abortions are legal is somewhat misleading... Just thought you'd like to know

 

[aidanjm]

I support a woman's right to have the fetus removed from her body at any stage of the pregnancy. The fetus has no right to take up real estate in another person's body. It is, at the end of the day, a biological parasite, and it resides in the womb at a woman's pleasure only. If she wants to get rid of it, then out it goes.

I'd also support the right of the parent to have the infant's life ended post-birth (infanticide) under certain circunstances.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I support a woman's right to have the fetus removed from her body at any stage of the pregnancy. The fetus has no right to take up real estate in another person's body. It is, at the end of the day, a biological parasite, and it resides in the womb at a woman's pleasure only. If she wants to get rid of it, then out it goes.

I'd also support the right of the parent to have the infant's life ended post-birth (infanticide) under certain circunstances.

YES! KILL THE BABIES!!!! AHHH!!!

If you can't make decision in 8 weeks, you're going to be delivering that baby.

3rd Trimester abortions should only be allowed if the baby threatens the mother pregnacy.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I support a woman's right to have the fetus removed from her body at any stage of the pregnancy. The fetus has no right to take up real estate in another person's body. It is, at the end of the day, a biological parasite, and it resides in the womb at a woman's pleasure only. If she wants to get rid of it, then out it goes.

I'd also support the right of the parent to have the infant's life ended post-birth (infanticide) under certain circunstances.

YES! KILL THE BABIES!!!! AHHH!!!

If you can't make decision in 8 weeks, you're going to be delivering that baby.

3rd Trimester abortions should only be allowed if the baby threatens the mother pregnacy.

If the baby has a genetic disorder (for example) that is going to result in maybe 6 months or 2 years of extreme pain followed by certain death, it may be humane to kill it. I don't see an infant as a person, I don't conceptualize the killing of an infant as murder. There are definitely circumstances where a reasonable case can be made for ending the life of an infant, imo.

My own opinion is that third trimester abortions should be available to any woman who wants one - for whatever reason.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Tabb
If you can't make decision in 8 weeks, you're going to be delivering that baby.

I think there is an urgent need for the development of technology that will allow women to safely abort their fetus in the privacy of their own home.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tabb
If you can't make decision in 8 weeks, you're going to be delivering that baby.

I think there is an urgent need for the development of technology that will allow women to safely abort their own fetuses in the privacy of their own home.

Use a long sharp wooden stick if you're that desperate.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tabb
If you can't make decision in 8 weeks, you're going to be delivering that baby.

I think there is an urgent need for the development of technology that will allow women to safely abort their own fetuses in the privacy of their own home.

Use a long sharp wooden stick if you're that desperate.

That doesn't sound very safe. A pill would be better.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tabb
If you can't make decision in 8 weeks, you're going to be delivering that baby.

I think there is an urgent need for the development of technology that will allow women to safely abort their own fetuses in the privacy of their own home.

Use a long sharp wooden stick if you're that desperate.

That doesn't sound very safe. A pill would be better.

speaking of, I've never understood the opposition to the morning after pill. it's not performing an abortion, it's preventing the egg from being fertilized so that no abortion will be needed a few months down the line.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tabb
If you can't make decision in 8 weeks, you're going to be delivering that baby.

I think there is an urgent need for the development of technology that will allow women to safely abort their own fetuses in the privacy of their own home.

Use a long sharp wooden stick if you're that desperate.

That doesn't sound very safe. A pill would be better.

speaking of, I've never understood the opposition to the morning after pill. it's not performing an abortion, it's preventing the egg from being fertilized so that no abortion will be needed a few months down the line.

does it stop the fertilisation of the egg, or prevent the fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus wall? if it's the latter, I suppose the anti-choice folks would consider it murder (they think a fertilized egg is a person)

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tabb
If you can't make decision in 8 weeks, you're going to be delivering that baby.

I think there is an urgent need for the development of technology that will allow women to safely abort their own fetuses in the privacy of their own home.

Use a long sharp wooden stick if you're that desperate.

That doesn't sound very safe. A pill would be better.

speaking of, I've never understood the opposition to the morning after pill. it's not performing an abortion, it's preventing the egg from being fertilized so that no abortion will be needed a few months down the line.

does it stop the fertilisation of the egg, or prevent the fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus wall? if it's the latter, I suppose the anti-choice folks would consider it murder (they think a fertilized egg is a person)

IT IS A PERSON AND IF YOU KILL IT YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!!!!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Tabb
IT IS A PERSON AND IF YOU KILL IT YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!!!!

You're against the death penalty, too, right?

And, you're against unjustified invasions, too, right?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Tabb
IT IS A PERSON AND IF YOU KILL IT YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!!!!

You're against the death penalty, too, right?

And, you're against unjustified invasions, too, right?

Actually I am completely for the death penalty. Sorry, I am unconvinced that life in prison can truley confine some indiviuals. Look what happen to Hitler when he was in jail.

I am agaisnt invasions of invaders that invade invadors that are invading.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tabb
If you can't make decision in 8 weeks, you're going to be delivering that baby.

I think there is an urgent need for the development of technology that will allow women to safely abort their own fetuses in the privacy of their own home.

Use a long sharp wooden stick if you're that desperate.

That doesn't sound very safe. A pill would be better.

speaking of, I've never understood the opposition to the morning after pill. it's not performing an abortion, it's preventing the egg from being fertilized so that no abortion will be needed a few months down the line.

does it stop the fertilisation of the egg, or prevent the fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus wall? if it's the latter, I suppose the anti-choice folks would consider it murder (they think a fertilized egg is a person)

IT IS A PERSON AND IF YOU KILL IT YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!!!!

So what is your overall opinion on abortion? Are you basically saying past the third trimester it is not acceptable, but earlier than that, you would be OK with it?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tabb
If you can't make decision in 8 weeks, you're going to be delivering that baby.

I think there is an urgent need for the development of technology that will allow women to safely abort their own fetuses in the privacy of their own home.

Use a long sharp wooden stick if you're that desperate.

That doesn't sound very safe. A pill would be better.

speaking of, I've never understood the opposition to the morning after pill. it's not performing an abortion, it's preventing the egg from being fertilized so that no abortion will be needed a few months down the line.

does it stop the fertilisation of the egg, or prevent the fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus wall? if it's the latter, I suppose the anti-choice folks would consider it murder (they think a fertilized egg is a person)

IT IS A PERSON AND IF YOU KILL IT YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!!!!

So what is your overall opinion on abortion? Are you basically saying past the third trimester it is not acceptable, but earlier than that, you would be OK with it?

Ask Moonbeam, what ever he says.

 

[AmbitV]

How about if a couple is very careful in using the condom or pills, but despite this the girl still gets pregnant? Is abortion still justified in this case?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: ElFenix
interesting.

i bet most of you still have no clue what roe v. wade said.

Well, I think that's a given

Good point. Here is what it says, from my post in this thread:

In abortion, the only issue that matters is whether or not the zygote/embryo/fetus is a person - one who has rights. The determination of whether or not abortion is just must, therefore, rely on the determination of the time at which an unborn human becomes a person. Currently, the legal justification for allowing abortion rests in a single statement of the constitutional amendment granting equal rights to members of all races. This amendment states that citizens (or persons) are those 'born or naturalized' in the United States. In Roe v. Wade, the USSC determined that the use of the word 'born' in this context was intended to define personhood as occurring at the time of birth, not before. Since this was part of the US Constitution, it superseded the anti-abortion laws existing in all fifty states at the time. The consenting justices claimed that the right to abortion is encompassed by a "right to privacy", as they claim is allowed by the fourteenth amendment, though the word privacy never appears in this amendment (nor in the Constitution at all, IIRC). Pertinent excerpts from the Roe v. Wade majority decision:

"We therefore conclude that the right of personal prviacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation... Although th eresults are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach.

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appelant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person iwthin the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...

As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly."

The court then goes on to discuss various theories of when life begins. They settle on viability, as stated here:

"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compeling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother..."

You'll note that this last sentence is what allows abortion at any stage of development, regardless of the laws of the state. Any and all pregnancies invariably put the mother's health, physical or emotional, at some level of risk. You'll also note that the court defines viability as the key point because it does not deem the fetus as having the 'capability of meaningful life' before this time.

The USSC went further in their ruling, declaring specifically under what conditions the state could seek to protect its own interest in the potential child according to the approximate duration of pregnancy as follows:

"To summarize and repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and wtihout recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
a. For the stage prior to approximately teh end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
b. For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of hte first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in wayss that are reasonably related to maternal health.
c. For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

Once again, you'll note that the very last sentence opens the door for an abortion at any time. In phrasing the decision in this way, the court effectively stripped the states of all rights to restrict abortion while trying to appear to be granting them these very rights. You'll also note that the health, not just life, of the mother is sufficient cause for an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Many in this forum claim that it is only to save the life of the mother, which is simply incorrect.[/quote]

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tabb
If you can't make decision in 8 weeks, you're going to be delivering that baby.

I think there is an urgent need for the development of technology that will allow women to safely abort their own fetuses in the privacy of their own home.

Use a long sharp wooden stick if you're that desperate.

That doesn't sound very safe. A pill would be better.

speaking of, I've never understood the opposition to the morning after pill. it's not performing an abortion, it's preventing the egg from being fertilized so that no abortion will be needed a few months down the line.

does it stop the fertilisation of the egg, or prevent the fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus wall? if it's the latter, I suppose the anti-choice folks would consider it murder (they think a fertilized egg is a person)

IT IS A PERSON AND IF YOU KILL IT YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!!!!

So what is your overall opinion on abortion? Are you basically saying past the third trimester it is not acceptable, but earlier than that, you would be OK with it?

Ask Moonbeam, what ever he says.

I was interested in your opinion.

I do like reading Moonbeam's posts, tend to agree with him on most stuff.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: homercles337
Not true. Thats a lie perpetuated by the anti-abortion right.

So you're saying 1.33 million abortions per year, in the US alone, are performed to protect the life of the mother?

Did you even read what i quoted?

I said the "abortion as birth control" claim is BS and perpetuated by the anti-choice right.

no, he didn't read what you wrote. PsychoGizard prefers to respond to strraw men, as opposed to your actual arguments. so pathetic. :disgust:

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: loki8481
IMO, life doesn't begin until it's viable outside the womb. 3rd term abortions are murder; before that, it's just a medical procedure.

But 'viability' begins during the second trimester.

Originally posted by: Tabb
Saying that late-term abortions are legal is somewhat misleading... Just thought you'd like to know

Still haven't invested in those reading lessons, huh? Your claim that late term abortion is only legal in those states is the only misleading thing here. Those states not on your list are the only ones that offer them completely without restriction. Thus, it is very much legal. It is not completely banned in any state, as per Roe v. Wade. I already posted direct quotes from Roe v. Wade pertaining to this in my previous post.

Originally posted by: loki8481
speaking of, I've never understood the opposition to the morning after pill. it's not performing an abortion, it's preventing the egg from being fertilized so that no abortion will be needed a few months down the line.

No, it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus by forcing the uterus to shed its lining. Common misconception.

Originally posted by: Tabb
Ask Moonbeam, what ever he says.

He'd probably tell you to stop being a bigoted prick and make up your own damn mind.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: impeachbush
It should be legal in extreme cases only. Mothers life in danger, incest, rape, republican mother/father. All other abortions need a signed living will from the fetus.

On what moral or legal grounds?

The fetus is not, afterall, a person. It is a mere bit of flesh, and can be disposed of as one might dispose of toe nail clippings. It has no thoughts, no will. It has no rights. It certainly does not have any right to take up space in the woman's womb.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I do like reading Moonbeam's posts, tend to agree with him on most stuff.

you know that moonbeam and rip are the same person, right?

(jk... I think)

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
He'd probably tell you to stop being a bigoted prick and make up your own damn mind.

The only person behaving like a bigoted pr1ck here is you. Ridiculing someone for not knowing a particular fact or thing, as you have been doing in this thread, is the hallmark of a bore and an a$$hole.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
On what moral or legal grounds?

The fetus is not, afterall, a person. It is a mere bit of flesh, and can be disposed of as one might dispose of toe nail clippings. It has no thoughts, no will. It has no rights. It certainly does not have any right to take up space in the woman's womb.

Simply declaring it 'not a person' does not make it so. This is legally true in the US, but is it logically tenable?

Originally posted by: aidanjm
The only person behaving like a bigoted pr1ck here is you. Ridiculing someone for not knowing a particular fact or thing, as you have been doing in this thread, is the hallmark of a bore and an a$$hole.

Really, I'm being bigoted? Have I mocked you for being a homosexual? No. Tabb, however, has mocked Christianity at least once explicitly in this thread - in a post that added absolutely nothing. He can proceed in ignorance until he's blue in the face. However, it is unacceptable to repeatedly put forth things as 'facts' when the true facts, contradictory to your own, are repeatedly presented with verification. This is Tabb's way of doing business.