Poll Shows Majority of Americans Believe Abortion ?Almost Always Bad? for Women

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: tss4
Its been addressed a hundred times before. you believe its a person. Pro-choice people believe its not (at least not early in the pregnancy). What more do you want. You can't prove either position at this point. Its not an unreasonable position to believe the fetus is not a viable human life early in the pregnancy. Given that abortion should be left to the mother. Later, in the pregnancy it becomes MUCH more difficult to say that the unborn fetus is not a human life. These points have been made before and you've heard them all before. So why, just because we haven't repeated them all in this particular thread, do you say something silly like that we are ignoring the question of a babies status as a person. How many times must we bang heads on a point that is a question of faith given current technology and science?

I want a single argument as to WHY it isn't a person. You can scream that it isn't all day, but that doesn't make it so. I made my arguments in another thread quite a while ago: link. If you want to deny rights, I suggest you come up with a better reason than 'we can't tell for sure if it's a person, so we'll assume it's not and kill it anyway.'

Hmmm... that's odd. I didn't realize I was screaming. I wasn't using caps so please enlighten me as to how I was "screaming" at you.

And, amazingly, you were so perceptive as to my "screaming" but you missed what I was saying. I'm not going to tell you the fetues isn't human at 8 months. Its probably human at 6 months. I agree, I don't know for sure (or at least believe) so I can't condone killing it (except in rare cases to save the life of the mother as a last resort). But before that is where it becomes an article of faith. I do not believe that a fetus is a living human at 3 months. I base this on many things but to summarize because, the fetus is poorly developed and can not survive outside the womb (without recreating an artificial womb). You want to hold me up to absolute proof that the fetus isn't a seperate human being but how can we do that when we haven't even defined clearly what makes us human?? With out allowing faith to be part of the discussion how can one ever support birth control? Every sperm you prevent from entering the woman (or egg you prevent) is a life that would have grown and been born had you given it a chance. Every time you put on a condom or had your tubes tied, you are killing lives that would have been born. So don't tell me that faith has nothing to do with this and that you demand proof, because until you can resolve this and every other moral dispute with proof then you are holding others to a different standard than yourself. Until you can address this underlying doublestandard in your request then I have nothing more to say to you on this topic. And just to clarify, I have not "screamed" any part of this post at you.

Oh, by the way, you missed a point in the link reffered me to. Its not that you have brainwaves (or actually more aptly are self aware) that help define you as a seperate person but that you have ever had them.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: PatboyX
rip seems to have missed the point of GBs post. she was not evoking a personal experience so that people might tell her how she could have "done better" but so that he might understand that each individuals situation is different and to outlaw something as complicated as abortion would probably be in the worst interest for the american people. no one claims that having an abortion is "good for the woman" in a physical or psychological way; us folks that are pro-choice are not "three abortions, get one free and we will even take you out for a drink afterward" nutjobs. but we believe that this is a decision that most directly involves the woman and, therefore, she should have as much control over that as possible.

I understand that perfectly. However, I also recognize that you're not realizing that there is another party involved: the embryo/fetus/baby/child. The argument, as was so aptly pointed out previously in this thread then subsequently ignored, is whether or not the embryo/fetus/baby/child should be granted status as a person.

i thought that was covered: fetus is not a human being. (as believed by most -- i say most to cover my own ass -- pro-choice folks.)

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: tss4
Hmmm... that's odd. I didn't realize I was screaming. I wasn't using caps so please enlighten me as to how I was "screaming" at you.

And, amazingly, you were so perceptive as to my "screaming" but you missed what I was saying. I'm not going to tell you the fetues isn't human at 8 months. Its probably human at 6 months. I agree, I don't know for sure (or at least believe) so I can't condone killing it (except in rare cases to save the life of the mother as a last resort). But before that is where it becomes an article of faith. I do not believe that a fetus is a living human at 3 months. I base this on many things but to summarize because, the fetus is poorly developed and can not survive outside the womb (without recreating an artificial womb). You want to hold me up to absolute proof that the fetus isn't a seperate human being but how can we do that when we haven't even defined clearly what makes us human?? With out allowing faith to be part of the discussion how can one ever support birth control? Every sperm you prevent from entering the woman (or egg you prevent) is a life that would have grown and been born had you given it a chance. Every time you put on a condom or had your tubes tied, you are killing lives that would have been born. So don't tell me that faith has nothing to do with this and that you demand proof, because until you can resolve this and every other moral dispute with proof then you are holding others to a different standard than yourself. Until you can address this underlying doublestandard in your request then I have nothing more to say to you on this topic. And just to clarify, I have not "screamed" any part of this post at you.

Oh, by the way, you missed a point in the link reffered me to. Its not that you have brainwaves (or actually more aptly are self aware) that help define you as a seperate person but that you have ever had them.

How can you deny that a fetus is human at any stage of development? That's not really up for debate - it is by definition human, having complete human genetics. You can, however, argue whether or not it is a person. As I said, I've covered this literally dozens of times on this forum - it's a pretty simple concept. If you don't believe me, read the USSC's Roe v Wade decision for yourself.

As for your argument that every sperm is a potential person, I've already addressed that at least once in this thread. The sperm/egg by itself has only partial human genetic makeup for the creation of a new human. By itself, it is nothing. It is only after the two are joined that a new, distinct genetic code is formed.

As for the brainwaves argument, that doesn't work from a logical standpoint. If it did, then you would not be able to bury a dead body, since it's a person, since it at one time had brainwaves, correct?

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: tss4
Hmmm... that's odd. I didn't realize I was screaming. I wasn't using caps so please enlighten me as to how I was "screaming" at you.

And, amazingly, you were so perceptive as to my "screaming" but you missed what I was saying. I'm not going to tell you the fetues isn't human at 8 months. Its probably human at 6 months. I agree, I don't know for sure (or at least believe) so I can't condone killing it (except in rare cases to save the life of the mother as a last resort). But before that is where it becomes an article of faith. I do not believe that a fetus is a living human at 3 months. I base this on many things but to summarize because, the fetus is poorly developed and can not survive outside the womb (without recreating an artificial womb). You want to hold me up to absolute proof that the fetus isn't a seperate human being but how can we do that when we haven't even defined clearly what makes us human?? With out allowing faith to be part of the discussion how can one ever support birth control? Every sperm you prevent from entering the woman (or egg you prevent) is a life that would have grown and been born had you given it a chance. Every time you put on a condom or had your tubes tied, you are killing lives that would have been born. So don't tell me that faith has nothing to do with this and that you demand proof, because until you can resolve this and every other moral dispute with proof then you are holding others to a different standard than yourself. Until you can address this underlying doublestandard in your request then I have nothing more to say to you on this topic. And just to clarify, I have not "screamed" any part of this post at you.

Oh, by the way, you missed a point in the link reffered me to. Its not that you have brainwaves (or actually more aptly are self aware) that help define you as a seperate person but that you have ever had them.

How can you deny that a fetus is human at any stage of development? That's not really up for debate - it is by definition human, having complete human genetics. You can, however, argue whether or not it is a person. As I said, I've covered this literally dozens of times on this forum - it's a pretty simple concept. If you don't believe me, read the USSC's Roe v Wade decision for yourself.

As for your argument that every sperm is a potential person, I've already addressed that at least once in this thread. The sperm/egg by itself has only partial human genetic makeup for the creation of a new human. By itself, it is nothing. It is only after the two are joined that a new, distinct genetic code is formed.

As for the brainwaves argument, that doesn't work from a logical standpoint. If it did, then you would not be able to bury a dead body, since it's a person, since it at one time had brainwaves, correct?

Sorry I used the word human instead of person. Please insert person for every spot I used human in my previous posts. Are we using the same agreed upon vocabulary now?

If you can define a sperm as not being a person because without the egg/sperm combo it is not viable (even though you are killing a potential human being) then I can define an embryo that cannot surive without the mother/embryo and is and has never been self aware as not a person.

Why does burying a dead body mean it doesn't have rights. If it had no rights then why do we honor last wills and testaments. Certainly not because of the remaining family because not all dead people have family. Yet, we honor their wills anyway... because under our laws even that dead person, as odd as it sounds, still has certain rights to distribute his or her estate. I don't really believe in brain waves as a defining point to human life. But I think your logic with respect to it is flawed.

Personally, I believe a "person" is defined by his or her self awareness and viability outside of the womb. Clearly, that would lead to a certain frame of time during the pregnancy when an abortion would be within the womans rights.

The underlining point is that its how you define a person that the entire arguement for or against abortion must be based on. Since we can't agree on that, we will never prove our case to each other. Very few things in life (especially morals) can be proved completely.

If people would stop saying ridiculous thing like "I've yet to see a logically sound reason that would deprive an embryo/fetus status as a person " and listen to each other then we could have some real intelligent discourse on this topic.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: tss4
Sorry I used the word human instead of person. Please insert person for every spot I used human in my previous posts. Are we using the same agreed upon vocabulary now?

If you can define a sperm as not being a person because without the egg/sperm combo it is not viable (even though you are killing a potential human being) then I can define an embryo that cannot surive without the mother/embryo and is and has never been self aware as not a person.

Why does burying a dead body mean it doesn't have rights. If it had no rights then why do we honor last wills and testaments. Certainly not because of the remaining family because not all dead people have family. Yet, we honor their wills anyway... because under our laws even that dead person, as odd as it sounds, still has certain rights to distribute his or her estate. I don't really believe in brain waves as a defining point to human life. But I think your logic with respect to it is flawed.

Personally, I believe a "person" is defined by his or her self awareness and viability outside of the womb. Clearly, that would lead to a certain frame of time during the pregnancy when an abortion would be within the womans rights.

The underlining point is that its how you define a person that the entire arguement for or against abortion must be based on. Since we can't agree on that, we will never prove our case to each other. Very few things in life (especially morals) can be proved completely.

If people would stop saying ridiculous thing like "I've yet to see a logically sound reason that would deprive an embryo/fetus status as a person " and listen to each other then we could have some real intelligent discourse on this topic.

I understand your frustration with the language. Unfortunately, the language is put in place by those who would allow abortion to allow for differences to be pointed out where none exists. Myself, I would define person and human as one and the same, since I have not been able to arrive at any distinction between the two.

I did not define a sperm as 'not viable' - I defined it as a non-distinct genetic entity. It does not contain the genetic code necessary to become a human in and of itself. How do you define viability? According to your purported definition of a person, you must have a clear definition of viability, as it is the root of your argument. If you define it as self-awareness, then you must have some objective criteria by which to judge self-awareness, correct? If so, what are these criteria?

As you say, we can't agree on how to define a person. I merely suggest that, since we cannot necessarily prove whether or not an embryo is a person or not a person, we treat it as a person, thereby erring on the side of caution. Since your attempt to define a person as something other than as human relies solely on hand-waving arguments, I would think you could agree to this.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: tss4
Sorry I used the word human instead of person. Please insert person for every spot I used human in my previous posts. Are we using the same agreed upon vocabulary now?

If you can define a sperm as not being a person because without the egg/sperm combo it is not viable (even though you are killing a potential human being) then I can define an embryo that cannot surive without the mother/embryo and is and has never been self aware as not a person.

Why does burying a dead body mean it doesn't have rights. If it had no rights then why do we honor last wills and testaments. Certainly not because of the remaining family because not all dead people have family. Yet, we honor their wills anyway... because under our laws even that dead person, as odd as it sounds, still has certain rights to distribute his or her estate. I don't really believe in brain waves as a defining point to human life. But I think your logic with respect to it is flawed.

Personally, I believe a "person" is defined by his or her self awareness and viability outside of the womb. Clearly, that would lead to a certain frame of time during the pregnancy when an abortion would be within the womans rights.

The underlining point is that its how you define a person that the entire arguement for or against abortion must be based on. Since we can't agree on that, we will never prove our case to each other. Very few things in life (especially morals) can be proved completely.

If people would stop saying ridiculous thing like "I've yet to see a logically sound reason that would deprive an embryo/fetus status as a person " and listen to each other then we could have some real intelligent discourse on this topic.

I understand your frustration with the language. Unfortunately, the language is put in place by those who would allow abortion to allow for differences to be pointed out where none exists. Myself, I would define person and human as one and the same, since I have not been able to arrive at any distinction between the two.

I did not define a sperm as 'not viable' - I defined it as a non-distinct genetic entity. It does not contain the genetic code necessary to become a human in and of itself. How do you define viability? According to your purported definition of a person, you must have a clear definition of viability, as it is the root of your argument. If you define it as self-awareness, then you must have some objective criteria by which to judge self-awareness, correct? If so, what are these criteria?

As you say, we can't agree on how to define a person. I merely suggest that, since we cannot necessarily prove whether or not an embryo is a person or not a person, we treat it as a person, thereby erring on the side of caution. Since your attempt to define a person as something other than as human relies solely on hand-waving arguments, I would think you could agree to this.

We don't know exactly when a fetus becomes self aware but we do know that in the early stages it is not. I am not a biologist, however, I have read many articles and studies by which scientist have studied mammals such as dolphins and determined that they are self aware. To me self aware is knowing that you exist and understanding that you are a distinct entity. Scientist have tests to determine this. They know that this onloy present in mammals with large and complicated enough brains. I fully agree with you taht once the brain is large enough such that it becomes unconclusive as to whether the fetus is self aware than abortion (except in the even to save the mother) should not be allowed. But in the very early stages, we know its not self aware. You can't tell me you think a 3 week old embryo is self aware. At this point, I think the mother should have the option to abort the pregnancy.

Under my definition, abortion is allowed in the early stages. I will concede that under your definition that it is a "person" when its DNA is complete and unique, then one could easily argue that it has rights and can not be aborted without medical need.

In an ideal world this wouldn't be an issue because we would all be fully educated on birth control and social pressures would frown upon not using them. Unwanted pregnancies would be non-existent. Unfortunately with all the misinformation out there and abstinance only philosophies we are going to continue to have a problem with this.

I wish we could come to a compromise as a society, I'd be willing to outlaw abortion after one week of formally being told by a doctor you are pregnant, if conservatives would fully back teaching birth control (they can even still present abstinance as an option). This seems like a fair compromise but the extremists on both sides wouldn't even begin to consider this. Too bad.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: tss4
We don't know exactly when a fetus becomes self aware but we do know that in the early stages it is not. I am not a biologist, however, I have read many articles and studies by which scientist have studied mammals such as dolphins and determined that they are self aware. To me self aware is knowing that you exist and understanding that you are a distinct entity. Scientist have tests to determine this. They know that this onloy present in mammals with large and complicated enough brains. I fully agree with you taht once the brain is large enough such that it becomes unconclusive as to whether the fetus is self aware than abortion (except in the even to save the mother) should not be allowed. But in the very early stages, we know its not self aware. You can't tell me you think a 3 week old embryo is self aware. At this point, I think the mother should have the option to abort the pregnancy.

Under my definition, abortion is allowed in the early stages. I will concede that under your definition that it is a "person" when its DNA is complete and unique, then one could easily argue that it has rights and can not be aborted without medical need.

In an ideal world this wouldn't be an issue because we would all be fully educated on birth control and social pressures would frown upon not using them. Unwanted pregnancies would be non-existent. Unfortunately with all the misinformation out there and abstinance only philosophies we are going to continue to have a problem with this.

I wish we could come to a compromise as a society, I'd be willing to outlaw abortion after one week of formally being told by a doctor you are pregnant, if conservatives would fully back teaching birth control (they can even still present abstinance as an option). This seems like a fair compromise but the extremists on both sides wouldn't even begin to consider this. Too bad.

"The early stages"? Perhaps you mean prior to eight weeks' gestation, since after this a fetus has a fully developed nervous system, normal brainwave patterns, and is fully sensitive to pain? More than 95% of abortions occur after 8 weeks, since it takes about that long for a woman to figure out that she's pregnant. I'll get to the rest later.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: tss4
We don't know exactly when a fetus becomes self aware but we do know that in the early stages it is not. I am not a biologist, however, I have read many articles and studies by which scientist have studied mammals such as dolphins and determined that they are self aware. To me self aware is knowing that you exist and understanding that you are a distinct entity. Scientist have tests to determine this. They know that this onloy present in mammals with large and complicated enough brains. I fully agree with you taht once the brain is large enough such that it becomes unconclusive as to whether the fetus is self aware than abortion (except in the even to save the mother) should not be allowed. But in the very early stages, we know its not self aware. You can't tell me you think a 3 week old embryo is self aware. At this point, I think the mother should have the option to abort the pregnancy.

Under my definition, abortion is allowed in the early stages. I will concede that under your definition that it is a "person" when its DNA is complete and unique, then one could easily argue that it has rights and can not be aborted without medical need.

In an ideal world this wouldn't be an issue because we would all be fully educated on birth control and social pressures would frown upon not using them. Unwanted pregnancies would be non-existent. Unfortunately with all the misinformation out there and abstinance only philosophies we are going to continue to have a problem with this.

I wish we could come to a compromise as a society, I'd be willing to outlaw abortion after one week of formally being told by a doctor you are pregnant, if conservatives would fully back teaching birth control (they can even still present abstinance as an option). This seems like a fair compromise but the extremists on both sides wouldn't even begin to consider this. Too bad.

"The early stages"? Perhaps you mean prior to eight weeks' gestation, since after this a fetus has a fully developed nervous system, normal brainwave patterns, and is fully sensitive to pain? More than 95% of abortions occur after 8 weeks, since it takes about that long for a woman to figure out that she's pregnant. I'll get to the rest later.

Well, I suspect that 95% of abortions occur after 8 weeks because there's no need to do them earlier. I think 8 weeks would be a fair number... but only if we made sure women had access to and where encouraged to get tested by doctors quickly. Especially teenagers. Also, a fully developed nervous system does not imply self awareness. I think we can let science detremine that and if they can't we err on the side of caution.

 

[Czar]

More than 95% of abortions occur after 8 weeks, since it takes about that long for a woman to figure out that she's pregnant. I'll get to the rest later.

source?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloGizard
I want a single argument as to WHY it isn't a person. You can scream that it isn't all day, but that doesn't make it so. I made my arguments in another thread quite a while ago: link. If you want to deny rights, I suggest you come up with a better reason than 'we can't tell for sure if it's a person, so we'll assume it's not and kill it anyway.'

I want a single argument as to WHY it is a person. You can scream that it is all day, but that doesn't make it so. If you want to accord rights to the fetus as a person, I suggest you come up with a better reason than 'we can't tell for sure if it's a person, so we'll assume it is' and force the pregnant woman to carry the fetus to term.

 

[forpey]

Originally posted by: beyoku
For the record lemme state my thought on the whole thing.

1. - I am against abortions.
2. - Abortion should NOT be illegal.
3. - If a woman wants to abort her child, then so be it. If a woman wants to abort MY child - this is a problem, a "Family" issue and not simply a "Womans right to choose." A man doesnt have the right to "Choose" if he wants to take care of his kids so why should she have a choice (against his wishes) in regards to carrying the child full term. Since the father will have to pay for the child until the child is 18 can he "choose" to have the child aborted - and just do it manually - NO. It is not simply a "womans right to choose" Sometimes it is a family issue.

Unless you were raped.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
?I have always held that the abortion decision is not one that is made lightly or easily,it stands to reason that such a serious matter would come with some emotional after effects... but so would carrying a pregnancy to term.?


Are you looking for some kind of ?pass? for not taking your decision to murder an innocent child lightly?

What of the women with 5 screaming children whose husband has craped out on his responsibility. Should she have the ?right to choose? not to spend the remainder of her days working thru an event that did not pan out for her? Would murder be an option in her case? Of course not, God forbid!

Come on here, I completely understand the difficulties that we all face.

Murder is the coward?s way out.

I've been pregnant, I've also struggled alone,rearing children without any sort of practical or fiscal assistance so I've got a fair idea of what that's like, what are your credentials in the child bearing
arena?

I don't presume to know all the reasons people chose to abort, what I do feel is that the vast majority of people don't make this decision lightly or easily.I do not feel it is my place to attempt to dictate to others how they should handle an untimely pregnancy.This decision is,imho best left to the woman and her physican.


Btw, I've also got an autistic 17 yr old and not once has a single right to lifer ever offered any sort of goods or services to make his life any easier. In fact,they're usually the most vocal in opposing any sorts of additional funding for special education,medicare,SSI assistance and group home/case management services.It seems to me that life is only "special" and "sacred" till the mother gets off the delivery room table.

Your comments peeked my interest, so I contacted the NYS Dept of Health and Human Services. Through BOCES, there are programs for autistic children starting at infancy.

I'm going to call BOCES to set more information on their programs.

Her point was that those programs exist but not because of the good will of pro-lifers. Its those no-good liberals that championed these programs. And as soon as you switch to a topic about government spending you'll be sighting this porgram as an example of liberal waste.

I've also struggled alone,rearing children without any sort of practical or fiscal assistance - Geekbabe

There must be similar programs in Mass. If not she could have moved to NY.

Sure liberals love government programs, but private organizations do things better and more effectively. No one's saying that autistic children don't need help, the question is, what's the best way to help them. Of course, your "agrgument" is just to demonize those who have a different approach than you do.

I didn't demonize you. I can't stand the way people on this forum (on both sides) get accusing everyone of attacking them when they face someone who has a different opinion. I said you would say it was government waste. I was right. You just did. How is that demonizing you? Its not. And programs for the needy differ from state to state. Programs in New York are not indicative of programs everywhere else. Maybe they have it and maybe they don't but her point (which you are sidestepping) is that the people that are so pro-life aren't the ones trying to help her after the baby is born. The existance of a liberal program in new york does not adress that point.

Sure your demonizing me. Just because I don't believe that the government is the best means for helping handicapped children, you suggest that I think that they shouldn't be helped. How much money that could be used directly for kids goes to support a bloated bureauracy?

Like I said, if she's looking for help from Christian pro-lifers, she should become active in a good local bible-believing church.

Or do you expect Christians to magically know what her needs are?

No,I am however expecting so called "christians" who want ever pregnancy brought to term no matter how much devastation it brings to vote "yes" on questions involving the use of our tax dollars to assist,
infants,children and the disabled.

To force women to bring pregnancies to term, then smugly stand back and say that you oppose the spending of your tax dollars to assist those families is flat out wrong.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: PatboyX

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
?I have always held that the abortion decision is not one that is made lightly or easily,it stands to reason that such a serious matter would come with some emotional after effects... but so would carrying a pregnancy to term.?


Are you looking for some kind of ?pass? for not taking your decision to murder an innocent child lightly?

What of the women with 5 screaming children whose husband has craped out on his responsibility. Should she have the ?right to choose? not to spend the remainder of her days working thru an event that did not pan out for her? Would murder be an option in her case? Of course not, God forbid!

Come on here, I completely understand the difficulties that we all face.

Murder is the coward?s way out.

I've been pregnant, I've also struggled alone,rearing children without any sort of practical or fiscal assistance so I've got a fair idea of what that's like, what are your credentials in the child bearing
arena?

I don't presume to know all the reasons people chose to abort, what I do feel is that the vast majority of people don't make this decision lightly or easily.I do not feel it is my place to attempt to dictate to others how they should handle an untimely pregnancy.This decision is,imho best left to the woman and her physican.


Btw, I've also got an autistic 17 yr old and not once has a single right to lifer ever offered any sort of goods or services to make his life any easier. In fact,they're usually the most vocal in opposing any sorts of additional funding for special education,medicare,SSI assistance and group home/case management services.It seems to me that life is only "special" and "sacred" till the mother gets off the delivery room table.

Do you belong to a good local church?

Funding for special needs citizens should come from our tax dollars Mr Palco and not be left to to chance or to the whim of private religous groups.What I've seen though is folks like you standing up at town meeeting and voting "no" at any proposal that would make life easier for kids like my boy, I had one pompous idiot tell me that his normal son deserved to play football more than my kid deserved any sort of special education.

I've paid into our tax system all my life and kept my disabled child at home instead of dumping him off onto the state as an infant as used to be the common practice with autistic children.I made a good faith bargain with the state, that I'd keep him with me,saving other taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars,in return there'd be group home placement and a casemanager to oversee his interests once I died.. doesn't look like it's going to be that way though.

. I don't want to be a "hero" I don't care about providing some sort of living example to the neighbors.All I care about/worry about is who is going to make sure my son doesn't end up alone,living in some cockroach invested rooming house being taken advantage of by junkies and other 2 legged human scum after I'm gone.

That you would force women to bring pregnancies to term no matter what the disabilities of the fetus sickens me.Quite frankly, the stunning hyprocrasy of people like you makes me ill.

How is aborting unborn handicapped children any different than Nazi Germany?

The nazis killed living humans, not fetuses...

A handicapped baby in the womb is a living human being.

If you have any doubt, look at some pics of aborted babies.

Do a search, you'll find them.

geek babe brought up roughly 50 bazillion wonderful and beautifully articulated points from her own personal experience in a way that demands compassion and all the response she got from you were these sort of glib, half-assed patronizing responses.
you know, ive struggled a long time with religion and i find it hard to believe god would pick the most rude, cruel and arrogant people to be the most adamantly convinced of his message. something tells me you have it wrong.

Well, no.

My response to Geekbabe was that if she was looking for help and support from Christians, she should become active in a good local bible-believing church.

Please point our where I've been rude.

As far as being cruel, I can't think of anything more cruel than the deliberate killing of the weakest and most defenseless among us

I can... insisting that people like my son must be born, at force of gunpoint or threat of imprisonment
and then abandoning that child and his/her family.Calling kids like my son "god's special gift" but voting no on tax questions that would provide him with needed goods and services when he becomes an adult and I'm dead.

You want to talk about the "killing of innocents" what about the 10's of thousands of retarded adult americans who have been awaiting group home placement for years, the developmentally disabled living alone in cock-roach infested rooming houses, being beaten,robbed and exploited sexually by the 2 legged scum that inhabit those places? How come it's only seen as "killing" if there's an abortion involved
but no mention is made of our increasing willingness as a nation to let the weakest among us face lives that are living deaths?

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
?I have always held that the abortion decision is not one that is made lightly or easily,it stands to reason that such a serious matter would come with some emotional after effects... but so would carrying a pregnancy to term.?


Are you looking for some kind of ?pass? for not taking your decision to murder an innocent child lightly?

What of the women with 5 screaming children whose husband has craped out on his responsibility. Should she have the ?right to choose? not to spend the remainder of her days working thru an event that did not pan out for her? Would murder be an option in her case? Of course not, God forbid!

Come on here, I completely understand the difficulties that we all face.

Murder is the coward?s way out.

I've been pregnant, I've also struggled alone,rearing children without any sort of practical or fiscal assistance so I've got a fair idea of what that's like, what are your credentials in the child bearing
arena?

I don't presume to know all the reasons people chose to abort, what I do feel is that the vast majority of people don't make this decision lightly or easily.I do not feel it is my place to attempt to dictate to others how they should handle an untimely pregnancy.This decision is,imho best left to the woman and her physican.


Btw, I've also got an autistic 17 yr old and not once has a single right to lifer ever offered any sort of goods or services to make his life any easier. In fact,they're usually the most vocal in opposing any sorts of additional funding for special education,medicare,SSI assistance and group home/case management services.It seems to me that life is only "special" and "sacred" till the mother gets off the delivery room table.

Do you belong to a good local church?

Funding for special needs citizens should come from our tax dollars Mr Palco and not be left to to chance or to the whim of private religous groups.What I've seen though is folks like you standing up at town meeeting and voting "no" at any proposal that would make life easier for kids like my boy, I had one pompous idiot tell me that his normal son deserved to play football more than my kid deserved any sort of special education.

I've paid into our tax system all my life and kept my disabled child at home instead of dumping him off onto the state as an infant as used to be the common practice with autistic children.I made a good faith bargain with the state, that I'd keep him with me,saving other taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars,in return there'd be group home placement and a casemanager to oversee his interests once I died.. doesn't look like it's going to be that way though.

. I don't want to be a "hero" I don't care about providing some sort of living example to the neighbors.All I care about/worry about is who is going to make sure my son doesn't end up alone,living in some cockroach invested rooming house being taken advantage of by junkies and other 2 legged human scum after I'm gone.

That you would force women to bring pregnancies to term no matter what the disabilities of the fetus sickens me.Quite frankly, the stunning hyprocrasy of people like you makes me ill.

How is aborting unborn handicapped children any different than Nazi Germany?

It's a lot more honest than calling them "god's special children" then firmly voting "no" on any tax question that would make their lives or the lives of their struggling families a bit easier .

Btw, I vote "yes" on issues impacting children,the elderly,the disabled, the thought that an infant should go without medical care so that I can save myself a few dollars to blow at mall sickens me.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: PatboyX

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
?I have always held that the abortion decision is not one that is made lightly or easily,it stands to reason that such a serious matter would come with some emotional after effects... but so would carrying a pregnancy to term.?


Are you looking for some kind of ?pass? for not taking your decision to murder an innocent child lightly?

What of the women with 5 screaming children whose husband has craped out on his responsibility. Should she have the ?right to choose? not to spend the remainder of her days working thru an event that did not pan out for her? Would murder be an option in her case? Of course not, God forbid!

Come on here, I completely understand the difficulties that we all face.

Murder is the coward?s way out.

I've been pregnant, I've also struggled alone,rearing children without any sort of practical or fiscal assistance so I've got a fair idea of what that's like, what are your credentials in the child bearing
arena?

I don't presume to know all the reasons people chose to abort, what I do feel is that the vast majority of people don't make this decision lightly or easily.I do not feel it is my place to attempt to dictate to others how they should handle an untimely pregnancy.This decision is,imho best left to the woman and her physican.


Btw, I've also got an autistic 17 yr old and not once has a single right to lifer ever offered any sort of goods or services to make his life any easier. In fact,they're usually the most vocal in opposing any sorts of additional funding for special education,medicare,SSI assistance and group home/case management services.It seems to me that life is only "special" and "sacred" till the mother gets off the delivery room table.

Do you belong to a good local church?

Funding for special needs citizens should come from our tax dollars Mr Palco and not be left to to chance or to the whim of private religous groups.What I've seen though is folks like you standing up at town meeeting and voting "no" at any proposal that would make life easier for kids like my boy, I had one pompous idiot tell me that his normal son deserved to play football more than my kid deserved any sort of special education.

I've paid into our tax system all my life and kept my disabled child at home instead of dumping him off onto the state as an infant as used to be the common practice with autistic children.I made a good faith bargain with the state, that I'd keep him with me,saving other taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars,in return there'd be group home placement and a casemanager to oversee his interests once I died.. doesn't look like it's going to be that way though.

. I don't want to be a "hero" I don't care about providing some sort of living example to the neighbors.All I care about/worry about is who is going to make sure my son doesn't end up alone,living in some cockroach invested rooming house being taken advantage of by junkies and other 2 legged human scum after I'm gone.

That you would force women to bring pregnancies to term no matter what the disabilities of the fetus sickens me.Quite frankly, the stunning hyprocrasy of people like you makes me ill.

How is aborting unborn handicapped children any different than Nazi Germany?

The nazis killed living humans, not fetuses...

A handicapped baby in the womb is a living human being.

If you have any doubt, look at some pics of aborted babies.

Do a search, you'll find them.

geek babe brought up roughly 50 bazillion wonderful and beautifully articulated points from her own personal experience in a way that demands compassion and all the response she got from you were these sort of glib, half-assed patronizing responses.
you know, ive struggled a long time with religion and i find it hard to believe god would pick the most rude, cruel and arrogant people to be the most adamantly convinced of his message. something tells me you have it wrong.

Well, no.

My response to Geekbabe was that if she was looking for help and support from Christians, she should become active in a good local bible-believing church.

Please point our where I've been rude.

As far as being cruel, I can't think of anything more cruel than the deliberate killing of the weakest and most defenseless among us

I can... insisting that people like my son must be born, at force of gunpoint or threat of imprisonment
and then abandoning that child and his/her family.Calling kids like my son "god's special gift" but voting no on tax questions that would provide him with needed goods and services when he becomes an adult and I'm dead.

You want to talk about the "killing of innocents" what about the 10's of thousands of retarded adult americans who have been awaiting group home placement for years, the developmentally disabled living alone in cock-roach infested rooming houses, being beaten,robbed and exploited sexually by the 2 legged scum that inhabit those places? How come it's only seen as "killing" if there's an abortion involved
but no mention is made of our increasing willingness as a nation to let the weakest among us face lives that are living deaths?

Well said.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
?I have always held that the abortion decision is not one that is made lightly or easily,it stands to reason that such a serious matter would come with some emotional after effects... but so would carrying a pregnancy to term.?


Are you looking for some kind of ?pass? for not taking your decision to murder an innocent child lightly?

What of the women with 5 screaming children whose husband has craped out on his responsibility. Should she have the ?right to choose? not to spend the remainder of her days working thru an event that did not pan out for her? Would murder be an option in her case? Of course not, God forbid!

Come on here, I completely understand the difficulties that we all face.

Murder is the coward?s way out.

I've been pregnant, I've also struggled alone,rearing children without any sort of practical or fiscal assistance so I've got a fair idea of what that's like, what are your credentials in the child bearing
arena?

I don't presume to know all the reasons people chose to abort, what I do feel is that the vast majority of people don't make this decision lightly or easily.I do not feel it is my place to attempt to dictate to others how they should handle an untimely pregnancy.This decision is,imho best left to the woman and her physican.


Btw, I've also got an autistic 17 yr old and not once has a single right to lifer ever offered any sort of goods or services to make his life any easier. In fact,they're usually the most vocal in opposing any sorts of additional funding for special education,medicare,SSI assistance and group home/case management services.It seems to me that life is only "special" and "sacred" till the mother gets off the delivery room table.

Do you belong to a good local church?

Funding for special needs citizens should come from our tax dollars Mr Palco and not be left to to chance or to the whim of private religous groups.What I've seen though is folks like you standing up at town meeeting and voting "no" at any proposal that would make life easier for kids like my boy, I had one pompous idiot tell me that his normal son deserved to play football more than my kid deserved any sort of special education.

I've paid into our tax system all my life and kept my disabled child at home instead of dumping him off onto the state as an infant as used to be the common practice with autistic children.I made a good faith bargain with the state, that I'd keep him with me,saving other taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars,in return there'd be group home placement and a casemanager to oversee his interests once I died.. doesn't look like it's going to be that way though.

. I don't want to be a "hero" I don't care about providing some sort of living example to the neighbors.All I care about/worry about is who is going to make sure my son doesn't end up alone,living in some cockroach invested rooming house being taken advantage of by junkies and other 2 legged human scum after I'm gone.

That you would force women to bring pregnancies to term no matter what the disabilities of the fetus sickens me.Quite frankly, the stunning hyprocrasy of people like you makes me ill.

How is aborting unborn handicapped children any different than Nazi Germany?

It's a lot more honest than calling them "god's special children" then firmly voting "no" on any tax question that would make their lives or the lives of their struggling families a bit easier .

Btw, I vote "yes" on issues impacting children,the elderly,the disabled, the thought that an infant should go without medical care so that I can save myself a few dollars to blow at mall sickens me.

Where in America has an infant gone without medical care? Can you point out some examples to me?

Are your talking about votes for specific candidates, referendums??? Can I get some examples of what issues you voted "yes" on?

So I take it that you agree with aborting handicapped babies? What if the baby is the "wrong" sex, has the wrong eye color, or is too short? Would abortion be okay in those cases too?

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
?I have always held that the abortion decision is not one that is made lightly or easily,it stands to reason that such a serious matter would come with some emotional after effects... but so would carrying a pregnancy to term.?


Are you looking for some kind of ?pass? for not taking your decision to murder an innocent child lightly?

What of the women with 5 screaming children whose husband has craped out on his responsibility. Should she have the ?right to choose? not to spend the remainder of her days working thru an event that did not pan out for her? Would murder be an option in her case? Of course not, God forbid!

Come on here, I completely understand the difficulties that we all face.

Murder is the coward?s way out.

I've been pregnant, I've also struggled alone,rearing children without any sort of practical or fiscal assistance so I've got a fair idea of what that's like, what are your credentials in the child bearing
arena?

I don't presume to know all the reasons people chose to abort, what I do feel is that the vast majority of people don't make this decision lightly or easily.I do not feel it is my place to attempt to dictate to others how they should handle an untimely pregnancy.This decision is,imho best left to the woman and her physican.


Btw, I've also got an autistic 17 yr old and not once has a single right to lifer ever offered any sort of goods or services to make his life any easier. In fact,they're usually the most vocal in opposing any sorts of additional funding for special education,medicare,SSI assistance and group home/case management services.It seems to me that life is only "special" and "sacred" till the mother gets off the delivery room table.

Do you belong to a good local church?

Funding for special needs citizens should come from our tax dollars Mr Palco and not be left to to chance or to the whim of private religous groups.What I've seen though is folks like you standing up at town meeeting and voting "no" at any proposal that would make life easier for kids like my boy, I had one pompous idiot tell me that his normal son deserved to play football more than my kid deserved any sort of special education.

I've paid into our tax system all my life and kept my disabled child at home instead of dumping him off onto the state as an infant as used to be the common practice with autistic children.I made a good faith bargain with the state, that I'd keep him with me,saving other taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars,in return there'd be group home placement and a casemanager to oversee his interests once I died.. doesn't look like it's going to be that way though.

. I don't want to be a "hero" I don't care about providing some sort of living example to the neighbors.All I care about/worry about is who is going to make sure my son doesn't end up alone,living in some cockroach invested rooming house being taken advantage of by junkies and other 2 legged human scum after I'm gone.

That you would force women to bring pregnancies to term no matter what the disabilities of the fetus sickens me.Quite frankly, the stunning hyprocrasy of people like you makes me ill.

How is aborting unborn handicapped children any different than Nazi Germany?

It's a lot more honest than calling them "god's special children" then firmly voting "no" on any tax question that would make their lives or the lives of their struggling families a bit easier .

Btw, I vote "yes" on issues impacting children,the elderly,the disabled, the thought that an infant should go without medical care so that I can save myself a few dollars to blow at mall sickens me.

Where in America has an infant gone without medical care? Can you point out some examples to me?

Are your talking about votes for specific candidates, referendums??? Can I get some examples of what issues you voted "yes" on?

So I take it that you agree with aborting handicapped babies? What if the baby is the "wrong" sex, has the wrong eye color, or is too short? Would abortion be okay in those cases too?

They've recieved medical care from the very programs that most republicans have opposed!

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I want a single argument as to WHY it is a person. You can scream that it is all day, but that doesn't make it so. If you want to accord rights to the fetus as a person, I suggest you come up with a better reason than 'we can't tell for sure if it's a person, so we'll assume it is' and force the pregnant woman to carry the fetus to term.

As always, your logic is completely flawed. The fetus is undeniably human. Thus, you must demonstrate why humanity is not sufficient cause for the granting of personhood, not the other way around. I already linked to an entire thread that I created on this very topic. Your continued voluntary ignorance is hardly cause for me to waste time typing it all over again. Do your own legwork.

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
No,I am however expecting so called "christians" who want ever pregnancy brought to term no matter how much devastation it brings to vote "yes" on questions involving the use of our tax dollars to assist,
infants,children and the disabled.

To force women to bring pregnancies to term, then smugly stand back and say that you oppose the spending of your tax dollars to assist those families is flat out wrong.

The first consideration is the point that you're making and I am inclined to agree with to a certain extent. If abortion is outlawed, then society must be willing to pick up the slack to aid those with unwanted children. I will purport that such support is already available for anyone who wants it and actively seeks it to any degree through private organizations and/or the government. The difference is that you want the government to pick up all the slack so that these women don't have to simply ask for help - it will just be given.

This brings us to the second point. The woman chose to get pregnant through her actions (barring rape which comprises <<1% of abortions, so I will neglect it for simplicity). So, based on this choice by the woman, why should taxpayers foot the bill? The woman can be reasonably expected to foot the bill for her own actions, but is it fair to ask everyone else to shoulder your burden, the one that you chose freely?

So, the conclusion that I can reach is that there is an enormous amount of private support available for any such women. I won't regale you right now with my own experiences in this area, but I know from personal experience that even in small towns, there is ALWAYS help if someone simply has the humility to ask for it. Reliance on the government for this aid simply isn't the best solution. I'm not in any way condemning women who get pregnant out of wedlock or otherwise. Instead, I would argue that the government is not the solution to every problem. I would think that government aid would be more readily available were abortion laws to be reenacted, however, as a matter of social responsibility, but on a personal level people need not run to the government every time something goes awry.

/incoherent ramble

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I want a single argument as to WHY it is a person. You can scream that it is all day, but that doesn't make it so. If you want to accord rights to the fetus as a person, I suggest you come up with a better reason than 'we can't tell for sure if it's a person, so we'll assume it is' and force the pregnant woman to carry the fetus to term.

As always, your logic is completely flawed. The fetus is undeniably human. Thus, you must demonstrate why humanity is not sufficient cause for the granting of personhood, not the other way around. I already linked to an entire thread that I created on this very topic. Your continued voluntary ignorance is hardly cause for me to waste time typing it all over again. Do your own legwork.

As always, your response is disingenuous. The appendix is undeniably human (human cells, human dna). Thus, you must demonstrate why humanity is not sufficient cause for the granting of personhood to the appendix, not the other way round. Your continued dishonesty in debate is distasteful to me.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
As always, your response is disingenuous. The appendix is undeniably human (human cells, human dna). Thus, you must demonstrate why humanity is not sufficient cause for the granting of personhood to the appendix, not the other way round. Your continued dishonesty in debate is distasteful to me.

As always, you refuse to actually read anything said and contitnue to regurgitate your ignorant fluff. Does your appendix share your DNA? I believe it does. When you have your appendix removed, is it because you chose to get appendicitis, or partake in actions that were likely to cause appendicitis? Your arguments are getting thinner and thinner, which is saying a lot because they were transparent to begin with.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm
As always, your response is disingenuous. The appendix is undeniably human (human cells, human dna). Thus, you must demonstrate why humanity is not sufficient cause for the granting of personhood to the appendix, not the other way round. Your continued dishonesty in debate is distasteful to me.

As always, you refuse to actually read anything said and contitnue to regurgitate your ignorant fluff. Does your appendix share your DNA? I believe it does. When you have your appendix removed, is it because you chose to get appendicitis, or partake in actions that were likely to cause appendicitis? Your arguments are getting thinner and thinner, which is saying a lot because they were transparent to begin with.

probably not with the apendix. but cosmetic surgery would be a fine example. or constant drinking/pill-popping/smoking would be actions that it is generally understood could leave to the neccesity to remove certain dna-sharing parts of a human.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: PatboyX
probably not with the apendix. but cosmetic surgery would be a fine example. or constant drinking/pill-popping/smoking would be actions that it is generally understood could leave to the neccesity to remove certain dna-sharing parts of a human.

Illegal drugs are illegal because you don't have an absolute right to your body. In any case, the inherent problem with his analogy is that there is no possible infringement on the rights of another when you want/need to have your appendix removed. He keeps putting it forward to avoid answering the real question. You, on the other hand, actually provided a decent counterexample. :thumbsup:

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm
As always, your response is disingenuous. The appendix is undeniably human (human cells, human dna). Thus, you must demonstrate why humanity is not sufficient cause for the granting of personhood to the appendix, not the other way round. Your continued dishonesty in debate is distasteful to me.

As always, you refuse to actually read anything said and contitnue to regurgitate your ignorant fluff. Does your appendix share your DNA? I believe it does. When you have your appendix removed, is it because you chose to get appendicitis, or partake in actions that were likely to cause appendicitis? Your arguments are getting thinner and thinner, which is saying a lot because they were transparent to begin with.

As always, you refuse to acknowledge your fundamental dishonesty in debate. Does a cancerous tumor in your lungs share your DNA? Well, yes and no. Some of the genetic material is altered or mutated, in such a way that normal limits on cell replication are not functioning. Is that DNA sufficiently different from DNA in other parts of the body that we should accord those cancerous cells with the legal status of personhood, I wonder? When you choose to have that cancerous tumor removed from your lungs, is it because you chose to get lung cancer, or partake in actions (such as smoking) that were likely to cause lung cancer? Your arguments are getting more and more dishonest, which is saying a lot because they were exceedinly sleazy to begin with.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
As always, you refuse to acknowledge your fundamental dishonesty in debate. Does a cancerous tumor in your lungs share your DNA? Well, yes and no. Some of the genetic material is altered or mutated, in such a way that normal limits on cell replication are not functioning. Is that DNA sufficiently different from DNA in other parts of the body that we should accord those cancerous cells with the legal status of personhood, I wonder? When you choose to have that cancerous tumor removed from your lungs, is it because you chose to get lung cancer, or partake in actions (such as smoking) that were likely to cause lung cancer? Your arguments are getting more and more dishonest, which is saying a lot because they were exceedinly sleazy to begin with.

Given the proper conditions, will a tumor become an adult human? Your logic is completely laughable, if it can even be called logic without offending anyone here.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm
As always, you refuse to acknowledge your fundamental dishonesty in debate. Does a cancerous tumor in your lungs share your DNA? Well, yes and no. Some of the genetic material is altered or mutated, in such a way that normal limits on cell replication are not functioning. Is that DNA sufficiently different from DNA in other parts of the body that we should accord those cancerous cells with the legal status of personhood, I wonder? When you choose to have that cancerous tumor removed from your lungs, is it because you chose to get lung cancer, or partake in actions (such as smoking) that were likely to cause lung cancer? Your arguments are getting more and more dishonest, which is saying a lot because they were exceedinly sleazy to begin with.

Given the proper conditions, will a tumor become an adult human? Your logic is completely laughable, if it can even be called logic without offending anyone here.

So the fact that a fetus is brought into existence due to the consciously chosen actions of the mother speaks to the question of whether or not the fetus should be accorded the status of personhood??

BTW a test tube embryo will, given the proper conditions, become an adult human. Therefore we should accord the test tube embryo with the legal status of personhood, right? Your logic is completely laughable, if it can even be called logic without offending anyone here.