Obama marks Roe vs. Wade anniversary

[bbarrick8383]

“if its viable, then its removal would just be birth, which isnt controversial.” as for killing–removal no longer being an issue… outside of her body, that wouldnt be protected privacy, and the baby would be a us citizen (born or naturalized). law aside, if its already outside of her body, then killing the baby is needless; she couldnt argue it was necessary for removal after already having removed it.

contractual obligation: “Something which must be fulfilled, in accordance with a contract.” having sex =/= a contract to try and carry a pregnancy to term, as post 90 would suggest: “then you assume the individual responsibilities.” if he had said “then you should assume…,” it wouldve been a different story; i wouldnt have tried to refute his personal view, and id have just disagreed.

Many actions may come with consequences, if the actions are irresponsible, meaning they using sexual intercourse for pleasure rather than procreation and we take away the consequences then we are setting society up for failure.

Imagine what would happen if we didn’t have laws against drunk driving…an action with no consequence…

It’s not, “you should”, it’s “you do” assume that there is a possibility of pregnancy. Take away the consequences of the action and people will never learn to control their actions themselves.

 

[ishii]

Truly amazing the verbal contortions certain people will go to in order to justify the killing of human beings. As if a baby inside the womb was some kind of intruder that one could kill - I could just as easily justify the murder of a five year old in my house- they are inconvenient and I don’t want them anymore. There- justified according to the non-morality believing contortionist. As Mother Theresa said, If a mother can kill her unborn child, then I can kill you and you can kill me.

Ishii

 

[hazmat]

bbarrick: i said if you had said–meaning you didnt. and in the post i was referring to, you said “assume the individual responsibilities,” not assume that there are individual responsibilities. getting pregnant is a consequence in itself–these women didnt want to get pregnant. i dont think theres any need to compound consequences. its doubtful women prefer abortion over just practicing safe sex. but accidents happen.

ishii: you can just as easily justify killing a five yr old in your house? try it and see how that works out for you.

 

[bbarrick8383]

bbarrick: i said if you had said–meaning you didnt. and in the post i was referring to, you said “assume the individual responsibilities,” not assume that there are individual responsibilities. getting pregnant is a consequence in itself–these women didnt want to get pregnant. i dont think theres any need to compound consequences. its doubtful women prefer abortion over just practicing safe sex. but accidents happen.

Children aren’t accidents, if they do not want to get pregnant then they need to be more responsible with their actions. If they do get pregnant they should be responsible and take care of the child. Giving them a way out of their responsibility for irresponsible behavior is not a good road to go down.

 

[hazmat]

children are children; but unintended/accidental conception often leads to children. i agree that having sex more responsibility is good if you want to avoid pregnancy–or not having sex, i guess. but im not going to force people to remain pregnant and give birth.

 

[bbarrick8383]

children are children; but unintended/accidental conception often leads to children. i agree that having sex more responsibility is good if you want to avoid pregnancy–or not having sex, i guess. but im not going to force people to remain pregnant and give birth.

By the time most women realize they are pregnant, they have a boy/girl with a beating heart growing inside of them who deserves a chance. This idea that we are “forcing” them to remain pregnant is a joke, we are not “forcing” them to do anything rather than not allowing them to stop a beating heart because they don’t feel like dealing with the results of their irresponsible behavior.

Do you have any children?

If so, have you ever looked at them and wished you would have aborted them?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

By the time most women realize they are pregnant, they have a boy/girl with a beating heart growing inside of them who deserves a chance. This idea that we are “forcing” them to remain pregnant is a joke, we are not “forcing” them to do anything rather than not allowing them to stop a beating heart because they don’t feel like dealing with the results of their irresponsible behavior.

Do you have any children?

If so, have you ever looked at them and wished you would have aborted them?

My guess is no, and if it is yes, I am adding an extra decade to my Rosary today.

 

[estesbob]

Truly amazing the verbal contortions certain people will go to in order to justify the killing of human beings. As if a baby inside the womb was some kind of intruder that one could kill - I could just as easily justify the murder of a five year old in my house- they are inconvenient and I don’t want them anymore. There- justified according to the non-morality believing contortionist. As Mother Theresa said, If a mother can kill her unborn child, then I can kill you and you can kill me.

Ishii

Agreed . I have, in this thread ,seen some of the more bizzare rationalization for killing unborn that i have seen in my 30 plus years of deabting abortion on the internet.

Everyone should keep in mind that the primary tactics of those trying to defend the indefensible is to either change the subject or detrail the thread into endless semantics arguments. both are being employed here. the thread has long since been diverted from discussing the actions of the most pro-abortion president in history to silly anologies about aborting 30 year old people who have occupied a womans womb.

 

[estesbob]

By the time most women realize they are pregnant, they have a boy/girl with a beating heart growing inside of them who deserves a chance. This idea that we are “forcing” them to remain pregnant is a joke, we are not “forcing” them to do anything rather than not allowing them to stop a beating heart because they don’t feel like dealing with the results of their irresponsible behavior.

Do you have any children?

If so, have you ever looked at them and wished you would have aborted them?

You have touched on one of the facets of abortion that is largely ignored-that is the result on children of parents who have aborted a sibling When they find out they often suffer from “survivors guilt” and the whole host of psycological problems that go along with it.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I have, in this thread ,seen some of the more bizzare rationalization for killing unborn that i have seen in my 30 plus years of deabting abortion on the internet.

Everyone should keep in mind that the primary tactics of those trying to defend the indefensible is to either change the subject or detrail the thread into endless semantics arguments. both are being employed here. the thread has long since been diverted from discussing the actions of the most pro-abortion president in history to silly anologies about aborting 30 year old people who have occupied a womans womb.

Ugg, its almost making me physically ill. To deny the primary purpose of a uterus and suggest that removing a fetus is akin to removing a tumor or a wart is nauseating and demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of anatomy and physiology.

Good grief, I got this from Wiki in less than a minute.

“The reproductive function of the uterus is to accept a fertilized ovum which passes through the utero-tubal junction from the fallopian tube. It implants into the endometrium, and derives nourishment from blood vessels which develop exclusively for this purpose. The fertilized ovum becomes an embryo, attaches to a wall of the uterus, creates a placenta, and develops into a fetus (gestates) until childbirth.”

The exclusive purpose of the uterus is for the development and nourishment of an implanted fetus. To deny that the fetus has a right to be there until childbirth is to deny what the expressed purpose of what a uterus is in the first place.

 

[jilly4ski]

people should be able to remove anything from their body when they want. allowing the government to force people to keep something in their body when they dont want it there sets a bad precedent for everyone. government cant go into anyones house without due process, even if randomly invading homes would uncover many crimes. there is due diligence in place for good reason, and doing away with this for the sake of stopping abortions has implications that go beyond just abortion. you cant violate one right in an attempt to enforce another. the laws dont work that way.

law aside, you should be able to remove something from your body when you want, no matter what it is. even if it was a 30 year old man stuck in her womb–fully capable of speech, thought, etc., and whose life depended on remaining inside of a person–the host person should still be able to remove him at any time. its not even practical to try and tell people what they must carry in their bodies. if youre so interested in saving these lives, you should push for scientific discoveries which would allow for preserving these lives outside of the womb.

This idea that you can remove anything from your body that you want to removed, is untrue and based on false premises. Doctors are not going to remove my brain because I don’t think it belongs there and is very inconvenient, as it keeps imposing these ideas of morality on me. Suicide is still illegal in the states and is stopped. Doctors are not going to remove a perfectly working lung, or stomach or leg, just because I don’t want it there. So if a doctor must refuse to be a party to a suicide by taking out a perfectly functioning lung, because it is illegal.(even where assisted suicide is legal this would be an improper way to carry it out, despite the wishes of the person). We can certainly make doctors refuse to be a party to killing another human being by removing it from the womb.

When I had my children, they were both born with a skin tag on their chests, both the hospital and the doctor refused to remove the skin tags on the 2 separate occasions. So, I wasn’t even able to get a legitimate procedure to remove extra skin on my children. But if I had come into the hospital just 15 weeks before their birth, I was free to kill them, by removing them from the womb. There is no consistency to this argument. Why can we remove some things and not others. It has nothing to do with ‘being able to remove anything we want from our bodies’ but rather is fulfilling some other need society thinks we need.

 

[estesbob]

Ugg, its almost making me physically ill. To deny the primary purpose of a uterus and suggest that removing a fetus is akin to removing a tumor or a wart is nauseating and demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of anatomy and physiology.

Good grief, I got this from Wiki in less than a minute.

“The reproductive function of the uterus is to accept a fertilized ovum which passes through the utero-tubal junction from the fallopian tube. It implants into the endometrium, and derives nourishment from blood vessels which develop exclusively for this purpose. The fertilized ovum becomes an embryo, attaches to a wall of the uterus, creates a placenta, and develops into a fetus (gestates) until childbirth.”

The exclusive purpose of the uterus is for the development and nourishment of an implanted fetus. To deny that the fetus has a right to be there until childbirth is to deny what the expressed purpose of what a uterus is in the first place.

It seems some posters beleive the child covertly crawled into a womans womb one night and took up residence there. Abortionists are not chopping children into pieces-they are merely serving eviction notices. Of course if after the child has been chopped into multiple pieces and sucked out of the womb if it can live on its won it deverves the full protection of the law.

 

[qui_est_ce]

96: “its a non sequitur to say because you do x you must accept all possible consequences of doing x (e.g., you cant fix your car after a crash because you chose to drive).”

When you drive a car, you are responsible for the consequences of your driving. If you crash, you are responsible for any damage you caused. You don’t personally have to fix the damage, but you are responsible. And if someone dies or is maimed as a consequence of your driving, you can be charged criminally.

Under the laws in my state, anyway.

My :twocents:

 

[qui_est_ce]

It seems some posters beleive the child covertly crawled into a womans womb one night and took up residence there. Abortionists are not chopping children into pieces-they are merely serving eviction notices. Of course if after the child has been chopped into multiple pieces and sucked out of the womb if it can live on its won it deverves the full protection of the law.

:whacky::hypno::doh2:

 

[SteveGC]

“if its viable, then its removal would just be birth, which isnt controversial.” as for killing–removal no longer being an issue… outside of her body, that wouldnt be protected privacy, and the baby would be a us citizen (born or naturalized). law aside, if its already outside of her body, then killing the baby is needless; she couldnt argue it was necessary for removal after already having removed it.

I’m fairly certain you did not answer the question. Let’s stop mincing words, shall we? How about we talk strictly in terms of “termination”. “Removal” is far too vague and confuses the issue, forcing us to qualify viable vs. non-viable. I get the feeling you use that term to either deny that there is any killing going on, or to soften the blow of the fact that it does occur. Even when you use “terminate”, you seem to want to qualify it as, removal with coincidental death. That’s a cop out. In the context of abortion, terminate means the intent to end the life of a person inside you. You’ve said it’s not a problem for a woman to do this to a person in her body. We don’t need to dance around the reality that it is intended termination of a living human. So, I’ll ask the 2-part question again:

elaborate a bit on why she should be free to terminate this viable life within her. And the follow-up question will be: why is she not free to do so the nano-second after that person emerges from her body?

As a clarifying point to these questions, let me just say that I’m not looking for you to give me some legal definition about U.S. citizenship through the act of being born. I’m looking for your rationale for her moral right to kill a child just before it is born.

 

[hazmat]

…This idea that we are “forcing” them to remain pregnant is a joke, we are not “forcing” them to do anything rather than not allowing them to stop a beating heart…

and how do you not allow them to stop a beating heart? by forcing them to remain pregnant. theres no way to get around that. plenty of women have abortions even after having kids. and i could just as easily ask, “are you dealing with unwanted pregnancy yourself?” and dismiss your position on abortion if you arent faced with that problem.

stevegc: i already said id be fine with aborting a 30 yr olds even though itd kill him. its not copout to say the death is coincidental unless the removal of a fetus is done specifically to kill it (blood lust), which it isnt; women get abortions to stop pregnancy. the implication of what you suggest is that even if women could give birth on the first day of conception (without causing death), they would still opt to kill the embryo just to kill it.

i already answered your question on killing after the person “emerges” or is born:

“law aside, if its already outside of her body, then killing the baby is needless; she couldnt argue it was necessary for removal after already having removed it.”

 

[SteveGC]

stevegc: i already said id be fine with aborting a 30 yr olds even though itd kill him. its not copout to say the death is coincidental unless the removal of a fetus is done specifically to kill it (blood lust), which it isnt; women get abortions to stop pregnancy. the implication of what you suggest is that even if women could give birth on the first day of conception (without causing death), they would still opt to kill the embryo just to kill it.

i already answered your question on killing after the person “emerges” or is born:

“law aside, if its already outside of her body, then killing the baby is needless; she couldnt argue it was necessary for removal after already having removed it.”

OK, look. I’m not talking about bloodlust. I’m not talking about a desire to kill. I’m not even talking about a hypothetical woman’s knowledge (or lack thereof) of the reality of personhood within their womb, as opposed to a bunch of cells and tissue. In this dialogue, I don’t care about the woman’s awareness at all. Heck, I’ll even grant you the notion that most women have no clue that they are terminating an actual human being when they have an abortion. (not true, but for the sake of this discussion, it’s immaterial). I’m talking about YOUR position that she should be free to terminate a person within her. You’ve indicated that a person can be terminated so long as they are still living inside the womb. I want to unpack that position of yours. So again, why is it permissible to terminate a human life while it is in the womb?

 

[estesbob]

View attachment 12837

 

[bbarrick8383]

and how do you not allow them to stop a beating heart?

By not allowing it to be stopped by a doctor. If they are so desperate to remain pregnant thy they somehow kill the child themselves then they belong in a mental care facility. Honestly, any doctor willing to perform an abortion probably should be as well.

theres no way to get around that. plenty of women have abortions even after having kids. and i could just as easily ask, “are you dealing with unwanted pregnancy yourself?” and dismiss your position on abortion if you arent faced with that problem.

I’ve never believed, not even when my high school sweetheart and I were in our wild and crazy teens, that there was such a thing as an unwanted pregnancy. Even at our young age we talked about the consequences of our actions and were ready to accept the responsibility. Abortion wasn’t even mentioned.

By your silence you answer my question though, Ty.

 

[jilly4ski]

and how do you not allow them to stop a beating heart? by forcing them to remain pregnant. theres no way to get around that. plenty of women have abortions even after having kids. and i could just as easily ask, “are you dealing with unwanted pregnancy yourself?” and dismiss your position on abortion if you arent faced with that problem.

stevegc: i already said id be fine with aborting a 30 yr olds even though itd kill him. its not copout to say the death is coincidental unless the removal of a fetus is done specifically to kill it (blood lust), which it isnt; women get abortions to stop pregnancy. the implication of what you suggest is that even if women could give birth on the first day of conception (without causing death), they would still opt to kill the embryo just to kill it.

i already answered your question on killing after the person “emerges” or is born:

“law aside, if its already outside of her body, then killing the baby is needless; she couldnt argue it was necessary for removal after already having removed it.”

And yet women have abortions of babies older than 21 weeks, which is considered viability. How do you described their motives?

These babies are killed and then removed. (Or those like the President who think babies born alive should be left to die and voted accordingly, or Kermit Gosnell who would snip the spinal cords of children who had survived abortions).

You are ignoring the very simple fact, that most or all abortions happen with the killing of the baby first, and then its removal. They aren’t just preforming c-sections to remove the baby.