This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

The latest trend in pro-abortion thinking

#71CthulhuPosted 2/17/2013 3:33:25 PM
The great thing about abortions is that it allows women to have no consequence to their actions and renders them both impervious to disease and since you can barely feel it and doctors make home visits, it is also painless and convenient - said no one ever
#72methosagainPosted 2/17/2013 4:12:52 PM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#73methosagainPosted 2/17/2013 4:16:43 PM
I have no name posted...
Aristotle16807 posted...
I have no name posted...
REMINDER: Pro-'lifers' don't give half a **** about life. They just want to punish women for being 'whores'. Pro-'lifers' want to arrest any woman who miscarries. They're scum, pure scum.


Since you are already this delusional I am just going to laugh at you. Now go lift heavy weight.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges

Amanda Kimbrough is one of the women who have been ensnared as a result of the law being applied in a wholly different way. During her pregnancy her foetus was diagnosed with possible Down's syndrome and doctors suggested she consider a termination, which Kimbrough declined as she is not in favour of abortion.

The baby was delivered by caesarean section prematurely in April 2008 and died 19 minutes after birth.

Six months later Kimbrough was arrested at home and charged with "chemical endangerment" of her unborn child on the grounds that she had taken drugs during the pregnancy a claim she has denied.

"That shocked me, it really did," Kimbrough said. "I had lost a child, that was enough."

She now awaits an appeal ruling from the higher courts in Alabama, which if she loses will see her begin a 10-year sentence behind bars. "I'm just living one day at a time, looking after my three other kids," she said. "They say I'm a criminal, how do I answer that? I'm a good mother."


Pro-'lifers' are scum who's only goal is punishing 'whores' for failing at their godgiven duty of babymaking. I know you're too much of a slimy piece of **** to admit it, but we know that's your only motivation.


There is nothing in the article that shows that Pro-Lifers arrested anyone. What the article does show is that a woman was arrested for allegedly taking drugs during a pregnancy which is of course illegal in most states. What this means is that the presiding Doctor, perhaps the same-one that stated she should have an abortion had an autopsy performed on the fetus which is the normal course of action in such cases, drugs or chemicals that replicated drugs were found, and the results were turned over to Law Enforcement as par the regulations of that state. If your going to argue about the issue, at least know enough about it to not embarrass yourself and look like a fool as you are now doing.
---
Law of the universe states the strong shall survive and the weak fall by the way, I don't give a damn what idealistic plan is cooked up, nothing changes that
#74angrybirdsdudePosted 2/17/2013 5:04:51 PM
angrybirdsdude posted...
what do you squat OP?

or if we wanna talk tough lifts, how much do you snatch, hmm?

---
spread the <3
#75Faust_8Posted 2/17/2013 5:35:12 PM
Aristotle16807 posted...
I have no name posted...
REMINDER: Pro-'lifers' don't give half a **** about life. They just want to punish women for being 'whores'. Pro-'lifers' want to arrest any woman who miscarries. They're scum, pure scum.


Since you are already this delusional I am just going to laugh at you. Now go lift heavy weight.


Yeah because what you shared isn't delusional at all.
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while
#76BrandonNC316(Moderator)Posted 2/17/2013 5:40:52 PM
While there are a few users in this topic (on both sides) who have offered well-reasoned responses, I can't help but notice the obtuseness of *some* folks who argue on the pro-choice side (but not just in this particular topic, of course); it's so often impervious to serious scientific, logical, and philosophical inquiry. I definitely don't mean to apply that as a generalization to everyone who supports legalized abortion, but unfortunately, it's that style of reasoning that seems to be pervasive in the movement. I'm pro-life, but I'm liberal on 90% of other issues (e.g., gay and trans rights; government-provided healthcare for the poor). I'm no religious zealot or advocate for all things right-wing, but nevertheless, it's always "omg u just haet wimmenz!11 stop trying 2 punishh wimmen 4 haeving secks!!11"

Having known women close to me who've had abortions, I sympathize with them greatly. But nevertheless, I can't find any ethically-meaningful distinction between an unborn child and an infant, or a toddler and a senior citizen; those terms merely distinguish between different stages in the life of a human being. To draw the line only at birth -- where a fetus in his or her mother's womb can be killed for effectively any reason even the day before delivery in the third trimester (which is the practical effect of Roe v. Wade and the companion abortion cases), but killing the child after birth is murder -- seems unfair, illogical, and much too arbitrary. And drawing the line at five months, or four months, or three months (+ two weeks + four days + 16 hours...) and so on seems equally wrong. Defining life as beginning at conception is the only reasonable and least arbitrary policy in my opinion, as this is the point at which the new organism which will soon become a fetus, then infant, then toddler, adolescent, and so on comes into being... that is, it is the same organism from the beginning (conception) to end (death), and a clear line can be drawn here since, anytime before this, there existed only the male's gamete (sperm) and the female's gamete (egg), which are separate entities.

And as to whether Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned, I honestly would be surprised if it weren't. Speaking from merely a constitutional standpoint, it's one of the most poorly-constructed decisions ever offered by the Supreme Court in its history; there is absolutely nothing in the constitution -- by even the most liberal interpretation of it -- that could be reasonably drawn to remotely *suggest* a "right to abortion," whether implicitly or explicitly. Additionally, there are two current Supreme Court Justices who have specifically voted to overturn it on several occasions, as well as two others who are very likely to do the same. That makes four anti-Roe Justices, and you need only one more for Roe to be overturned. That's going to take years, obviously, but it's far from implausible.
---
QUEUE-STOMPER x54: You've got NO CHANCE.
The GameFAQs Archive: http://gamefaqsarchive.com
#77Faust_8Posted 2/17/2013 5:54:54 PM
^^ I see what you're saying but arbitrary lines in the sand are just a part of life.

Is it fair that a 18 year old who has sex with a 17 year old could be convicted of statutory rape, whereas if she was 18 it would be perfectly fine? Is it fair that someone is 20 years and 11 months old can't drink? Surely it's a blurry issue isn't it?

Sometimes there just HAS to be a line that we draw somewhere, because it's far messier to not have a line at all. It is, in fact, more fair that way...not perfect, but any other way is going to end up with unfairness.
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while
#78Red XlVPosted 2/17/2013 7:01:46 PM
From: NoName999 | Posted: 2/16/2013 11:13:03 AM | #016
Republicans are cutting funds for children's heatlhcare:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/75801.html

Republicans are for cutting funding that supports at-risk babies and children:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/republicans-what-about-ch_b_1835134.html

Republicans are cutting foster care:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/25/AR2005102501485.html

And of course, Republicans are against homosexuals allowing gay couples to adopt.

Let's face it, the pro-life group don't give a rat's ass about children.

Exactly. They're not "pro-life". They're pro-birth. They couldn't care less what happens after birth.
---
A bad enough dude to save the President.
"We chose more government instead of more freedom." - Marco Rubio (R-Florida)
#79hunter_gohanPosted 2/17/2013 8:15:05 PM
BrandonNC316 posted...
To draw the line only at birth -- where a fetus in his or her mother's womb can be killed for effectively any reason even the day before delivery in the third trimester (which is the practical effect of Roe v. Wade and the companion abortion cases), but killing the child after birth is murder -- seems unfair, illogical, and much too arbitrary.


Well except that being quite illegal in all 50 states I'm pretty sure.

And drawing the line at five months, or four months, or three months (+ two weeks + four days + 16 hours...) and so on seems equally wrong.


How is drawing the line at 0 not also equally wrong then? You're just arbitrarily drawing the 0 point at conception which is itself T+however many days since the sperm was formed in the male's testicles. Why is this T+ 16 hours ok to draw the line at, but not the other T+16 hours?

Defining life as beginning at conception is the only reasonable and least arbitrary policy in my opinion, as this is the point at which the new organism which will soon become a fetus, then infant, then toddler, adolescent, and so on comes into being... that is, it is the same organism from the beginning (conception) to end (death), and a clear line can be drawn here since, anytime before this, there existed only the male's gamete (sperm) and the female's gamete (egg), which are separate entities.


It's completely arbitrary actually. What is so special about this cell's ability to grow that would require taking rights over their own bodies away from women? Nothing went from not-alive to alive at conception, nothing went from not-human to human. It's merely one more step along that process of human development you mention. A completely arbitrary spot to say killing before this line is perfectly fine, but so help you if you kill it after that egg gets fertilized!

You can not include fertilized eggs as human beings without either including sperm and unfertilized eggs as well, or by declaring identical twins the same person or a chimera two or more people.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#80MasterEchuPosted 2/17/2013 8:53:58 PM
Ok, seeing as my post was ignored I'll so smaller this time.

as brandon and hunter said, any date picked is totally arbitrary, the womans body is extremely variable, and any date we set is based purely on the perception of sentience, which means you're basing it on nothing but judgements that by no means can ever be certain.

as I stated in my post on page 7, there are-many- situations where the birth of a child would be harmful to both the mother AND the child, it's birth would become a burden on even itself. these situations can even include death of the mother either mentally or physically, in both cases, you are essentially choose who lives and who dies, and, depending on situation "saving the future generation" may also include both of them.

Now I ask this, shoudl the government start defining specific buracratic rules on WHEN someone can have an abortion? Either they are going to choose to trust it to the judge or doctor on call and make it have questionable bias, or said specific rules which would make it overcomplex in a situation where time is a factor. Either way, it hurts society more than it helps, are the amount situations where abortions save something, is....actually kind of shocking, not common but not astronomical either.
---
Morality is not fleeting, games or alternate realities will not change what is right and wrong if you reallly belive in them.
Yes my spelling stinks, quiet!