Abortion.
Yuck!
Who wants to talk about it?
A lot of priests and ministers want to talk about it.
Then they shake their tambourine in your face.
On top of the money they get from their ‘flock’ and on top of the money they have as tax-free organizations.
Politicians talk about it too.
Yesterday I saw an 11 year old girl wearing an ‘Abortion Kills Kids’ t-shirt.
But what if the baby is already dead?
Abortions of fetuses that have expired in their mother’s womb are covered in their attacks as are pregnancies caused by rape, child abuse and incest.
In fact, under Mr. Bush’s laws this nation is expected to try and imprison rapists, child molesters and incest attackers, pay for their room and board, give them education and training AND raise their kids.
Does that make sense to you?
As I watched that 11 year old girl walk around in her t-shirt I wondered just what was going on in her life for her parents to use her as a human billboard.
Did she know about cancer, sexually transmitted diseases, birth defects, rubella, polio, incest, rape and prison?
What was this little girl being told? That the people most likely to attack her were protected by the people who made her t-shirt?
It’s not the popular topic anymore because abortion rates have been falling in the United States for nearly 20 years.
As the economy worsens however, this may reverse.
We should free our nation foreign trade dependence.

If you are pergnate, it's a child.

What is pergnate?
This is a serious issue - you should not make jokes.

Sorry, I miss typed.

The same liberals who say they car about life, will justify killing a child, or a soon to be child and call it choice.




What is pergnate?
This is a serious issue - you should not make jokes.

You wrote 'car' for 'care'.

You and I have nothing further to discuss. You don't seem to care how you express yourself and your arguments defend perverts, child killers and rapists.:hula:

Cranston,

Why limit yourself to the drivel you currently post. With just a bit more effort you can prove yourself to be a real asshole.:upyours:

Once again you have avoided the topic.

But what if the baby is already dead?
Abortions of fetuses that have expired in their mother’s womb are covered in their attacks as are pregnancies caused by rape, child abuse and incest.
1. If the baby has died in utero, then it's not an abortion. Geeze.
2. Please stop making every sentence its own paragraph. It's really annoying.

As I watched that 11 year old girl walk around in her t-shirt I wondered just what was going on in her life for her parents to use her as a human billboard.
Did she know about cancer, sexually transmitted diseases, birth defects, rubella, polio, incest, rape and prison?
Cran, you don't have to agree that abortion is murder, just understand that other people do believe it.
Now, knowing this, just use logic and common sense. To someone who believes abortion is murder, abortion is a more serious issue than those you have listed. Therefore, simple logic would tell you that someone in an anti-abortion t-shirt would not be as concerned with those other things.
That uncharasterically illogical sentence surprises me.

Cran, you don't have to agree that abortion is murder, just understand that other people do believe it.

Ok.

Point taken.

Now HERE is the solution.

Let those who believe it is the "murder" of a child do as their conscience guides them.

But allow everyone else, with the opposite viewpoint, who do NOT believe it is murder to do the same.

Free, that doesn't make any sense. Do you think the Klan considered lynchings to be murder? Well they didn't. Here's what they could say in response:

Point taken.

Now HERE is the solution.

Let those who believe it is the "murder" of a negro do as their conscience guides them.

But allow everyone else, with the opposite viewpoint, who do NOT believe it is murder to do the same

Ok.

Point taken.

Now HERE is the solution.

Let those who believe it is the "murder" of a child do as their conscience guides them.

But allow everyone else, with the opposite viewpoint, who do NOT believe it is murder to do the same.

Freethinker, I feel it is a good thing to kill, or at the very least, severely maim left wingers. Now you probably don't agree with me so you should follow your conscience and not do so. However, using your logic you should not attempt to prevent me from doing so.

Pro-abortionists, what do you guys think about the death penalty? Euthanasia?

Pro-abortionists, what do you guys think about the death penalty? Euthanasia?

What's a pro-abortionist?

What's a pro-abortionist?

those who oppose the anti-choice crowd, they call themselves pro-choice, while the anti-choice call themselves anti-abortion

those who oppose the anti-choice crowd, they call themselves pro-choice, while the anti-choice call themselves anti-abortion


I think the label is misleading. I'm for letting the woman make her own decision, but I'm not in favor of abortion.

its not misleading, its the truth. in a debate about abortion you cant take the abortion out of the debate and call it a choice. a choice is whether or not to have oatmeal or cereal for breakfast, not killing you unborn to make ends meet

its not misleading, its the truth. in a debate about abortion you cant take the abortion out of the debate and call it a choice. a choice is whether or not to have oatmeal or cereal for breakfast, not killing you unborn to make ends meet

Abortion isn't a choice, it's an act. Whether or not to have one is the choice. There have been, and always will be abortions. The only question that remains is who gets to make the decision as to when and where they will occur. You wish to take away that decision from the only people who have a right to make it.

Pro-abortionists, what do you guys think about the death penalty? Euthanasia?
Taking a line from Metallica, kill 'em all!

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/regressive1.gif

For all you pro-lifers out there, why do you care if Mary Jane Potsmoker has an abortion? Say, she's an alcoholic, a heavy smoker, and an occasional drug user. She lives a fairly open life, has lots of casual sex, isn't too bright, and lo and behold, she doesn't want any children. She decides to take "the day after" pill after having unprotected sex with two guys she'd never met before. Now, considering the alternative, what's wrong with that decision? Do you really think the baby would be better off with a parent like Mary Jane? Perhaps she'd be lucky enough to birth a baby with downs syndrome. Maybe she could pop out a kid who can't breathe without assistance. If logic dictates anything, then why on Earth would you wanna stop her from taking that pill? I'm curious.

I'm not even gonna touch rape or incest.

For all you pro-lifers out there, why do you care if Mary Jane Potsmoker has an abortion? Say, she's an alcoholic, a heavy smoker, and an occasional drug user. She lives a fairly open life, has lots of casual sex, isn't too bright, and lo and behold, she doesn't want any children.

It's not about the wants of Mary Jane Potsmoker. It's about the right of a child to live. Abortion proponents constantly try to form the discussion around the rights of the woman, completely disregarding the rights of the child.

She decides to take "the day after" pill after having unprotected sex with two guys she'd never met before.

The vast majority of pro-life people have little, if any problem with the morning after pill. Please don't try to equate that with a physical abortion including PBA.

Do you really think the baby would be better off with a parent like Mary Jane?

Do you really think the baby would be better off dead? Do you think the only alternative for the baby would be to be raised by the dysfunctional Mary Jane Potsmoker?

Perhaps she'd be lucky enough to birth a baby with downs syndrome. Maybe she could pop out a kid who can't breathe without assistance.

Perhaps the child would be born with Down Syndrome or with difficulty breathing. Does that make the child less human? How many Down Syndrome children have you had personal contact with? I have had such contact with many, probably over one hundred and they are almost invariably happy children. Yes, their life is different from ours but it is no less valuable. The same for children with physical disabilities. I have had close contact with hundreds of them both as children and as adults. Again, their lives are different from our but no less valuable to them and those who love them.


If you want to get rid of 'defective' children why stop at pre-birth? Why not give the parents the option to have the child killed in the delivery room if he/she is found to be less than perfect? Perhaps we could give the parents a few days to decide whether the child should live or die. After all, you seem to think their lives are less worth living.

I'm not even gonna touch rape or incest.

Do you honestly think that if a person found out he/she was the product of a rape or incest that person would wish to have been aborted?

I'm curious.

The vast majority of pro-life people have little, if any problem with the morning after pill. Please don't try to equate that with a physical abortion including PBA.
What's the difference between the day after pill when it's compared to a 10-minute procedure that simply removes a clump of cells that hasn’t even attached itself to the uterine wall? If you're ok with the morning after pill, then explain how an almost immediate abortion is any different? That's like saying nuclear medicine is okay when being used to treat cancer, but in no uncertain terms should a tumor EVER be operated on.
Do you think the only alternative for the baby would be to be raised by the dysfunctional Mary Jane Potsmoker?
No, but it's the most likely scenario. Most women who take their unborn child to term won't let it go after having given birth to it. In Mary Jane's case, she'll probably settle down with a real winner who beats the very child Mary Jane has grown to resent.
Do you honestly think that if a person found out he/she was the product of a rape or incest that person would wish to have been aborted?

I'm curious.
No, but that's because people are universally afraid of death. As a matter of fact, the viable mass of tissue at the time probably wouldn't even answer the question.

Trees don't asked to be cut down either.

]What's the difference between the day after pill when it's compared to a 10-minute procedure that simply removes a clump of cells that hasn’t even attached itself to the uterine wall? If you're ok with the morning after pill, then explain how an almost immediate abortion is any different? [/B] That's like saying nuclear medicine is okay when being used to treat cancer, but in no uncertain terms should a tumor EVER be operated on.

I didn't sayI was in favor of a morning after pill. I said most pro-life people can see a difference between a morning after pill and physical abortion including PBA (partial birth abortion).

No, but it's the most likely scenario. Most women who take their unborn child to term won't let it go after having given birth to it. In Mary Jane's case, she'll probably settle down with a real winner who beats the very child Mary Jane has grown to resent.

It must be great to be able to predict the future with such certainty that you can say the child should be aborted to save it from a life of beatings at the hands of Mary Jane's significant other.

No, but that's because people are universally afraid of death. As a matter of fact, the viable mass of tissue at the time probably wouldn't even answer the question.

So, your justification seems to be that the unborn child can't voice its objection to being aborted. Have you seen the films showing the child in the womb trying to avoid the abortionist's instruments? I think that is showing pretty clearly that the child does not favor being cut up and sucked out. Even so, not being able to voice objections is not the criterium for taking a life. If that were the case coma victims would be in deep trouble.

Trees don't asked to be cut down either.

Are you seriously equating a human life with that of a tree?

Prae, if your childhood was not seen to be a fruitful, positive experience by your mother, do you think that it is fair justification for an abortion? That's rather silly.

"His life isn't going to be good so he might as well not have one."- Mother Praetorian :D

It must be great to be able to predict the future with such certainty that you can say the child should be aborted to save it from a life of beatings at the hands of Mary Jane's significant other.
It's a gift, I know.... :)
So, your justification seems to be that the unborn child can't voice its objection to being aborted. Have you seen the films showing the child in the womb trying to avoid the abortionist's instruments? I think that is showing pretty clearly that the child does not favor being cut up and sucked out. Even so, not being able to voice objections is not the criterium for taking a life. If that were the case coma victims would be in deep trouble.
You're the one talking about PBA's, not me.
Are you seriously equating a human life with that of a tree?
At two weeks of age, they share about the same level of cellular complexity.

Neither one has a central nervous system, and both are "living".

.

Neither one has a central nervous system, and both are "living".

It doesn't bother you that "it" will grow into human?

Prae, if your childhood was not seen to be a fruitful, positive experience by your mother, do you think that it is fair justification for an abortion?
And if my mother had smoked cigarettes/pot and drank heavily during her pregnancy with me, then having an abortion would've been the best thing she could have done for BOTH of us.

It doesn't bother you that "it" will grow into human?
No, and for the same reason I don't feel like I chopped down an oak tree if I step on an acorn.

No, and for the same reason I don't feel like I chopped down an oak tree if I step on an acorn.

Are they really comparable? I don't see how you can compare human life to trees. I'm baffled...

What's the difference between the day after pill when it's compared to a 10-minute procedure that simply removes a clump of cells that hasn’t even attached itself to the uterine wall?The day after pill, I believe, prevents the attachment, so there's the most obvious difference. But what is the scenario you're describing, an abortion?
By the time a woman realizes she's pregnant, the "clump" has been attached for quite some time.

Perhaps she'd be lucky enough to birth a baby with downs syndrome. Maybe she could pop out a kid who can't breathe without assistance.In your world my son wouldn't have made the cut, but nonetheless I'm glad he's here. For people without the love or the character to be able to handle that situation, perhaps doctors will perfect the capability of time travel to see what problems the yet unborn may incur.

At two weeks of age, they (a sprout of a tree and a human embryo) share about the same level of cellular complexity. Neither one has a central nervous system, and both are "living".


Exactly.

THAT is what the anti-choice crowd stubbornly refuses to recognize.

The real reason that the superstitionists get themselves all worked up over this issue and to view it as something earth-shatteringly important is that they've been indoctrinated to think of homo sapiens as holding some "special place" in the universe, because of the supposed existence of a "soul".

If they could jettison THAT bit of illogic, they would be able to evaluate reproductive issues in a more sane way.

At two weeks of age, they (a sprout of a tree and a human embryo) share about the same level of cellular complexity. Neither one has a central nervous system, and both are "living".


When the sprout of a tree becomes an adult tree and the human embryo becomes an adult human, they become uncomparable. In the end, A tree is just a tree. It doesn't carry knowledge, or anything of that sort. A human embryo, on the other hand, is greater than a tree. We have highly developed brain that inables us to reason, communicate, etc. The human body is able to influence or control objects to their own likening Trees and humans really aren't comparable...If you are going to compare them though, compare them through each life stage.

When the sprout of a tree becomes an adult tree and the human embryo becomes an adult human, they become uncomparable.

You would do well to recognize that no one here is talking about *aborting* adult homo sapiens.


Trees and humans really aren't comparable...If you are going to compare them though, compare them through each life stage.

No.

Since abortion is the subject here, we will compare them at the age ---i.e., a very young and unemerged life stage--- at which abortions occur.

You would do well to recognize that no one here is talking about *aborting* adult homo sapiens.

Never said anyone was talking about adult humans, I'm just saying if you compare the two, you have to compare them as a whole, instead of one part of their lives.



Since abortion is the subject here, we will compare them at the age ---i.e., a very young and unemerged life stage--- at which abortions occur.

So forget about what they become to be later in life. You're comparing human life to that of a tree. Humans are incomparable to trees.

Praetorian and Freethinker sound strangely like those people who don't want animal experimentation even if it saves human lives. You know, the pond scum equals amoeba equals fish equals rat equals chimpanzee equals human crowd.

Abortion whether you think it is right or wrong there is a place and a time for it.
I know people are going to jump on me for that statement, but hear me out first. When a child or person has been rapped or taken advantage of should they have to bear that child. What about the person that could die because of complications of the pregnancy, IE: tubal pregnancy. What about the person with a disease and has passed it on to the child and it is inhuman to have the child, or lastly what about the person who finds out through and ultrasound that the baby is missing vital organ and would not live outside the uterus. I am not saying abortion should be used as a form of birth control in any way. I just feel there is a time and a place for this procedure. If strongly that women should have the right to choose and need to choose carefully if this is there option. I also feel that most children could be adopted out to loving and caring homes for all the ones with health normal babies that they just can't care for. But this is just my opinion and not what is for everyone.

Shortstuff, abortion should be allowed if carrying the child to term would endanger the life of the child. In those cases we are weighing the life of one person against another and no one should be forced to endanger their life for another.

In the case of ultrasounds or other tests finding the unborn child cannot live outside the womb abortionis also something with which I would agree. That extends only to cases where the child cannot live outside the womb, not to cases where it would have a disability.

In cases of rape or incest I do not believe we should punish the unborn child. While this might be hard for the woman it is deadly for the child.

Never said anyone was talking about adult humans, ....

You brought the aspect of adult humans into the discussion.

We were talking about embryos.

I'm just saying if you compare the two, you have to compare them as a whole, instead of one part of their lives.

No you don't. Or at least I don't.

I'll use whatever form of comparison makes sense.

And in this discussion, it makes to sense to compare an unemerged sprout from one species to an unemerged embryo from another species.

So forget about what them become to be later in life.

Being human does not make them "special" or superior in worth per se to any other species.

You're comparing human life to that of a tree. Humans are incomparable to trees.

An unemerged sprout from one species can be compared to an unemerged embryo from another species.

Its all just a matter of.........matter.

On a basic quantum level, all the matter in the universe is essentially made up of stardust.

Being human does not make them "special" or superior in worth per se to any other species.



So if I where to kill a cat or cut down a tree, I should be arrested? There is a reason why punishment for killing a cat or cutting down a tree isnt the same as killing a human. Am I the only one that thinks humans are superior to other speices? When you abort a human embryo, you're still ending a life to be. What makes it right to end a life of a human that could be than a human living on this earth? The only way abortion should be permitted, IMO, is to save the women's life, rape, or incest or therapeutic abortions.

Shortstuff, abortion should be allowed if carrying the child to term would endanger the life of the child. In those cases we are weighing the life of one person against another and no one should be forced to endanger their life for another.

Assuming you meant to say that abortion should be allowed if carrying the child to term would endanger the life of the mother, who gets to decide what constitutes enough danger to abort?


In the case of ultrasounds or other tests finding the unborn child cannot live outside the womb abortionis also something with which I would agree. That extends only to cases where the child cannot live outside the womb, not to cases where it would have a disability.

Is there a time limit associated with this rule? I mean, would the child have to face immediate death upon birth to justify an abortion?

I have one last question. Should a woman be allowed to choose an abortion if she is told she has a problem pregnancy that could prevent her from having further children if she carries her present fetus to term?

In your world my son wouldn't have made the cut, but nonetheless I'm glad he's here. For people without the love or the character to be able to handle that situation, perhaps doctors will perfect the capability of time travel to see what problems the yet unborn may incur.

It's hard to know what to say Brooks, so forgive me if I express myself poorly. Your son may have had a bit of bad luck in the genetic lottery, but he was very lucky indeed to have a father like you. I'll bet he's a very happy young man.

Assuming you meant to say that abortion should be allowed if carrying the child to term would endanger the life of the mother........

Nah.

For the died-in-the-wool superstitionist ----- "Fuck the mother. Fuck the mother's health. Fuck the mother's wishes."


We must first and foremost SAVE the sainted EMBRYO!!!

So if I where to kill a cat or cut down a tree, I should be arrested? There is a reason why punishment for killing a cat or cutting down a tree isnt the same as killing a human. Am I the only one that thinks humans are superior to other speices? When you abort a human embryo, you're still ending a life to be. What makes it right to end a life of a human that could be than a human living on this earth? The only way abortion should be permitted, IMO, is to save the women's life, rape, or incest or therapeutic abortions.

googs, all societies on Earth value human life above all others, but they have something else in common. In every human society humans make the rules. I think what FT is saying is that human beings have no inherent quality that makes us completely different from any other form of life. In essence we're just smart animals. Does that mean that we have more value than another species? Only because we say it does.

When you abort a human embryo, you're still ending a life to be.

Ok.

Big deal.

Every time a male homo sapien masturbates, on average he 'ends' 40 million of those potential "human lives to be"

SO WHAT?

I for one do not care.

What makes it right to end a life of a human that could be than a human living on this earth?

A better question is --What makes it "wrong"......?

It's only "wrong" if humankind decides it is "wrong".

The only way abortion should be permitted, IMO, is to save the women's life, rape, or incest or therapeutic abortions.

If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

IOW, it would be no more thought of as "bad" than cutting one's hair.

Ok.

Big deal.

Every time a male homo sapien masturbates, on average he 'ends' 40 million of those potential "human lives to be"

SO WHAT?

I for one do not care.


You're hand and penis don't make babies. A penis and a vagina can make babies.


A better question is --What makes it "wrong"......?

It's only "wrong" if humankind decides it is "wrong".


Well, you can look at it two ways, your way or the way I see it. Your way there is nothing wrong with it. The way I view it, we have a moral obligation to protect those who can't fend for themselves. In this case, an unborn child.


If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

IOW, it would be no more thought of as "bad" than cutting one's hair.

Where is the baby gonna live in a male? Where is it gonna come out of?:eek:

You're hand and penis don't make babies.

Your statement that prompted the particular response we are continuing, was ---"" When you abort a human embryo, you're still ending a life to be.""

Your remark specifically referenced -- ending a "life to be".

So.

Every time a male homo sapien masturbates, on average he 'ends' 40 million of those potential "human lives to be"

If you're going to get so worked up over every human "life to be", I guess you'll need 40,000,000 little funeral services for each masturbation.

You're hand and penis don't make babies. A penis and a vagina can make babies. A penis and a vagina can make babies but often don't. A fertilized egg can make babies but often doesn't. A fetus can make babies but sometimes doesn't.

What if the potential babies life will surely end the mother's?

What if the potential babies life will surely end the mother's?

IMO, you are permitted to terminate the pregnancy.

IMO, you are permitted to terminate the pregnancy.

Who gets to make that decision?

Who gets to make that decision?

The mother only if she's in danger.

The mother only if she's in danger.
Perhaps the mother is in labor and under stress so cannot make decisions with a "cool head", do you trust the father or the doctor in that situation?

Perhaps the mother is in labor and under stress so cannot make decisions with a "cool head", do you trust the father or the doctor in that situation?

Are we still talking about terminating the pregnancy? Or just making the decision between a mother and her child?

Are we still talking about terminating the pregnancy? Or just making the decision between a mother and her child?

The subject, i believe, concerned a mother making the decision between her and her FETUS.

:thumbs:

Are we still talking about terminating the pregnancy? Or just making the decision between a mother and her child?

The point I was making googs, is that the decision as to whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, for any reason, is a highly personal and private one. Politicians certainly should have no say in the matter, IMO.

The subject, i believe, concerned a mother making the decision between her and her FETUS.

:thumbs:

Evakian was talking about labor...so I stated the question...

The point I was making googs, is that the decision as to whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, for any reason, is a highly personal and private one. Politicians certainly should have no say in the matter, IMO.

IMO, I don't think a woman should terminate a pregnancy for any reason. Because she was careless during sex, an unborn child is going to die. Because the woman doesn't want to have a girl, the unborn child is goinf to die. A woman needs a valid reason to terminate a pregnancy and IMO, that only should be in the case of rape, incest, or therapeutic abortions.

IMO, I don't think a woman should terminate a pregnancy for any reason. Because she was careless during sex, an unborn child is going to die. Because the woman doesn't want to have a girl, the unborn child is goinf to die. A woman needs a valid reason to terminate a pregnancy and IMO, that only should be in the case of rape, incest, or therapeutic abortions.
Why does the validity of her reason rest with you, and not the mother, the mother and father, or the mother and doctor?

Why does the validity of her reason rest with you, and not the mother, the mother and father, or the mother and doctor?

Remember this is just my opinion....It is my belief that its wrong to abort a human embryo because life is too sacred to end. It's wrong to end a life of anyone(except in some cases) whether it is a human embryo or an adult human. Abortion, In My Opinion, should only be allowed within the limitations of rape, incest, and if its presences is a threat to the mother. If you don't want to have children, use birth control. Don't kill somehting because of your own mistake.

Assuming you meant to say that abortion should be allowed if carrying the child to term would endanger the life of the mother, who gets to decide what constitutes enough danger to abort?

Doctors get to decide. Of course there may be abuses and women who's lives are not really in any danger may be classified in that group but the offenses would be much less than with the present situation in which any distress including emotional distress which has been interpreted as meaning even, "I don't want the kid and it would upset me to have it.", is cause for abortion.

Is there a time limit associated with this rule? I mean, would the child have to face immediate death upon birth to justify an abortion?

As with the above question, a time limit would have to be set. In my opinion it would have to be a fairly short time limit. You seem of the opinion that any time limit up to twenty five years is okay since that is how long most Down Syndrome children are given at about a minimum. Some, live well into adulthood but you think Down Syndrome is a good enough reason to snuff a life.

I have one last question. Should a woman be allowed to choose an abortion if she is told she has a problem pregnancy that could prevent her from having further children if she carries her present fetus to term?

I really don't know. It is a difficult ethical question for which I do not have an answer.

Doctors get to decide. Of course there may be abuses and women who's lives are not really in any danger may be classified in that group but the offenses would be much less than with the present situation in which any distress including emotional distress which has been interpreted as meaning even, "I don't want the kid and it would upset me to have it.", is cause for abortion.

Ok. Fair enough.


As with the above question, a time limit would have to be set. In my opinion it would have to be a fairly short time limit.

Sounds ok to me.


You seem of the opinion that any time limit up to twenty five years is okay since that is how long most Down Syndrome children are given at about a minimum. Some, live well into adulthood but you think Down Syndrome is a good enough reason to snuff a life.

You have me confused with someone else.


I really don't know. It is a difficult ethical question for which I do not have an answer.

Good answer. I really don't know either, but I'm willing to leave that one to the potential mother.

Yeah, I think I might have gotten you mixed up with Praetorian on that last part. Sorry.

For all you pro-lifers out there, why do you care if Mary Jane Potsmoker has an abortion? Say, she's an alcoholic, a heavy smoker, and an occasional drug user. She lives a fairly open life, has lots of casual sex, isn't too bright, and lo and behold, she doesn't want any children. She decides to take "the day after" pill after having unprotected sex with two guys she'd never met before. Now, considering the alternative, what's wrong with that decision? Do you really think the baby would be better off with a parent like Mary Jane? Perhaps she'd be lucky enough to birth a baby with downs syndrome. Maybe she could pop out a kid who can't breathe without assistance. If logic dictates anything, then why on Earth would you wanna stop her from taking that pill? I'm curious.

I'm not even gonna touch rape or incest.


why do you have to focus on the bad?
how do you know that kid wouldnt be the next Einstein? was every great person in the world born into a rich family who loved them and provided for them everything they needed? Last I checked growing up poor and unwanted was some sort of badge of honor that gve your point of view some instant credibility, especially among the typically left wing por abortionist crowd.

Why does the validity of her reason rest with you, and not the mother, the mother and father, or the mother and doctor?

why stop at some arbitrary number of months then? w hy not allow parents to kill thier child all they way up until they turn 18?

why stop at some arbitrary number of months then?
First of all, in my experience the pro-choice crowd doesn't pick an "arbitrary number of months."
w hy not allow parents to kill thier child all they way up until they turn 18?
Because it is a born child and developed person. Trav, can't you think critically at all? What sort of question is that?

First of all, in my experience the pro-choice crowd doesn't pick an "arbitrary number of months."

You're right. Many of them don't pick an 'arbitrary number of months'. They feel any time, right up until it is delivered is fine and dandy.

Rape victim abortion case polarizes Argentina

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (Reuters) - An abortion case involving a mentally disabled rape victim has polarized Argentina, setting the government against courts in a Roman Catholic nation where terminating pregnancy is mostly illegal.

A top provincial court will decide within a few days whether to allow a mentally impaired 19 year old, four months pregnant, to have an abortion. Both Argentina's health minister and its most powerful governor back her family's plea.

Argentine law bans abortions except when a woman's life is in danger or a "demented" woman is raped.

Two lower tribunals have denied the request, arguing in part the constitutional mandate to protect children's rights trumps criminal law. One judge also cited the influence of her own religious convictions, according to local media.

"I am very disturbed by these rulings because this is a typical case, which is totally legal under criminal law," Health Minister Gines Gonzalez Garcia, a proponent of loosening restrictions on abortion, told local radio,

"This girl has a mental disability, she was raped, her parents are asking for the abortion. It is incredible that the courts are going in circles on this and giving abstract arguments," Gonzalez Garcia said. "This is making a tragedy all the more tragic."

Abortion is illegal in much of Latin America, home to half the world's Catholics. In Argentina alone, between 500,000 and 700,000 clandestine abortions are practiced each year, the minister said.

Buenos Aires Gov. Felipe Sola was quoted by Clarin newspaper as saying: "We are not in a theocracy. It is within this disabled rape victim's rights to abort."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060728/wl_nm/argentina_abortion_dc

In a case like this, I understand if the woman wants an abortion.

why do you have to focus on the bad?
how do you know that kid wouldnt be the next Einstein?
For the same reason I wouldn't place a million dollar bet on the roulette table in Vegas. Because I'm a firm believer in playing the odds, that's how I know.

I herewith nominate for the STUPIDEST argument ever put forth in opposition of abortion ---

"how do you know that kid wouldnt be the next Einstein?"

:lolhit: :lolhit: :lolhit:

its not my argument, its said in relation to something praetorian said. perhaps I should phrase it like this: why kill off the entire next generation of democrats? you know, the downtrodden who cant make it thorugh life without government assistance. if every b aby is wanted and well cared for and raised well there would be no need for democrats anymore.

Ha Ha I love it!!!


its not my argument, its said in relation to something praetorian said. perhaps I should phrase it like this: why kill off the entire next generation of democrats? you know, the downtrodden who cant make it thorugh life without government assistance. if every b aby is wanted and well cared for and raised well there would be no need for democrats anymore.

For those in need (http://www.nyabortion.com/birthcontrol/themorningpill.shtml) and finding themselves here.

Sometimes a soft voice of reason is heard beneath the protestations of those fostering their beliefs onto others.

Many of them don't pick an 'arbitrary number of months'. They feel any time, right up until it is delivered is fine and dandy.

Name one. This is nothing but a desperate argument that has no basis in reality, and no place in this discussion.