When it comes to the matter of life or death...why yes..their choice certainly matters a lot!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
And again, just because you don't believe it's murder, doesn’t mean that it isn’t. Think about it…
Printable View
When it comes to the matter of life or death...why yes..their choice certainly matters a lot!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
And again, just because you don't believe it's murder, doesn’t mean that it isn’t. Think about it…
You keep saying think about, I have, and I stick by what I said. Please tell me you have more then that.
and on the flip side . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
just you because you believe it is doesn't mean that it is.....
it's kinda of funny because you've already contradicted yourself in this thread. you call it murder. well we all know murder is ending the life of a human being. we can go to dictionary.com for proof of that.
yet you used this particular phrase in another postQuote:
Murder - The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Quote:
I have good reason to support the war...and a child in the womb isn't capable of homo or hetero sexual behavior, it's just a fetus, with the potential to be human.
so how exactly can those two points of yours be reconciled? if it only has the potential to be human how can it be murdered?
personally I don't think my wife or I would ever have an abortion, but I still believe that at least up until a certain point that termination of pregnancy should be an option for those who choose it.
I think it's a pretty slippery slope if we ban abortion and prosecute those who have them as murderers because we are opening up a whole new can of worms. can a future mother be charged with crimes for not eating right during her pregnancy since she would be endangering the life of her child. if she knowingly puts herself in a dangerous position while pregnant say driving in a ice storm, then crashes and miscarries as a result, can we charge her with vehicular homicide?
I'm not sure exactly when I start to call the thing growing inside a womans belly a human.
I think cleetus' definition may be a little late, and the notion that it's a baby at conception is bad too.
I remember when we were pregnant with aidan that the 20wk sonagram you mentioned was the first time I really saw him as my actual little man. because I could see feet and arms toes etc. before that he was just something that was going to turn into my baby if we took good care of mommy's body. if he would have been born at 20wks (5 months) I don't think he would have been sustainable even with the most advanced technology, but he definately would have been my son. If she would have miscarried early on, It would have been tragic and shattering to me, but I don't know if I would have felt like we lost "a baby," but rather we lost our chance at one.
It's impossible to sustain this argument without some inconsistencies, and some contradiction, but if you want my honest point of view, you're only arguing semantics when you point out my contradiction...neither you or I can prove how long after conception that a life, a human life, actually begins, therefore semantics are moot.Quote:
Originally Posted by kato2274
There are many doctors and scientists that have established various stages of growth and development, and it is up to the responsible doctor to determine whether or not a fetus is at a responsive "living" state in order to permit or deny an abortion. It's been deemed unconstitutional in some states for the state to stipulate exactly how far along a mother can be before an abortion is no longer permitted. Those states simply respects the guidelines, because that key change in development can’t be gauged by a timeline from conception, only a developmental stage noted in examination. But the development we are talking about is primarily movement, and other type of stimuli response, not neurological activity, as that can’t be discovered with an ultrasound. A heartbeat will begin during the end of the third week, although not be detected for several months by the ultrasound either…could we be missing something and not even be aware of it!?!
So what we have is, an acceptance of the consensus of a league of doctors that determine what signs to identify a developmental stage that will eliminate abortion options, then we have presumed responsible doctors that will determine if these signs are met, and we have the parents that are deciding this potential child’s fate for there own selfish reasons…while it’s possible someone could be wrong about this development at some stage of the game…
It’s scary to think that we are sitting idly by while this goes on in our society without any effort to prevent it. And none of you agree with me, that proves how scary it truly is!
Oh, and your argument about holding a mother criminally responsible for putting her baby in harms way during pregnancy...well, seems to me that in the case of Lacy Peterson's murder trial, they've made concession for an unborn baby's life as a second human murdered...although she was like 8+ months pregnant, so the baby could have survived on it's own, the difference between a 6 week pregnancy and 8 month fetus is tremendous physically, but not really different at all…
But it all comes down to your belief in right and wrong which shapes your choice which you wish to force on all of us. Freedom indeed.
I understand your point of view. . . . which I believe to be reading as "well let's just hedge our bets we can't decide when life begins so let's just protect it from start to finish." am I getting this right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
personally (meaning for myself and not for a whole society) I agree with you on this issue. personally I would not advocate an abortion for my wife or I unless there were some serious medical issues (i.e. a severly damaged child and dead mother if delivery was attempted) and I don't agree with people who have them, but I just don't think our society needs to be telling women what they can do with their bodies.
if for no other reason then the following: just because it's illegal doesn't mean it won't happen. Can you get some pot tonight if you wanted ya_know? I'm sure you could. I'm sure I could. could you get an illegal gun tonight if you wanted. I know I probably could. Banning abortions won't stop them from happening. this I promise you. . . . the practice would just go underground. You can't tell me there aren't doctors out there who wouldn't set up a little private side business making housecalls. At least we have clean clinics with good sterile equipment, and we can protect the life of the woman terminating. (you agree her life is sacred too don't you) I submit you should see the one story in "if these walls could talk" when demi moore has to have an abortion in her home . . . .
I'm waiting for someone (politician) to stand up and make a firm stance on this issue that is in the responsible middle. To not just say womans body is her right and not just say "abortion is murder" but rather someone that says the truth is somewhere between the two extremes and that's what I want to base a plan on.
My freedom will save lives. You still have the freedom to not have sex, or do it with the sheep, either way, if you make the baby, you should have the baby.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
Once it is considered a baby and we both agree, yes, I would have hte baby.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
Getting rid of all guns could save lives, is that another freedom?
So what choices does a woman have when she is brutally raped?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
That's my Ddaaaaaaddddddy!!!https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
Not to change the subject, and or hijack the thread, but, you 're talking abortion, right?
When, exactly does a thought become a post? When you hit submit? Does the post have to be seen by people to truly be a post? When is the thread "born"?
Is not deleting a post, or thread, in fact linguistic murder?https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif
Roe vs. Wade Ya_Know vs. Windrivers.
Not to trivialize abortion. But look at it from that point of view, and it takes on a totally different meaning, and reaction.
Plus, there's a whole bunch of threads started by Ya_Know, that should have been aborted....https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif
I can see exactly what you are saying .. but two wrongs don't make a right, the potential mother may hate the father with a passion & have suffered during conception, but put a newborn in her arms & she may feel very different, its also a part of her of course. (sure I accept there may be instances where it would really harm the mother & this personally is one of the few 'right' {I use that very advisedly before anyone jumps down my throat} reasons for abortion).Quote:
Originally Posted by WebHead
Personally I'm not against abortion (I can see circumstances - like above- where it might be 'right', extreme disabilty or danger to the mother etc are more reasons) but what I feel objectionable, truely horrible infact is 'arbortion on demand' - 'mad feminists' might term this 'choice' but lets be clear its simply post intercourse contraception very often..
Right. I understand all that and for the most part agree. My point is that the potential mother should have a choice in the matter on whether she CAN abort or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by confus-ed
Unless she's a rape victim she also had the choice, to not have sex or to use contraception, even if she left it too late (for whatever reason, as of course such things happen) she could take the 'morning after pill' effective (I think) up to a week after, which prevents pregnancy occuring rather than forces an abortion (as it prevents the fertilised egg implanting in the uterine wall).
In my country the 'abortion on demand' limit is effectively 24 weeks (its not very hard to find some doctor who'll agree with it 'harming' the mother), given todays technology babies are capable of surving outside the womb well before that, as long as the law remains that way, I can describe it as nothing less than murder & a particularly unsavoury version of contraception.