blike Posted November 8, 2003 Share Posted November 8, 2003 Dudde said in post #23 :I wasn't referring to that kind of living off of, I'm sure you know what I meant. Well, I understood what you were saying, but theres no real difference [in the context of this discussion] between a child being carried by a mother and a newborn just out of the hospital. Sure, the child WAS inside her, and now its outside. But basically the child is still 100% dependant on a mother. The child will still tax the emotional and physical well-being of the mother, the child still feeds off the mother, the child's very existence depends on the mother. The newborn is still essentially a parasite. Everything we do involves consequences. Do you think your choices of resolution and/or options to take care of those consequences should be limited? I believe everyone should have every option available at their disposal so they can make the choice that best fits their needs/situation. Yes, they should be limited. Just because I owe Billy Bob tons of money that I could never realistically pay off because of choices I made does not give me the right to kill him. I know this is an exaggerated example, but the point stands. Every choice you make does indeed have a consequence. That does not mean you may do everything you can to take care of the consequences. Main Entry: par·tial-birth abortion Pronunciation: 'pär-sh&l- Function: noun : an abortion in the second or third trimester of pregnancy in which the death of the fetus is induced after it has passed partway through the birth canal By any and all definitions second and third trimester abortions are killing a living human being. This is not some tissue blob anymore, it has a heart beat. By week 26 the fetus can inhale, exhile, and cry. It has hands, feet, eyelids, nervous system, and internal organs. The skin is no longer transparent, and the fetus has spontaneous movements. I was considering posting pictures just so everyone could see what a partially aborted fetus looks like, but I don't think thats necessary/appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matter Posted November 8, 2003 Share Posted November 8, 2003 It's wrong to stop a person from even being able to make a decision. However a baby that's 30 weeks doesn't really seem like a good candidate for abortion. I mean it's almost term. I'm all for choices but in my opinion you have to draw the line somewhere, for the benefit of everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudde Posted November 8, 2003 Share Posted November 8, 2003 Well, I understood what you were saying, but theres no real difference [in the context of this discussion] between a child being carried by a mother and a newborn just out of the hospital. Sure, the child WAS inside her, and now its outside. But basically the child is still 100% dependant on a mother. The child will still tax the emotional and physical well-being of the mother, the child still feeds off the mother, the child's very existence depends on the mother. The newborn is still essentially a parasite. I'll reply to the rest later, when I have time, but as I stated in my previous post, I believe it is completely wrong to kill/give up a child after it's birth. So, while it may still be a parasite, if you have the child, deal with it. If the child is indeed carried through, I don't think the mother should get rid of it, at all. Which is why I believe in the pro-abortion side, because a child is forever once it's outside of the mother, it's her responsibility, for the rest of her natural life (and unnatural if she has any) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephy Posted November 9, 2003 Author Share Posted November 9, 2003 blike said in post #26 :Yes, they should be limited. Just because I owe Billy Bob tons of money that I could never realistically pay off because of choices I made does not give me the right to kill him. I know this is an exaggerated example, but the point stands. Every choice you make does indeed have a consequence. That does not mean you may do everything you can to take care of the consequences. Sorry, I over exaggerated a bit when I said EVERYTHHING possible. I realized that after I posted and haven't had a chance to fix it. I'm having a hard time understanding some of you. I don't get how people can be for abortion in the first tri-mester but anything after that is wrong because the baby is more developed than it was earlier? Abortion is abortion is abortion, either way you look at it you're ending a life (or soon to be life) pre-maturely. My point is - things happen and sometimes having a baby isn't an option in your life right now. Some woman deal with it by changing their entire life, but they shouldn't have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 the right to life ends at birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muffin Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 I think that if something is attached to the mother, than it is her prerogative to do with it what she wants. If I want to cut off my hand, who's gonna stop me? Granted, the fetus might be able to survive on its own, and in that case, if the gov't wants to pay for it to be born prematurely, and taken care of, then sent to an orphanage, be my guest. So I think the right to have an abortion ends when the baby can survive outside the mother, in which case the mother still can get rid of it and never see it again, but the doctors just can't kill it. This, however, would eat up alot of gov't money, and there would be alot of messed up kids in the world. Here's a question I have. Lets say I'm pregnant. I'm not gonna say how many months because I'm not sure how much it would matter. Couldn't I just like, punch myself in the stomach, or fall down a few stairs, or run into a wall and bam... miscarriage. This would seem a pretty smart alternative to a partial birth abortion, with the excuse, "i tripped and fell". No inhumane sucking brains out, just good old fashioned "accidental" miscarriage. Would this work? I don't pretend what I'm about to say would happen any time soon, but I propose people having to get permission from the government to have a baby. They must spend tons of money getting kids adopted, and giving welfare to single mothers, and this planet is getting overpopulated anyway... I think only people who can raise good kids should be aloud to have them. Aside from reproduction being a natural right, having a baby is sort of gaining control over a life, something that I think the government should have to approve. That is all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VendingMenace Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 but I propose people having to get permission from the government to have a baby Interesting. So if the government can descide when it is OK to kill a baby, it should be able to decide when it is OK to have one at all. That is, if we are going to try to decide moral issues of death before birth, shouldn't we, before birth, also be considering moral issues of that beings potnetial life? Who know. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 Isn't a little more difficult to determine morality of a future life than of an present death? There are many more births than abortions and those lives could continue in many different and often unexpected ways while abortions all end the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 The mother should make the decision. They should make the responsible decision. - - - - - Everyone is thinking right now that when I said that the mother should make the responsible decision that I was say that she should NOT have the abortion. That prooves that you believe that the responsible thing is to NOT have the abortion. In most cases they had a decision. It is the most Godly thing a human being can do in their whole life, why would you extinguish that human life inside you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Everyone is thinking right now that when I said that the mother should make the responsible decision that I was say that she should NOT have the abortion. Im not. You said responsible decision. If that was not to bring the child into this world, that would be the responsible decision. A simple (and to be honest very ineffective) word trick doesnt prove anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Not everyone is that enraptured by God. Pregnant women also need to face practical issues. God isn't going to feed an extra mouth, put clothes on an extra child, or send it to school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 greg1917 said in post # : A simple (and to be honest very ineffective) word trick doesnt prove anything. I didn't actually assume anything. Although I had guessed what the "answer" would be, but that was because I knew the poster's MO, not because I had the same opinion. God is best left out of medicine. He takes up more space than is safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Are yo following me, or do I get to all the good threads first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 You don't have to feed him. Put him up for adoption, it's much more humane than killing him. They aren't pests, they are blessings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 A bit of both I think you're an interesting poster. A bit misled in some areas (which is most likely not your fault - I suspect creationists might have been whispering in your ear while you sleep), but still interesting. Plus nothing else is going on really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 -Demosthenes- said in post # :You don't have to feed him. Put him up for adoption, it's much more humane than killing him. They aren't pests, they are blessings. You'd be on more stable ground with the anti-abortion argument, to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 I'm glad to entertain, but this is a serious subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 Indeed it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 To be completely honest, I'm not a woman, so I will keep the rest of my ideas on this subject to myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 I'd be reluctant to tell a woman what to do with her body (or how to think) too, especially not knowing the specifics of the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockstarjaiden Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 i am completely against abortion UNLESS (and this is coming from a woman) if the girl was raped, she would more than likely want to have an abortion because after the baby is born, she will have to look at it every day and know that that baby came from someone that VIOLATED her. Also, if the pregnancy had the possibility of becoming life threatening for the mother in question or even the baby. Abortion is taking a life and I'm completely against it, however... There are circumstances in where it would not be justified, but understandable. As far as waiting til the baby is about to be born and then sucking their brains out. i think that is VILE, cruel and...vulgar I think it is the most disgusting display of murder. and frankly it makes my stomach queezy just thinking that people would even CONSIDER doing that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 PBAs tend to be done for medical purposes, not just because the woman decides she doesn't want a baby anymore. generally one has to have an abortion before a certain date, or it is not allowed unless there is a good medical reason for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockstarjaiden Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 with good reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 I don't know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBC Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Actually Frontline did a show on this a few years ago and they found that PBA #'s were four times higher than what women's rights groups were claiming. I think the number was around 1200 in the U.S. Half of which were not carried out for medical reasons. I have no idea what current statistics are though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now