|
On April 29 2011 00:16 scouting overlord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 00:07 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 22:34 Reborn8u wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.
Come on, you are kidding me?!?! Someone does this? Up to 9 months pregnancy? Where is this, in Afganistan? (this was a rhetoric question) Ok, this makes me sad. How cold must that doctor be do to this. Wtf?! What are the, Hitler wannabies...  If it makes you feel any better the unthinking mass of cells is unable to comprehend anything. This is more humane than birthing an unwanted child into this world, just so you know. This is also how miscarriages are treated.
More humane...in your opinion. Yes, yes, I know... a life without a family and going home to home IS tragic, but everyone has the right to at least try to better themselves, and get into a better position (in my opinion).
As with the miscarriages...they have already passed(I think?).
|
On April 29 2011 00:13 AyeH wrote:
i'm curious to see what the stance on abortion is in 50 years. it'll be quite interesting.
Don't think it will change much in 50 years. But I bet my kidney that in 200 years those against abortion will be such an irrelevant minority that no one will talk about it. ^^
Just a consequence of the information age leading to more logical thinking generations with less emphasis on irrational emotions. As time goes, more and more people realize morals are just an illusion.
|
On April 29 2011 00:19 Marcus420 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 00:16 FrankWalls wrote:
im against abortion, so i of course think this law is a good thing. any step in this direction is a step in the right direction imo. i mean its a little human being inside, how could it be legal to kill it >.> maybe because the mother was raped by a homeless guy. You think its illegal because she doesnt want it? dumbass. Im pro choice, but 20 weeks seems reasonable.
dont call me a dumbass because of one of my opinions. that is illogical. you think that every abortion is the result of rape? i think you will find that is a very small percentage, and that most of it is the result of couples being irresponsible in their sexual life and not using birth control methods right. rape is a special case where maybe i could see that being lawful, MAYBE, but in every other case i think it definitely should be outlawed
On April 29 2011 00:20 phil.ipp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 00:16 FrankWalls wrote:
im against abortion, so i of course think this law is a good thing. any step in this direction is a step in the right direction imo. i mean its a little human being inside, how could it be legal to kill it >.> there are big human beings killed every year by the state of america, you call it death penalty, and guess what its legal !
this might be true but that is a totally different situation and context that cant be really applied here.
|
On April 29 2011 00:21 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 00:13 AyeH wrote:
i'm curious to see what the stance on abortion is in 50 years. it'll be quite interesting.
Don't think it will change much in 50 years. But I bet my kidney that in 200 years those against abortion will be such an irrelevant minority that no one will talk about it. ^^ Just a consequence of the information age leading to more logical thinking generations with less emphasis on irrational emotions. As time goes, more and more people realize morals are just an illusion.
Strongly agreed  . Now to figure out how to live for a good 200 or so years, hmm....
|
On April 29 2011 00:01 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 23:51 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 21:56 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 21:03 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 20:42 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 20:04 -Archangel- wrote:
12 week fetus is already a really small baby, 20 weeks is pure murder. Statements like these are so detrimental to any worthwhile debate >_> In the end it all comes down to how you define life - is it when sperm meets egg? is it self-sustainability? is it awareness - and what degree of awareness? And 20 weeks seems like an odd time, but if I'm to guess it's because the earliest a baby can survive being born is 15 weeks premature, thus at 20 weeks it still can't survive AND by giving time until week 20 you can actually test for Downs syndrome which is done @ week 16. As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law. It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard. Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus. I am sorry, but you are also just stating your opinion and it is no more true then mine. Science does not 100% know when the baby is aware or if there is something called a soul (a religious version or otherwise). But what is without doubt is that it is alive and a seperate being that depends on the mother to grow and survive at that point. It does not give the mother right to kill it as long as it is going to end up healthy and able to lead a normal life. If the mother/father do not want it, the government can take care of it. Instead of wasting money on abortions and developing technology and drugs for that, that money can be spent into government programs that will let abandoned children find new homes as painless as possible or be able to grow up and have similar chance to be a useful part of society. You last part is a bit weird. You honestly think the cost of an abortion is greater to our society than the cost of raising an orphant/adoptie?
Of course it is not, but anything helps. And there is a lot of people that want to adopt children because they cannot have their own. A good program for that will make abortions not needed unless there is a medical reason behind it.
|
On April 29 2011 00:23 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 00:01 nihlon wrote:On April 28 2011 23:51 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 21:56 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 21:03 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 20:42 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 20:04 -Archangel- wrote:
12 week fetus is already a really small baby, 20 weeks is pure murder. Statements like these are so detrimental to any worthwhile debate >_> In the end it all comes down to how you define life - is it when sperm meets egg? is it self-sustainability? is it awareness - and what degree of awareness? And 20 weeks seems like an odd time, but if I'm to guess it's because the earliest a baby can survive being born is 15 weeks premature, thus at 20 weeks it still can't survive AND by giving time until week 20 you can actually test for Downs syndrome which is done @ week 16. As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law. It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard. Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus. I am sorry, but you are also just stating your opinion and it is no more true then mine. Science does not 100% know when the baby is aware or if there is something called a soul (a religious version or otherwise). But what is without doubt is that it is alive and a seperate being that depends on the mother to grow and survive at that point. It does not give the mother right to kill it as long as it is going to end up healthy and able to lead a normal life. If the mother/father do not want it, the government can take care of it. Instead of wasting money on abortions and developing technology and drugs for that, that money can be spent into government programs that will let abandoned children find new homes as painless as possible or be able to grow up and have similar chance to be a useful part of society. You last part is a bit weird. You honestly think the cost of an abortion is greater to our society than the cost of raising an orphant/adoptie? Of course it is not, but anything helps. And there is a lot of people that want to adopt children because they cannot have their own. A good program for that will make abortions not needed unless there is a medical reason behind it.
It also doesn't help that adopting a child is an extremely long and difficult process(I understand why).
|
On April 29 2011 00:10 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 23:56 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 22:08 scouting overlord wrote:On April 28 2011 22:04 vetinari wrote:On April 28 2011 21:45 scouting overlord wrote:On April 28 2011 21:42 Frigo wrote:
Daily 8 hours of hard work for 20+ years to support a kid financially is nothing compared to an 8-hour labour once, yeah right, after all, money grows on trees. And pregnancy is the worst thing to happen to someone. Get a reality check.
Frigo out, the discussion took a sharp turn to the retarded thanks to this oh-so-irreplaceable self-important nice person.
Quoting for posterity. Of course only men can work 8 hours for 20 years . Please ask your mother how labor felt for her, and how much she enjoyed having you grow inside of her constantly. It's a greater pain, physically and mentally (I stress mentally because you can't even imagine it) than you will ever experience in your life. But sure, you can take your toys and leave the discussion if you feel people aren't taking your precious opinions seriously, it's a very mature thing to do. My mother greatly enjoyed her pregnancy, she tells me it was one of the happiest times of her life, knowing that she had life growing inside her, a child that she wanted so much was finally coming. The physical effects of pregnancy, outside of childbirth itself, were inconviniences, but minor, far less inconvenient than her fractured ankle years later. As for child birth itself, it was 10 hours of pain, that would have been far worse were it not for the massive flood of oxytocin in her brain. Are you speaking from the experience of carrying an unwanted child to term? Or just out of your ass? Child birth? No biggie, just give me a huge dose of opiates for 10 hours, no sweat. It's not like the pain and intensity of the experience is so immense that many women die in the procedure in the modern day and age or anything. Just so you know sweety, your mother saying it was a magical experience is the nice way of putting it. Once your wife is pregnant I'm sure you'll have a more balanced view of pregnancy. My wife was pregnant until few weeks ago and yes, it is not as hard as young boys with no experience like you think. Actually the only bad part of it was science interfering and stupid lazy doctor at the time deciding to do a cezarian when it was not needed (according to doctors that looked at the case later). Just stop taking about stuff you got 0 experience in. You just look stupid. Congratulations, btw. Enjoy your sleep >.>
actually I miss my Sc2 playtime I didn't sleep much before due to gaming and other fun activities (I am one of those that considers sleeping a waste of time that is better spent having fun :D). So now I just reduced gaming to minimum and filled that time with helping my wife around the kid
|
Germany2896 Posts
|
As a medical student, I would just like to offer a little bit of information on embryogenesis and fetal development.
Prior to 8 weeks, there is nothing you could call a "fetus." It is a largely undifferentiated mass of cells that is gearing up towards cell maturity and fetal formation. Speaking purely from observation of cellular behavior, these cells have the "life" equivalent of any other mammal prior to fetal development. If you watch mammalian embryogenesis there are almost no differences between any animal and humans by this stage. Now if your belief is based on "life's sacredness" includes this timeperiod, I would recommend that you include most mammals in your stance for sake of not being hypocritical. I say this because of the relatively few and far between differences between mammals during this stage.
By 20 weeks, the fetus is hardly a full human, from a medical standpoint. It has little brain mass, almost no ability to control respirations and no ability to make gas exchange, no real regulation of critical life functions, little bony structures, an incomplete nervous system, and no real senses besides very basic touch. I say this just to put into perspective what exactly a fetus is capable of at this stage, which is to say, nothing. I don't actually know how people could insist that a woman have a child against her will because it is also alive. A 20 week old fetus is not as "alive" as a person in a coma or vegetative state clearly, and still less "alive" than any sort of animal, adult or newborn.
I personally do believe in the sanctity of all life, not just humans. But I don't see how we what gives me the right to tell anyone else what to do with their body.
|
On April 29 2011 00:16 scouting overlord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 00:07 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 22:34 Reborn8u wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.
Come on, you are kidding me?!?! Someone does this? Up to 9 months pregnancy? Where is this, in Afganistan? (this was a rhetoric question) Ok, this makes me sad. How cold must that doctor be do to this. Wtf?! What are the, Hitler wannabies... If it makes you feel any better the unthinking mass of cells is unable to comprehend anything. This is more humane than birthing an unwanted child into this world, just so you know. This is also how miscarriages are treated.
The almost 9 month baby is an unthinking mass of cells? Are you trying to make me go mad and start flaming you so you can get me banned? Or maybe this is you trolling so I can get you banned?!
|
On April 29 2011 00:10 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 00:08 scouting overlord wrote:On April 29 2011 00:06 feanor1 wrote:On April 29 2011 00:05 hifriend wrote:
Unbelievable. How can something this backwards pass in one of the most modern societies in the world? Also I can't believe US media/people actually use the expression "pro-life" lol. Are the opponents anti-life or pro-abortion or how does that work? Abortion activist are generally referred to a pro choice advocates in mainstream media Or "Abortionist" like it's some fucking dogma or something. I've heard anti-life as well. One post above you they are being called Hitler wannabes :D
I was referring to the doctors preforming that procedure I quoted, not to all abortionists.
|
On April 29 2011 00:07 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 22:34 Reborn8u wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.
Come on, you are kidding me?!?! Someone does this? Up to 9 months pregnancy? Where is this, in Afganistan? (this was a rhetoric question) Ok, this makes me sad. How cold must that doctor be do to this. Wtf?! What are the, Hitler wannabies...
That is the biggest bullshit, and most horrible thing I have everf read on this site. U sir need a perma life ban.
|
On April 29 2011 00:03 scouting overlord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 23:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote:
I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote:
Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife? On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote:Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being. On April 28 2011 18:53 scouting overlord wrote:Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait. On April 28 2011 19:07 scouting overlord wrote:You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from. On April 28 2011 19:10 scouting overlord wrote:
You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time" On April 28 2011 19:12 scouting overlord wrote:
I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly. On April 28 2011 19:13 scouting overlord wrote:
It's based around pregnancy being a burden wholly put on the woman and her body you fucking mong. On April 28 2011 19:27 scouting overlord wrote:A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind. Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'. I suppose I could go on with the quotes, but I think these are sufficient to my point. Throwing your gender around for the purpose of squelching debate is a disingenuous (not to mention tedious) way to argue. It’s also somewhat questionable that your position revolves around men being unable to understand a female perspective, yet you seem to have an exhaustive knowledge of what’s going on in the misogynistic and naïve minds of the males with whom you’re speaking. Personally, I would love to hear your opinion on abortion if it involves something other than gender stereotypes, angry dismissals of opposing viewpoints, and the old you-can’t-possibly-understand-what-it’s-like- for me! assertion that you’re the only individual in the discussion with a leg to stand on. You think pregnancy and abortion is a gender-neutral issue? Do you think pregnancy and abortion is as hard on the male as the female, and that the male's judgement is greater or equal to a female's on this issue? You are a very special person, like many proud Americans. Thanks for picking out all of the gender related arguments from the female perspective by the way, while ignoring the many from the male side
Nope, I don't think that abortion is a "gender-neutral" issue.
I think that you're conducting a campaign of condescension and personal attacks in lieu of actual debate, which is what I said.
|
On April 29 2011 00:38 Arkless wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 00:07 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 22:34 Reborn8u wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.
Come on, you are kidding me?!?! Someone does this? Up to 9 months pregnancy? Where is this, in Afganistan? (this was a rhetoric question) Ok, this makes me sad. How cold must that doctor be do to this. Wtf?! What are the, Hitler wannabies... That is the biggest bullshit, and most horrible thing I have everf read on this site. U sir need a perma life ban.
Thank you for such a useful comment. The opinions of deluded people not being able to read the post they reference are so precious to me.
|
On April 29 2011 00:09 scouting overlord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 00:08 eLiE wrote:On April 29 2011 00:03 scouting overlord wrote:On April 28 2011 23:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote:
I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote:
Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife? On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote:Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being. On April 28 2011 18:53 scouting overlord wrote:Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait. On April 28 2011 19:07 scouting overlord wrote:You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from. On April 28 2011 19:10 scouting overlord wrote:
You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time" On April 28 2011 19:12 scouting overlord wrote:
I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly. On April 28 2011 19:13 scouting overlord wrote:
It's based around pregnancy being a burden wholly put on the woman and her body you fucking mong. On April 28 2011 19:27 scouting overlord wrote:A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind. Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'. I suppose I could go on with the quotes, but I think these are sufficient to my point. Throwing your gender around for the purpose of squelching debate is a disingenuous (not to mention tedious) way to argue. It’s also somewhat questionable that your position revolves around men being unable to understand a female perspective, yet you seem to have an exhaustive knowledge of what’s going on in the misogynistic and naïve minds of the males with whom you’re speaking. Personally, I would love to hear your opinion on abortion if it involves something other than gender stereotypes, angry dismissals of opposing viewpoints, and the old you-can’t-possibly-understand-what-it’s-like- for me! assertion that you’re the only individual in the discussion with a leg to stand on. You think pregnancy and abortion is a gender-neutral issue? Do you think pregnancy and abortion is as hard on the male as the female, and that the male's judgement is greater or equal to a female's on this issue? You are a very special person, like many proud Americans. Thanks for picking out all of the gender related arguments from the female perspective by the way, while ignoring the many from the male side lol, there's no point, man. It's just something we have to ignore at this time. No point for a privileged first world male to have an opinion on, I agree -- they'll likely never encounter the grief of an unwanted child in their lifetime . Edit: Especially one that they can't afford to care for
First I must ask, are you female? Because you seem to forget that creating a child takes two people, man AND woman. What if the woman just decided to get the baby aborted but the man totally wanted it. Was prepared for it, and everything else. WTF is that? I understand the it's a womans body argument, but to think someones lover got his baby aborted doesnt mentally affect the male. Then you are just plain stupid. You throw out misogynist like 50x but I think a more apt description for you is radical feminist. Because you clearly have no idea, have never had a child. Nor had a child aborted.
|
On April 29 2011 00:42 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 00:38 Arkless wrote:On April 29 2011 00:07 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 22:34 Reborn8u wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.
Come on, you are kidding me?!?! Someone does this? Up to 9 months pregnancy? Where is this, in Afganistan? (this was a rhetoric question) Ok, this makes me sad. How cold must that doctor be do to this. Wtf?! What are the, Hitler wannabies... That is the biggest bullshit, and most horrible thing I have everf read on this site. U sir need a perma life ban. Thank you for such a useful comment. The opinions of deluded people not being able to read the post they reference are so precious to me.
I was referring to what Reborn wrote
EDIT: Nevermind, OP was nested and just found it now. If that is actually legal then that is fucked......... I thought it was just some idiot spewing some garbage, but if that's true then wow. I am insta sad
|
On April 29 2011 00:26 PolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 00:23 -Archangel- wrote:On April 29 2011 00:01 nihlon wrote:On April 28 2011 23:51 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 21:56 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 21:03 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 20:42 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 20:04 -Archangel- wrote:
12 week fetus is already a really small baby, 20 weeks is pure murder. Statements like these are so detrimental to any worthwhile debate >_> In the end it all comes down to how you define life - is it when sperm meets egg? is it self-sustainability? is it awareness - and what degree of awareness? And 20 weeks seems like an odd time, but if I'm to guess it's because the earliest a baby can survive being born is 15 weeks premature, thus at 20 weeks it still can't survive AND by giving time until week 20 you can actually test for Downs syndrome which is done @ week 16. As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law. It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard. Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus. I am sorry, but you are also just stating your opinion and it is no more true then mine. Science does not 100% know when the baby is aware or if there is something called a soul (a religious version or otherwise). But what is without doubt is that it is alive and a seperate being that depends on the mother to grow and survive at that point. It does not give the mother right to kill it as long as it is going to end up healthy and able to lead a normal life. If the mother/father do not want it, the government can take care of it. Instead of wasting money on abortions and developing technology and drugs for that, that money can be spent into government programs that will let abandoned children find new homes as painless as possible or be able to grow up and have similar chance to be a useful part of society. You last part is a bit weird. You honestly think the cost of an abortion is greater to our society than the cost of raising an orphant/adoptie? Of course it is not, but anything helps. And there is a lot of people that want to adopt children because they cannot have their own. A good program for that will make abortions not needed unless there is a medical reason behind it. It also doesn't help that adopting a child is an extremely long and difficult process(I understand why).
Now imagine all those smart people fighting to keep abortion legal (and all those on the other side fighting against them) using this energy and brain power to make this system better and faster :D
|
On April 29 2011 00:44 Arkless wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 00:42 -Archangel- wrote:On April 29 2011 00:38 Arkless wrote:On April 29 2011 00:07 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 22:34 Reborn8u wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.
Come on, you are kidding me?!?! Someone does this? Up to 9 months pregnancy? Where is this, in Afganistan? (this was a rhetoric question) Ok, this makes me sad. How cold must that doctor be do to this. Wtf?! What are the, Hitler wannabies... That is the biggest bullshit, and most horrible thing I have everf read on this site. U sir need a perma life ban. Thank you for such a useful comment. The opinions of deluded people not being able to read the post they reference are so precious to me. I was referring to what Reborn wrote
Ah sorry. Well net forum use 101, do not quote wrong people :D
|
On April 29 2011 00:39 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 00:03 scouting overlord wrote:On April 28 2011 23:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:On April 28 2011 18:21 scouting overlord wrote:
I'm pointing out that you're all more than likely male with no idea what it's like to bear or raise a child, especially one which has been accidentally or unwillingly conceived or has been diagnosed with a serious illness inutero. A female should be the one allowed to make a decision On April 28 2011 18:32 scouting overlord wrote:
Cry me a river macho man, it's her child in her body and you have no leg to stand on if you've broken up with her in pregnancy, you know the most important time to care for your wife? On April 28 2011 18:37 scouting overlord wrote:Thanks for just being outright misogynist for people to see . Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being. On April 28 2011 18:53 scouting overlord wrote:Maybe next life you can experience how great it is to be female in this world, with Brave Men FIGHTING FOR THE UNBORN RIGHTS, but for now you'll just have to wait. On April 28 2011 19:07 scouting overlord wrote:You are crazy, just so you know. None of your points are intelligent or relevant to real life. "Anti-life" isn't a position people take. Please return to whatever conservative white male-dominated echo chamber you came from. On April 28 2011 19:10 scouting overlord wrote:
You have never experienced pregnancy. You never will experience pregnancy. No male will, and it's a greater burden on the women, both mentally and physically, than whatever "statistics" and "labor" the court puts on you. It will scar her body and mind for life, not just for when the court dictates your "labor time" On April 28 2011 19:12 scouting overlord wrote:
I'll let this slide as you defend the women's right to abortion at least. But trust me on this, nothing you ever experience is even close to childbirth. It isn't 'only' or 'just' 9 months from the women's point of view, and you should respect that. No one should be forced to go through childbirth unwillingly. On April 28 2011 19:13 scouting overlord wrote:
It's based around pregnancy being a burden wholly put on the woman and her body you fucking mong. On April 28 2011 19:27 scouting overlord wrote:A man does not get pregnant . It's not even close to 50/50. You have no idea what pregnancy does to a person's body and mind. Women don't leave men to spite them out of child support. Taking your child from the biological father isn't something women just do to 'run off with another man'. I suppose I could go on with the quotes, but I think these are sufficient to my point. Throwing your gender around for the purpose of squelching debate is a disingenuous (not to mention tedious) way to argue. It’s also somewhat questionable that your position revolves around men being unable to understand a female perspective, yet you seem to have an exhaustive knowledge of what’s going on in the misogynistic and naïve minds of the males with whom you’re speaking. Personally, I would love to hear your opinion on abortion if it involves something other than gender stereotypes, angry dismissals of opposing viewpoints, and the old you-can’t-possibly-understand-what-it’s-like- for me! assertion that you’re the only individual in the discussion with a leg to stand on. You think pregnancy and abortion is a gender-neutral issue? Do you think pregnancy and abortion is as hard on the male as the female, and that the male's judgement is greater or equal to a female's on this issue? You are a very special person, like many proud Americans. Thanks for picking out all of the gender related arguments from the female perspective by the way, while ignoring the many from the male side Nope, I don't think that abortion is a "gender-neutral" issue. I think that you're conducting a campaign of condescension and personal attacks in lieu of actual debate, which is what I said.
I'm conducting a campaign of reality checking . I'm sorry the language I use doesn't coddle the "pro-life" (lol) crowd, but none of their arguments demand it. I know "debate" that is seen on television tries to present opposing viewpoints as equal and deserving respect, but I'm afraid it's just not the case in reality.
|
On April 29 2011 00:45 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 00:26 PolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2011 00:23 -Archangel- wrote:On April 29 2011 00:01 nihlon wrote:On April 28 2011 23:51 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 21:56 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 21:03 -Archangel- wrote:On April 28 2011 20:42 Ghostcom wrote:On April 28 2011 20:04 -Archangel- wrote:
12 week fetus is already a really small baby, 20 weeks is pure murder. Statements like these are so detrimental to any worthwhile debate >_> In the end it all comes down to how you define life - is it when sperm meets egg? is it self-sustainability? is it awareness - and what degree of awareness? And 20 weeks seems like an odd time, but if I'm to guess it's because the earliest a baby can survive being born is 15 weeks premature, thus at 20 weeks it still can't survive AND by giving time until week 20 you can actually test for Downs syndrome which is done @ week 16. As a father I felt the need to say this because it is the truth. Even in europe the 3 month limit of being able to preform an abortion is probably too high, but 20 weeks that, I will say it again, is murder. I know how my little girl looked at 20 weeks and nobody can tell me she is not a person or alive. No law can tell me that. Laws are artificial constructions of men, this is nature that is above any human law. It's not the truth - it's your perception which isn't based on anything objective, but "merely" your feelings as a dad. The only reason WHY you even knew how your daughter looked at week 20 in the first place was because you were getting an ultrasound to test wheter or not there were any developmental defects which would make life impossible meaning your wife would've had to abort or give birth to a dead baby. You are being a total hypocrit so take your "I'm telling the truth" BS and shut up or bring some valid arguments. I know I'm VERY blunt, but you do not hold any moral highground in this, stop trying to make it seem like that. And congratulations with your daughter, kids can really be a blessing, but don't try and make your subjective feelings a universal standard. Exactly where the limit should be placed is very hard to decide and tbh I don't think there is any 100% correct answer. I DO however support the option of being able to abort a child with trisomy 21 and thus I also support abortion @ week 16-20 as that is the earliest you can with certainty say wheter or not the mutation is present without an unacceptable risk to the mother or fetus. I am sorry, but you are also just stating your opinion and it is no more true then mine. Science does not 100% know when the baby is aware or if there is something called a soul (a religious version or otherwise). But what is without doubt is that it is alive and a seperate being that depends on the mother to grow and survive at that point. It does not give the mother right to kill it as long as it is going to end up healthy and able to lead a normal life. If the mother/father do not want it, the government can take care of it. Instead of wasting money on abortions and developing technology and drugs for that, that money can be spent into government programs that will let abandoned children find new homes as painless as possible or be able to grow up and have similar chance to be a useful part of society. You last part is a bit weird. You honestly think the cost of an abortion is greater to our society than the cost of raising an orphant/adoptie? Of course it is not, but anything helps. And there is a lot of people that want to adopt children because they cannot have their own. A good program for that will make abortions not needed unless there is a medical reason behind it. It also doesn't help that adopting a child is an extremely long and difficult process(I understand why). Now imagine all those smart people fighting to keep abortion legal (and all those on the other side fighting against them) using this energy and brain power to make this system better and faster :D
That would be a dream come true. My Wife and I really want to adopt our second child, because there are so many children in need of a loving family.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
