Get out of a discussion thread about abortion then? You have nothing to add except laughable logic 101 burns and gripes about me, why even post? You can PM me if you want instead.
Your behaviour in this thread is disrupting the actual discussion because you're just going around insulting and belittling everyone. HULKMANIA is 100% right. Stop it.
Ever consider that some opinions deserve derision for the benefit of society? That some people cannot be reasoned with, despite arguing against medical knowledge or humanity?
And just who the hell are you to know exactly what benefits society more than the other 6 billion people contributing to it?
You may have the intellect, but you sure aren't exercising a lot of wisdom.
On April 29 2011 01:35 yema1 wrote: I'm glad to see that they're cracking down on late-term abortions.
Description of a 18-22 week fetus: "She may have some head hair and eyebrows by now. She can make facial expressions, frowning and grimacing expressively. Her ears are well developed and she can hear your voice and your heartbeat."
I'm an avid supporter of abortions but when the baby has reached a certain point of maturity you aren't killing a fetus. You're killing a baby. No one has the right to kill a baby, regardless of whether it's in you or not.
God forbid your wife/yourself ever births an 18 week old fetus. I think your opinion would change.
Get out of a discussion thread about abortion then? You have nothing to add except laughable logic 101 burns and gripes about me, why even post? You can PM me if you want instead.
You're making nothing but angry and substanceless posts in this thread. Pointing that out is relevant to this thread, as refraining from such posting behavior allows the rest of teamliquid to discuss the topic in a mutually helpful way.
I'm defending the viewpoint that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy beyond the 20th week of pregnancy, and that there is no basis, especially one grounded in an appeal to humanity, to restrict abortions to the 20th week. I'm sure this is 'substanceless' in whatever epic halls of debate you usually inhabit, but it's very relevent to the topic at hand.
In that case there is no basis in the future to have your baby genetically tested and if its eyes are NOT BLUE like you always wanted you can have it aborted as well!!! You are really starting to piss me off. Better to quit talking to people like you.
EDIT: I think you were born in the wrong time and place. I hear Hitler really liked doctors and scientists that were into creating a master race...
In that case there is no basis in the future to have your baby genetically tested and if its eyes are NOT BLUE like you always wanted you can have it aborted as well!!! You are really starting to piss me off. Better to quit talking to people like you.
Wow you've got me and the anti-lifers-pro-destructionists summed up here mate, good going.
On April 29 2011 01:35 yema1 wrote: I'm glad to see that they're cracking down on late-term abortions.
Description of a 18-22 week fetus: "She may have some head hair and eyebrows by now. She can make facial expressions, frowning and grimacing expressively. Her ears are well developed and she can hear your voice and your heartbeat."
I'm an avid supporter of abortions but when the baby has reached a certain point of maturity you aren't killing a fetus. You're killing a baby. No one has the right to kill a baby, regardless of whether it's in you or not.
God forbid your wife/yourself ever births an 18 week old fetus. I think your opinion would change.
Stop twisting my words, please. I never implied that the baby was ready to be born. However, the baby can make facial expressions, it can hear you and it can feel pain. I think it's immoral to execute a fetus at that fetal stage. Please tell me, why do you think it's a-ok to kill a baby that will obviously suffer during the abortion?
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.
Why does it matter if it mentally affects the man? A lot of illogical stupid thing can mentally affect the men. At the end of the today you can just go cum on someone else. But she will still go through all of the trouble of carrying a baby inside her for 9 months regardless of what you do.
The man's feelings are just as important as a woman's on everything of course, even biogical events that a man cannot even begin to imagine the experience of. I'm some crazy radical feminist for suggesting that the woman's say over her own body is more important than her lover's.
Fact of the matter is, the decision to abort is contructed as a medical one, taken by doctors in their patients' best interests, it is unsurprising that the pregnant woman's sexual partner has no right to obstruct medical discretion and prevent her from obtaining an abortion. Plus, it would be very difficult for the law to impose a pregnany on a woman who wants to get an abortion...
It would not if they actually helped any woman in this situation with money and personal medical/psychological help. Yes, it would cost money, but it would save a life. Lots of other things in out society cost a lot of money so they could save lives.
I assume that your 'would not' refers to abortion 'would not' be in the patient's best interests...?
There may certainly be women out there who want an abortion without lack of money or psychological/medical issues? How could you 'help' if there were no such issues present?
EDIT: also, to offer psychological help on request of abortion implies that women who seek abortion are in some way psychologically ill...?
I'm for abortion, mainly due to the factor of rape, etc etc. Same ol song and dance everyone has heard before, but I think making it illegal is retarded. People do figure out that they don't want the kid anymore at or above 20 weeks. And a lot of mothers can't give up for adoption, so.
Even as someone who is politically pro-choice, this reductio ad absurdum crap is pissing me off. It just as much as those who say "you might as well legalize killing 20 year olds!"
Men shouldn't have an opinion on abortion? Fine, women (not eligible for the draft) shouldn't have an opinion on war unless they are actually in the military.
Besides, due to child support laws, men are affected by whether abortion is legal or not. Not in the same extent that women are, but men do have a personal stake in this issue if that is your criteria for having an opinion. (based on the fact that abortion is legal, it seems that politicians have acknowledged the fact that women have a greater stake in the issue) If you want to take men completely out of the equation, get rid of child support payments and instead give single mothers the same amount as a publicly funded subsidy.
Whatever you believe, saying something shouldn't be approved out of fear of what it could potentially lead to, even though it's the best choice, doesn't seem like a logical argument. I think this is a step in the right direction. *Holds off bashing of Planned Parenthood*
I think that the governor is going to sign the bill. It already passed both houses already, and he's against abortion in general. This would reduce the number of abortions, right? I don't see a reason why he wouldn't sign it, from a politically conservative standpoint. I think that moral issues like abortion get decided more by the executive's personal position rather than money issues, facts, or public opinion (see: sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll, gay rights, etc.).
I'm not going to give my views about abortion right now, because I have to go write a math thesis and I don't want to get sucked into a polite discussionpassionate debate heated flame war Maybe later.
On April 28 2011 11:09 gogogadgetflow wrote: You can't be banned for arguing for/against abortion as long as you keep it civil and substantive. No need to paint tl negatively.
For now the solution for Hoosiers is simple. Leave the state if you need an abortion. On one hand 20 weeks is plenty of time for an abortion, so the law is at least moderate in that respect. Ethically, however, I support the right of a woman to expel the fetus at any stage of pregnancy; because the baby lives inside the woman its right to life is forfeit. Whether or not it can feel pain is a non-factor (legally - I myself would consider such a factor but I cannot force someone else to).
No one has the right to kill another individual unless your life is in danger. Yes, you have the right to evict, but not kill, which means the woman can have (induce) early pregnancies and put the child up for adoption. You do not have a right to kill a trespasser on your property who is not a danger to you, your family, or your property. I really do not like to get into this debate, because both sides are pretty well set in their views. My personal view is pretty moderate -- a woman has a right to evict, but not kill.
your not an individual when you are part of someone elses body and live off what she eats.
IMO give fetus' the right to vote, also the God given right to bear arms. They are individuals just like a 3 year old child, or you, or me.
that way of thinking is incredibly black and white. I assume you havent seen baby developing during adult age. early fetus doesn't have feelings, eyesight or capability of thinking like born people. There's no emotional relationships between a fetus and other people. No one would suffer becouse of abortion. Mental damage hurts way more than physical damage.
Yes you can call abortion a murder. but not a murder of a human. just a murder of a fetus. even a chicken you eat has more feelings and complex brains than an early stage fetus. do you eat meat? didn't even "Jesus" eat meat?
and it's better not to be born than give a birth to someone that propably would end up living in misery.
On April 29 2011 02:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think that the governor is going to sign the bill. It already passed both houses already, and he's against abortion in general. This would reduce the number of abortions, right? I don't see a reason why he wouldn't sign it, from a politically conservative standpoint. I think that moral issues like abortion get decided more by the executive's personal position rather than money issues, facts, or public opinion (see: sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll, gay rights, etc.).
I'm not going to give my views about abortion right now, because I have to go write a math thesis and I don't want to get sucked into a polite discussionpassionate debate heated flame war Maybe later.
it would reduce very little abortions most are done before the 20th week the latter is usually because health risk to the mother or deformities in the baby. Later abortions for not those two reasons usually are because of being poor and being young unable to afford an abortion by the 1st month unable to notice you're pregnant until the 2nd-3rd month not able to get the money in time etc.
On April 29 2011 02:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think that the governor is going to sign the bill. It already passed both houses already, and he's against abortion in general. This would reduce the number of abortions, right? I don't see a reason why he wouldn't sign it, from a politically conservative standpoint. I think that moral issues like abortion get decided more by the executive's personal position rather than money issues, facts, or public opinion (see: sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll, gay rights, etc.).
I'm not going to give my views about abortion right now, because I have to go write a math thesis and I don't want to get sucked into a polite discussionpassionate debate heated flame war Maybe later.
Although, with around 1.2 million abortions per year, that'll be ~18,000 more newborns per year (totally hypothesising, since this law just affects Indiana).
It's pretty sick that our country thinks they can tell someone what they can do in this situation. I don't care what you believe or what I believe, it's not your choice.
On April 29 2011 02:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think that the governor is going to sign the bill. It already passed both houses already, and he's against abortion in general. This would reduce the number of abortions, right? I don't see a reason why he wouldn't sign it, from a politically conservative standpoint. I think that moral issues like abortion get decided more by the executive's personal position rather than money issues, facts, or public opinion (see: sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll, gay rights, etc.).
I'm not going to give my views about abortion right now, because I have to go write a math thesis and I don't want to get sucked into a polite discussionpassionate debate heated flame war Maybe later.
Although, with around 1.2 million abortions per year, that'll be ~18,000 more newborns per year.
Edit: Oh, 2000th post. Yay me.
Oh and given that there are around 4 million new births every year in the states, that's a 0.5% jump in birth rate, which saw a pretty sharp decline (~4%) between 2007 and 2009.
Again, total hypothesizing since the law only affects Indiana, and not the whole of the U.S.
First of all, making abortion illegal does not lower abortion rates. It lowers safe abortion rates, just like witholding anti-conception doesn't lower the rate of teenage sex, but lowers the rate of safe teenage sex. Also note how the people wanting to ban abortion are the ones that generally oppose the distribution of contraception in, lets say, public schools.
Secondly, who the hell are you to force your belief system upon someone else? It is not your body, it is not your future, therefore it is not your choice whether someone should be allowed to abort or not. If you believe it is morally wrong, fine, but there is absolutely no reason for you to force other people to behave according to your convictions.
Should we try to reduce the number of abortions? Ofcourse. Is the way to do this to scare women into adoption/having it anyway? Obviously not. This bill is a complete abomination because it does exactly that. What happens between a doctor and a patient is entirely personal, and the state absolutely no right to interfere in this relationship except for maintaining professional standards. Fear mongering has no place in a doctors office, the choice to abort or not is one that is hard enough already.
This bill is exactly what's wrong with the US: republicans trying to limit that what they say they value most (personal freedom), under the cover of christian values. I for one hope it gets struck down in the courts.
On April 29 2011 02:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think that the governor is going to sign the bill. It already passed both houses already, and he's against abortion in general. This would reduce the number of abortions, right? I don't see a reason why he wouldn't sign it, from a politically conservative standpoint. I think that moral issues like abortion get decided more by the executive's personal position rather than money issues, facts, or public opinion (see: sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll, gay rights, etc.).
I'm not going to give my views about abortion right now, because I have to go write a math thesis and I don't want to get sucked into a polite discussionpassionate debate heated flame war Maybe later.
it would reduce very little abortions most are done before the 20th week the latter is usually because health risk to the mother or deformities in the baby. Later abortions for not those two reasons usually are because of being poor and being young unable to afford an abortion by the 1st month unable to notice you're pregnant until the 2nd-3rd month not able to get the money in time etc.
On April 29 2011 02:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think that the governor is going to sign the bill. It already passed both houses already, and he's against abortion in general. This would reduce the number of abortions, right? I don't see a reason why he wouldn't sign it, from a politically conservative standpoint. I think that moral issues like abortion get decided more by the executive's personal position rather than money issues, facts, or public opinion (see: sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll, gay rights, etc.).
I'm not going to give my views about abortion right now, because I have to go write a math thesis and I don't want to get sucked into a polite discussionpassionate debate heated flame war Maybe later.
Although, with around 1.2 million abortions per year, that'll be ~18,000 more newborns per year.
Edit: Oh, 2000th post. Yay me.
Yeah, I figured that the vast majority of abortions were done early on. I'd imagine that those in favor of having abortions would have made up their mind by then (unless they later found out that their baby was going to be born with certain disorders, that there may be complications with the pregnancy, or other controversies that people may use to justify third-trimester abortions).
Thanks for the replies, and congratulations on your 2000th post!
On April 28 2011 11:09 gogogadgetflow wrote: You can't be banned for arguing for/against abortion as long as you keep it civil and substantive. No need to paint tl negatively.
For now the solution for Hoosiers is simple. Leave the state if you need an abortion. On one hand 20 weeks is plenty of time for an abortion, so the law is at least moderate in that respect. Ethically, however, I support the right of a woman to expel the fetus at any stage of pregnancy; because the baby lives inside the woman its right to life is forfeit. Whether or not it can feel pain is a non-factor (legally - I myself would consider such a factor but I cannot force someone else to).
No one has the right to kill another individual unless your life is in danger. Yes, you have the right to evict, but not kill, which means the woman can have (induce) early pregnancies and put the child up for adoption. You do not have a right to kill a trespasser on your property who is not a danger to you, your family, or your property. I really do not like to get into this debate, because both sides are pretty well set in their views. My personal view is pretty moderate -- a woman has a right to evict, but not kill.
Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes.
Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing.
Animals are living things too, yet society doesn't have much trouble killing them (euthanasia). My neighbors decided to kill their dog because they didn't want it to hurt their newborn child.
The difference between the fetus and the actual living being is awareness, not if it's living or not. And actually, awareness comes at around 1-2 years old. I would be in favor of euthanasia of young babies if they show a mental or physical disorder.
EPT
. Helps illustrate what kind of man cares more for an unconscious cellular mass than a fully developed human being.
