|
On April 28 2011 11:08 Indrium wrote:
I'm not worried unless they do what they did is South Carolina and start forcing anyone that has an abortion to view an ultrasound. That's messed up.
Wow.. that's fucked up... get raped and filled with hormones (you get programmed to love and protect your offspring above all else), want to remove the rapist child and yet have to view it as it is still inside of one and a part of oneself.
Lobbyists are ruining USA 
On April 28 2011 11:32 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:28 Imres wrote:
So you don't see the difference between an human being and an human... and you think that a women hasn't the right to control her body, congrats! Um what? Liberty is a mutual philosophy. Perhaps you should review Natural Law. No one has a right to kill another individual who is not a threat to your life or your property. Just because a woman doesn't want to be responsible, doesn't give her a right to extinguish anothers life. Sure, she has a right to evict and put the baby up for adoption, but not to kill.
Definition of individual :
1.
a. Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human: individual consciousness.
b. By or for one person: individual work; an individual portion.
2. Existing as a distinct entity; separate: individual drops of rain.
That "baby" isn't anymore a human individual than a cancer tumor and even less so than a cow, pig, or even a chicken.
|
On April 28 2011 11:38 Ichabod wrote:In many developed countries, there are stricter limits on the time period of allowed abortion, so this law has basis not just in the US: + Show Spoiler +12 weeks (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Greece, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Rep., Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Norway, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Ukraine, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Yugoslavia), 13 weeks (Italy), 14 weeks (Austria, Belgium, Cambodia, Germany, Hungary, and Romania), 18 weeks (Sweden), viability (Netherlands and to some extent the United States), and 24 weeks (Singapore and Britain) Some countries, like Canada, China (Mainland only) and Vietnam have no legal limit on when an abortion can be performed. ^above quote from wikipedia, sourced from: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2405698.pdf
Wow, that is really surprising. Is most of this true? I wiki'd abortion in France and it seems to confirm the 12 week time limit. What about other countries? I would imagine that the pro-life movement is nothing in these countries compared to what it is in the US so that seems weird if they have even stricter abortion laws.
|
It was my understanding that abortions, especially repeat ones, do have a chance of causing infertility. Surely that is something doctors should be saying anyways - just look at the disclaimers on medicine, they have to declare everything that medicine might cause happen to you.
Also have to agree 20 weeks seems like a fairly long time to decide if you want to keep the child or not. After that babies have been known to survive outside of the womb - around 22 weeks seems to be the earliest.
|
On April 28 2011 11:32 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:28 Imres wrote:
So you don't see the difference between an human being and an human... and you think that a women hasn't the right to control her body, congrats! Um what? Liberty is a mutual philosophy. Perhaps you should review Natural Law. No one has a right to kill another individual who is not a threat to your life or your property. Just because a woman doesn't want to be responsible, doesn't give her a right to extinguish anothers life. Sure, she has a right to evict and put the baby up for adoption, but not to kill.
imo the most important question is when does life start.
are you killing when the fetus is 10 weeks, 20 weeks, etc? some people see that abortion is killing because the baby is going to have a life, and you are ending a life. is that killing? up to you.
personally i'm for abortion because i see that by not allowing one life to start, you can allow another one to start. i'd rather have someone have a baby when ready than to have it at an inopportune time.you can give the child a really shitty childhood or you can give the parent and the child a shitty life by placing a huge burden when they're not ready.
in my opinion religion is not a reason to go against abortion. but the main problem is when people feel like that they can do whatever the fuck they want without consequences.
|
On April 28 2011 11:44 Krehlmar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:08 Indrium wrote:
I'm not worried unless they do what they did is South Carolina and start forcing anyone that has an abortion to view an ultrasound. That's messed up. Wow.. that's fucked up... get raped and filled with hormones (you get programmed to love and protect your offspring above all else), want to remove the rapist child and yet have to view it as it is still inside of one and a part of oneself. Lobbyists are ruining USA Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:32 Wegandi wrote:On April 28 2011 11:28 Imres wrote:
So you don't see the difference between an human being and an human... and you think that a women hasn't the right to control her body, congrats! Um what? Liberty is a mutual philosophy. Perhaps you should review Natural Law. No one has a right to kill another individual who is not a threat to your life or your property. Just because a woman doesn't want to be responsible, doesn't give her a right to extinguish anothers life. Sure, she has a right to evict and put the baby up for adoption, but not to kill. Definition of individual : 1. a. Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human: individual consciousness. b. By or for one person: individual work; an individual portion. 2. Existing as a distinct entity; separate: individual drops of rain. That "baby" isn't anymore a human individual than a cancer tumor and even less so than a cow, pig, or even a chicken.
1. That's like saying it's your genetics fault that you're obese when it's likely only <1% of the population that's the case. Exceptions are never a good case to argue against something.
2. Again, fetuses can survive outside the womb at around 22+ weeks.
Cancer tumor? seriously?
|
On April 28 2011 11:44 Krehlmar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:08 Indrium wrote:
I'm not worried unless they do what they did is South Carolina and start forcing anyone that has an abortion to view an ultrasound. That's messed up. Wow.. that's fucked up... get raped and filled with hormones (you get programmed to love and protect your offspring above all else), want to remove the rapist child and yet have to view it as it is still inside of one and a part of oneself. Lobbyists are ruining USA Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:32 Wegandi wrote:On April 28 2011 11:28 Imres wrote:
So you don't see the difference between an human being and an human... and you think that a women hasn't the right to control her body, congrats! Um what? Liberty is a mutual philosophy. Perhaps you should review Natural Law. No one has a right to kill another individual who is not a threat to your life or your property. Just because a woman doesn't want to be responsible, doesn't give her a right to extinguish anothers life. Sure, she has a right to evict and put the baby up for adoption, but not to kill. Definition of individual : 1. a. Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human: individual consciousness. b. By or for one person: individual work; an individual portion. 2. Existing as a distinct entity; separate: individual drops of rain. That "baby" isn't anymore a human individual than a cancer tumor and even less so than a cow, pig, or even a chicken.
A fetus is just as much a human individual as a newborn child
example of reasoning...edited
imo the most important question is when does life start.
are you killing when the baby is 10 months, 20 months, etc? some people see that infanticide is killing because the baby is going to have a life, and you are ending a life. is that killing? up to you.
personally i'm for infanticide because i see that by not allowing one life to start, you can allow another one to start. i'd rather have someone have a baby when ready than to have it at an inopportune time.you can give the child a really shitty childhood or you can give the parent and the child a shitty life by placing a huge burden when they're not ready.
in my opinion religion is not a reason to go against infanticide. but the main problem is when people feel like that they can do whatever the fuck they want without consequences.
However, the point is right... a line must be drawn.. 20 weeks seems a lot more reasonable than birth though.
(and I don't think and Indiana woman who gets an abortion at 21 weeks will be treated the same as one who commts infanticide 3 days after birth)
|
On April 28 2011 11:44 Krehlmar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:08 Indrium wrote:
I'm not worried unless they do what they did is South Carolina and start forcing anyone that has an abortion to view an ultrasound. That's messed up. Wow.. that's fucked up... get raped and filled with hormones (you get programmed to love and protect your offspring above all else), want to remove the rapist child and yet have to view it as it is still inside of one and a part of oneself. Lobbyists are ruining USA Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:32 Wegandi wrote:On April 28 2011 11:28 Imres wrote:
So you don't see the difference between an human being and an human... and you think that a women hasn't the right to control her body, congrats! Um what? Liberty is a mutual philosophy. Perhaps you should review Natural Law. No one has a right to kill another individual who is not a threat to your life or your property. Just because a woman doesn't want to be responsible, doesn't give her a right to extinguish anothers life. Sure, she has a right to evict and put the baby up for adoption, but not to kill. Definition of individual : 1. a. Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human: individual consciousness. b. By or for one person: individual work; an individual portion. 2. Existing as a distinct entity; separate: individual drops of rain. That "baby" isn't anymore a human individual than a cancer tumor and even less so than a cow, pig, or even a chicken.
Let me know when cancer tumors have 46 Chromosomes, or when a cancer tumor gets a job, takes their first walk, eats their first cake, or any other human activity.
|
On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote:On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote: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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING?
Is a coma patient?
|
On April 28 2011 11:02 gun.slinger wrote:
Old man regulating what happen inside a women womb :S
Relegating a whole lot more than the womb. I love how people will cheer on the women's right to kill her own offspring meanwhile we don't even have rights to the products of our labor. She has the right to an abortion while I am forced to pay for it. The state only works for one purpose and that is itself. Abortion is allowed because it is a big step in paving the way towards a Brave New World type of civilization full of drones who all think they are the shit because they get to fuck.
|
On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra wrote:On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote:On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote: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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING? Is a coma patient?
Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep)
|
What would you think if you were forced by law to provide a kidney transplant to someone you didn't know, despite all of the risks involved? What if you were forced by law to run into a burning building to save someone?
Both of those should be choices for individuals to make. Same with carrying a pregnancy to term - pregnancy carries risks of significant injury or even death, a pregnant person should be able to make the choice for themselves.
|
This is why I hate the whole abortion argument. Neither side is willing to give any ground b/c it would seen as strengthening the other position. So it's one side arguing for abortions all the way up until the baby is 100% out of the body and the other arguing for no abortions or even emergency contraception. IMO, as with most things, the best answer is probably somewhere in the middle. I just can't see the rational for equating a 7 month old fetus to a "cancer tumor." At the same time a 10 week old fetus clearly isn't developed enough to be considered alive, and I have no problem allowing abortions up until that point. Around the 20 week mark is where I feel it is a gray area as to whether the fetus could be consider alive or not.
The point would be mostly moot though if we:
Had better sex education
Fully encouraged the use of condoms and contraception (assuming you're not trying to get pregnant).
Stopped trying to ban emergency contraception (especially important in rape/incest cases).
|
On April 28 2011 12:00 Harrow wrote:
What would you think if you were forced by law to provide a kidney transplant to someone you didn't know, despite all of the risks involved? What if you were forced by law to run into a burning building to save someone?
Both of those should be choices for individuals to make. Same with carrying a pregnancy to term - pregnancy carries risks of significant injury or even death, a pregnant person should be able to make the choice for themselves.
If your kidney was stolen, are you allowed to kill the person that got the transplant to get your kidney back? (even if they weren't the one that stole it)
If I see a starving person in my kitchen, can I kill them to get my food back? (I CAN kick them out... but I can't try to get my food back by killing them)
Ideally, there would be an "abandonment" law. In the same way that parents can abandon a newborn legally as long as they do it at a hospital/police/fire station, Mothers should be allowed to "abandon" their fetus... at any age. (Basically if it is 4-8-12-16-20-24-28 weeks, the mom should be able to get the fetus removed by induced expulsion->c-section/induced labor... and then it immediately goes into an incubator/freezer where the doctors attempt to save it.)
Effectively the procedure is killing the fetus, but only if it is before "viability" because if the fetus if "viable" it will survive.
|
On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra wrote:On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote:On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote: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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING? Is a coma patient?
They were before they were in a goddamned COMA.
On April 28 2011 11:59 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra wrote:On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote:On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote: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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING? Is a coma patient? Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep)
They were before they went to sleep and will be when they wake in a few hours.
|
Well, 20 weeks is about 5 months. I agree, pretty much. If you're going for an abortion, there's a lot of time to do it earlier.
|
On April 28 2011 12:04 OlorinPA wrote:
This is why I hate the whole abortion argument. Neither side is willing to give any ground b/c it would seen as strengthening the other position. So it's one side arguing for abortions all the way up until the baby is 100% out of the body and the other arguing for no abortions or even emergency contraception. IMO, as with most things, the best answer is probably somewhere in the middle. I just can't see the rational for equating a 7 month old fetus to a "cancer tumor." At the same time a 10 week old fetus clearly isn't developed enough to be considered alive, and I have no problem allowing abortions up until that point. Around the 20 week mark is where I feel it is a gray area as to whether the fetus could be consider alive or not.
The point would be mostly moot though if we:
Had better sex education
Fully encouraged the use of condoms and contraception (assuming you're not trying to get pregnant).
Stopped trying to ban emergency contraception (especially important in rape cases).
Agreed.
Also, add in incest cases to the rape cases comment.
I don't like that taxpayer dollars go to this either but that's prolly a whole other topic
|
I am okay with this, it seems perfectly reasonable. Hopefully this means nobody will be complaining about abortions that ARE legal (before 20 weeks).
|
On April 28 2011 12:07 eshlow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 12:04 OlorinPA wrote:
This is why I hate the whole abortion argument. Neither side is willing to give any ground b/c it would seen as strengthening the other position. So it's one side arguing for abortions all the way up until the baby is 100% out of the body and the other arguing for no abortions or even emergency contraception. IMO, as with most things, the best answer is probably somewhere in the middle. I just can't see the rational for equating a 7 month old fetus to a "cancer tumor." At the same time a 10 week old fetus clearly isn't developed enough to be considered alive, and I have no problem allowing abortions up until that point. Around the 20 week mark is where I feel it is a gray area as to whether the fetus could be consider alive or not.
The point would be mostly moot though if we:
Had better sex education
Fully encouraged the use of condoms and contraception (assuming you're not trying to get pregnant).
Stopped trying to ban emergency contraception (especially important in rape cases). Agreed. Also, add in incest cases to the rape cases comment. I don't like that taxpayer dollars go to this either but that's prolly a whole other topic
No it's the same topic. Freedom to control your body? Freedom to control the products of your body? Why do people defend one and ignore the other? Because the government and mass media told them to.
|
On April 28 2011 12:04 OlorinPA wrote:
This is why I hate the whole abortion argument. Neither side is willing to give any ground b/c it would seen as strengthening the other position. So it's one side arguing for abortions all the way up until the baby is 100% out of the body and the other arguing for no abortions or even emergency contraception. IMO, as with most things, the best answer is probably somewhere in the middle. I just can't see the rational for equating a 7 month old fetus to a "cancer tumor." At the same time a 10 week old fetus clearly isn't developed enough to be considered alive, and I have no problem allowing abortions up until that point. Around the 20 week mark is where I feel it is a gray area as to whether the fetus could be consider alive or not.
The point would be mostly moot though if we:
Had better sex education
Fully encouraged the use of condoms and contraception (assuming you're not trying to get pregnant).
Stopped trying to ban emergency contraception (especially important in rape/incest cases).
There's far more than two sides of this argument, don't dumb it down.
|
Personally i doubt states will follow this law considering 20weeks is what the beginning of the last tri-mester? And most women by then have made the decision to either give up the child for adoption or lonnnnng before had an abortion. But i would agree with the law simply because the baby will be developed. They probably had a case of this where the baby came out alive and clearly the parents didnt want it alive.. Its a tough subject to side/argue with without stepping on the feet of people
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
