EPTTeamliquid isn't a site for you to fucking advertise this shit. Boy am I glad I have a report button.
User was warned for this post
Indiana bans abortion past 20th week - Page 34
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ch33psh33p
7650 Posts
Teamliquid isn't a site for you to fucking advertise this shit. Boy am I glad I have a report button. User was warned for this post | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On April 28 2011 11:31 Echo515 wrote: Google image search 20 week fetus. Here I did it for you. How can anyone think it's ok to throw something like that in the garbage? Just as a side note I'm not religious at all but that just seems wrong to me. QFT. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
| ||
|
Ace.Xile
United States286 Posts
On April 28 2011 11:02 gun.slinger wrote: Old man regulating what happen inside a women womb :S It's a tricky argument on both sides even when entirely negating religion. I mean in most cases aborting a child is ending a humans life before it even begins, which in reality is in some senses wrong. On the other hand, it's not really a human, if it even feels pain or can think consciously is highly debatable, to the point where even i believe that fetuses are hardly if anything what we see as human. The point of the matter it's a hard case to argue on either side of the debate | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45214 Posts
And I wonder what happens if on the 21st week (or later), the doctors recognize that there are complications with the pregnancy that may cause the woman to die (with the incoming baby anyway) if the pregnancy isn't terminated. I would still think that shades of gray and unfortunate circumstances could potentially exist after 20 weeks of pregnancy, although women could have decided in ideal circumstances to abort or not abort beforehand. | ||
|
wxwx
527 Posts
| ||
|
FIStarcraft
United States154 Posts
You don't need 20 weeks to decide weather or not you want your baby. | ||
|
sanya
482 Posts
more ammunition when laughing at the u.s' insanity when it comes to laws User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
JiYan
United States3668 Posts
On November 04 2011 09:01 FIStarcraft wrote: I think it's reasonable, except for the part "herpa derp abortions make you infertile!!!" You don't need 20 weeks to decide weather or not you want your baby. although at a glance a lot of people would probably agree with you, myself included, i dont think its smart to say it like that because it is a hard decision. it takes people months to decide whether or not they really want to get married to their bf / gf and im certain that aborting your child is more than just a "yea i slept on it and i decided" kind of choice. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On November 04 2011 08:55 Ace.Xile wrote: It's a tricky argument on both sides even when entirely negating religion. I mean in most cases aborting a child is ending a humans life before it even begins, which in reality is in some senses wrong. On the other hand, it's not really a human, if it even feels pain or can think consciously is highly debatable, to the point where even i believe that fetuses are hardly if anything what we see as human. The point of the matter it's a hard case to argue on either side of the debate That argument could be applied to a 3 month old or a 3 year old, or even with some stretching a 13 year old. conception is definitely arguable, but there is no significant justification for a moral difference between killing a 20 week old fetus and killing a 20 week old newborn. | ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
| ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On November 04 2011 09:24 Krikkitone wrote: That argument could be applied to a 3 month old or a 3 year old, or even with some stretching a 13 year old. conception is definitely arguable, but there is no significant justification for a moral difference between killing a 20 week old fetus and killing a 20 week old newborn. One arguable place to draw the line might be when the fetus is big enough to be viable outside the womb. | ||
|
McFeser
United States2458 Posts
| ||
|
mrafaeldie12
Brazil537 Posts
| ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
And the overall thread.. Second trimester abortions are dodgy. If the fetus isn't directly putting the mother at risk.. there are too few distinctions between a living human and a fetus past 13-16 weeks. First trimester is your womb; your business. But 20 weeks is more than conservative enough to outlaw. just what we non-americans needed ... more ammunition when laughing at the u.s' insanity when it comes to laws Please don't bash my country when it is a states law and not even related to the entire nation. Indiana is a one fiftieth of my country and you are a jerk. | ||
|
Toxi78
966 Posts
they are trying to do that so that people cannot abort once they know the sex. wether or not you know the sex of a 20month fetus, that i do not know. | ||
|
LostnFound
United States5 Posts
On November 04 2011 08:41 Myrkskog wrote: It's not a baby. It's disingenuous to equate the immediate result of conception with a baby, but unsurprising from a group who grasps at straws to compare abortion to the holocaust. It's disingenuous to say that an embryo or fetus is not another person. From conception, 50% of embryos are male and thus impossibly part of the mother's body. | ||
|
ragingfungus
United States271 Posts
| ||
|
ragingfungus
United States271 Posts
On November 04 2011 09:40 Toxi78 wrote: i couldn't go through the whole thread obviously, but people do not get that the point at stake in india is NOT abortion itself, it's the fact that they abort almost all female fetus because it costs a lot of money to the family to marry them, and they are not as useful as men for ground work and so on, which is very important in these families. they are trying to do that so that people cannot abort once they know the sex. wether or not you know the sex of a 20month fetus, that i do not know. Indianna not India bro. | ||
|
forsooth
United States3648 Posts
On April 29 2011 11:12 Cloud9157 wrote: So the "baby" takes priority over the woman, who never wanted to have sexual relations with that man? You don't force a woman to do anything like that. Make her go through 9 months of a burden that serves as a reminder that she was raped. Actually, another human being's right to live takes priority over the woman's peace of mind. Nobody in here that would argue against the legality of abortion would belittle the effect that being raped has on anyone, but at the end of the day it's impossible for me to see it as justifiable to end the life of another person just because it serves as a reminder for a terrible event that you suffered. I find abortion a revolting and inhumane practice for reasons having nothing to do with religion, and the only instance I would consider it acceptable in is if carrying the pregnancy to term threatens the mother's life. | ||
| ||
