Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Normal abortions don't bother me, but this shit is crazy. They kill the baby when the baby is fully develped. It could survive on its own out of the womb.

They basically wait until the woman goes into labor, pull the fully grown baby out feet first until it's totally out except its head. They then jab a metal rod through its spine and into its brain, killing it.

I mean, this is a fully mature baby FFS. How is that NOT murder?

http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/partbrt1.gif
http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/partbrt2.gif http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/partbrt3.gif http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/partbrt4.gif http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/partbrt5.gif

Originally posted by long pig
Normal abortions don't bother me, but this shit is crazy. They kill the baby when the baby is fully develped. It could survive on its own out of the womb.

They basically wait until the woman goes into labor, pull the fully grown baby out feet first until it's totally out except its head. They then jab a metal rod through its spine and into its brain, killing it.

I mean, this is a fully mature baby FFS. How is that NOT murder?

http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/partbrt1.gif
http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/partbrt2.gif http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/partbrt3.gif http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/partbrt4.gif http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/partbrt5.gif

A clump of cells does not justify as a 'living being' thus murder doesn't apply. THAT on the other-hand IS blatant murder, why aren't any of the crazy christians arguing against this instead of pre-developed abortion ?

Not an expert on the subject, but I've heard that they are sometimes medically necessary

Originally posted by Strangelove
Not an expert on the subject, but I've heard that they are sometimes medically necessary

What THE F*CK justifies THAT !

Originally posted by grey fox
A clump of cells does not justify as a 'living being' thus murder doesn't apply.

Sigh, we are all a "clump of cells." That argument never goes anywhere and does nothing in the end but devalue the meaning of life.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Not an expert on the subject, but I've heard that they are sometimes medically necessary

... To save the mother

Originally posted by grey fox
What THE F*CK justifies THAT !

He didn't say justify. In the cases he is talking about the case if often either the mother will die attempting to have the baby, or both are very unlikely to come out alive. These scenarios are more prevalent than one might think.

Originally posted by long pig
Normal abortions don't bother me, but this shit is crazy. They kill the baby when the baby is fully develped. It could survive on its own out of the womb.

They basically wait until the woman goes into labor, pull the fully grown baby out feet first until it's totally out except its head. They then jab a metal rod through its spine and into its brain, killing it.

I mean, this is a fully mature baby FFS. How is that NOT murder?

http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/partbrt1.gif
http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/partbrt2.gif http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/partbrt3.gif http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/partbrt4.gif http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/partbrt5.gif

And to be clear this is normally not the process. This method is not the one I even know about. I didn't even look at the pictures. That one is pretty.... yea.

Partial abortions often occur before the delivery and full development. Too lazy to find pics but someone not so lazy will do it

Originally posted by grey fox
What THE F*CK justifies THAT ! As far as I'm aware post-viability abortion is only legal under the condition of medical necessity.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
As far as I'm aware post-viability abortion is only legal under the condition of medical necessity.

Yeah but that method in particular is never necessary though... Can someone show another example before full development?

Originally posted by grey fox
A clump of cells does not justify as a 'living being' thus murder doesn't apply. THAT on the other-hand IS blatant murder, why aren't any of the crazy christians arguing against this instead of pre-developed abortion ?
Erm...I'm pretty damn certain that pro-life individuals are against partial-birth abortion.

That being said...

I masturbate to pictures of partial-birth abortions. It's hot.

^

this is just wrong. - referring to Partial-birth abortion

Abortion in itself is murder IMHO, and this one is worse.

As long as it only happens with medical necessity's then it's fine with me. Otherwise the woman should just shut up, the baby can take care of itself now, she should have just had an abortion sooner if she wanted to remove it.

Originally posted by chithappens
... To save the mother



He didn't say justify. In the cases he is talking about the case if often either the mother will die attempting to have the baby, or both are very unlikely to come out alive. These scenarios are more prevalent than one might think.

Looking at that diagram it seems the baby would be near enough to being fully out...

Muriding the baby at that stage wouldn't help the mother in any way.

Why not just take the baby out and you know.. let it live?

A doctor would NEVER kill a baby.

And this monopoly on language is abominable. The proper terminology is "late term abortion". Partial-birth causes the exact knee-jerk reaction that the anti-choice crowd wants.

http://thesuperficial.com/2007/06/08/paris-hilton-in-tears.jpg

...


Is anyone in favour of late-term abortion?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
http://thesuperficial.com/2007/06/08/paris-hilton-in-tears.jpg

...


Is anyone in favour of late-term abortion?

Only if having the child would create a large chance that the mother would die, I don't see how that's possible, but I'm not a doctor so I'm sure there are situations where it's either killing the baby or killing the mother.

Originally posted by Boris
Looking at that diagram it seems the baby would be near enough to being fully out...

Muriding the baby at that stage wouldn't help the mother in any way.

Why not just take the baby out and you know.. let it live?

A doctor would NEVER kill a baby.

Thats my view point EXACTLY.

I've never been in favor of that. At that late stage a baby feels serious pain. Only in very rare circumstances should if be used.

thas not abortion, thas murder. and one that provides NO USE, whatsoever. if the baby was still in the womb and killed BEFORE it got out, then maybe, u cud justify it as bing medically necessary as a natural delivery is too dangerous. howevern once the whole body is ALREADY OUT, i see no way in which just pulling the head out will kill the mother{either way the head is pulled out anyway, alive or dead}.

on the other hand, i do believe that abortion is okay as long as the baby has not developed any basic human nervous system/brain, as then there is no conciounce in the baby{this is probably before three months and definately can be done a little while after fertilisation when you are nothing more than stem cell}. thas alos why im probably pro most stem cell research.

For clarification purposes...

This procedure is performed predominantly for late second trimester abortions and is used in a minority of those cases. Current evidence supports that fetal nociception has yet to develop fully.

And, no. Fetal CNS development does not reach the point of what would be defined as consciousness by the third month of pregnancy.

Originally posted by chithappens
Sigh, we are all a "clump of cells." That argument never goes anywhere and does nothing in the end but devalue the meaning of life.


i think it devalues the meaning of life to say we are all a "clump of cells" as opposed to a newly concieved embryo which actually is NOTHING more than just that.

One of the problems with the abortion argument is that just about everyone (though to look at the abortion thread, apparently not 100% of people, which is exceptioanlly disturbing) takes issue with abortion this late.

But people find great difficulty in setting how far back it goes before it isn't wrong any more.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
For clarification purposes...

This procedure is performed predominantly for late second trimester abortions and is used in a minority of those cases. Current evidence supports that fetal nociception has yet to develop fully.

And, no. Fetal CNS development does not reach the point of what would be defined as consciousness by the third month of pregnancy.

im not saying it does, what im saying is that by that time, the BUNCH OF CELLS, have reconfigured themselves into a being which is defined by the tpe of combination and atleast a very basic COLLECTIVE CONCIOUNSNESS of the cells can exist{neither you nor i know what a conciousness completely implies/is/can be defined by, and WHEN it actually forms, or forms to a level to qualify as such. what im talkin about is the stage before which it almost definately CANT exist. also{and do correct me if im wrong, im not a doctor after all, just talkin about a phenomenon, if ive got the time frame wrong, let me know} the very basic nervous system can exist by that time, and ive read that traits like, handedness, which are major , sumwhat unique and and persisit through life have been noticed in the third month, but not before.

i think when there is brain activity, thats the line, just imo.
i just cant wrap my mind over the idea of giving a single embryonic cell, at conception, the same regard as an infant?

imho its not belief that screws up this debate till no end, but rather faith (as in believing their view to be fact and trying to admit that as evidence)

This should be connected to the abortion thread or be closed down.jm

Originally posted by Ushgarak
One of the problems with the abortion argument is that just about everyone (though to look at the abortion thread, apparently not 100% of people, which is exceptioanlly disturbing) takes issue with abortion this late.

But people find great difficulty in setting how far back it goes before it isn't wrong any more. Current evidence suggests fetal consciousness and nociception is not developed until 24-30 weeks, viability is also defined as at this borderline as well, iirc. Which are currently the limits to legal elective abortion without medical justification afaik.Originally posted by leonheartmm
im not saying it does, what im saying is that by that time, the BUNCH OF CELLS, have reconfigured themselves into a being which is defined by the tpe of combination and atleast a very basic COLLECTIVE CONCIOUNSNESS of the cells can exist{neither you nor i know what a conciousness completely implies/is/can be defined by, and WHEN it actually forms, or forms to a level to qualify as such. what im talkin about is the stage before which it almost definately CANT exist. also{and do correct me if im wrong, im not a doctor after all, just talkin about a phenomenon, if ive got the time frame wrong, let me know} the very basic nervous system can exist by that time, and ive read that traits like, handedness, which are major , sumwhat unique and and persisit through life have been noticed in the third month, but not before. During gestational week 20-23 thalamocortical afferents accumulate in the subplate zone and ingrowth of thalamocortical afferents into the cortical plate occurs in gestational week 24. Thalamocortical connectivity is generally viewed as relatively central to global neural function and what would be defined as "consciousness." There's some research on subplate connectivity and it's relevance to "consciousness," however there's definitely nothing I'm aware of to suggest the fetus has "consciousness" at week 12 or 13.Originally posted by Schecter
i think when there is brain activity, thats the line, just imo. Partially agree... "brain activity" is probably too broad a term for my liking. "Significant brain activity amounting to sentience and consciousness." perhaps.

Those photos are terrible.

Wait a second! They're not photos at all!

That's pretty stupid. If they want an abortion why wait until the baby is coming out?

I am 100% all for abortion but without it being medically necessary then this is stupid..just have the abortion sooner.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
im not saying it does, what im saying is that by that time, the BUNCH OF CELLS, have reconfigured themselves into a being which is defined by the tpe of combination and atleast a very basic COLLECTIVE CONCIOUNSNESS of the cells can exist

What you are talking about is killing a "person."

Taking life is taking life. Take the life of a being with a "a very basic COLLECTIVE CONCIOUNSNESS" is no better than taking the life of a embryo or a matured adult.

The conscience has nothing to do with the argument. It is just some bullshit thrown in to complicate matters because as said previously....

Originally posted by Ushgarak


But people find great difficulty in setting how far back it goes before it isn't wrong any more.

Conscience has nothing to do with "just taking the life" - that is the main issue. Conscience has nothing to do with that.

Oh and ...

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
For clarification purposes...

This procedure is performed predominantly for late second trimester abortions and is used in a minority of those cases. Current evidence supports that fetal nociception has yet to develop fully.

And, no. Fetal CNS development does not reach the point of what would be defined as consciousness by the third month of pregnancy.

That is what I meant to say. The process for it is also different. Thanks for clearing that up

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
This should be connected to the abortion thread or be closed down.jm
Not really... They are different things.

I am agaisnt abortion this late... It's vile.

Why is this not part of the abortion thread? It IS abortion, the same as any abortions. How far developed doest even matter, it just makes it look more gruesome to us to see a full-grown baby killed instead of a partially grown fetus sucked out and not seen at all. The difference in nonexistant.

Aboriton is abortion. Fetal conciousness makes no difference -because whether it is "concious or not" it will still forget everything of its environment instantly or within a short span. Why should size, or intelligence, of a growing baby determine its value?

Originally posted by chithappens
What you are talking about is killing a "person."

Taking life is taking life. Take the life of a being with a "a very basic COLLECTIVE CONCIOUNSNESS" is no better than taking the life of a embryo or a matured adult.

The conscience has nothing to do with the argument. It is just some bullshit thrown in to complicate matters because as said previously....



Conscience has nothing to do with "just taking the life" - that is the main issue. Conscience has nothing to do with that.

Oh and ...



That is what I meant to say. The process for it is also different. Thanks for clearing that up

id like to say that that is a very ignorant stance to take. YOU take a life all the time when u breathe in, your inhaling bacteria, thousands of em at a time and killing em. your blood,muscle,skin,hair and internal cells are constantly dying{not your nerve/brain cells though}. every time a woman has a period, her eggs are dying and every time a man has sex/masturbates, his sperm cells are dying. CELL'S life and death have nothing to do with the death of a conciousness{or a SOUL as you call it}. the CONCIOUSNESS/SELF AWARENESS is what is truly important and wrong to kill. its the killing of THAT which i see as wrong, not cells. and the conciousness arises not DUE TO THE CELLs, but due to their CONFIGURATION. that gives rise to pathways which can process and make us self aware. suppose ur speaking from a relegious point of view, which is why it makes little sense. the LIFE your talking about isnt the life of cells or potentail cells, it is the CONCIOUSNESS and thedeath of it, and that is whats really important.

Originally posted by grey fox
A clump of cells does not justify as a 'living being' thus murder doesn't apply. THAT on the other-hand IS blatant murder, why aren't any of the crazy christians arguing against this instead of pre-developed abortion ?

They are numbnuts,In Protesting abortion They are Protesting ALL of Abortion.

Originally posted by Boris


A doctor would NEVER kill a baby.

Apparently this guy will

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Martin_Haskell


There is no way to justify Partial Birth Abortion

If you support this you're not Pro-Choice, you're Pro-Abortion

Originally posted by leonheartmm
id like to say that that is a very ignorant stance to take. YOU take a life all the time when u breathe in, your inhaling bacteria, thousands of em at a time and killing em. your blood,muscle,skin,hair and internal cells are constantly dying{not your nerve/brain cells though}. every time a woman has a period, her eggs are dying and every time a man has sex/masturbates, his sperm cells are dying. CELL'S life and death have nothing to do with the death of a conciousness{or a SOUL as you call it}. the CONCIOUSNESS/SELF AWARENESS is what is truly important and wrong to kill. its the killing of THAT which i see as wrong, not cells. and the conciousness arises not DUE TO THE CELLs, but due to their CONFIGURATION. that gives rise to pathways which can process and make us self aware. suppose ur speaking from a relegious point of view, which is why it makes little sense. the LIFE your talking about isnt the life of cells or potentail cells, it is the CONCIOUSNESS and thedeath of it, and that is whats really important.

I'm not going to write a long reply to this because obviously I do not mean certain extremes. For life to exist, certain things must happen and "so on" but I am not going there.

Your argument is about killing a "person", not taking life.

Address that and I'll say more.

Originally posted by grey fox
A clump of cells does not justify as a 'living being' thus murder doesn't apply. THAT on the other-hand IS blatant murder, why aren't any of the crazy christians arguing against this instead of pre-developed abortion ?

They do argue against it.

before we get OFF TOPIC....

I know that some physicians objected to the PBA ban because there are times when it is, medically, the best procedure, if not a necessary one. I am not aware of the circumstances they presented.

I personally do not favor partial birth abortions, but I wouldn't deny someone else the right to one if they so choose.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Apparently this guy will

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Martin_Haskell


There is no way to justify Partial Birth Abortion

If you support this you're not Pro-Choice, you're Pro-Abortion Oh you're a moron

some of you wannabe mods need to shut up.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Why is this not part of the abortion thread? It IS abortion, the same as any abortions. How far developed doest even matter, it just makes it look more gruesome to us to see a full-grown baby killed instead of a partially grown fetus sucked out and not seen at all. The difference in nonexistant.

Aboriton is abortion. Fetal conciousness makes no difference -because whether it is "concious or not" it will still forget everything of its environment instantly or within a short span. Why should size, or intelligence, of a growing baby determine its value?

It doesn't even come close, normal abortions destroy something that might become a human, might do things, might be able to live on there own but is at that time fully defendant on the mother. They destroy something before it causes problems for the mother.

Killing a fetus at the end of a pregnancy however is killing that can live on his own, that is already alive and can no longer cause extra problems for the mother. Huge difference.

The only time something like this should be allowed is if the mother her life is in danger, otherwise it should never be used.

Originally posted by Fishy
It doesn't even come close, normal abortions destroy something that might become a human, might do things, might be able to live on there own but is at that time fully defendant on the mother. They destroy something before it causes problems for the mother.

Killing a fetus at the end of a pregnancy however is killing that can live on his own, that is already alive and can no longer cause extra problems for the mother. Huge difference.

The only time something like this should be allowed is if the mother her life is in danger, otherwise it should never be used.

Yes on the last part, but I cannot agree on the rest. Why should it matter if the child has the potential to live on its own or not, if its in the womb its still the mothers "property", according to pro-choice beleivers, so there are no exceptions.

The real reason you dont like these is because it looks human, whereas other stages do not as much, if you go before 6 or 5 months, but that does not mean the fetus is any more important because it can still "live" on its own. It's still a potential life, like all unborn children, as determined by the almighty god Alpha Centauri in the other thread. You must be fully one way or the other, even if you cannot see how a half-developed child is the same as nearly developed one, or even the dumb clump of cells. Either you are allowing all abortions, therefore partial birth abortions, etc...in the future leading to more severe and disgusting ideas, and the degredation of the value of life. Or there pro-life "anti-choice" whatever, which agrees with none except for maybe those rare circumstances of death, but assures that things like this will never take place. As long as you are pro-choice, there is no way to stop any single method of abortion, and in my mind pro-choice just choose not to care.

The problem with that argument iks that it is sheer idiocy.

Killing a born baby is wrong because that is the taking of a life.

There is, simply, a point where you go far back enough it is no longer a life and so morally ok to abort (though some would hold that that point is the moment of conception so there is no 'safe zone')

It is nothing to do with whose property it is, and I cannot think of any developed civilisation in the world that holds that view. Abortion laws, even the ones the majority of pro-choice advocates support, have a limit at the point that is generally thought that the fetus becomes a properly living human being, just a human being inside a womb.

To hold the idea that life begins when you pass through a vagina makes absolutely no sense at all; those who hold such a view are cretins who simply don't want to think too much about things. It's like thinking the Earth is flat.

Originally posted by chithappens
I'm not going to write a long reply to this because obviously I do not mean certain extremes. For life to exist, certain things must happen and "so on" but I am not going there.

Your argument is about killing a "person", not taking life.

Address that and I'll say more.

erm, it seems you didnt READ, my post, it was addressed specifically to that type of query.

Originally posted by grey fox
What THE F*CK justifies THAT ! severe deformation?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The problem with that argument iks that it is sheer idiocy.

Killing a born baby is wrong because that is the taking of a life.

There is, simply, a point where you go far back enough it is no longer a life and so morally ok to abort (though some would hold that that point is the moment of conception so there is no 'safe zone')

It is nothing to do with whose property it is, and I cannot think of any developed civilisation in the world that holds that view. Abortion laws, even the ones the majority of pro-choice advocates support, have a limit at the point that is generally thought that the fetus becomes a properly living human being, just a human being inside a womb.

To hold the idea that life begins when you pass through a vagina makes absolutely no sense at all; those who hold such a view are cretins who simply don't want to think too much about things. It's like thinking the Earth is flat.

Stop by the abortion thread and you will find many such cretins.

I dont think it is safe to have a limit of where a baby "becomes" a human inside the womb, unless it was from the earliest stages of pregnancy. Because when there is an iffy line like that, there are loopholes to exploit. I never said developing children are property, I said thats what many pro-choice thinkers beleive, at least many here do.

Originally posted by Ushgarak


To hold the idea that life begins when you pass through a vagina makes absolutely no sense at all; those who hold such a view are cretins who simply don't want to think too much about things. It's like thinking the Earth is flat. Very well said.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Yes on the last part, but I cannot agree on the rest. Why should it matter if the child has the potential to live on its own or not, if its in the womb its still the mothers "property", according to pro-choice beleivers, so there are no exceptions.

The real reason you dont like these is because it looks human, whereas other stages do not as much, if you go before 6 or 5 months, but that does not mean the fetus is any more important because it can still "live" on its own. It's still a potential life, like all unborn children, as determined by the almighty god Alpha Centauri in the other thread. You must be fully one way or the other, even if you cannot see how a half-developed child is the same as nearly developed one, or even the dumb clump of cells. Either you are allowing all abortions, therefore partial birth abortions, etc...in the future leading to more severe and disgusting ideas, and the degredation of the value of life. Or there pro-life "anti-choice" whatever, which agrees with none except for maybe those rare circumstances of death, but assures that things like this will never take place. As long as you are pro-choice, there is no way to stop any single method of abortion, and in my mind pro-choice just choose not to care.

The reason I don't like this is because the baby can survive on it's own and the mother has already faced all the downsides of carrying a child except for the actual delivery. In moments like that she should just shut up and have the baby. If she doesn't want the responsibility then she should put it up for adoption. That would be fine. If you are talking about a beginning fetus then however the situation is different. Because telling the woman to shut up would require her to shut up for months, to stop a great part of her life and go through great pain and emotional problems because of it. Especially if she really doesn't want the child.

If we could take the fetus out of the woman and then keep it alive in some other place then that would be okay too, that however is impossible and so you should listen to the woman, in this case taking the baby out and keeping it alive is very much possible so that should be the prefered choice.

Originally posted by Fishy
The reason I don't like this is because the baby can survive on it's own and the mother has already faced all the downsides of carrying a child except for the actual delivery. In moments like that she should just shut up and have the baby. If she doesn't want the responsibility then she should put it up for adoption. That would be fine. If you are talking about a beginning fetus then however the situation is different. Because telling the woman to shut up would require her to shut up for months, to stop a great part of her life and go through great pain and emotional problems because of it. Especially if she really doesn't want the child.

If we could take the fetus out of the woman and then keep it alive in some other place then that would be okay too, that however is impossible and so you should listen to the woman, in this case taking the baby out and keeping it alive is very much possible so that should be the prefered choice.

Late-term abortion procedures are only performed when delivering the child will result in the death of the mother, the child, or both.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Late-term abortion procedures are only performed when delivering the child will result in the death of the mother, the child, or both.

I doubt they would preform an abortion because there is a chance the child will die during birth... The other two reasons however are perfectly good reasons to do this.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
still a potential life, like all unborn children, as determined by the almighty god Alpha Centauri in the other thread.

Everyone keeps calling me that, I'm flattered, really.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
You must be fully one way or the other, even if you cannot see how a half-developed child is the same as nearly developed one, or even the dumb clump of cells. Either you are allowing all abortions, therefore partial birth abortions, etc...in the future leading to more severe and disgusting ideas, and the degredation of the value of life. Or there pro-life "anti-choice" whatever, which agrees with none except for maybe those rare circumstances of death, but assures that things like this will never take place. As long as you are pro-choice, there is no way to stop any single method of abortion, and in my mind pro-choice just choose not to care.

I'm for the woman's right to an abortion all the way.

Maybe next time stop producing my argument as something that it's not, or I might have to bring up your base argument; abortion will create a dystopian future where anarchy reigns supreme and the world is killing itself.

We'll see which argument contains bigger idiocy.

I never once said "life" begins when you pass through a vagina, I dare you to quote me.

There's "life" on Mars, just as there's "life" at conception. I, however, differentiate between having A LIFE and being alive. Cells are alive, we have lives, there is a difference, and to use Ush's point, those who deny a difference are cretins and don't wish to think of such things.

-AC

i am pro choice and i believe that a bunch of cells is not life however this is murder its crazy like killing a new born

Is it legal or illegal? If it's legal, it's not murder.

That's how you figure that endlessly perplexing dilemma out.

-AC

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Abortion laws, even the ones the majority of pro-choice advocates support, have a limit at the point that is generally thought that the fetus becomes a properly living human being, just a human being inside a womb.

British law doesn't agree with your definition of where the limit is, as I've been reliably informed by someone in-the-know of law.

I'm not sure if that changes anything or everything you've said.

-AC

NB the procedure is most commonly performed in the late second trimester iirc, and this stage of pregnancy is pre-viability ex utero.

Originally posted by Jaeh_JediPirate
^

this is just wrong. - referring to Partial-birth abortion

Abortion in itself is murder IMHO, and this one is worse. Oh wow, you are lucky you said that, cause I can tell you that it is not murder. Would have been horrible of you running around with a wrong opinion, right?

Originally posted by Ushgarak

To hold the idea that life begins when you pass through a vagina makes absolutely no sense at all; those who hold such a view are cretins who simply don't want to think too much about things. It's like thinking the Earth is flat.

I know, almost as ridiculous as those that believe it begins at conception. Haha.

On a different note, anyone thought about the possibility that it is even after birth? I mean the time that it becomes a person, since that is what we really talk about.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Everyone keeps calling me that, I'm flattered, really. All hail!




Dont remember hearing your argument at all, so for the moment I am in the lead.

I never said abortion was the sole player in the problem, because it isnt, its a factor. And government never had anything to do with it, it had to do with social tendency to progressive thinking through ideas that would have otherwise been considered immoral beforehand.




Alright, you win. "HUMAN being " is now substituted for 'life' in that statement. It is still has the same effect in context, and that I can quote if you rreally want.



Proving my point, yes. You beleive a baby is not a human being until in plops right out. And in what I was saying, I said that if you are pro-choice you must be willing to support exactly what you do, ALL abortion, no pick and choose.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Dont remember hearing your argument at all, so for the moment I am in the lead.

What do you mean you don't remember hearing my argument? I am one of the biggest contributors to the abortion thread, unless you mean this thread, in which case my opinion is the same, so I see no need.

Either way, don't post my argument again if you don't know what it is.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
I never said abortion was the sole player in the problem, because it isnt, its a factor. And government never had anything to do with it, it had to do with social tendency to progressive thinking through ideas that would have otherwise been considered immoral beforehand.

A world plunged into theoretical chaos because of the theoretical downfall of all morals due to the theoretical escalation of abortion to theoretically, seemingly generation-threatening levels. All of which have zero realistic basis and deserve no more time than a "Ha ha.". Considering I gave your argument more time than deserve, I'd be thankful.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Alright, you win. "HUMAN being " is now substituted for 'life' in that statement. It is still has the same effect in context, and that I can quote if you rreally want.

It's being substituted cos the two things are different. A human foetus is not a human being. Whether the human foetus has human traits worth defending to you is another matter.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Proving my point, yes. You beleive a baby is not a human being until in plops right out. And in what I was saying, I said that if you are pro-choice you must be willing to support exactly what you do, ALL abortion, no pick and choose.

Which is what I did say.

Let me guess; "You're a monster!" etc etc. Heard it before, don't care what you think. Your morals are your own, mine are mine. A woman can do as she wishes.

Quite simply because A) It's none of my business and B) It has no effect on me. Additionally C) There are greater priorities in my life than what a random woman does with her foetus. You can try to make me look evil for not forcing a woman to adhere to your morals, but that's not how I do things.

Regardless of how matter of factly you or Ushgarak present your opinions on what is and isn't idiotic, they are still just that. British murder laws do not define a foetus as human being until it exists the womb, I'm going to assume these people have done enough research to come to why that conclusion would be sensible.

-AC

Originally posted by Strangelove
And this monopoly on language is abominable. The proper terminology is "late term abortion". Partial-birth causes the exact knee-jerk reaction that the anti-choice crowd wants.
"Late term abortion" just glosses over the truth that the anti-life crowd want to suppress.

Anti-life? Suppress?

There are people here who said they'd commit murder on a grown human to protect nothing more than potential and you've said that's justifiable because you BELIEVE it's "a life". You have no place calling anybody anti-life.

Throw at me all the over-gorified info you want, I still don't give a shit, I'm not shying away from, nor suppressing, anything.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Anti-life? Suppress?
You completely missed the point of my post.

Erm. No, I didn't. That is, in fact, a blatant lie.

I believe Ashtar asked you if you believe taking a life is necessary to save one? Presumably being aware of his WELL documented stance, you said "Yes, I do.".

-AC

Originally posted by FeceMan
"Late term abortion" just glosses over the truth that the anti-life crowd want to suppress. And how is "partial birth" the truth?

Before all you pre-hormonal teenagers spiral wildly out of control and spiral wildly out of control with stupid an ill-formed opinoins, IDX (as this medical procedure is actuall called; PBA was a term made up by anti-abortion groups to make people think this fetus was actually being born) was a very rare procedure and is still legal in the US given that the mothers LIFE (different from HEALTH) is at risk.

So yes, I would be infavor of IDX provided that the mother's life or the fetus' life was at risk.

Originally posted by Alliance
Before all you pre-hormonal teenagers spiral wildly out of control and spiral wildly out of control with stupid an ill-formed opinoins,Relatively pretentious... (and somewhat redundantly repetitious).

Its early and hot...and I never claimed to be eloquent.

Stuff I read in here jsut makes me want to puke. This is a medical procedure, not a personal taste contest.

People will have opinions on science, medicine, and their respective ethics regardless of layperson's status with regard to science, medicine and/or their respective ethics. It's just a way of the world.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
People will have opinions on science, medicine, and their respective ethics regardless of layperson's status with regard to science, medicine and/or their respective ethics. It's just a way of the world.

No, its not really. Unless you are endorsing uninformed opinons...

Ethics can be realtive...knowledge cannot be so.

Originally posted by Alliance
No, its not really. Unless you are endorsing uninformed opinons... I'm not endorsing uninformed opinions, however I generally see no need to react abrasively to them when correcting them. It is a public forum, not an academic one.

Thats right...people can be idiots as long as they are expressiong their opinons publically.

Of course they should be corrected, just don't be so venomous when doing so, that's all x is saying srug

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I believe Ashtar asked you if you believe taking a life is necessary to save one? Presumably being aware of his WELL documented stance, you said "Yes, I do.".

-AC
I believe that I have not once responded to anything Ashtar has written, save for maybe in the Religion forum. In any case, I am not for murder in any case.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Of course they should be corrected, just don't be so venomous when doing so, that's all x is saying srug
Fine then. But, the first time I posted in here and pointed something out nicely, it deterred nothing. In fact, no one even responded to the post.

Sometimes a gentle poking doesn't wake someone up.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I believe that I have not once responded to anything Ashtar has written, save for maybe in the Religion forum. In any case, I am not for murder in any case.

That is a blatant lie, but since I can't be bothered to go through the abortion pages, i'll leave it.

-AC

Alliance, many people here could pick apart at your posts, and correct all your grammar mistakes. Plus, you're like what 21? Get a grip mate, you're not exactly a wizened, old academic.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Alliance, many people here could pick apart at your posts, and correct all your grammar mistakes. Plus, you're like what 21? Get a grip mate, you're not exactly a wizened, old academic.
Nice of you to save me the time of typing that up.

Would have added a few "you pretentious cocky *******" and "****ing arrogant yahoo"'s though.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Alliance, many people here could pick apart at your posts, and correct all your grammar mistakes. Plus, you're like what 21? Get a grip mate, you're not exactly a wizened, old academic.

I didn't pick apart anyone's posts and a rarely call people on spelling or grammar. I did neither in this case. And you're like what, 18? Get a grip, I brought up an entirely relevant dimension to this problem that no one else is addressing between their screams of horror. I asked for a little bit of damn sensibility when addessing this issue. This is not a question of whether or not you like hacking up fetuses, its a question of medical procedure. Examine it as such.

...And if age is what matters to you, then I'm older and wizeneder.

first of all, "partial birth abortion" doesn't exist. It's a term made up by right wing morons that americans are dumb enough to think are intellectual titans. The procedure is called dilation and extraction and is done almost exclusively in cases where the child has an approximatley zero chance of survival beyond the first 2 years and especially in those cases where the delivery of said child will seriously endanger the mother due to birth defects.

Call it what you will, it doesn't change what it is... is this procedure legal and available for any reason as a 'normal' abortion?

Originally posted by Alliance
Fine then. But, the first time I posted in here and pointed something out nicely, it deterred nothing. In fact, no one even responded to the post.

Sometimes a gentle poking doesn't wake someone up. true

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That is a blatant lie, but since I can't be bothered to go through the abortion pages, i'll leave it.

-AC
Translation: "I have no proof for my statements, but I'll dodge the point and say that you condoned murder."

http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar36060_3.gifhttp://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar36060_3.gifhttp://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar36060_3.gifhttp://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar36060_3.gifhttp://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar36060_3.gifhttp://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar36060_3.gifhttp://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar36060_3.gifhttp://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar36060_3.gif

I'd be scared if that many infernals were charging at me.

they cant catch that weasel though

http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar106604_7.gif
http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar106604_7.gif
http://images.killermovies.com/forums/custom_avatars/avatar106604_7.gif

http://images.killermovies.com/forums/user_sigs/0/4/customsig_106604_TV.gif

Originally posted by Alliance
I didn't pick apart anyone's posts and a rarely call people on spelling or grammar. I did neither in this case. And you're like what, 18? Get a grip, I brought up an entirely relevant dimension to this problem that no one else is addressing between their screams of horror. I asked for a little bit of damn sensibility when addessing this issue. This is not a question of whether or not you like hacking up fetuses, its a question of medical procedure. Examine it as such.

...And if age is what matters to you, then I'm older and wizeneder.

I'm not the one calling people pre pubescent teenagers am I? So it's completely irrelevant how old I am.

It wasn't about how relevant your point is, you deliberately tried to offend people for being apparently less educated than you. You can ask for all the damn sensibility you want, whether people give it to you is up to them.

Age doesn't matter to me, I wasn't the one who called people pre pubescent teenagers. As you well know.

now now, he's 3 years older than you and has a higher post count, so he wins.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I believe that I have not once responded to anything Ashtar has written, save for maybe in the Religion forum. In any case, I am not for murder in any case.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Here's the thing, can one take a life to protect another life? ...Yes.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=9020143#post9020143

Here's proof for ya.

Fece?

-AC

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/3594/wombnw6.gif

Originally posted by Schecter
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/3594/wombnw6.gif

ZOMG

Not me.

If youre gonna kill a fetus, then do it when still looks like a salamander, not an actual baby.

The mother of the baby does not have to be in danger of death for her to be eligible for partial birth abortion. There are a few cases where, after being pregnant five or six months, the mother realizes he doesn't want it and has its brains scrambled.

Originally posted by long pig
The mother of the baby does not have to be in danger of death for her to be eligible for partial birth abortion. There are a few cases where, after being pregnant five or six months, the mother realizes he doesn't want it and has its brains scrambled.

Shaken, not stirred.

Plus, if I were to punch a lady (which she made me do)and kill her baby, I'd go to jail for murder. Why is it murder then but not when a Doctor does it? Is it only murder when you don't choose for your kid's brains to be sucked through a hose?

Originally posted by long pig
Plus, if I were to punch a lady (which she made me do)and kill her baby, I'd go to jail for murder. Why is it murder then but not when a Doctor does it? Is it only murder when you don't choose for your kid's brains to be sucked through a hose?

Because in that situation there is a large chance that she wanted to keep the baby. Actually this is a tricky situation. I don't know if it really is murder, I do think it should be trailed as such though, just because somebody attacking a pregnant lady is an ass.

Observation:

If killing a fetui is not murder when an abortion doctor does it, then it is never murder. The only ass I see are the prochoice.

Statement:

A person who assaults a pregnant woman should be charged with assault and battery, and the result of a miscarraige. Which does not imply the tag "murderer", if we are to be a liberal society.

Second Statement:

However, if we are not a liberal society. Then by all means, an assaulter on a pregnant woman should be constituted as a murderer.



Conclusion:

America needs to stop being a half-ass Batman villain Two-Face and decide if it wants to be a Lennin-Socialist country or respect the constitution.

Originally posted by HK47
Observation:

If killing a fetui is not murder when an abortion doctor does it, then it is never murder. The only ass I see are the prochoice.

Statement:

A person who assaults a pregnant woman should be charged with assault and battery, and the result of a miscarraige. Which does not imply the tag "murderer", if we are to be a liberal society.

Second Statement:

However, if we are not a liberal society. Then by all means, an assaulter on a pregnant woman should be constituted as a murderer.



Conclusion:

America needs to stop being a half-ass Batman villain Two-Face and decide if it wants to be a Lennin-Socialist country or respect the constitution.

You really need to re-work your definition of socialist nations, read the constitution and think about what Liberal actually means.

Where in your constitution does it say that life should be protected above all else and that things like abortions should be illegal? Where does it say that the government should be allowed to have a say in such intimate details in a person her life.

^^^ Thank you.

He has a point though

Originally posted by Boris
Looking at that diagram it seems the baby would be near enough to being fully out...

Muriding the baby at that stage wouldn't help the mother in any way.

Why not just take the baby out and you know.. let it live?

A doctor would NEVER kill a baby.

Clearly, you've never heard of George Tiller.

And that gif on the preceding page was in poor taste I think.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
He has a point though

Yes I do, but I think that's already been said

Originally posted by long pig
Plus, if I were to punch a lady (which she made me do)and kill her baby, I'd go to jail for murder. Why is it murder then but not when a Doctor does it? Is it only murder when you don't choose for your kid's brains to be sucked through a hose?

Not in the UK.

Originally posted by ~JP~
And that gif on the preceding page was in poor taste I think.

what, this one?

Originally posted by Schecter
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/3594/wombnw6.gif

i find it tasteful as well as tasty

Originally posted by long pig
Plus, if I were to punch a lady (which she made me do)and kill her baby, I'd go to jail for murder. Why is it murder then but not when a Doctor does it? Is it only murder when you don't choose for your kid's brains to be sucked through a hose? That the Unborn Victims of Violence Act contains a specific exemption for legal forms of abortion suffices. "Murder" is a legal term, with legal criteria for application.

I thnk partial birth abortions are yucky poo

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
That the Unborn Victims of Violence Act contains a specific exemption for legal forms of abortion suffices. "Murder" is a legal term, with legal criteria for application.

Little odd though, no? A woman can abort her 12 week fetus and it's not a crime; if a drunk driver were to hit her and kill that same fetus say while she was on her way to the abortion clinic, 'he' could be charged with manslaughter, besides wreckless endangerment, DUI, etc. That sound right to you?

Its about choice. If a woman chooses to carry her child to term, then it should be protected. If she chooses not to, then it is not protected.

Originally posted by Alliance
Its about choice. If a woman chooses to carry her child to term, then it should be protected. If she chooses not to, then it is not protected.

You don't find that a bit odd though? She kills it, it's not murder/manslaughter or any form of crime, someone else kills it, it then is, and not just any crime, one of the most severe crimes.

Partial Birth Abortion is killing a life form which can feel its death. Its brains are sucked out, then its skull collapsed. Its organs are destroyed as well.

I know you my fellow Liberals like to argue that a feotus isn't a human life yet" or "isn't a person yet", because people like Alliance have the right to determine who is human and who is not....

However...

It still feels it death, and feels it pain. Why subject any life form to such an event, simply because you couldn't make up your mind earlier ?


**** that....if you are going to have an Abortion, do it early..do it with full intention, do it with full conciousness....do it when the life isn't even concious yet.

But do not kill a nearly fully developed human life, and then say "its okay"

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Partial Birth Abortion is killing a life form which can feel its death. Its brains are sucked out, then its skull collapsed. Its organs are destroyed as well.

I know you my fellow Liberals like to argue that a feotus isn't a human life yet" or "isn't a person yet", because people like Alliance have the right to determine who is human and who is not....

However...

It still feels it death, and feels it pain. Why subject any life form to such an event, simply because you couldn't make up your mind earlier ?


**** that....if you are going to have an Abortion, do it early..do it with full intention, do it with full conciousness....do it when the life isn't even concious yet.

But do not kill a nearly fully developed human life, and then say "its okay"

Nobody said this was okay... At least I hope not. Unless of course for medical reasons

Originally posted by Fishy
Nobody said this was okay... At least I hope not. Unless of course for medical reasons


Yes, a few people are arguing that it is, in fact, okay.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Partial Birth Abortion is killing a life form which can feel its death. Its brains are sucked out, then its skull collapsed. Its organs are destroyed as well.

I know you my fellow Liberals like to argue that a feotus isn't a human life yet" or "isn't a person yet", because people like Alliance have the right to determine who is human and who is not....

However...

It still feels it death, and feels it pain. Why subject any life form to such an event, simply because you couldn't make up your mind earlier ?


**** that....if you are going to have an Abortion, do it early..do it with full intention, do it with full conciousness....do it when the life isn't even concious yet.

But do not kill a nearly fully developed human life, and then say "its okay"

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Current evidence suggests fetal consciousness and nociception is not developed until 24-30 weeks, viability is also defined as at this borderline as well, iirc. Which are currently the limits to legal elective abortion without medical justification afaik.

Adam Poe, in some states Partial Birth Abortion is allowable up to the 9th month.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Adam Poe, in some states Partial Birth Abortion is allowable up to the 9th month.

True, but it isn't allowed for any reason as a "regular" abortion is, it's done out of medical necessity. Could it be abused and misused? Sure, that is a possibility, but I doubt it's rampant.

Originally posted by Schecter
what, this one?



i find it tasteful as well as tasty

And that explains many things.

oh does it? is that what you think? pretty interesting.

Originally posted by Robtard
Little odd though, no? A woman can abort her 12 week fetus and it's not a crime; if a drunk driver were to hit her and kill that same fetus say while she was on her way to the abortion clinic, 'he' could be charged with manslaughter, besides wreckless endangerment, DUI, etc. That sound right to you? I didn't say I agreed with the legislation, just that it's a legal concept.

On an additional note the brain itself doesn't "feel pain," and in fact doesn't feel anything ever, since it lacks sensory ability in and of itself.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I didn't say I agreed with the legislation, just that it's a legal concept.

On an additional note the brain itself doesn't "feel pain," and in fact doesn't feel anything ever, since it lacks sensory ability in and of itself.

Wasn't stating my view of your opinion, I was asking for your opinion on the matter.

Well, someone shoving a metal skewer through your skull probably wouldn't be pleasant, lack of pain sensors in hemispheres aside.

So, if I want to kill my gf, the Gov should have no say in my right to do so because it's my personal business?

Also, when did it turn ok to kill a kid because it's retarded or from rape? It's not its fault its mom or dad has 'tard genes or its mom got raped because she wore slutty clothes and had it coming.

And, having a baby has always had risks. The biggest one is the mother dying, so you should have thought about that before getting knocked up..because now you should die.

Also, how come the father has no say in the matter? It's his kid, too. Just because it's attached to her body doesn't mean she can do with it as she pleases. I mean, is it ok for a Siamese twin to kill its sibling and when charged for murder say "Well, he's attached to me, so it's my body." Plus, when the hell has the government ever left someone alone to do what they will with their own body? It's illegal to commit suicide and smoke crack, right?

Basically, the whole issue is bullshit and should have never been legalized.

Originally posted by Robtard
Wasn't stating my view of your opinion, I was asking for your opinion on the matter.I think the legislation is somewhat flawed, but prominent U.S. legal scholars find no undermining of Roe v. Wade due to the specific exemption for abortion.

My views on abortion and its legality are already known.

Originally posted by long pig
So, if I want to kill my gf, the Gov should have no say in my right to do so because it's my personal business?

Your gf is a living human being who can take care of herself, so no it shouldn't be your right. She doesn't need your body to survive, unlike the fetus in her which needs her to survive.



This is without a doubt the most insane statement I have read in a while, she had it coming? Seems you had a bit to much of the "tard" gene yourself...

And why is it okay? Because the mother has to spend nine months carrying the child and having all the side effects that come along with it. The sickness the physiological and social issues, problems with her job direct environment and/or school.

Not to mention if the person having the baby can't guarantee a reasonable standard of life for the child then sometimes it's best to not have it, before it gets on this big pile of shit and makes it even worse.



How is this the case with rape? Not to mention that there are people out there that used protection and it didn't work. Accidents happen. Now imagine you are poor, you have little money and are going to school along with working a dead end job in order to pay for your education just so you can get out of that shit hole you call your home. You use protection but find yourself pregnant anyway, keeping the child will destroy your life, will destroy the child's life and god knows what else. It's idiotic to keep it.



The father has no say in the matter because the father doesn't need to sit around 9 months. The father doesn't face all the problems she faces, and in the end if the father doesn't want the child he is a hell of a lot more likely to get little responsibility from the courts then the mother is. Who will likely have to take care of the child no mater what.



Basically, your an extremist who can't think logically on this issue and thinks that the possibility of life, should be far more important then the already living people.


btw: Why is this in this thread? There already is an abortion thread.

Originally posted by long pig
Normal abortions don't bother me, but this shit is crazy. They kill the baby when the baby is fully develped. It could survive on its own out of the womb.

They basically wait until the woman goes into labor, pull the fully grown baby out feet first until it's totally out except its head. They then jab a metal rod through its spine and into its brain, killing it.

I mean, this is a fully mature baby FFS. How is that NOT murder?

http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/partbrt1.gif
http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/partbrt2.gif http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/partbrt3.gif http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/partbrt4.gif http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/partbrt5.gif

It is an awful thing, but it is worst when they do it, and the baby is not nine months yet.Either way it is bad and should be outlawed.I am not sure why you think abortion is ok but not this.jm

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
It is an awful thing, but it is worst when they do it, and the baby is not nine months yet.Either way it is bad and should be outlawed.I am not sure why you think abortion is ok but not this.jm

Why is it worse when they do it to an 8 month old baby then to a 9 month old baby?

I'm full in favor of regular abortion but not this......this actually is murder

Originally posted by TRH
I'm full in favor of regular abortion but not this......this actually is murder

no, this in fact is not murder

By law no... funny though, if the baby is pulled out another 5 inches or so (the length of it's head), then it would be murder.

i agree its a wrongful killing, which is my opinion.
however i see the word "murder" whored too frequently in reference to any abortions.

its an attempt to present opinion as fact

Originally posted by Robtard
By law no... funny though, if the baby is pulled out another 5 inches or so (the length of it's head), then it would be murder.

By law and reality.

Originally posted by Bardock42
By law and reality.

Huh?

Originally posted by Robtard
Huh?

It is just not murder. The qualifying phrase "by law" is of no matter.

Originally posted by long pig
Just because it's attached to her body doesn't mean she can do with it as she pleases.

That is exactly what it means.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It is just not murder. The qualifying phrase "by law" is of no matter.

What makes a "murder" a murder, but not the law? So, the qualifier is all important, because if the law changed, and a fetus is now a person when any section of it's body has passed through the vagina; not just when the whole body passes, "partial birth abortions" would then become "murder", by law.

It's the reason why I said the only thing that separates it from a "medical procedure" and not a crime is a mere 5 or so inches.

Originally posted by Robtard
What makes a "murder" a murder, but not the law? So, the qualifier is all important, because if the law changed, and a fetus is now a person when any section of it's body has passed through the vagina; not just when the whole body passes, "partial birth abortions" would then become "murder", by law.

It's the reason why I said the only thing that separates it from a "medical procedure" and not a crime is a mere 5 or so inches.

I doubt that, if 5 inches would give this baby a chance and the five inches could be pulled without huge risk for the mother then that would be done instead of the abortion. I find it highly unlikely that any doctor (with the exception of a few nutjobs here and there) would kill a baby just to save themselves from the problem of having to pull five more inches, if they could do so at that time without killing the mother.

They aren't idiots, there has to be a reason for doing something like this.

Originally posted by TRH
I'm full in favor of regular abortion but not this......this actually is murder

What is the difference?There is none. Either way you are still killilng or like you are saying murdering a human being.jm

Originally posted by Fishy
I doubt that, if 5 inches would give this baby a chance and the five inches could be pulled without huge risk for the mother then that would be done instead of the abortion. I find it highly unlikely that any doctor (with the exception of a few nutjobs here and there) would kill a baby just to save themselves from the problem of having to pull five more inches, if they could do so at that time without killing the mother.

They aren't idiots, there has to be a reason for doing something like this.

I'm not implying that this procedure is used like a a "regular" abortion and for any reason... just pointing out that if it had fully passed through the birth canal, it would then be murder, regardless of viability.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
What is the difference?There is none. Either way you are still killilng or like you are saying murdering a human being.jm
What's the difference? Well, the unborn child can live outside of the womb at this point.

*in some cases.

Originally posted by Alliance
*in some cases.

Have "P.B.A.'s" ever been done on a healthy viable child-fetus?

Originally posted by long pig
So, if I want to kill my gf, the Gov should have no say in my right to do so because it's my personal business?

Also, when did it turn ok to kill a kid because it's retarded or from rape? It's not its fault its mom or dad has 'tard genes or its mom got raped because she wore slutty clothes and had it coming.

And, having a baby has always had risks. The biggest one is the mother dying, so you should have thought about that before getting knocked up..because now you should die.

Also, how come the father has no say in the matter? It's his kid, too. Just because it's attached to her body doesn't mean she can do with it as she pleases. I mean, is it ok for a Siamese twin to kill its sibling and when charged for murder say "Well, he's attached to me, so it's my body." Plus, when the hell has the government ever left someone alone to do what they will with their own body? It's illegal to commit suicide and smoke crack, right?


Right on!jm
Basically, the whole issue is bullshit and should have never been legalized.

Originally posted by Robtard
Have "P.B.A.'s" ever been done on a healthy viable child-fetus?

IDX has been done on viable fetuses. It has also been done on unviable ones. It depends on the age of the fetus when the proedure is preformed.

The viability of the fetus is not the issue, it is the life of the mother that is the issue.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Late-term abortion procedures are only performed when delivering the child will result in the death of the mother, the child, or both.


Someone finally says it like it is.

If people would only do some research, they would discover that the type of abortion discussed here-partial birth abortion-is performed in less than one percent of all pregnancy terminations. Like Adam says, they are only performed when the resulting birth of said child would result in his/her death, or the death of the mother, or both.

Partial birth abortions can also be performed for medical deformities not picked up earlier in the pregnancy.

I wish people (no offence to pro lifers out there) would stop thinking/believing/assuming that late term abortions, or partial birth abortions are performed as routinely as having your teeth pulled.

A woman cannot walk into an abortion clinic, 8 months pregnant, and demand an abortion for no reason. It has never happened like that, and never will.

The decision to perform a partial birth, or late term abortion, is not taken lightly, eithor. Please don't think it is.


Originally posted by Goddess Kali
It still feels it death, and feels it pain.


Given your intelligent statement here, I assume you were aborted, yet lived to tell the tale?

Silence, whirly.

No, you're not whirly...or whob. Who are you?

Originally posted by Fishy]Your gf is a living human being who can take care of herself, so no it shouldn't be your right. She doesn't need your body to survive, unlike the fetus in her which needs her to survive.
You just basically painted yourself into a corner here by saying a human has no rights if it can't take care of itself. Basically saying I indeed could kill my gf, if she was...say, mentally retarded, because she can't take care of herself and doesn't need my body to survive.

You completely lost the argument right there.


Originally posted by FishyAnd why is it okay? Because the mother has to spend nine months carrying the child and having all the side effects that come along with it. The sickness the physiological and social issues, problems with her job direct environment and/or school.
Again the same faulty logic of yours, and it is indeed faulty, applies to a mentally handicapped person. "Well, she can kill her 9 year old mentally retarded child because the child bugs her." If you hadn't already lost the debate, you'd have lost it here.

Originally posted by FishyHow is this the case with rape? Not to mention that there are people out there that used protection and it didn't work. Accidents happen. Now imagine you are poor, you have little money and are going to school along with working a dead end job in order to pay for your education just so you can get out of that shit hole you call your home. You use protection but find yourself pregnant anyway, keeping the child will destroy your life, will destroy the child's life and god knows what else. It's idiotic to keep it.
1. The kid didn't make the condoms or his parents impulsive assholes who can't keep their dicks in their pants or their legs together. If anything, have the baby and kill the parents.

Originally posted by FishyThe father has no say in the matter because the father doesn't need to sit around 9 months. The father doesn't face all the problems she faces, and in the end if the father doesn't want the child he is a hell of a lot more likely to get little responsibility from the courts then the mother is. Who will likely have to take care of the child no mater what.
Let's just say neither want it, so it's better to kill it than it is to just give it away? That's the most ignorant excuse for murder I've ever seen...."I killed my retarded 2 year old child because I have to carry her when we go out someplace."

Originally posted by FishyBasically, your an extremist who can't think logically on this issue and thinks that the possibility of life, should be far more important then the already living people.
I'm not an extremist, you fool. I already said I don't give two shits about regular abortion. You, with your damn near psychopathic excuses for murder, are the extremist. Probably a woman. Probably white. Probably under 30. Probably unmarried. Probably brainwashed by a quasi-fascist liberal community where only one set of beliefs are allowed to be spoken.

But yeah. Let's go kill some babies before they start getting on our nerves.

Originally posted by Robtard
Have "P.B.A.'s" ever been done on a healthy viable child-fetus?
Yes.

Anyone who says otherwise is a liar. It was done recently because the mother got addicted to crack, became a prostitute and no longer wanted to see the pregnancy though because her pimp made her due to the fact preggo hookers aren't big money makers.

Guns have been used to commit crimes too...should they be banned?

Originally posted by Alliance
Guns have been used to commit crimes too...should they be banned?

Hell yes.



There are other people that can take care of her. You don't get sick because she's mentally retarded. You don't have to stay at home because she's mentally retarded, you don't have huge risks to your health because she's mentally retarded. Big difference.



Telling me I have lost the debate doesn't mean I lost it. Obviously you aren't very smart because then you would see the difference between a mentally retarded person outside of the womb that can be taken care of by many people and will create no real problems for the mother if she doesn't want it compared to the fetus that will create huge problems for the mother if she decides to keep it.



So it's wrong to kill a fetus but okay to kill the parents? Now answer my question, should she keep the child just so it can have a misserable life, probably go into a crime and have no real hope of a good future? Because that is basically what she will be doing if she keeps the child. Not to mention she will also ruin her own life. Should she do that?



Again huge difference between a retarded human being alive and outside of the womb and a fetus not alive, without brain capicity or feelings inside of the womb.



If that's the case then your just an idiot. Your arguments are the same as the anti-choice crowd uses. Your arguments also assume that for some reason this is only ever done by people who don't want a child when in the incredibly huge majority of the cases it's done for medical reasons as has been said half a dozen times in this thread already. Sure sometimes people use it for the wrong reasons, but that is incredibly rare. If your entire argument is that it should be banned because sometimes it's used for crimes, then I would suggest you start working to get knifes, guns, cars, appliances that run on gas, lighters and god knows what else banned.

You know, just to be on the safe side.

Originally posted by The Howling
Someone finally says it like it is.

If people would only do some research, they would discover that the type of abortion discussed here-partial birth abortion-is performed in less than one percent of all pregnancy terminations. Like Adam says, they are only performed when the resulting birth of said child would result in his/her death, or the death of the mother, or both.

Partial birth abortions can also be performed for medical deformities not picked up earlier in the pregnancy.

I wish people (no offence to pro lifers out there) would stop thinking/believing/assuming that late term abortions, or partial birth abortions are performed as routinely as having your teeth pulled.

A woman cannot walk into an abortion clinic, 8 months pregnant, and demand an abortion for no reason. It has never happened like that, and never will.

The decision to perform a partial birth, or late term abortion, is not taken lightly, eithor. Please don't think it is.





Given your intelligent statement here, I assume you were aborted, yet lived to tell the tale?

If only babies could tell us. Then people would know that any kind of abortion is murder.JM