Is ANYONE in favor of Partial Birth Abortions?

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 !

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.

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.

[QUOTE=]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. [/QUOTE]

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.

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

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.

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

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.