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 RobtardI 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.
Wasn't stating my view of your opinion, I was asking for your opinion on the matter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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, the whole issue is bullshit and should have never been legalized.
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.
Re: Is ANYONE in favor of Partial Birth Abortions?
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?
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 😕
Re: Re: Is ANYONE in favor of Partial Birth Abortions?
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?
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 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.