Abortion

Originally posted by PVS
WRONG. granted, a newborn needs to be constantly tended to, but the mother is not vital to its survival. it is a self contained being with no biological dependance on the mother.

LOL... Besides being able to breath for itself, it is completely dependant on it's mother (or another suitable replacement) for it's life. Food and shelter are absolutely crucial to its survival, without those things, it would die and it is utterly unable to provide said necessities for itself.

Originally posted by Robtard
LOL...

LOLOLOLZZZZ!!11

only thing is....

Originally posted by Robtard
(or another suitable replacement)

you just agreed with exactly what i said. and thus your statement was false. loading the statement to make it correct...(and in turn irrelevant to the abortion issue, considering there is no biological dependancy on the mother)...does not validate your first statement.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why does that even matter? You can't realistically go around claiming things you don't like, as murder. If someone killed your father by accident during a fight, no matter how much you could rant and rave about it being murder, it would never get seen as murder, because of the circumstance, the mindset and other factors.

The same as abortion. It's just not murder. Murder is a legal concept created to help define a single type of killing, this doesn't include abortion.

You LITERALLY do have the freedom to say "It's murder!", but it's a ridiculous claim.

I honestly don't care what any woman does with her foetus, it's nothing to do with me. I don't have any right to be telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her foetus/baby/child.

Suck it out and use it as a football, see if I care. I don't have to approve, but I don't have to care.

Unlawful killing of a person.

Abortion isn't unlawful, nor is it killing a "person". The courts would not see some newborn foetus as a person.

Contrary to semantics, a newborn baby, left unattended for a long time, will die. It cannot survive on its own. It can exist on its own.

-AC

Alright big guy. If you don't care and strictly want to follow that law, then follow the law. Depending on where you live, abortion is either illegal or it is only allowed up to a certain time when it crosses over from being a legal abortion to being an abortion/murder.

A "newborn" is a person, not a fetus at the point of birth. So the courts would see the killing of a newborn baby as murder.

You want to throw the semantics card at me? Existing and survival are basically the same, if one is unable to survive on their own, they cannot exist, at least exist in a living state.

Originally posted by PVS
LOLOLOLZZZZ!!11

only thing is....

you just agreed with exactly what i said. and thus your statement was false. loading the statement to make it correct...(and in turn irrelevant to the abortion issue, considering there is no biological dependancy on the mother)...does not validate your first statement.

If you say so... A baby is dependant on its mother (or others) for it's life in basically then same way a fetus is dependant on it's mother for life. With the exception of breathing on it's own, a baby needs everything a fetus needs for continued life. What is the issue here?

Originally posted by Robtard
If you say so... A baby is dependant on its mother (or others) for it's life in basically then same way a fetus is dependant on it's mother for life. With the exception of breathing on it's own, a baby needs everything a fetus needs for continued life. What is the issue here?

no no no. a baby needs other people (person) to help maintain and sustain its biological function, but nobody is part of their biological function.
and as such, they are treated by law as a seperate and sentient being, and rightfully so. a fetus is biologically dependant on the mother. disconnected from the mother, it instantly dies. it is essentially part of the mother.
not so with a baby.

thats the issue. i was just pointing out that your conclusion was wrong. shall we just accept it and move on?

Originally posted by Robtard
Alright big guy. If you don't care and strictly want to follow that law, then follow the law. Depending on where you live, abortion is either illegal or it is only allowed up to a certain time when it crosses over from being a legal abortion to being an abortion/murder.

Funny that, because:

"Abortion is legal in the UK up to the 24th week of pregnancy. However, if there is a substantial risk to the woman's life or if there are foetal abnormalities there is no time limit.

To comply with the 1967 Abortion Act, two doctors must give their consent, stating that to continue with the pregnancy would present a risk to the physical or mental health of the woman or her existing children.".

So that's the 5th month, unless the woman is going to suffer from A) Physical problems or B) Mental problems/strain that will reflect on her family or offspring.

Considering that this can happen remarkably often, and there's no real way to prove that it WON'T effect a woman mentally, it's more or less certain that there's no time limit.

Either way, most abortions happen before that time anyway. So the idea of breaching the barrier is just silly.

People call abortion murder regardless of whether they have it done a month after or not.

Originally posted by Robtard
A "newborn" is a person, not a fetus at the point of birth. So the courts would see the killing of a newborn baby as murder.

A human being with a life is remarkable different to a foetus, and the courts know it. It's ridiculous to give a foetus the same rights as a grown human.

Originally posted by Robtard
You want to throw the semantics card at me? Existing and survival are basically the same, if one is unable to survive on their own, they cannot exist, at least exist in a living state.

So a grown man could survive in the jungle as well as a baby? No.

A baby, unattended, would exist until it dies. A man left unattended could find ways to survive.

-AC

Originally posted by PVS
no no no. a baby needs other people (person) to help maintain and sustain its biological function, but nobody is part of their biological function.
and as such, they are treated by law as a seperate and sentient being, and rightfully so. a fetus is biologically dependant on the mother. disconnected from the mother, it instantly dies. not so with a baby.

thats the issue. i was just pointing out that your conclusion was wrong. shall we just accept it and move on?

Sure, lets move on...

By law, when a fetus has developed pasted the first trimester (varies from country/state somewhat) , though still a fetus, it is granted the rights of protection as a person because it is considered a sentient being. Otherwise people could legally get an abortion up until the moment of birth. Though I think we do have the same sentiments on allowing abortions as long as they have time limitations. (?)

Originally posted by Robtard
Sure, lets move on...

By law, when a fetus has developed pasted the first trimester (varies from country/state somewhat) , though still a fetus, it is granted the rights of protection as a person because it is considered a sentient being. Otherwise people could legally get an abortion up until the moment of birth. Though I think we do have the same sentiments on allowing abortions as long as they have time limitations. (?)

yes, i believe that the transition from fetus to baby biologically exists within the womb, when that infant is capable of existing apart from the mother. although it still breaths fluids and feeds through an unbilical cord, it can be removed at any time (most often) and survive. at that undefinable point, i feel it is...the killing of an infant. the law, in many cases, disagrees, but i feel that if a doctor has to avoid birthing a baby and kill it while still half in the womb to avoid a technicallity, there is something ethically wrong.

on the other hand, i feel that anyone who would hold a small ball of embryonic cells in the same regards as a baby is a frikin nut case. all they have to throw into the debate is "potential" and their religion.

so, if the debate is over where the line should be drawn, i respect that. however if the debate is that any line drawn is evil and 'murder', i cannot respect that. (not implying that its your stance, just stating my position on who i take seriously and who i dont.) i also hold a complete lack of respect for anyone who would declare an unnecessary partial birth abortion to be ethical and right because, technically, it did not pass completely out the birth canal. that to me is also a sad joke.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Funny that, because:

"Abortion is legal in the UK up to the 24th week of pregnancy. However, if there is a substantial risk to the woman's life or if there are foetal abnormalities there is no time limit.

To comply with the 1967 Abortion Act, two doctors must give their consent, stating that to continue with the pregnancy would present a risk to the physical or mental health of the woman or her existing children.".

So that's the 5th month, unless the woman is going to suffer from A) Physical problems or B) Mental problems/strain that will reflect on her family or offspring.

Considering that this can happen remarkably often, and there's no real way to prove that it WON'T effect a woman mentally, it's more or less certain that there's no time limit.

Either way, most abortions happen before that time anyway. So the idea of breaching the barrier is just silly.

People call abortion murder regardless of whether they have it done a month after or not.

A human being with a life is remarkable different to a foetus, and the courts know it. It's ridiculous to give a foetus the same rights as a grown human.

So a grown man could survive in the jungle as well as a baby? No.

A baby, unattended, would exist until it dies. A man left unattended could find ways to survive.

-AC

Not sure why that's funny... I said if you don't care, follow the law, be content with what the law of the land says. I agree that certain medical conditions can be the exception in prolonging the legal time period for an abortion, those should be dealt with on a case to case basis. 24 weeks is to long of a time in my opinion, by that time the fetus has human brain functions, so I am happy I do not live in England.

I wasn't talking about a fetus in this case, I was referring to a baby, as in a fetus that has been born. You had said "The courts would not see some newborn foetus as a person." as in implying that a newborn baby is still a fetus and not a person and therefore killing a newborn baby wouldn't be murder. (?)

I have said that a baby cannot survive by itself, babies need care, I think everyone would agree with this. What's your point here, you lost me? Babies should not be considered as being people because they aren't self sufficient?

the point you must see is that a baby is self sustaining. it must be cared for, but it does its own breathing, swallows its own food and craps it out, pumps its own blood, etc. it cannot be paralleled to a fetus' biological dependancy on its mother .

leave a baby in the wilderness and it will die. i agree. leave a 6 year old child there as well and it will die. leave the majority of western civilisation in the wilderness and they will die as well. i dont see the connection to the dependancy of a fetus on its mother for basic bodily function, though

Originally posted by PVS
yes, i believe that the transition from fetus to baby biologically exists within the womb, when that infant is capable of existing apart from the mother. although it still breaths fluids and feeds through an unbilical cord, it can be removed at any time (most often) and survive. at that undefinable point, i feel it is...the killing of an infant. the law, in many cases, disagrees, but i feel that if a doctor has to avoid birthing a baby and kill it while still half in the womb to avoid a technicallity, there is something ethically wrong.

on the other hand, i feel that anyone who would hold a small ball of embryonic cells in the same regards as a baby is a frikin nut case. all they have to throw into the debate is "potential" and their religion.

so, if the debate is over where the line should be drawn, i respect that. however if the debate is that any line drawn is evil and 'murder', i cannot respect that. (not implying that its your stance, just stating my position on who i take seriously and who i dont.) i also hold a complete lack of respect for anyone who would declare an unnecessary partial birth abortion to be ethical and right because, technically, it did not pass completely out the birth canal. that to me is also a sad joke.

We have very similar stances then, I do not like the idea of abortions at all, but I also recognize that sometimes abortions are necessary and that making them illegal across the board wouldn't be the right solution, it would only cause problems as in back alley abortions.

Originally posted by PVS
on the other hand, i feel that anyone who would hold a small ball of embryonic cells in the same regards as a baby is a frikin nut case. all they have to throw into the debate is "potential" and their religion.

and what of this part?

Originally posted by PVS
the point you must see is that a baby is self sustaining. it must be cared for, but it does its own breathing, swallows its own food and craps it out, pumps its own blood, etc. it cannot be paralleled to a fetus' biological dependancy on its mother .

leave a baby in the wilderness and it will die. i agree. leave a 6 year old child there as well and it will die. leave the majority of western civilisation in the wilderness and they will die as well. i dont see the connection to the dependancy of a fetus on its mother for basic bodily function, though

I get what you are saying, that is why I agreed to move pasted that.

My response to Alpha Centauri is in respect to babies, either I am misunderstanding him, or he thinks that the reverse of the above parallel, that since babies cannot survive on their own as a grown man could, they are therefore not subject to being considered a person and not subject to those rights. I cannot understand that reasoning if that is the case.

Originally posted by PVS
and what of this part?

Like I said, I do not like the idea of abortions at all, I do think 'potential for life' has a lot to do with it, but on the flip-side, making abortions illegal across the board would be just as bad. 12 weeks for me is still a bit too long, the fetus is no longer just a clump of cells by then. Women/couples should be able to decide if they want to be parents or not sooner than 3 months, medical reasons aside of course. So where to "draw the line" would be the debate in my views.

i can respect that. its just the bible thumpers who call the abortion of a cell bundle immediately after conception "murder" that kinda dumb the whole thing down imho.

Originally posted by PVS
i can respect that. its just the bible thumpers who call the abortion of a cell bundle immediately after conception "murder" that kinda dumb the whole thing down imho.

I'm all for the morning after pill, I'd rather have women killing a few cells than a 11 week old fetus any day. The only downside I see of this pill is it being used as an easy convenience and women/couples not having to considered birth control methods/protection. Has it been fully approved yet, I stopped following the story?

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm all for the morning after pill, I'd rather have women killing a few cells than a 11 week old fetus any day. The only downside I see of this pill is it being used as an easy convenience and women/couples not having to considered birth control methods/protection. Has it been fully approved yet, I stopped following the story?

well, the real use for the pill is to prevent conception, but since it has the potential to destroy embryonic cells very shortly after conception, its just generalised as "abortion" by people who wish to label it as such. its legal, as far as i know. i dont follow it much either. however there are doctors who refuse to inform or prescribe because of their 'beliefs'.

It's legal and relatively affordable, I know some women who have taken it.

Lol there is a hospital system in my area that was founded by a Catholic sisterhood and up until two years ago wouldn't cover women's contraception😱

Oh and on Abortion topic I am very much against third trimester abortions unless there is something endangering the mother.

Making them illegal=bad.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm all for the morning after pill, I'd rather have women killing a few cells than a 11 week old fetus any day. The only downside I see of this pill is it being used as an easy convenience and women/couples not having to considered birth control methods/protection. Has it been fully approved yet, I stopped following the story?

They passed some law that makes hospitals offer it to rape victims.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure why that's funny... I said if you don't care, follow the law, be content with what the law of the land says. I agree that certain medical conditions can be the exception in prolonging the legal time period for an abortion, those should be dealt with on a case to case basis. 24 weeks is to long of a time in my opinion, by that time the fetus has human brain functions, so I am happy I do not live in England.

As am I.

Originally posted by Robtard
I wasn't talking about a fetus in this case, I was referring to a baby, as in a fetus that has been born. You had said "The courts would not see some newborn foetus as a person." as in implying that a newborn baby is still a fetus and not a person and therefore killing a newborn baby wouldn't be murder. (?)

I worded it wrong, that was my bad.

If the courts decide that killing a born baby is murder, legally, then fine. My whole point was that abortion isn't.

Originally posted by Robtard
I have said that a baby cannot survive by itself, babies need care, I think everyone would agree with this. What's your point here, you lost me? Babies should not be considered as being people because they aren't self sufficient?

They're not to be considered as equals to grown humans with regards to murder, no.

Killing a grown man with a life, family, job etc is much worse than killing a just-born baby.

-AC