Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why do you feel guidelines need to be set? It's nothing your morals need to be involved in.Just keep away from abortion. You don't like it, you won't ever like it, why involve yourself? It's nothing to do with you.
-AC
Why do you feel guidelines shouldn't be set (which there are)? If not, a woman could abort a 9 month fetus for the sole reason of "just because".
I feel guidelines being the compromise between pro-choice and the pro-life crowd.
Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
After week 4 its fully developed and begins to mature.
fully developed? at four weeks the nervous system has only begun in the form of germ walls. in fact the brain doesnt even begin its long developement until week six. so what of those extra 2 weeks when this zygote has no brain? i fail to see how this is an existant human being in any way until it at least fires up those first neurons.
Originally posted by Robtard
Why do you feel guidelines shouldn't be set (which there are)? If not, a woman could abort a 9 month fetus for the sole reason of "just because".I feel guidelines being the compromise between pro-choice and the pro-life crowd.
Personally I don't care what point she does it at, none of my business. I'm not saying I think some abortions aren't worse than others, just that it's ultimately nothing to do with me.
If guidelines were to be set then they need to be:
A) Realistic.
B) Free from personal agenda.
None of this "4 weeks" bs. Whilst I don't agree with you, you at least have reasonable base for why you think there should be a cut off time. WickedTexasMama is just being rather silly about all this.
I think when people start to make up their own science we have problems.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Personally I don't care what point she does it, none of my business.If guidelines were to be set then they need to be:
A) Realistic.
B) Free from personal agenda.
None of this "4 weeks" bs. Whilst I don't agree with you, you at least have reasonable base for why you think there should be a cut off time. WickedTexasMama is just being rather silly about all this.
I think when people start to make up their own science we have problems.
-AC
Lol... you're odd and a bit sick in the head.
A) Agree
B) Agree
edit: You added... while I can agree with the "none of my business" to a degree, I find that especially odd coming from a avid anti-dead penalty supporter.
Originally posted by Robtard
Lol... you're odd and a bit sick in the head.A) Agree
B) Agreeedit: You added... while I can agree with the "none of my business" to a degree, I find that especially odd coming from a avid anti-dead penalty supporter.
I draw the line at killing a living human with an established life based on "Might have done it." unless there's 100% certainty, a.k.a never.
But that's for another thread.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I draw the line at killing a living human with an established life based on "Might have done it." unless there's 100% certainty, a.k.a never.But that's for another thread.
-AC
Usually when someone is caught in the act and they admit it, it's pretty much 100%. Whatever though; that isn't the norm.
Of course it is, but the point is, a 9 month old fetus (and much earlier) can survive outside of the womb if removed. In fact, a baby born on say 9/27/2007, was really no different on 9/26/07 (and earlier), with the exception that it passed through the vaginal cavity. Surely, passing through the vagina shouldn't be a realistic guideline in deciding if it is entitled to rights or not.
Originally posted by Shelbert Lemon
Its at week 4 that the implantation begins.
well, yes but im off on a tangent.
the point was already made. we went from 24 hours being the only acceptable amount of time to have an abortion to 4 weeks. this is the cutoff time in her opinion. the line she has drawn in the name of "innocent life" therefore to abort before 4 weeks time is not the killing of an innocent life.
yes, im a slippery one. i realise that i baited her into stating that as per the case of a rape victim. but like i said, the point is made. how can one declare that the abortion of a 4 week old fetus is not the killing of innocent life in the case of rape, but IS in the case of a woman doing it...just because?
how can one logically condemn someone for having an abortion for ANY reason within 4 weeks, assuming that is 'the line'? if its not an innocent life in the case of rape, then so it isnt in the case of consentual sex. correct WTMomma? yes?
Originally posted by Robtard
Usually when someone is caught in the act and they admit it, it's pretty much 100%. Whatever though; that isn't the norm.Of course it is, but the point is, a 9 month old fetus (and much earlier) can survive outside of the womb if removed. In fact, a baby born on say 9/27/2007, was really no different on 9/26/07, with the exception that it passed through the vaginal cavity. Surely, passing through the vagina shouldn't be a realistic guideline in deciding if it is entitled to rights or not.
Obviously this has been thought over by courts and the like and it's still not considered murder, which means it's not considered a human at that point. So if they didn't find any reason to consider it such, I fail to see why I should.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Obviously this has been thought over by courts and the like and it's still not considered murder, which means it's not considered a human at that point. So if they didn't find any reason to consider it such, I fail to see why I should.-AC
You lost me there, which "point" are you referring too exactly? Because there are legal abortion time-lines (as you well know) and people have been charged with murder of a fetus in the case, where a pregnant woman was murdered and the fetus perished with her.
Do you never question the courts? If a law in your country changed, one that you didn't agree with (capital punishment, voting age etc.), you would suddenly "not care" because the courts found it so?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Obviously this has been thought over by courts and the like and it's still not considered murder, which means it's not considered a human at that point. So if they didn't find any reason to consider it such, I fail to see why I should.-AC
simple logic perhaps? i agree that it isnt murder, by fact. however you are committing the ol' law fallacy, law dictating reality, which is beyond silly.
Originally posted by Schecterhmm I see now..
well, yes but im off on a tangent.the point was already made. we went from 24 hours being the only acceptable amount of time to have an abortion to 4 weeks. this is the cutoff time in her opinion. the line she has drawn in the name of "innocent life" therefore to abort before 4 weeks time is not the killing of an innocent life.
yes, im a slippery one. i realise that i baited her into stating that as per the case of a rape victim. but like i said, the point is made. how can one declare that the abortion of a 4 week old fetus is not the killing of innocent life in the case of rape, but IS in the case of a woman doing it...just because?
how can one logically condemn someone for having an abortion for ANY reason within 4 weeks, assuming that is 'the line'? if its not an innocent life in the case of rape, then so it isnt in the case of consentual sex. correct WTMomma? yes?
Originally posted by Schecter
well, im done. 😛however in response to your point, i feel that human life truly begins with higher brain function. thats my opinion, anyhow.
That's about 8 weeks, when an embryo becomes a fetus and has all the parts of a human. That is a reasonable cutoff point in allowing/not allowing an abortion, imo.
Personally, and this is just my opinion, I think a woman should be able to know if she wants to be a 'mommy' or not before that, but every case is different, so that strict of guidelines wouldn't be reasonable.
Originally posted by Shelbert Lemon
Well its my opinion that your opinion is right.
then it is my opinion that you are wise 😊
Originally posted by Robtard
That's about 8 weeks, when an embryo becomes a fetus and has all the parts of a human. That is a reasonable cutoff point in allowing/not allowing an abortion, imo.Personally, and this is just my opinion, I think a woman should be able to know if she wants to be a 'mommy' or not before that, but every case is different, so that strict of guidelines wouldn't be reasonable.
i feel the cutoff line should be further. granted, very primitive signals are sent through its nervous system, its brain has just begun forming. truthfully im not sure when i feel is an appropriate cutoff point. perhaps around the time when it exhibits the will to do instinctive things like suck its thumb...whenever that is. but thats just my opinion
Originally posted by Robtard
You lost me there, which "point" are you referring too exactly? Because there are legal abortion time-lines (as you well know) and people have been charged with murder of a fetus in the case, where a pregnant woman was murdered and the fetus perished with her.Do you never question the courts? If a law in your country changed, one that you didn't agree with (capital punishment, voting age etc.), you would suddenly "not care" because the courts found it so?
You say the only difference is whether it comes out or whether it doesn't, but baby cannot survive on its own. If you left it, it would die.
I'm not saying I agree with 9 month abortions, of course. I'm just saying it's ultimately none of my business. I genuinely do not care. If a law was passed for a reasonable cut off point, then fair enough. If it happens it happens, I'm not losing sleep over it. I just don't involve myself, nothing to do with me. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a cut off point, I'm saying I couldn't care any less if there's a late one or a reasonable one, so long as it's not one that's imposing on women's rights for no reason.
Like four weeks.
I honestly keep my nose out of that which doesn't concern me when it's a woman dealing with something she created. Death penalty, I'd vote against it because "Almost certain." is never enough, for me, to put someone to death who has an established life.
-AC