The Abortion Thread (because babies can't speak for themselves)
 

Abortion, is always and horribly wrong. Any way you look at it, (unless it is putting the mother in danger of death) it is sick and twisted. Even the methods used for killing the baby are evil.

Its not the babies fault. Why should the baby die for the poor decisions of the mother?

Rape babies happen less than 1 % of the time. Has anyone ever seen the methods they use in killing the babies? Its an atrocity.

This is only your third post. I would suggest that you might get flamed for posting in such an inciting manner, with inflammatory language.

You contradicted yourself. First you said "always", then you said "unless". Did you mean "almost always"?

In the less than 1% (where did you get that number?), is it wrong (as your always would suggest)?
According to American Journal of Public Health Online:
"Over 300 000 women are raped each year in the United States; about 25 000 of these rapes result in pregnancy." = 8.3%
According to [URL="http://www.pdrhealth.com/content/women_health/chapters/fgwh36.shtml"]http://www.pdrhealth.com/content/women_health/chapters/fgwh36.shtml[/URL]:
"Fortunately your chance of pregnancy is extremely low—between 2 and 4 percent—unless the attack took place in the middle of your menstrual cycle."


At what point do you account it "abortion" or "baby"?
Do you call anti-implantation drugs abortions (like the "day after" pill)?
What about IUD's (they are anti-implantation devices)?


You do your cause a disservice by being less than clear and well reasoning.
Please clarify your points.

(Edit: Hopefully you are not opposed to all forms of contraception)

Reminds me of the (not so) old saying. Abortion is [B]always [/B]wrong with three exceptions:
Rape, incest or me.

[quote=Carlsagan43]Abortion, is always and horribly wrong.[/quote]
Do you say the same about capital punishment of adults?

[quote]Any way you look at it, (unless it is putting the mother in danger of death) it is sick and twisted. Even the methods used for killing the baby are evil.[/quote]
Do you say the same about the death penalty for adults?

[quote]Has anyone ever seen the methods they use in killing the babies?[/quote]I've seen some, though not all, methods of abortion depicted, but never in person.

Have you ever seen a broadcast of, or personally witnessed, a prisoner being executed in accordance with the death penalty?

- - - -

Why do you think it is that so many of the leaders of pro-life groups are men, while many of the pro-choice groups are led by women?

[QUOTE=Carlsagan43]Abortion, is always and horribly wrong. Any way you look at it, (unless it is putting the mother in danger of death) it is sick and twisted. Even the methods used for killing the baby are evil.

Its not the babies fault. Why should the baby die for the poor decisions of the mother?

Rape babies happen less than 1 % of the time. Has anyone ever seen the methods they use in killing the babies? Its an atrocity.[/QUOTE]

Separate from the fact that your post is highly inflammatory, an expert
in procedural debate would say that your argument "assumes facts not
in evidence".

A fetus is not a baby. It is part of the mother's body.

This is the heart of the debate. If indeed an abortion were "killing babies",
your argument would have validity.

An abortion is a medical procedure to correct a medical problem.
By your argument about "poor decisions of the mother", I assume that
if you make a poor decision while driving and have a car accident in
which you are injured, you will forgo all medical procedures to correct
your medical problems? After all, why should you be entitled to medical
help? It was *your* poor decision that caused the problem.

Moron.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman]A fetus is not a baby. It is part of the mother's body.

This is the heart of the debate.[/QUOTE]
It is also why, in the UK at least, abortions are permitted after 24 weeks gestation only under very special circumstances --- essentially if there is severe risk to the mother's life or if the embryo is so badly damaged it has no chance of survival. At somewhere around that developmental stage a healthy embryo has a small but reasonable chance of surviving ex utero given modern hi-tech medical care. A reasonable case could be made, IMO, that late-stage abortions should be replaced with early caesarian sections --- again, presupposing that the embryo is otherwise viable.

I expect the debate to change again when medical technology progress to the point when uterus is not strictly necessary for reproduction.


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman]It is also why, in the UK at least, abortions are permitted after 24 weeks gestation only under very special circumstances --- essentially if there is severe risk to the mother's life or if the embryo is so badly damaged it has no chance of survival. At somewhere around that developmental stage a healthy embryo has a small but reasonable chance of surviving ex utero given modern hi-tech medical care. A reasonable case could be made, IMO, that late-stage abortions should be replaced with early caesarian sections --- again, presupposing that the embryo is otherwise viable.

I expect the debate to change again when medical technology progress to the point when uterus is not strictly necessary for reproduction.


Paul[/QUOTE]

Yes! Yes! Yes!

I too do not believe late-term abortions should be allowed unless the
mothers' life is in danger. 6 months should be enough time to get an
abortion.

Some people say "A baby begins at conception" (a)
others say "A baby begins at birth" (b)
others say "The truth is in between" (c)

This is the heart of the controversy and the gap is so deep between
(a) and (b) that IMO, there will never be any compromise between the
two groups.

I personally believe in (c). A baby begins when it has a "reasonable"
chance to survive when separated from its mothers' body. This, of course,
is a moving target as medical science changes.

I think that so-called "partial-birth" abortions are an abomination.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman]Some people say "A baby begins at conception" (a)
others say "A baby begins at birth" (b)
others say "The truth is in between" (c)

I personally believe in (c).[/QUOTE]

That is why I asked about implantation. To determine the mind of the thread starter. Is conception the point at which the egg is fertalized or when it attaches to the uterine wall?

I think that most of us might say (c). Yet the extremists in the issue don't want a solution in the middle. My understanding is that most would accept some middleground as the law.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly] To determine the mind of the thread starter. [/QUOTE]

Isn't the mind of the thread starter determined by his trollish nature?

I mean, it's not hard to go somewhere and to drop some buzzwords, like
The Palestina problem
The Israel problem
George Bush
Laicity
WW II
Death penalty
Bayern München
etc.

It rather amuses me how everybody gets involved, though the thread starter has visibly already gone somewhere else to steal the time of other people.
Additionally, Everybody seems to have the same opinion. You are preaching to converted.

:whistle: H.

[QUOTE=cheesehead]

<snip>

[/QUOTE]

I personally do not understand the people who are pro death penalty
but nevertheless scream about "sanctity of life" when it comes to abortion.

[QUOTE=xilman]

I expect the debate to change again when medical technology progress to the point when uterus is not strictly necessary for reproduction.


Paul[/QUOTE]

This issue is clouded by additional considerations.

If, as medicine progresses, it becomes possible to save preemies
anytime after conception with the "right medical help",
I ask (somewhat in jest, but not totally)

What happens when science learns how to control cell differentiation?
Will people object to my removing my appendix because "with the right
medical help" it might grow into a living baby"?

Cells are cells are cells. At what point do cells become "baby"?????