blowe Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 But women have the right to do what they want with their own bodies. Right Woody? Liberal pro abortion arguments crack me up. Pro-choice, rather than what it really is...pro-abortion. A play on words merely to de-sensitize and minimize a gruesome act. It's funny how all that compassion in liberals goes away when the abortion controversy arises. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice, but if I got my girlfriend pregnant there is no way that I would abort it.. I couldn't. Abortion is not right, but I don't think it is my choice to make when it pertains to another person's life. Is that really so bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 At what point can doctors determine if a child will have down syndrome? 11 weeks at the earliest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Draw which line in a logical manner? Without resorting to some sort of phony spirituality why should it be immoral to let nonviable humans die? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Without resorting to some sort of phony spirituality why should it be immoral to let nonviable humans die? WSS Because we can help them survive. A foetus under 20 weeks *cannot* be helped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Help them survive? To what purpose? -meaning why waste resources that could be used elsewhere WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Help them survive? To what purpose? -meaning why waste resources that could be used elsewhere WSS I would think Stephen Hawking alone would answer the question of why keep special needs people alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 I feel like this has sidetracked into a very different discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 I feel like this has sidetracked into a very different discussion. It has. Blame Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 So your reasoning for spending huge sums of money time and resources to keep vegetables alive is that one in a million might turn out to be Stephen Hawking? fair enough. Yet one of your arguments for abortion is that society should not have to spend money taking care of unwanted viable babies? Do we assume that more or less of them may go on to lead a productive and useful life? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 But Steven Hawkings was an adult wasn't he when he was diagnosed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 So your reasoning for spending huge sums of money time and resources to keep vegetables alive is that one in a million might turn out to be Stephen Hawking? fair enough. Yet one of your arguments for abortion is that society should not have to spend money taking care of unwanted viable babies? Do we assume that more or less of them may go on to lead a productive and useful life? WSS I have basically said all along that viable babies should be kept alive. I'm sorry if that wasn't how it came across, but it's what I believe. That puts the question of abortion in the hands of the law after about 24 weeks - cases can be made for 22 or 23, when the chance of survival is around 10-40%, but that's just a small change and I would be ok with that. I believe that before a baby is viable, abortion should be allowed, though not just as a form of lazy contraception. But when you have something like a condom that is 97% effective, that baby-making potential 3% of the time; how many times on average does a couple need to have sex in order to conceive? About 100 seems to be the number after a quick google. So for every time a condom is used, you have about a 0.03% chance of conception. So how many accidental babies are conceived when couples are taking reasonable measures to prevent it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 But Steven Hawkings was an adult wasn't he when he was diagnosed? And when symptoms first started. But he's still making contributions to science despite being basically immobile. Similarly, Steve Gleason and his charity endeavours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 mostly, they don't use them. who knows. But the irresponsibility of not waiting, or being very careful, is taking a toll on our country. This whole abortion issue, and having kids on purpose ("accidently"), so single moms can't get their federal assistance, and she and her boyfriend can live on that. Pitiful. Thanks for nothing, LBJ. "Great society" coming home to roost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/its-legal-to-kill-babies-but-lets-worry-about-a-gay-persons-right-to-cake/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 mostly, they don't use them. who knows. But the irresponsibility of not waiting, or being very careful, is taking a toll on our country. This whole abortion issue, and having kids on purpose ("accidently"), so single moms can't get their federal assistance, and she and her boyfriend can live on that. Pitiful. Thanks for nothing, LBJ. "Great society" coming home to roost. "They don't use them" based on...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 It has. Blame Steve You're playing into his hand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 The only reason a fetus under 20 weeks is dying is because it's cruelly hacked to pieces and vacuumed out. That human will be able to survive in a matter of weeks if you don't murder it. It's extremely disturbing to me that the most helpless are a ok to kill but we have to jump through hoops to kill a hardened murderer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 I still don't understand why the ultraconservatives are/were so against the morning after pill. I thought they would use it to do away with traditional abortion procedures. Teach kids that if you even think its possible you might get pregnant you should take it and if you don't welcome to parenthood. I think with education it would work. JMO. Without picking a political POV, abortion is pretty dreadful and unnatural. There are extreme cases that are hard to argue against (i.e. rape, terminal disease, etc.), but beyond that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 The only reason a fetus under 20 weeks is dying is because it's cruelly hacked to pieces and vacuumed out. That human will be able to survive in a matter of weeks if you don't murder it. It's extremely disturbing to me that the most helpless are a ok to kill but we have to jump through hoops to kill a hardened murderer.. Right on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Ultracons were against it because the original morning after pill was an abortion pill. I've been told that the second generation formulation does not end conception, merely prevent it. I'm not an ultra conservative nor a Christian per se. My only purpose in this discussion is to point out some of the hypocrisy in the abortion issue. And good call on Dr Hawking die hard. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Well rape certainly sucks but it's not the baby's fault. Killing the innocent is unacceptable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Ultracons were against it because the original morning after pill was an abortion pill. I've been told that the second generation formulation does not end conception, merely prevent it. I'm not an ultra conservative nor a Christian per se. My only purpose in this discussion is to point out some of the hypocrisy in the abortion issue. And good call on Dr Hawking die hard. WSS By taking this discussion to a different, philosophical issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 By taking this discussion to a different, philosophical issue? It isn't a different philosophical issue at all. We were talking about the morality of abortion in relation to the viability of the fetus. If an 8 month old fetus is viable so would a one month old child be. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Well rape certainly sucks but it's not the baby's fault. Killing the innocent is unacceptable Well the rape victim is innocent too. If a 350lb black dude dropped his seed in your ass, I would bet you'd spend the rest of your life trying to forget that moment. Telling the victim they must carry the child is like punishing them 2x. Clearly I would hope she wouldn't for the reason you stated, but I'm willing to live with whatever decision on something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 just to be the devil's asshole, er I mean advocate, how about we track down the rapist and kill his children? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 just to be the devil's asshole, er I mean advocate, how about we track down the rapist and kill his children? WSS I doubt many rapists care for their kids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 It isn't a different philosophical issue at all. We were talking about the morality of abortion in relation to the viability of the fetus. If an 8 month old fetus is viable so would a one month old child be. WSS Ok, and no one here has advocated aborting 8 month old fetuses or a 1 month old child. It seems like part of the debate is lost here by calling every abortion "child murder" (not you Steve). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Ok, and no one here has advocated aborting 8 month old fetuses or a 1 month old child. It seems like part of the debate is lost here by calling every abortion "child murder" (not you Steve). Some people think life begins at conception. I figure it probably does but I don't care. and as I pointed out we have no law prohibiting abortion in the eighth month and I think that freaks out a lot of people, not just the religious right. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 When a fetus has a beating heart, a brain, arms and legs, internal organs and is moving around developing what do you call it? In the olden days ultrasounds didn't show you the baby's face at five months. With new technology even the most hard core pro abortionist would be hard pressed not to look at a fetus as a baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Ok, and no one here has advocated aborting 8 month old fetuses or a 1 month old child. Speak for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.