mercy killing the retarded/feeble-minded

Yes, it seems like abortion supporters are trying to have it both ways, have their cake and eat it too.
Pregnancy is such an arduous horrible incapacitating thing... and yet.... we need to allow all those abortions at 16+ weeks because there are plenty of women who do not even realise they're pregnant!

 

you're helping to educate your future doctor, or warehouse the kid that's going to carjack you in 10 years...depends on your school district. almost no Federal funds go to schools. it's eaten by studies and junk.

 

When will you understand that women are different and their pregnancies are different? One all-encompassing law simply can't be fair to all women. There are some girls/women who have such irregular periods, they may not be aware they are pregnant. Some very young or mentally disabled girls don't even realize what is happening to them. Teenagers often delay abortions because they have tried to hide their pregnancies from their parents, or are in denial of being pregnant. There is no doubt, however, in most cases, pregnancy is an arduous, incapacitating condition, especially the unwanted ones.

 

As I said you really don't have much of a clue if the above is all you know about pregnancy.

Drama queen lmfao I leave the drama, hyperbole, misrepresentation and BS to pro-lifers

 

Start of with a lie why don't you and then just add some BS for flavour

 

It is all about MOTHER'S choice.
Down syndrome children can be a blessing for some family. . . but they come with a LOT of needs!

Some couples/mothers are not ready to assume those needs and responsibilities, and it is THEIR CHOICE, not yours, not the legal system, not the Church!

It is better to terminate a pregnancy that will eventually result in a severely disabled child IF the parents are not able to care for that child than it is for that child to be born disabled for life and UNWANTED.

I worked with many people with Down Syndrome and their family, and I personally love them. . .but I also KNOW about the trauma families go through, not so much with the cute, adorable toddlers with Down Syndrome (they are all so fun and adorables!), but with the GROWN UP person with Down Syndrome, and the care and medical worries that is attached to this syndrome.

By the way, a majority of couples do not choose to abort a Down Syndrome fetus. But you are using this specific disability to JUDGE the choice of parents (mothers) to abort children with SEVERE disability that will either kill the fetus within 2 or 3 years after his birth, or will provoke that fetus to NEVER become a REAL, functioning person, even at the most basic level.

Hypocrisy again!

 

Prove any of the following isn't true:

Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:
•exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
•altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
•nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
•heartburn and indigestion
•constipation
•weight gain
•dizziness and light-headedness
•bloating, swelling, fluid retention
•hemmorhoids
•abdominal cramps
•yeast infections
•congested, bloody nose
•acne and mild skin disorders
•skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
•mild to severe backache and strain
•increased headaches
•difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
•increased urination and incontinence
•bleeding gums
•pica
•breast pain and discharge
•swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
•difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
•inability to take regular medications
•shortness of breath
•higher blood pressure
•hair loss or increased facial/body hair
•tendency to anemia
•curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
•infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
•extreme pain on delivery
•hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
•continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)

Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:
•stretch marks (worse in younger women)
•loose skin
•permanent weight gain or redistribution
•abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
•pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)
•changes to breasts
•increased foot size
•varicose veins
•scarring from episiotomy or c-section
•other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
•increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
•loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
•higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's
•newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates)

Occasional complications and side effects:
•complications of episiotomy
•spousal/partner abuse
•hyperemesis gravidarum
•temporary and permanent injury to back
•severe scarring requiring later surgery
(especially after additional pregnancies)
•dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
•pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
•eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
•gestational diabetes
•placenta previa
•anemia (which can be life-threatening)
•thrombocytopenic purpura
•severe cramping
•embolism (blood clots)
•medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
•diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
•mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
•serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
•hormonal imbalance
•ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
•broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
•hemorrhage and
•numerous other complications of delivery
•refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
•aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
•severe post-partum depression and psychosis
•research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
•research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
•research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

Less common (but serious) complications:
•peripartum cardiomyopathy
•cardiopulmonary arrest
•magnesium toxicity
•severe hypoxemia/acidosis
•massive embolism
•increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
•molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease
(like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
•malignant arrhythmia
•circulatory collapse
•placental abruption
•obstetric fistula
More permanent side effects:
•future infertility
•permanent disability
•death.

 

i have children, have you even seen a woman naked?

 

loose skin and bigger feet are so horrible in your mind they justify ending your own bloodline? i'd ignore you if it wasn't so damn funny.

 

Way to dismiss an entire lengthy list of complications (including death) by focusing on just two that YOU believe are trivial because they will never happen to you. The purpose of the list is not to justify abortion, but to show why you can't morally ban it.

 

you make an excellent point

Presently, is is the mother's CHOICE to kill the baby.

It is not up to me, him or them.

And, I would even question the use of the word "mother" because what "mother" chooses to kill a baby?

Use birth control.

 

I'm sorry there were too many big words for you and it got all facty and sciency....things that are terrifying to some... .

"ending your own bloodline"....as in cattle and pedigree dogs.....??? I don't think that's why women have abortions....

I note you find the list of injuries , including the possibility of death, from pregnancy, "funny". And that's because YOU will never have to face it...

 

Abortion doesn't kill BABIES, but terminates a pregnancy by removing the fetus from the environment that would (if successful) give him the viability to become a person.

What mother would vote to send their kids to war, or for the free for all propagation of fire arms that they KNOW will much increase the chance of their child to be killed?

Yet, many mothers choose to vote for both (war monger, and NRA pions in government!)

 

so you think because you have children you know something about pregnancy, at best you only have anecdotal information probably infested with right-wing propaganda.

Why don;t you pick up a medical text book and actually learn something about what pregnancy is and does to the female body.

As for the other BS, I'll treat it with the contempt it so richly deserves.

- - - Updated - - -

wow, just wow you cherry pick two items in order to attempt to demean others whilst ignoring everything else on that list . .how totally disingenuous

 

No mother involved unless she already has born children, neither are their any "babies" involved in abortion, you can repeat that lie as much as you wish it doesn't change the reality.

Mother - A woman in relation to a child or children to whom she has given birth: - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mother

Baby - An infant; a newborn child. - http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=9072

 

The difference is, inside the womb you are a dependent connected part of your mother's body. Outside of it, you are not. You are independent, an individual.

Let me give an example of why the "just a location change" argument is flawed and really just plain stupid.

You are in the intensive care unit at the hospital where you are connected to machines that provide you with everything you need to survive. Without them, you die. Eventually, you reach the point where your body no longer requires those machines and you're moved into a general recovery room where your body is able to function on it's own. The location change argument says that the only difference between the person in ICU and the person in the general recovery area(where you might go if you broke your leg or were feeling dizzy) is the room they are in, not the condition of their body. It's an argument whose entire purpose is to be ignorant and present an ignorant facade that relies on the person you're using it against to be completely and utterly stupid and uninformed about even basic medical and biological science.

Now I realize you didn't bring up the "just a location change" argument specifically here, but I sensed that's what you were getting at with the way you asked your question.

 

I admit I am supporting the rights of every citizen to control their own lives and bodies.

 

What is this great secret that you are convinced abortion supporters are terrified to confront? An abortion terminates a biologically human being while they are in utero. That's what it is. That's what everyone knows it is. We are pro-choice, not pro-confused.

But I suspect that's not quite the admission you're looking for, is it? No, you want us to admit that the fetus carries the same emotional as well as physical connotations that you subscribe to. SO what you're looking for isn't to have abortion supporters admit what they are supporting, you want them to admit they don't support things the way you see them which you feel is the only objective way to see the issue.

If pro-choicers saw things the way you do, they probably wouldn't be pro-choice and I'm sure they'd vote Republican too so they can elect more fetal dictators whose only real concern for the unborn(and ironically, most born children too) hinges on how much of a boost at the polls they'll provide. Now you might say the same is true for left leaning politicians who may trot out the issue to gather support from pro-choicers, and you'd be right, but at least they're on the right side of the issue because they haven't taken it upon themselves to install a locked gate inside women's bodies. The amount of arrogance and just plain contempt for women it must take to feel you should have the right to make decisions about the inside of a woman's body like that is staggering. It's obnoxious, it's offensive. It's even dangerous, because if you feel that even the inside of a person's body is not off limits, nothing is. There is nothing you cannot do and justify if you can justify that.

 

So the unborn human life being hooked up to the mother somehow makes a difference?
You compared the fetus to a patient hooked up to a life support machine. Does this make a hospital patient less of a person? Do their rights somehow go away because they are unable – temporarily no less – to sustain life themselves?

maybe you should take a look at this thread: "the lungs haven't fully developed yet so it's okay to kill"

I am glad you can openly make this admission. This is more than many other pro-choicers in this forum are able or willing to do.

Your initial admission is a good start. You recognise that a human being is being terminated. From there we can begin making the argument whether this is acceptable or not.

There's SOMEONE ELSE inside there.

And besides, the woman and her so-called "doctor" want to make decisions about the fetus's body—terrible horrible decisions.
If the inside of a person's body was off limits, abortion, as we currently know it, would not be allowed. The fetus would instead have to be removed in one piece. True, it would likely die either way, but to claim that the process of abortion does not violate the very principle you supposedly advocate is just asinine.

If a human life—one who did no wrong—can be intentionally extinguished, and the actions of the perpetrators protected by law, that sets a dangerous precedent. Because there is no real fundamental difference between being inside or outside a womb. "Pro-choicers" say there is, in fact one of their primary arguments depends on it; but what is the real difference??

We create for certain groups of people all the time artificial rights that infringe upon the freedom of others. (i.e. I have to hire you because I can't discriminate)
So why would we not recognise the right to life, a very fundamental natural right ?

What do you think about when a suspect is forcefully arrested because he possesses something illegal? Is this an extreme violation of rights in your opinion?
Seems to me that, to support abortion and remain consistent, you would have to be a radical libertarian, at the very least, and even then that would not necessarily flatten out all the inconsistencies entirely.

 

I did not compare a fetus to a hospital patient, I compared the situations that a fetus and a hospital patient are in to show the ignorance of the argument that birth is nothing more than a location change. Both are connected to outside sources which provide them with the ability to exist and survive. Without those machines or the mother, they die. So when the patient and a fetus reaches the point where they no longer require that assistance, that is much much more than simply changing locations which is why I pointed out the folly of assuming that location is the primary factor in both situations because it's the condition of the patient/fetus, not their location, that makes the distinction.

There is no "less of a person". You're either a person or you aren't because you're either born or you're not. There are no halfborns walking around out there where the distinction "less of a person" would somehow apply. You have to BE a person to begin with. So no, being connected to the ICU does not make them less of a person because that distinction does not exist. In order for that patient to be laying in that hospital bed hooked up to machinery that sustains their life, they would have had to be born. Thus, they are a person.

In the situation of a fetus, their rights don't "go away". For something to go away from you, you have to have previously possessed it. Fetuses do not and have never had rights.

It's not an admission, it's simply a statement of fact. I related it to you in the same manner and mindset that I would tell you that the Great Red Eye on Jupiter is starting to shrink.

Of course it's acceptable. We terminate human beings all the time. More than that, we terminate people all the time. And lets not even start getting into the 99.99% of life that we humans have deemed to be below us making their lives worth only as much as their use to us with a few exceptions for the pretty animals like Bald Eagles and Koala Bears.

Human beings bring death and destruction everywhere we go. It is our legacy. It is who we are. Saying that we shouldn't allow women to have abortions is simply drawing an arbitrary line where you say "All of that death over there is okay, but abortions, nope, we can't have that". It's cruel and inhumane you'll say while you take a bite of the cheeseburger made from the cow who may or may not have even seen a day of sunlight in it's miserable factory farm existence inserted between the two buns made from wheat that you cut out of the fields without asking it's opinion(because wheat has the same cognizance as a fetus for most of the fetuses existence) about whether it wanted to be harvested. If you happen to get a bacterial infection from that meat, you'll take antibiotics that will kill all those bacteria within your body, but their deaths don't mean anything either. Human beings have arbitrarily decided which death is okay and which death isn't.

You don't own the high road. You are not morally superior. You are death, just like every other person out there. You've just decided that there is one less type of death that you're willing to be okay with and then looking down on others who haven't made that distinction. Good for you.

Then that woman despertalely need to be taken to the hospital because her body is very likely not equipped to handle the size of an infant after birth. And that completely ignores the investigation that will need to happen to determine who put a newborn back in a uterus and why.

It absolutely does not because there is only one person in the equation. The mother. Come on Anders, keep up!

All of what you just said applies to people, persons, and there are no persons involved in an abortion, there is just one. The Mother. The Mother cannot violate her own rights.

The "right to life" is a natural right??!?!?!!?

Are you mad? You go out into nature and point out to me the lifeforms that have a "fundamental natural right to life". Go ahead. I'll wait.

Yes, the thing he/she possessed is illegal. I don't see the correlation here...unless this "thing" in question is a kidney or something that is a part of their body and has been deemed "illegal".

The inconsistencies exist entirely within your own mind which is a product of your purposefully trying to fool yourself into thinking you don't understand the pro-choice point of view. You do, logically. It's the emotional part of your being that does not accept it.

 

So it is not a person just because it has not gone out through the cervix yet and detached from the mother? And therefore it has no rights? This does not seem to make much sense.

See my other thread: racism, classism, sexism, and now... 'Bornism'

So you deny the fetus its personhood, and all the rights that come with that. How convenient.
You don't think there is a potential danger of other people being denied their personhood too?
I think that was one of the main things they used to justify slavery.

 

It makes perfect sense. The mother is the individual and her rights take precedent, mostly because she's the only one at that point who even has them. After birth, after detachment and their first breath outside the body, they become an individual because now it is not a connected dependent part of the inside of another individual. The term, individual, means one. One person. That is why people don't refer to a pregnant woman as multiple people, even in the event of twins, triplets, etc. The census only counts the mother as one. Airlines don't charge pregnant women for a seat for each "person" inside her. A pregnant woman does not introduce herself as her name plus the names of her fetuses and no one would expect her to.

Rights are based on individuals. That is why groups don't have more legal rights than any one person of that group does. They may have more voting power and more ability to craft the rights they want, but each individual of that group making their decisions and exercising their rights is what brings about that power. One man/woman, one vote. One person, one individual, legally created at birth which is the same point in time that they separate from their mother and become one person, one individual. Individual rights are protected, the process is straightforward and impossible to mistake since it's pretty hard to confuse someone who's been born with someone who hasn't. It is the most logical sensible way to do it.

I don't deny the fetus it's personhood. That implies that it is owed personhood or that it had it and it was taken away. It isn't and it wasn't.

And they were wrong on purpose because there are no fundamental differences in personhood between a slave and their master. Both were born. The same cannot be said for the difference between a born person and a fetus. There are fundamental differences that not only separate the two from each other, but that separate the issue from those involving slavery entirely. Stop bringing up this idiotic argument. It's as stupid as the "just a location change" argument.

 

Seems like circular logic.

Let us break that down; 1. connected, 2. dependent, 3. part of another, 4. inside another individual

1. First you argue that the connection somehow takes away from personhood. Well, if that's true, that applies to the mother during pregnancy as well. Obviously the mother is still a person, so I believe it is safe to assume being connected to another human being does not take away one's personhood.

2. You argue the fetus is dependent on the mother. But newborn babies are dependent on caregivers too. In fact, a baby needs the nutrients that come from breast milk, a female with mammary glands is required. Some hospital patients are dependent on life support machines. So I believe it is safe to assume that dependence is not a disqualification from personhood.

3. You argue that the fetus is "part of the woman". But just because it is inside the woman does not mean it is a part of her. The fetus has its own unique DNA signature and separate circulatory system.

4. Lastly, you argue that the fetus is inside another individual. So what? It's a pregnancy.
I think we both agree that geographic position does not take away from personhood.

And do you honestly believe that not having taken a first breath yet makes it a non-person? There's no air in the uterus!
If everything goes naturally and undisturbed, the fetus does not need to be able to breathe until the latest stage of development, shortly before being ready to come out.

Even if the fetus is not considered a true "individual", does that mean its not a person? Does being attached automatically mean no human rights?

Sometimes, if the woman is really obese and has a wide rear end, they'll charge her for two seats.

I have had a pregnant woman introduce me to her unborn child before. She even let me put my hand on her belly (over her shirt) to feel the little 'bumps'.

 

Federal law gives legal protections for all born persons.

 

Likewise, I don't deny the woman her right to choice. That implies the woman is owed the right to abort her unborn child, or that she was unjustly deprived. She isn't and she wasn't.

So what? One was a different race.

Again, you are making the assumption that being born somehow fundamentally changes things. That's okay, but you'll have to provide proof or a compelling argument.

I was just making the pointed observation that being born or not is not really any more relevant than being African-descended or not.