What is wrong with abortion in the early stages of pregnancy?

but as you point out, not ALL do..

for that matter, what about handicapped people? shouldn't all people be evaluated to see if their contribution outweighs their cost? I mean if we are to be so cavalier about the worth of human life...

 

The zygote is where the debate begins for most.

You have raised no good justification for your claims that a zygote is "a living human" and so it is understandable that you wish to move on.

Let me help you out:

Even if you could come up with a justification. (the zygote has a soul) for example. Something that can not be proved or disproved. You are still faced with the dilemma that there is wide disagreement with your belief.

In a case where we are weighing an unproven belief, against the rights of a woman to liberty (something most believe in if you believe in the constitution) .. do we not default to the rights of the woman ?

Then allows you to keep your personal belief yet not be in conflict with the right of another individual to keep their belief.

 

You are completely ignoring the point Grannie makes about a ZEF not being a member of society.

"members of society" have rights regardless of contribution. Non members do not have similar rights.

 

Show me where the consitution, or any law on the books, acnowledges rights based on "society membership".

You are desperately grasping at straws.

 

I, on the other hand, have nailed your ass to the wall on that subject repeatedly!

 

Please show us where the constitution or any law applies to NON-members of society...we'll wait.

 

Show me where it addresses members of society in any way whatsoever.

 

no no...I got involved with the discussion about zygotes when YOU started talking about how apes can have human babies..

I have no problem with abortion at this stage. Where did you get that? maybe you could find some of my posts and copy and paste them together to make it LOOK like I did but I have never raised an objection to abortion at this point.

 

I did not want to argue with her about that point, she is allowed to have her opinion. I wanted to point out (as I did) that having that attitude can be a slippery slope.

 

This is beyond stupid. Have you ever seen a human that was not a member of society?

 

What you said makes zero sense.

 

Who else would it apply to??? ALL government applies to members of society.

 

It would apply to people. So again, show me where the terms "society members" exist anywhere in the constitution.

I'll wait here, (forever I am sure).

Your comments are the equivalent of throwing large mounds of horse turds in the road to impede progress in the discussion of this topic.

 

Are you really reduced to the semantics game?

 

No, but Grannie is. When one wants to argue who a document applies to, one should refer to the terminology in the document, not throw up a smokescreen argument using different terminology as Granny has done here.

 

So you see how stupid it is to use that terminology when discussing this topic, good. Now lets get back on topic. BTW there are many people who are not members of American society.

 

So obviously, zefs aren't people since it has been shown many times that the constitution doesn't refer to zefs. One example is that zefs aren't counted in the census. The constitution was written and passed for the benefit of members of society.

LOL, you know a great deal about horse turds but little about progress in a discussion.

 

The terminology is not stupid, your use of it...
And just who IS a member of American society?

 

As the one-time creator of an aborted child, I find this conversation sad. It does not bother me so much as it does the woman who had the abortion.

We were teens, she became pregnant, I raised the funds and took her to the clinic. Fortunately, we were able to keep the families out of it, and it became our secret.

Neither of us were capable of being proper parents, and neither of us would have made it through college if we had had a child to absorb our resources and time. We would abort again, and the law says we can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

While I appreciated the opportunity to be a part of the decision, it was really a matter between the woman and her doctor.

Did I mention that five years later we were married? Did I mention that neither of us would bring a child into this destructive world of ours? Did I mention that if we ever wanted children we would adopt?

So, there you have it. It is the law, and it was our decision. I am sure these holy rollers will be pushing this subject long into the future, but they will never change the law.

Those who make all the noise about abortion, are not those who need the option of pro-choice. Quietly Republicans will permit the issue because they do not want to pay welfare, education, or health care, of unwanted children. Democrats will continue to support abortion as a matter of choice. This issue alone would be enough to guarantee voting a straight Democratic ticket for for my wife and I for life.

Tell you what I would like to see is all the holy rollers who stand against abortion get the billed for all the nation's unwanted children. In the end, their wallets will speak louder than their religion.

​

 

I am against abortion per se but I can see nothing wrong wth if it occurs within a reasonable time from conception and/or:

- the mother is a drug addict;

- already has mutiple children with no partner to assist in their upkeep and care;

- the parents have a high degree of mental impairment;

- it is very obvious that the mother has become pregnant in order to obtain higher welfare benefits.

 

It's a human and it's alive... so yeah, it does. A tree is alive, is it not?

 

So you would be fine with abortion of a fetus 8 months after conception?

 

He just doesn't see the obvious lack of logic in his posts, everyone else does though.

 

How many times do I have to repeat this is a decision between a woman and her doctor?

​