Everyone Calls it a Baby When She's Not Having an Abortion

OK, ALL abortion should be legal, that will remove any red tape that prospective parents and doctors would have to endure when contemplating a late-term abortion which would always be done for medical reasons. Just keep in mind that none of those late-term abortions will be done on a whim.

I do prefer that we emulate Canada and have no regulation on abortion at all.

 

For me personally, I could never see a way to justify rape, child porn, child abuse, or slavery.

Who said rape is not violent? I think you're making this part up out of thin air.

It's not hypocritical. I would support a cut-off date as a compromise for one simple reason. If such a compromise were being made, it would solidify a woman's right to abortion which right now is almost constantly under attack by pro-lifers. It would provide an even better legal protection for that right, and lower the chances that it can be infringed upon by nosy people. Supporting the compromise would simply be a means to an end for me, because while it would prevent a small handful of women from getting late-term abortions, it would hopefully stop all the draconian attacks on abortion rights, like in your state, and in Mississippi(could have been Alabama) where new regulations are very likely going to cause the only abortion clinic in the state to have to close. If it would mean that a very large percentage of women would be guaranteed access to professional abortion services, I could live with a very small number of people having to make up their mind a little sooner.

If it didn't do those things I just listed, I wouldn't support the compromise. At all. See, I don't get to have things exactly the way I want them. If I did, abortion would be legal in all cases. I'd prefer to protect the most people's rights, even if it means, as I said, that a very small percentage of women seeking abortions have to make up their mind about it a little sooner(because I would only support a compromise that made exceptions for the mother's health and the discovery of debilitating birth defects. Again, if it did not do those things too, I would not support it).

Does that make things a little clearer for you? I do support late-term abortion. I believe it should be legal. I would only support restricting it if doing so would protect the rights of women to have access to abortion.

Woa, I didn't say you can't or shouldn't protest something. I said that I don't understand the arrogance it must take to think that the law should be used to regulate a woman's body in the manner that you would use it for. It's pure arrogance. You hide behind the children, but what it really comes down to is that someone is doing something you don't like, and that chaps your behind.

Do YOU care for ALL life? I seem to remember you saying you supported the war in Iraq. Guess those lives are just a teenie bit too far away for you to care about.
So lets narrow it down. You care about all American human life.

I have never once asked you this question. If I had, I wouldn't be asking you again. Unlike you, I don't have to ask the same question over and over again. Once is enough for me.

So, since I haven't asked you before, and since you did not answer it, I'll ask again.

Would you consider someone who was against all abortion except in cases where the mother's life is in danger pro-life or pro-choice? Do you have to be against ALL abortion in ANY circumstance to be pro-life or is there some wiggle room there?

I laughed at the suggestion that you saying that would make me have a bad day. So actually, it made me have a better day. Thank you!

No, I do not "know" that it's wrong. How do you "know" that I "know" that it's wrong?

I'm not trying to look moral either. That's you. I don't need to wear my morality on my sleeve seeking some type of validation.

Your logic is...well....dumb. Because I'm not out protesting, I am a hypocrite? You really really do not understand what being a hypocrite is, do you? Bowerbird was spot-on in the conversation she was having with you where she pointed that out.

I don't believe it's wrong, so if I admitted anything to the contrary, I would be telling a lie.

 

Exactly. It really helps to protect all pregnant women. Those who wish to carry to term, those who do not and those who did want to carry to term but could not.

 

There ya go….you finally admitted it. ABortion no limitations…no doctors permission slip…abortion if the mother wants it at even nine months.

 

You're once more not getting it. Didn't you hear me say that women don't have late-term abortions because they WANT them? Let me say it once more slowly: W o m e n d o n' t h a v e l a t e- t e r m a b o r t i o n s b e c a u s e t h e y w a n t
t h e m.

 

Junkieturtle said,

You said…that morality is not an absolute. So I used rape as an example of something you would consider not an absolute. You said it I didn't. You said most things were gray.

It is very much hypocritical. Abortion should be legal so say the pro-aborts…for one basic main reason….the woman's body. It is her body her right…which I want to take away by not allowing abortion. You say two things….it should be legal….and it should not be legal. WHERE DID THE RIGHTS THE WOMAN HAVE FOR HER OWN BODY GO? You say I have no right to deny her an abortion. But you do the same darn thing when you say…wow compromise. You are stripping her of HER RIGHTS.

It should not matter one bit what reasons you can come up with for justifying your position. YOU ARE STRIPPING THE WOMAN OF THE RIGHTS TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR HER OWN BODY. How can you do this? Even Grannie now admits she is legalization of abortion even in the ninth month. So her position is not hypocritical…neither is pasithea…but yours is. You are wrestling with this because you know that abortion is immoral…you won't say it…but you do. And a compromise is better than nothing for you. It lets you be just a tiny bit moral in your own eyes.

ARe you saying that you think late term abortions are moral…that they should be allowed? That the woman should have rights to her own body and not be held hostage by compromises? Cause your all over the page her on this.

Who are most people? Can't be the unborn you don't see another person but the woman. So what about her. Look, this should be simple…you are making this to hard. You said that abortion should be legal because it is the woman's body..blah blah. Then you say gee we should have compromise. Then you say if it was up to you all abortions would be legal which I assume means late term abortion. So why don't you just throw the compromise reasoning out the window and just state it like pasithea and granny did. You believe that a woman should be able to abort any time any reason because its her body.

No you need to make yourself clearer on this. Well at least you said you didn't mind if a woman aborted a perfectly viable child in the ninth month…for no reason. And the second sentence does not make sense. Women do have access to abortion.

The law regulates a lot of things…it always has. If your pro body and everyone should be able to do what they want…then do you also support selling ones own body parts? Women selling fetal body parts? Sex with animals? Drugs? No seat belts, helmets on motor vehicles? Prostitution?

I did not want a long drawn out war…and in the beginning I wanted us to take care of business fast. I believe Sadam who was killing his own people in brutal ways…had to be taken out just like Hitler had to be stopped. But the differences between world views especially in their eyes will never go away and there will never be peace in this area of the world. Listen I support two little girls in depressed areas of the world, through World Vision. I do care. My church is big on missions and we support thirteen missionary families in the middle east. I have gone on mission trips before…have you?

You are grasping at straws….and this is unfair for you to say. I support life…that is why sometimes the bad person has to be taken out of the equation…for that very reason. That is different than just wanting people dead for no reasons.

Well if you just answered the questions put to you and quit running…then I wouldn't keep asking.

They are pro-life. In most cases both mother and child can be saved. And in the case where the mothers life is in danger…they don't rip the unborn apart. And you have never asked me that question before just to let you know.

WEll you do find some very immoral things IMO hilarious…so I would presume anything would go with you. Laugh away.


No, I do not "know" that it's wrong. How do you "know" that I "know" that it's wrong?

I'm not trying to look moral either. That's you. I don't need to wear my morality on my sleeve seeking some type of validation.

Your logic is...well....dumb. Because I'm not out protesting, I am a hypocrite? You really really do not understand what being a hypocrite is, do you? Bowerbird was spot-on in the conversation she was having with you where she pointed that out.



I don't believe it's wrong, so if I admitted anything to the contrary, I would be telling a lie.[/QUOTE]

 

You said………and I quote

"OK, ALL abortion should be legal, that will remove any red tape that prospective parents and doctors would have to endure when contemplating a late-term abortion which would always be done for medical reasons. Just keep in mind that none of those late-term abortions will be done on a whim.

I do prefer that we emulate Canada and have no regulation on abortion at all.'

All abortion should be legal. Late term abortion is allowed in Canada.

Why should a woman be denied rights to her body grannie?

 

Keep in mind that women don't choose abortion in late-term. They must be allowed to have them since sometimes it means the difference between life and death, but it is never done on a whim.

Isn't it moral for a woman to save her own life? Isn't it moral for her to have a dead fetus removed from her body? What is "allowed", i.e. not illegal by statute, is not necessarily the same as what is "moral." Law is to maintain order in society, not to enforce a particular moral code. No matter what you think is moral, someone else is allowed to make his own decisions on morality, UNLESS it interferes with order in society.

No matter WHAT the law says, women DON'T abort any time any reason. Women DON'T abort in late-term without very good reasons, they don't do it on a whim.

 

OKgrannie said,

But they should be able to right? Its the woman's body…remember? So the reasons shouldn't matter. For you and other pro-aborts abortion should be allowed at any time and for any reason. You said you thought our laws should be like those in Canada.

You said….."I do prefer that we emulate Canada and have no regulation on abortion at all."

Abortion is not removing a dead fetus from a body. It is killing the life until dead…and then removing it. If the doctor removed it and then killed it…this would be illegal.

The order of society….? That is what I am trying to change because of people like you who think killing unborn human children is ok. What don't you get? I have the right to change it…whether you like it or not. And you don't like it…you want killing always to be an option for a woman.

But my question is not about the women who are in the hospital dying because of some complication. My point is that you pro-aborts should be fighting to change law to make abortion legal anytime for any reason. You maintain its the woman's body…the minute she gets pregnant you say she is in danger….so why wouldn't you want her to be able to exercise the right to kill on demand anytime throughout her pregnancy?

You say she should be able to kill anytime…your position is not hypocritical…but you say she should not be allowed to kill after a certain date…and your position is most certainly hypocritical.

 

She already stated that she wants us to emulate Canada and have no laws on abortion. Why are you continuing to harass her as though she has said otherwise?

 

That's true, I TRUST women to make the best decisions for themselves, I do NOT trust government to take care of women. I understand that women do not CHOOSE abortions in late-term anyway, so there is no point in laws opposing it.

It is. Sometimes the fetus dies a natural death but is not expelled from the woman's body, so when it is removed from her body, that is still an abortion.

.

Actually, your system would result in disorder and chaos in society. Many lawbreaking people will be having illegal abortions, setting up illegal abortion clinics, and we can expect some deaths and disabling complications as a result.

Women don't choose late-term abortion anyway, so who cares whether a law exists or not? What sensible person gets all in a lather about a law that never has ANY EFFECT?

 

People who try to put others into boxes of their own construction "you pro-aborts want......" find themselves arguing with nothing and nobody. Why would anyone accept a label that does not fit? Why would anyone want to identify with a straw man??

 

All I am doing here is to clarify positions and take for instance…grannies is still not clear she just won't admit it. Have you?

What is your label? I keep asking because the pro-abort group keep switching it up…except pasithea..who just outright states that all abortion should be legal…no hypocrisy there. But the rest of you that is another story.

 

Ok here ya go and why I keep asking.

The question I ask is…should it matter what they choose and when they choose it. Grannie is making excuses for late term. Why doesn't she just say…hey it does not matter if she is pro-abortion throughout the entire nine months? She does not really say it.

Again excuses…won't say really. She uses big bolded DON'T and CHOOSE to get her statement across. She then mentions limited time….the woman would not need any limits no time cut off if there were not restrictions on abortions. But again Grannie runs from it….does not mention anything like….the woman's opinion and wishes are held in bondage by current law. She seems to defend late term abortion….only as a CHOICE IF HER LIFE IS IN DANGER.


I SAID THIS…..”There ya go….you finally admitted it. ABortion no limitations…no doctors permission slip…abortion if the mother wants it at even nine months.”

And she said this…..

It should not matter if grannie were for late term abortion.

I thought she admitted it here but a further reading said something different…she said women should be able to terminate in late term IF (like she stated in previous posts) if her life is in danger. Because if all abortion were legal and honored the woman's wished…then no matter what the case the woman should be able to kill. This is your position. Grannie defends only the women getting them for medical reasons. She says two different things here and won't clearly state her hypocritical position. Why don't you call her on it?



I asked her this question….she never answered…

I am still waiting for that answer…..a complete one that is.

 

try to add a fetus to your work life insurance policy, see what they say

 

Oh yea….in a country where abortion is legal…where no fetus gets protection.

You harm a fetus yourself…..and you might however be prosecuted. Ask Scott Peterson….how many lives he was found guilty of killing.

How many lives did he kill….could you please tell me?

 

Some of us like to focus on what actually happens in reality versus what happens in your own mind. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of women who choose late term abortion do so for medical reasons. Welcome to reality. The 1.1% does it not do it because they want to, but because they have to.

 

This is a debate site….where people share their beliefs and try to make a case for them. She is doing a terrible job because so far her position is all over the spectrum…and so are her excuses. If you notice she has not made it to my new thread about stating her beliefs….which I knew she wouldn't. LOL

I keep saying this and you just don't get it. I very much realize that fewer women get late term…mainly because it is not legal and clinics are harder to find. You legalize it and watch how the numbers would go up. That is not my question to you pro-aborts…which now a few of you have stated more clearly….the question is…..should late term abortion BE LEGAL, should the laws be changed?…..Because most of you maintain it's the woman's body, her decision, that to deny her this right takes away her rights.

 

If it's not baby, why are mothers, who are not seeking an abortion, so devastated when their baby dies? After all, it's not really a "person" is it? Why don't you go tell a woman who has just lost her pregnancy it wasn't really a baby anyway, see what her response is.

The fact that it really is a baby is obvious. Even pro-choicers start objecting when we talk about killing an unborn baby that the woman does want. Suddenly it's not about whether the fetus is a person or not. Pro-choicers admit there is something special about the fetus inside, that it's not merely a disposable clump of cells.

 

The fetus only has as much value as the woman places upon it. If she views it as her baby and wishes to keep it then that is her choice. I have absolutely no problem with people who believe it is a baby and love it and bond with it and develop feelings for it. Those people are not the problem. The problem is when pro-lifers step-forward and say that just because many women have feelings for their fetus and call it a baby every woman should. Again you are just trying to force your will upon others through emotional tactics and coercion. I stand firmly against this.

 

Having read through all 30 odd pages of this thread it is pretty plain to me that all you do is rehash the same monologue .. your questions have been answered numerous times over a variety of threads but as it doesn't meet what you believe you just don't bother listening to them.
You spend your time working out the best way to create strawman arguments without ever addressing the relevant information put to you or just trying to demean others.
You are a hypocrite of the highest order, you have no conscience or idea of what you propose would actually accomplish in reality .. but don't let that stop you trying to force others to do your bidding.

 

What about the father? Is the value he places on his fetus irrevelent? The fact that the fetus is geographically inside the mother has nothing to do with its inherent value. You claim the fetus's value is derived from the mother. But if that is so, then value must be able to be derived from the father also.

 

^^this

- - - Updated - - -

the male has no rights.... according to these people. dont you know that by now?

 

so if i feel like my 1 month old child isnt a child... then that makes it not a child?

the minute we start to make laws on "feelings" and decide whether or not someone is a human based on "feelings" is the minute we lose everything we stood for when creating this country. all laws and everything in society then becomes meaningless

 

You want to change the subject?

I totally agree and now pro-lifers need to stop using emotional tactics and pointing out how people 'feel' about their fetuses as the reason they should be considered persons. Time to find a new reason for why you think a fetus is a person. Logic, legality and Science would be good places to start.