Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 2 votes

Blood on the hands of pro-abortionists... "deal with it"


  • Please log in to reply
199 replies to this topic

#31 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,716 posts

Posted 10 April 2013 - 12:40 PM

Planned Parenthood running their own butcher houses...


http://abclocal.go.c...ideo?id=9059275

Listen to the DHS administrator...she didn't want to say anything. She knows. Smug smile and all. In the case of Gossner, the Philly health department had numerous complaints, but chose (for political reasons?) not to do anything about it.

#32 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,716 posts

Posted 10 April 2013 - 12:45 PM

btw state of Delaware...why wouldn't a Planned Parenthood clinic be subject to health inspections?

#33 BBQ&Beer

BBQ&Beer

    The good actor

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,965 posts
  • LocationMissouri

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:51 PM

Sooooo is anyone on here actually for abortion, and if so why? I am not nor have I ever trolled. I really want to hear the arguments from someone who is actually for it.

For abortion, or for abortion to be legal?


My personal belief ( if anyone is interested) is that there is no moral or ethical justification for it.

My personal belief is that there is.

I do not feel as though a pregnant woman has some special say so about whether or not a child should live or die. And calling something a fetus does not change the fact that it is alive.

I feel a women should have control over her own body. Also, the fact that a fetus is alive doesn't change the fact that it isn't viable outside of the mother's body.

However, I recognize that if faced with extreme situations (rape of family member, incest etc) I doubt my resolve would hold up against the pain felt by my closest loved ones. For that reason I don't think that it can be adequately legislated either way.


& thus the rub. About 90% of abortions are done before 13 weeks. If a woman hadn't realized she was pregnant & engaged in a dangerous activity (say motorcycle racing) had an accident, & the fetus was killed, should she be charged with negligent homicide?

#34 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,497 posts

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:27 PM

For abortion, or for abortion to be legal?

For abortion

My personal belief is that there is.


what would that justification be?


I feel a women should have control over her own body. Also, the fact that a fetus is alive doesn't change the fact that it isn't viable outside of the mother's body.


interesting. Does control over your body extend to control over another life? Doesn't agreeing that a fetus is alive make it no different than any other life? Do we not incur an obligation to preserve a life that is dependent on us? Are parents not responsible for the lives of their children?

& thus the rub. About 90% of abortions are done before 13 weeks. If a woman hadn't realized she was pregnant & engaged in a dangerous activity (say motorcycle racing) had an accident, & the fetus was killed, should she be charged with negligent homicide?

I don't know, maybe. There is a precedent for it. If a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer is charged twice regardless of whether or not the mother is 3 weeks or 8 months.

#35 BBQ&Beer

BBQ&Beer

    The good actor

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,965 posts
  • LocationMissouri

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:17 PM

For abortion

Never had or asked anyone to have one, nor do I plan to so I guess I'm not for abortion.



what would that justification be?

Its her, sometimes their, choice.




interesting. Does control over your body extend to control over another life?

In this case yes.

Doesn't agreeing that a fetus is alive make it no different than any other life?

I'll get to that below.

Do we not incur an obligation to preserve a life that is dependent on us?

Yes. The point we disagree on is when that obligation starts.


Are parents not responsible for the lives of their children?

Yes, but we are talking about potential children.


I don't know, maybe. There is a precedent for it. If a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer is charged twice regardless of whether or not the mother is 3 weeks or 8 months.

If its " no different from other life", then why are you unsure?

#36 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,497 posts

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:53 PM

Its her, sometimes their, choice.


In this case yes.


Okay, But why? What gives them/her/him the right?


Yes. The point we disagree on is when that obligation starts.
Yes, but we are talking about potential children.


when is that? what constitutes life? How do you measure it? How do you KNOOOW? In you heart, are you so sure that a babe at 8 weeks gestation is less alive than one at 10. is this not a life? Attached File  8 weeks.jpg   5.75K   2 downloads

If its " no different from other life", then why are you unsure?

Not because it is not a life that it is taken. I pause only because an accident should not be seen the same as negligence.

#37 BBQ&Beer

BBQ&Beer

    The good actor

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,965 posts
  • LocationMissouri

Posted 10 April 2013 - 04:32 PM

Okay, But why? What gives them/her/him the right?

Socitey backed by Roe v. Wade.



when is that? what constitutes life? How do you measure it? How do you KNOOOW? In you heart, are you so sure that a babe at 8 weeks gestation is less alive than one at 10. is this not a life? Attached File  8 weeks.jpg   5.75K   2 downloads

After 24 weeks. Living. By its viability outside of the womb. Its were the testable verifiable evidence points.
Where did I say a fetus at 8 weeks was less alive than one at 10? As for the picture, is that a real fetus? Is it a live fetus? Is it alive now?


Not because it is not a life that it is taken. I pause only because an accident should not be seen the same as negligence.

Yet it was negligence that caused the accident.


Now what give anyone the right to force a woman to carry a pregnacy to term?


Now then,

#38 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,497 posts

Posted 10 April 2013 - 05:21 PM

Socitey backed by Roe v. Wade.




After 24 weeks. Living. By its viability outside of the womb. Its were the testable verifiable evidence points.
Where did I say a fetus at 8 weeks was less alive than one at 10? As for the picture, is that a real fetus? Is it a live fetus? Is it alive now?



Yet it was negligence that caused the accident.


Now what give anyone the right to force a woman to carry a pregnacy to term?


Now then,


My cousin was born at 5 months or 20 weeks and is now 28 with a 7 year old son. If the only measurement of life is viability out of the womb, there is no real way to measure that. Technologically, a person can go from conception to term without ever being inside of a woman.

The forcing of a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.... Well that is really what it always comes down to. Is a womans emotional well-being more important than the life she carries inside. Can someone physically force her, technically probably not. But is it murder to kill the child?.. I think so. Is it right to kill the child? absolutely not. Is it fair to the mother? maybe, maybe not. But it is still a life. A human life. More protection is given to cats and dogs than to unborn children.

And honestly how many babies are aborted because of rape or incest? Compared to how many are because of a drunken one night stand, a teenaged bad decision, a regretted infidelity.

#39 BBQ&Beer

BBQ&Beer

    The good actor

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,965 posts
  • LocationMissouri

Posted 10 April 2013 - 05:57 PM

My cousin was born at 5 months or 20 weeks and is now 28 with a 7 year old son. If the only measurement of life is viability out of the womb, there is no real way to measure that. Technologically, a person can go from conception to term without ever being inside of a woman.

Good for him. A lot of kids wouldn't have survived.

The forcing of a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.... Well that is really what it always comes down to. Is a womans emotional well-being more important than the life she carries inside. Can someone physically force her, technically probably not. But is it murder to kill the child?.. I think so. Is it right to kill the child? absolutely not. Is it fair to the mother? maybe, maybe not. But it is still a life. A human life. More protection is given to cats and dogs than to unborn children.

Well murder is the unlawful killing of a human being by another. Abortion isn't unlawful.
Is it right? That comes down to one's personal definition of right & wrong & you don't get to decide that for anyone else.
Cats & dogs don't get to decide if they get spayed or neutered & when females get spayed, its common practice to abort the pregnacy.

And honestly how many babies are aborted because of rape or incest? Compared to how many are because of a drunken one night stand, a teenaged bad decision, a regretted infidelity.


If you include danger to the mother's life or serious medical compilations for the fetus, about 7%. Hard to get a set number since the morning after pill is available after rape.
As for drunken one night stands, bad decisions, etc... why is that any one else's business?

#40 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,497 posts

Posted 10 April 2013 - 07:04 PM

Good for him. A lot of kids wouldn't have survived.

You referred to a 20 week old fetus as a kid. Was that only because she was allowed to live?

Well murder is the unlawful killing of a human being by another. Abortion isn't unlawful.
Is it right? That comes down to one's personal definition of right & wrong & you don't get to decide that for anyone else.
Cats & dogs don't get to decide if they get spayed or neutered & when females get spayed, its common practice to abort the pregnacy.

You seem like a reasonable person, so I don't want to insult your intelligence by restating that legal and right(moral) are not the same. And if it is a human life, capable of survival if given the chance, does it not become one life for another's what...mental health, emotional stress, what?


If you include danger to the mother's life or serious medical compilations for the fetus, about 7%. Hard to get a set number since the morning after pill is available after rape.
As for drunken one night stands, bad decisions, etc... why is that any one else's business?


I believe the morning after pill is the biggest argument against abortion. Between condoms, birth control, a myriad of different contraceptive options annnnd a pill you can take after the fact so that you don't ever get pregnant in the first place what reason could you have to kill the child. If you didn't want a child then don't get pregnant. If we can agree that the child is alive how can anyone say that it is okay to kill it because someone doesn't want it to live.

#41 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,954 posts

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:11 PM

If only all of those methods were 100% effective when used correctly and were all uniformly easy to access. the morning after pill may be 100% (not sure), but who the hell would take that if a condom didn't break or on birth control? neither of which are 100% even when used correctly.

#42 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,542 posts

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:30 PM

By G5 s logic here, all pro gun people have blood on their hands for Newtown.


I was thinking that exact thing.

#43 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,542 posts

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:30 PM

By G5 s logic here, all pro gun people have blood on their hands for Newtown.


I was thinking that exact thing.
Double post somehow

#44 BBQ&Beer

BBQ&Beer

    The good actor

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,965 posts
  • LocationMissouri

Posted 11 April 2013 - 12:41 AM

You referred to a 20 week old fetus as a kid. Was that only because she was allowed to live?

No. It was because her mother made a choice, & well trains people worked to keep her alive.

You seem like a reasonable person, so I don't want to insult your intelligence by restating that legal and right(moral) are not the same. And if it is a human life, capable of survival if given the chance, does it not become one life for another's what...mental health, emotional stress, what?

Call it what you want...And?

I believe the morning after pill is the biggest argument against abortion. Between condoms, birth control, a myriad of different contraceptive options annnnd a pill you can take after the fact so that you don't ever get pregnant in the first place what reason could you have to kill the child. If you didn't want a child then don't get pregnant. If we can agree that the child is alive how can anyone say that it is okay to kill it because someone doesn't want it to live.

Ok, forget the morning after pill. Why is it anyone else's business? What right do you have that says you can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term?

& now that I think about it, if any fetus is viable if just given the chance, (especially with technology) why not remove all eggs from females as soon as possible, preserve all sperm from males as possible, & fertelize at a rate of 1 per year?

#45 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 19,700 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:34 AM

The fact that you framed pro choice people as "pro abortion" makes everything else you wrote irrelevant as you don't begin to understand the argument.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.