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

#121 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,732 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 08:05 PM

The question at the heart of the matter of abortion is "when does human life begin?" There is no one on the planet truly qualified to answer that question. It is why I am reluctantly pro-choice, myself. It is obviously immoral, but the law cannot confidently say when anyone becomes a person. It is for that same reason that state-supported abortions via planned parenthood, etc are FAR beyond he purview of the function of federal government. Compelling anyone to pay for such a thing against their will is an anathema to liberty... Especially when it comes to freedom of religion.

So while many people glibly say, "if you don't agree with abortions, don't have one," that is your right. It is every bit as much right for anyone else to say, "go fug yourself if you want me to pay for yours."


Every immoral law must be disobeyed.

Nurnberg Trials




If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.
- Thomas Jefferson



You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.



“Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them?”

-Henry David Thoreau

#122 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,380 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 08:09 PM

Taking that reasoning to its logical ends resulted in (and still does) terrorism. They broke the law while giving up their own lives for what they believed to be moral.

#123 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,796 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 09:12 PM

Most people think their subjective opinion is an absolute truth.

#124 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,553 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 09:13 PM



http://www.mayoclini...NSECTIONGROUP=2

I am a humble person, so I will admit that the evidence I presented requires connections to be drawn that may not be obvious. Basically by any measure of fetal development that can be applied to its viability out of the womb can be applied before the 20th week. This is not my opinion. This is medical theory.


This is your opinion. Please see my earlier references. There's a reason there is a sub 50% survival for children born between 21 and 23 weeks, and why no child any earlier than 21 weeks has survived. The organs being present and functioning is not enough to be viable outside the womb, and this is why so many preterm babies don't make it, despite proper care. Even with the world's best medical care, technology has NOT advanced to a point where a child can survive before 20 weeks. This just isn't the case from any source I have found, and because your sources on this are apparently "logical leaps" from opinions, I can assume you are just willfully ignoring evidence to the contrary...

The image you present needs a reference, since it makes a claim "babies can even be saved younger," @ 22 weeks yet this has actually never occurred from any source I can find. It also disagrees with your second source, the Mayo Clinic, on some minor points. Could you link me to the source of the image?

fwiw, sorry if I sound aggressive in this debate; I have 0 problem with you having a "different opinion" than me on if abortion is right or wrong or when it should occur, but a statement like "a baby can survive outside the womb" is, at least right now, incorrect as it has not happened yet. It is not that your statement might never be true in the future, but it is not true now.

#125 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,732 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 09:56 PM

This is your opinion. Please see my earlier references. There's a reason there is a sub 50% survival for children born between 21 and 23 weeks, and why no child any earlier than 21 weeks has survived. The organs being present and functioning is not enough to be viable outside the womb, and this is why so many preterm babies don't make it, despite proper care. Even with the world's best medical care, technology has NOT advanced to a point where a child can survive before 20 weeks. This just isn't the case from any source I have found, and because your sources on this are apparently "logical leaps" from opinions, I can assume you are just willfully ignoring evidence to the contrary...

The image you present needs a reference, since it makes a claim "babies can even be saved younger," @ 22 weeks yet this has actually never occurred from any source I can find. It also disagrees with your second source, the Mayo Clinic, on some minor points. Could you link me to the source of the image?

fwiw, sorry if I sound aggressive in this debate; I have 0 problem with you having a "different opinion" than me on if abortion is right or wrong or when it should occur, but a statement like "a baby can survive outside the womb" is, at least right now, incorrect as it has not happened yet. It is not that your statement might never be true in the future, but it is not true now.


The debate seems to be what is viable. Webster is the ONLY dictionary I will quote when debating

Definition of VIABLE


1

: capable of living; especially : having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb <a viable fetus>


2

: capable of growing or developing <viable seeds> <viable eggs>


3

a : capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately <viable alternatives>

b : capable of existence and development as an independent unit <the colony is now a viable state>

c (1) : having a reasonable chance of succeeding <a viable candidate> (2) : financially sustainable <a viable enterprise>


This definition of the word offers no distinction between the different factors that contribute to survival, (e.g. respiratory function, circulatory function, heart strength, ability to grow normally) and leaves its interpretation up to those that apply the term in speech. I have simply pointed out that by everyone's explanation of the term on this forum there is no limiting factor in todays technology that would preclude ANY preterm infant from surviving. Furthermore, I have continually, and fervently pointed out that measuring development in weeks is misleading, as the differently milestones are only measured at the recorded times, not developed. Its not like a fetus is just a pile of mush until they hit week 20. Gestation Is complex, and not necessarily in a set in stone order but certain milestones must be completed in order to measure if a developing person is developing properly. Point being, it is an arbitrary, misleading and useless unit of measurement when considering abortion.

It can just as easily be said that no creature is "viable" until adulthood as every creature (mammal at least) needs care and nurturing to a steadily decreasing degree to survive. But most would consider that a "loose" application of the term to say the least.

And lastly technology, not common medical practice. I believe medical facilities generally try their absolute best to ensure the survival of every premature delivery, however that does not mean they are using the utmost in current technology. The technology to clone a human does not exist in a hospital but the level of technology exists. So the term viable is applied to what? No premature babe can survive without medical treatment. Few if any full term babies would survive without immediate action taken by OB's at delivery to clear nasal pathways, throat airways etc... So I ask you and every other person for or against, where is the line?

#126 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,553 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 10:06 PM

Your definitions, to me, allude to the idea of "survival" when discussing viable. I do not mean "survival without medical care," but survival at all. No child born in under 21 weeks since conception has survived. This suggests that right now there is no ability to save a child much earlier than that. I'm not saying we should abort any child before 21 weeks, nor am I saying that if you've got a premie on a table it should be left to die because it's under that time. I am simply arguing that your statements in this thread re: viability prior to 20 weeks are not substantiated by fact.

Note that the survival rate in the US of early preterm babies is still pretty low; NICU survival is 50% at 24 weeks.

I would disagree that "weeks" are arbitrary. Development is remarkably consistent, which I think is amazing in and of itself. The difference is when one measures conception. Some measure it from the moment of fertilization (difficult to do save for cases of artificial insemination), while most measure based on the mother's last menstrual cycle. The actual development time is very tightly controlled in major ways.

RE: "we have the technology," please supply evidence of this technology which is not being used, otherwise it sounds like you are speculating such technology exists without any real substance behind it.

#127 Claws

Claws

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,100 posts

Posted 15 April 2013 - 08:45 PM

Whole thing is just sickening. Hope he pays.

#128 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,402 posts

Posted 15 April 2013 - 09:17 PM

Posted Image

Hey Claws thanks for reminding me in your sig that I'm still right

#129 Claws

Claws

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,100 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 11:17 AM

Too easy. You're always right I thought.

#130 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,402 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 04:01 PM

you are free to believe whatever you wish

#131 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,537 posts

Posted 18 April 2013 - 02:12 PM

http://news.yahoo.co...-180341867.html

#132 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,537 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 07:39 AM

Wonder how these people sleep at night.



#133 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,537 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 08:50 AM

A cleaner version of Kermit Gosnell?



#134 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,987 posts
  • Locationfresh out the grave

Posted 29 April 2013 - 11:07 AM

cool

http://mediamatters....ila-rose/184170

#135 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,537 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 11:20 AM

It's more than one person.

I'm sure it took quite a while to convince the german populace what they were doing was wrong. Or slaveowners. But the disproportionate majority of those slaughtered are brown, so what do you care.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com