Abortion - The way it used to be

[RamFel]

Flushing away an embryo happens all the time during a miscarriage.
The embryo comes out with " late period" and is flushed away.
Most times the woman is not even aware she is pregnant.

Does that mean that flushing away a fetus with the intent to kill, does not result in death of the fetus? Because it sounds to me like that is exactly what you are saying.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Does that mean that flushing away a fetus with the intent to kill, does not result in death of the fetus? Because it sounds to me like that is exactly what you are saying.

Minnie is talking about embryos, not fetuses.

Personally, I see it as a death, but that doesn't mean the woman should be barred from having it removed from her body if she so chooses.

 

[RamFel]

Minnie is talking about embryos, not fetuses.

Personally, I see it as a death, but that doesn't mean the woman should be barred from having it removed from her body if she so chooses.

For Pete's sake, does it really matter? It still is a human being. And you still think women have the right to have it removed at her choosing? That is wrong. Where do liberals get the cojones to demand such a horrible thing. You people amaze me to no end. What kind of people are all of you?

 

[JayDubya]

She'll just say some nonsense about a mother's choice to her own body, which is and always will be a pile of irrelevant nonsense - your kid's body is not your body and a parent has an obligation to provide for the kids they create, period.

 

[le bouffon]

She'll just say some nonsense about a mother's choice to her own body, which is and always will be a pile of irrelevant nonsense - your kid's body is not your body and a parent has an obligation to provide for the kids they create, period.

According to you, yes. We're not talking about a kid, but a fetus. They're distinct entities.

 

[Lursa]

For Pete's sake, does it really matter? It still is a human being. And you still think women have the right to have it removed at her choosing? That is wrong. Where do liberals get the cojones to demand such a horrible thing. You people amaze me to no end. What kind of people are all of you?

What about the other human being, the woman carrying it? Why dont you value her at all? Just look at my signature for proof that you dont.

So you are no better, you'd ask a woman to sacrifice her entire life, her future. Your position is not any more moral than what you accuse pro-choice people of.

 

[minnie616]

Does that mean that flushing away a fetus with the intent to kill, does not result in death of the fetus? Because it sounds to me like that is exactly what you are saying.

I said nothing about a fetus.

Embryo is before 9 weeks gestation which really means within 5 weeks of conception.

The embryo is very tiny before that point.

7 weeks gestation about the size of a blueberry.
8 weeks gestation about the size of a kidney bean.

 

[AGENT J]

She'll just say some nonsense about a mother's choice to her own body, which is and always will be a pile of irrelevant nonsense - your kid's body is not your body and a parent has an obligation to provide for the kids they create, period.

your opinion on obligation is meanignless to reality and rights :shrug:
of course you are allowed to "feel" that why but it doesnt matter since you arent allowed to force your subjective feelings on others and violate thier rights.
Luckily rights > than your feelings in this country

 

[Scrabaholic]

For Pete's sake, does it really matter? It still is a human being. And you still think women have the right to have it removed at her choosing? That is wrong. Where do liberals get the cojones to demand such a horrible thing. You people amaze me to no end. What kind of people are all of you?

Where do you liberals get the cojones to demand women be mandated to gestate and give birth against their will?

 

[RamFel]

What about the other human being, the woman carrying it? Why dont you value her at all? Just look at my signature for proof that you dont.So you are no better, you'd ask a woman to sacrifice her entire life, her future. Your position is not any more moral than what you accuse pro-choice people of.

Amazing! Thank you so much for making my point so beautifully. I could never have done this magnificently without this post. You point out that I ask women to sacrifice her entire life, her future! If you mean for the baby, YES!!! That's exactly what I want every parent especially the mother to do. You have just exposed the liberal common lack of morality that we decry! Well done Lursa, Well done! It's what every mother SHOULD do!

 

[RamFel]

I said nothing about a fetus.Embryo is before 9 weeks gestation which really means within 5 weeks of conception.The embryo is very tiny before that point.7 weeks gestation about the size of a blueberry.8 weeks gestation about the size of a kidney bean.

So you are saying that human life, a person, a human with an identity is worthless for its first two months of life? Do you know what a human being is, or don't you? Life begins at conception! With all your reading you seem to know nothing.

 

[Northern Light]

My friend who grew up in South Africa, where abortion was illegal (not sure about now), worked in a hospital there. Friday nights were called "abortion Fridays" because they would see an influx of women experiencing uterine hemorrhages. Of course, when asked if they knew why they were bleeding so profusely, they just kept their mouths shut, or blamed it on a heavy period. The reality is that women were trying to abort using unsafe means. The most common method was to take the cap of a writing pen and attach it to the end of a coat hanger, insert it into the uterus, and scrape the lining to trigger a miscarriage.

If it causes hemorrhage, you can die of blood loss in less than 15 minutes, but most women don't have that problem.

A lot of pro-life sites claim that there are barely any hospital reports of botched abortions back when abortion was criminalized. That's because if you can't prove an attempted abortion happened, then doctors don't call it an attempted abortion. It gets called something else, like uterine hemorrhage, menorrhagia (excessive menstrual bleeding), miscarriage, etc.

Pro-lifers are pure ideologues. They have NO concept of the realities of what they're pitching. They have NO idea the harm it causes on a societal level. It doesn't save lives, it just puts more lives at risk. Women will continue to abort, it'll just become a lot more risky, so you end up losing the baby plus the women anyway. Pro-lifers are pro-death, literally.

The OP is correct in that back in the 50's and 60's, or even before then, there was a lot at stake socially for pregnancies that were out of wedlock. Even if women stuck to prolife values, if they were pregnant and not married they would go through hell in their communities. Nobody wanted to be "that woman", hence the desperate attempts to abort.

Criminalizing abortion only punishes women. If they aren't brave enough to try an at-home abortion, then they say goodbye to their social lives; and if they attempt an abortion, they could permanently maim their reproductive systems, or die. Illegalizing abortion is about stopping sluts from getting away with enjoying their liberal sex lives, nothing more.

If it were really about "saving lives", then there would be way, way more pro-lifers who are universally against abortion, regardless if it's rape, incest, or there are medical reasons. How can it possibly be "murder" if it's elective but A-OK if the woman was raped by a psychopath? America needs to get a real grip on this issue. The matter of abortion is private and between a woman and her doctor -- nobody else. We are a laughing stock to the other developed nations because we let evangelicals try to dictate national health policy to the government, when they have neither the credentials nor the ability to keep their story straight.

 

[Lursa]

Amazing! Thank you so much for making my point so beautifully. I could never have done this magnificently without this post. You point out that I ask women to sacrifice her entire life, her future! If you mean for the baby, YES!!! That's exactly what I want every parent especially the mother to do. You have just exposed the liberal common lack of morality that we decry! Well done Lursa, Well done! It's what every mother SHOULD do!

In summary, you believe it's ok to treat women the way you claim pro-choice people treat the unborn. But....*you* arent immoral? :doh

 

[minnie616]

So you are saying that human life, a person, a human with an identity is worthless for its first two months of life? Do you know what a human being is, or don't you? Life begins at conception! With all your reading you seem to know nothing.

According to the US code ( that has been posted in this forum many times ) an embryo is not a person nor a human being.
Human yes....But no an embryo is not legally a human being, person, child, or individual , according to the Supreme Court and the US Congress


You are wrong. An 8 week gestational embryo has only been been conceived for about 6 weeks ...not 2 months!

 

[RamFel]

In summary, you believe it's ok to treat women the way you claim pro-choice people treat the unborn. But....*you* arent immoral? :doh

No. Not that, but this:

In summary, you believe it's OK to kill babies for the benefit of yourselves, and your evil goals, whatever they are, and no matter how immoral they are. You claim to believe yourselves morally superior yet we want life and you want death?

You pit the women against the babies, but the women are guilty of sin, and the babies are not. Women are the ones who got themselves into this situation, but ask the babies to pay the price in full?

And yet you pull this on me? Act morally superior when clearly your not? Question me like a common criminal when you are the ones with blood on your hands?

Then act as if we are the evil ones, but not you. Oh no. Not you. Always remember that. That it's not us. Not us. It is all of you. All of you. Why try to get me to admit believe that it's OK to treat babies any way you want and to even kill them ?

Back, back to the dark pit with you!

 

[Lursa]

No. Not that, but this:

In summary, you believe it's OK to kill babies for the benefit of yourselves, and your evil goals, whatever they are, and no matter how immoral they are. You claim to believe yourselves morally superior yet we want life and you want death?

You pit the women against the babies, but the women are guilty of sin, and the babies are not. Women are the ones who got themselves into this situation, but ask the babies to pay the price in full?

And yet you pull this on me? Act morally superior when clearly your not? Question me like a common criminal when you are the ones with blood on your hands?

Then act as if we are the evil ones, but not you. Oh no. Not you. Always remember that. That it's not us. Not us. It is all of you. All of you. Why try to get me to admit believe that it's OK to treat babies any way you want and to even kill them ?

Back, back to the dark pit with you!

Women arent guilty of anything. THere's nothing wrong with having sex or getting pregnant. That's your judgement.

And the 'innnocence' of the unborn is the emptiness of nothing....no ability to act or even form intent. It has no choice but to be empty, like a tree or a tomato. It's a vacuum, and there's zero value in that. Once born it will be innocent, evil, and everything in between. So the emptiness is meaningless.

So we're back to (altho you obviously hate to admit it, lol):

In summary, you believe it's ok to treat women the way you claim pro-choice people treat the unborn. But....*you* arent immoral? :doh

 

[RamFel]

According to the US code ( that has been posted in this forum many times ) an embryo is not a person nor a human being.
Human yes....But no an embryo is not legally a human being, person, child, or individual , according to the Supreme Court and the US Congress

You are wrong. An 8 week gestational embryo has only been been conceived for about 6 weeks ...not 2 months!

Minnie, I have explained to you many times. Yet you seem to stay on the same wrong path. Life begins at conception and since the embryo and the embryo, from beginning to end, is alive, a human, and person. I am not wrong. The US code is wrong. The U.S. Code is not a scientist, or doctor. This too has been posted by me many times.

I will not listen to rubbish. If you are going to quote to he the things that YOU believe are true, then go somewhere else with it. I want the truth. You want lies. While you are supporting the idea that bad is good, then that make you a person who attends churches that support badness. And of course you listen to who ever or what ever supports your view.

Must I treat you like Marty McFly? To tell you over and over that you are wrong. But then again, that's because you only believe in those things that support you!

 

[JayDubya]

According to the US code ( that has been posted in this forum many times ) an embryo is not a person nor a human being.
Human yes....But no an embryo is not legally a human being, person, child, or individual , according to the Supreme Court and the US Congress

The U.S. can define "person." It can and has done so and is currently doing so in an utterly despicable and discriminatory fashion.

No state can deny the scientific fact that we do not change species during our lifetime and that our lifespan as sexually reproducing organisms begins at fertilization with the zygote stage of life.


The take home message here is this - "person" is legal, political, and subjective.

"Human being" is not.

A nation failing to align itself with reality is just that; the state has no authority to deny scientific fact by edict and demand we pretend their insanity is truth.

 

[RamFel]

Women arent guilty of anything. THere's nothing wrong with having sex or getting pregnant. That's your judgement.

sexual immorality

Also found in: Wikipedia.
ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend:
Noun 1. sexual immorality - the evil ascribed to sexual acts that violate social conventions; "sexual immorality is the major reason for last year's record number of abortions".

And the 'innocence' of the unborn is the emptiness of nothing....no ability to act or even form intent. It has no choice but to be empty, like a tree or a tomato. It's a vacuum, and there's zero value in that. Once born it will be innocent, evil, and everything in between. So the emptiness is meaningless.

And you don't know that. You know nothing about what is in the baby's mind so you post an answer that is as empty as you make out the baby's mental capacity is. Why don't you prove that a baby's mind is empty?

So we're back to (altho you obviously hate to admit it, lol):

Yes, I hate to admit it, but there it is. I hate to admit lies and trickery. You are wrong. wrong. wrong. wrong. wrong. wrong. wrong. wrong.

 

[Lursa]

sexual immorality

Also found in: Wikipedia.
ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend:
Noun 1. sexual immorality - the evil ascribed to sexual acts that violate social conventions; "sexual immorality is the major reason for last year's record number of abortions".

And predominently in America, casual sex is not violating any social conventions.

It's not wrong and it's not immoral.

If you dont like it, dont have casual sex. Your loss.

In summary, you believe it's ok to treat women the way you claim pro-choice people treat the unborn. But....*you* arent immoral? :doh

 

[Lursa]

sexual immorality

Also found in: Wikipedia.
ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend:
Noun 1. sexual immorality - the evil ascribed to sexual acts that violate social conventions; "sexual immorality is the major reason for last year's record number of abortions".



And you don't know that. You know nothing about what is in the baby's mind so you post an answer that is as empty as you make out the baby's mental capacity is. Why don't you prove that a baby's mind is empty?

Yes, we DO know there is NOTHING in the unborn's mind :doh

Consciousness does not develop until near viability, when abortion is very rare and done to preserve the mother's health or a severely defective fetus.

And it still cannot act or form intent, conscious or not.

Keep your personal fantasies out of discussions on facts.

In summary, you believe it's ok to treat women the way you claim pro-choice people treat the unborn. But....*you* arent immoral? :doh

 

[Jetboogieman]

The U.S. can define "person." It can and has done so and is currently doing so in an utterly despicable and discriminatory fashion.

I know right.

It should really say "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness (As Long As You're Rich)"

The take home message here is this - "person" is legal, political, and subjective.

"Human being" is not.

A nation failing to align itself with reality is just that; the state has no authority to deny scientific fact by edict and demand we pretend their insanity is truth.

I know right?

I mean what is the point of having civil society if you can't let poor people die right?

 

[prometeus]

The U.S. can define "person." It can and has done so and is currently doing so in an utterly despicable and discriminatory fashion.

That is your uneducated opinion, supported by nothig at all other than your own delusion.

No state can deny the scientific fact

And this state has not done that.

that we do not change species during our lifetime

Nobody at any time has even tried to assert that. This tripe is nothing more than your straw man that you attempt to insert into the discussion, in lieu of a rational intelligent argument.

The take home message here is this - "person" is legal, political, and subjective.

To a certain extent yes.

"Human being" is not.

Of course it is. You equate a single cell with a human being and that is as rational as a single cell can rationalize. Educated people know that there is a difference between a single cell and a born human that has the ability to sustain his or her own life functions.

A nation failing to align itself with reality is just that; the state has no authority to deny scientific fact by edict and demand we pretend their insanity is truth.

You are more than welcome to go someplace that is aligned with your delusions.

 

[RamFel]

And predominently in America, casual sex is not violating any social conventions.

It's not wrong and it's not immoral.

If you dont like it, dont have casual sex. Your loss.

Hey, I didn't say that I diagreed with it, I just said that this was the cause of your problem. I as horny as the next guy, but be responsible. If you cause it's existence, don't blame the baby for your screw ups Don't kill babies, live human beings or persons just because you messed up. If it's your fault, then deal with it in the proper fashion. That's for you to take the responsibliity? Not the baby.

 

[CanadaJohn]

You know, liberals have been telling us that if abortion were criminalized, that it would the return to the old days of backyard abortions.

I was around during the 60's in Junior High School (which was for grades 7, 8, and 9) which means I was about 15 or maybe 14 years old. And I remember the reason that girls back then wanted an abortion. It wasn't so that they could continue going to school, or so that their career could go on uninterrupted, or because they could continue on living a normal carefree life and party on.

No. None of these things mattered to girls who got into trouble.

The reason girls went after an abortion was due to the general atmosphere and morals back in 1961 to 1963. Girls were expected to guard their virginity until they married. If a girl couldn't do that, she would hope to hide her virginity status, but if and when she got pregnant, she was in big trouble with the community. Because what she essentially did was to shamed the family name, and she was probably kicked out by her father (if he was the sort of man). She was called names like slut, or whore by whispering neighbors who saw her as shameless. It was a girls greatest fear so she would go and have her baby aborted. Sometimes with horrific results.

But things are different today. The societal attitudes are not the same as they were back then. And that makes a big difference.

So does that mean that if abortion were criminalized (as it should be) does that mean it would the bad-old-days of early abortion return, or without the stigma of out of wedlock attached to it, would it actually reduce abortions? I believe that the left is truly wrong about this point, hoping we would fall for it.

I say no. Yes, you would hear outcries at first, but I really don't think that will be as serious as the left makes out, and abortion, with any luck, will soon be a memory.

I appreciate your comments and where they come from and you're right, times have changed, for better and for worse in a whole host of areas of social and societal mores and norms. But criminalizing abortion will never happen - it's a none starter. Society cannot and will not go back to the 60's. Hell, I could argue that some of the worst things to happen to society found their roots in the 60s and I'd hate to go back to that time.

The best we can hope for is that our children and their children will come to better appreciate the miracle of life and over time lessen the desire and need for abortion in their lives going forward.