Abortion Warnings?

[talloulou]

Comeback? Show some actual facts then.

boy you can't even be baited into being more entertaining. :rofl

 

[FallingPianos]

Spare me the pro-life rhetoric and lies.

she shows you good sources, and thats the best you got? :rofl

 

[steen]

she shows you good sources, and thats the best you got? :rofl

Lejeune is a "good" source"? Textbooks quote-mined out of context are "good" sources?

 

[FallingPianos]

Lejeune is a "good" source"? Textbooks quote-mined out of context are "good" sources?

well, until he can discredit her sources by providing his own, or showing how they were out of context, he's made no real argument against her. "Spare me the pro-life rhetoric and lies." is just not a sufficient reply.

 

[Fantasea]

Spare me the pro-life rhetoric and lies.

Those who find they have argued themselves into a position from which they cannot extricate themselves with factual rebuttal always react the same way. They attempt to claw their way free with the use of denial, mockery, and ridicule.

You have just numbered yourself among that group.

 

[jfuh]

Those who find they have argued themselves into a position from which they cannot extricate themselves with factual rebuttal always react the same way. They attempt to claw their way free with the use of denial, mockery, and ridicule.

You have just numbered yourself among that group.

Funny how the rebuttle since my reply has been nothing but ad homenin attacks against my person. Where all you've accomplished is lie and take words out of context.
Debate of life starting at the cellular level? No, no one is debating that. You're clearly trying to make a case that hey look, life starts with the single cell (known as 4.6 billion years of evolution condensed into 9 months), so that must mean that abortion is murdering of life.
Each individual cell in your body represents life, there's no debate about it. However, take any cell out of your body and see if it can survive. Same with a zygote, take it out of the womb and see if it can survive. If it can not then it is by no means an individual or a being (neccessitating individuality). You only bring up sources stating that life begins at conception because that is the only scientific evidences that come close to supporting your pro-life rhetoric.
However, the fact in point is that this is not about when life starts, this is about the choice of a woman. Women are not simple incubator vessles for a zygote. In the process of pregnancy a woman must make considerable sacrifices. Incest, rape, you're forcing the woman to go through significant physiological and emotional changes so that you can support your rediculous ideology. You force through your ideology upon others what happens? A raped woman or victim of incest is forced against her god given will to bear a child that will most likly grow up in a f'd up environment. You think you've saved the childs live but end up punishing the child for the remainder of thier lives by a disfunctional family where the mother is very likly a child herself.
I thought those of your who are pro-life are also for the image of the nuclear family, yet you believe so steadfastly in punishment for what you percieve as permiscuous women that you force her through with a pregnancy that she obviously can not handle. Oh fantasea I forgot yes you are for absence. Yes, no sex at all. Unfortunately permiscuous sex is the natural behavior of human beings. Look at all other primates and mammels in the natural world. One alpha male and many females.
Human beings are more advance and civilized you say? Well that's exactly why we humans unlike our animal brothern do not see females as merely sex objects to bear offspring, but respect them as equals of men for thier individuality and thier choices.

 

[Fantasea]

QUOTE=jfuh

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Those who find they have argued themselves into a position from which they cannot extricate themselves with factual rebuttal always react the same way. They attempt to claw their way free with the use of denial, mockery, and ridicule.

You have just numbered yourself among that group.

Funny how the rebuttle since my reply has been nothing but ad homenin attacks against my person. Where all you've accomplished is lie and take words out of context.

I disagree and stand by my statement above.

Debate of life starting at the cellular level? No, no one is debating that. You're clearly trying to make a case that hey look, life starts with the single cell (known as 4.6 billion years of evolution condensed into 9 months), so that must mean that abortion is murdering of life.
Each individual cell in your body represents life, there's no debate about it. However, take any cell out of your body and see if it can survive. Same with a zygote, take it out of the womb and see if it can survive. If it can not then it is by no means an individual or a being (neccessitating individuality). You only bring up sources stating that life begins at conception because that is the only scientific evidences that come close to supporting your pro-life rhetoric.

It is gratifying to know that you are in complete agreement with the basic human embryological facts involved – “[that] scientifically, something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.” (Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D)

However, the fact in point is that this is not about when life starts, this is about the choice of a woman.

This abundantly clear and unambiguous statement enables the discussion to proceed from the realm of science to the realm of politics. It is well understood by all honest intelligent persons that the question of abortion on demand is solely a political consideration.

Women are not simple incubator vessles for a zygote. In the process of pregnancy a woman must make considerable sacrifices.

Regardless of one’s choice of words, it is not possible to ignore the natural process by which human procreation occurs.

Incest, rape, you're forcing the woman to go through significant physiological and emotional changes so that you can support your rediculous ideology. You force through your ideology upon others what happens? A raped woman or victim of incest is forced against her god given will to bear a child that will most likly grow up in a f'd up environment. You think you've saved the childs live but end up punishing the child for the remainder of thier lives by a disfunctional family where the mother is very likly a child herself.

Is a there really a need for hysterics?

Several things come to mind. In the totality of the question, the number of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest is infinitesimal; rounding to a statistical zero when taken as a percentage of the number of abortions on demand. Yet, this is the aspect of abortion which receives the lion’s share of attention. But then, emotion always trumps reality, doesn’t it?

Rape and incest are horrible crimes, to be sure. However, how can one justify the death penalty for the child involved when the crime was committed by another person?

You cite in frenzied terms the future faced by the child and offer death as a solution. Since when has death ever been preferable to life even in the most unfortunate of economic circumstances? If that were so, then the poor would be killing themselves in droves. Instead, what we see among the poor is the optimism that by their own efforts, they will be able to raise themselves up the rungs of the economic ladder. Why else would we see the never ending influx of persons from all over the world using any means possible to get into the US?

They understand that the US does not support a “caste system” based upon the circumstances of one’s birth -- that one’s ability to prosper is restricted solely by self-imposed limitations.

Your contention is bogus in every respect.

So far as the mother is concerned, her plight is lamentable; so much so that support has been made available in many ways. She may keep the child or she may give it up. Persons are exposed to crimes of many sorts and suffer in many ways.

You may also be aware that the unintended but inescapable consequences of medical treatment accorded victims of rape is the interruption of a pregnancy if, in fact, one has unknowingly occurred.

I thought those of your who are pro-life are also for the image of the nuclear family, yet you believe so steadfastly in punishment for what you percieve as permiscuous women that you force her through with a pregnancy that she obviously can not handle.

Surely, you must be aware by now that abortion on demand is sought for either of two reasons -- to avoid the embarrassment of an out of wedlock pregnancy or because the pregnancy has occurred at an inconvenient time.

Neither of these sufficient justification for ending a human life.

Oh fantasea I forgot yes you are for absence. Yes, no sex at all. Unfortunately permiscuous sex is the natural behavior of human beings. Look at all other primates and mammels in the natural world. One alpha male and many females.

Considering the pandemic of AIDS, the rise of other sexually transmitted diseases, the burgeoning number of bastards, and other harsh economic and cultural factors, can you honestly say that keeping one’s pants zipped is not a wise thing to do? While not present within the jungle community, the ability to exercise intelligent restraint is a facet of free will among responsible civilized humans, is it not?

Human beings are more advance and civilized you say? Well that's exactly why we humans unlike our animal brothern do not see females as merely sex objects to bear offspring, but respect them as equals of men for thier individuality and thier choices.

Yes, I say that. And, in that respect, advanced and civilized persons understand that consequences flow from actions and that the responsible thing to do is to accept and adjust to the consequences which flow from one’s actions. It is the irresponsible unwillingness to accept the consequences of one’s actions which coarsen and liken one to what you refer to as “animal brethren”.

The political solution to unexpected pregnancy is extermination. This is in keeping with the steady and progressive political erosion of personal responsibility in nearly every facet of life in the US.

That the populace is becoming increasingly fed up with abortion on demand is evident as shown by actions of the legislatures in South Dakota, Missouri, Alabama, and Mississippi, among others, which are purposely enacting laws and regulations which they know will force the Supreme Court to look at "Roe" in terms of 21st century knowledge of embryology.

 

[talloulou]

However, the fact in point is that this is not about when life starts, this is about the choice of a woman.

Good. You are absolutely 100% correct. Because if abortion was about drs. and scientists being confused about when a new human life begins it would have been outlawed a long time ago. There is no confustion and yes what abortion is about is whether or not the life which has begun has any rights and whether or not those rights trump the rights of the women carrying the human life in its earliest stage of development.

Incest, rape, you're forcing the woman to go through significant physiological and emotional changes so that you can support your rediculous ideology.

Actually in instances of rape and incest I'd hope the women would get the MAP but if she didn't then I would be willing to allow abortions in those cases provided we started banning convenient on demand abortions for any and all reasons at any gestational age. How does that sound?

You force through your ideology upon others what happens? A raped woman or victim of incest is forced against her god given will to bear a child that will most likly grow up in a f'd up environment. You think you've saved the childs live but end up punishing the child for the remainder of thier lives by a disfunctional family where the mother is very likly a child herself.

I don't want to force women of rape and incest to carry out their pregnancies. Nor do I wish women who are ill to go through with their pregnancies. Now how about you? ....if we decided to completely protect these few victims of rape and incest and women whose drs. advise them that pregnancy will have an adverse affect on their overall health... would you be willing to place more regulations and possibly bans on the majority of abortions that happen in cases where none of the above circumstances apply?

Because I honestly believe if we limited surgical abortions to rape, incest, and health problems the number of abortions would be so drastically reduced that I would no longer worry about feticide.

I thought those of your who are pro-life are also for the image of the nuclear family, yet you believe so steadfastly in punishment for what you percieve as permiscuous women

No I do not want to punish women at all. Furthermore a women having sex for the very first time may get pregnant just as easily a women having sex with different men every night of the week. So I don't see the relevance in worrying about how much or how little sex is involved in abortions.

Pushing abstinence is, in my opinion, as pointless as pushing the bible. It will work for people that it works for and it simply won't work for the people it doesn't work for.

Human beings are more advance and civilized you say? Well that's exactly why we humans unlike our animal brothern do not see females as merely sex objects to bear offspring, but respect them as equals of men for thier individuality and thier choices.

Clearly a women is not just a sex object for making babies. However women do get pregnant and men do not. There is nothing equal or fair about it. A man has a penis a woman has a womb. I see it as an honor that women carry developing babies in their womb but then again I've never been young, pregnant, scared, and alone. Trying to say women and men are equal in terms of reproduction or trying to compare the two sexes is inane. Nature has made us different and we have different jobs in reproduction. That is a fact of life.....no laws will change that.

 

[Fantasea]

Nature has made us different and we have different jobs in reproduction. That is a fact of life.....no laws will change that.

That's the rub. Nature, however it may be constituted, is simply deemed to be politically incorrect by the intelligensia who have assumed the power to create and define political correctness.

The trouble is, they can't do a damned thing about changing the nature of things. So they do the next best thing -- they merely deny the existence of whatever characteristics of nature may interfere with the progress of their agenda.

 

[steen]

The trouble is, they can't do a damned thing about changing the nature of things. So they do the next best thing -- they merely deny the existence of whatever characteristics of nature may interfere with the progress of their agenda.

What "agenda" is that? We are all now pretty clear on the anti-choice agenda of oppressing and controlling women as a furtherance of the theocracy. But what agenda are you talking about here?

 

[jfuh]

It is gratifying to know that you are in complete agreement with the basic human embryological facts involved – “[that] scientifically, something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.” (Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D)

I've never argued of the begining's of life, I've argued of the begining's of individuality and rights of a woman to control her own body. Those whom are anti-choice hide behind the entire pro-life terminology, pro-lifes/Anti-choice are about ruining the lives and rights of women through suppression.

This abundantly clear and unambiguous statement enables the discussion to proceed from the realm of science to the realm of politics. It is well understood by all honest intelligent persons that the question of abortion on demand is solely a political consideration.

This statement is misleading, the science still remains in the question of individuality. It is clear that without the support of the womb a zygote can not survive. Individuality is the point at which the zygote is now a human being and would be entitled to protection to life under the law. Pro-life side likes to scare women seeking abortion by stating falsely "you're killing the life of an innocent child" That's correct up to the point of an innocent child. Developmentally the zygote is not a human child, it's a human cell or cluster of cells, not a being. The zygote has no individuality whatsoever.

Regardless of one’s choice of words, it is not possible to ignore the natural process by which human procreation occurs.

This is taking my statment out of context and misleading.

Is a there really a need for hysterics?

How is showing the truths and facts hysteria?

Several things come to mind. In the totality of the question, the number of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest is infinitesimal; rounding to a statistical zero when taken as a percentage of the number of abortions on demand. Yet, this is the aspect of abortion which receives the lion’s share of attention. But then, emotion always trumps reality, doesn’t it?

Infintesimal? What does it matter how many there are? Fact is it occurs. You're slapping the minority onto these women. Women that seek an abortion are in the minority so let's make a case of law respectful of our religious ideologies in this case. That's bs. It is very much a case that is to be made and ppl need to stand up for the rights of a woman to freely make a choice.

Rape and incest are horrible crimes, to be sure. However, how can one justify the death penalty for the child involved when the crime was committed by another person?

There is no crime, it's perfectly legal. Crime is only when you're commiting something that is against the law.

You cite in frenzied terms the future faced by the child and offer death as a solution.

Not child, cell, zygote. Child implies individuality which a cell nor zygote would ever have.

Since when has death ever been preferable to life even in the most unfortunate of economic circumstances? If that were so, then the poor would be killing themselves in droves.

THis is hysteria and dishonestly twisting my words.

Instead, what we see among the poor is the optimism that by their own efforts, they will be able to raise themselves up the rungs of the economic ladder.

Show me your source for this rediculous claim.

Why else would we see the never ending influx of persons from all over the world using any means possible to get into the US?

Juxtaposition.

They understand that the US does not support a “caste system” based upon the circumstances of one’s birth -- that one’s ability to prosper is restricted solely by self-imposed limitations.

No, it is restricted by capital. How do you tell the family head of a poor family to "prosper" as an immigrant when they do not have the funds to even keep a roof over thier head to begin with, when the simple pleasures we take for granted are a challenge for them to aquire daily? Such a statment is completely arrogant.

Your contention is bogus in every respect.

So far as the mother is concerned, her plight is lamentable; so much so that support has been made available in many ways. She may keep the child or she may give it up. Persons are exposed to crimes of many sorts and suffer in many ways.

Sounds simple, would you adopt a child that was the result of rape? Not many ppl would adopt the child of a criminal.

You may also be aware that the unintended but inescapable consequences of medical treatment accorded victims of rape is the interruption of a pregnancy if, in fact, one has unknowingly occurred.

This is a very missleading statment (starting with you may also be aware). I'm quite aware of the medical risks, however I'm also very much aware of the physcological, phisiological risks associated with going through such a pregnancy.

Surely, you must be aware by now that abortion on demand is sought for either of two reasons -- to avoid the embarrassment of an out of wedlock pregnancy or because the pregnancy has occurred at an inconvenient time.

So what? Irrelevant of the matter of why a woman seeks an abortion. The relevance is her god given freedom to choice. Any limitation imposed would be suppression of her free will. Do you deny a woman her free will?

Neither of these sufficient justification for ending a human life.

A very missleading statement. the death of a human cell is not the same as the death of a human life. Cancer is also human life, just mutated, but human life nevertheless.

Considering the pandemic of AIDS, the rise of other sexually transmitted diseases, the burgeoning number of bastards, and other harsh economic and cultural factors, can you honestly say that keeping one’s pants zipped is not a wise thing to do?

Have I ever said it was not wise? I'm only stateing of the impracticality of such. It is human nature to be sexually curious and sexually active. How practical is it to deny human nature? Guess what? even though AIDS is known world wide, why do you think it is still spreading? Simple, it's human nature.

While not present within the jungle community, the ability to exercise intelligent restraint is a facet of free will among responsible civilized humans, is it not?

No it is not, it's horomonally induced at the onset of puberty. Sex is a very natural part of the human life cycle. Varied from other species of mammals the ape family and porposes have sex for the simple pleasures of sex.

Yes, I say that. And, in that respect, advanced and civilized persons understand that consequences flow from actions and that the responsible thing to do is to accept and adjust to the consequences which flow from one’s actions. It is the irresponsible unwillingness to accept the consequences of one’s actions which coarsen and liken one to what you refer to as “animal brethren”.

How typical a statement. Even with adequate protection, you're only reducing the probablities of an unwanted pregnancy. The probability is always going to be there. There's nothing at all irresponsible about having sex. Irresponsibility only happens when an accident happens and the couple does nothing after the fact and runs away from the truths.

The political solution to unexpected pregnancy is extermination. This is in keeping with the steady and progressive political erosion of personal responsibility in nearly every facet of life in the US.

That's simple pro-life rhetoric. A woman that goes to seek an abortion is perfectly responsible. The irresponsibility would be not taking steps in the future to prevent the unwanted pregnancy from happening again. You're pro-life rhetoric only condems the woman in question as well as suppressing her god given free will.

That the populace is becoming increasingly fed up with abortion on demand is evident as shown by actions of the legislatures in South Dakota, Missouri, Alabama, and Mississippi, among others, which are purposely enacting laws and regulations which they know will force the Supreme Court to look at "Roe" in terms of 21st century knowledge of embryology.

S. Dakota, MO, Alabama, MI all taking a step back towards social progression. S. Dakota will certainly come before the supreme court and be struck down as unconstitutional.
21st century science or any future era's science for that matter is still in agreement with 20th century science in that a cell or zygote is not a human being nor individual but simply cells.


The matter is choice. No one except the woman in question has the ability to say if or if not she want's an abortion or to go through with the pregnancy. The choice is her's not your's not mine.

 

[jfuh]

Good. You are absolutely 100% correct. Because if abortion was about drs. and scientists being confused about when a new human life begins it would have been outlawed a long time ago. There is no confustion and yes what abortion is about is whether or not the life which has begun has any rights and whether or not those rights trump the rights of the women carrying the human life in its earliest stage of development.

No, that's not where the pro-life side is confused about, the pro-life side is confused about what it means to be an individual. A cell is not an individual.

Actually in instances of rape and incest I'd hope the women would get the MAP but if she didn't then I would be willing to allow abortions in those cases provided we started banning convenient on demand abortions for any and all reasons at any gestational age. How does that sound?

Gestational age, fine, sounds good, because after week 20 or so the fetus may be viable. However anything before that there is no individuality or being to the zygote.

I don't want to force women of rape and incest to carry out their pregnancies. Nor do I wish women who are ill to go through with their pregnancies. Now how about you?

You're asking me the wrong question, I'm pro-choice remember?

....if we decided to completely protect these few victims of rape and incest and women whose drs. advise them that pregnancy will have an adverse affect on their overall health... would you be willing to place more regulations and possibly bans on the majority of abortions that happen in cases where none of the above circumstances apply?

Neither you nor I have the right to tell a woman what she can and can not do with her body. I will not be in favor on any law that restricts a woman's god given right to her own body.

Because I honestly believe if we limited surgical abortions to rape, incest, and health problems the number of abortions would be so drastically reduced that I would no longer worry about feticide.

No, studies and reports have both shown (as well as historical documentation) that women will still get abortions regardless of. In that case they will be going into back alley's at the hands of a coat hanger. Significantly raising the risk of the womans health. Not to mention you're again putting a strangle on a woman's right to the physiology of her own body.

No I do not want to punish women at all. Furthermore a women having sex for the very first time may get pregnant just as easily a women having sex with different men every night of the week. So I don't see the relevance in worrying about how much or how little sex is involved in abortions.

Nor do I.

Pushing abstinence is, in my opinion, as pointless as pushing the bible. It will work for people that it works for and it simply won't work for the people it doesn't work for.

Exactly, you can not suppress human nature.

Clearly a women is not just a sex object for making babies. However women do get pregnant and men do not. There is nothing equal or fair about it. A man has a penis a woman has a womb. I see it as an honor that women carry developing babies in their womb but then again I've never been young, pregnant, scared, and alone.

It's an honor when it's a planned pregnancy, not when it's an accident or a crime.

 

[Fantasea]

What "agenda" is that? We are all now pretty clear on the anti-choice agenda of oppressing and controlling women as a furtherance of the theocracy. But what agenda are you talking about here?

If you are conversant with the writings of Roger Nash Baldwin and Margaret Sanger, you will know. If you are not conversant with the writings of those persons, then I suggest that you become so.

 

[Fantasea]

The length of this exchange has just about reached the limit that this forum can accommodate. Therefore, I’ll break it into manageable segments for reply.

Originally Posted by Fantasea
It is gratifying to know that you are in complete agreement with the basic human embryological facts involved – “[that] scientifically, something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.” (Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D)

I've never argued of the begining's of life, I've argued of the begining's of individuality and rights of a woman to control her own body. Those whom are anti-choice hide behind the entire pro-life terminology, pro-lifes/Anti-choice are about ruining the lives and rights of women through suppression.

I’ll accept that as a good faith stipulation on your part. Henceforth, we need concern ourselves solely with the developmental and the political aspects of the question.

However, the concern is not at all what you say. It is to convince expectant mothers that there are reasonable alternatives to abortion and to advance the cause of eliminating abortion on demand.

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
This abundantly clear and unambiguous statement enables the discussion to proceed from the realm of science to the realm of politics. It is well understood by all honest intelligent persons that the question of abortion on demand is solely a political consideration.

This statement is misleading, the science still remains in the question of individuality. It is clear that without the support of the womb a zygote can not survive. Individuality is the point at which the zygote is now a human being and would be entitled to protection to life under the law. Pro-life side likes to scare women seeking abortion by stating falsely "you're killing the life of an innocent child" That's correct up to the point of an innocent child. Developmentally the zygote is not a human child, it's a human cell or cluster of cells, not a being. The zygote has no individuality whatsoever.

It is a given that in its early stages and for about half the period of gestation the occupant of a womb cannot survive outside it. However, it has been fully alive and fully human since conception, possessing the only life it will ever have until natural death occurs in old age, unless a natural or unnatural event cuts it short.

You say “the zygote has no individuality whatsoever”. This is incorrect. Studies involving DNA have shown that every one of them is uniquely individual, possessing genetic traits of each of its parents and spends all of its time growing toward the moment when it will begin its journey through the birth canal.

You have a considerably more liberal view of the subject than Justice Blackmun who refused to speculate on whether human life begins at conception. That, of course, was his “out”, if you will. If he had your view of things, abortion on demand could never have become possible.

The question of fetal development was not a consideration in 1973 and will not be a consideration the next time a challenge to “Roe” comes before the Supreme Court. The only question will be whether human life begins at conception.

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Regardless of one’s choice of words, it is not possible to ignore the natural process by which human procreation occurs.

This is taking my statment out of context and misleading.

Kindly explain where I went wrong.

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Is a there really a need for hysterics?

How is showing the truths and facts hysteria?

By way of explanation, I’m reminded of an old, old song entitled, “It Ain't Whatcha Do, It’s The Way Thatcha Do It”.

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Several things come to mind. In the totality of the question, the number of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest is infinitesimal; rounding to a statistical zero when taken as a percentage of the number of abortions on demand. Yet, this is the aspect of abortion which receives the lion’s share of attention. But then, emotion always trumps reality, doesn’t it?

Infintesimal? What does it matter how many there are? Fact is it occurs. You're slapping the minority onto these women. Women that seek an abortion are in the minority so let's make a case of law respectful of our religious ideologies in this case. That's bs. It is very much a case that is to be made and ppl need to stand up for the rights of a woman to freely make a choice.

“Religious ideologies”? Where did that come from? This is a strictly secular discussion based upon science and politics.

I knew the word infinitesimal would get your goat. However, in absolute terms, the description can never be different when one considers that more than a million abortions occur in the US every year and the number of pregnancies actually resulting from rape is infinitesimal by comparison.

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Rape and incest are horrible crimes, to be sure. However, how can one justify the death penalty for the child involved when the crime was committed by another person?

There is no crime, it's perfectly legal. Crime is only when you're commiting something that is against the law.

I think you have grasped the wrong end of the stick. Try another reading of my quote.

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
You cite in frenzied terms the future faced by the child and offer death as a solution.

Not child, cell, zygote. Child implies individuality which a cell nor zygote would ever have.

This “reading” is simply a politically correct pronouncement which ignores basic embryology. Attempting to deny an existing human life the opportunity to continue living by describing it in cold, scientific terms which are not understood by most persons makes abortion seem as clinical as squeezing a pimple or having an enema.

Given your earlier stipulation, you cannot deny that every abortion ends a human life.

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Since when has death ever been preferable to life even in the most unfortunate of economic circumstances? If that were so, then the poor would be killing themselves in droves.

THis is hysteria and dishonestly twisting my words.

It is not I who advocates the genocidal extermination of the poor, is it?

Now this may be hysterical, but it is not dishonestly twisting your words. You did, after all, say, in so many words, that children should not be born to impoverished mothers, didn’t you?

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Instead, what we see among the poor is the optimism that by their own efforts, they will be able to raise themselves up the rungs of the economic ladder.

Show me your source for this rediculous claim.

How about Colin Powell? He is the son of Jamaican immigrants and grew up in the worst ghetto in the country – the South Bronx.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Why else would we see the never ending influx of persons from all over the world using any means possible to get into the US?

Juxtaposition.

That is correct. They want to trade the squalor, oppression, and economic hardship in their native lands for the opportunities available to all in the US.

They hope their children can emulate Colin Powell or one of the millions of other children of immigrants who, while not as famous, are well educated, well fed, and financially successful. They come to the US to raise children, not abort them.

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
They understand that the US does not support a “caste system” based upon the circumstances of one’s birth -- that one’s ability to prosper is restricted solely by self-imposed limitations.

No, it is restricted by capital. How do you tell the family head of a poor family to "prosper" as an immigrant when they do not have the funds to even keep a roof over thier head to begin with, when the simple pleasures we take for granted are a challenge for them to aquire daily? Such a statment is completely arrogant.

As an example, whenever you visit a 7-11 or a gas station, take a look at the proprietor. Chances are he will be easily recognizable as an immigrant or the son of immigrants. He parlayed a lot of sweat into the comfort he now enjoys. And he’s got his family members working there, each saving against the day when they can open their own business, too.

This could never happen in "the old country".

The other day I heard a radio discussion about Mexican illegal immigrants. It was cited that while the average hourly wage in Mexico is $1.82, these folks average eight or nine dollars an hour if they can get into the US. They don’t require all the material comforts to which you allude. They feel they are doing quite well because they are able to support the family back home in fine style.

In the US, if one is healthy, being poor is the result of choices made.

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Your contention is bogus in every respect.

So far as the mother is concerned, her plight is lamentable; so much so that support has been made available in many ways. She may keep the child or she may give it up. Persons are exposed to crimes of many sorts and suffer in many ways.

Sounds simple, would you adopt a child that was the result of rape? Not many ppl would adopt the child of a criminal.

The discussion is not about you, nor is it about me. It is about abortion. Irrespective of whether the child is adopted, the mother may freely give it up with no strings attached.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
You may also be aware that the unintended but inescapable consequences of medical treatment accorded victims of rape is the interruption of a pregnancy if, in fact, one has unknowingly occurred.

This is a very missleading statment (starting with you may also be aware). I'm quite aware of the medical risks, however I'm also very much aware of the physcological, phisiological risks associated with going through such a pregnancy.

The point I was making is that the odds of being pregnant after receiving medical treatment as a victim of rape are as close to zero as one can get. Your response makes me wonder whether I was sufficiently clear.

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Surely, you must be aware by now that abortion on demand is sought for either of two reasons -- to avoid the embarrassment of an out of wedlock pregnancy or because the pregnancy has occurred at an inconvenient time.

So what? Irrelevant of the matter of why a woman seeks an abortion. The relevance is her god given freedom to choice. Any limitation imposed would be suppression of her free will. Do you deny a woman her free will?

Once more you introduce religious significance into the discussion. I seriously doubt that God agrees with the choice to abort children in utero. But that is my take on things.

I would deny anyone the power of life or death of another human.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Neither of these sufficient justification for ending a human life.

A very missleading statement. the death of a human cell is not the same as the death of a human life. Cancer is also human life, just mutated, but human life nevertheless.

Earlier you stipulated that human life begins at conception. Now you attempt to downgrade it to a human cell and compare it favorable to a cancer.

You are far off the mark.