Choices [W:1315]

[SilverFox]

I probably wouldn't have made abortion my first thread. That's my only bit of advice.

I have no fear or trepidation in expressing what I believe to clearly represent what is morally just and laudable, - - - or to point out and disparage what I perceive to be morally reprehensible and inhumane.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I truly feel sorry for you that you value life so cheaply.

WRONG FEELING. PLUS, ABORTION OPPONENTS DON'T ACTUALLY VALUE "LIFE" GENERALLY. Not when they are encouraging the human overpopulation explosion that is directly causing the extinctions of hundreds of entire species every year. THEY EXHIBIT STUPIDLY PREJUDICED MASTER RACE IDIOCY BY ONLY VALUING HUMAN LIFE. They don't seem to care in the least that the human species cannot survive if it destroys the ecosystem.

THEREFORE I AM FAR MORE PRO-LIFE THAN YOU. I merely acknowledge the Fact that in terms of Objective Data, generic "human life" is of no more importance to the Universe than worm life. And no abortion opponent can offer the slightest bit of evidence to the contrary!

I understand that there are specific cases in which heart-wrenching decisions are made under duress.

THAT IS OFTEN A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF UNNECESSARILY AND ERRONEOUSLY OVER-VALUING UNBORN HUMAN LIFE. Consider two women with confirmed pregnancies, one of which is encouraged to think "I'm having a baby!", while the other is encouraged to think "I'm hosting an unborn human that Naturally has a 1/6 chance of miscarrying through no fault of my own." If both pregnancies miscarry, which woman will be more emotionally upset? The one who was not told the whole truth!

However, a woman who callously has casual sex with the thought in the back of her mind that - should she have the misfortune to become pregnant, she can simply have an abortion - is a stone-hearted b**** who is grievously short on humanity.

THEN YOU ARE WOEFULLY IGNORANT OF HUMAN NATURE AND ECONOMICS. Study the situation in the former Soviet Union. One of the common LIES perpetuated by abortion opponents is how a woman feels miserable after an abortion --but that only happens in places where abortion opponents denounce and denigrate and defame and revile women who get abortions.

You-all are no better than bullies.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Now that is a fine exercise in semantic apologetics reminiscent of many you will find in periods of societally sanctioned mass killings.

STUPIDLY, LYINGLY FALSE. Entirely because those places never had Objectively Verifiable Data showing that the victims had been guilty of committing assaults. PLUS they never had Objectively Verifiable Data showing that the victims failed to qualify as persons (remember that various scientists claim that dolphins can qualify as persons, and they make such claims only because of Objectively Verifiable Data --yet unborn humans cannot pass even **one** of the tests that dolphins can pass, to possibly qualify as persons, which obviously means abortion opponents are totally deluded on the topic of unborn human personhood).

Very smooth.

THANK YOU. I notice you didn't try to show how any of the data or statements I made were Objectively flawed. You merely made a wildly erroneous comparison of the abortion of unborn human animal entities to situations in which Objectively Verifiable **actual** persons were mistreated. Tsk, tsk!

 

[Eric7216]

Do you understand that not every woman who has an abortion is the evil witch you chauvanistically paint her as? How dare you call any woman that makes this difficult choice a "b****". Your post is beyond stone hearted. You do not get to speak for the women you hate.

OK. We know that a zygote has unique DNA and is something that is not the woman in whose body the zygote exists. At what point does that developing zygote-fetus-baby-toddler get some consideration? Do you support European style laws that prohibition abortions normally after 12 weeks or 20 weeks or American style up to birth or Peter Singer style up to an ability to act independently, without assistance (perhaps age 5)?

 

[LadyMoonlight]

It is if you're responsible. And to be absolutely sure, get yourself fixed if you're going to spread your seed around rather than take the chance.

And if a woman is going to spread her legs around, she should get fixed too.

 

[soylentgreen]

Much has been said about "a woman's right to choose". I fully agree that a woman should be fully entitled to decide whether or not to submit to the procedure of childbirth. Where I DISAGREE with untold millions of women is that I believe that it is absolutely IMPERATIVE that a woman exercise that right of choice BEFORE - - not AFTER - - deciding to climb onto a bed and engage in the specific type of activity which she VERY WELL KNOWS might produce the gestation of a new, miniaturized human being. To nonchalantly and cavalierly place an order for the prospective bundle of joy only to cancel the order in barbaric fashion at some future date is heinously and hideously abominable.

The living, moving, growing child within the womb has no voice with which to plead for his or her chance at life; - - but WHY does that precious, tiny life form have no right to existence?

I am curious as to why you create an inherent sexism in this post of yours. If your argument is about a woman should be thinking ahead then should not your view also include the man? Why did he not think ahead and make sure he could not impregnate the woman? Is there anything in this view of yours that excludes the mle of some responsibility here?

 

[joG]

STUPIDLY, LYINGLY FALSE. Entirely because those places never had Objectively Verifiable Data showing that the victims had been guilty of committing assaults. PLUS they never had Objectively Verifiable Data showing that the victims failed to qualify as persons (remember that various scientists claim that dolphins can qualify as persons, and they make such claims only because of Objectively Verifiable Data --yet unborn humans cannot pass even **one** of the tests that dolphins can pass, to possibly qualify as persons, which obviously means abortion opponents are totally deluded on the topic of unborn human personhood).


THANK YOU. I notice you didn't try to show how any of the data or statements I made were Objectively flawed. You merely made a wildly erroneous comparison of the abortion of unborn human animal entities to situations in which Objectively Verifiable **actual** persons were mistreated. Tsk, tsk!

My goodness. That was quite the diatribe, wasn't it.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Much has been said about "a woman's right to choose". I fully agree that a woman should be fully entitled to decide whether or not to submit to the procedure of childbirth. Where I DISAGREE with untold millions of women is that I believe that it is absolutely IMPERATIVE that a woman exercise that right of choice BEFORE - - not AFTER - - deciding to climb onto a bed and engage in the specific type of activity which she VERY WELL KNOWS might produce the gestation of a new, miniaturized human being. To nonchalantly and cavalierly place an order for the prospective bundle of joy only to cancel the order in barbaric fashion at some future date is heinously and hideously abominable.

The living, moving, growing child within the womb has no voice with which to plead for his or her chance at life; - - but WHY does that precious, tiny life form have no right to existence?

What is so "precious" about it?? You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to force it on others. Women have the right to terminate their pregnancies if they so choose.

BTW, having sex is not "placing an order for the prospective bundle of joy". Most sex acts are done for pleasure, not procreation. Hence why so many use contraception. (I think the figure is somewhere around 85% of women at risk of unintended pregnancy here in Canada, and 65% in the USA)

 

[Scrabaholic]

I claim no POWER of high-minded judgement - - other than that of pointing out the fact that the deliberate taking of human life is murder.

Incorrect. Murder is the ILLEGAL killing of a person by a person. If it's legal, it CANNOT be murder.

If a sexually active woman KNOWS that she is not prepared to become a mother, then she is morally COMPELLED to follow strict contraceptive measures for pregnancy prevention. If she should unexpectedly succumb to the advances of an impassioned Romeo in a moment of impassioned weakness, then it behooves her to IMMEDIATELY take action to medically insure that no pregnancy will ensue from her "love tryst". Waiting weeks and months to decide to abort the living, growing, functioning child within her womb is barbaric and indefensible. There is no rational or mitigating excuse for such cavalier irresponsibility.

That is your opinion and your morals. Others may differ, and unless you are the one who impregnated her, it's none of your business.

 

[KevinKohler]

It is if you're responsible. And to be absolutely sure, get yourself fixed if you're going to spread your seed around rather than take the chance.

The same comment could be aimed at a woman. Get yourself fixed if your going to allow seed spreads drop some in you, rather take the choice.

 

[Scrabaholic]

The same comment could be aimed at a woman. Get yourself fixed if your going to allow seed spreads drop some in you, rather take the choice.

You do realise that it is darn near impossible for a woman to get a tubal ligation if she does not have children, right?

 

[holbritter]

If a sexually active woman KNOWS that she is not prepared to become a mother, then she is morally COMPELLED to follow strict contraceptive measures for pregnancy prevention. If she should unexpectedly succumb to the advances of an impassioned Romeo in a moment of impassioned weakness, then it behooves her to IMMEDIATELY take action to medically insure that no pregnancy will ensue from her "love tryst".

I agree with this part, and this part only

 

[minnie616]

OK. We know that a zygote has unique DNA and is something that is not the woman in whose body the zygote exists. At what point does that developing zygote-fetus-baby-toddler get some consideration? Do you support European style laws that prohibition abortions normally after 12 weeks or 20 weeks or American style up to birth or Peter Singer style up to an ability to act independently, without assistance (perhaps age 5)?

Roe vs Wade allows states to take a compelling interest and proscribe ( ban) abortions at viability ( the age/point where a fetus can survive birth with artifical/Medical help.)

The age of viability is about 24 weeks gestation even though though disabilities remain high at that age.

There are a few states who do not proscribe abortions past the of viabilty yet stats prove those states do not have higher late term abortions than state's that proscribe abortions.

Only 1.3 percent of all abortions are between 21 and 24 weeks gestation.
They are for medical reasons.

Fox reported in 2003 article only about 100 abortions in all of the US are performed past 24 weeks gestation.
They are the extreme cases where the woman's life is at greater risk having a crash c-section than having an abortion.

 

[minnie616]

According to a Fox News article I have posted there are only about 100 annual abortions in the US that take place at or after 24 weeks gestation.
...

June 17, 2003
...
Of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year, 91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks' gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks' gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation),

https://sso.foxnews.com/static/serv.../06/17/fast-facts-us-abortion-statistics.html

The stats since then have changed.
By 2012 the numbers of abortion were less than 1.2 million.
In 2014 the CDC reported less than I million.

Fewer than I.3 percent of legal abortions took place between 21 weeks gestation and 24 weeks gestation.

Some for maternal health , more for fetal health since fetal abnormalies usually do not show up until the 18-20 gestational week ultrasound. That only gives the parents with input from the doctor and tests to decide if they want to terminate the pregnancy since viabily usually occurs between 22 and 24 weeks.

In 2003 only about 100 abortions occur after 24 weeks gestation.

 

[FutureIncoming]

My goodness. That was quite the diatribe, wasn't it.

FACTS ARE FACTS. And far superior to the totally unsupported/worthless claims of abortion opponents. (I don't see you offering the slightest refutation of what I presented.)

 

[joG]

FACTS ARE FACTS. And far superior to the totally unsupported/worthless claims of abortion opponents. (I don't see you offering the slightest refutation of what I presented.)

They are not so much claims as a presentation of the logic of the thing. You might not like that, but it does not change the falseness of the argument you have presented.

 

[Eric7216]

Roe vs Wade allows states to take a compelling interest and proscribe ( ban) abortions at viability ( the age/point where a fetus can survive birth with artifical/Medical help.)[/B]

So which states have laws that ban abortions after 24 weeks except in situations of extreme health risk to the carrier, with strict outlining procedures for those exceptions?

 

[minnie616]

So which states have laws that ban abortions after 24 weeks except in situations of extreme health risk to the carrier, with strict outlining procedures for those exceptions?

Colorado , Washington DC, Oregon and Washington ( the state) do not have laws prohibiting abortion after a certain age of gestation.

https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws

 

[beefheart]

You're wrong on several counts. I don't purport to speak for women. I don't categorically hate women. I do hate and despise murder. Any woman who goes into an abortion clinic six moths pregnant after finally deciding to be relieved of her inconvenience is not a tenderhearted, compassionate human being. There was plenty of time beforehand to make such a drastic decision. In most cases, the stalling and indecision was unnecessary. I'm sorry that you are so easily offended, - - but her tardy response does NOT make her a candidate for sainthood. It is what it is, Toots.

You show your hatred for women in your first post, who the hell are you to judge a woman who gets pregnant. Abortion is legal and safe and it is a woman's choice. I'm not offended, I am used to this baloney from the christian american taliban. If you don't like abortion, don't have one "toots"

 

[FutureIncoming]

They are not so much claims as a presentation of the logic of the thing.

WHAT LOGIC? So far as I've seen, abortion opponents employ exceedingly little in the way of logic.
IF YOU ARE REFERRING TO MY LOGIC, IT DOES NOT STAND ALONE --it is solidly based on Objectively Verifiable Facts.

You might not like that,

YOUR FEEBLE ATTEMPT TO MISCHARACTERIZE ACTUAL FACTS AND LOGIC GETS YOU NOWHERE.

but it does not change the falseness of the argument you have presented.

IF THERE IS SOMETHING ACTUALLY FAULTY WITH MY ARGUMENT, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO POINT IT OUT IN DETAIL. Your failure to do so merely means everyone gets to assume you are spouting a Stupid Lie.

 

[JayDubya]

You show your hatred for women in your first post, who the hell are you to judge a woman who gets pregnant. Abortion is legal and safe and it is a woman's choice. I'm not offended, I am used to this baloney from the christian american taliban. If you don't like abortion, don't have one "toots"

If you don't like rape, don't force anyone down and **** them. Same thing. Same "logic."

Now granted, rape is insignificant compared to the homicide you promote, but...

 

[FutureIncoming]

If you don't like rape, don't force anyone down and **** them. Same thing. Same "logic." Now granted, rape is insignificant compared to the homicide you promote, but...

BUT NOTHING. The difference between rape and abortion is that rape targets a person, and abortion targets a **provably** mere-anmal entity. Therefore your worthless blather is entirely dependent on the Stupid Lie that a mere-animal entity is equal to a person. NOPE!

 

[beefheart]

If you don't like rape, don't force anyone down and **** them. Same thing. Same "logic."

Now granted, rape is insignificant compared to the homicide you promote, but...

False equivalency, shame on you.

 

[JayDubya]

False equivalency, shame on you.

Shame on you for being so non-chalant about aggressive violence because the victims align with your bigotry.

 

[beefheart]

Shame on you for being so non-chalant about aggressive violence because the victims align with your bigotry.

Cool story bro...bless your heart.