Right to Life Ethical Considerations

That's a good question. The very short answer is that there was not a definitive answer, which is why more research needs to be done.However, it seems doubtful that "societal pressure" was a main culprit. They did take into account some levels of confounding factors that would relate to that, and in any case this study was NOT within the US. Perhaps someone from NZ can explain how controversial and "pressurized" that topic is there.An important point is that this was not the only study to find such results. There have been a number which have reached the same results from all over the world. It is just that they are swept under the rug by prochoice orgs/supporters. I have yet to post another one from a country where abortion is NOT stigmatized, and the harm they found was of large concern for the woman.One must add to this that the earlier studies which discounted mental health issues (though they even admit 1% had severe trauma) suffered from problematic methodology. It is somewhat duplicitous to question studies finding one direction but not the other (not saying that's what you did, but clearly some proC orgs are).At the very least this completely undercuts an argument that Xians are making up trauma related to abortion and when it does occur solely stems from pre-abortion problems. It also seriously disables current estimates about numbers suffering problems post abortion.It does appear that trauma occurs from having the abortion, and not solely that people were made to feel bad about it afterward. However it is unlikely they could weed out the possibility of other societal preconceptions which could result in trauma.Regarding societal pressure, if this is appealed to, then we go right back to the very first posts I was making in this thread. With regard to other sexual issues, particularly of minors, we do not allow that confounding factor to change how we view the statistics. Harm is harm even if the source is societal pressure rather than any act. To allow that to make a difference for an activity which is itself tied to sexuality, especially for minors, would be holding a double standard.I hope this made sense, I was just popping in and out quickly.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Interesting how every time you have made this point you refer to an unborn child as "who". Why is that? It is not consistant with your beliefs. Better to change the word to "what" to better reflect your position. Perhaps changing the phrase from "who gets to live" to "what parasite gets to grow. This is more consistant with yor position. Correct. You haven't made it up. It is someone elses opinion you have used, and it is ONLY an opinion.
One persons parasite is anothers wonderful human being to cherish. The former attitude is cynical, cold and far removed from human. The latter is loving, caring, uplifting,nurturing, unselfish, and all of what IS human that matters.

I appreciate the info. It is only a matter of time and this truth will come into it's own.
I have been aware of both schraf's and crashes selective inteligence for some time now. I patiently tolerate it. Childish as it may be. I pateintly make my point. I have returned the occasional tort remark but will not go to thier lengths.

quote:

---

Most fertilized eggs don't implant? Okay, and how have you deduced this information?

---

From the Stanford Medical Magazine Stanford Medical Magazine

quote:

---

However, even in the event that such a thing could be known, yes I think an attempt to save a fertilized fetus is a worthy endeavor.

---

What is a "fertilized fetus"?Can we please stick to using the proper medical terms for the stages of reproduction?The oocyte is a fertilized egg. Then it becomes a zygote, then a blastocyst, then an embryo, then a fetus.

quote:

---

But one would first have to know whether or not they pregnant to begin with.

---

That's just it, though. If the egg doesn't implant, they aren't pregnant, are they?And I want to be cc'd when you send your Senator or local church group your plan to collect the menstrual fluid of billions of women and search it for fertilized eggs.

quote:

---

No, they have equal rights. Don't kill the mother, don't kill the baby.

---

1) Does another person have the right to disfigure you? Do they have the right to demand that you feed it? Give you a life threatening medical condition? Does someone have a right to force you to endure hours of intense pain and exhausting physical effort? Does someone have the right to demand that you pay thousands of dollars for them to exist? Does someone have the right to demand that you curtail your normal activities just because they want to be with you 24 hours a day?1) It's not a baby.

quote:

---

The fetus didn't will itself in the uterus.

---

Right.Therefore, something without a will of it's own shouldn't be given full human rights.

quote:

---

Try not to lost sight that it was the parents actions that got them in the situation to begin with.

---

Not in the case of rape. Or incest.But it doesn't matter.You need to explain to me how something that has no will, no thoughts, no consciousness, and no self should be given nearly complete power over the body of a person who DOES have all of those things.

quote:

---

Secondly, I find the "my body, my choice," mantra to be little more than a diatribe. For starters, the fetus isn't apart of her body.

---

But the uterus that the egg implants into IS a part of her body.Are you saying that she stops owning her uterus at some point?

quote:

---

Secondly, I find it ironic that a woman can opt for any reason whatsoever to engage in abortion, which is a surgical procedure, but she can't elect to have a hysterectomy for any and all reasons, even though her uterus really is apart of her body.If a womans reproductive rights are hers without imposition, without hindrance, then why can't she elect to have whatever procedure she wants?

---

Of course she can elect to have a hysterectomy for any reason. Some women do.Why do you think she can't? How bizzare.

quote:

---

No, I don't but I also don't think its a tragedy of all tragedies.

---

Women die from complications of pregnancy and delivery at a rate over ten times greater than that of abortion. And that's just in the US. The number one cause of death for women worldwide is pregnancy complications.It is a big deal, physically and emotionally, to be pregnant and to give birth. One's body goes throuh a LOT. Most woman suffer some permenent disfigurement.

quote:

---

I also wouldn't play down the actual procedure of abortion either, along with its future medical and mental risks.

---

Women die from complications of pregnancy and delivery at a rate over ten times greater than that of abortion.

quote:

---

Unlike Planned Parenthood's claims that longterm sadness is "extremely rare," I must be one of those people to have met many of those rare individuals. Imagine the odds.

---

Oh, brother, not another one.Look, the women who have had abortions who do not feel ashamed or sorry who also know you are anti-abortion are probably not going to tell you. Even if they don't know you are anti-abortion, it's just not something most of them would feel the need to constantly talk about, unlike the people who regret their descision.I know several women who have had abortions that they do not regret. They are happily married and mothers of several children each.Feel free to use your biased anecdotal evidence if you wish. I'll stick with properly conducted, long-term studies which folowed a representative (random) sample of women for two years and found no evidence of lasting emotional harm from abortion.

quote:

---

What is my involvement? Am I supposed to married to this woman?

---

No.You are the person demanding that every pregnancy be carried to term, so you must be prepared to provide for the women and girls you demand this of.

quote:

---

I guess we could turn this around on you. If you told your friend that abortions are great and that they don't hurt, but tickle, and she ends up crippled, maimed, or dead are you going to pay for her injuries?

---

This isn't a valid analogy.I'm not suggesting that anyone have an abortion or carry a pregnancy to term on the basis of my personal moral position.I am suggesting that people be permitted to make whatever informed medical and moral choice they wish to.

quote:

---

Um, I have no idea how you could have extrapolated that message from what I said. If there is no chance for the survival of both but there is a chance to keep at least one of them alive, then keep one of them alive as best you can. I hardly see how that makes women walking uteri.

---

Your only consideration is the life of the woman.You don't care if she is healthy, you don't care if she is happy, miserable or mentally unstable, you don't care if her life is completely upended, you don't care if her body is disfigured or if she risks her life in other ways. All you care about is if her uterus can house the fetus.That means that, to you, she is nothing more than a uterus-support system.She is nothing more than a walking uterus.

quote:

---

No, they have equal rights.

---

See my list of questions above.

quote:

---

But in your scenario the women has all of the rights and the fetus has zero.

---

The fetus can't think, can't reason, has no consciousness.It isn't a person, so it does not have the same rights as someone who does.

quote:

---

If she doesn't want to donate blood, that's her right not to.

---

Well, then. Since the fetus gets all of it's nutrients from the blood it shares with the woman's, then you must support a woman's right to not donate her blood nutrients to the fetus.More than one woman and girl has starved herself to induce abortion.

quote:

---

Lets say that a man accidentally impregnated the woman, and neither of them wanted to concieve. However, after some time passes, all of those motherly predilictions start to bubble up and she decides to concieve. The boyfriend is outraged. He doesn't want a child. Isn't his choice not to care for or to pay for the expenses of this child? Men don't have the same rights as women? Men are just walking testicles? Men are forced to bear a responsibility they never asked for? What say you now?

---

That's a good question.If it has been clearly communicated that he doesn't ever want children, and she gave him every indication that she felt exactly the same way, but once pregnant she decides she wants to keep it, I do not think that the man should be required to pay to support the resulting child.

quote:

---

Whether or not we call it Partial Birth Abortion doesn't negate that an extremely disturbing "medical procedure" is taking place.

---

Have you ever bothered to learn why these procedures are done, and how often?

quote:

---

Well, to be sure, you are a bundle of cells too.

---

You knew what I meant. I am much more than this:

quote:

---

As for self-awareness, what are you referring to? Fetus are aware of themselves, as if it means anything.

---

Self-awareness. Being aware that one is an entity.How can you tell they are aware of themselves? Are they thinking? When do they start doing these things?

quote:

---

What about a several month old fetus?

---

Nope. Not a person.But closer.

quote:

---

"There" what is?

---

There is no exact moment when a zygote or a fetus becomes a "fully-fledged" person except, for sure, at birth.Before that, it is a sliding scale. It is ambiguous, and that makes people who like easy, black and white moral choices uncomfortable.It is difficult to grapple with ambiguity and shades of gray, but that is the reality of the abortion debate. There are no easy answers, reagardless of your radical, extreme views.

quote:

---

You want to talk to Kindergartners about sex?

---

Yes, in age-appropriate ways.Have you forgotten that 6 year old children play "doctor"? they are curious about bodies in general, so why not teach them very basic differences between boys and girls, and that sexuality is part of life and not to be ashamed of? Also, have you forgotten that children that age and younger are not immune from sexual molestestation? Wouldn't it be good to teach them proper words for things and what is appropriate kinds of touching, etc?

quote:

---

Do you have children? Do you understand the mentality of that age bracket? My daughter will be starting 2nd grade in a few days and she does not yet have the understanding on sex.

---

I wouldn't expect her to.Remember, I said age-appropriate.

quote:

---

If I were to give her some of the details on how babies are made and the mechanism used to produce one, she'd probably be completely bewildered.

---

That's why you might not give that much detail at that point.But I'll bet she knows all of her body parts, right? Does she know the correct words for her genitals?

quote:

---

Having said all that, there is a time in the not-so-distant future when I will discuss this with her. And since you're on a big kick for personal rights, it is not the job of an elementary school to be teaching my kids a single thing on sex because its inappropriate.

---

Why? Isn't sexual health a part of general health? It's only your idea that sex is dirty or shameful that makes you consider it such a taboo.It is a long-established fact that the abortion and STD rates are very low in Western countries which have early and comprehensive national sex education and easy access to contraception and safer sex protections, like condoms.The more you write, the more you give the impression that you are more concerned with keeping kids ignorant of sexual health facts than in preventing unwanted pregnancy and abortion in the misguided hope that if they are ignorant of those facts, they will not have sex at all.Well, hon, let me tell you, they have sex no matter if they know how to prevent unwanted pregnancy or STD's or not.

quote:

---

This is the kind of nonsense that exacerbates the problem. I'll kindly ask you to look at Sweden as a classic example that incessantly talking about sex doesn't mitigate the chances of unwanted pregnancy, it only interests the kids all the more.

---

Found this study: So, what about Sweden?And, dude, I don't think that sex ed makes kids any more interested in sex than they already are. In fact, making it "forbidden and taboo" makes it even more attractive. The minute anything becomes mundane and unlikely to shock the adults, it loses it's rebellious attraction.

quote:

---

I'll also kindly ask you to look at the rate of unwanted pregnancies of the 40's and 50's when talking about sex in school was unheard of.

---

OK, I'll look. Please provide the stats.

quote:

---

LOL! No, I sure didn't. How many abstinence-only programs are allowed through the doors? I mean, who knows whether or not it would work.

---

Er, ever since the federal money earmarked for such programs became available five years ago or so, every state in the country except for California has participated.The conclusion of a study of several of the programs?

quote:

---

Well, I don't know where you have garnered your opinion from but maybe you can tell where you heard this.

---

Medical News TodayIt's amazing that you don't know any of this stuff.And you claim to care about preventing unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Could've fooled me.

quote:

---

I have no problem with contraceptives. But if you give kids the go ahead to have sex then you're just going to have another 1960-70's era of unmitigated sex, where its going to take a deadly disease, like AIDS, to make people get serious about it.

---

We DO have HIV, plus a whole lot of other STD's, and unwanted pregnancy to make people get serious about it.Keeping someone ignorant of ways to mitigate undesireable and unintended consequences of an action they are very, very likely to engage in is never, ever a good way to keep them from engaging in it.If a kid wants to have sex, not knowing how to protect themselves from contracting a disease, or not knowing how to effectively prevent an unwanted pregnancy is not going to stop them. Ignorance will not stop them.The cold, hard, reality of the statistics shows us this.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

---

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

I'm trying to speak your language, trying to meet you halfway. You're asserting the personhood of the fetus. I don't particularly care to determine whether or not a fetus is a person; I think that's nothing but a debate about semantics.You're the one who's so convinced we're talking about people. I'm ambivalent on the personhood issue; it doesn't matter to me. So, as a courtesy, let's use your language for a moment. We'll consider the fetus as a person.So what? What right does a person have to live within someone's body and use resources that don't belong to them? Even if they need it to live, I don't see that they have that right.Thousands of adults die every year, waiting for transplant organs, because there aren't enough organs to go around. But just about everybody has a spare kidney. By your logic, you have no right to refuse surgery to extract that kidney and give it to someone else. Despite the fact that it's invasive and "inconvinient", as I think you put it, your logic would mean that that other person's right to life trumps your right to decide who is allowed inside your body.Well, if you want to go there, that's fine. I expect a photo or something of you in the clinic, having a kidney out to help someone you don't even know. That's your opinion. My opinion is that my position is respectful and considerate of the rights of people to be soverigns of their own bodies, and your position is an abominanable, sexist view that reduces women to nothing more than apartments with a nine-month lease - that your rights can be ignored at any time another human being is determined to require for living something you may not wish to give them.

How is it you feel your are above this? How? in what manner? Crash and you seem really fixated on this idea. Both of you discuss sex as being dirty and shameful. No one else here has.
Define sexual health. What exactly do you mean by this? When you find one let us know. 2 years is a joke considering the majority of abortions are experienced by girls under the age of 24. You will note I said girls and not women. At that age they don't know thier butt from a hole in the ground. As a whole I would not expect them to have a reasonably good personal assessment of themselves until at least 10 years later. All the kids I ever met did not speak of having sex out of rebellion. They did it cuzz it felt good. Of course it was all groin and no brains. The problem IS that sex has become "no big deal" It is anything but. The responsibility of the consequences of sex should be taught. Kids Today act as if sex is a big joke. They haven't the faintest clue what affect it has on them. We do not talk about how to safely drink alcohol with teens. We do not provide them with the safe means to drink in case they decide to do it anyway. We all know they are going to don't we. In fact It is illegal for teens to drink. We envoke penalties to curb teen drinking. Follow the math.

Stick to what you know. Just state YOUR position clearly.
You're asserting the personhood of the fetus. I don't particularly care to determine whether or not a fetus is a person; I think that's nothing but a debate about semantics.
Black people Gentiles Women semantics All assrtions. As you assert you are of value. The same can be said for any child under the age of 18. We are responsible for our children. Show me a gown up self aware kidney that is independant of it's mother and we'll talk... This is your view and your issue. It is where all your anger comes from. Everything you say shouts that you hate what a womans body is and you take it out on others. The fact that women bare children is unfair to you. Your cynical non human view of the birth experience is as far to the right as they get. Care to challenge that claim? Run for any public office and speak as you have here. Again...a shout that a fact of what it is to be a human female abhors you. Therfore you choose to deny it. You hate the fact that sex makes babies and women get "stuck" with it. To fix this injustice unborn children are not human to you. Emotional detachment.

Again, we share much of the same position, with a few notable exceptions. Also, if you do not care about anything else I have to say you should be aware of the Notice at the bottom... Incest can and has been a consensual act which produces children. If you are talking about nonconsensual sex between family members it is still just rape. Actually yes, in some cases people can gain that right. It may seem "unjust" that women face the brunt of having to become responsible for another being at cost to themselves because of a physical process, but that does not argue AGAINST the right of the fetus.AS LONG AS one begins with the view that a fetus is a child or person (which is what they do) then your argument inherently loses all of its punch. Nice, I discuss this and get slammed for being offtopic and creepy... but its okay for you, huh? If there is such a thing as an objective criteria called "age appropriate" you will need to provide it. All evidence we have is that that concept is solely subjective. While you may feel some things are appropriate, others may not. It seems odd to be arguing that 2ice cannot have a different concept of when sex education is appropriate. NOTE (SINCE YOU ASKED TO BE INFORMED): As of your last post you are now clearly engaging in the "creo" tactic of avoiding solid scientific evidence provided by posters, in order to repeat your original claim as if no counterevidence had been provided. Evidence follows... You have been provided more than anecdotal evidence on more than one occasion and by more than one poster. 2ice gave you a perfectly reasonable study which you never addressed. Further in post #236 gave you a recent longterm study which not only provided the same evidence, it undercut the studies you are vaguely referring to (and conveniently never citing yourself). Again, you can ignore ME or MY POSTS all you want, but it only undercuts your actual knowledge and credibility on this issue to dismiss the EVIDENCE you have been provided.That is to say you don't have to respond to me, but repeating statements like the above only makes you look like a liar or at the very least willfully ignorant. 2ice's position on that matter is getting greater support over time in scientific evidence, and you WILL have to deal with it somewhere down the road. Clearly the scientific community is, whether you want to agree with it or not.Edited by holmes, : lil fixes

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

As much as I disagree with your overall position, I think this post (save perhaps the first paragraph) dead on the money regarding recent posts by both crash and schraf. Summed up wonderfully in this... But now let me take you on regarding the personhood of the fetus. Just as they are arguing from a position that discounts your view, you are equally discounting their initial position, and so both sides talk past each other.I see that you view a fetus, and so value a fetus as a person. It is not just semantics to use the term person. It is an indication, a marker, that a certain value has been obtained.You listed several groups that had been considered less than a person, or at least had less than others. The problem is that there is a real difference between those in the group you listed and a fetus. Now you may argue that there are some criteria by which they all fit into the same class and worthy of protection, but all that argues is that YOU use different criteria.People on the proChoice side of things, or at least I, view life from an organic standpoint. There is cellular life, which then attaches and so becomes gestational life, which then grows to become an independent being. There is nothing inherently wrong or inconsistent with this viewpoint.I think this is why much of the debate has to come down to recognizing it is a debate between radically different concepts about life itself and the world. It is at its heart a religious debate. And that's why I think YOUR side is the one that has to give way. There is, at least not at this time, a sense of proving that gestational beings (much less fertilized eggs) have any quality which denotes they really are living human beings... persons. The only way to argue that is from a religious concept of a soul, which in itself is problematic (though we can deal with that elsewhere).That is wholly unlike the other categories you mentioned, whose only differences are surficial or political differences between full grown and independently functioning life forms.I hope this has been clear.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Holmes, I feel a little bit of an obligation to tell you that I do not read your posts to me anymore.It's not because I am "afraid" of taking on the points you raise. Indeed, in the past I have judged some of your arguments as very good points that are worthy of being addressed.However, I do not read your posts to me anymore so I am not tempted to respond. This is for the sole reason that I know that it is highly, highly likely that I will unsuccessfuly spend a great deal of the debate trying to correct your misrepresentation and distortion of my position.This is too bad, but there it is. It's just not worth the frustration of being misrepresented over and over again and for the correction to be ignored just as often. It's boring.Anyway, just thought you'd want to know.

---

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

But that responsibility can be passed to another in a process called "adoption."There's no way, however, to transplant a fetus into another's uterus. Outside of that one single individual, the fetus cannot survive. Thus the termination of pregnancy, which the mother has every right to do because of her right to determine who may live inside her body, results in the destruction of the fetus. It's not intentional, the intent is to evict someone from the uterus, but that sadly results in death.That's too bad, but it's a biological fact of life. How is it the mother's fault? I think I've asked you that before. Fetuses aren't grown-up, self-aware, or independant. What's your point? The adult that needs your kidney is all those things. What right do you have to sentence him to death simply out of your selfish desire to not be inconvinienced by the loss of your kidney? To not have surgeons poking around inside if you don't wish it?Please, address the point. Your response does not. Lol! Leave the internet psychology to the professionals, bub.Like I said, address the point. The fact that you've started to attack me personally convinces me that I've said something you don't have a response for.

Oh, Holmes, bug off. As loudly as you complain when it happens to you, I would have thought you would have been the last person to gang up for the personal attacks.Of course, that's because I assumed that, for all your faults, at least you weren't a hypocrite. It's amazing how you so consistently slide right in beneath even my lowest expectations.I don't hate women because they can have children. That's idiotic and you should have known better than to agree with it. Absolutely nothing that I've said could possibly indicate that except to the most depraved mind, desperate to distort my meaning at every turn.I believe that human beings have a right to body soverignty. I believe that a woman is more than an apartment with a nine-month lease. I believe that she is a human being who gets the final say over what other human beings are allowed to take up residence within her, and maintain that residence.It's 100% no surprise to me that you're siding with the abortion foes. Any time you see Crash and Scraf arguing a position, there you are on the other side. I imagine that if Schraf and I started talking about how bad cancer was, you'd pop up and tell us what idiots we were, and how great cancer can be.Your sick contrarian obsession is something you need to seek help for.I'll just sit right here and wait for the suspension. Holmes gets a free pass, of course, for whatever idiotic ad hominem he cares to spout off.

Because the mother is aware that the baby will die outside of her womb. If the mother didn't want the baby there then she shouldn't have placed her/him in there. I mean, actions have certain consequences. Okay, so what purpose to partial birth abortions serve? The typical fetal age of this occurance is at about 6-9 months, where the mother has already gone through most of her pregnancy, and she essentially gives birth in the procedure. Why go through all of this just to end up killing the child? The child can live outside of the womb in most cases. All it would take is for them to call an ambulance and have the fetus rushed to a neo-natal unit. It just seems that in her malice she'd rather the child be dead. Perhaps she doesn't want to hear her baby cry because she might actually feel emotion for her own baby. How fortunate for us that we were the invited dinner guest instead of being turned into minced meat. Excuse me? What the hell do you call these? Those aren't arms and legs? What do you call this? Or how about this? Yes, much of the gelatenous, bloody goop that comes out is the placenta, but assuming that the body, with all his or her limbs wouldn't be coming out at some point, is a little silly. Where did you think they went? Did you think the body absorbs the fetus? A 4 month old is completely dependant on his/her mother and/or father to keep them alive. That's the thing about babies. They need us. Just like when we were babies we needed them. I'm not unclear on it. I want you to tell me what constitutes birth. I ask because if you say a life begins once a fetus passes through the birth canal then supporting a partial birth abortion might mplicate you in defending homicide. Some people have stretched the argument to mean that the baby must first draw a breath to be human, as if that was really the qualifier. I don't think it should happen at all. Having me choose between a hospital or a Mexican hellhole is not a qualifier or disqualifier for me. It shouldn't happen at all. Laws against hijacking planes and flying them into buildings doesn't stop people from trying. Should we just give up because some people will find a way through the cracks in the system? Just let people do whatever they want because we can't catch them all? If that's the case then no laws should exist. How quickly you turn a blind eye when it suits you. I don't have a grasp on what abortion entails? Perhaps if you did you wouldn't support it. I've supplied video's, pictures, and now I'll present another piece of documentation that employs all of the medical research you want. Watch this five part series and then you tell me that its I who doesn't have a clue or if its you that's been duped into believing that a fetus is just a blob of molecules. link 1
link 2
link 3
link 4Actually, I think its illegal in South Dakota. Even still, the majority of Americans still do not agree with abortion. The reason why is because they understand what a baby is and they understand what is happening to them. Sponataneous abortion occurs naturally, though its an abberation. As for women terminating their own pregnancies in the past, all forms of murder have taken place in the distant past. I wasn't aware that the past frequency of a something was a tool used for exoneration. Any man that would kick a pregnant women in the stomach in the hopes of hurting her is a despicable human being. Are you asserting that if you and your pregnant wife were out somewhere and some crazy ex-boyfriend came up to your wife and kicked her in the stomach killing your child and dashing you and your wife's dreams that you'd be concerned for whether guy was serving the appropriate sentence? Would you at least see to it that he be charged for aggravated assault?

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

That is fine, as long as you keep these three points in mind:1) When I present evidence from journal articles, they are unlikely to be distorting your position, and will be of some value to the overall argument anyway. The one I posted here has refs to further articles which are also important and on topic. Thus it might be a good idea to peruse those portions even if you skip the rest.2) Your notice will not prevent me from posting responses to you. Indeed it will have the same effect on me that such statements have had on you in the past. You treat them as attempts to dodge real arguments and so you continue posting facts showing (at least to others) that they are avoiding real evidence. That is in fact how I view your behavior. You seem willfully ignorant on topics you feel you must be right on. Okey doke.3) There are other people on this board. I am writing to you but the information I give out may be of interest to others, in connection to what you said. Yeah, like you tried to do when I first started posting in this thread, only here you are now debating the exact points with 2ice that I addressed in the beginning? Sometimes I feel the problem is that you are not used to professional debate where a person must look several steps ahead and deal with permutations. Whenever I do this you tend to misunderstand what I am doing, make claims that I am distorting your position or wrong about what we are discussing, only to prove me right in the end. Nice.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

She didn't. I mean, that seems pretty obvious to me. She didn't "put" anything anywhere. The action that attached a fetus into her endometrium was done by the fetus, not by anybody else. Since they don't exist, none. The term serves only the purpose of inflaming emotions and confusing the debate. It's not a real thing that happens, it's a scare term used by abortion foes. Yeah. Lucky us. Irrelevant! Call what? Your webpage isn't loading for me. That's absolutely ridiculous. Of course that's not true. Think about it for a minute. A 4-month old is dependant, yes, but not on anybody specifically. Any competent adult can fulfill those responsibilities.You can't put a fetus in someone else's uterus. So taking a fetus out of a uterus - which is entirely at the discretion of the owner of that uterus, which is the woman by the way - neccesitates the death of the fetus.That's sad, but it's a biological reality. How is that the owner of the uterus's fault? Well, tough shit. It's going to.Don't you think that, as responsible adults, we should deal with reality as it is, and not as we wish it were? I don't think you understood my argument, or if you did, you're purposefully distorting it. I invite you to go back, reread, and try this time to provide a legitimate response. Implicating women who have abortions as terrorists does not constitute such a response. More scaremongering gore from abortion foes. You're just like those people that drive the trucks around with the bloody miscarriages on the side, aren't you? I hate those guys.You know, for the side that supposedly respects the "dignity of life", you folks are pretty quick to capitalize on tragedy for your own purposes. Your sick fascination with all this is something I find pretty disgusting and ghoulish.Let's talk about real abortions:

quote:

---

suction-aspiration or vacuum abortion is the most common method. [11] Manual vacuum aspiration, or MVA abortion, consists of removing the fetus or embryo by suction using a manual syringe, while the Electric vacuum aspiration or EVA abortion method uses an electric pump. These techniques are comparable, differing in the mechanism used to apply suction, how early in pregnancy they can be used, and whether cervical dilation is necessary. MVA, also known as "mini-suction" and "menstrual extraction," can be used in very early pregnancy, and doesn't require cervical dilation. Surgical techniques are sometimes referred to as STOP: 'Suction (or surgical) Termination of Pregnancy'. From the fifteenth week up until around the twenty-sixth week, a surgical dilation and evacuation (D & E) is used. D & E consists of opening the cervix of the uterus and emptying it using surgical instruments and suction.

​

Dilation and curettage (D & C) is a standard gynaecological procedure performed for a variety of reasons, including examination of the uterine lining for possible malignancy, investigation of abnormal bleeding, and abortion. Curettage refers to the cleaning of the walls of the uterus with a curette. The World Health Organization recommends this sort of procedure, also called Sharp Curettage, only when MVA is unavailable. [12] Sharp curettage only accounted for 2.4% of abortion procedures in the US in 2002. [3] The term "D and C", or perhaps suction curette, etc, is sometimes used as a euphemism to refer to the first trimester abortion procedure, irrespective of the method used to perform the procedure.

---

from Abortion - WikipediaWhat, are you just not paying attention? This claim is 100% false. Well over half of Americans, in all recent polls, support the rights of women to have abortions. Less than 15% of Americans believe, as you do, that no woman should be permitted to have an abortion under any circumstances. No, in fact, it's normal. It's the natural result of well over half of all conceptions.