Abortion questions...?

Depends on the circumstances of the particular event.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Forgive me if I do not recall you defining your "life point" (the point where this parasite we call a fetus is a human life) at 25 weeks, prior to the post I am replying to.... When does it become a "life"? How do you determine it to be as such? So you would be a champion for same sex couples rights to adopt?

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

No it isn't because you made it an issue. You are doing a pro-life gish gallop. Throw a bunch a shit up and hope no one has time to check the facts.You self-righteous smug prolifers repeat the lies and half truths you hear as if you have verified the facts. Maybe you should gather facts before you make statements like you did about ectopic pregnancies.I am also not impressed with your use of the Daily Mail as your source for scientific information. Do you not know what sensationalism is?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Calling the daily mail sensationalist is an undeserved compliment.
"Full of lies, hate, fear-mongering and racism." is more accurate.

IMHO, this is the wrong debate to have. The real discussion should focus on why women seek abortions to begin with. There are many stories of women prior to Roe v. Wade purposefully injuring themselves in falls in order to induce a miscarriage.And what if a fetus does have a soul that goes on to the afterlife? Given that half of pregnancies naturally abort in the first month without the mother really noticing I can only assume that the vast majority of people in heaven will be fetuses that never made it past the 4 week stage.

But I did not say the mother decides how much effort is put into saving the life. I said that, as a collectivity, who should decide that the maximum effort should be put into saving every human life. But, when all has been done, and there is no chance for recovery, then the closest relatives then chooses to let nature take it's course.Now, as I see it, the united states hasn't yet made that decision. It has decided, by having a private health-care system, that someone will in fact choose how much effort is to be put into saving someone's life. So when I say as a collectivity we decided, it is represented in reality by a public health-care system, where the rich man and the poor both have the same treatement, and both will recieve the maximum effort to save their life. (in theory) You are looking at it from the wrong angle, it is not about ''complete strangers deciding''. It is about the collectivity as a society needing to speak for those who cannot speak, defend those who are defenseless.Think about it, this is what we do for all other groups of people in the same situation. Mentally retarded people (is that pejorative ? what is the politically correct term for that?) who will never be able to defend themselves. Society has the role to defend them. Children who do not yet have the ability to defend themselves, society must do it for them until they are able. Elderly people who have lost this ability, society takes this charge. We become responsible of those people.Same with a foetus. If we agree that it is a human being, then it is our job as a collectivity to decide for them, since they are not yet able. I propose that the correct decision is to try, as much as possible, to have them see the light of day.

What circumstances would you be comfortable with simply aborting the foetus instead of trying your best to keep it alive.

Many, many, many. Any time either the doctors or mother feel the risk is too great. Anytime the penalties that would be visited on the mother are more than she is willing to reasonable assume.When the society is unwilling to assume the financial, cultural and emotional imposition involved in saving the foetus.The point is that it is not MY decision to make.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

That's because it isn't a ''life point''. We are discussing the situation where the pregnancy would kill the mother, and if in that case it was acceptable to abort. I said yes, with the specification that if the foetus could be saved in the process, then this should be done. So the ''savable point'' is right now around 25 weeks. You invoked monetary reasons for not saving the life, I answered that no monetary reasons should be valid when talking about saving a human life. You then said that the only life that can be substantially defined is the mother's. This is why I said that this wasn't the case, and that in fact many would clearly define the life we were talking about (a 25 weeks 'savable' foetus) as a human life. I personnally identify the line at the 100th cell division, but as others have said this isn't the issue. We all put the line somewhere, the question is, what should be done to those who we think are human lifes ? Another subject, but no I would not.

You have got to be kidding me. You honestly think invented shit up and hoped no one whould check ?Seriously, this i why I hate discussing with you, you always assume the worst of peopleAnd this is even after being shown wrong multiple times. I'm sorry, but I did my best to provide evidence for everything I said whenever it was asked, even when they are only anecdotal personnal experience. Your just making a fool of yourself just by directly insulting my integrity in this.What did I say about ectopic pregancies ? That in some cases the foetus could be saved. This was shown to be true by both purpledawns linked and mine.I didn't say it was common, I didn't say it was rare. I did not know if it was either case. I said what I knew was true, and that was that it happened, and so that in some cases it was possible to save the foetus. Sorry, I do not know the daily mail and how it approaches information.I am certainly not impressed that you are juding me on the basis that I am faulty of not knowing that.

I didn't ask you who "should" decide. I asked you who does decide. And I asked you why the decision "should" be placed in different hands for a fetus than for a five-year-old. The "collectivity" are complete strangers. You want them to make decision "for" a defenseless fetus and against a defenseless woman. What most people in this thread are saying is that the woman should be allowed to make the decision. But we don't agree on that.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

Says you, but that is not the reality. 2/3 of the world is either starving or malnutritioned, I think we have enough humans. Watching humans starve to death is not worth it. Those humans did not need to be given a chance to live. What kind of life is one spent starving till that shitty life is gone?It would be very moral to make a conscious decision not to subject humans to this kind of condition. No, but coming from a broken home, especially for minorities, will. source

quote:

---

Bell said 70 percent of inmates come from broken homes. He said dysfunctional families and physical, mental and sexual abuse lead to psychological problems. Coping with these problems often leads to drug use.

​

Concerning socioeconomic factors, Bell said, "It is no accident that 50 percent of inmates are disadvantaged, deprived minorities." He added that one out of four black youths is somewhere in the criminal justice system.

​

Bell said that it costs $40,000 a year on the average to house an inmate. He said, "That's five times higher than tuition at Penn State."

---

How many more humans do you want to add to these numbers?A conscious decision to abort, rather than subject the child to this, or poverty, or malnutrituion, or starvation, is a very moral thing to do.- Oni

A strong reminder to participants to argue the position and not the person.This thread is over 300 posts, so if I see this discussion becoming more about badgering and insulting debating styles or personal choices, I will close the thread.Please don't respond to this post.Thanks
AdminPD

That is the rub. You have to be asked to provide evidence. Maybe if you provided the evidence with your claims you wouldn't attempt to throw up crap like your ectopic pregnancy claim. I do not understand why you get offended when I demand evidence for your claims. I do not trust anyone's claims. I want to see the actual source myself so I can be sure it is being represented accurately. If you have a problem with that, so be it.As an admin you should know that all your claims are open for discussion and you should be providing evidence and sources for your claims, without being asked for them.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

No, WE are not. You may be discussing that with other members, but not me. I am talking about all abortions. So before 25 weeks, it is ok to abort? That is the rub, don't you see? Each one of the anti-choicers has a different idea of when it becomes a life, but the lot of you still call ALL abortion murder. Ahh, the hypocrisy is astounding! So you have no problem flinging unwanted children into the system, into foster care or orphanages, but you don't want to give these children MORE chances to get placed into a happy home? Do you honestly think there are more foster parents than children looking for homes?

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.