Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/23/07 05:39 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Whose right to life?

An infant's right to life.

The mother has a right to life.

No one's disputing that.

The PBA law provides no provision for rape, incest or for protecting the life of the mother.

If any of these these happens then the mother can have an abortion when the kid's still just a zygote or fetus, not a human being. If you get knocked up, then don't have an abortion in the first and second trimestor and decide you want it during the third, tough shit, by that time the pregnancy has matured to the point of being more than a cluster of chromosomes.

Oh, of course. I believe that the mother has the right to abort her fetus/baby/whatever whenever she wishes (before birth). About the health aspects, etc. I had previously read (or, perhaps misread) that the bill provided no way for a woman to get a PBA when her health required it. I was wrong on that, sorry. But my argument of woman's choice is what I stand behind.

At 4/23/07 05:12 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: We can't determine it.

Right, but what you're suggesting is that we err on the side of recklessness.

I don't like abortion and not because I'm cathlic. I don't like because I don't think we have the right to deny someone the right to have a choice to live or die.

Hmm, maybe women would be more likely to detect the pregnancy before the third trimester if there was better health-care for people who can't afford it.

Oh, but that's not the government's JOB is it?

Sorry, but I don't get how the guys who are normally opposed to the government helping the people are also here opposing abortion.

Anyways, as far as where the line goes for abortions depends on when a baby is developed enough to count as a thinking feeling human being. Somewhere between birth and being a pile of goo with around the same intelligence as a simple sperm cell. Whether the third trimester is where that line is I am not sure.

if the mother is going to die but the baby will live, then wether or not if she wants to live, the baby is to be the one to live. it should be by law. no debate.

At 4/23/07 06:36 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Hmm, maybe women would be more likely to detect the pregnancy before the third trimester if there was better health-care for people who can't afford it.

Oh, but that's not the government's JOB is it?

Sorry, but I don't get how the guys who are normally opposed to the government helping the people are also here opposing abortion.

Okay, I'm gonna clarify that, dumb sarcasm aside. What I'm saying is that if the conservatives are saying you gotta do stuff yourself, why do they care about the people who aren't even born yet if as soon as they're born it's not their problem any more?

Before baby is born: We must protect the fetus!

Afterwards: It should help itself!

At 4/23/07 07:36 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Before baby is born: We must protect the fetus!

Afterwards: It should help itself!

And how is a new born baby going to help it's self.

At 4/23/07 07:36 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

At 4/23/07 06:36 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

Okay, I'm gonna clarify that, dumb sarcasm aside. What I'm saying is that if the conservatives are saying you gotta do stuff yourself, why do they care about the people who aren't even born yet if as soon as they're born it's not their problem any more?
It should help itself!

Because people have this inate compasion towards protecting the life of an individual. And considering that protecting the life of the individual is one of it's rights.

At 4/23/07 08:42 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Because people have this inate compasion towards protecting the life of an individual. And considering that protecting the life of the individual is one of it's rights.

Then why are you so opposed to government-mandated health-care AFTER the person is born?

At 4/23/07 08:47 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

At 4/23/07 08:42 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Then why are you so opposed to government-mandated health-care AFTER the person is born?

Because it's not the Federal governments place to burden the taxpayer on someone else's health.

At 4/23/07 07:40 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 4/23/07 07:36 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Before baby is born: We must protect the fetus!

Afterwards: It should help itself!

And how is a new born baby going to help it's self.

Exactly. The point I am making is that a lot of the same people who want abortion outlawed are also opposed to helping people after their born, because supposedly they should do it themselves even when the people in question can't.

Good point, good point. But you should be sending letters to congress about that 'un.

Anyway...

I don't debate morals, but I will say that I believe that everyone is entitled to control their body. I cannot see the Founders ever saying that women can't control their own bodies.

At 4/23/07 08:50 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Then why are you so opposed to government-mandated health-care AFTER the person is born?

Because it's not the Federal governments place to burden the taxpayer on someone else's health.

Then why do you want the government to intervene on the unborn's health?

At 4/23/07 08:50 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

I don't debate morals, but I will say that I believe that everyone is entitled to control their body. I cannot see the Founders ever saying that women can't control their own bodies.

Don't bring in the founding fathers into this argument.

They didn't see many thing that have happened in our time.

And the fact that there were abortions back in thier day and there's reasons why none of them supported it.

At 4/20/07 02:36 AM, fli wrote: Sometimes people don't know about genetic defects and stuff until late in the pregnancy.
I read a heart breaking article years ago about an abortion at 8 months. The woman who had done the procedure wrote about it. Basically, her child had a rare genetic defect that was giving the baby seizures even inside the womb.

My girlfriend's sister was diagnosed with many defects before her birth. Doctors said she would be blind, have trouble breathing, and would never be able to walk. Today she leads a perfectly normal life. The abortion argument is a letimate one, but there is no question partial birth abortions are inhumane. At that stage, it becomes a question of a pysician assisted euthanasia, without the consent of the child.

Proponents argue that a fetus can feel pain. While I cannot easily believe their claim that an embryo can feel pain at the early stages, I can assume that at 8 months... it's possible.

What difference does it make if the embryo can feel pain or not? If I inject a man with novacane and shatter his skull, does it redefine what I just did? Whether the embryo can feel pain or not can only be asked by ignoring the fact that it's alive, that it wants to survive, and can die. That is the very definition of life.

So the fetus was in great pain.
It wouldn't be able survive more than a few years, and it would be in agonizing pain in the meanwhile.

These cases are the exception to the rule. They're sad, and extremely tragic on a level I will never, God willing, comprehend. But we're kidding ourselves if we think any law we put into effect will eleviate that kind of pain. In this case it's far better to uphold the greater good, rather than open the door to barbarism by over-reaching our arm to the exception of the rule.

At 4/20/07 02:36 AM, fli wrote: So the fetus was in great pain.
It wouldn't be able survive more than a few years, and it would be in agonizing pain in the meanwhile.

These cases are the exception to the rule. They're sad, and extremely tragic on a level I will never, God willing, comprehend. But we're kidding ourselves if we think any law we put into effect will eleviate that kind of pain. In this case it's far better to uphold the greater good, rather than open the door to barbarism by over-reaching our arm to the exception of the rule.

Preventing suffering is imperative, whether it's the suffering of the mother or not. But if a mother wishes to have a child who will suffer, it is certainly NOT my place or the government's place to say that the mother cannot give birth. On the same token, she should be allowed to abort her fetus/baby/etc. whenever she pleases. It's NOT your child. It's HERS.

At 4/19/07 05:26 PM, JakeHero wrote: For those of you who do not know partial birth abortion is an abortion performed AS the baby is being birthed. This means it's nine months old, fully developed as a human being, and is indepedent of the mother's womb any further.

Um, I'm against PBA, but it does not mean the baby is 9 months old. It does, however, mean that the baby in in the late 2nd trimester into the 3rd..and is always viable.

At 4/20/07 02:36 AM, fli wrote: Sometimes people don't know about genetic defects and stuff until late in the pregnancy.
I read a heart breaking article years ago about an abortion at 8 months. The woman who had done the procedure wrote about it. Basically, her child had a rare genetic defect that was giving the baby seizures even inside the womb.

There's nothing that I know of that isn't detectable at the very earliest of the 2nd trimester....

Regardless. The idea that someone doesn't have the right to life because life won't be perfect is a silly argument.

And FYI, a woman who had an abortion at 8 months, can't write about a condition giving her baby "seizures outside of the womb"...becuase her baby didn't make it outside of the womb.

So the fetus was in great pain.
It wouldn't be able survive more than a few years, and it would be in agonizing pain in the meanwhile.

Blah. Blah. Blah.

So in the end, this woman did the most humaine act andmost importantly-- as a mother-- decided that she wouldn't let her child suffer horribly anymore and terminated her pregnancy at 8 months.

Sounds like bullshit to me Burt.

I don't like Dialation and Extraction procedure either-- but there are cases, such as the one where I read, where it is necessary and the best option for the child and mother. Those type of decisions should be between the woman, the doctor, and the woman's family.

There's not a single case where PBA is neccesary. Ever.

At 4/20/07 08:41 PM, fli wrote: But a draconian ban on it isn't the way to go either, especially when we're talking about the mother's life at stake.

Like I said.
This type of decision is something that belongs first to the mother, and then the family and doctors. The politician should stay out from such private family and health decisions.

It's not a "draconian ban", because by about 4 months, if the baby isany threat to the mother, the doctor has identified it. If birthing the baby is a threat to the mother, than birhting the baby to abort it is certainy not healthy for the mother. This argument fails on its face.

At 4/23/07 05:39 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Whose right to life? The mother has a right to life. The PBA law provides no provision for rape, incest or for protecting the life of the mother.

You don't figure out that you've been raped six months into it. Nor is PBA in any way safe for the mother. Try again next time.

At 4/23/07 05:49 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Oh, of course. I believe that the mother has the right to abort her fetus/baby/whatever whenever she wishes (before birth). About the health aspects, etc. I had previously read (or, perhaps misread) that the bill provided no way for a woman to get a PBA when her health required it. I was wrong on that, sorry. But my argument of woman's choice is what I stand behind.

There is no health NEED for a PBA.

At 4/23/07 06:36 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Hmm, maybe women would be more likely to detect the pregnancy before the third trimester if there was better health-care for people who can't afford it.

Of course. Because women don't know that they're pregnant until the 6th/7th month? Shut up.

Oh, but that's not the government's JOB is it?

Sorry, but I don't get how the guys who are normally opposed to the government helping the people are also here opposing abortion.

Because abortion is a bad thing. Duh.

At 4/23/07 09:59 PM, Nylo wrote: My girlfriend's sister was diagnosed with many defects before her birth. Doctors said she would be blind, have trouble breathing, and would never be able to walk. Today she leads a perfectly normal life. The abortion argument is a letimate one, but there is no question partial birth abortions are inhumane. At that stage, it becomes a question of a pysician assisted euthanasia, without the consent of the child.

This is an exception because I will tell you that I've heard more stories where it ends tragically. This is purely up to Luck--

Extraction and Dialation procedures are very rare. It's always the "last thing"-- because usually the circumstances that lead up to that procedure are nearly always severe.

I don't personally favor all kinds of abortions.
But this decision is not mine. When I'm either a woman, or when the mother of my child (biological or legal) gives me consent... That's when it becomes my decision.

Otherwise,
I'm against this ban. Those procedures are so rare that the circumstance that leads to it is always something that puts a family in desperation. With that in mind, I was always against this ban.

At 4/24/07 02:28 PM, fli wrote: This is an exception because I will tell you that I've heard more stories where it ends tragically. This is purely up to Luck--

The basic idea is that doctors aren't able to tell full grown people that they can examine in detail what is going to happen to them. They are foten wrong. But of course, they're 100% right when it's an unborn baby. bunk.

Extraction and Dialation procedures are very rare. It's always the "last thing"-- because usually the circumstances that lead up to that procedure are nearly always severe.

Riiight. That's why the doctor who INVENTED PBA says that most times the procedure is done for purely elective reasons.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact10.ht ml

You can stop parroting a line that we all know is BS now.

I don't personally favor all kinds of abortions.
But this decision is not mine. When I'm either a woman, or when the mother of my child (biological or legal) gives me consent... That's when it becomes my decision.

I'm not a parent. However, when I know that the parent next store is abusing his child, I can do something about it.
This argument is little more than trying to exclude men from the debate (or a way to be morally neutral).

Otherwise,
I'm against this ban. Those procedures are so rare that the circumstance that leads to it is always something that puts a family in desperation. With that in mind, I was always against this ban.

Bull. There's not a single reason to have a PBA. And since it's done SOOOO infrequently, it barely scratches that "right to have an abortion" thing.

At 4/24/07 02:46 PM, WolvenBear wrote: The basic idea is that doctors aren't able to tell full grown people that they can examine in detail what is going to happen to them. They are foten wrong. But of course, they're 100% right when it's an unborn baby. bunk.

I'm not sure what you're saying in here--
If a doctor tells you that you have a case of "whatever"-- most likely, you have a case of "whatever." But there are exceptions.

But to depend on the exceptions?
You're just setting yourself up for huge disappointments.

The rest

Cut the beligerent act. It doesn't get the point across, unless your point is to be hostile.

What he said

At 4/23/07 08:51 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

At 4/23/07 08:50 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Then why do you want the government to intervene on the unborn's health?

Becuase it's not a burden on the government to make sure that an individual lives by outlawying or enforcing it.

And the fact that welfare policies can be enforced on a state to state level, while abortion cannot be.

You seem to think I'm against welfare. While I partially am, I'm against Federal welfare even more.

At 4/24/07 03:15 PM, fli wrote: I'm not sure what you're saying in here--
If a doctor tells you that you have a case of "whatever"-- most likely, you have a case of "whatever." But there are exceptions.

But to depend on the exceptions?
You're just setting yourself up for huge disappointments.

Well, let's look at cancer. Doctors will tell people they have three months and they live ten years. They'll tell someone the tumor is benign, and three months later they're dead from the tumor spreading.

That said, the wide variety of tests that a doctor can perform on a human being outside of the womb far exceeds what the doctor can do on an infant insidethe mother.

Cut the beligerent act. It doesn't get the point across, unless your point is to be hostile.

Than stop parroting nonsense like "it's a hard choice but one that's always neccessary".
It's blatantly ridiculous to say that having the baby would be harmful to the mother, but birthing the baby all the way except it's head poses no problems.

And a common reason to get an abortion (for defect in the child) is Down Syndrome. Down syndrome is not threatening, and the child can live a long and happy life, and even become a movie star (the Ringer).

At 4/24/07 02:28 PM, fli wrote:

I don't personally favor all kinds of abortions.
But this decision is not mine. When I'm either a woman, or when the mother of my child (biological or legal) gives me consent... That's when it becomes my decision.

And, right there, is the key point in the abortion debate. It becomes an issue of choice versus government imposition of someone's "moral" values on others.

At 4/24/07 04:58 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Well, let's look at cancer. Doctors will tell people they have three months and they live ten years. They'll tell someone the tumor is benign, and three months later they're dead from the tumor spreading.

You know that a few weeks ago I posted in Regulars that I attended a funeral of my neighbor. She died of breast cancer that couldn't be treated.

Doctors said she had a certain amount of time to live...
And she died. At the time she was suppose to die.

Let's not pretend that a person who studies like, 8 years, are going to make mistakes all the time. For if they did, they wouldn't be doctors.

Yes, there are exceptions. Hence the word... "Ex-cep-tion."

That said, the wide variety of tests that a doctor can perform on a human being outside of the womb far exceeds what the doctor can do on an infant insidethe mother.

And I'm sure you, as a medical expert, can tell me that in full confidence...
thank you much, doc.

C'mon.
Now you're just acting naive.

Than stop parroting nonsense like "it's a hard choice but one that's always neccessary".
It's blatantly ridiculous to say that having the baby would be harmful to the mother, but birthing the baby all the way except it's head poses no problems.

And a common reason to get an abortion (for defect in the child) is Down Syndrome. Down syndrome is not threatening, and the child can live a long and happy life, and even become a movie star (the Ringer).

I wish I could really care...
But seeing that someone else some where in the world at anytime, maybe at this second, is getting an abotion... I wish I could.

But I'm not living their lives.
If they don't want the abortion, kudos to them. If they're deciding on one-- I hope they will make the best decision, which could mean abortion or no abortion.

Formost, the decision belongs to the woman who is pregnant. Then the second goes to her family and doctors. Since I'm not in the process, the only thing I could do is to wish her to make the best decision.

And the rest belongs, as the expression goes, to God.

At 4/24/07 05:50 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: And, right there, is the key point in the abortion debate. It becomes an issue of choice versus government imposition of someone's "moral" values on others.

Every law is an imposition of someone's morality on others. That's a stupid argument.

Freeing the slaves was an imposition of morality. As was eradication of the Jim Crow laws. Laws saying that a wife could charge her husband with rape. Laws that criminalize not telling your partner if you have an STD. Public nudity laws. Etc.

The same people who decree that woman have an unassailable right to their bodies, so they can get an abortion, then put laws into place so they can't smoke. Hmmm....odd.

At 4/24/07 05:50 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 4/24/07 02:28 PM, fli wrote:

And, right there, is the key point in the abortion debate. It becomes an issue of choice versus government imposition of someone's "moral" values on others.

Every government action( or at least most) were restrictive of some one's choice for these so called moral values, I mean thats the whole idea of the Social Contract.

Thats the equation in essence, for the protection of the common good and the life of the individual, choice is sadly limited due to the danger it pertains to the unborn child.

At 4/24/07 06:13 PM, fli wrote: Let's not pretend that a person who studies like, 8 years, are going to make mistakes all the time. For if they did, they wouldn't be doctors.

And let's not pretend that spending 8 years in College means that the Doctor has all the answers.
After going to the VA for 15 years with my father, I saw hundreds of doctors stumped as to why he had such terrible knee pain.

Yes, there are exceptions. Hence the word... "Ex-cep-tion."

You say it like doctors or medical researchers being wrong is as rare as virginal births.
Stories of doctors being wrong are pretty commonplace.

And I'm sure you, as a medical expert, can tell me that in full confidence...
thank you much, doc.

You got me there. I don't hav e the degree neccessary to COUNT the number of tests between the two...

But I'm not living their lives.
If they don't want the abortion, kudos to them. If they're deciding on one-- I hope they will make the best decision, which could mean abortion or no abortion.

Formost, the decision belongs to the woman who is pregnant. Then the second goes to her family and doctors. Since I'm not in the process, the only thing I could do is to wish her to make the best decision.

Right now someone is attacking a homosexual. I wish I could care, but I'm not living their lives. I can only hope they do the right thing and don't kill them. But that choice lays with them. I wish them the best decision.

And the rest belongs, as the expression goes, to God.

Well, PBA issues now belong to the state. One down, more to go.