Refuse to choose® women deserve better® than abortion

[Niflmir]

and this is the 3rd time I have said it. Allow abortions for rape and incest. Now, can we get beyond that?

Killing a baby is wrong, at least to most people.

Apparently, not to you. Or you agree that an embryo and a baby are two different things. Maybe you too agree that something that requires sustenance from another living thing cannot really cry foul when that sustenance is withdrawn. That or you are a hypocrite, which is it?

Then there is the issue of suicide, or scratching that, fasting for ascetic spiritual reasons. I think I have the right to determine my own destiny. Suddenly a woman cannot, simply because some thing with human genes needs her blood to survive?

A baby and am embryo/fetus: two(three I guess) different things.

 

[Niflmir]

Tough call. I am glad I don't have to make it.

I'm glad nobody is allowed to make it in Canada. There were all sorts of women who needed abortions for medical reasons or due to rape but couldn't get them because of some stuffy old patriarchs (who should have just been stuffed) who wouldn't allow it because of their whimsy.

 

[AnnaG]

Stomping your feet and sticking your lower lip out isn't a good reaction for not wanting to answer a question. "I don't know" is a perfectly good phrase.

 

[VanIsle]

Abortion should be allowed if a woman has been raped (incest is rape IMO)and it should also be allowed if it has been proven that the child is severely dis-abled. In other words, if the child is so brain damaged, it will never know it's parents, never have the ability to do anything in life but lay there and stare. It's wrong to bring a child like this into the world to suffer greatly. Life can be hard enough for those of us who are able to use our brains.

 

[gerryh]

Abortion should be allowed if a woman has been raped (incest is rape IMO)and it should also be allowed if it has been proven that the child is severely dis-abled. In other words, if the child is so brain damaged, it will never know it's parents, never have the ability to do anything in life but lay there and stare. It's wrong to bring a child like this into the world to suffer greatly. Life can be hard enough for those of us who are able to use our brains.

and otherwise disallowed? That I could "live" with.

 

[DurkaDurka]

Why don't we just sterilize women who might otherwise have abortions, would that please the fervent ant-abortionists or is sterilization another taboo topic?

 

[Cliffy]

Beavers and many other animals abort when the population outstrips the food supply. The world has outstripped the food supply. Why is abortion an issue unless we all have a death wish? I think abortion is might less traumatic than starving to death. It takes a long time to starve to death.

Children starving, again, in Ethiopia - Africa - msnbc.com

 

[AnnaG]

and otherwise disallowed? That I could "live" with.

Me, too.

 

[gerryh]

I'm afraid I'm not too good at being a duck Ron, and my patience is wearing thin.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Refuse to choose® women deserve better® than abortion

This Thread has been closed until time can be found for the Moderators
to review it. Unfortunately, someone is reporting Threads all over the
Forum to prove some kind of point (not the one on the top of his/her head)
about the efforts the Moderators are trying to take to improve the Forum.

It's leaving no time to moderate the rest of the Forum. Sorry. I'll get back
to this when I can.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Refuse to choose® women deserve better® than abortion

No more Personal Attacks....or posts will be removed. If a long string of
abuse is spilled forth, the Thread will be closed, and blocks of offending
posts will be removed.

 

[gerryh]

Me, too.

Great, now what about the other 90%+ of the abortions that are preformed?

 

[AnnaG]

Great, now what about the other 90%+ of the abortions that are preformed?

Already mentioned what I think a couple pages ago.

Page 5 to be exact:
"Well. as a woman and a mother who loves all kids almost as much as my own, I view fetuses and babies in the same light. They are precious little people. However, if one was to threaten my life, however horrid and sad I would feel about doing it, I think I would choose to abort if the baby would be other than healthy and have a chance at a normal life. If the baby were the product of rape? IDK, but my worry would be whether I could care for it as I would one of my previous kids. I think I would carry the baby to term, but give a childless couple a chance to have a child. But I can't say for sure, we women can change our minds, you know. lol"

 

[JLM]

This is a subject, it doesn't matter what you say you are not going to change many people's minds. Much as some aspects of abortion are bothersome, people are entitled to their own opinion. Personally I have only one problem with abortion- The subject doesn't have a say in the matter.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

This is a subject, it doesn't matter what you say you are not going to change many people's minds. Much as some aspects of abortion are bothersome, people are entitled to their own opinion. Personally I have only one problem with abortion- The subject doesn't have a say in the matter.

JLM, it would matter if the subject were a human being. That is what he argument is all about , isn’t it?

 

[JLM]

JLM, it would matter if the subject were a human being. That is what he argument is all about , isn’t it?

Well this can be solved by the process of elimination (excuse the pun), it's not a dog, or frog or a rabbit.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Well this can be solved by the process of elimination (excuse the pun), it's not a dog, or frog or a rabbit.

There is a problem with process of elimination, JLM. You are assuming that fetus may be human, a questionable assumption. Your argument goes something like this:

A fetus is human, dog, frog or a rabbit. It is not a dog, not a frog, not a rabbit. So it must be human.

But I can equally we argue, a fetus is a mushroom, a dog, a frog or a rabbit. It is not a dog, not a frog, not a rabbit. So fetus must be mushroom.

Process of elimination makes certain assumptions which may or may not be always valid.

 

[gerryh]

There is a problem with process of elimination, JLM. You are assuming that fetus may be human, a questionable assumption. Your argument goes something like this:

A fetus is human, dog, frog or a rabbit. It is not a dog, not a frog, not a rabbit. So it must be human.

But I can equally we argue, a fetus is a mushroom, a dog, a frog or a rabbit. It is not a dog, not a frog, not a rabbit. So fetus must be mushroom.

Process of elimination makes certain assumptions which may or may not be always valid.

Then what is the "fetus" if not human?

 

[JLM]

There is a problem with process of elimination, JLM. You are assuming that fetus may be human, a questionable assumption. Your argument goes something like this:

A fetus is human, dog, frog or a rabbit. It is not a dog, not a frog, not a rabbit. So it must be human.

But I can equally we argue, a fetus is a mushroom, a dog, a frog or a rabbit. It is not a dog, not a frog, not a rabbit. So fetus must be mushroom.

Process of elimination makes certain assumptions which may or may not be always valid.

Your argument is getting a little weak. I just included three species - it would take a month to list the other 100,000 or so.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Your argument is getting a little weak. I just included three species - it would take a month to list the other 100,000 or so.

Indeed, but how do you know which species to list? How do you know the thing is even alive? You are making several assumptions when you decide to include some species and not others, and some of those assumptions may be of questionable validity.

Anyway, why only 100,000, why not several million? By what criteria do you pick 100,000 and leave out the rest?