Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have rules on late term abortion, but not nearly enough. One such rule is the definition of late term abortion at post 24 weeks. This is way too late, especially in light of the evidence of viable babies being born 4 weeks earlier.
Gee, maybe you are right.
Since people are breaking the existing laws on late term abortion {according to you}.....we should make more laws.....stricter laws.
Now.....let's apply this same rationale to gun owenership, shall we?
Ya know..... since people are breaking existing gun laws..... we need more gun control....stricter gun control.
Since people are breaking the existing laws on late term abortion {according to you}.....we should make more laws.....stricter laws.
Now.....let's apply this same rationale to gun owenership, shall we?
Ya know..... since people are breaking existing gun laws..... we need more gun control....stricter gun control.
I would support sterilization for anyone that chooses to abort when it is not a medical necessity or the result of rape or incest. That way, they would not be "inconvenienced" by a bothersome pregnancy agin.
I would support sterilization for anyone that chooses to abort when it is not a medical necessity or the result of rape or incest. That way, they would not be "inconvenienced" by a bothersome pregnancy agin.
Why do you exempt rape and incest?
Are those 'children-to-be' less valuable and/or innocent than those conceived otherwise?
Or is the purpose of objecting to abortion just a way to punish women that weren't 'faultless'?
I would support sterilization for anyone that chooses to abort when it is not a medical necessity or the result of rape or incest. That way, they would not be "inconvenienced" by a bothersome pregnancy agin.
Hmmm...so you are pro-choice - as long as YOU get to make the choice.
What troll user are you talking about? That's me in my profile picture available to the entire forum. I live in 9851 Meadowglen Lane, Apt 42, Houston Tx 77042. My name is Stefan Shamayev. Put now your details here if you want to call someone a troll if you have the guts. I'm available at my address, give me a knock and see just how real I am.
No matter, these exact same arguments have been used here before.
Quote:
That has NOTHING to do with what you quoted and when viability begins. Are you drunk?
No I am high on LSD, coke, meth and MJ, not that that matters because my arguments are coherent unlike yours.
Quote:
Extraordinary medical care still means the infant survived outside the mother. It's viable.
No it is not. W/o incubators, the prem infant will die. You cannot take a 1st world privileged scenario and extrapolate that to ALL instances of pregnancies to try and make your case. ~20 weeks is the international norm for elective abortion cut off, here in SA where I live and the same in the USA. You obviously want to try and move this back.
Quote:
Explain very carefully how stating my opinion is a strawman.
Simple, you make a outlier claim which is probably valid and then try and then broadbrush that to include all abortions. A strawman is something one posits or makes up and then proceeds to demolish said stawman. It is called a logical fallacy, look it up.
Quote:
I don't understand what you're trying to say but you're probably making a strawman here.
Helps when you know what a strawman is, see above. I actually was sarcastically agreeing with you that someone that does not know they are pregnant at at least 12 weeks, engaging in sex, missing a number of periods would have to be a complete moron to not realise they are pregnant. Again, your scenario is and outlier and while these may exist, this is not the norm for the average woman who knows her body and cycles.
Quote:
It'd be very funny to see you explain what strawman means and explain how that above excerpt met the criteria.
You again don't know what a strawman is. I'll explain it very carefully, when you start grasping the term, we can move on to other terms.
A strawman is when an opponent mischaracterizes his opponents argument into something ridiculous and then proceeds to tear it apart.
Stating that I want to move the definition of late term abortion back to the 15th week because viable babies have been born on the 20th (as RARE as it maybe) is not a strawman in any sense of the word. Nor is it a logical fallacy. It's no different than a person saying they don't want the death penalty because innocent people can get executed.
It's annoying sometimes arguing on the internet with self important people who think they actually know something. Have you ever heard the phrase: little knowledge is dangerous knowledge?
Nope. A human begins when an egg is penetrated by a sperm. If you prevent the meeting of the egg and sperm, you PREVENT a human from ever living. You don't destroy one that has already started down the path of life, as is the case with abortion. And besides there are tens of thousands of sperm in one ejaculate and only one could, if all other conditions are right, fertilize an egg so any sperm has a remote, possibility, at best of starting a person via fertilization of an egg.
The only remarkable event in our lives is our conception. That is the point that we started to grow. Before that, we did not exist. What existed was the possibility of hundreds of thousands of combinations. We won the lottery. We got to live. The question is what makes us think we have the right to take that away from someone else who won as well?
I trace my beginning back to a sperm and egg meeting. When was your beginning? When did you, the individual, start to grow?
Oh, no.
That's not right.
It's all a PROCESS.
If the fetus is a potential baby then the egg and sperm are a potential fetus.
Sperm is sacred. Sperm should be saved and not flushed away down a toilet.
It is human life in it's earliest stages.
Destroying sperm should be prosecuted.
I would support sterilization for anyone that chooses to abort when it is not a medical necessity or the result of rape or incest. That way, they would not be "inconvenienced" by a bothersome pregnancy agin.
Thank you, Bideshi.
It looks as though we approach at least one point of meeting.
To me there are way too many people in the world as it is. It is not a good thing to encourage more reproduction. Our lives are more valuable when there are fewer of us.
Oh, no.
That's not right.
It's all a PROCESS.
If the fetus is a potential baby then the egg and sperm are a potential fetus.
Sperm is sacred. Sperm should be saved and not flushed away down a toilet.
It is human life in it's earliest stages.
Destroying sperm should be prosecuted.
See how dumb you sound?
Two thumbs up for this reply. Can't wait to see what the OP has to say for him/herself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
not that that matters because my arguments are coherent unlike yours.
