News, Abortion clinic cited for improper disposal. (children, society, countries)

[saganista]

Originally Posted by poogie777

...the true weapons of mass destruction are abortion clinics....thankfully they are being shut down, one by one. At one time there were 2000 BABY killing clinics...now there are 750. If they shut this one down that violated women's privacy as well as the other 2 being investigated...that only makes 747 left to go!

As of 2005 (the most recent survey year), there were just under 1,800 operating abortion clinics in the country. That was down from just over 1,800 in 2000. As has become an ever more evident trend without outliers, your statements diverge by quite a considerable margin from the truth.

[camping!]

Originally Posted by saganista

You object to such comparisons only because they raise and then highlight issues that the anti-choice side is incapable of answering. For lack of an answer, you object to the question. The situation is that you HAVE no actual answers to ANY questions. You have only a faith in religious dogma. There are no convincing secular arguments to support the essential positions that your side takes.

Meanwhile, no one objects to your holding personal opinions that are based upon such ephemeral and unsubstantiated beliefs, nor do they object to your acting upon those opinions in your own life. People object only when you decide to export those opinions to others, and then, upon finding few buyers, decide to compel them onto others. There, you step across a very bright line, and it is mete and right for sensible people to call you on your trespass...

1) I am agnostic
2) That means I am not religous and only very tenuously believe in a god fyi
3) My objections with abortion is actually very rooted in scientific fact and in my own observations as a pregnant lady, and as a sufferer of ashermans syndrome and how the misdiagnosis of that plays out
4) Fetal brainwaves can be detected at around week 8
5) My daughter suffered pain at her death at around 20 weeks gestation -- I felt her flop around like a fish on dry land....couldn't have been pleasant.


My assertation is that there is a segment of the pro choice movement who uses hyperbole, gross exageration, and finally insults to make a case they quite frankly are not up to making. A fetus is not a gerber baby, you are absolutely right about that. But a fetus will never develop into a tapeworm, nor a chicken wing and a fetus didn't storm the ramparts of a womans uterus to invade. A fetus has a unique dna sequence that makes it wholly an individual regardless of its dependence on its mother to survive. It is a person, and will become a person if allowed to develop -- live. That and only that has always been my outlook.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by camping!

1) I am agnostic
2) That means I am not religous and only very tenuously believe in a god fyi
3) My objections with abortion is actually very rooted in scientific fact and in my own observations as a pregnant lady, and as a sufferer of ashermans syndrome and how the misdiagnosis of that plays out
4) Fetal brainwaves can be detected at around week 8
5) My daughter suffered pain at her death at around 20 weeks gestation -- I felt her flop around like a fish on dry land....couldn't have been pleasant.

You have enumerated these things before, and I have on more than one previous occasion extended expressions of sympathy over the loss of a wanted pregnancy. This is actually quite a common event, but it is always a sorrowful time when it does occur.

If it were true, however, that your beliefs were rooted in science, you would not have posted #4 or #5, as you would have known that the brainwaves detectable at 8 weeks are less than an equivalent of static on an AM radio, and you would have known that the network of structures and interconnections that is necessary to support an experience of pain has not nearly been completed by 20 weeks. I have explained these matters to you before. Apparently, you continue to prefer to ignore them.

Originally Posted by camping!

My assertation is that there is a segment of the pro choice movement who uses hyperbole, gross exageration, and finally insults to make a case they quite frankly are not up to making.

Some pro-choice advocates are less capable of argumentation than others. Such relative weakness among some does not diminish the truth of the underlying arguments. The most capable witness for the anti-choice position will fail of mounting any convincing secular argument for the essential positions of his or her side because none exists.

Originally Posted by camping!

A fetus is not a gerber baby, you are absolutely right about that. But a fetus will never develop into a tapeworm, nor a chicken wing and a fetus didn't storm the ramparts of a womans uterus to invade.

A fetus is nevertheless comparable to a tapeworm or a chicken wing in the ways that such comparisons are typically made. An unwanted fetus has meanwhile very much invaded a woman's uterus. Entry into one's legally established personal domain without permission is a crime. An unwanted fetus is guilty of committing that crime.

Originally Posted by camping!

A fetus has a unique dna sequence that makes it wholly an individual regardless of its dependence on its mother to survive.

While they do eventually develop very slight genetic differences, the DNA of identical twins begins at being identical. Does this open a window of non-uniqueness during which their abortion would be innocent? If not, then the possession of a unique DNA sequence is not actually material to your argument. You would hold the same position regardless of whether unique DNA was present or not. This point is therefore merely excess baggage.

Originally Posted by camping!

It is a person, and will become a person if allowed to develop -- live. That and only that has always been my outlook.

It is a person by your declaration only. Your testimony is entirely relevant to you, and it is entirely irrelevant to me, and to everyone else who is not you. Each of us has the same right to make declarations as you, and we are under no obligation whatsoever to make the same ones as you.

[roberta]

Originally Posted by saganista

The Constitutional right that Roe defends is a woman's right not to be pregnant. Other people cannot come along and compel women to bear children against their wishes.


By what right does some random uninvited fetus invade and occupy the personal domain of one's uterus? By having a door to it, do I imply the right of random univited robbers and burglars to invade and occupy the personal domain of my home? Or may I use up to lethal force in defending that personal domain against such invasions and occupations?

It seems to me that the fetus was invited by having sex. If you don't wish to take the chance of being invaded--then don't have sex--otherwise. suffer the consequences. It's harder for burglars, and robbers to invade your house, if you have good locks on he doors.

[roberta]

Originally Posted by Langlen

If one is using protection and still gets pregnant, you can most certainly say that the fetus is uninvited. Even so, there are some couples out there who never, ever want to have children. Search up the term "Childfree". Are they to never have sex because a child might happen? Abortion is a responsible action when one does not/cannot have the child.

If they don't ever want children--then get tubes tied--fixed--whatever operation prevents it from happening.

[newtoli]

Originally Posted by poogie777

You all were saying that I was "full of crap" that they "couldn't possibly see what sex the babies were at 12 weeks and therefore I'm "full of crap" that they really didn't ask me if I wanted to know the sex."
The urls YOU threw at me all backed up the point is that, Yes, the genitils of babies are obvious (notice they even called the "leeches" BABIES...) at as early as 11 weeks.
What would be the point in having an ultra sound? There is no need except to see how far the baby has come along. After removing the baby, you can see the sex if the baby is at least 11 weeks old, according to the urls you provided...except for Dr Spock who said according to an ultrasound. Which has nothing to do with being able to see the sex when the BABY is removed during an abortion.


Camping, the true weapons of mass destruction are abortion clinics....thankfully they are being shut down, one by one. At one time there were 2000 BABY killing clinics...now there are 750. If they shut this one down that violated women's privacy as well as the other 2 being investigated...that only makes 747 left to go!

Shut them down!

You cannot see the sex of a 10 week old fetus after an abortion. If really had an abortion, again, you would realize that everything is scraped into a goo and vacuumed out through a tube into a jar.

[newtoli]

Originally Posted by roberta

If they don't ever want children--then get tubes tied--fixed--whatever operation prevents it from happening.

If you are under 35 with no children, good luck finding a doctor to tie your tubes. It's pretty much impossible.

[arod0331]

Originally Posted by roberta

It seems to me that the fetus was invited by having sex. If you don't wish to take the chance of being invaded--then don't have sex--otherwise. suffer the consequences. It's harder for burglars, and robbers to invade your house, if you have good locks on he doors.

If a woman gets raped then would it be her own fault for having a vagina?

Or if another driver wrecks into you and you become crippled as a result, its your own fault for getting into the car, right?

[saganista]

Originally Posted by roberta

It seems to me that the fetus was invited by having sex. If you don't wish to take the chance of being invaded--then don't have sex--otherwise. suffer the consequences.

Let me ask if you apply the same logic to the situation where one walks down the street to the convenience store one evening to purchase a quart of milk and ends up being mugged. We all know that there is a slight chance of being mugged if one walks down the street. Should we all then stay indoors all of the time??? If we do not, is it proper that muggers should be allowed simply to have their way with us???

Originally Posted by roberta

It's harder for burglars, and robbers to invade your house, if you have good locks on he doors.

More than half of women who elected an abortion in 2005 had been using a method of birth control during the month in which they became pregnant. The most common methods were the pill and condoms.

It doesn't matter how hard or easy it is for an intruder to enter your home. Once he does and makes serious threats against your well-being, you have, under the laws of almost every state, the right to use lethal force against that intruder in self-defense.

There is no source of rights from which a fetus can claim the right to invade a woman's uterus against her will. There is no source of rights from which it may then claim a set of super-rights that trumps every single right that the woman in question may ever have enjoyed.

[camping!]

Originally Posted by saganista

You have enumerated these things before, and I have on more than one previous occasion extended expressions of sympathy over the loss of a wanted pregnancy. This is actually quite a common event, but it is always a sorrowful time when it does occur.
Thank you for the sympathy, I do hope you know that I am not trying to throw out a pity card...just trying to give my unique real life perspective.

If it were true, however, that your beliefs were rooted in science, you would not have posted #4 or #5, as you would have known that the brainwaves detectable at 8 weeks are less than an equivalent of static on an AM radio, and you would have known that the network of structures and interconnections that is necessary to support an experience of pain has not nearly been completed by 20 weeks. I have explained these matters to you before. Apparently, you continue to prefer to ignore them.
Tumors and parasites don't have brainwaves, yet you try to compare a fetus to them. As far as pain, my experience tells me otherwise. Plus, science -- especially neonatal science -- is fluid, and what was standard twenty years ago, hell five years ago has changed a lot. For instance, saline abortions used to be considered a safe and humane way to practice second and third trimester abortions. Now, it is not. Would you agree that this would be science in motion? A baby born born prior to 28 weeks gestation had not a prayer, now the youngest to survive was 20 weeks. And these are things that I have explained to you many times before but you continue to ignore. Perhaps we are even.

Some pro-choice advocates are less capable of argumentation than others. Such relative weakness among some does not diminish the truth of the underlying arguments. The most capable witness for the anti-choice position will fail of mounting any convincing secular argument for the essential positions of his or her side because none exists.
There are many secular people who are against abortion. Do you really believe that the only ones who could possibly be against must be evangelical christians? Seriously, life is not so white and black. As to my secular aguments against abortion it really boils down to this --- the fetus is an individual which is dependent upon its mother for a time, but nonetheless is wholly a seperate entity. If there is even the possibility of pain being felt during an abortion, then the abortion ought not to take place. As a result, I do agree with the morning after pill.

A fetus is nevertheless comparable to a tapeworm or a chicken wing in the ways that such comparisons are typically made. An unwanted fetus has meanwhile very much invaded a woman's uterus. Entry into one's legally established personal domain without permission is a crime. An unwanted fetus is guilty of committing that crime.
No, fetus' are not comparable to a tapeworm or a chicken wing, unless you yourself are comparable to a tapeworm or a chicken wing. As far as a fetus breaking and entering into a uterus, well have you ever heard of a law that is commonly known as an attractive nuisance? See, if you have a pool and you don't keep the gate to your pool locked and someone went into your pool and drowned, the relatives of the dead person could sue you for wrongful death. Yes, you didn't allow or invite the intruder in....but you offered an 'attractive nuisance', and it is legally your fault that someone else took advantage of it. So using your analogy, a uterus would be an attractive nuisance -- much the same to you as a fetus

While they do eventually develop very slight genetic differences, the DNA of identical twins begins at being identical. Does this open a window of non-uniqueness during which their abortion would be innocent? If not, then the possession of a unique DNA sequence is not actually material to your argument. You would hold the same position regardless of whether unique DNA was present or not. This point is therefore merely excess baggage.
Such spin, have you ever worked for the Clintons?
Have you ever met an indenticle twin? While they share the same dna, they have seperate identities. They are not part of the mother in the same way as her toenail would be. They are seperate and distinct.

It is a person by your declaration only. Your testimony is entirely relevant to you, and it is entirely irrelevant to me, and to everyone else who is not you. Each of us has the same right to make declarations as you, and we are under no obligation whatsoever to make the same ones as you.

Very true...we are allowed to believe as we wish. We are also all allowed freedom of speech. In these forums you can certainly say whatever you want, just as I have the right to say whatever I want. You may never believe as I do, and that is fine. But I will always object to a fetus being denegrated as a tumor much the same way I object to gays being labeled pedophiles or (insert minority here) being labeled as (insert slur here). I am nothing if not consistant