Obama acts quickly, lays out his abortion and gay agenda

As it is in the cells that fall off when you scratch your arse. Sure cells have potential, But this potential isn't limited to the cells in sperm and ovum. For some time after fertilisation it is just a collection of cells. With no consciousness and no sensations. it is not a person, Regardless what emotive language you try to crowbar into your otherwise scientifically illiterate and facile argument.

Until more research is done i would limit abortions to under 10 weeks. I don't know any more than you do when life "begins" (even though you claim to know). But what i can do is identify when "life" is not present (life in the sense of the cells becoming a human being).

Think of it in terms of the transition between childhood and adulthood. While i can't pin point the instance that a child becomes an adult, I can identify the difference. For instance i could, Without knowing at what point the change occurred, Identify a 48 year old man as an adult and a 2 year old as a child.

In an 8 year old child the cells have developed. They are all functioning fully.

How you can claim killing an 8 year old child is the "same thing" as removing this from a womb is simply staggering and something that any intellectually honest person would be too ashamed to claim.

How you expect us to believe you are interested in any kid of reasonable dialogue after making such a fatuous and ridiculously ill-informed point is staggering.

 

Wow, you really want the government controlling you?

I thought we were a country of people that wanted to be able to make our own decisions.

Even McCain doesn't agree with your position about "no abortion, ever"...

 

You do realise that by saying nothing could ever change your mind you are essentially admitting that your views aren't based on reality, right?

 

Awe! He's a little chub-muffin! Is it a boy or girl?

 

At one time i would have agreed with McCain, but i have come to my own conclusions, that nothing is worth the loss of an innocent child. Rape is a horrible horrible crime, but murder is worse.

With that being said, how the hell is my government controlling me?

No my views Are based on reality. The reality that abortion is murder. The reality that no matter what you want to call the fetus, it is a living human being, with all of the necessities to become a full grown adult. To try and argue when it becomes an indisposable child is stupid. Its like asking what came first the chicken or the egg. Who cares, one becomes the other, and that's all that has ever mattered. Thats reality.

When a woman becomes pregnant, she hosts a living child, a human offspring, a human fetus, all of which deserve a chance to make it in this world without the interference of mankinds opinion.

StOx you claim to be against abortion, but here you are trying your damnedest to defend it. So which is it?

 

What should happen to the mothers who have an abortion? Send them to jail for life for murdering a child?

 

You obviously miss the point (which is nothing new for you). if you admit that nothing will change your mind you are essentially admitting that even the most compelling evidence proving otherwise wont alter your view, Which means your view is not based on reality. Which in turn makes your "opinion" (as ill-informed as it is) utterly worthless because it's a nothing more than dogmatic rhetoric laced with appeals to emotion.

No, for quite some time after fertilisation she is hosting nothing more than a collection of dividing cells. She hosts a collection of stem cells which haven't even yet been assigned a role. that is not, under any definition of the word, a person.

try rereading what i actually said. I tried to make it as simple as i could for you, I even underlined the important word to make it easier. I am PERSONALLY against it because i PERSONALLY would see it as a negation of responsibility. How other people want to deal with responsibility is up to them. I am certainly not PERSONALLY against it because i think a small clump of dividing cells is a wikkle babywaby and muderwing babywabys is tewwible

 

Exactly. And, if we outlawed abortion, how many young women would die from unsanitary, illegal abortions? If you say not many, boy have you got some reading to do!

When the government has the right to decide how we live our lives and what we do with our bodies, I consider that being controlled.

So if you get married, and your wife is raped by her drunken-idiot brother, you believe she should be forced to live with that reminder inside of her for 9 months before giving birth to a baby that was born from a disgusting, horrible act?

Every time you look at her pregnant belly, you'll be reminded of what happened, and now there's a baby on the way that shares the genes of your wife and the rapist.

Really?

 

* Supports a Woman's Right to Choose: President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.
* Preventing Unintended Pregnancy: President Obama was an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

This all sounds good to me...

 

If abortions were outlawed, and a mother still went through with it, absolutely, her and anyone involved should pay the appropriate penalty (what ever that is determined to be).

The reason nothing will change my mind, is because no matter what science discovers, a fetus will always be a human fetus. Human being a keyword here. And killing it is wrong. Not because of any dogmatic rhetoric, but because killing is wrong, taking a life is wrong, is a fetus not a human life? Does it not grow into a human being?

You tell that to the mother of a child, a mother that wants to keep and love her child, you tell that to the mother that cherishes and loves that collection of meaningless, purposeless cells. The mother that rubs her belly and smiles with the joy of carrying LIFE within her. Its obvious you have no children, because you have very little respect for life, or how it begins.

Try saying what you actually mean. Let me help you here. "Hi I am StOx, and i like to contradict myself"

Im afraid i, nor you cant make such a guess. however, How many mothers are willing to risk their lives to give up a baby? Id say not many to that.

ummm, do you know what government is for, are you now saying we do not need laws?

Its simple, a fetus is a baby, it is a child, it has not had any chance whatsoever to survive in this world. It doesn't deserve to die because a mother cant deal with it.

We should be responsible adults and take care of our issues humanely.

I mean seriously, we have laws protecting dogs and cats, but not innocent babies?

And whats sadder is people support the killing of these innocent children. Sad.

I am married, and the memory will never go away, my wife would rather deal with that, than have another memory added of killing a child. Do you realize what abortions do to many women psychologically?

Studies within the first few weeks after the abortion have found that between 40 and 60 percent of women questioned report negative reactions. Within 8 weeks after their abortions, 55% expressed guilt, 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor.

read much more here, seriously people, if you are going to try and defend a woman's choice on abortion, inform yourself of the after effects that accompany this decision.

And if she killed it i would be reminded of what we did to an innocent child, Isn't the pain associated with the rape enough to have to consume.

 

Can McCain make that guess?

Nope. We need laws, just not laws that interfere with our ability to control our own bodies, especially when the choice could have a large effect on our health. You do know that some women run the risk of dying if they don't opt for abortion; right?

How long after conception is it a "baby?"

We have laws against cat and dog abortions?

Do you think you're more qualified to make the choice of whether or not she should get an abortion than your wife is?

So, by these numbers, the 69% that DIDN'T have regrets should not be allowed to undergo the procedure?

It's a traumatic experience. And I don't like abortion, but I really don't think any man should make a law that dictates how a woman should handle that situation.




EDIT: Also, how do you feel about the death penalty, or shooting someone in self-defense?

 

It's a collection of cells which, in the right conditions, will eventually turn in to a person. No different to any other collection of cells in reality.

I'm glad some pregnant women enjoy the experience. But that doesn't alter the fact that what is inside her stomach during the early stages of pregnancy is just a nondescript collection of cells.

Your intellectual dishonesty and cowardice is not an argument against anything. I have explained it in as simple terms as i possibly can, Sorry it's still too complicated for you.

 

Just click and read, its simple, and it explains why abortion is not the best decision. It shows why even a raped woman, who decides to abort a child will suffer more than just the horrid memory of the rape. Why put women through two horrible situations

Most women do not know these after effects, so are they qualified to make the call? I think not.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/after_effects_of_abortion.asp

great question, and here's the difference, in these situations a person has had their chance to live, and they have made the worse of choices. An unborn child hasn't had this opportunity, what gives anyone the right to deny a being from becoming

 

Earlier you said:

So the other 69% shouldn't be able to get this procedure done?

How about when the fetus is threatening the mother's life?

 

What to do in the case where a 9 year old girl is raped and becomes pregnant?

Do you force that 9-year old innocent child herself to carry the product of rape to a full term? What if there are medical issues with a child that young giving birth, do you just ignore them? At what point does the life of the mother matter as much as the unborn child you seem concerned with?

That is just one example, but it points out the basic flaw in your rigid stance.

 

Thats just one portion of the statistics, up to 60% reported negative effects. NONE should get this procedure done. IT IS MURDER!

Studies within the first few weeks after the abortion have found that between 40 and 60 percent of women questioned report negative reactions. Within 8 weeks after their abortions, 55% expressed guilt, 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor.3

A doctor takes a vowel to save lives, not end them. Every effort should be taken to save both lives.

 

Read the stats posted above.

Should we give this poor child a double dose of misery? It may not effect her now, but it could come back to haunt her in the future. Suppose the abortion causes damage and prevents her from having another child?

A high incidence of cervical incompetence resultant from abortion has raised the incidence of spontaneous abortions to 30-40%. A. A high incidence of cervical incompetence resultant from abortion has raised the incidence of spontaneous abortions to 30-40%. A. Kodasek, "Artificial Termination of Pregnancy in Czechoslovakia," Internat’l Jour. of GYN & OB, vol. 9, no. 3, 1971

Women who had one induced abortion had a 17.5% miscarriage rate in subsequent pregnancies, as compared to a 7.5% rate in a non-aborted group. Richardson & Dickson, "Effects of Legal Termination on Subsequent Pregnancy," British Med. Jour., vol. 1, 1976, pp. 1303-4

Women who had delivered their first pregnancy had (in the second pregnancy) the "best reproductive performance." Those who had a spontaneous miscarriage on the first had "the highest frequency of an early loss." Those with induced abortion on their first had "the highest frequency of late spontaneous abortion and premature delivery." Koll

Women who had one induced abortion had a 17.5% miscarriage rate in subsequent pregnancies, as compared to a 7.5% rate in a non-aborted group. Richardson & Dickson, "Effects of Legal Termination on Subsequent Pregnancy," British Med. Jour., vol. 1, 1976, pp. 1303-4

Women who had delivered their first pregnancy had (in the second pregnancy) the "best reproductive performance." Those who had a spontaneous miscarriage on the first had "the highest frequency of an early loss." Those with induced abortion on their first had "the highest frequency of late spontaneous abortion and premature delivery." Koll

 

So, going by your statistics, 4 out of 10 report NO negative effects? And you think NO ONE should be able to get this done?

So, a woman gets raped, and is risking death by childbirth. You think she should be punished with death because she was raped, instead of letting her abort?

 

You ignored the relevant questions. I will repeat them so you can address them. I did not expect such an evasive answer to simple questions.

What to do in the case where a 9 year old girl is raped and becomes pregnant?

Do you force that 9-year old innocent child herself to carry the product of rape to a full term? (I think you are answering yes on this one based on your posts)

What if there are medical issues with a child that young giving birth, do you just ignore them? (You point to other problems she 'might' have but ignore the question which is do you risk her life so that she delivers another life?)

At what point does the life of the mother matter as much as the unborn child?​

 

Unless you can determine a way to tell the future, i say yes thats the safe bet.

I think the baby and the mother should be given the same chance to live.