Abortion page 78

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:

The Idea that abortions are being abused in significant numbers reveals to me a mindset that has a totally different concept on which abortions are correct and which are not, than whats written in the law.
Its the idea that abortion should not be a simple(though last chance) means of contraception usable by any women who desires to end a pregnancy but instead only justified in certain very extreme/exceptional cases.

Interesting, Johnny B.,,,I’m talking of your presentation of: ""It’s the idea that abortion should not be a simple…..""

Where would “the-morning-after-pill” come into this concept….esp. w/ NO prescription needed. THAT most certainly would be simple AND easy.

Depends on how much thought people who follow the idea life begins at conception and should only be terminated under very few exceptional conditions give to the working of the morning after pill. Such as it is most morning after pills are just an early form of abortion, keeping the fertilized egg from attaching itself to the body of the carrying mother.

Originally posted by jhco50:

At conception, life begins. Everything that makes the human being is present and is working overtime developing. Both the mothers DNA and the fathers DNA is present. This is why I believe the father has as much right to the baby as the mother.

No. Having the plans needed to make a house does not make a house itself. In the case of humans the building material needs to be leeched of the mother for several months after the building plans have been united. And human beings are undoubtedly more than just DNA. So there is lot of stuff that needs to be added and developed which is not present at conception.

The embryo is not the same thing as the sperm or egg. A sperm or egg will not produce a human with out each other becoming one. They are not life by themselves, only a potential.

Together they will not produce a human without many other conditions being met, including attaching itself to the mother and leeching of resources or even before that combining together to actually give a functioning plan and not one for a bunch of cancer cells or whatever(quite commonly the dna of sperm and egg do not give a functioning plan when combined, leading to a natural abortion).

Originally posted by tenco1:

Originally posted by jhco50:
Abortion, in my oppinion is killing just to kill.

While opinions can’t be wrong, there are still ones that aren’t founded entirely on facts.

At conception, life begins.

Well if you want to get into technicalities, the sperm and egg are also alive.

Everything that makes the human being is present and is working overtime developing. Both the mothers DNA and the fathers DNA is present. This is why I believe the father has as much right to the baby as the mother.

If a key is used to turn on a car, and the car suddenly blows up via X reason, do we punish the person who made said key?

The embryo is not the same thing as the sperm or egg. A sperm or egg will not produce a human with out each other becoming one.

Good for you, you know some biology.

They are not life by themselves, only a potential. I and most conservatives don’t have a problem with contraception. I think it is a wonderful thing and has been a boon to societies who use it. Prevention of a pregnancy through contraception is acceptable by most people in our culture.

Well at least you don’t want to don’t want to poke some holes in condoms, that’s nice.

The reason my opinion is in this direction is because, as one of the posters said above, the abuses. For instance, partial birth abortion. The baby is allowed to enter the birth canal and is delivered all but the head. Then a sharp object puncures the skull, inserted into the cranial cavity and the brain is scrambled. Now explain why this procedure even exists. The baby has been carried nine months, delivered, and killed. There is no reason for this except the mother doesn’t want a baby. It is killing just to kill.

There are cases where the mother tried to abort the baby unsuccessfully and the baby comes out alive. Now I believe doctors take an oath to cause no harm, but they are, because instead of assisting the baby to continue life, it is placed on a shelf to starve to death. This is murder no matter how you look at it.

This is the type of actions being argued for by poeple such as Karma, Para, and others. This is why I consider abortion killing for the sake of killing…or murder.

Originally posted by jhco50:

The reason my opinion is in this direction is because, as one of the posters said above, the abuses. For instance, partial birth abortion. The baby is allowed to enter the birth canal and is delivered all but the head. Then a sharp object puncures the skull, inserted into the cranial cavity and the brain is scrambled. Now explain why this procedure even exists. The baby has been carried nine months, delivered, and killed. There is no reason for this except the mother doesn’t want a baby. It is killing just to kill.

Even though the procedure you described sounds awful (as well as very stupid, unless there’s some weird reason that it has to go that way), your last statement is still false, since there is a reason beyond the need to kill. Well, unless the mother is sadistic, in which case I don’t think you really would want as child to be raised by her.

There are cases where the mother tried to abort the baby unsuccessfully and the baby comes out alive.

And when did the abortion take place, a day before labor?

Now I believe doctors take an oath to cause no harm, but they are, because instead of assisting the baby to continue life, it is placed on a shelf to starve to death. This is murder no matter how you look at it.

I’m going to call bull on that, or at least until there have been links provided about that very thing.

This is the type of actions being argued for by poeple such as Karma, Para, and others.

Not really, no.

This is why I consider abortion killing for the sake of killing…or murder.

Still a false statement, though.

JohnnyBeGood, I really had to think about this one as this is such an original argument. This is what I think. The baby does have every instruction it needs to be a viable human being. It has a plan. As I and many others believe life begins at conception. I realize it hasn’t attached to the uterus immediately, but it still has the plan, it is still life.

This is the part that made me think…leaching what it needs from the mother. I guess you could make this argument and it does have some truth to it. I though about this for quite awhile and although you have a good point, it is not completely correct. The umbilical cord is where the baby gets it’s nutrition. It receives the nutrients it needs to grow from the mothers blood. Although the mother has to eat to give herself nutrients to suvive and extra to feed the fetus, the fetus is not actually leaching, in my opinion. If the fetus was not absorbing these nutrients, the woman’s body would eliminate them through her waste system.

I thought about my youngest daughter while she was pregnant. The body changes and allows for the baby. Hormones in the woman’s body is what causes this, hormones that activate during the pregnancy. The woman gains weight and she becomes able to breastfeed while the baby matures. So much is going on that I and you would have trouble with this leaching argument. Nice argument. You have me wanting to find out more.

Doing a bit of looking, I come across this. I guess it could be considered leaching, Johnny.

Nutrition in the womb is the process that delivers to the fetus what it needs to grow and develop into a healthy baby. A fetus receives its nutrition from two sources. The first source of nutrients is from the mother’s diet before and during pregnancy. Most people understand this.

The fetus receives the nutrition it needs to grow not only from what the mother eats during pregnancy but from the mothers own body.

The least known and probably more important source of nutrients is the mother’s body. All bodies undergo a turnover process. Turnover is the ever-changing state of breakdown and renewal of muscle, fat and bone which releases protein, fat and calcium into the bloodstream. In a pregnant woman these nutrients are important sources of food for a growing baby. Mothers who have good turnover rates for themselves are able to provide well for their babies. A mother acquires her body composition and turnover throughout her whole lifetime as a fetus, child, girl, adolescent and adult. The mother’s turnover and her diet work in harmony to provide nutrition in the womb through the placenta.

The placenta, which is part of the baby that attaches it to the womb, captures nutrients from the mother’s blood and transports them to the baby. The growth of the placenta and the food it supplies are the key to health for a lifetime. The placenta has three functions. It is the gate between mother and baby, transferring food from the mother and waste from the baby; it makes hormones that signal to the mother what the baby needs; and it protects the baby from the mother’s immune system, which could attack the baby because it is “foreign” to the mother’s body because half of its genes come from the father. The development of the placenta begins when the embryo implants into the lining of the mother’s womb, on the eighth day after conception. The organ becomes fully functional in the tenth week of pregnancy. At birth its surface is oval in shape. It seems that the tissue along the length of the surface has different functions to tissue along the breadth. http://www.nutritioninthewomb.org/

=

The placenta is a large, flat organ that is attached to the inside of the uterus of a pregnant woman. It is attached to the fetus through the umbilical cord. The placenta has many important functions during pregnancy, including hormone production and gas and nutrient exchange between mother and baby through their blood streams. This transfer is vital in enabling nutrition be transported from the mother through the placenta to the fetus and expelling waste produced by the fetus back through the placenta and into the maternal blood stream, which is then released by the mother.

The placenta is composed of numerous blood vessels. These blood vessels are filled with fetal blood, while the placenta is rich in maternal blood. As these blood vessels carry fetal blood through the placenta, they come into contact with the mother’s blood, which transfers nutrients into and removes waste from the fetal blood through the walls of the blood vessels. It is important to note that during this interaction, the blood does not mix. Separation is maintained by the blood vessel walls.

The substances that are transported from the mother to the fetus include glucose, amino acids, maternal antibodies, oxygen and waste products such as carbon dioxide and bilirubin from the liver. Glucose acts as the energy powerhouse for fetal development. Amino acids are the building blocks of the developing baby. Maternal antibodies provide immunity to the fetus before it is able to produce its own antibodies as its immune system matures.

A baby that is undernourished may try to compensate by expanding the surface of its placenta to extract more nutrients from the mother. This is dangerous because the baby and the placenta have to share the available food between them. A larger placenta will require a larger share. The shape and size of the placental surface predict heart disease, high blood pressure and certain cancers in later life. The predictions vary with the mother’s nutritional state, as she is the ultimate source of food. The predictions also differ in boys and girls. Boys invest less than girls in placental growth but more readily expand the placental surface if they become.
undernourished.http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5271720_nutrition-placenta-fetus.html

Now I have a question of all of the posters. If olive oil comes from olives, where does baby oil come from?

Originally posted by jhco50:

Johnny, I really had to think about this one as this is such an original argument. This is what I think. The baby does have every instruction it needs to be a viable human being. It has a plan. As I and many others believe life begins at conception. I realize it hasn’t attached to the uterus immediately,

And plans can get fucked up.

but it still has the plan, it is still life.

Is a blueprint for a house a building?

…Did I just use JBG’s analogy again?

Originally posted by jhco50:

I thought about my youngest daughter while she was pregnant. The body changes and allows for the baby. Hormones in the woman’s body is what causes this, hormones that activate during the pregnancy. The woman gains weight and she becomes able to breastfeed while the baby matures. So much is going on that I and you would have trouble with this leaching argument. Nice argument. You have me wanting to find out more.

Just because you fatten up a cow doesn’t mean you aren’t leaching away its milk.

@tenco1

They happen tenco.

by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke

Are there 3rd trimester abortions?

A more recently developed method here is the partial birth abortion, also called “brain suction” or “D&X” methods.
- These are done after 4 or 5 months.
- 80% of babies are normal.
- Most babies are viable.

This is like a breech delivery. The entire infant is delivered except the head. A scissors is jammed into the base of the skull. A tube is inserted into the skull, and the brain is sucked out. The now-dead infant is pulled out. The drawings illustrate this.

=

The Hippocratic Oath
I SWEAR in the presence of the Almighty and before my family, my teachers and my peers that according to my ability and judgment I will keep this Oath and Stipulation.

TO RECKON all who have taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents and in the same spirit and dedication to impart a knowledge of the art of medicine to others. I will continue with diligence to keep abreast of advances in medicine. I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby, and I will seek the counsel of particularly skilled physicians where indicated for the benefit of my patient.

I WILL FOLLOW that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life.

WITH PURITY, HOLINESS AND BENEFICENCE I will pass my life and practice my art. Except for the prudent correction of an imminent danger, I will neither treat any patient nor carry out any research on any human being without the valid informed consent of the subject or the appropriate legal protector thereof, understanding that research must have as its purpose the furtherance of the health of that individual. Into whatever patient setting I enter, I will go for the benefit of the sick and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief or corruption and further from the seduction of any patient.

WHATEVER IN CONNECTION with my professional practice or not in connection with it I may see or hear in the lives of my patients which ought not be spoken abroad, I will not divulge, reckoning that all such should be kept secret.

WHILE I CONTINUE to keep this Oath unviolated may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art and science of medicine with the blessing of the Almighty and respected by my peers and society, but should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse by my lot.

@Tenco

Using the construction of a house is not really a good analogy and I think you abridged JBG’s copyright.

This is true, but a cow is bred to be leached of not only the milk but its steaks.

Originally posted by jhco50:

@tenco1

They happen tenco.

Hey, I said links, not quotes.

Originally posted by jhco50:

@Tengo

Who dat?

Using the construction of a house is not really a good analogy and I think you abridged JBG’s copyright.

Yeah, I kinda pointed that out.

This is true, but a cow is bred to be leached of not only the milk but its steaks.

It still is getting milk leached out of it.

Arguing against abortion on the basis that “partial birth” abortions exist is kind of like arguing for abortion on the basis that one can get pregnant from rape.

That is, relatively few people are against abortions in cases of rape, and relatively few people are for “partial birth” abortions. Trying to start at one point and expand it to argue about all abortions regardless of case is disingenuous, and implies a simplicity that doesn’t exist. This is a forum, you can take a nuanced approach.

Anyway, it seems to me that tenco was asking about the following statement:

Now I believe doctors take an oath to cause no harm, but they are, because instead of assisting the baby to continue life, it is placed on a shelf to starve to death. This is murder no matter how you look at it.

Which is different from what you provided.

@tenco

Sorry there were no links.

Fixed!

Yes you did, but it was such a dastardly thing I thought I should bring it up again…oh for shame tenco.

Yes it is being leached. However, cows like to be leached as they hurt when they get full and the good old farmer takes that hurt away. Cows will actually line up to be leached (milked).

Originally posted by Ketsy:

Arguing against abortion on the basis that “partial birth” abortions exist is kind of like arguing for abortion on the basis that one can get pregnant from rape.

That is, relatively few people are against abortions in cases of rape, and relatively few people are for “partial birth” abortions. Trying to start at one point and expand it to argue about all abortions regardless of case is disingenuous, and implies a simplicity that doesn’t exist. This is a forum, you can take a nuanced approach.

Anyway, it seems to me that tenco was asking about the following statement:

Now I believe doctors take an oath to cause no harm, but they are, because instead of assisting the baby to continue life, it is placed on a shelf to starve to death. This is murder no matter how you look at it.

Which is different from what you provided.

Partial birth abortion is part of the argument. So are several others that I didn’t mention. Abortions are not a pretty sight in any form. When I talk of the expansion and abuse of abortions, it is not just going into the Dr’s office, the baby falls out, and all is well. There are a lot of facets to an abortion and if I really elaborated, my posts would be deleted as fast as the moderator could operate the buttons. I could show and describe things that would make you puke your guts out.

Actually, I posted the modern Hippocratic Oath that Doctors take when they begin their careers. The original one mentioned that the doctor would do no harm, but it isn’t used anymore.

Partial birth abortion is part of the argument. So are several others that I didn’t mention.

It’s the part of the argument that almost everyone agrees on. I mentioned this about a half-dozen pages back. Only 24% of people polled think abortion should happen in the second three months, and only 10% of those polled believe that it should happen in the final three months.

Bringing it up as an argument is just extrapolation and guilt by association. You seem to be saying “This method is horrific!” when everyone already agrees that method is horrific. You know what else is horrific? Rape. But that doesn’t mean sex should be outlawed.

When I talk of the expansion and abuse of abortions, it is not just going into the Dr’s office, the baby falls out, and all is well.

Which is why it shouldn’t be a decision that is made lightly. But wanting to protect people from their decisions isn’t a reason to make abortion illegal.

Actually, I posted the modern Hippocratic Oath that Doctors take when they begin their careers. The original one mentioned that the doctor would do no harm, but it isn’t used anymore.

I assume this wasn’t directed at me, because I don’t see how it relates at all to anything I said.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Yes it is being leached. However, cows like to be leached as they hurt when they get full and the good old farmer takes that hurt away. Cows will actually line up to be leached (milked).

I’m not trying to say they aren’t being leached (Okay, don’t know why I would think that’s what you were getting at, but whatever), I’m just saying that leaching is still leaching, whether beneficial, harmful, or prepared.

No argument tonight Ketsy. I’m getting tired. I’m jealous of your youth. :)

Ok tenco, now that I’m back in my chair because you made me fall out with your post…..

I like the leaching a cow argument. Technically, I guess that is what the farmer is doing. Milking sounds better, though. I wonder if that is what you would call a woman’s breastfeeding…milking. I know they hurt if they go too long between feedings. My youngest granddaughter may lose her leaching now that she cut two bottom teeth.

Originally posted by jhco50:

JohnnyBeGood, I really had to think about this one as this is such an original argument. This is what I think. The baby does have every instruction it needs to be a viable human being. It has a plan. As I and many others believe life begins at conception. I realize it hasn’t attached to the uterus immediately, but it still has the plan, it is still life.

1. The sperm and egg had plans too, just because they get together does not make in terms of biology such a difference that you can know say its life while before it was not. So objectively using the two different definitions of life given by biology there was life there either before conception or starting around 8 days later when the connection with the mother is established.
2. As already pointed out the plans when combined have a good chance to false. With many being so false that the fetus is aborted naturally.

To leeching, the fetus does not just receive nutrients the body of the mother would otherwise have eliminated through the waste system, quite contrary the nutrients the fetus needs are the type that would have been either used or stored(for later use) by the body of the mother.
Leeching as the term i used is defined as “clinging to someone and draining their resources without giving anything in return. Aka being a Parasite”.
That is objectively what the fetus does.

And its quite different from the cow analogy because the fetus does not feed and otherwise take care of the mother in return for leeching.

To partial birth abortion.
It is already illegal in the USA, since 2003. Trying to use it in the ongoing discussion about abortion as justification for being against the lawfulness of current abortion by pretending that this procedure is an legal abuse of the law is either ignorant or dishonest.(I am not even gonna bother arguing if it is an actual abuse anyway, just kill the fetus before the process if it helps you keep your lunch)

To the Hippocratic Oath. There are many different versions some more modern and some more religious, all depending on the different ethics that motivated the development of the oath. So most doctors don´t take the Oath that you posted, but one more fitting to either the morals to their school where they learned medicine or to their own personal morals. With a significant number taking no such oath at all.

Originally posted by jhco50:

@tenco

Sorry there were no links.

Fixed!

Yes you did, but it was such a dastardly thing I thought I should bring it up again…oh for shame tenco.

Yes it is being leached. However, cows like to be leached as they hurt when they get full and the good old farmer takes that hurt away. Cows will actually line up to be leached (milked).

Just to make clear a few concepts about cows, leaching, & steaks….and then, connect this aspect of animal husbandry to the issue of abortion.

Take it from this ‘ol farm boy, dairy cattle & beef (steaks) cattle are far different. The ONLY steak associated w/ dairy cattle is veal. Veal is a sad form of post-natal abortion. I wonder how many here realize that in order to get milk from a cow, she has been made pregnant & her milk is for the calf she bears….a calf that is treated horridly When I was young, the calf was kept in a small “dog house” w/ very restricted movement (can’t even turn around—movement builds strength in the muscle (meat) and makes it “tough”), it shits & piss all over itself, the shit is basically diarrhea due to the special formula. I’ve NEVER had veal…and I NEVER will.

So, yes…we do cause a dairy cow to be leached upon—in that she pretty much CONSTATNTLY grazes to make that milk to feed a baby she will never see & the milk will (basically) never reach—all so that we humans can have a product that “does a body good”. And, yes..milking is done EVERY day…4 o’clock in the morning & 4 in the afternoon. And, yes…a full utter is “painful”,,,,to the extent that (the cattle I knew) they will come into the milking barn when their NUMBER is called out.

Now, that I’ve shown how this particular form of pregnancy works. I want to touch on the human aspect of it. Johnny B makes a good case that in a human pregnancy, just as w/ dairy cattle needing their body to produce milk for feeding AFTER birth, the bodies of both calves & fetus DO CAUSE a “nurturing” from the mothers while in the womb. Whatever “splitting-hairs” words cares to use….these life forms are, per se, parasites. It’s not even a symbiotic relationship (outside of emotional). One might call it a “good form” of parasite.

Originally posted by jhco50:

JohnnyBeGood, I really had to think about this one as this is such an original argument. This is what I think. The baby does have every instruction it needs to be a viable human being. It has a plan. As I and many others believe life begins at conception. I realize it hasn’t attached to the uterus immediately, but it still has the plan, it is still life.

Again…we have a “splitting-hairs” usage of words. A “FORM” of life begins at conception. As someone points out, life also exists in both the sperm & ovum. One cannot get life from “non-life”. While most ppl would agree—that in its most strictest, “hair-splitting” sense—a fetus IS “alive”…ergo has life. However, don’t most of these same ppl tend to think of “having A life” as being the one OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB?

Yes, I’m splitting concepts here: BEING ALIVE in the womb is usually considered to be different than HAVING A LIFE outside of it. This is one of the tenets, jhco, that YOU fail to grasp even though it has been presented to ya over&over&over. YOU have been given a huge amount of data that extols this difference. YET, true to form, YOU fail to address any of them directly…..ya just continue w/ your initial, trite mantra: BUT, it’s a baby…from day one.

Believe me (even though I’m greeeeatly extending a term here), a child is also very much STILL a “parasite” for the mother (& father?) for some years to come. YOU, jhco, are trying much too hard to focus on just a couple of specific “trees” to even begin to grasp the concept of “seeing-the-forrest-for-the-trees”. We here, have been (to little avail?) been telling ya of the huge variety of trees in the forrest and how the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. YET, ya just don’t want to discuss YOUR opinions on abortion w/in the parameters of this concept.

Now, I’m off for a glass of milk and cookies….walking in the forrest gives me an appetite.

Morning Karma.

Not being a farm boy myself, but coming from that area originally. I new the details about dairy cows, but I did not know about veal. I always wondered about it, but never really new. That was interesting.

I guess you could use the word parasite, but symbiotic relationship is more accurate. After Johnny’s post I talked to my wife, trying to get a better picture of pregnancy. She wasn’t much help as it seems nature tends to block many of the memories of pregnancy…or she is just getting old, lol. I do know that the babies blood system co-mingles with the mothers in the uterus. How this works I can’t give details I don’t have.

I do believe being alive in the womb is life. The life in the womb is a human being. This life does not have to qualify itself to be considered life. This is were the argument is focused, Karma, the life in the womb. I have never considered the baby as a parasite after it is born. But then again, I always enjoyed my children and took an active role in their upbringing.

I believe I gave a rundown on why I have my opinions above. I still maintain my opinions. Now, although cookies and milk sounds really good and is probably healthier, I think I will go get a cup of coffee.

Just when I thought abortion was being abused as far as it would go and up crops new abuses. Gender Selection Abortion. You want a boy, but you fetus is a girl. No problem, abort all the girls and try until you get a boy. No longer is this just birth control as you people argue, but now it is just murder for the sake of murder. Come on people, can you guys and gals not see the collateral damage your touchy-feely crap is causing? So much for women’s rights.

LOL….do YOU actually fail to understand that this practice has been around FOR CENTURIES?

Only, way “back then”…there we no sonograms. The girl-child was simply killed upon delivery.

Those that weren’t killed….they led a life that was (usually?) greatly subordinate to that of the male. This I see as being a “selective form of abortion of the living”. It kills particular rights, privileges, hopes, spirits, etc. of the female.

AND, still…..YOU fail to grasp certain parameters. If someone is aborting because of a choice of gender…..THEN THAT IS A REASON. It certainly IS NOT ""just murder for murder".

YOU need to prove just what “touchy-feely crap” is and then prove who it is that is championing it. THEN, ya can shoot yer mouth off about the “collateral damage” it is causing.
Until ya do so….it is merely YOUR opinion on the matter. Remember, we also have OUR opinions…..ones which WE believe to be just as worthy as YOU do yours.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

LOL….do YOU actually fail to understand that this practice has been around FOR CENTURIES?

Only, way “back then”…there we no sonograms. The girl-child was simply killed upon delivery.

Those that weren’t killed….they led a life that was (usually?) greatly subordinate to that of the male. This I see as being a “selective form of abortion of the living”. It kills particular rights, privileges, hopes, spirits, etc. of the female.

AND, still…..YOU fail to grasp certain parameters. If someone is aborting because of a choice of gender…..THEN THAT IS A REASON. It certainly IS NOT ""just murder for murder".

YOU need to prove just what “touchy-feely crap” is and then prove who it is that is championing it. THEN, ya can shoot yer mouth off about the “collateral damage” it is causing.
Until ya do so….it is merely YOUR opinion on the matter. Remember, we also have OUR opinions…..ones which WE believe to be just as worthy as YOU do yours.

It still goes on in China and if you would like I could explain the thought processes that originated it. But that is China and we are talking about America. Of course they are communist and that seems to be your preferred type of government. Oh, my mistake, you like socialism. How long will it be until we (you) accept infanticide. Of course you will call this a right which it isn’t.

Yes, you do have an opinion. It is an odd one, but it is an opinion.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

LOL….do YOU actually fail to understand that this practice has been around FOR CENTURIES?

Only, way “back then”…there we no sonograms. The girl-child was simply killed upon delivery.

Those that weren’t killed….they led a life that was (usually?) greatly subordinate to that of the male. This I see as being a “selective form of abortion of the living”. It kills particular rights, privileges, hopes, spirits, etc. of the female.

AND, still…..YOU fail to grasp certain parameters. If someone is aborting because of a choice of gender…..THEN THAT IS A REASON. It certainly IS NOT ""just murder for murder".

YOU need to prove just what “touchy-feely crap” is and then prove who it is that is championing it. THEN, ya can shoot yer mouth off about the “collateral damage” it is causing.
Until ya do so….it is merely YOUR opinion on the matter. Remember, we also have OUR opinions…..ones which WE believe to be just as worthy as YOU do yours.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Originally posted by jhco50:

It still goes on in China and if you would like I could explain the thought processes that originated it.

YES…I would like. THIS just might be as interesting as a lot of the odd-ball crap ya come w/….largely because of the biases ya hold.

But that is China and we are talking about America.

So….ya don’t see ANY relevance of the two? Perhaps YOU really don’t understand the “thought process” of those Chinese.

Of course they are communist and that seems to be your preferred type of government.

Do YOU say this crap because it is intended to be “trolling”…..OR, do ya just have so precious little other rational data to offer on the issue that ya must stoop to this inflamatory assessment?

Oh, my mistake, you like socialism.

Howzzabout YOU tell me WHICH KIND of socialism it is that I believe in? “socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,¹ and a political philosophy advocating such a system. “Social ownership” may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.² There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism.³ They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism."

I’ve presented this to ya several times,,,saying that is distinguish MY particular socialistic ideology would take faaaarrrrr too long to make it worth my while….esp. to someone such as YOU who has such a “closed//biases” mind….esp when they STILL insist on using an “at-all-cost-of-integrity” method of trying to conjour up a salient point.

How long will it be until we (you) accept infanticide.

Well, jhco….YOUR ever so frequent failure to provide a predent renders me (mostly?) clueless of who this “we” is. However, were ya to use MY method where I us you//YOU….I would know if ya meant ME specifically or the more genaric “you”—-as in “all of you”.

BUT, to offer a very broad “answer”…..I don’t think our American society will—in the long-time foreseeable future—extend THE RIGHT TO A LEGAL ABORTION to include such a reason. Now, howzzabout YOU stop it w/ this kind of emontional appeal. It is merely the second cousin of hyperbole.

Of course you will call this a right which it isn’t.

Ya’ll have to explain this to me. Something that IS a LEGAL RIGHT is still a RIGHT…..regardless of what YOU deem it to be.

Yes, you do have an opinion. It is an odd one, but it is an opinion.

Okay. Look. Killing PEOPLE is murder. Killing a COW is killing a cow. Eating PEOPLE is cannibalism. Eating an EGG is eating an egg. Not letting a HUMAN (well, a WOULD-BE HUMAN) take it’s first breath is cruel. Not letting a MICROORGANISM breathe… well it can’t so you can’t let it breathe. And you can wait until marriage before sex. It’s actually easier done than said. Abortion is killing a would-be human. It’s not like killing a cow, or eating eggs. Abortion is denying a human the chance to live. Not denying a cow to live, or an egg. Also, um, the chicken eggs that we eat aren’t fertilized, so… it’s not really killing something…

Originally posted by TaylorFire93:

Okay. Look. Killing PEOPLE is murder. Killing a COW is killing a cow. Eating PEOPLE is cannibalism. Eating an EGG is eating an egg. Not letting a HUMAN (well, a WOULD-BE HUMAN) take it’s first breath is cruel. Not letting a MICROORGANISM breathe… well it can’t so you can’t let it breathe. And you can wait until marriage before sex. It’s actually easier done than said. Abortion is killing a would-be human. It’s not like killing a cow, or eating eggs. Abortion is denying a human the chance to live. Not denying a cow to live, or an egg. Also, um, the chicken eggs that we eat aren’t fertilized, so… it’s not really killing something…

If it’s easier said than done, why are people having sex before marriage all the damn time?

Also, it does not care, nor can it care that it does not to live. It does not have a brain.

Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

Originally posted by TaylorFire93:

Okay. Look. Killing PEOPLE is murder. Killing a COW is killing a cow. Eating PEOPLE is cannibalism. Eating an EGG is eating an egg. Not letting a HUMAN (well, a WOULD-BE HUMAN) take it’s first breath is cruel. Not letting a MICROORGANISM breathe… well it can’t so you can’t let it breathe. And you can wait until marriage before sex. It’s actually easier done than said. Abortion is killing a would-be human. It’s not like killing a cow, or eating eggs. Abortion is denying a human the chance to live. Not denying a cow to live, or an egg. Also, um, the chicken eggs that we eat aren’t fertilized, so… it’s not really killing something…

If it’s easier said than done, why are people having sex before marriage all the damn time?

Also, it does not care, nor can it care that it does not to live. It does not have a brain.

Because of influence. That’s why I think it’s easier done than said. In a group of 4 people, and 3 of those people have had sex before marriage, that other 1 person will be influenced and probably will do the same. But if that 1 person decides they won’t be influenced, they won’t go with it. I know this because I’ve seen it happen before. Also, it has a spirit that does care. He/she fought to live. They want to live.