abortion law wording

[Forever_frost]

Why are you so hung up on her 'having' to see the sonogram? Again, she realizes that she is there to end a life. Is seeing the sonogram supposed to induce an emotional breakdown and sudden overwhelming feelings of love for the embryo she's already made the decision to kill?

Not at all. It's forcing her to face what she's doing. You notice the doctors don't say "What we're going to do is take this here blender, stick it up your snoopy, turn that little critter into Jello and suck him out with this shop vac" now do they? No, they pretty it up. You end a life you should be aware of what you're doing.

[Forever_frost]

I agree the woman has the right to refuse. If she's got the brass balls to abort, why cover it in red tape over sonograms and other vital statistics?

I have 2 beautiful children of my own, fyi......

It takes brass balls to abort?

[Treasure Chest]

I never said put stipulations. I said show the woman what is going to happen. Those who get the procedure can also go sterile because of it or have complications later on. So what you're saying is seeing a sonogram of something you're about to kill is undue hardship? I also never said prove anything. Show me where I did. I honestly don't see a good reason to kill a child. Call it penance for very bad things I've done.

So, because you've done "very bad things," everyone else should atone for them? I can think of several reasons to have an abortion that have absolutely nothing to do with irresponsibility. In those instances, yes, I can say that seeing a sonogram is undue hardship.

[Forever_frost]

Not at all TC. I'm saying no one should carry the weight of destroying a life and that is exactly what every woman who aborts a child does. If there are 'several reasons to have an abortion' then there should be no problem with "here's a sonogram" now should there? An undue hardship is pureeing a child. Pretty sure next to that, seeing a sonogram and the short term emotional hit is nothing compared to what you're doing to it

[Got5onIt]

It takes brass balls to abort?

I would say so.
As men, we just don't understand the roller coaster of emotion a hormone overdosed, pregnant woman is going through. If she can make it that far down the necessary steps to abortion, why hinder her with trivial things?

[Treasure Chest]

Not at all TC. I'm saying no one should carry the weight of destroying a life and that is exactly what every woman who aborts a child does. If there are 'several reasons to have an abortion' then there should be no problem with "here's a sonogram" now should there? An undue hardship is pureeing a child. Pretty sure next to that, seeing a sonogram and the short term emotional hit is nothing compared to what you're doing to it

So, when a mother's life is in danger, or knowing that her child will be born and will live an agonizing life of pain and suffering, wracking up easily over a million dollars in medical bills (that medicaid will most likely cover because the child is severely disabled), if she continues her pregnancy, is reason enough to make her view a sonogram? She's already had to make a very difficult choice, for her health, or for the good of her family. She's going to have to mourn the loss of life and the choice she's made, but you want to go ahead and poke her with a stick while she's curled into a ball in a corner? She's already SEEN the sonogram. She knows her child is going to die, regardless.

Also, you are aware that all abortions aren't vacuum aspiration abortions, right? There are options for medicated abortions in early pregnancy.

[Forever_frost]

I'm going to argue that just because your hormones are out of whack, taking another life is bad. At least that's what my counselor says.

[Forever_frost]

So, when a mother's life is in danger, or knowing that her child will be born and will live an agonizing life of pain and suffering, wracking up easily over a million dollars in medical bills (that medicaid will most likely cover because the child is severely disabled), if she continues her pregnancy, is reason enough to make her view a sonogram? She's already had to make a very difficult choice, for her health, or for the good of her family. She's going to have to mourn the loss of life and the choice she's made, but you want to go ahead and poke her with a stick while she's curled into a ball in a corner? She's already SEEN the sonogram. She knows her child is going to die, regardless.

Also, you are aware that all abortions aren't vacuum aspiration abortions, right? There are options for medicated abortions in early pregnancy.

Yes actually. You're picking out a single situation. Were that the only case I'd say no. When a perfectly healthy woman who has no issues, the fetus has no issues, decides to use abortion for birth control, you don't see an issue?

[Treasure Chest]

Yes actually. You're picking out a single situation. Were that the only case I'd say no. When a perfectly healthy woman who has no issues, the fetus has no issues, decides to use abortion for birth control, you don't see an issue?

That's the thing with backing someone's rights.... Take gun rights, for example. You are a law abiding citizen that doesn't want anyone fucking with the right to bear arms. Apart from verifying your identity, you don't want to have to prove your right to own firearms. You know there are idiots out there who are going to irresponsibly act with their firearms, and these actions are going to get the liberal gun haters riled up, and motivated to infringe on YOUR right to own weapons. You also know that tighter regulations do nothing but keep honest people honest. The other side of the population that can't own a firearm, will ALWAYS find a way to procure them. It will always be the same with abortion.

Rights are rights, whether it's an abortion, privacy, or gun laws. You simply cannot pick and choose what you want to protect. This mentality has awarded us such amazing lapses in judgement as the Patriot Act and the death of habeas corpus.

[stevo]

Something doesn't have to meet all of the definitions in order for that word to be applicable, merely one.

I never said it had to meet all of them. Please quote me where I said that.

I simply pointed out, where you used definition 3 to prove your point (basically saying anything can be a parasite), definition 2 countered your point (basically saying it requires two or more different kinds of organisms, meaning they cannot be the same type of organism.)

So yes, you had actually had the information to counter yourself in the definitions you posted.

Stevo

[Got5onIt]

Yes actually. You're picking out a single situation. Were that the only case I'd say no. When a perfectly healthy woman who has no issues, the fetus has no issues, decides to use abortion for birth control, you don't see an issue?

There will always be a moral dilemma. Problem is you can't cover every single detail and every single situation. Like welfare there will always be abuse, but there will always be situations where people actually use it as the law intended.

[Forever_frost]

There will always be a moral dilemma. Problem is you can't cover every single detail and every single situation. Like welfare there will always be abuse, but there will always be situations where people actually use it as the law intended.

Except for the fact welfare isn't a federal power and should be left to the states.


TC: Difference is, by engaging in lawful activities with my weapon, I'm not going to be taking a life 99 days out of 100. Abortion 100% takes a life everytime. Gun rights are also the only ones that have the stipulation of "shall not be infringed." How is the right of a person to exercise the right to be able to chose life or death for another without due process?

[BERNIE MOSFET]

Yet they make sense. You know that you don't have money. You know you didn't buy a condom or that condoms and/or birth control doesn't work for you. Either take it in the ass or the face or stop fucking. Simple. You can't afford an action, you don't engage in the action. I can't afford to replace parts on my 4x4. KNow what I don't do? I don't go mudding or rock climbing where I can break it. What I do is engage in things that I know won't break anything. Is it as fun? No, but I know what I can afford.

In principal, I don't disagree with your notion about abstinence. It's a valid point. The problem I have is that we're programmed to #1: survive long enough to procreate, #2: procreate, #3: rinse, repeat. It's not that I don't agree with being responsible, but that I recognize that humans do what animals do, too. That's the reality of it.

There is no right to have sex. Not a one. If you can't afford the reprocussions you shouldn't engage in the activity. "But I deserve to have sex." Right. Your right to be you does not trump my right to be free from you. -Andrew Wilkow

Bolded part might as well have been said by an abortion advocate.

Adults have the right to do as they please, insomuch as they don't violate others' rights in the process. I agree that the imposition of consequences upon others for actions beyond their control (in this case: have sex, birth child, dump child on society to raise) is unfair, but consider that when society imposes restrictions on human behavior, they also impose all consequences of those restrictons on society as well. If we deem that convicted violent criminals and thieves maintain a right to life then, by imposing their removal from society for a time, we must also support them in their limited capacity to sustain themselves. We don't choose to have criminals; they are an unfortunate, inherent product of our condition.

Likewise, many people do not choose to have children, yet they are an inherent, albeit avoidable-through-abstinence product of our condition as well. If we as a society impose that human life is to be sanctified (banning abortions), then we must also accept that preservation of life is not enough, and that sustaining that life must also be sanctified. By imposing a child's inclusion in life - by imposing the consequences of someone's irresponsibility - we are accepting responsibility for what that child becomes, whether we like it or not.


Fundamentally, however, these particular arguments about the validity of abortions only go to support our modern notions about economy; at the root it is competition for resources. Our sense of natural rights really sort of boils down to a species-centric armistice wherein we collaborate for resources; ultimately, with our empathy, chances of survival increase (see #1 on human to-do list above).

The crux of this whole issue really stems from how we evaluate life, which we're not all in agreement on. After all, it is somewhat counterintuitive that, with regard to #2 on our list, we should willfully destroy our progeny.

The rest is just arguing solutions to economic problems.

[Treasure Chest]

There are laws protecting viable fetuses. The 'at what point does life begin' debate has been driven into the ground. Did you know that most abortions occur before 13 weeks LMP, and a high percentage of those are before 9 weeks LMP. At 9 weeks LMP(different from 9 weeks gestation), there may or may not be a heartbeat.

Hit send too quickly...

When you go beyond the point of viability, you walk a slippery slope. It can easily turn into, "Life begins with a heartbeat," so you ban all abortions as soon as the heart starts beating. Then you can easily say, "life begins at conception," which brings into question the IUD, the birth control pill, emergency contraception, and other forms of birth control.
One's morality doesn't need regulating. Those with morals won't abuse the situations. Those with lesser morals will ALWAYS find a way--be it Oil of Pennyroyal or coat hangers.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

So a quadraplegic or someome on life support are not "life"? That's a pretty shitty interpretation, don't you think?

Not for your typical liberal waste of human flesh. They breathe out shitty interpretations like they're drinking water.