Fair Abortion Discussions

2006-08-03 [M_Sinner]: Well, by that logic, I'm Pro-choice. Lol. Don't move me, though. I like my spot by the illustrious Fizban. 

2006-08-03 [ceridwen]: Geh... Well, then you are pro choice. Everyone says it like it's a totally liberal baby killing thing and it's not. Geh...

2006-08-03 [M_Sinner]: Lol. Well, that depends on what your personal opinions of it are, as far as the "Baby Killing" part of it. ;) Regardless, that's the first time that I've heard that term applied to anyone outside of the military. Lol.

2006-08-03 [ceridwen]: ... Sorry, that just really gets my goat. Geh... What I meant was people assume that when you're pro choice you advocate aborting the unborn, and that's not true. It just mean that I think it's the woman's choice.

2006-08-04 [M_Sinner]: Which is why I don't see either side as scum-sucking murderers/bigots anymore. One side sees it as defending the idea of "all life is sacred" and the other wants to defend inaleinable rights.

2006-08-04 [ceridwen]: Yes... And I'm on both sides... But I'm not undecided... Geh. Not sure if that makes much sense, though.

2006-08-04 [Dil*]: In the rights contest, I'd have to say the woman wins over a fetus.

2006-08-04 [ceridwen]: Yeah... Well, that's why I guess I'm pro choice. It's ultimately the woman's choice. It's her body, even the fetus. It's still part of her, thus she has final say over it.

2006-08-04 [Fizban]: I disagree. I don't believe the fetus is truly part of her. An extension of her, to which relies on her. Since the fetus is a lump of living tissues, and the woman carrying it, is also a lump of living tissues, the state of development to which the lump is in, shouldn't dictate the rights of the said, lump. I dont know what trimester or whatever of the pregnancy it is that the fetus is not allowed to be aborted at...the deadline for its destruction. But is there really a difference for that lump, a couple days before and after that deadline? Has that lump gained something that gives it an immense number of extra rights? OR because the mom to be gets scared out of her wits looking at

2006-08-04 [Fizban]: the calender, she rushes to the abortion clinic, states the progression of the baby, and the legal deadline, and has it aborted, the next day, lucky her theres an opening. Because that lump wasnt a day or two older, the lump is now allowed to be killed. Ofcourse in reality, whats the difference from that lump, a day after the sperm combines with the egg...and a day before the lump emerges from the mother?? Other then mass and cell differentiation...not really anything. All just lumps of different sizes. Is it because it looks like a baby now, that you can't kill it? What? I dont see how the difference of dates, really applies to the right of the lump/fetus/baby.

2006-08-04 [tuff ghost]: That's somewhat similar to my line of logic, if not in the other direction. Though I'll probably get a lot of criticism for this one, it is my belief that doctors, with parent's consent, should be able to put a newborn down humanely. In extreme cases where child is destined to live life as a vegetable, with no self awareness or thoughts, it is just a drain on the economy and other people. Niether the parents nor an adoption agency, or even a home for the mentally disabled should have to put up with it.

2006-08-04 [Fizban]: is there a real difference from a lump a week before it emerges from the mother? Or a week after? However, the mother-lump would be incarcerated if she were to discared the baby-lump. Because of those few days of psuedo-experience of life, that baby has the rights of a human now. Ofcourse it had all the cell differentiation and parts required to be born the week earlier. But in places where abortion is allowed indiscriminantly...because its still in the mother...she doesnt have to go through the child birth, she can just kill it.

2006-08-04 [Fizban]: I see...LOL...thats very funny [tuff ghost]...I am just debating the point of abortions. I have no problem with contraceptions, or morning after pills, ect...but abortions...I feel it is definetly a death, because its killing what will be. It is alive and different from the mother. However by that logic, yes, its understandable too kill born babies.

2006-08-04 [tuff ghost]: But you see what the repurcussions of this will be, right? When an unborn fetus is deemed human, and therefore mmm.... unkillable, things will be nuts. Every pregnancy will probably have to be reported, right after conception, no? Won't that be a human to register? Then every miscarriage would have to be investigated. Manslaughter, perhaps?

2006-08-04 [Fizban]: exactly...a couple of days, and a few events and a average everyday clinical abortion procedure can be turned into a murderer on trial...a few days means nothing to either lump. However rights change so much. How is it that, for the lump...they should?

2006-08-04 [tuff ghost]: Mmm... what? Care to rephrase?.... Slowly and enunciated.

2006-08-04 [Fizban]: LOL...by way of a day, or even, a few hours...a woman having an abortion, that lump/baby, could have been consiered a human, because it wasnt in the mother or some crap...thus it could be a murder. I mean if you have an abortion in NY after the legal time period, will that be considered murder now, cause you were a day late or someting? I dont even know the laws really...

2006-08-04 [tuff ghost]: Hm. I'm willing to bet that clinics just won't do the abortions after the 'time limit' is up. I also think that there will be no prosecution if the mother goes about removing the fetus by her own means after that. 

2006-08-04 [Fizban]: a woman in florida not too long ago, stabbed herself in the stomach with a butcher knife because they wouldtn let her get an abortion...

2006-08-04 [tuff ghost]: Which is why outlawing legal, safe abortions would be counterproductive in every way. Not only is the woman probably going to find another way to get rid of the pregnancy, but she will probably be doing it in a very unsafe way.

2006-08-04 [Fizban]: Yup. Which is why I agree with Roe v Wade...