Depends for me.  If they honestly believe a fetus isn't a human until x number of weeks, and aborting it before that many weeks is ok, I don't look down on them for it, I simply disagree.

If they use the population control argument I, too, look at them no different than any other sick fuck that has killed innocent people for their own gain throughout history, including the Nazi's.

Abstinence is all you need.  Anyway, some forms of birth control are abortion.

Exactly....That was my argue thesis in debate one year, however in truth, I have done a lot of PPO work for abortion doctors. I got tired of seeing the same people in and out over the course of months that used abortion as a means of birth control, utterly stomach turning when you see the same person not once...not twice....but 6 times. Unconscious-able in my opinion, but I do realize others have differing opinions and may have strong feelings be-they pro-choice, or be-they pro-life.

New facts and information are grounds for overturning cases.

I missed that too.  Well played

birth control takes place before conception...abortion after the fact of life....

Well... if we want to split hairs, birth control takes place before birth.

 

Not all forms

exceptable one...a morning after pill is abortion...

I am 110% sure that this abortion thread is going to be the game changer!

The people who oppose abortion, believe that the child is a human being with rights. Telling them to just "not get one, and leave other people alone"... Is like telling someone... "Well you might be against killing Jews and Blacks... but not everyone agrees with you that they are actual human beings with rights! If you feel differently... Just don't join us in the slaughter of other humans."



 

Those intollerant assholes. You know? Your right! We should also allow parents to kill their already born kids... because it's inhumane to force parenthood on them.





 

More fantasy talk from the anti-lifers out there. Somehow a baby is just a big inorganic blob of chemicals with no significance, no life, no heartbeat, no facial expressions, no feelings... etc. It magically becomes a baby, ONLY THE EXACT SECOND that the doctor cuts the umbillical cord. That's when a magical, invisible, spirit-stork flies by and implant's a "person" into that baby. Hence, before that happens, its just termination of inorganic compounds and slush or some other made up crap.

all you that are for abortion watch this movie and tell me again what you think/
180

LoL is that the Banana guy?





Why yes it is









 

stop looking in the mirrors then.

OH BURN

 

Try not to confuse the ignorant masses with the facts.



It just makes them angry....





 

How many children have you adopted?

Irrelevant to the question of whether it is morally permissible to kill human beings.

 

There are no really 'good' options here, but I think that trying to coerce women to have babies they don't want is the worst of them.

But just in case Roe v Wade is overturned, what should the penalty for abortion be?

Can anyone explain how fully informing the woman of medically necessary information is "unconstitutional"?

Not gonna happen

The time for a woman to make the choice of having a baby or not is the moment she decides to spread her legs or not for some guy.  That is the time.  If she CHOOSES to do it then, then the consequences of that choice may result in a child.  At that point, it's murder for her to kill her child.  Pro-abortion folks say "well, the baby can be aborted up until it's viable"... well, I've seen 400 gram babies go from NICU to leaving with their parents.  And yet, in many states, kids can be aborted WAY past that weight.  Or, how about that method of abortion where they pull the baby out except for the head and then jab a hole in the base of the head and suck the baby's brains out?  Talk about barbaric.  If the baby could somehow push herself out that last 3", it would then be MURDER for the doctor to kill her, but since her head is still in the womb it's ok with people like you.



People like you don't seem to see the REAL problem, which is a society who refuses to take responsibility for their actions, and instead wants to "have their cake and eat it, too", when it comes to sex.  If you want to have sex, then get MARRIED, then have all you want.  One partner, for life, who you can raise your children with.  That's how it's supposed to be to support a stable society.  The society you appear to want to have (do what you want, destroy the results of your promiscuity if you happen to get pregnant, repeat...) has resulted in what we have now...  Broken homes, single moms, fathers who don't care, and children who grow up wondering who their dad is.



Are you opposed to adoption?  There are 10's, if not hundreds of thousands of men and women out there who can't have kids who would LOVE to raise a child/children.  Why would the woman not want to simply give up her child for adoption?  The baby can live, it can be raised in a home where she'll be loved, and can grow up to have a nice life.  What's wrong with that?



I simply do not understand the mind-set of a pro-abortion person.  How in the world can you all think it's RIGHT to kill an innocent child in its mother's womb?  Talk about the ultimate act of a barbarian.  It is NOT the woman's body we're talking about.  It's the body of a living child which you're advocating to kill.  How in the world can you people ignore that?



 

I fully support the ACLU.

"Informing" isn't the problem. Mandating the "informing" is.

I think the world will be a better place if Banana Guy and most of the people he interviewed don't reproduce.

The ACLU is anti-second amendment....stands to reason you would support them

strawman alert...but hey...when you support murder..I guess any argument will work.

The ends do not justify the means.  The Nazis killed Jews and others for the same reasons.  They were supposedly a drag on society and the economy, and they weren't really human anyway.

Your argument is just as valid as the following:

"Sure, rape is wrong.  But what if someone's super-horny and no one is willing to have sex with them?  That person is being seriously inconvenienced!  I wouldn't do it, but it's not right to say that THEY can't do it."

Whether or not the woman will be inconvenienced is NO justification for murder.  Whether or not the woman will be able to take care of the child is NO justification for murder.  The morality of murder and the convenience of the woman and society are two COMPLETELY separate issues.  They are not even tangentially connected.  If your argument makes the slightest attempt to connect them, your argument falls apart.

Tell me, what makes a child different before he's born and after?  What changes the precise moment the baby escapes the womb?  Is there a physiological change?  Is there a genetic change?  Is there a mental change?  Is there anything, other than the location of the child?

No, there isn't.  So you CANNOT argue that it's OK to kill an unborn baby but it's wrong to kill a child that's one month old.  You also cannot say that it's not OK to kill a child several years old, who can't fend for himself.  You are making up rules with absolutely no logical, scientific, or any other basis, and then you call those arbitrary rules "facts" and say that anyone who doesn't agree is illogical.

Lets say a fetus really is just a tumor as the pro abortion crowd claims it is, there isn't a doctor in the US who would operate on a tumor without bringing out the pictures of the scans, CTs, lab results, MRIs, ultra sounds and explaining fully what he is going to remove/do (under less then emergent circumstances). So explain to me, if a fetus is just a tumor why not treat it the same as a tumor when it comes to informing the patient and laying out all the facts?

Further, informed consent is required before any surgery is done (again if under less then emergent circumstances), ALL SURGERY AND INVASIVE MEDICAL PROCEDURES, elective or not requires that the patient give informed consent, ALL SURGERY AND INVASIVE MEDICAL PROCEDURES (except for abortion) already requires mandatory informing.

I've always been sort of puzzled by men who get emotional over the abortion issue. Women have much more of a vested interest. It ought to be predominantly a female issue.

Whatever your position on abortion, that reply would be just as apt if the issue were infanticide - which is to say that it is totally meaningless.

Homicide (whether "legal/justified" or not) is not a mans or womans issue, it is an issue for all people, now if you wouldn't mind responding to points and questions above your post, thank you.

I'm also not a bank owner, so why should I care if a bank is robbed?  Heck, rape is predominantly an issue with women, but I'm not a woman, so why should I give a damn about rape?

See how logical your statement is?

See the first line in my signature.  It works.  Your argument fails VERY easily.

Why is it that we expect people to be responsible for their actions, whether it's driving while drunk and crashing, making a bad financial decision, having a negligent discharge, or stubbing your toe, but when it comes to the greatest, most sacred responsibility - that of the care for a helpless, precious child that we brought into the world - it all depends on the convenience of the mother?  How have we become so twisted and backwards that we accept this without question, and even fight for it?

Your premises are incorrect and you expose no irony. Apart from rape victims, no one is ever forced to give birth. As a factual matter, many and probably most abortions are based not on any actual inability to support a child, but on a perceived inability to support a child and simultaneously support the mode of living preferred by the woman. Prohibiting abortion would not impose on any woman an obligation to support children; chastity, adoption and commitment to the State are always available options. Finally (and admittedly offensively), only a jackass could actually believe that influencing a pregnant woman to have a baby is wrong. That statement pushes back the frontiers of stupidity.

There are only two real issues. First, at what point if any does the thing conceived have interests that outweigh a woman's autonomy on the question of whether to give birth? Second, at what point must the woman's choice be made?

To determine that the thing conceived is a human being from the moment of conception answers neither question, although it may inform both. While some people come close, few hold that there is any point at which the interests of the thing conceived are entitled to no more weight than the interests of a tumor or parasite. The question of the weight to be given the interests of the thing conceived is less than fully rational in character, in the sense that if voluntary abortion is admitted as lawful possibility there is no incontrovertible fact that inarguably determines the point at which it categorically overwhelms the wishes of the woman. Viability comes very close; it is hard to argue that a woman has a right to put a viable fetus removed from her womb into a trash can instead of an incubator, or to have the fetus removed in a destructive manner if a nondestructive means of removal is available. I do not think that the question is really answerable because it seems to me that the only useful fact available in such a balancing analysis is that the inconveniences and risks of pregnancy decrease (at least in duration) on a track with the child's development and growing chance of viability.

As to the second question, I think it is reasonable and useful to consider that even if a man has vasectomy, wears a condom, and engages in sexual intercourse only with women who are over fifty and using birth control pills, he loses his right to decide whether to become a father at the moment of penetration. His decision to engage in sex is a decision to have a child, in the same way that a decision to shoot a gun into a crowd is a decision to shoot someone. Not only his precautions but his needs, hopes, plans, and personal autonomy are all irrelevant. This means that there is no fundamental right to decide whether to become a parent which is of sufficient dignity to survive the instant of conception. If there were a fundamental right of this nature, men as well as women would enjoy it. The only difference between men and women in this regard is the fact of gestation, which is a natural, normal, and non-pathological  part of human life. The ability to terminate pregnancy is a matter of technological development; the legal right to do so is of recent vintage and fabricated constitutional origin.  

It is appropriate that a man's personal and financial freedom are for a period of more than 18 years (a father is liable for costs of confinement as well as child support) and perhaps much more (if a child is never capable of emancipation) utterly extinguished by the act of sexual congress without regard to his intentions and desires. I find it hard to see that a woman is entitled to greater liberty.

Yeap thread is a real game changer!

What did Casey Anthony do exactly?

With so many kids waiting for families, how can you honestly think that every fetus aborted would find a loving home?

Most of those "thing conceived" are never given any consideration whatsoever.  Now, if the thing conceived is a human, then it may be morally wrong that they never get any consideration, but it is very practical.

Practicality seems to trump morality in this case.

Kill her daughter

Nice revive on the thread

They don't have to keep the baby they can give the baby up for adoption. There are a lot of choises that are provided for women to not have abortions anymore kill a child is wrong even though it hasn't been born it's still a living human being. Some women have been using abortions as a form of birth control and they don't have to face what they have done. It's wrong. I think abortion should be illegal.

Hmmm, agnostic here and I'm against abortion on the grounds that it's murdering an innocent life.  

Didn't know only religious people were allowed to believe murder is wrong

Only because the baby does indeed grow inside a woman. Because I have a dick I can't tell someone not to kill someone else?

Texas's law is on hold as well at the moment, they are saying requiring a sonogram is unconstitutional.


––––


I have several friends who have tried to adopt - honestly those who ask how many kids have you adopted have obviously never tried to adopt one themselves.  I think my friends had to wait something like 3 years, only to be told that it would be much longer and they should just foster (often foster parents get custody).  I do not recall perfectly if they were allowed to keep their first foster (which they fostered a year), they did get to keep their second, till the crack mom wanted custody back after she got out of prison.  (She had signed away custody, so after a court battle they actually were allowed to adopt).  I think their adoption of a minority crack baby took them over 5 years and over 20k.  They are currently fostering their 3rd with hopes to adopt (iirc).





I know of several others who have adopted - both of them adopted down's syndrome children as non-special needs kids were non-existent at the time.



––-

for the record - I have refused to adopt 2 kids.  I treat them as my own, but their bio-dad is still a living and breathing organic - I refuse to take his contribution to the human race away from him.  Who knows, my wife and I may adopt children in the future (she is in favor of it).



 

I am not trying to totally stir up shit but we if there was a bonus at planned parenthood that if you got an abortion we would give you a stimulus check BUT in return you had to have your tubes tied.   That would cut out the multi abortion birth control.  Drop welfare and medical costs.