Abortion.

[Esper]

I really don't think a bunch of loons who dress up like Benjamin Franklin are going to hold that much weight in the general election. Their stupidity is just amplified due to the age of the 24-hour news cycle we live it. It's like the sect of the Republican party who pledge to never ever raise circumstances under any circumstances ever... even though Reagan did, many times over. It is just illogical.

These aren't the same funny people on the streets. Many of that politician's Republican co-legislators are part of that group that got elected in 2010, the so-called tea party Republicans. The bigger picture for this is that all his buddies were okay with having a law that would have allowed the very thing that this thread brought up. Even after he objected and abstained from voting. To me that speaks of a real lack of concern over the effects their law would have beyond their narrow goal of stopping as many abortions as possible.

 

[Livewire]

Oh I wasn't misreading. I'm not arguing that it's a good thing by any means, just that it seems misleading to claim that the death was at the hands of the bill. The death was at the hands of the medical condition that caused the inability of the fetus to survive.

No bill = no dead baby. Dead fetus =/= dead, born child. While the fetus would have eventually died in utero, the bill forced the parents to carry the baby for 3 more weeks to be born and die a cruel and painful death.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

No bill = no dead baby. Dead fetus =/= dead, born child. While the fetus would have eventually died in utero, the bill forced the parents to carry the baby for 3 more weeks to be born and die a cruel and painful death.

Three weeks? I thought it said eight days.

 

[Livewire]

Three weeks? I thought it said eight days.

IIRC The mothers water broke at 20 weeks, and at week 23 the now born baby died. The article on yahoo said 3 weeks after, I believe.

 

[Oryx]

The point of getting married in the Catholic faith is to procreate, which homosexuals can't do. The problem isn't so much the Church but the lawmakers who for some reason can't differentiate between legal marriage and religious marriage. I'm Catholic and don't agree with the Church's stance, but since the intent is that you have kids it makes sense that they can't get married within the Church as they wouldn't be able to properly fulfill that sacrament. It isn't because they're gay, it is because they cannot fulfill the sacrament. The same way a Jewish couple can't get married in a Catholic Church. What doesn't make sense is why they can't legally get married outside of the Church. So, politics fault - not the Church.

Except for the part where the Church is fine with women and men that can't have children for whatever reason marrying. By their logic, those people should never marry either, but there's no doctrine denying them marriage rights. So the problem does lie within the Church; Catholicism is huge in America. If the Church changed its view on gay marriage, chances are that all the Catholics that disagreed because of God will convert because the Pope is their highest power. At least some would, some others might just change religion to keep the discrimination alive though.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Except for the part where the Church is fine with women and men that can't have children for whatever reason marrying. By their logic, those people should never marry either, but there's no doctrine denying them marriage rights. So the problem does lie within the Church; Catholicism is huge in America. If the Church changed its view on gay marriage, chances are that all the Catholics that disagreed because of God will convert because the Pope is their highest power. At least some would, some others might just change religion to keep the discrimination alive though.

That is why I said I don't agree with their stance. It is hypocritical.

I live in Canada. We have a large Catholic population because of our French heritage. We even have publicly funded Catholic schools. But, legally gays can marry here. They still can't in the Church though for the reasons I outlined.

So, I still maintain that the problem is politics and not the faith. The Church doesn't write the laws and there is supposed to be a separation between church and state. Blame the lawmakers.

 

[jpp8]

I will blame the lawmaker's faith. Most of their positions on politics stems from such. And the church backs those positions more times than not.

In any case, getting back on track, this incident only served to solidify my stance on abortions. It should be available whenever, wherever. Most of the time, these late-term abortions are on wanted children, so instead of creating "medical exceptions" and having stuff like this happen, just forget the exceptions and make sure that all abortions are safe and legal regardless of what time they take place. Why create so many rules and exceptions to keep a broken system viable when there's another system that's much more viable and simple?

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Why create so many rules and exceptions to keep a broken system viable when there's another system that's much more viable and simple?

I would assume its because, generally speaking, governments don't want to reduce birth rates.

Again, I bring up France as an example. Unlike what happened in this case, if a medical professional recommends an abortion after the cut-off point then it is permitted.

The problem in this case is that no consideration or, more importantly, common sense was applied.

 

[Sydian]

I personally would rather not have my child die by it being sucked out, burned, or whatever abortion method is used. If I'm going to have a child that is not going to make it, I would rather not have him or her die like that. It's unfair to my child. I would rather hold my baby at least once before he or she dies, so that they know how loved they were and always will be. And by the way, my fetus = my baby, my child. Fetus is scientific. Science isn't in me. It's a baby.

I'm not saying this woman didn't love her baby, but this is just my two cents, and what I would personally choose to do. It's a more difficult route to actually choose to give birth to a child that has no chance of surviving and letting it die in your arms yes, but either aborting it or the former, it's still hard. You're never going to forget it, no matter what you choose.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Science isn't in me.

What does that mean? Science isn't in you? You are based in science. Or biology at any rate.

 

[Sydian]

What does that mean? Science isn't in you? You are based in science. Or biology at any rate.

It's metaphorical. I meant, in my point of view, I don't have some scientific blob of cells in me if I were pregnant. It's a baby.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

It's metaphorical. I meant, in my point of view, I don't have some scientific blob of cells in me if I were pregnant. It's a baby.

Oh, okay. I get that.

"I'm going to have a baby" has a nicer ring to it than "I'm going to have a clump of cells"

I'd like to say I see it as a baby. Particularly once it hits 10 weeks and starts looking human-ish. Prior to that, I know that is more like a "blob of cells", but I'd still refer to it as a baby.

 

[aspie3000]

(Face palms)... Alright, okay you've forced me to do it. I'm not going to argue with any of you because quite frankly what you believe is horrible beyond words. Abortion is the murder of a human being. END OF STORY! My religion, nor my politics have anything to do with it. It's just common sense. Who is a mere human to play God and decide that a child doesn't have the right to live? Even if you don't believe in God and they aren't technically alive yet? Who are you to decide that they don't have the right live in the future? I don't care if you've been raped. Taking it out on the child for the action of one evil man and killing it makes you worse than the rapist. Why incest is a reason for murder is also beyond me. You slept with your cousin, deal with it. What, they might come out deformed? Should we just kill already living deformed and mentally challenged people? Now, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that I oppose an abortion being performed in this case. Well, this is one of the two cases where I believe it's okay. It's the lesser of two evils but it's okay. The two cases where abortion is justified are.

1.If both the mother and the baby will die if the mother carries it to term. It's better to save one than lose both.

2.If the baby by being born will suffer a horrible death.

That's it! These are the only times abortion is okay. Other than that abortion is the equivalent of a neo holocaust, should be considered murder and punished as such. And what really boils my blood, and I mean REALLY boils it! Is when people try to cover up FREAKEN MURDER AS WOMEN"S RIGHTS!!! Are liberals seriously that freaking STUPID! What about the rights of the child? If you're so big on equality then why have you decided that the born are more important than the unborn? It's sick, and mark my words; one day in the far future humanity is going to look back on this like they look back on slavery and the holocaust.

That's all I have to say, and that's all I'm going to say. Good bye.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Even if you don't believe in God and they aren't technically alive yet? Who are you to decide that they don't have the right live in the future?

To play devil's advocate, I think being anti-abortion could be seen as an atheist position in that it violates human rights. Or at least it would if they're considered a human at the time.

Out of curiosity, how come you can get double homicide if you murder a pregnant woman even if the baby's not legally a living human?

By the way, should we merge this thread with the other abortion thread?

 

[Livewire]

(Face palms)... Alright, okay you've forced me to do it. I'm not going to argue with any of you because quite frankly what you believe is horrible beyond words. Abortion is the murder of a human being. END OF STORY! My religion, nor my politics have anything to do with it. It's just common sense. Who is a mere human to play God and decide that a child doesn't have the right to live? Even if you don't believe in God and they aren't technically alive yet? Who are you to decide that they don't have the right live in the future? I don't care if you've been raped. Taking it out on the child for the action of one evil man and killing it makes you worse than the rapist. Why incest is a reason for murder is also beyond me. You slept with your cousin, deal with it. What, they might come out deformed? Should we just kill already living deformed and mentally challenged people? Now, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that I oppose an abortion being performed in this case. Well, this is one of the two cases where I believe it's okay. It's the lesser of two evils but it's okay. The two cases where abortion is justified are.



That's it! These are the only times abortion is okay. Other than that abortion is the equivalent of a neo holocaust, should be considered murder and punished as such. And what really boils my blood, and I mean REALLY boils it! Is when people try to cover up FREAKEN MURDER AS WOMEN"S RIGHTS!!! Are liberals seriously that freaking STUPID! What about the rights of the child? If you're so big on equality then why have you decided that the born are more important than the unborn? It's sick, and mark my words; one day in the far future humanity is going to look back on this like they look back on slavery and the holocaust.

That's all I have to say, and that's all I'm going to say. Good bye.

The baby that was born suffered a horrible death because in part of the bill. So that essentially nulls your post's point.

 

[jpp8]

I personally would rather not have my child die by it being sucked out, burned, or whatever abortion method is used. If I'm going to have a child that is not going to make it, I would rather not have him or her die like that. It's unfair to my child. I would rather hold my baby at least once before he or she dies, so that they know how loved they were and always will be. And by the way, my fetus = my baby, my child. Fetus is scientific. Science isn't in me. It's a baby.

I'm not saying this woman didn't love her baby, but this is just my two cents, and what I would personally choose to do. It's a more difficult route to actually choose to give birth to a child that has no chance of surviving and letting it die in your arms yes, but either aborting it or the former, it's still hard. You're never going to forget it, no matter what you choose.

Keyword here is "I". That's what you would do in her position, and that's good for you! It's your choice what you would do regarding your baby! Your CHOICE. However, just because you would feel and act a certain way about it doesn't mean that others should be forced to do the same by law. Just saying. In this case, the baby was wanted and it was very tragic that these circumstances happened. The mother's choice to want to prevent her baby from dying in this way was disregarded due to this law and she resulting in her holding a dying baby in her arms which must have been extremely painful for her. She was never going to forget it either way, probably, but the right to choose what she felt was a less painful choice was denied to her because of the ever increasing list of restrictions on abortion.


Also, anyone who blames the pregnant person for getting pregnant or in any other way tries to victimize them is essentially reducing the status of what was once a human being as well to a mere incubator. I really can't believe that someone holds human life precious when they make light of rape, women's bodies in general, or the holocaust survivors by comparing abortion to such. "Pro-life" except when it has already been born.

 

[aspie3000]

The baby that was born suffered a horrible death because in part of the bill. So that essentially nulls your post's point.

No it doesn't. There was a duel point here. The first was that abortion is horrible, and the second was that this is one of the only cases where it was the lesser of two evils.

 

[Nihilego]

Reading the article, I noticed this:

The new law is based on research that shows that babies past 20 weeks' gestation can feel pain because their nerves are developed enough.

From the look of some posts in this thread, it seems that not everyone understands that this bill doesn't ban all abortion; all it does is make it more humane by only allowing it to be done at a point before we believe the baby can feel pain. And as against abortion on the whole as I am, I'm more comfortable with it being done at a point where the baby can't feel pain than at a point where it, if left late enough, can. Although this is extremely upsetting for the Deaver family, outside of very unusual cases such as this, I can't see how this law is a bad thing. According to what we think we know, it's making the abortion painless for the baby. That's got to be a positive thing.

Deaver thinks that it doesn't take into account unusual and heart-wrenching situations like her own.

Nope, it doesn't. Very few laws are flexible enough to make exceptions for individual cases such as this one. As much as I hate the law interfering in situations such as this, giving the abortion would have been illegal and the law can't just be ignored for individuals, unfortunately.

 

[CrazyMrHans]

I personally would rather not have my child die by it being sucked out, burned, or whatever abortion method is used. If I'm going to have a child that is not going to make it, I would rather not have him or her die like that...

And that's your opinion, and power to you to do what you want, but it doesn't mean that laws like this should exist. I think that a woman's right should be considered in such a circumstance, and that the choice of her, or any medical professional's opinion should be respected. And I believe that we should go by what literally everybody accepts as the beginning of life (birth), rather than trying to debate whether or not it begins prenatally.

(Face palms)... Alright, okay you've forced me to do it. [stupid opinionated rant]

Your opinion is not fact, do not argue it as such. Furthermore, how ****ing dare you. How dare you say that a woman should have to carry the child of the man that raped her. Why don't you go move to some ass-backwards non-secular country where she'd probably have to marry him as well? Also did you compare abortion to the holocaust? Were you dropped on your head as a child? Do you have any idea of the kind of trauma rape victims suffer? Do you have ANY idea what actually happened in the holocaust?

Now, I could write thousands of ad-hominems, and question your integrity all day. But let's think about this, in your ideal world where abortion is illegal, what should be done with women who have illegal abortions?

 

[Nihilego]

Ok there's quite a lot of general abortion discussion itt now. I'm gonna merge this with the other abortion thread.