Abortion

right on man, right on. I share these beliefs.

 

Bit late, I missed all the fun, but...

Has anyone actually seen a late term abortion? Labour must be induced, since the baby (I used the term baby since now it fully resembles an infant) is nearly full size. The doctor then proceeds to jam a pair of scissors, or in some other way, severs the baby's carotid artery. In many cases, the baby is even known to start attempting (and failing) to cry, fully conscious, as it bleeds to death.

If the baby is particularly large, then instead of fully birthing it, they will perform what's known as a "Partial birth abortion" since birthing the child fully, will be 'too unpleasant for the mother" :



Then the baby is subsequently removed to the mother's delight.

If you ask me, the guy deserved worse than being gunned down. He deserved a long life during which he recants, and has to live with hundreds or thousands of murders on his conscience.

Now the guy's a hero...way to go guy who shot him.

 

@_@_@_@ You is no hero for taking someone's life Mike. That's cruel & a sinful act to do that. I really don't like what you put down about that late abortion thing about what happens to the baby.

 

No, I'm saying the abortion doctor is now a hero...not the man who shot him. Hence my point is, the doctor deserved worse than to be shot (as I described above).

Also here's a fun fact: Speaking of recanting and living in misery, did you know the infamous Roe from the Roe vs. Wade case that legalized abortion in the first place, has now become very religious, and a pro-life activist? I'm not sure whether or not to trust her words, but she wrote a book describing how the court case was a complete sham (and how she was not a rape victim, and was impregnated via artificial insemination). The question is, did she lie then, or is she lying to us now?

Bet she feels like crap.

 

Please, Brandon, start using "Are".

And that's just plain confoozling. She was lying/is lying? Gah! I'm saying she's lying now.

 

You guys know that women don't just get late term abortions because they feel like it, right?

Who am I kidding, of course you don't.

 

Take your red herrings elsewhere.

 

Your guise doesn't work when it's made of silk.

 

I'm confused by the off-colour response. Particularly since some clothes are indeed made of silk, so on a strictly superficial level, it leaves me going

Red herring

Similar to ignoratio elenchi, a red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. A red herring is criticised as a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument.

 

I do not see how in any way I was changing the subject.

From what I've seen you're all under the impression that these women getting late term abortions do it willy-nilly.

 

You are changing the subject because there is an issue that's been presented.

"Late term abortion is gorey"
"Well, women get it done for valid reasons"

Textbook example of a red herring fallacy. It does not address the previous remark, and instead brings up a different argument.


An no, from what you've seen, I'm against the gorey nature of a late term abortion. But now I do indeed know that you've read my post, so you've seen the issue and understand exactly what you're dodging.

 

I'm not addressing "gorey". I'm addressing this thread in general. Being that most if not all of you treat these abortions as unnecessary.

But on that point, why does the "gore" matter? Better that what would come afterwards with babies born with tumors and other lethal extras, and without organs and limbs.

 

EDIT: I understand that you wouldn't want to read all 1250 odd posts...but when joining a topic of discussion, you really should read the last page or two to see what is currently being addressed. Otherwise, you shouldn't be disappointed when someone calls you on changing the subject, as I have done.

Just to throw in a brief note about the gore...it certainly does matter. It's like the difference between the death penalty being administered via lethal injection, or via impalement. One is far more unpleasant...and this sort of discussion is at the heart of the death penalty debate. But nevermind this, let's address what (I think) you're suggesting here.

First, let me make sure I grasp the full argument. You're suggesting that it's a service to the child, because it would be born with a defect of some kind? (It's also important to note that such a noble reason is not the only one to get a late term abortion, but for the purposes of discussion, I'll give that to you) Again, let me know if I'm off the mark.

This is merely deciding the child will be better off because it does not meet some standard of normacy. It's missing an arm? So are millions of people worldwide. Missing a liver? So are many siamese twins, who only have one for the pair of them.

Now we must ask ourselves...where do we draw the line?

What is to stop me from saying "I got a late term abortion because my baby had red hair and brown eyes...they would have been picked on in school." ? Again, they don't live up to some standard of normacy the parents are willing to accept...so what is the difference?

And if you're going to suggest that red hair and brown eyes are not a life threatening ailment, so it differs from a baby being born with say, AIDS...tell that to Hitler, who killed tons of people for that very reason (infact, that's why I chose that example). Something as silly as one's eye colour can be life threatening.

 

that doesn't mean they dont have the right to live.

 

Apologies folk for my sporadic appearances in these threads, blame it on the past 6 weeks or so of exams.

I was under the impression that the argument at the centre of the Death Penalty debate was should it exist at all? Is the killing of another human ever morally justifiable?

I think that's taking it to a bit of an extreme to justify your point. Red Hair and Brown eyes are hardly generally accepted as crippling illnesses. There's also the big difference there between the possibility of human persecution and the certainty of natural destruction that AIDS would entail. A mother has the power to kill her baby regardless for whatever reason she may choose. Should it be a flimsy or just plain flippant reason then it is a problem with the mother, not the procedure.

Also Mythril that is verging on the arguments for/against euthanasia. If I child is going to be born into the world only to know pain and suffering from say a tumour or AIDS, for a short while before it dies - would it not be kinder to spare it the torment?

 

There are many issues at the heart of any debate...and the one for Capital Punishment is no exception.

The ultimate question, as with abortion, is as you say, should it happen at all? Then you have people saying yes, and people saying no. This is when the issues come into play.

For the Death Penalty, many people are for the death penalty, but subject to the means of execution. A good chunk of the people who are pro-death penalty would like the execution to be relatively painless, or relatively painful...there really aren't a lot of people who say "I want the death penalty, and don't care about how it's done."

And then of course, there are those who oppose it in all forms. But this does not mean the means of execution is not at the heart of the debate...quite the contrary.

Yeah, it's called Reduction ad Absurdum...a valid technique, and not a logical fallacy:

Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's a problem with the mother, definitely. I'm simply saying the gorey nature of the late term abortion is inhumane. Why not give birth and then throw the baby head-first into a wall? Why not plop the kid into a vat of boiling oil?

See? It is important.

The problem however, arises when you consider abortion, in its 'best case scenario' as a form of Euthanasia. I mean, there are certainly (in my opinion most) cases in which abortions are done for selfish reasons. The argument here, is that the actions of a few should not restrict the decisions of those making 'reasoned decisions.'

So let's assume it is kind...and that Abortion is a subset of Euthanasia. You are 'killing it out of love' to prevent suffering.

But see here's the thing...in many places, Euthanasia is illegal while Abortion is legal. Certainly the case 'close to home' in North America.

So the Euthanasia argument, though logically valid in its own right, is certainly not being practiced in the real world, and in the courtroom.

 

I'm not sure if it's against the rules to post on a thread this old but I wanted to say this:

I've seen the 3-D scans of when my cousin was pregnant from the time that most abortions are performed and I can honestly say that most of what pro-choice people believe is a lie. First of all the baby is not a part of the mother's body and is not just cell tissue. Why? Because if it was not for the womb, the body would see the baby as an invader and would try to reject it. So if the body does not recognize the baby as part of the mother's body then it proves the baby is it's own seperate being.

Also, Roe vs Wade was a case built on false facts. It was a case decided on political activism from the left wing radicals.

I have even spoken to a former abortion doctor who has told me that abortion really is termination of life. He said the baby was not part of the womans body and that when he removed the baby from it's mother in the abortion, he could tell it was not a single celled organism and that it was way different from what abortion activist would have you believe. After only a couple of months of becoming an abortion doctor, he quite his job saying "He could'nt continue doing what he was doing knowing it was murder". This man was an aitheist by the way at the time he worked as an abortion doctor and at the time he left his job. It was months later though he became a christian though the thought of what he did during those two months he says "Still haunt him to this day".

This is something for all pro-choice people to consider and to recognize.

 

R I G H T O N ! !

 

The baby is attach to the mother via cord. If the mother hurt herself, i.e. alcohol, drugs, then it will hurt the baby. So in somewhat the baby is attach to the mother.

 

But Yukou the body itself does not recognize the baby as part of the body and would reject it if it was not for the womb. If the body does'nt see the baby as part of the mother's body then it's a seperate being from the mother.

Funny how you also ignored all the other stuff I said in my post.