Abortion Unfiltered

stakey

Zulu wrote: »

Well according to a study I read yesterday, the brain isn't fully developed until we are 18/19/20. So your premise about brain development isn't exactly bulletproof.

The discussion about brain development isn't some slight nod to brain mass or overall development. The discussion that has taken place is around brain development leading to conscious thoughts, feelings, memories, and voluntary actions or what we would call a personality.

Within the last three months of foetal development these characteristics are come into place. Before that the brain acts simply as a switching station sending messages around the body to make sure certain organs are working/developing. That I wouldn't call consciousness.

Zulu

stakey wrote: »

Before that the brain acts simply as a switching station sending messages around the body to make sure certain organs are working/developing. That I wouldn't call consciousness.

Well I'd argue that the brain, throughout a persons existence, acts as a switching station.
Electrical pulse here, electrical pulse there.
I wouldn't call that consciousness, yet, it is.

stakey

Zulu wrote: »

Well I'd argue that the brain, throughout a persons existence, acts as a switching station.
Electrical pulse here, electrical pulse there.
I wouldn't call that consciousness, yet, it is.

Right, i'm no neuro surgeon or anything but I believe the brain does more than just switching. It stores a huge amount of information, controls our vision, controls our ability to understand language, controls our ability to modify our environment and to feel emotions.

Also, the brain is made up of many smaller sections that control these behaviours such as the celebral cortex (for memories, thoughts) or the left temporal lobe (language). None of which adequately develop to even after birth. However, our development cycle deems them ready enough at 9 months.

To claim they are ready and defining our persona's at 12 weeks is poposterous.

Zulu

stakey wrote: »

Right, i'm no neuro surgeon or anything but I believe the brain does more than just switching. It stores a huge amount of information, controls our vision, controls our ability to understand language, controls our ability to modify our environment and to feel emotions.

And how does it do this? Ultimately, the brain is a lot of cells passing an electronic pulse between each other.

Also, the brain is made up of many smaller sections that control these behaviours such as the celebral cortex (for memories, thoughts) or the left temporal lobe (language). None of which adequately develop to even after birth. However, our development cycle deems them ready enough at 9 months.

...but they are undeveloped.

To claim they are ready and defining our persona's at 12 weeks is poposterous.

Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. I'm not making that claim.

eveie

"Development of the brain etc.......... Try read the thread instead of asking questions already covered." quote vigil



i have read the thread i have yet to see my question being answered. who is going to define when a unborn child gets rights? as most of us are aware the vast majority of abortions are carried out on women with unplanned pregnancies, how is their conception date going to be precise? it could be out by a number of weeks, so therefore haveing a cut off point at (lets just say) 12 weeks is ridicilous as the unborn may be as old as 14 weeks

F.A.

eveie, comments like that make me wonder what you actually know about pregnancy. A gynaecologist can quite easily determine the age of the embryo or fetus by means of ultrasound and basic maths.

Ultravid

eveie wrote: »

"Development of the brain etc.......... Try read the thread instead of asking questions already covered." quote vigil



i have read the thread i have yet to see my question being answered. who is going to define when a unborn child gets rights? as most of us are aware the vast majority of abortions are carried out on women with unplanned pregnancies, how is their conception date going to be precise? it could be out by a number of weeks, so therefore haveing a cut off point at (lets just say) 12 weeks is ridicilous as the unborn may be as old as 14 weeks

It's entirely arbitrary. Let's look at what, for example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states about the right to life for human beings:

Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

—Article 6.1

F.A. wrote: »

eveie, comments like that make me wonder what you actually know about pregnancy. A gynaecologist can quite easily determine the age of the embryo or fetus by means of ultrasound and basic maths.

That is not really the crux of the issue. Eevie pointed out something which I have elucidated in this post. The issue is not biology, it is why do you think you can arbitrarily decide to end the life of another human being? Answer me that.

F.A.

Ultravid wrote: »

That is not really the crux of the issue. Eevie pointed out something which I have elucidated in this post. The issue is not biology, it is why do you think you can arbitrarily decide to end the life of another human being? Answer me that.

First of all, eveie claimed something which is simply not true, i.e., that you cannot know whether a fetus is 12 or 14 weeks old. I was correcting her on that, which I consider very important indeed as 12 weeks is the time limit to me.

As for why - with all due respect, I am not going to repeat this yet again just because you cannot be bothered to follow your own thread. Hint: it is not arbitrary.

carlybabe1

The issue is not biology,

If its not biology, then what is it??? Biology by definition is the study of life in all forms

it is why do you think you can arbitrarily decide to end the life of another human being? Answer me that.

It is not another human being, its a POTENTIAL human being, its statements like this that besides being inflammatory, lead me to conclude that most anti- abortion (choice imo) people avent a clue as to how thier food gets digested, never mind pregnacy. The most they know is,
man+woman have sex=pregnant
fetus grows in womans body till its able to cope with big bad world and all us evil people who would have murdered it given half a chance
baby is born looking no different to what it would have when it was conceived.

If anyone can give me proof that any biologist/gynacologist will publicly state that a fetus should be given rights before twenty weeks, then post it.
and I DO NOT mean "quotes" from fanatic anti-abortion sites that frequently misquote anything a health professional might have said,
I mean proof

bquinn

carlybabe1 wrote: »

If its not biology, then what is it??? Biology by definition is the study of life in all forms



It is not another human being, its a POTENTIAL human being, its statements like this that besides being inflammatory, lead me to conclude that most anti- abortion (choice imo) people avent a clue as to how thier food gets digested, never mind pregnacy. The most they know is,
man+woman have sex=pregnant
fetus grows in womans body till its able to cope with big bad world and all us evil people who would have murdered it given half a chance
baby is born looking no different to what it would have when it was conceived.

If anyone can give me proof that any biologist/gynacologist will publicly state that a fetus should be given rights before twenty weeks, then post it.
and I DO NOT mean "quotes" from fanatic anti-abortion sites that frequently misquote anything a health professional might have said,
I mean proof

All the other ones who call themselves pro-choice say we don't have to adddress this issue, as they all know it's human life. Then you keep going back to asking for proof that's it's human life. Human being = an organism that is human (Homo Sapiens); when egg + sperm = new organism (BIO 101) If new organism is of the species Homo Sapiens, then Human Being

I really do not believe you've even taken elementary school science, let alone claim to have taken college biology. Ask your professor to define human being to you!!!! At least most of the other arguments are not totally against science. Go back and look at the pictures. Is it a dog, oh must be pond scum.

bquinn

bquinn wrote: »

Same baby smiling, then sleeping. It's sad when you don't even believe your own eyes.

Carlybabe calls this pond scum, a one year old can see it's a baby human.

carlybabe1

bquinn wrote: »

Carlybabe calls this pond scum, a one year old can see it's a baby human.

Seriously, if ye misquote me like that again Ill report you, how Dare you, and you claim to be a biology proffessor, we'll Im calling you a liar. For starters, if you had any academic training whatsoever, you would kbnow how to form a rational argument. Proffessor for 22 yrs my ass. And that is NOT a sonograph, its digitally enhanced.In the words of me 9 yr old, DUH any woman who has ever has a scan/ultrasound/sonograph would know that looking at this picture.

bquinn

carlybabe1 wrote: »

that is NOT a sonograph, its digitally enhanced.In the words of me 9 yr old, DUH any woman who has ever has a scan/ultrasound/sonograph would know that looking at this picture.

It's new technology called 4-D ultrasound. It gives a 3 dimensional image instead of 2 dimensional images. It's used to do surgery on pre-born children, as well as surgeries on heart... Go to search engine and type in 4-D ultrasound. You'll see it's for real

Phototoxin

It is not another human being, its a POTENTIAL human being, its statements like this that besides being inflammatory, lead me to conclude that most anti- abortion (choice imo) people avent a clue as to how thier food gets digested, never mind pregnacy. The most they know is,
man+woman have sex=pregnant

I'm diabetic, i bet i know more about my body rythm than you. Also if you do some research you'll find that countries with low abortion rates have better maternity care. Ireland included despite our sh*tty general health service !

I'm a potential serial killer, should I be killed ? I'm a potential anything (short of mother or nun) at this point really.. so am I not anything because I have potential ? It must be something to have potential. It is not a potential human, it is a human wiht a potential full life

If anyone can give me proof that any biologist/gynacologist will publicly state that a fetus should be given rights before twenty weeks, then post it.
and I DO NOT mean "quotes" from fanatic anti-abortion sites that frequently misquote anything a health professional might have said,
I mean proof

proof is supplied by evidence.. human rights articles state the right to life, we've established that a fetus is alive, if even on the cellular level, however there is nothing concrete that defines it as human and nothing to refute it. Also you'll find that both 'sides' will quote things out of context occassionally.


I dont think he called it a sonograph, however it is ultrasound imaging, here's a link that might help you understand :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4D_Ultrasound

Also if by 'digitally enhanced' you mean 'sound waves processed in a computer to make a visible picture ' then yes you are right, no computer = no picture. That siad you might as well not watch tv as its 'digitally enhanced' too. Also try telling the photography forum people that their images dont count as they aren't 'real'...

When you get an MRI dont forget to mention that you wont accept it as the image of the hydrogen molecules flipping (as it were) has been captured and enchanched to make it visible to the doctor..

carlybabe you obviously dont know as much about medical imaging as you try to imply to so give it a rest

carlybabe1

Phototoxin wrote: »

I'm diabetic, i bet i know more about my body rythm than you.

really

Also if you do some research you'll find that countries with low abortion rates have better maternity care. Ireland included despite our sh*tty general health service !

Are you sure its maternity care and not social welfare that makes the difference???

Also if by 'digitally enhanced' you mean 'sound waves processed in a computer to make a visible picture ' then yes you are right, no computer = no picture. That siad you might as well not watch tv as its 'digitally enhanced' too. Also try telling the photography forum people that their images dont count as they aren't 'real'...

What has this got to do with what I stated Please stop trying to muddy the waters, anyone that reads my post will understand what I meant

When you get an MRI dont forget to mention that you wont accept it as the image of the hydrogen molecules flipping (as it were) has been captured and enchanched to make it visible to the doctor..

How long did it take you to google this??And also, see above

carlybabe you obviously dont know as much about medical imaging as you try to imply to so give it a rest

obviously you dont know as much about gestation as you try to imply, but heres the crucial difference between us, at no stage did I say I was an expert. And fobbing off the question with mumblings of human rights charters is not proof that a fetus at sixteen wks is a baby, so I say again, PROVE IT

carlybabe1

Also, it amazes me that anti-choicers can just pick things out that suits them. What you didnt state bquin was that image is of a FETUS AT 30 WKS. So who here has advocated abortion so far along???? oh wait thats right, NO-ONE

bquinn

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Also, it amazes me that anti-choicers can just pick things out that suits them. What you didnt state bquin was that image is of a FETUS AT 30 WKS. So who here has advocated abortion so far along???? oh wait thats right, NO-ONE

[URL="javascript: picGalleryChangeDisplay(9)"][/URL]
9 of 10
Foetuses as young as 11 weeks have been seen with their thumbs in their mouths. This baby started out sucking his smallest toes and gradually moves on to suck a bigger and better toe.

same link as before

Phototoxin

How long did it take you to google this??And also, see above

0 seconds because I have actually studied this in my degree. Your fobbing off the proof you ask for saying that its digitally altered when software is required to actually translate the scan from sound wave to image. The fact that you didn't know about the 3d scan speaks loads.

karen3212

Ultravid wrote: »

Good questions Zulu. Looking forward to the responses.

Interestingly, you only get pregnant if you have sexual intercourse. If you don't want to be pregnant, refrain from sexual intercourse. Because that is, actually, it's primary purpose: the creation of new human life.

I find this interesting, ''the primary purpose of sexual intercourse is the creation of new human life''.
Would you agree that there are secondary, tertiary etc purposes to sexual intercourse? If yes, do you know what they are and what are the consequences for a society that promotes repression of sexuality?

Not addressed to you:

Has nobody questioned why motor car insurance companies(in general) load the premiums of people under 25? I thought it was because the part of the brain that controls impulse is not fully developed until around then. (I'd say we can be sure that they have studied the matter.)

Ultravid

carlybabe1 wrote: »

It is not another human being, its a POTENTIAL human being,
If anyone can give me proof that any biologist/gynacologist will publicly state that a fetus should be given rights before twenty weeks, then post it.
and I DO NOT mean "quotes" from fanatic anti-abortion sites that frequently misquote anything a health professional might have said,
I mean proof

That is untrue. It (he/she) is a human being from the moment of conception. This is biological fact which you cannot dispute.

The onus is on you to prove why, and on what authority, you should be allowed to kill a human being.

Rights are not granted, they are inalienable, and I'm interested to hear how you think you have the 'right' to kill this human being. Of course there is no 'right' to kill the unborn.

Why would anyone would want to kill their unborn child? It's something I've never fully understood.

Ultravid

karen3212 wrote: »

I find this interesting, ''the primary purpose of sexual intercourse is the creation of new human life''.
Would you agree that there are secondary, tertiary etc purposes to sexual intercourse? If yes, do you know what they are and what are the consequences for a society that promotes repression of sexuality?

Not addressed to you:

Has nobody questioned why motor car insurance companies(in general) load the premiums of people under 25? I thought it was because the part of the brain that controls impulse is not fully developed until around then. (I'd say we can be sure that they have studied the matter.)

Procreation and union. WE need to be responsible with ourselves, and be masters of our body, not have our body be master of us. You've seen the results of the 'sexual revolution' - rocketing STDs, AIDS, 'unwanted' pregnancies, abortion, promiscuity, widespread sexual perversion etc... The list goes on, and all this misery the result of letting go of all those 'repressions' of previous times. Success story? I think not, but that's another thread entirely. It is not about 'repression' (Freud was proven wrong on that idea - another thread there too!), the issue is self-mastery, which is not unhealthy. Giving free reign to our every sexual whim is not freedom, it is enslavement, with disasterous consequences, including for the unborn child, who must be sacrificed at our altar of Lust, to our god, Moloch.

Phototoxin

It is not about 'repression' (Freud was proven wrong on that idea - another thread there too!), the issue is self-mastery, which is not unhealthy. Giving free reign to our every sexual whim is not freedom, it is enslavement, with disasterous consequences, including for the unborn child, who must be sacrificed at our altar of Lust, to our god, Moloch.

ok... that was... weird..

If you're getting religous Lust = Demon called Asmodai, and moloch was a demon who had first born babies sacrificed to him by throwing them into fires. I can see the Moloch connection but I somehow DONT think it makes a compelling argument ultravid :pac:

Has nobody questioned why motor car insurance companies(in general) load the premiums of people under 25

because they make sh*t loads of money that's why

if that were actually true then we'd get 24 year old murder-rapists off by saying 'oh well my brain isn't fully formed' and I cannot make rational decisions.

(Incidentally some pro-abortion people might categorise them as not human as they are not fully formed =p)

Sex is designed to get us pregnant... women are hornier when they are most fertile I WONDER WHY ?:eek:

Also women who have had abortions sometimes get pregnant more quickly as the body still wants to give birth but it hasn't. (I need to get my source for that one however so dont quote me just yet)

F.A.

Phototoxin wrote: »

Sex is designed to get us pregnant... women are hornier when they are most fertile I WONDER WHY ?:eek:

And yet another religious argument. Please realise that some of us do not share your belief in DESIGN. To us, sex is as little designed as anything else. Not at all, that is.

Nevyn

Oh great the deamon moloch bollix,
Yeah you are so right it's the worshipers and followers of the deamon who demands baby sacrifices who are pushing abortion for thier own evil ends....

Nevyn

bquinn wrote: »

Same baby smiling, then sleeping. It's sad when you don't even believe your own eyes.

The smile is an involuntary action, a smile as we know it as a form of expression and communication doesn't happen until a baby is born and several weeks old.

Nevyn

Ultravid wrote: »

Why would anyone would want to kill their unborn child? It's something I've never fully understood.

Because they do not which to continue the pregnancy or to give birth or to be a parent.

Not that hard to understand.

Ultravid

F.A. wrote: »

And yet another religious argument. Please realise that some of us do not share your belief in DESIGN. To us, sex is as little designed as anything else. Not at all, that is.

The human body is very much a designed creation. The sexual organs particularly so, the complementarity of the sexes is obvious. The male is designed for the female and the female is made for the male.

Nevyn

It's called evolution.

Still your God apprently gave us all free will and the intellect to reason and make choices.

Ultravid

Thaedydal wrote: »

Oh great the deamon moloch bollix,
Yeah you are so right it's the worshipers and followers of the deamon who demands baby sacrifices who are pushing abortion for thier own evil ends....

They are pushing for abortion to suit their own evil ends. Admit it, this is about sex. The pro-aborts want all the sex they can get, and then when the woman 'unfortunately' yet inevitably gets pregnant, then sure as hell they don't want a child and they are not prepared to let this 'parasite' spoil their sex life. So let's kill the child. Let's murder our unborn child. Then we can have more sex. Another child? Let's abort that one too. Then we can have more sex, a different women this time.

Please be honest with yourself and with me.

F.A.

Yeah, yeah, creationism, intelligent design, call it what you like. It is a belief of yours. Look up belief and you might realise that not everybody shares it. Ever heard of evolution? That's what I subscribe too, and it very plausibly denies the existance of any such thing as 'design' in biology.

Malari

Ultravid wrote: »

They are pushing for abortion to suit their own evil ends. Admit it, this is about sex. The pro-aborts want all the sex they can get, and then when the woman 'unfortunately' yet inevitably gets pregnant, then sure as hell they don't want a child and they are not prepared to let this 'parasite' spil their sex life. So let's kill the child. Let's murder our unborn child. Then we can have more sex. Another child? Let's abort that one too.

Please be honest with yourself and with me.

So you are saying sex is evil? And there is something wrong with wanting all the sex you can get, in and of itself, nothing to do with what the outcome of that is? Wow.

Ultravid

Malari wrote: »

So you are saying sex is evil? And there is something wrong with wanting all the sex you can get, in and of itself, nothing to do with what the outcome of that is? Wow.

Sex is not evil. Abuse of the sexual faculty is evil.

There is a lot wrong with pursuing sexual gratification AT ALL COSTS INCLUDING THE DEATH OF A HUMAN CHILD IF, DAMN IT, WE SAY IT IS NECESSARY.

- That is the attitude of the pro-abort lobby. They don't care what the outcome is. All they care about is their own sexual gratification. If it requires child sacrifice, so be it.

There is a lot wrong with the disordered pursuit of sexual pleasure. We have seen the fruits of that in our world. And it is not pretty. Amongst other horrors, over 40 million dead babies later, the Americans are still killing their unborn children.

Ultravid

F.A. wrote: »

Yeah, yeah, creationism, intelligent design, call it what you like. It is a belief of yours. Look up belief and you might realise that not everybody shares it. Ever heard of evolution? That's what I subscribe too, and it very plausibly denies the existance of any such thing as 'design' in biology.

It is wrong to murder human children in the womb. It is wrong to murder human beings in the womb.

This is what abortion does to unborn babies:

http://www.abortionno.org/

F.A.

Ultravid wrote: »

IN MY OPINION, it is wrong to murder human children in the womb. It is wrong to murder human beings in the womb.

This is what abortion does to unborn babies:

http://www.abortionno.org/

I took the liberty to correct that for you.

Malari

Ultravid wrote: »

It is wrong to murder human children in the womb. It is wrong to murder human beings in the womb.

This is what abortion does to unborn babies:

http://www.abortionno.org/

Can I ask why you are so vociferous onabortion, rather than any other percieved injustice in the world? Other suffering that no one disputes but likewise no-one is doing much about. Sorry if this is getting off topic but I really want to understand what it is that makes you so impassioned about this in particular?

Nevyn

Ultravid wrote: »

They are pushing for abortion to suit their own evil ends.

What evil ends ?

Ultravid wrote: »

Admit it, this is about sex.

Nope is it about control, women having control over their own bodies.

I have as much problem with enforced pregnancy then I do with enforced sterilisation such as this case.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/09/12/0912salazar.html

Friday, September 12, 2008

A judge in Travis County has ordered a woman to stop having children as a condition of her probation in her case of injury to a child by omission, an extraordinary measure that legal experts say could be unconstitutional.

The order was for Felicia Salazar, 20, who admitted to failing to provide protection and medical care to her then-19-month-old daughter last year. The girl suffered broken bones and other injuries when she was beaten by her father, Roberto Alvarado, 25, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Alvarado and Salazar relinquished their parental rights, and the child, who has recovered, was placed in foster care.

He beat her and the child and she gets told by a judge not to have any more children....

The plight of actual children concerns me more then proto children.

Ultravid wrote: »

The pro-aborts want all the sex they can get, and then when the woman 'unfortunately' yet inevitably gets pregnant,

Really cos we don't have contraception ?

Where do you stand on contraception and contraception and sex education ?
OR is that more agenda for pushing evil ?

Ultravid wrote: »

then sure as hell they don't want a child and they are not prepared to let this 'parasite' spoil their sex life. So let's kill the child. Let's murder our unborn child. Then we can have more sex. Another child? Let's abort that one too. Then we can have more sex, a different women this time.

I abhor abortion used as a method of contraception when there are better methods.

Ultravid wrote: »

Please be honest with yourself and with me.

I am, abortion has always happened and will do until we have better contraception and education about contraception.
Women decides to have an abortion due to their circumstances that she does not want to continue her pregnancy and bring a child into this world.

So why aren't the pro lifers working to change those circumstances ?

Where do you stand on the lack of protection and rights for children under the law currently ?

Phototoxin

Sex is designed to get us pregnant... women are hornier when they are most fertile I WONDER WHY ?
And yet another religious argument. Please realise that some of us do not share your belief in DESIGN. To us, sex is as little designed as anything else. Not at all, that is.

Its designed by evolution for a function. That is its evolutionary purpose. I pointed out earlier that I am not religous and I infact disagree with the religous slant raised earlier about sacrifices to mooloch or whatever, I thought the injection of it was a bit strange hence why I siad that it was weird so read the thing in context (something I wish EVERYONE would fricking do once in a while) rather than pounce on a juicy bit. I even pointed out that ultravids argument was superfulous :

I somehow DONT think it makes a compelling argument ultravid

Additionally just because religion is involved in some sides of the debate doenst mean that that side is defunct. However this is basically coming down to 'its a person when its conceived' to 'its a person if its concieved'

I took the liberty to correct that for you.

Actually FA you are wrong in this country it is legally wrong to murder kids in the womb. Anywhere else you'd be right but in ireland & NI its illegal thankfully.

Why are pro-abortion people so adamant that the unborn is not a person ?

bquinn

Thaedydal wrote: »

The smile is an involuntary action, a smile as we know it as a form of expression and communication doesn't happen until a baby is born and several weeks old.

How do you know? Smoe references say that is true, others disagree. More and more neonatologists are saying they no longer believe that. With the development of the 4-D ultrasound, it is now possible to watch teh baby in utero, instead of just having single images. They can videotape behaviour in the womb. I couldn't get the link to cut and paste (computer problems) but go to Truthbooth.org and click on video. You can see live video.

zenith

This is a hairsbreath away from turning into a screaming match and getting locked.

There are people who will never agree on this topic and will never agree.

I would really like to leave it open, though.

Please: debate.

Avoid insulting language. Be courtly if necessary, even if you don't feel like it.

If the other side is getting you heated, they've cast you in a bad light and you've lost. They're right about your character/morals/opinions.

Avoid point-for-point rebuttal. Advance your argument without shouting theirs down.

Quit polluting my brane with fonts and bold and repeated posting of the same links.

And I'm going to lock this the next whiff of personal abuse for anybody that I get from anyone on the thread. Respect, people.

Nevyn

Phototoxin wrote: »

Actually FA you are wrong in this country it is legally wrong to murder kids in the womb. Anywhere else you'd be right but in ireland & NI its illegal thankfully.

There is no such law on the books, if you kill a pregnant woman you are not charged with two counts of murder.

It is illegal to preform an abortion but you are not charged with murder.

F.A.

Phototoxin wrote: »

Its designed by evolution for a function. That is its evolutionary purpose.

You are wrong. Evolution has no purpose, and it does not design anything at all.

Actually FA you are wrong in this country it is legally wrong to murder kids in the womb. Anywhere else you'd be right but in ireland & NI its illegal thankfully.

How am I wrong? This thread is not about whether the law in Ireland or NI is right, it is, from what I can tell, about establishing whether abortion is wrong in moral grounds. So, nothing wrong there. In Ultravid's opinion, it is wrong. Not in mine.

Why are pro-abortion people so adamant that the unborn is not a person ?

Question right back to you: why are you so adamant that the unborn is a person? And as we have proven, legally, the unborn are not recognised as persons until 24 weeks old, so it seems even the law in Ireland does not regard the unborn per se as persons.

Phototoxin

Thaedydal wrote: »

What evil ends ?

money m'dear. Abortion is big jingly jingly € ¥ £ $ !

Nope is it about control, women having control over their own bodies.

Surely the control is availalbe in the '

Still your God apprently gave us all free will and the intellect to reason and make choices.

' to say 'no I would rather not have your penis in my vagina, thanks all the same ?'

I have as much problem with enforced pregnancy then I do with enforced sterilisation such as this case.

Unless raped then pregancy cannot be enforced physically. Thankfully pregnancy from rape is not too likely.

He beat her and the child and she gets told by a judge not to have any more children....

The plight of actual children concerns me more then proto children.

conclusion = judge is a tosser. How is this relevant to the thread ?

Really cos we don't have contraception ?

Where do you stand on contraception and contraception and sex education ? OR is that more agenda for pushing evil ?

Is that supposed to be some pathetic anti-catlick jibe ? :pac:

We have contraception, therefore there are valid methods for avoiding having children. However the only foolproof method is (obviously) not to have sex. So if you exercise your free will to have sex you should be prepared to live with the consequences. That's what being a mature person capable of making choices is about.

You cannot have your cake and eat it. If, for example, I exercise my will to beat up my girlfriend then I must be prepared to live with the consequences of an assault charge and the loss of my girlfriend.

I abhor abortion used as a method of contraception when there are better methods.

abortion isn't contraception though... the child is already conceived.

I am, abortion has always happened and will do until we have better contraception and education about contraception.

So because its always happened that makes it ok ? Should women not be able to vote ? That's relatively new. What about children working in coal mines? Murders have always happened and will continue to do so, does that make it alright too ? I somehow *doubt* it.

Women decides to have an abortion due to their circumstances that she does not want to continue her pregnancy and bring a child into this world.

So why aren't the pro lifers working to change those circumstances ?

because you just siad it yourself... that abortion has always happened and will do until we have better contraception and education about contraception.

We have better contraception, we have medically advanced 100s of years since abortions and yet we are still doing them. We have contraception, quite effective contraception in some cases, yet people still choose not to use it and a baby shouldnt be killed as a result of that.

bquinn

Thaedydal wrote: »

There is no such law on the books, if you kill a pregnant woman you are not charged with two counts of murder.

It is illegal to preform an abortion but you are not charged with murder.

In the US you do get charged with two counts of murder. I know, double standard, since legal to kill baby, but if kill mom too, the you get charged for both. Also, if you attack a woman, and her unborn baby dies, then you also get charged. Over here they have finally realised that many women do not want to kill their unborn baby, but feel pressured or forced into it by the father of the child. When mom refuses to have abortion, dad decides to take care of it on his own. Society has devalued life, and now we see the consequences.

Dudess

In the US there's the death penalty and mentally disabled people are on Death Row, a disproportionate number of non whites... and **** knows how many innocents who were coerced into confessing.

Ultravid wrote: »

They are pushing for abortion to suit their own evil ends. Admit it, this is about sex. The pro-aborts want all the sex they can get, and then when the woman 'unfortunately' yet inevitably gets pregnant, then sure as hell they don't want a child and they are not prepared to let this 'parasite' spoil their sex life. So let's kill the child. Let's murder our unborn child. Then we can have more sex. Another child? Let's abort that one too. Then we can have more sex, a different women this time.

Please be honest with yourself and with me.

Wow... it's a shame you so vehemently believe that tripe. Do you have an old-school view of sex as sinful, dirty etc? Are you... not getting any? Cuz it sure as hell seems like it.

And do you believe abortion is only the result of the sexual revolution?

It's always been a reality, whether legal or not.

zenith

Thanks to Dudess, 'you're not getting any' more thread.