[licence2kill]

idk about you but where i come from fetuses generally reside inside the bodies of women, not cradles

[mnp8nt]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

idk about you but where i come from fetuses generally reside inside the bodies of women, not cradles

What's a fetus? Right, it's part of the human cycle from conception to death. Label it what you want. 4 weeks to 1200 weeks, it's still part of the human cycle. The fact that the liberals want to deny this and call a fetus not human is ridiculous. There is no vast metamorphosis by exiting the vagina.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by mnp8nt

What's a fetus? Right, it's part of the human cycle from conception to death. Label it what you want. 4 weeks to 1200 weeks, it's still part of the human cycle. The fact that the liberals want to deny this and call a fetus not human is ridiculous.

What's your point?

[licence2kill]

Originally Posted by mnp8nt

What's a fetus? Right, it's part of the human cycle from conception to death. Label it what you want. 4 weeks to 1200 weeks, it's still part of the human cycle. The fact that the liberals want to deny this and call a fetus not human is ridiculous. There is no vast metamorphosis by exiting the vagina.

Yes, there IS a big difference because its no longer part of an autonomous beings (who has rights) body.

I can't say I support late term abortions, but your argument is unconvincing.

[mnp8nt]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

Yes, there IS a big difference because its no longer part of an autonomous beings (who has rights) body.

I can't say I support late term abortions, but your argument is unconvincing.

Sure and you make the value judgement that we aren't somehow reliant on each other - as if we are all islands onto ourselves. Get real, when was the last time you pumped your own oil, created your own electricity, clothing, gathered your own food etc. It's an excuse to suggest the physical connections aren't equal to the economic, emotional, psychological etc. Do you support gay marriage? What is marriage at all but emotional bonds.

The left has a better stance in eliminating the need to resort to abortion through contraception and better education. Of course these are two things that are completely endemic despite their rhetoric otherwise.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by mnp8nt

One emotional argument for another? The right does not make the absurd assumption that gun control will protect children in such cases. As someone else used to say in here, the left and the right are not mirror reflections of each other. Along that line how has the left reconciled gun control with the right to die?

How is that an emotional argument? It wasn't even my argument; just the biconditional inverse of yours.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

How is that an emotional argument? It wasn't even my argument; just the biconditional inverse of yours.

Since yours is emotional it justifies his emotional pleas.

[chodeyg]

Originally Posted by Murph1329

welcome to the liberal brain

It's official, the liberals are no longer the whiners. Your posts are sliding in quality, dude.

[tomM925]

Originally Posted by chodeyg

It's official, the liberals are no longer the whiners. Your posts are sliding in quality, dude.

Maybe. Or maybe he's just tired of debating with a brick wall.

[F1VENOM]

[frankie says chillax]

Originally Posted by mnp8nt

What an absolute crock of ****. The dichotomy of promoting gun control to protect 'the children', then turn around and support late-term abortions is hypocritical.

this issue isn't about the morality, it's about how it's done. people will get abortions either way. it's a healthier route when done by a professional plus it keeps population controlled

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by Animal_Father

I haven't heard any liberals pissing and moaning about our current wars ever since the golden homeboy took office.

Hi. I'm the economy and this is Jackass.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by frankie says chillax

this issue isn't about the morality, it's about how it's done. people will get abortions either way. it's a healthier route when done by a professional plus it keeps population controlled

Ok. I'm waiting for more legalized drugs.

[chodeyg]

Originally Posted by Animal_Father

I haven't heard any liberals pissing and moaning about our current wars ever since the golden homeboy took office.

I think he's doing a good job ending wars he was handed. You don't?

[slateman]

Originally Posted by frankie says chillax

[IMG]http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/tea-party-ted-meme-pro-life.jpg[IMG]


this issue isn't about the morality, it's about how it's done. people will get abortions either way. it's a healthier route when done by a professional plus it keeps population controlled

That's fine, that's why the law is the way it is in the first place. If you can't figure out within three months if you want to have a child, you shouldn't be considered a responsible adult.

I think what people are failing to understand with this is that the child is being born. The only thing still in the uterus is the baby's head and possibly shoulders. If the doctor slips, the baby will come out fully and the doctor cannot, legally, conduct an abortion.

[slateman]

Originally Posted by chodeyg

I think he's doing a good job ending wars he was handed. You don't?

We just sent more troops in to Iraq, there are still troops in Afghanistan, and he's conducted about 20x as many drone strikes as his predecessor did (at about 20x the collateral damage).

President Obama has ordered the deaths of more children than all of the children in the US that were killed by gun violence. Yet for some reason, he's Time's Man of the Year twice and has a Nobel Peace Prize.

There are still liberals calling for former President Bush to be arrested for war crimes.

[slateman]

What I find most interesting is that, legally, a fetus isn't a child until a woman CHOOSES it to be. At which point, any actions are determined to affect two individuals, and not one.

Yet, for whatever reason, if a woman chooses to give birth, then the man who impregnated her has a responsibility to pay for it. Seems to be a bit of a double standard to me.

[Treghc]

Originally Posted by slateman

We just sent more troops in to Iraq, there are still troops in Afghanistan, and he's conducted about 20x as many drone strikes as his predecessor did (at about 20x the collateral damage).

President Obama has ordered the deaths of more children than all of the children in the US that were killed by gun violence. Yet for some reason, he's Time's Man of the Year twice and has a Nobel Peace Prize.

There are still liberals calling for former President Bush to be arrested for war crimes.

Saying liberal A thinks way A while liberal B thinks way B and then crying hypocrisy is a far reach.

Originally Posted by slateman

That's fine, that's why the law is the way it is in the first place. If you can't figure out within three months if you want to have a child, you shouldn't be considered a responsible adult.

I think what people are failing to understand with this is that the child is being born. The only thing still in the uterus is the baby's head and possibly shoulders. If the doctor slips, the baby will come out fully and the doctor cannot, legally, conduct an abortion.

Sonograms to find deficiencies or possible complications in a fetus are normally done at 20 weeks. This is after the first trimester.

I heard a story on the radio just yesterday about a mother who had this sonogram and it was discovered that her child, if born, would have a condition that would render it in immense pain for its entire life, requiring monthly hospital visits at the very least. This mother already had a three year and explained that the thing you want most for your child is to keep it from harm; to keep it from pain and suffering, both physically and mentally. After a discussion with her husband, they decided an abortion would be the best option, as it would be unfair to bring a child in to the world just to live a life of painful suffering and agony (it was a problem with the nervous system of the fetus, extending from its brain down to its right foot). Is a decision like this really immoral? Would you honestly prefer the child live a life of pain and agony, unable to do anything a normal child would enjoy to partake in? How was this mother's decision not a responsible one?

[slateman]

Originally Posted by Treghc

Sonograms to find deficiencies or possible complications in a fetus are normally done at 20 weeks. This is after the first trimester.

I heard a story on the radio just yesterday about a mother who had this sonogram and it was discovered that her child, if born, would have a condition that would render it in immense pain for its entire life, requiring monthly hospital visits at the very least. This mother already had a three year and explained that the thing you want most for your child is to keep it from harm; to keep it from pain and suffering, both physically and mentally. After a discussion with her husband, they decided an abortion would be the best option, as it would be unfair to bring a child in to the world just to live a life of painful suffering and agony (it was a problem with the nervous system of the fetus, extending from its brain down to its right foot). Is a decision like this really immoral? Would you honestly prefer the child live a life of pain and agony, unable to do anything a normal child would enjoy to partake in? How was this mother's decision not a responsible one?

If a deficient child is not really a child, then who cares when it's euthanized?

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Treghc

Saying liberal A thinks way A while liberal B thinks way B and then crying hypocrisy is a far reach.



Sonograms to find deficiencies or possible complications in a fetus are normally done at 20 weeks. This is after the first trimester.

I heard a story on the radio just yesterday about a mother who had this sonogram and it was discovered that her child, if born, would have a condition that would render it in immense pain for its entire life, requiring monthly hospital visits at the very least. This mother already had a three year and explained that the thing you want most for your child is to keep it from harm; to keep it from pain and suffering, both physically and mentally. After a discussion with her husband, they decided an abortion would be the best option, as it would be unfair to bring a child in to the world just to live a life of painful suffering and agony (it was a problem with the nervous system of the fetus, extending from its brain down to its right foot). Is a decision like this really immoral? Would you honestly prefer the child live a life of pain and agony, unable to do anything a normal child would enjoy to partake in? How was this mother's decision not a responsible one?

I think after birth euthanasia should be on the table. I know from some experience that pre-birth screening/testing that the results are an educated guess. My sister in law was supposed to have down syndrome but was born with no issues. I think, due to the imperfect nature of medical science, that we should euthanize after birth in cases such as the one you described and retardation (et al).

[barrel roll]

I think 72nd trimester abortions should be on the table.