May 09, 2024, 03:43:08 AM

1,531,624 Posts in 46,728 Topics by 1,523 Members
› View the most recent posts on the forum.


Abortion

Started by *Boo*, May 01, 2007, 07:22:16 PM

previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Go Down

Daddy

Quote from: :atomsk: on March 08, 2009, 08:15:14 PM
Right, 8.5 month old infants aren't living. Hell, they're not even human until they've passed the vagina right?
I never said that. psyduck;

I've stated multiple times that I don't support abortions once the fetus is in the third trimester (thus being viable), because then the fetus is alive. If it were to be born, it'd most likely survive. So, that's about 7 months(28 weeks or so), which is far earlier than your bullshit 8.5 argument which I see no one supporting.
QuoteAnother thing that both sides agree on is that it is inaccurate to report, as CBS Evening News has done repeatedly, that the bill is a "late-term abortion ban."  It is a ban not of "late-term abortion" but of a defined method -- and the legal definition of that method has never referred to a point in "term," but rather, to the location of the living baby when he or she is killed.  (See "Is It Misleading to Call it Partial 'Birth'?," below.)

In reality, partial-birth abortion cannot be performed in the first three months, and most are performed in the fifth and sixth months.  So, then, are partial-birth abortions "late-term" abortions?  The question is impossible to answer, because the label "late-term" has no standard legal or medical meaning, and is used in wildly different ways.  Pro-abortion groups exploit this ambiguity -- they use the label "late-term" as code for "third-trimester," meaning the seventh month and later -- a period that begins roughly three weeks AFTER babies typically attain the lung development sufficient to survive indefinitely outside the womb (so-called "viability").

When journalists describe the bill as a "ban on late-term abortions" or "certain late-term abortions," they introduce an element of ambiguity or outright distortion into everything else they say about the matter, because many readers may understand the label as referring to third-trimester abortions, while many others will regard abortions in the fifth and sixth months as "late-term abortions" too.

Consider the medical illustrations used this year during the House and Senate floor debates, which accurately depict a typical partial-birth abortion of a baby at 24 weeks (five and one-half months).  Here is a proposed experiment for journalists:  Show one of these illustrations to the first 10 people you meet on the street, explain that it shows "an abortion," and ask if they think it looks like a "late-term" abortion.  We predict that most will reply in the affirmative.  Yet, what the illustration shows is not, in the usage of NARAL and Planned Parenthood, a "late-term" (third-trimester) abortion.  The term "third trimester" is used to refer to points as early as the start of the 25th week and as late as the start of the 27th week.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbaall110403.html

tl;dr the partial birth abortions you were bitching about us socialist pigs supporting take place before the fetus becomes viable.


oh look, did i just use a pro-life site as my source and it didn't contradict what i said  even with its silly bias.


:atomsk:

Quote from: Raekewn on March 08, 2009, 08:23:47 PM
I never said that. psyduck;

I've stated multiple times that I don't support abortions once the fetus is in the third trimester (thus being viable), because then the fetus is alive. If it were to be born, it'd most likely survive. So, that's about 7 months(28 weeks or so), which is far earlier than your bullshit 8.5 argument which I see no one supporting.
tl;dr the partial birth abortions you were bitching about us socialist pigs supporting take place before the fetus becomes viable.



my bad sorry.

Daddy

Quote from: guff on March 08, 2009, 08:22:31 PM
uh arguing that fetusfaces aren't alive is a bit silly
alive in the same sense that a baby is alive.

guff

Quote from: Raekewn on March 08, 2009, 08:25:48 PM
alive in the same sense that a baby is alive.
i would still say that's a bit silly
they are alive in the strictest definition of the word but whether fetusfaces have the higher brain functions that we consider humans is another issue and from what i've seen yeah that's definitely not true for the first trimester

Daddy

Quote from: guff on March 08, 2009, 08:32:38 PM
i would still say that's a bit silly
they are alive in the strictest definition of the word but whether fetusfaces have the higher brain functions that we consider humans is another issue and from what i've seen yeah that's definitely not true for the first trimester
okay they are not more alive than an amoeba there

Hiro

I am in support of abortion in some cases  hocuspocus;


guff

Quote from: Raekewn on March 08, 2009, 08:33:36 PM
okay they are not more alive than an amoeba there
god damnit the definition of life is black and white there's nothing in between alive and non-living i mean sure a cocaine-using partygoer will say they've never felt more alive but a) they are stupid and b) they're pretty much right anyways they have never felt more alive nor have they ever felt less alive for there is only one level of aliveosity akudood;

Daddy

Quote from: guff on March 08, 2009, 08:41:06 PM
god damnit the definition of life is black and white there's nothing in between alive and non-living i mean sure a cocaine-using partygoer will say they've never felt more alive but a) they are stupid and b) they're pretty much right anyways they have never felt more alive nor have they ever felt less alive for there is only one level of aliveosity akudood;
goddammit, they have the same brain function as a damn protist.  yes it's "alive" but not if you're applying the term to the human condition.  akudood;

The artist formally known

I bet the extra 115,000 babies a day would be a great idea.

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

42,000,0000 babies extra a year wouldn't be bad.

guff

Quote from: Raekewn on March 08, 2009, 08:43:52 PM
goddammit, they have the same brain function as a damn protist.  yes it's "alive" but not if you're applying the term to the human condition.  akudood;
brain function has nothing to do with aliveness goddamnit use a different term already akudood;

Slim

Quote from: guff on March 08, 2009, 08:41:06 PM
god damnit the definition of life is black and white there's nothing in between alive and non-living i mean sure a cocaine-using partygoer will say they've never felt more alive but a) they are stupid and b) they're pretty much right anyways they have never felt more alive nor have they ever felt less alive for there is only one level of aliveosity akudood;


they're just using it as a figure of speech god stop picking on the poor crackheads just because they're an easy target baddood;
Quote from: Snowy Deluxe on July 07, 2011, 04:05:09 PM
Hey look I'm Slim and I act like an asshole because it makes me cool! Right guys?

Daddy

Quote from: guff on March 08, 2009, 08:45:59 PM
brain function has nothing to do with aliveness goddamnit use a different term already akudood;
sentient
happy?
QuoteWho's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".



lol

YPrrrr

Quote from: Raekewn on March 08, 2009, 08:13:39 PM
but it can grow.

are you against ejaculating outside of a vagina and menstruating too?
There's a difference between a zygote and eggs or sperm

guff

Quote from: YPR on March 08, 2009, 08:47:25 PM
There's a difference between a zygote and eggs or sperm
just as there's a difference between a fetusface and babby

Go Up