Abortion Question

RedDenver said:
El Diaco said:
1) I think it is a viable life at any time after the egg has been fertilized.
Click to expand...
The "life" argument is a weak one. Both the sperm and egg were alive before fertilization. The vegetables were alive before we eat them. Same with chickens, pigs, cows, etc. We simply can't survive without taking life.
If you instead mean "living person", then that's a strong argument, but comes with the difficulty of identifying when those cells became a "person".
Click to expand...
Well I guess I make some logical presumptions when I use the word "life" in this discussion. It's obvious we are talking about human life and not some vegetable or barnyard animal. I assume everyone will make the logical connection that it is the same as a living person.
I realize there is room for debate for life really begins. Some people wait for a heartbeat or exit through the birth canal or first breathe or first conscious memory. Heck I suppose there are those might determine it is at puberty or college graduation or the onset of menopause. From my POV it doesn't matter. Like I said originally, all those mile markers will occur unless that life dies naturally or some outside force kills it, such as abortion. I figure an unborn baby is about as innocent and helpless a creature as any. I'm sure that if a fetus could reason or talk 100% of them would prefer a chance at life, even a crappy life.

This whole issue becomes a moot point if we put one requirement on it. The only way a person can be for abortion is if they were aborted themselves. Or, put another way, you dont get a vote unless you were aborted. Really, if people would let the full meaning if that sink in....Absolutely everyone deciding this issue has been lucky enough to not have been aborted. It's kind of like everyone not named Jim gets to decide that all Jim's should be killed.

BTW, I am not opposed to abortion in some extreme circumstances and I would prefer that they remain safe and legal for those circumstances.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
QMany said:
I don't like abortion, but I'm pro-choice. One thought that I go back to is those using contraceptives. There is still a possibility of pregnancy; I personally know someone who become pregnant despite an IUD. The couple chose to have to baby, and I agree with that decision, but I still think that was their decision to make. They were in school, and it was a life-changing and career altering decision for both of them. They were being responsible with contraceptives and still got pregnant (I understand abstinence is the only certain).

My personal belief, there should be time period allowed for abortion. I saw a mention of 5.5 weeks for a heartbeat, but some people don't even know they're pregnant within that period of time. Without getting into the weeds, maybe it should be allowed within the first trimester. I think I saw 0% viability at 21 weeks, and only 50% viability at 24 weeks. After that, I think it should be allowed when there is significant risk to the mother's health.
Click to expand...
I think this is very reasonable.

For those of us that don't like abortion being used as birth control, I believe the answer lies in education and information rather than laws preventing the activity. But I also understand the people that do not want to be accomplices of the act. I understand that if public funds are used for abortions, many people feel that makes them a party to the act. This is primarily where the defunding of planned parenthood comes from.

 
El Diaco said:
QMany said:
I don't like abortion, but I'm pro-choice. One thought that I go back to is those using contraceptives. There is still a possibility of pregnancy; I personally know someone who become pregnant despite an IUD. The couple chose to have to baby, and I agree with that decision, but I still think that was their decision to make. They were in school, and it was a life-changing and career altering decision for both of them. They were being responsible with contraceptives and still got pregnant (I understand abstinence is the only certain).

My personal belief, there should be time period allowed for abortion. I saw a mention of 5.5 weeks for a heartbeat, but some people don't even know they're pregnant within that period of time. Without getting into the weeds, maybe it should be allowed within the first trimester. I think I saw 0% viability at 21 weeks, and only 50% viability at 24 weeks. After that, I think it should be allowed when there is significant risk to the mother's health.
Click to expand...
I think this is very reasonable.

For those of us that don't like abortion being used as birth control, I believe the answer lies in education and information rather than laws preventing the activity. But I also understand the people that do not want to be accomplices of the act. I understand that if public funds are used for abortions, many people feel that makes them a party to the act. This is primarily where the defunding of planned parenthood comes from.
Click to expand...
But PUBLIC FUNDS ARE NOT USED FOR ABORTION. Sorry, not yelling at you JJ, just don't know if everyone understands that.
 
ZRod said:
What makes human "life" valuable, or any more valuable than some other species?
Click to expand...
We took a poll of all life forms on the planet. Inexplicably the only responses came from humans and humans won in a landslide. I do believe a rock, a mollusk and a dandelion all tried to participate in the poll but we're pretty sure these were fraud attempts.

 
El Diaco said:
ZRod said:
What makes human "life" valuable, or any more valuable than some other species?
Click to expand...
We took a poll of all life forms on the planet. Inexplicably the only responses came from humans and humans won in a landslide. I do believe a rock, a mollusk and a dandelion all tried to participate in the poll but we're pretty sure these were fraud attempts.
Click to expand...
Some other mammal?
 
ZRod said:
El Diaco said:
QMany said:
I don't like abortion, but I'm pro-choice. One thought that I go back to is those using contraceptives. There is still a possibility of pregnancy; I personally know someone who become pregnant despite an IUD. The couple chose to have to baby, and I agree with that decision, but I still think that was their decision to make. They were in school, and it was a life-changing and career altering decision for both of them. They were being responsible with contraceptives and still got pregnant (I understand abstinence is the only certain).

My personal belief, there should be time period allowed for abortion. I saw a mention of 5.5 weeks for a heartbeat, but some people don't even know they're pregnant within that period of time. Without getting into the weeds, maybe it should be allowed within the first trimester. I think I saw 0% viability at 21 weeks, and only 50% viability at 24 weeks. After that, I think it should be allowed when there is significant risk to the mother's health.
Click to expand...
I think this is very reasonable.For those of us that don't like abortion being used as birth control, I believe the answer lies in education and information rather than laws preventing the activity. But I also understand the people that do not want to be accomplices of the act. I understand that if public funds are used for abortions, many people feel that makes them a party to the act. This is primarily where the defunding of planned parenthood comes from.
Click to expand...
But PUBLIC FUNDS ARE NOT USED FOR ABORTION. Sorry, not yelling at you JJ, just don't know if everyone understands that.
Click to expand...
I guess I don't understand that.PP provides more abortions than any other single entity. They also provide numerous other services.

An analogy. The meth addict begging on the corner snorts crystal and eats a little food every once in awhile. It's pretty naive to think that all of the money they obtain panhandling goes only towards food and none of it towards their crank habit.

If PP did not provide abortions, how much funding would they really need? Killing babies is their flagship product. They would cease to exist without it. I just cannot believe that any dollar they receive doesn't help them in some indirect (or direct) way to provide abortions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Hyde ammendment prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion: except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger. If federal money is being used, then audit them and reprimanded those responsible. It's up to the states to decide what they want to do with state funds.

If PP didn't provide abortions they would still need a lot of funding. They do all kinds of testing and screening; Std, diabetes, cholesterol, flu shots, physicals, counseling, contraceptives, prenatal advice and care. A woman can go in and recieve an IUD without paying a thing. That procedure could cost about a thousand dollars at your typical physician's office.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
El Diaco said:
If PP did not provide abortions, how much funding would they really need? Killing babies is their flagship product. They would cease to exist without it. I just cannot believe that any dollar they receive doesn't help them in some indirect (or direct) way to provide abortions.
Click to expand...
"Three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services."

 
Back
Top