GhostFish:

UnrepentantApostate: When it's born and when it takes its first breath. We have to draw the line somewhere, and it will always be arbitrary. At least here, we are talking about a creature that is fully separate from its mother and can take care of its basic metabolic needs (like breathing and digesting food) on its own.

But even a newborn baby is completely dependent on it's parent(s) for food and protection. It can't even try to feed itself, it has to have the food put in it's mouth for it. How is that really any different than being dependent on the mother while still in the womb? The dependence isn't as direct, but it's still just as strong.

I said the line would always be arbitrary. You asked for a milestone without bias, and while this viewpoint is obviously biased towards self-ambulatory, individual human beings, it presents a very clear point at which we can say "this is now a human".

I am not a slave to biology, and I have the right to determine my own future.

I demand pro-life men invent a man-womb. That way we can implant unwanted fetuses into the man-wombs of men who feel it necessary to concern themselves with the contents of my uterus.

We can also implant unwanted fetuses into the wombs of pro-life women. I'm sure they won't mind; a "baby" could die!

Has the WSJ stopped writing about the stock market entirely? Nothing of theirs that gets on Fark has anything to do with their reason for existing in the first place.

hiiamchris: TFerWannaBe: hiiamchris: guilt by association: Christ I am so farking sick of the abortion issue.

How is it possible to get sick of standing up for the life of a defenseless baby in the face of an unjust aggressor that seeks to terminate him/her?

Here's the problem though: women have been having abortions for many years, even before it was illegal. Making it legal didn't suddenly just create an option for women to murder defenseless babies (as you put it); it was already going on. Before abortions, unwanted children were abandoned immediately after birth, to die of exposure.

....

in 1972, before ROE v Wade.. there were.. wait for it.. 39 deaths from abortion. 39. that is all.



Are you talking about deaths of women or deaths of fetuses?

And if you're talking about deaths of fetuses, are you *really* going to try to tell me that people would be honest about their participation in illegal abortions?

I'd also like to know where you get your numbers from, because it seems *really* high to me.

hiiamchris: guilt by association: Christ I am so farking sick of the abortion issue.

How is it possible to get sick of standing up for the life of a defenseless baby in the face of an unjust aggressor that seeks to terminate him/her?


HEY YOU.

you know what fights abortion ?

a woman standing outside the clinic with a big sign that says "I WILL ADOPT YOUR UNWANTED, UNBORN BABY AND PAY YOU 50,000 FOR IT" She must have a resume and references and three times the price of the abortion to offer.

That is , at the 11th hour, giving a woman a real choice to turn away from abortion and choose life.

.... of course you have to follow up.

I am sure church groups can find the cash and the good mothers.

Saiga410: Talon:
You can put the pieces together on your own, but for those who need help: A fetus has no right to a woman's body for any reason even if it is given all the rights of a born person, what a fetus does to a woman has a perpetual risk of death and the actualization of grievous harm (what happens to a woman's body during pregnancy would be torture if done by any other party), the only way to stop what a fetus does to a woman's body is to remove it (which makes lethal force necessary), therefore a woman therefore has the right an abortion at any time for any reason (at least until an alternative can be developed that will remove the fetus alive).

By consenting to allowing the fertilization of their egg they are giving impromptu consent to the fetus to use their body. Through their own actions they are forcing another entity to use their body. Therefore if you give consent to something you forfeit your rights surrounding that action. Now rape is another can of worms but with consensual sex there is an implicit consent to an entity that needs to use your body.

Also concerning 1. All persons have the right to be the sole proprietors of their bodies. This right exists even where a blood relative will die without your donation of bodily resources.

Also statement 1. is not 100% true. If a newborn mother starves their baby to death by not nursing it, they are murdering the baby. Maybe someday we will come up with a replacement (wink), but until that time you don't have the right to not donate your bodily fluids in such cases.... When you create a new life you have responsibility to that life until it can take care of itself.

hiiamchris: abortion is all about convenience at the expense of a life. Common sense can prevail in this question if it is remembered that pregnancy is a natural condition, not a disease. Abortion is always an unnatural interruption of that condition.

Nutjob comments such as the above post are what we'd end up with if abortion was illegal. By the above comments, any abortion is illegal, immoral and is no better than murder.

Women, if you got pregnant from rape or incest, too bad for you, still have to keep that fetus in you for 9 months. If you are going to die from illness or disease, or if the pregnancy is going to result in a mindless child that dies seconds after giving birth, too bad, you've still got to go through 9 months of hell because abortion is murder!

The only way these kind of beliefs work is if every woman, when they become pregnant, are immediately put in a government run housing area to make sure they continue the pregnancy to term, no matter how they got pregnant or the consequences to themselves in giving birth.

It's quite frankly, a horrifying concept, but apparently one the original poster would endorse.

brainiac-dumdum: I am not a slave to biology, and I have the right to determine my own future.

I demand pro-life men invent a man-womb. That way we can implant unwanted fetuses into the man-wombs of men who feel it necessary to concern themselves with the contents of my uterus.

We can also implant unwanted fetuses into the wombs of pro-life women. I'm sure they won't mind; a "baby" could die!

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

GhostFish: If anyone can give me an honest and unbiased answer regarding as to when in it's development a baby gets human rights then I'd love to hear it.

Could you first demonstrate how the answer to that has any decicive relevance to the abortion argument, so that we have a reason to spend all the time it takes to reason out an adequate answer? If you can, I will attempt to formulate an answer to that question for you...

That's what I like about conservatives, they're all about defending our freedoms.

The freedom to NOT get an abortion
The freedom to NOT marry someone of the same sex
The freedom to NOT use marijuana medically
The freedom to NOT teach the theory of evolution
The freedom to NOT choose whether to serve in the military or not


"Et CET-era... Et CET-era... Et CET-era!"

hiiamchris: Tummm. said preggo broad spread her legs to get that way. The pregnancy shouldn't be a big suprise. Its not like the baby climbed in there.
You get pregnant... Don't make a baby pay the price for your risk taking by killing him/her. Thats the ultimate in selfishness.

Isn't it great then, that abstinence only education has curtailed the unwanted pregnancies in the US (let alone how we've hamstrung organizations attempting to curtail the spread of STDs, including AIDS in Africa) and lead to a sharp decrease of abortions in the US?

Isn't it?

Well, isn't it?

No? Why the fark not? Huh? Why aren't abortions rarer than they are? Why can't people just abstain? Why haven't we eradicated all STDs? Why is there still divorce? Why? Why? Why?

Because we're a messy, stupid, backward species.

Teach realistic, accurate and helpful sexual behavior courses. Herpes and AIDS did more to keep me cautious than "God says it's bad" ever did.

Make options more palatable, like adoption, for both the mother and the adoptive parents. And stop this BS with forbidding gay or mixed race adoption. If you're not going to adopt the kid, don't keep other people from adopting them either. Isn't there any surprise that many people, including McCain, go overseas to adopt?

Now, let's just do some rudimentary math. In 2003, 22% of the people surveyed said that abortion should not be permitted. If that maps to 22% of American adults being against abortion and willing to adopt, which is a stretch, these 77 million (without normalizing for 18 and over) would have had to adopt the estimated 48 million babies that would have been born between 1973 and 2004. And, of course, in this time, many of these people would have gone on to have children of their own over this time.

I find this highly unlikely, since there are half a million kids in foster care, 1/4 of which were still awaiting adoption as of 1999 (the last year I could find statistics for). This is ignoring the estimated hundreds of thousands in church run orphanages and "child homes". If we can't even find homes for these kids, why would we want to flood the market with more?

And let's not even get into the problem of abusive parents that would be forced to have and keep more of their own kids, and their kids' kids. There are plenty of people that have no business having children, no love for the children they have, no time to raise them, etc. Let's make sure that we have more kids in those situations, where, for many, the only escape is crime, drugs, and having more kids.

Oh, yeah, and no more war, and no more death penalty.

I hate abortion, I still think it's reprehensible. But I'm not going to fight to make it illegal, because much like with prohibition, it'll still happen even if it's illegal.

rubi_con_man: a woman standing outside the clinic with a big sign that says "I WILL ADOPT YOUR UNWANTED, UNBORN BABY AND PAY YOU 50,000 FOR IT" She must have a resume and references and three times the price of the abortion to offer.

Hell, I'D get pregnant if I saw that...

I Said: hiiamchris: in 1972, before ROE v Wade.. there were.. wait for it.. 39 deaths from abortion. 39. that is all.

now, there are approx 325 abortions for every 1000 live births.

convenience. abortion is all about convenience at the expense of a life. Common sense can prevail in this question if it is remembered that pregnancy is a natural condition, not a disease. Abortion is always an unnatural interruption of that condition.

a) Are you counting abortions as "deaths"? (I'm not sure as you seem to define the fetus as human life, whether those 39 where mother or fetus)

b) 325 for every 1000? That seems suspiciously high. Citation please?

my bad, the 2002 number was 319/1000 ---------- 1960 was only .07/1000

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphusabrate.html

Okay. So if abortion is illegal, what should the punishment be and to whom should it be applied, the mother, doctor or both? What are the consequences for breaking this law?

Reposted because I'm a lazy fjorker and it's applicable:

Republicans on abortion:

Before birth: "Every life is a sacred little miracle that needs to be protected."

After birth: "Fark you and your bastard whelp you lazy farking welfare queen. You don't like being stuck with it, well maybe you should have closed your legs you little Jezebel. Why don't you get a job and stop robbing me of my taxes? As for your kid, tell it to call us when it's 18 and can join the military."

The baffling part is that they're so blind to their own hipocracy. Don't even get me started on that whole "well, my daughter's abortion was different!" crap. Nice "culture of life" they got there.

Then again, maybe outlawing abortion wouldn't be such a bad idea... I could make a KILLING by investing in wire-hanger futures!

Oh what, just because I vote Democrat means I can't capitalize on tragedy, too?

Thorndyke Barnhard: Could you first demonstrate how the answer to that has any decicive relevance to the abortion argument, so that we have a reason to spend all the time it takes to reason out an adequate answer? If you can, I will attempt to formulate an answer to that question for you...

Obama was asked when a developing baby gets human rights.

If you can objectively and without bias determine a point in development when an embryo/fetus should be given human rights then the issue of abortion should be moot. If it can be denied human rights, because it's not human, then up to the point that it becomes human it can be put down out of convenience just like any other animal.

Really, I don't think the question can be answered in any kind of unbiased and objective manner.

Hey Chris,
Your Margaret Sanger quote is, of course, taken out of context. I am pretty sure Farkistan has a word for that. In the original text she was making a point about the untrue things people were saying about Planned Parenthood. Things folks like you still say about them. Things that are still untrue.

Lie for jesus much?

mediaho: Okay. So if abortion is illegal, what should the punishment be and to whom should it be applied, the mother, doctor or both? What are the consequences for breaking this law?

It couldn't possibly be the death penalty...think of the children!

Yeah, it's a trollish comic, but I'm too tired to debate all this after the last abortion thread.

As long as the argument remains improperly framed up it will never be resolved.

Pro-life vs. pro-choice is a fallacy. No one is anti-life and very few people are truly anti-choice.

Those terms were chosen and spread to create the impresssion of a black and white issue...which it is not. Abortion should not be used as contraception but no one has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Anyone arguing otherwise is an a$$hole.

I Said: I hadn't heard of them before,

Then you probably missed this one

Do you know how to go to heaven?

or the fact that he basically references his own stuff

Thorndyke Barnhard: /Quick and dirty

Dude, that was great!

Only 1.4% of abortions are late term, An tSoi . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion

An tSaoi: Yeah, it's a trollish comic, but I'm too tired to debate all this after the last abortion thread.

Hurr hurr. You guys act like late term abortions are common procedures performed at the selfish whim of the mother. They're pretty much only performed when bringing the kid to term would seriously endanger the life of the mother. But, as I posted before, in the "culture of life" every life is sacred until it's born, then it's "fark you".

Sanger and race..
http://blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

Sanger and Eugenics
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2004/NRL07/margaret_sanger_and_planned_pare.htm

oh, this is Soooooo out of context....

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

"Eugenics is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

If a fetus survives an abortion...how can you kill it if it isn't alive...or how can it not be life if it has survived?

LaoTsu128: if i step into detroit, with the possibility of getting killed, and someone murders me, you are saying i deserved it because i went to detroit, because being murdered there is a logical possibility. Right?


Well, whatever that useless blather is all about, if you step into any democrat hell-hole such as Detroit, Washington DC, New Orleans, Baltimore, Miami, etc., you chances of getting murdered are definitely higher than average.

The woman chose to spread her legs. I am anti-rape so I am pro-choice.

Trap-Door Spider: LaoTsu128: if i step into detroit, with the possibility of getting killed, and someone murders me, you are saying i deserved it because i went to detroit, because being murdered there is a logical possibility. Right?


Well, whatever that useless blather is all about, if you step into any democrat hell-hole such as Detroit, Washington DC, New Orleans, Baltimore, Miami, etc., you chances of getting murdered are definitely higher than average.

Please come visit us. PLEASE!

You know whats wrong with liberals in this country? They have convictions but they dont have the fortitude to do what it takes to be taken serriously. Want to keep your rights to your own bodies? get 100 unwed unloved unsupported preteen late trimester pregnant girls on the capital steps to commit sepukku with steak knives.

Now THAT would make a farking point. Kick it up a notch and have crack addicts throw the entrails at any politician exiting the building.

Liberals in this country just dont have the balls that conservatives do, those crazy farkers do all kinds of crazy and lethal law breaking crap to get thier way. Liberals? Pfft ya keep waving that sign hippy.

/happily no longer giving a fark what any of you do.

someonelse:

a response to Fiatlux ... the quote thingey didn't work.

Fiatlux: Hey Chris,
Your Margaret Sanger quote is, of course, taken out of context. I am pretty sure Farkistan has a word for that. In the original text she was making a point about the untrue things people were saying about Planned Parenthood. Things folks like you still say about them. Things that are still untrue.

Lie for jesus much?

Alas no, Sanger was big on the eugenics thing. A lot of Americans fell for that. I admire, donate and volunteered for years with PP and I admire the work they do, but Sanger had some pretty schnitty views.

Talon: 1. All persons have the right to be the sole proprietors of their bodies. This right exists even where a blood relative will die without your donation of bodily resources.

See: McFall V Shimp, In Re Angela Carder, n Re George, 630 S.W.2d 614 (Mo£t~App. 1982), In Re Pescinshi, 67 Wis.2d 4, 226 N.W.2d 180 (1975), In Re Harrel St. Mary's Hospital, n Re Unborn ~qI4 No.84-7-50006-0, Slip Op. at 5 (Wash. Super. C~ Benton/F~a~n Cos.Jur.Div. April 20, 1984). I can provide more sources if necessary.


2. Pregnant women have the same rights as any other human person. 14th Amendment.


3. You have the right to use lethal force when: your life is being attacked or threatened, when your body is being attacked or threatened with grievous harm and where lethal force is necessary to stop the infraction/prevent the actualization of the threat.

You can put the pieces together on your own, but for those who need help: A fetus has no right to a woman's body for any reason even if it is given all the rights of a born person, what a fetus does to a woman has a perpetual risk of death and the actualization of grievous harm (what happens to a woman's body during pregnancy would be torture if done by any other party), the only way to stop what a fetus does to a woman's body is to remove it (which makes lethal force necessary), therefore a woman therefore has the right an abortion at any time for any reason (at least until an alternative can be developed that will remove the fetus alive).

Perhaps abortion wouldn't be such a big issue if pro-lifers took the time to think issues through rather than let their whole entire movement be based on appeals to emotion (but it's a baaaaybee! It has a heartbeat!). But whatever.


/waits for the inevitable flames about how heartless and mean I am.

This argument started bad and then took a trip to retardo land.

Relatively Obscure: You mean more murders are committed where there are more people? HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?!


I'm saying that where ever liberal democrats run things (be it a blue-state ghetto or a slimy abortion clinic), you have more murder. Though I suppose you could make the rare exception for places like San Francisco or Seattle. There, you're more likely to die from slipping & falling on the pile of sh*t some bum just left in your driveway.

/p.s. Washington DC isn't there 'the most people' are

Thune: Talon:Rational argument

NO U!

I see you've logically eviscerated his points. Nice job on taking the time and effort to actually say something intelligent.

/oh wait...

Abortion has kept the GOP in power for decades.

Trap-Door Spider: Relatively Obscure: You mean more murders are committed where there are more people? HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?!


I'm saying that where ever liberal democrats run things (be it a blue-state ghetto or a slimy abortion clinic), you have more murder. Though I suppose you could make the rare exception for places like San Francisco or Seattle. There, you're more likely to die from slipping & falling on the pile of sh*t some bum just left in your driveway.

/p.s. Washington DC isn't there 'the most people' are

Wow. Just wow. I'm so glad that liberal democrats are in charge of Texas, Alabama, Georgia-- you know, the states with the highest murder rates, while the Solid NorthEast, with their wonderfully low murder rates, is in the hands of the GOP.

/did you really, honestly say that?