Abortion after 20 weeks: One woman's story

[Jose Fly]

Abortion is an OPTION when SEVERAL scans done by SEVERAL EXPERTS, show that there is no brain mass inside the developing fetus' head.

There fixed it

Don't bother. Stripe's just trolling a thread he doesn't like.

 

[fool]

Great OP Jose!
So
You're ok with outlawing elective abortions of perfectly healthy pregnancies then right?
Cause your great OP doesn't really touch on that.
And that's what the debate is about.

 

[Jose Fly]

Great OP Jose!
So
You're ok with outlawing elective abortions of perfectly healthy pregnancies then right?
Cause your great OP doesn't really touch on that.
And that's what the debate is about.

That assumes everyone is on the same page in allowing the couple in the OP to make their own decision, without government interference. As the responses show, that's not the case.

There remain fundamentalist Christians who believe the government should force mother in the OP to carry her fetus to term and deliver it, no matter what.

 

[Jonahdog]

Sure it is. A mother had her child executed because he was disabled. No matter what regulations men invent, that is always murder.

Or sometimes they go completely unnoticed for 44 years.

No, we're not. We're talking about a living human being who was murdered because a scan showed an abnormality inside his head.

Is that your argument? You sympathize, therefore murder is OK.

another situation where Stripe continues to be wrong.

 

[Delmar]

*sigh*

As has been explained ad nauseum, this isn't "murder". "Murder" is a legal term for an unlawful killing of a person. Since what this woman did isn't illegal, it's not "murder"...

So if a particular government decriminalizes the killing of black people or Jews, it isn't murder?

 

[bybee]

So if a particular government decriminalizes the killing of black people or Jews, it isn't murder?

A law may or may not be moral. We are not obligated to participate in a law which we find immoral.
Of course there are consequences to civil disobedience but I do have to live with my conscience.
Also, so far, in America we have the opportunity to change laws which we find unjust.
But what kind of society have we become that some among us think it is okay to murder a child born alive and breathing?

 

[Stripe]

That assumes everyone is on the same page in allowing the couple in the OP to make their own decision, without government interference. As the responses show, that's not the case.

There remain fundamentalist Christians who believe the government should force mother in the OP to carry her fetus to term and deliver it, no matter what.

Nope.

You turn a blind eye to babies already born being left to die or actively executed.

You use things like OP to turn an emotional trick, which has been utterly exposed.

Upholding the right to life of disabled people is on the side of good. You are far from that.

 

[PureX]

Great OP Jose!
So
You're ok with outlawing elective abortions of perfectly healthy pregnancies then right?
Cause your great OP doesn't really touch on that.
And that's what the debate is about.

Abortion is not legal, nor reasonable under all conditions. The OP presents a condition in which most people would have to admit that it is a reasonable course of action. But you don't want to admit that it could be a reasonable course of action under ANY conditions, am I right? So you want to push the conversation back to conditions in which it's not so reasonable. But abortion is not legal in all situations. And the OP was intended to show that there are situations in which it is the more reasonable course of action.

Are you willing to admit that under some circumstances, as referred to in the OP, abortion is a reasonable solution?

 

[PureX]

A law may or may not be moral. We are not obligated to participate in a law which we find immoral.
Of course there are consequences to civil disobedience but I do have to live with my conscience.
Also, so far, in America we have the opportunity to change laws which we find unjust.
But what kind of society have we become that some among us think it is okay to murder a child born alive and breathing?

How do you imagine that this conversation is about murdering a child born alive and breathing?

 

[bybee]

How do you imagine that this conversation is about murdering a child born alive and breathing?

This is what SOME feminists and others are pushing for. To declare that a child born alive and breathing is still not to be considered a person. Also there is evidence that abortionists do murder late term babies that are aborted and born alive.

 

[PureX]

This is what SOME feminists and others are pushing for.

Says who? Rush Limbaugh? GFR7? Those imaginary evil feminists can be made to say anything, after all. There may even be a few lunatic feminists somewhere in the world who actually do say this. But if we look hard enough, or don't bother to look at all and just imagine it, I'm sure we can come up with someone who says something absurd no matter what it is.

But that doesn't really have anything to do with anything. Nor with this conversation.

To declare that a child born alive and breathing is still not to be considered a person.

Well, having no brain would certainly call into question the definition of a "person".

Also there is evidence that abortionists do murder late term babies that are aborted and born alive.

Again, according to whom? You have been around here long enough to know that what people call "evidence" depends greatly on what they want to call evidence. And what they reject as not being evidence likewise depends greatly on what they don't want to be called evidence. Not to mention the fact that the internet of full of lies and faked "evidence" posted by people who think the use of slander and deception is justified so long as it serves their cause.

This conversation is about a fetus that has been shown, while still in the womb, to have no functional brain. To make the point that there are some instances in which an abortion would be a reasonable course of action. And the anti-abortion proponents among us are squirming to change the scenario because they don't want to admit that there are circumstances under which an abortion is a reasonable course of action. Which is why you're busy imagining these evil feminists who claim they want to murder newborn babies. You're desperately trying to move the conversation as far away as you can from the possibility of a abortion being a reasonable course of action.

Isn't this so?

 

[bybee]

Says who? Rush Limbaugh? GFR7? Those imaginary evil feminists can be made to say anything, after all. There may even be a few lunatic feminists somewhere in the world who actually do say this. But if we look hard enough, or don't bother to look at all and just imagine it, I'm sure we can come up with someone who says something absurd no matter what it is.

But that doesn't really have anything to do with anything. Nor with this conversation.
Well, having no brain would certainly call into question the definition of a "person".
Again, according to whom? You have been around here long enough to know that what people call "evidence" depends greatly on what they want to call evidence. And what they reject as not being evidence likewise depends greatly on what they don't want to be called evidence. Not to mention the fact that the internet of full of lies and faked "evidence" posted by people who think the use of slander and deception is justified so long as it serves their cause.

This conversation is about a fetus that has been shown, while still in the womb, to have no functional brain. To make the point that there are some instances in which an abortion would be a reasonable course of action. And the anti-abortion proponents among us are squirming to change the scenario because they don't want to admit that there are circumstances under which an abortion is a reasonable course of action. Which is why you're busy imagining these evil feminists who claim they want to murder newborn babies. You're desperately trying to move the conversation as far away as you can from the possibility of a abortion being a reasonable course of action.

Isn't this so?

Only in the foggy recesses of your mind....
From there let us proceed to those folks with Alzheimer's. They do not have a functioning brain and are a drain on society. Ought they to be put down?

 

[PureX]

Only in the foggy recesses of your mind....
From there let us proceed to those folks with Alzheimer's. They do not have a functioning brain and are a drain on society. Ought they to be put down?

There is a point beyond which it could be considered the more humane course of action.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Do you have an example of what you mean? How far along is the pregnancy, etc?

No, I don't. I'm not up for a fight on this.

No hard feeling's. :e4e:


DJ

1.0
​

 

[bybee]

There is a point beyond which it could be considered the more humane course of action.

Yes, but it gets kind of foggy as to where are the lines to be drawn and by whom.
I treasure life but I understand there are conditions under which it could become intolerable. This is a discomfort zone for me.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

As an operating room nurse I must tell you that mother's can be kept alive under the most stressful of conditions.

I assumed as much. I'm suggesting that, even if we can't imagine a scenario in which the mother will inevitably die upon either delivery or section, we should still allow for it in the law. Because the last time that we want to learn how wrong we are, is when somebody's life is on the line.

Right?


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Exactly. I think the "we must kill the fetus or the mother will die" is a pro-choice myth.

Even if it is . . . see above, my post to Bybee.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Dan Emanuel]

The bottom line is that a developing fetus is not a "child" except in the imaginations of those who accept this pretense...

This is you're opinion, which you have every right to; right's descending from the right to religious liberty.

...And not everyone does. And those that do don't have the right to impose their pretenses on those that don't.

That's the truth of it. Whether you like it or not.

I agree with you utterly here. Freedom of religion. :FrankiE::5020:


DJ

1.1
​

 

[PureX]

This is you're opinion, which you have every right to; right's descending from the right to religious liberty.
I agree with you utterly here. Freedom of religion.

Freedom of thought and speech does not descend from our religious liberty because religion does not encompass all thought, or speech, and religion cannot impose any control over them. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Freedom of thought and speech does not descend from religious liberty because religion does not encompass all thought, or speech...

Yes it does. They're is no language that religion cannot and does not access. Their is plenty of language that is irrelevant to religion, to be sure, but religion access's all of it. This is why religious liberty is the only right we have. The right to life descend's from the right to practice religion freely, since how can you practice you're religion, if your dead?

...and cannot impose any control of them. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

I don't.


DJ

1.0
​