Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

[resurrected]

I, PureX, believe that it is not my place to decide for the rest of humanity what should or should not be legal for them to do.

so you wouldn't have spoken out against the laws passed against the jews of germany in the thirties?

I feel the law should be what it is, because it has been established by the mechanisms that this society of human beings chose to do so.

congratulations!

you're a nazi!

 

[WizardofOz]

I, PureX, believe that it is not my place to decide for the rest of humanity what should or should not be legal for them to do. And I don't understand why you can't seem to understand this.

Your poll vote is one reason:

When should abortion be a legal option?​

For any reason, but only up to a certain period during pregnancy
alwight, Balerion the Black, gcthomas, Greenrage, illusionray, Paulos, pqmomba8, PureX, quip, rexlunae, Sitamun, The Horn, xAvarice

You seem to think abortion should be against the law after a certain point. At least you did when you voted on the poll :idunno:

Human beings join together to create societies, and as they do so, they decide for themselves how those societies will function. They will not ask me to tell them how they should live, and if I try, they will likely fight my attempts to do so, as well they should.

But I asked you....in this poll....and you voted/answered.

No one has appointed me the ruler of mankind. And I have no desire to appoint myself the ruler of mankind. So I don't waste time thinking about what other people should or should not be thinking or doing.

Well, apparently you did waste time thinking about what other people should or should not be thinking or doing when you voted in this poll because your answer indicates that you do think about what people should be doing or not doing.

Backtrack all you want. You don't have to be "ruler of mankind" to have an opinion, PureX

 

[WizardofOz]

If a woman is 8 months pregnant, she should be able to walk into a Planned Parenthood and have her baby killed?

Legally? Yes.

In other words, a woman should be able to have her fetus/baby killed, legally, right until he/she emerges from the womb.

Is that an accurate assessment of your position?

What if she doesn't want to keep the baby alive? Should it be up to her if the fetus lives or dies at 8 months?

It depends. Will keeping it alive vs aborting cause extra health risks for her? Then yes. If not then I don't see why killing it is necessary. Simply removing it alive doesn't remove her bodily autonomy like forcing her to incubate it does.

Killing it is rarely necessary so that term has little to do with the discussion.

If the woman wants her child killed, isn't that her decision? That is really where your entire premise rests. So, should the hospital override her wishes simply because the fetus is viable? Are you going to force her to give birth if she doesn't want to?

Legally, I don't think there should be a limit on abortions, unless as I said before, you can remove it without complications to the mother.

So if actively killing fetuses was banned but you could remove them at any stage of pregnancy? Would you be okay with that?

Not unless the pregnancy was ectopic or the mother and child would both die unless the fetus was removed, no. I do agree that with any abortion, the fetus should be removed with all attempts made to keep it alive rather than purposely killing it.

If there is no medical need the woman should not be allowed to abort.

Then what should her charges/sentencing be? Life in prison? Death penalty? If she's a juvenile should she be tried as an adult?
What if she had an abortion because of health risks/sexual assault?

See my sig/Ron Paul quote :e4e:

How could you punish a woman that self aborts but not a woman that pays someone to abort for her? If abortion should be illegal and considered murder, than she's no different then a person hiring a hit man no?

Sure. I can agree with that. As far as legislating goes, I would start with whoever provides the abortion. I would have a lesser charge for a woman complicit in the crime just as I would support stiffer penalties for drug dealers than I would users.

 

[drbrumley]

Ahhhh PureX, first taxes are not theft and now society can abort all the children we want. :nono: One confused man

 

[IMJerusha]

So if it's not the woman's "fault" then her abortion should be legal?

Absolutely not. Lots of people believe that abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest. I disagree.

If not then that really is a red herring on your part.

Those like Rusha, myself and many others here don't play debate games when it comes to the value of the unborn.

Clearly, being that I've never been pregnant. The snarkiness really isn't necessary.

She was asking a legitimate question.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Absolutely not. Lots of people believe that abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest. I disagree.......

I'm with you. An innocent child is an innocent child regardless of the circumstances in which he or she was conceived. The answer to a rape is not to murder an innocent child!! That's insane thinking. If they want to kill someone so bad, kill the rapist!

 

[Jezebel]

In other words, a woman should be able to have her fetus/baby killed, legally, right until he/she emerges from the womb.

Is that an accurate assessment of your position?

Legally, she should never have to give up her bodily autonomy in favor of the fetus. I proposed the solution below as the middle ground, but if you(and the pro life movement) won't accept that then I'd rather late term abortions be legal than women have to carry to term.

That's my issue. Forced pregnancy. To me it's no different then forced organ donation.

If the woman wants her child killed, isn't that her decision? That is really where your entire premise rests.

No. My belief is that a woman is not legally obligated to share her body with a fetus, because people aren't legally entitled to other people's bodies. So if the fetus is removed alive then that's not really a violation of her rights being that hospitals do override people's wishes. She's not being forced to sustain the fetus and doesn't lose her bodily autonomy.

So, should the hospital override her wishes simply because the fetus is viable? Are you going to force her to give birth if she doesn't want to?

Are you familiar with the procedure for late term abortions? She's going to "give birth" regardless.

If there is no medical need the woman should not be allowed to abort.

Why is it okay if there is a medical need?

See my sig/Ron Paul quote :e4e:

Nope you're not getting out of this one. I answered all your questions directly so you could return the favor.

I asked you what you yourself think the charges sentencing should be for a woman that has an abortion. You're the one handing down the sentence. Not the state.

Sure. I can agree with that. As far as legislating goes, I would start with whoever provides the abortion. I would have a lesser charge for a woman complicit in the crime just as I would support stiffer penalties for drug dealers than I would users.

How would you logically have lesser charges for the woman without being hypocritical?

 

[Jezebel]

I'm with you. An innocent child is an innocent child regardless of the circumstances in which he or she was conceived. The answer to a rape is not to murder an innocent child!! That's insane thinking. If they want to kill someone so bad, kill the rapist!

I love how no mention of the victim was made in this post any at all.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Quoted for Truth

The big problem with this discussion in America today is that it always revolves around legal decisions and not scientific fact. Scientifically, the "fetus" is a human being: He/She has human blood, human flesh, human DNA, which makes him or her human; not a dog, not a cat, not a bird, but human. And when he or she is sucked through a vacuum tube and destroyed, what has just been destroyed is a human life. That is science. That is fact.

What is all too often being focused on instead though is the "legalisms" of "personhood", whether or not the child in the womb is legally a person. Does anyone know what is wrong with that? What is wrong with that is, that is what was done to the slaves. Their blood and DNA were human too, scientifically they were human beings like anybody else, but the law denied them personhood, and that is what is being done here too. Today, just as then, the law flies in the face of scientific fact.

Abortion is the destruction of human life. Thats science. I don't care what a judge says or what a lawyer says: What I am saying is SCIENCE and is FACT. The child in the womb, scientifically is a human being, and therefore killing him or her is murder.

And one other thing: It is also a fact that the DNA of the child in the womb is unique and different from the mother's DNA, which b1ows out of the water the argument that "I can do what I want with my body", because its not the woman's body, it is an entirely seperate person, with the right to life.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Absolutely not. Lots of people believe that abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest. I disagree.......

I'm with you. An innocent child is an innocent child regardless of the circumstances in which he or she was conceived. The answer to a rape is not to murder an innocent child!! That's insane thinking. If they want to kill someone so bad, kill the rapist!

I love how no mention of the victim was made in this post any at all.

When it comes to abortion, the baby is the victim.

Just because a woman is a victim of a terrible crime does not give her the right to murder an innocent child.

What sort of woman would murder an innocent baby?

 

[Jezebel]

When it comes to abortion, the baby is the victim.

Just because a woman is a victim of a terrible crime does not give her the right to murder an innocent child.

What sort of woman would murder an innocent baby?

Glad we're clear with where your concern lies. Not bothering.

 

[IMJerusha]

I'm sorry but I find this extremely hard to believe. It's like a paraphrase of the welfare queen stereotype that has become so popular. I don't know what state you're in, but I know plenty of people on public assistance and none are living fabulous lives. I'm the child of a lower class single mother who gets no assistance whatsoever and we still have a better standard of living than all of them.

Sorry you find it hard to believe but it's true and it's no paraphrase. Let me provide you with another scenario that is ongoing in my state. I know this woman personally so I'll use her case. When she was living alone and employed, she was unable to get government assistance. She got a boyfriend, became pregnant by him, applied for and received government assistance, had twins and now has a government apartment free of charge. Oh yeah, boyfriend/daddy lives with her without benefit of marriage in said free apartment. All of her food and health insurance is provided free of charge. How nice! She doesn't work anymore (she was my son's store manager) and daddy only works part time at the local Radio Shack. They have two cars. Will she marry daddy? Absolutely not. Why? Because she would lose some of her monetary and food benefit since he's working.

I've worked my whole life and paid into the system never seeking any government assistance for anything. When the bottom dropped out of Southern Ohio economy, we applied for assistance and were refused despite the fact that our family of three existed that year on little more than 20K for the whole year including my son's part time job income. We were told that if I could get pregnant, we would be approved. I was 60 years old so we found that more than a little humorous. My son, a full time college student with a part time job, sought government assistance for health insurance so he could use all of his student aid on his education as opposed to the college taking over $950 per semester out of his student aid for mandatory health insurance. He was covered on our catastrophic health insurance policy but that wasn't good enough for the college. Job and Family Services turned him down. He was told that if his girlfriend and he were to have a child and live together, he could receive the insurance. Are you getting the very ugly picture?

When I worked in a Pathology Lab that processed aborted infants, it was my job to type out the pathologists findings. When one sees the same name over and over again on pathology reports during the course of a years time, you start to wonder, and it wasn't just one name. That was back in 1976. You need to get your head out of the sand because it's been going on for a long time.

 

[drbrumley]

I love how no mention of the victim was made in this post any at all.

He did mention the victim. The innocent child.

 

[quip]

Your poll vote is one reason:

When should abortion be a legal option?​

For any reason, but only up to a certain period during pregnancy
alwight, Balerion the Black, gcthomas, Greenrage, illusionray, Paulos, pqmomba8, PureX, quip, rexlunae, Sitamun, The Horn, xAvarice

So?

You seem to think abortion should be against the law after a certain point. At least you did when you voted on the poll :idunno:


Well, apparently you did waste time thinking about what other people should or should not be thinking or doing when you voted in this poll because your answer indicates that you do think about what people should be doing or not doing.

The narrow focus of your poll simply asked for our opinions. That doesn't imply that our views represent the views of millions of others. Again, you're conflating personal moral views with objective legal views...that (potentially) affect everyone.

basically you could read our answers as being:"In a perfect rational world (regarding abortion/contraception) we would choose a relevant abortion law that would allow abortion for any reason up to a certain period 'X'." Of course, we don't live in such a world while 'X' is up for debate...and, as such, personal liberties trump mere opinion.

You're overreaching upon our intent with your overzealous poll.

 

[IMJerusha]

I love how no mention of the victim was made in this post any at all.

No problem since he was posting to the victim! And it wasn't just the rapist who made me a victim. Remember that pathology lab I stated I worked at? Well, they made me a victim of their hypocrisy as well since they fired me for having had an abortion, even though they knew the pregnancy was the result of a rape. Okay for them to make money from abortions. Not okay for one of their employees to have an abortion. You see, along with rape and abortion came the perception, at least to the head pathologist there, that I was a slut who wasn't in the position to refuse his sexual advances. When I did, he used my abortion to fire me. He's 87 now and has a big eye opener coming to him soon. I have no doubt Yeshua will have a few things to say to him.

 

[Jezebel]

No problem since he was posting to the victim! And it wasn't just the rapist who made me a victim. Remember that pathology lab I stated I worked at? Well, they made me a victim of their hypocrisy as well since they fired me for having had an abortion, even though they knew the pregnancy was the result of a rape. Okay for them to make money from abortions. Not okay for one of their employees to have an abortion. You see, along with rape and abortion came the perception, at least to the head pathologist there, that I was a slut who wasn't in the position to refuse his sexual advances. When I did, he used my abortion to fire me. He's 87 now and has a big eye opener coming to him soon. I have no doubt Yeshua will have a few things to say to him.

I'm sorry you were raped. Nobody deserves that.

 

[Jezebel]

Sorry you find it hard to believe but it's true and it's no paraphrase. Let me provide you with another scenario that is ongoing in my state. I know this woman personally so I'll use her case. When she was living alone and employed, she was unable to get government assistance. She got a boyfriend, became pregnant by him, applied for and received government assistance, had twins and now has a government apartment free of charge. Oh yeah, boyfriend/daddy lives with her without benefit of marriage in said free apartment. All of her food and health insurance is provided free of charge. How nice! She doesn't work anymore (she was my son's store manager) and daddy only works part time at the local Radio Shack. They have two cars. Will she marry daddy? Absolutely not. Why? Because she would lose some of her monetary and food benefit since he's working.

Like I said I don't believe this. Medicaid and footstamps? Yea. Being able to maintain two cars with twins and the dad only works part time? Nope.

All I'm saying is everybody on the internet knows somebody that's living large on government assistance when the reality usually isn't that way at all. They may have an apartment, but I doubt it's a nice one and I also doubt that it's completely free.

I don't see what the "benefit of marriage" has to do with anything. That wouldn't make the situation better any at all.

I've worked my whole life and paid into the system never seeking any government assistance for anything. When the bottom dropped out of Southern Ohio economy, we applied for assistance and were refused despite the fact that our family of three existed that year on little more than 20K for the whole year including my son's part time job income. We were told that if I could get pregnant, we would be approved. I was 60 years old so we found that more than a little humorous. My son, a full time college student with a part time job, sought government assistance for health insurance so he could use all of his student aid on his education as opposed to the college taking over $950 per semester out of his student aid for mandatory health insurance. He was covered on our catastrophic health insurance policy but that wasn't good enough for the college. Job and Family Services turned him down. He was told that if his girlfriend and he were to have a child and live together, he could receive the insurance. Are you getting the very ugly picture?

I do believe this. It's really hard to get welfare benefits.

When I worked in a Pathology Lab that processed aborted infants, it was my job to type out the pathologists findings. When one sees the same name over and over again on pathology reports during the course of a years time, you start to wonder, and it wasn't just one name. That was back in 1976. You need to get your head out of the sand because it's been going on for a long time.

Or they could have just been bad at using birth control. Even I stated that people have repeat abortions. Having an abortion for welfare money is really stupid. Abortions aren't cheap.

 

[IMJerusha]

I'm sorry you were raped. Nobody deserves that.

Nobody does, and nobody should have to bear the stigma of being loose/immoral on account of rape but they do, in the minds of all sorts of people including those in the court system. All that aside, I can tell you that my abortion was uncalled for...pure unadulterated murder. And in that action, I gave up my right to be considered a victim. Two wrongs don't make a right. It was necessary for me to come to that understanding so that I could ask Yeshua and my child for forgiveness. I am very grateful to have received it.

 

[IMJerusha]

Like I said I don't believe this. Medicaid and footstamps? Yea. Being able to maintain two cars with twins and the dad only works part time? Nope.

Thank you so much. I enjoy being called a liar. Now dance around that fact, too!

All I'm saying is everybody on the internet knows somebody that's living large on government assistance when the reality usually isn't that way at all. They may have an apartment, but I doubt it's a nice one and I also doubt that it's completely free.

They're actually very nice apartments, having recently received a face lift. They are every bit as nice as apartments I lived in in my twenties. The woman told my son her apartment was free. She is responsible for the utilities but receives assistance paying them.

I don't see what the "benefit of marriage" has to do with anything. That wouldn't make the situation better any at all.

That's an answer I would expect from a left wing non-believer.

I do believe this. It's really hard to get welfare benefits.

Get pregnant, you'll be in like Flynn!

Or they could have just been bad at using birth control.

No woman who can manipulate the extensive paperwork involved in obtaining and maintaining government assistance is so mentally deficient as to not be able to manage birth control.

Even I stated that people have repeat abortions. Having an abortion for welfare money is really stupid. Abortions aren't cheap.

Excuse me? http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/abortion-under-medicaid/

Ever heard of Planned Parenthood's Title X? How about the Family Planning Benefit Program (government assistance).

Yes, having an abortion to facilitate welfare fraud is really stupid but not because it's expensive (between $300 and $850 which a lot of guys are more than willing to pay) but because abortion is a health risk to the mother and murder to the infant. In terms of eternity, it's a big risk for the mother!

 

[Jezebel]

Nobody does, and nobody should have to bear the stigma of being loose/immoral on account of rape but they do, in the minds of all sorts of people including those in the court system. All that aside, I can tell you that my abortion was uncalled for...pure unadulterated murder. And in that action, I gave up my right to be considered a victim. Two wrongs don't make a right. It was necessary for me to come to that understanding so that I could ask Yeshua and my child for forgiveness. I am very grateful to have received it.

I don't think you've done anything wrong to ask forgiveness for. And having an abortion doesn't make you any less a victim, or survivor of rape.