Supercandy afraid of reality puts those who speak truth on Ignore...zygote not child!

Mott the Hoople said:
I did and I'm unmoved but I'm the wrong person to show that too. I studied embryology in grad school and also did a years sequence in gross anatomy. This has no shock value for me. I've seen far worse. I know some of the gals in my embrylogy class would literally get physicall ill during class and would go running out of the class room and some claimed it gave them night mares. We had two pregnant women in our class of 100 or so and both dropped out of Embryology. It was some pretty fucked up repugnant shit man.
Click to expand...

So after watching it, you feel no sense or desire to protect other children from going through that?

If the child had the sense to fight for survival... I would suggest sentience is at an age that we simply cannot detect.
 
Superfreak said:
So after watching it, you feel no sense or desire to protect other children from going through that?

If the child had the sense to fight for survival... I would suggest sentience is at an age that we simply cannot detect.
Click to expand...


I want to prevent abotions, and work to do so. I simply do not agree with using the force of Government to do so... There are more effective and Constitutionally sound ways to spend energy and effort.
 
If the Right wanted to end abortion they would be spending there time and money on education, birth controll and assistance for the poor and for assistance to adoption agencies.
 
Superfreak said:
What is your suggestion? That we kill all children in the barrios because they may not have a great life? Wow.

Should we sterilize all the poor countries in the world?

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/200...sound-video-of-a-baby-being-brutally-aborted/

watch the videos Tom... tell me how great that life was for her.
Click to expand...
I think you're missing Tom's point. If we collectively make abortion illegal then we owe a responsibility to those children that they recieve a certain quality of life. It's just as immoral to wash your hands of them after they have been born. Keep in mind Darla's point too. The only thing you really accomplish by making abortion illegal is criminalizing women and making the procedure profoundly unsafe. You won't stop it.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I think you're missing Tom's point. If we collectively make abortion illegal then we owe a responsibility to those children that they recieve a certain quality of life. It's just as immoral to wash your hands of them after they have been born. Keep in mind Darla's point too. The only thing you really accomplish by making abortion illegal is criminalizing women and making the procedure profoundly unsafe. You won't stop it.
Click to expand...

No, I understand Tom's attempt at a point. It is not a valid one. Because if you take his logic out, then we should not allow women to give birth if the childs life might not be rosy. I agree with the point of not washing our hands of them after they are born and so do most who wish to protect them prior to birth. The left will tell you otherwise and will pretend that the only way to care for them is via the government.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I think you're missing Tom's point. If we collectively make abortion illegal then we owe a responsibility to those children that they recieve a certain quality of life. It's just as immoral to wash your hands of them after they have been born. Keep in mind Darla's point too. The only thing you really accomplish by making abortion illegal is criminalizing women and making the procedure profoundly unsafe. You won't stop it.
Click to expand...

Making it illegal is the most inefficent way of ending it. See drugs as a great example. Thats what makes me question the motives behind those who keep fighting to illegalize abortion... they are using abotion to gain political power.

The right could have had a ban on partial birth abortion many years earlier had they been willing to allow for an exception for the health of the mother.
 
Superfreak said:
No, I understand Tom's attempt at a point. It is not a valid one. Because if you take his logic out, then we should not allow women to give birth if the childs life might not be rosy. I agree with the point of not washing our hands of them after they are born and so do most who wish to protect them prior to birth. The left will tell you otherwise and will pretend that the only way to care for them is via the government.
Click to expand...

SO let the government require women develope these zygotes into babies but the governemnt should not be involved in assisting them once born, that should be left up to private companies. I see.
 
Superfreak said:
So after watching it, you feel no sense or desire to protect other children from going through that?

If the child had the sense to fight for survival... I would suggest sentience is at an age that we simply cannot detect.
Click to expand...
Nope. Doesn'taffect me that way at all. As for the issue of sentience I agree with you. No one knows exactly when sentience begins in developmental biology. I also get frustrated with people who support abortion who won't recognize the fact that the procedure unequivocally ends a human life. Having said that, I'm still pro-choice.
 
Superfreak said:
What is your suggestion? That we kill all children in the barrios because they may not have a great life? Wow.

Should we sterilize all the poor countries in the world?

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/200...sound-video-of-a-baby-being-brutally-aborted/

watch the videos Tom... tell me how great that life was for her.
Click to expand...

Now you are reacting the same way that Darla might react, I am trying to give some insight into a world of which you know little. Do you really think that if legal abortion wasn't available that those women would just say, oh fair enough then I'll have the baby. No, they won't they will go to some woman down a backstreet and resort to knitting needles.
 
Bijou said:
Sentience has no bearing whatsoever on viability. Sentience occurs long before an unborn child is viable, and exists even in severely defective unborn children and fetuses. The issue is choice regardless of viability because the window for abortion is large enough to accommodate that choice, and after that window would include surrendering a born, viable child for adoption. You're woefully unqualified for this discussion for myriad reasons, one being that you're incapable of recognizing the difference between sentience and viability.
Click to expand...

trying to set a specific date for "viability" is totally arbitrary......one fetus may be viable at 19 weeks, another at 24......should we require testing of each woman to determine if her unborn child is viable as a precondition for abortion?......
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Now you are reacting the same way that Darla might react, I am trying to give some insight into a world of which you know little. Do you really think that if legal abortion wasn't available that those women would just say, oh fair enough then I'll have the baby. No, they won't they will go to some woman down a backstreet and resort to knitting needles.
Click to expand...

Or they'll throw it in a dumpster after it's born.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top