The Issue of Abortion

Which still has nothing to do with people, who are in a sexual relationship, being responsible.

Would you care to take another shot at proving your position.

Do you recall the DUI ads of the 80s? Radio. TV. Billboards. They were everywhere. I recall one stating all the legal ramifications and at the end of the ad it said, "And along with all that you get a free set of Ginsu knives."

Look at cigarettes and the new proposed packaging.

There are ways to "beat it" into people's consciousness to encourage them to use birth control. Perhaps an ad showing a couple coming home from a party, totally exhausted, then flash to a baby crying at 3 am. The announcer coming on and saying, "Do you feel like getting up now?"

There are many ways/approaches to combat unwanted pregnancies. Yes, people are responsible but it isn't working as well as it should. Let's try a different approach. What's wrong with that?

On that note I'm going to bed. May your dreams be entertaining.
 
Do you recall the DUI ads of the 80s? Radio. TV. Billboards. They were everywhere. I recall one stating all the legal ramifications and at the end of the ad it said, "And along with all that you get a free set of Ginsu knives."

Look at cigarettes and the new proposed packaging.

There are ways to "beat it" into people's consciousness to encourage them to use birth control. Perhaps an ad showing a couple coming home from a party, totally exhausted, then flash to a baby crying at 3 am. The announcer coming on and saying, "Do you feel like getting up now?"

There are many ways/approaches to combat unwanted pregnancies. Yes, people are responsible but it isn't working as well as it should. Let's try a different approach. What's wrong with that?

On that note I'm going to bed. May your dreams be entertaining.

At least you'll admit that people aren't being responsible.
Now if we can just get past that detail of you wanting to kill babies; because people aren't being responsible.
 
I recall that part of the thread very well....you were schooled on the subject of fertilized chicken eggs in post #115, #119, and #123 in no uncertain terms....by "Good Luck".....yet you're too freakin' stupid to realize it.....well, the rest of us do realize it and thats whats important.

If you want to insist some country folk put chickens in their cakes by all means continue to do so.
 
He was also schooled on this, back on the old AOL board. :palm:
I take it you've noticed how he de-humanizes the babies; because that makes it easier for him to support killing them.
Kind of like how the liberals of old de-humanized blacks; because that way they could just kill them when they wanted.

If some folks want to refer to a mass of cells as a human being, a mass so small it can not be seen by the naked eye, we all have to be thankful those folks are not making our laws.

Talking about de-humanizing advocating such a mass of cells should have control or authority or influence over the bodies of women....we may as well go back to prehistoric times where the guy grabbed the gal's hair and dragged her back to his cave.

As for slavery at least the black man was considered 1/2 or a 1/3 of a person. One can not de-humanize an individual more than placing them on par with a united sperm and egg. It sounds like a perverted Monty Python skit.
 
No, that's assisted suicide. Euthanasia is a mercy killing, and consent need not be at hand.

My error was due to thinking of Dr. Kevorkian at the time. A travesty of justice.

So much for both US and Canadian citizens babbling on about their free countries when one is not permitted to obtain help in order to end their suffering.

Refusing to help others end their misery. Advocating forcing women to bear children. When it comes to proof of evolution it shows just how close we are to our barbaric, neanderthal ancestors.
 
If the egg were fertilized you would definitely be eating a baby chicken, along with the yolk and whites of the egg. That chicken, given time would develop into a chick and hatch. It would be embryonic chick until it hatched, just as it is an embryonic baby until it has been born. However, it changes nothing to the reality of brain development which is not significantly different seconds before birth to seconds after.

I agree. Brain function is not significantly different. However, other things are such as going from a liquid to a gaseous atmosphere. I'm not aware of any living creature capable of switching between the two at will.

Then there is the change involved with acquiring nutrition and eliminating waste. Again, I'm not aware of any creature capable of switching between methods at their convenience.
 
Either there is evidence that they WOULD have been neglected and/or abused, or your entire presentation is bullshit.

On the other hand; would you care to explain why we still have children that weren't aborted, being neglected and/or abused?

And your comment of "There is no surplus of children..." appears to mean that there all children, that were born, are now living with loving and caring parents.

Care to explain why you painted yourself into the corner, again.

It only appears I painted myself into a corner because of your inability to grasp basic logic and common sense. Let's go over this one more time.

In the past, before legal abortions, unwanted children were "given up" for adoption. Due to nature being the same then as it is now there were many unwanted pregnancies. The difference is, today, pregnancy can be stopped before an unwanted child comes into the world so there is nothing to be "given up".

So, in the past, with a surplus of children, many spent a large portion of their childhood in institutions. Needless to say they did not receive the normal love and attention children require from parents because they didn't have any parents. (Surely that was easy enough to follow.)

In the past, due to limited technology, children were an asset. More people lived a rural life and there were always chores a child could do, be it feeding animals, working in the garden, washing dishes, etc, etc. In other words a free farm hand or a house maid so while there were an abundance of children available for adoption there were an abundance of opportunities available. However, children always outnumbered opportunities resulting in many of them remaining in orphanages.

Today, with far fewer family farms coupled with advanced technology the labor of a child is not in demand. Remember, in the majority of adoption cases in the past, couples were asking, "What's in it for me?" That "what's in it for me" attitude has certainly not decreased as time passed. So, the answer is, "A lot less than there was years ago", meaning there are less reasons one would adopt. Considering, today, it's common for women to postpone childbirth they are not going to rush out and adopt. (Again, surely that was easy enough to follow.)

As for children who weren't aborted and are neglected/abused it goes back to the desire and need for children. As I previously mentioned women put off childbearing. Having children is not the same priority it was generations ago. The purpose of childbearing in the past was to ensure there would be someone to look after the bearer when they grew old. Today, with pensions and investments, that need has diminished. Also, people have witnessed that there's less than a 50/50 chance ones children will look after them.

Any questions?
 
I agree. Brain function is not significantly different. However, other things are such as going from a liquid to a gaseous atmosphere. I'm not aware of any living creature capable of switching between the two at will.

Then there is the change involved with acquiring nutrition and eliminating waste. Again, I'm not aware of any creature capable of switching between methods at their convenience.
None of those things define legally if a human is alive. Brain function does. And you know of every mammal alive that changes from the two "atmospheres" consistently.

One can have colostomy bags and kidney dialysis without suddenly being defined as "other than human"...

There is no significant difference between the two levels of development, it's all in your imagination. All mammals are designed to develop in utero during early stages of life, saying that because of that it means that they are not "alive" is just mental flatulence.
 
Really damo, lets consider the ramifications of your thinking......
You say:
Brain function is what legally defines if a human is alive?

If thats the case, consider ApplethePinhead....are you really telling me he is not alive or partially alive or barely alive.....???

Should be be forced to carry on with his pitiful, worthless, existence with such a profound mental handicap as he exhibits here? Wasting natural resources that without doubt could be better used to rise septic tanks or provide oxygen for forest fires....
 
Last edited:
At least you'll admit that people aren't being responsible.
Now if we can just get past that detail of you wanting to kill babies; because people aren't being responsible.

As soon as you produce the baby that's supposedly being killed. No pictures. Let's see the actual child, in person. Produce ONE child that is currently alive and is going to be killed.
 
None of those things define legally if a human is alive. Brain function does. And you know of every mammal alive that changes from the two "atmospheres" consistently.

One can have colostomy bags and kidney dialysis without suddenly being defined as "other than human"...

There is no significant difference between the two levels of development, it's all in your imagination. All mammals are designed to develop in utero during early stages of life, saying that because of that it means that they are not "alive" is just mental flatulence.

Here we go, again, referring to the legal definition of "alive". First, alive is not the same thing as human being. My cat is alive and so are my plants but neither are human beings.

Second point is if we're going to talk legal then abortion is legal. The point being "legal" proves nothing. It's an arbitrary designation.

As for development we have terms and laws which deal with different stages of development. Until a doctor has written their exams or completed their internship they are not considered a doctor. Surely they are doctors the day before they write exams, however, our world would be one upside down place if we didn't have classifications for stages of development that can be readily determined.

If human beings come into existence at the moment a cell is fertilized then the idea one is a citizen if born in the country makes no sense. Why wouldn't they be a citizen the moment of conception?

If we take nine months as the time between conception and birth a person born 3 months premature should have to be 65 and three months old before being eligible for pension.

And, of course, we still have that elephant in the room which is what is the life of the fetus worth vis-a-vis the mother's health.

Maybe it's just me but considering anti-abortionists have been around since Roe V Wade doesn't one find it peculiar they don't have a detailed list of what illnesses and diseases and prognosis satisfy the requirement to abort?

Maybe someone here can let me know if there is an anti-abortion group that has such a list.
 
Really damo, lets consider the ramifications of your thinking......
You say:
Brain function is what legally defines if a human is alive?

If thats the case, consider ApplethePinhead....are you really telling me he is not alive or partially alive or barely alive.....???

Should be be forced to carry on with his pitiful, worthless, existence with such a profound mental handicap as he exhibits here? Wasting natural resources that without doubt could be better used to rise septic tanks or provide oxygen for forest fires....

My goodness, Bravo. Between responding to my posts in pink and your obsession with me as witnessed by your comments to Damo I ask that you use a little more discretion. ;)
 
If some folks want to refer to a mass of cells as a human being, a mass so small it can not be seen by the naked eye, we all have to be thankful those folks are not making our laws.

Talking about de-humanizing advocating such a mass of cells should have control or authority or influence over the bodies of women....we may as well go back to prehistoric times where the guy grabbed the gal's hair and dragged her back to his cave.

As for slavery at least the black man was considered 1/2 or a 1/3 of a person. One can not de-humanize an individual more than placing them on par with a united sperm and egg. It sounds like a perverted Monty Python skit.

Blacks were considered to less then human and therefore it was OK to kill them, just like you're doing with an unborn child.
I continue to laugh at the way you can only see in extremes, such as; your consistent refusal to address that those "mass of cells" increase to the point where they can be seen, but you still refuse to acknowledge that the exist.

I've noticed that you're still unable to show the stats that would support your assertions of abuse and/or neglect.
 
It only appears I painted myself into a corner because of your inability to grasp basic logic and common sense. Let's go over this one more time.

In the past, before legal abortions, unwanted children were "given up" for adoption. Due to nature being the same then as it is now there were many unwanted pregnancies. The difference is, today, pregnancy can be stopped before an unwanted child comes into the world so there is nothing to be "given up".

So, in the past, with a surplus of children, many spent a large portion of their childhood in institutions. Needless to say they did not receive the normal love and attention children require from parents because they didn't have any parents. (Surely that was easy enough to follow.)

In the past, due to limited technology, children were an asset. More people lived a rural life and there were always chores a child could do, be it feeding animals, working in the garden, washing dishes, etc, etc. In other words a free farm hand or a house maid so while there were an abundance of children available for adoption there were an abundance of opportunities available. However, children always outnumbered opportunities resulting in many of them remaining in orphanages.

Today, with far fewer family farms coupled with advanced technology the labor of a child is not in demand. Remember, in the majority of adoption cases in the past, couples were asking, "What's in it for me?" That "what's in it for me" attitude has certainly not decreased as time passed. So, the answer is, "A lot less than there was years ago", meaning there are less reasons one would adopt. Considering, today, it's common for women to postpone childbirth they are not going to rush out and adopt. (Again, surely that was easy enough to follow.)

As for children who weren't aborted and are neglected/abused it goes back to the desire and need for children. As I previously mentioned women put off childbearing. Having children is not the same priority it was generations ago. The purpose of childbearing in the past was to ensure there would be someone to look after the bearer when they grew old. Today, with pensions and investments, that need has diminished. Also, people have witnessed that there's less than a 50/50 chance ones children will look after them.

Any questions?

I guestion your ability to think; because you keep living in the past and sadly aren't aware that the rest of the world is living in the PRESENT.

Until you are able to show facts that today's aborted babies would have been neglected and/or abused, you remain pathetic.
 
As soon as you produce the baby that's supposedly being killed. No pictures. Let's see the actual child, in person. Produce ONE child that is currently alive and is going to be killed.

What's the matter coward; since you're unable to present anything to support your assertions, you try to put the other side on the defense and demand that they provide something instead.

Do you need a picture of a baby that was delivered feet first, then had a catheder inserted in the back of it's skull, and had it's brains sucked out.

OH WAIT, I forgot.
It's not delivered, until the entire baby is out of the birth canal and therefore it's not really a child yet; in your asinine conclusion.
Why not just slit it's throat and let it bleed out, seeing as how it's not really human; according to you.
 
My error was due to thinking of Dr. Kevorkian at the time. A travesty of justice.

So much for both US and Canadian citizens babbling on about their free countries when one is not permitted to obtain help in order to end their suffering.

Refusing to help others end their misery. Advocating forcing women to bear children. When it comes to proof of evolution it shows just how close we are to our barbaric, neanderthal ancestors.
I told you that back in POST 196....it obviously takes a couple of attempts to get through your unusually thick shull....
 
Here we go, again, referring to the legal definition of "alive". First, alive is not the same thing as human being. My cat is alive and so are my plants but neither are human beings.

Second point is if we're going to talk legal then abortion is legal. The point being "legal" proves nothing. It's an arbitrary designation.

As for development we have terms and laws which deal with different stages of development. Until a doctor has written their exams or completed their internship they are not considered a doctor. Surely they are doctors the day before they write exams, however, our world would be one upside down place if we didn't have classifications for stages of development that can be readily determined.
They ARE NOT DOCTORS until they receive the degree, pinhead.
Internship and exams are not what makes one a doctor.

If human beings come into existence at the moment a cell is fertilized then the idea one is a citizen if born in the country makes no sense. Why wouldn't they be a citizen the moment of conception?

the idea that a person becomes a citizen if born in the country does make no sense and again is totally irrelevant to the topic.

If we take nine months as the time between conception and birth a person born 3 months premature should have to be 65 and three months old before being eligible for pension.
You eligibility for pension has to do with your birthday, not when you came into existence....

And, of course, we still have that elephant in the room which is what is the life of the fetus worth vis-a-vis the mother's health.

The worth of life is not for you to decide....especially someone else's life.


Maybe it's just me but considering anti-abortionists have been around since Roe V Wade doesn't one find it peculiar they don't have a detailed list of what illnesses and diseases and prognosis satisfy the requirement to abort?
Anti-abortionists have been around since the beginning of humanity

illnesses and diseases and prognosis satisfy the requirement to abort?
Sometimes your stupidity just doesn't warrant a civil response

Maybe someone here can let me know if there is an anti-abortion group that has such a list.
.
 
Blacks were considered to less then human and therefore it was OK to kill them, just like you're doing with an unborn child.
I continue to laugh at the way you can only see in extremes, such as; your consistent refusal to address that those "mass of cells" increase to the point where they can be seen, but you still refuse to acknowledge that the exist.

At some future time, yes, they may increase. They may also not increase. Then, again, they may increase and at a certain point spontaneously abort or miscarry and the cause is usually unknown. This is something one should value on par with a woman?

I've noticed that you're still unable to show the stats that would support your assertions of abuse and/or neglect.

You asked for it. :)

AUSTRALIA: St. Augustine’s Orphanage, Geelong, Victoria during the 1950s.
At this Australian institution the boys lined up for their daily showers naked in serried files. One former resident told an Oral History Project researcher of the stunned look of a new superintendent when he saw the boys preparing for showers. A short time later, dressing gowns were purchased for each boy. Such an intrusive attitude was not unique to one type of institution; it was common across the residential care world. Jane Rose referred to the regular inspections after daily or weekly showers at a contemporary Barnardo’s Home: ‘After showers the boys lined up naked with their hands about their heads for the inspection of the duty officer’
http://www.nospank.net/coldrey.htm

CANADA: In 1992, a former Canadian Christian Brother was convicted for the following offence: ‘Brother Recker was guilty of assault for flicking the end of a wet towel into a boy’s naked buttock...on several occasions Recker snapped his naked buttock so hard that blood was drawn.’

An atmosphere of severity and widespread physical abuse combined with a tradition of regular enforced periods of nudity all encouraged sexual abuse of inmates. The evidence for the abuse is irrefutable.

The Christian Brothers were part of this care world, but a distinctive part. Moreover, there was a caring side in all these homes. They provided at a basic level for the children’s education and maintenance at a time when society generally did not care much what happened to young people who were at-risk. State resources provided for them were low and intended to provide only a modest standard of living approximate to that of the lowest levels of the working class from which most of the children came.
http://www.nospank.net/coldrey.htm

Of course we can't leave out the underlying reason behind orphanages. "To give such a woman who has fallen into sin and is desirous of escaping from its practice and degradation, an opportunity of hiding her shame by receiving her infant and thus removing the evidence of her disgrace."

Let's do the moral thing and institutionalize and abuse the little bastard.

MEXICO: 10News investigators have uncovered allegations of rape, torture and possible trafficking of children at an orphanage………10News got a hold of this story because of a little girl’s cry for help. The girl said a man who was supposed to be taking care of her molested her.

10News investigators obtained tax returns for International Children’s Care. The most recent return from 2005 showed the charity took in $4.6 million for Oasis and other orphanages in places like Congo, Thailand and Ukraine. Many of the orphanages are unregulated or have minimal oversight.
http://www.10news.com/news/10425187/detail.html

And then we have the UNITED STATES: $660,000,000 Clergy Abuse settlement - Los Angeles, CA:
Irwin Zalkin was one of the lead trial lawyers and part of the trial team prepared to commence a 14 victim trial against the Archbishop of Los Angeles on the day a global settlement was reached in the amount of $660,000,000.

$198,500,000 Clergy Abuse settlement - San Diego, CA:
Irwin Zalkin was appointed Mediation Liaison Counsel by a U.S. Magistrate Judge on behalf of over 144 victims of sexual abuse against the Bishop of San Diego resulting in a nearly $200,000,000 settlement.

$100,000,000 Clergy Abuse settlement - Orange County, CA:
Irwin Zalkin was part of the team of lawyers representing survivors who negotiated the first $100,000,000 settlement in the country involving sexual abuse by members of the Catholic clergy.
http://www.sexualabuse-attorneys.com/Sexual_Abuse/Orphanages.aspx

Roger Dean Kiser is the author of the books "Orphan, A True Story of Abandonment, Abuse and Redemption," "American Orphan" and now his newest book titled "RUNAWAY, Life on the streets-The Lessons Learned."

Roger will never forget how he and about 300 other children were treated as though they were less than human while living at the Children's Home Society Orphanage in Jacksonville, Florida during the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Even though the living conditions in orphanages are much better today than they were some years back. The fact remains that when these children one day leave the orphanage. When they do, they will forever be lacking in the emotional skills that it takes to stay in a loving relationship and/or raise a normal family.

These children, though fed clothed and housed in a decent manner do not realize that they are not getting the love and emotional support that they will need once they become adults. They do not even realize that these important elements are missing from their lives, because they have no idea what the words “love” and “affection” even mean.
Most do not even realize that they are unhappy. All they know is that they are not as “unhappy” as they were in their former abusive situation.

IMAGINE...a Spartan bedroom room. A bed, a closet and a window. The floor is beige linoleum and the walls are dull white. All is neat, organized, military and utilitarian. Everywhere is clean, spotless and antiseptic.

The bed appears a fastidiously made single bed. The closet reveals nothing. It is very empty, as the child owns nothing.
http://www.oocities.com/united_states_orphanages/

And then we have the following: "White House Boys" Sue State Over Abuse at Florida State Boys School. 2.06.2009. First Coast News.

BRUNSWICK, GA - Roger Kiser remembers it like it was yesterday. "Unless you were there. Unless you saw how out of control it was, nothing mattered, life didn't matter."Kiser was at the Florida Reform School for Boys, now known as the Arthur Dozier School, back in the late 1950s. He says at the school, there was a place called the "White House" where he was taken numerous times for beatings. "They beat you until you were bloody," says Kiser.

According to a class action lawsuit filed against the state, a number of others who went to the school have the same memories. Court records detail how during the beatings, employees placed, "monetary bets (on who) could draw blood from the boys first."

One boy remembers, "After the blood curdling screams of a boy stopped, one of the state employees was heard to state, 'I think he is dead.'"

"I have heard...out of 86 men I've talked to, I'd say there are 30 who did not see boys return after their beating," says Kiser.

More than 30 graves have been found near the school's property. The state is now investigating who is buried there.

That last entry took place in the 1950s. Less than 10 years before the birth control pill came on the market. That was orphanages and people suggest we should encourage…no, enforce and insist… microscopic cells develop inside women who do not want a child and then send the resulting child to an orphanage because….well, because they feel that is the moral thing to do.

In case someone believes abuse and neglect were rare occurrences we have:
Orphanages became extremely important in the UNITED STATES during the nineteenth century. This era experienced a great deal of financial hardships and violence. The Civil War claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, and diseases many more, orphaning children across the country. In many cases, parents did not posses the financial ability to adequately care for a child. As a result, hundreds of orphanages were established throughout the nation. These orphanages were responsible for providing children with shelter, food, clothing, and education.

As time progressed, it became commonly known that children in orphanages were subjected to abuse and neglect. As a result of the terrible conditions that were found in many UNITED STATES' orphanages, most of these institutions were closed down.

The United States began to focus on the foster care system in order to protect orphaned children. Today, some improved and modern group homes exist for orphans, however, foster care is considered to be a better option for children.
http://children-laws.laws.com/foster-care/orphanages/orphanages-overview

Australia. Canada. Mexico. United States. Same old, same old. Of course, it's not surprising the average Conservative/Republican favors outlawing abortion. As Obama noted they continually put forward old, tired, worn out, failed ideas. Not much changes.
 
Back
Top