Abortion: How late is too late?

It does in the example of a breakin.

You know, you not only are disrepectful of a woman's right to choose, you're disrespectful of all of us - you don't think out your posts, you sully facts, you never admit any errors even when presented with clinical examples of them.

Why do you hate us so?

Aw, are you being persecuted by me. I'm so sorry all of you feel ganged up on by little old me. I'll try not to upset your feelings too much when debating such issues.

You might want to avoid hot topics like this in the future though. It can get heated. And if the kitchen is too hot...

heh, I haven't even started on my opinions on the issue, I can't get past your tactics long enough to post about it

Oh please, let me guess what your opinion is, please...


You support the right of a woman to choose abortion over the right of the fetus to live, right?

I must be psychic, huh?

The world already has more than enough people to ensure that there will be another generation. Your right to life extends only as far as your being able to sustain it without forcing others to unwillingly give up their own liberty. Everyone dies at some point anyway.

Why would a fetus have more of a right to life than someone who needs a kidney? Plenty of people have two who could just as easily make do with the one.

No, I think you're finally getting it. Get over yourself and let it sink in that half the population of the US is pro choice.

I completely support research into nondestructive removal of fetuses from wombs. Call it "early birth" instead of abortion. If they fail to continue to live at that point it was god that killed them.

It would really make it more of a religious issue at that point. Of course those concerned about those deaths might find they have better results turning to science. I believe it would be able to work out some way to keep fetuses alive outside of the womb they started out in. God might too but, personally, I would not hold my breath. Even the normal "wait nine months" did not tend to work out all that well until science got involved.

Of course then there would be the question of who would be responsible for the eventual child; I am sure there are plenty of people willing to step up and take on the care that the biological parent was not. It would be silly to think that all those people decrying abortion would think the most important part of life is the first breath.

::giggles::

... silly indeed. i wub you prak. that was beautiful.

::wipes tears of joy from her eyes::

As crazy as I might sound I am completely serious. At least about the nondestructive removal, womb transplantation and god as a substandard doctor.

However, as far gone as I might well be, my lunacy does draw a line at believing more than a small fraction of those people against abortions would step up and take responsibility for the resulting life. Humans, while having a fine tradition of dictating what other people should do, tend not to fare nearly as well when it comes time to step up and personally sacrifice.

Actually, the poll results seem to say that 16.67% of respondents say a woman has the right to choose an abortion up to conception (which, of course, in the convuluted wording of the "poll", one assumes to mean a woman never has the right to choose)

The remaining 83.34% of the respondents say a woman has a right to choose an abortion at various times following conception, up to term.

Of course, we all know that you will mold these results to mean some odd something or other which you will verify with secret unknown sources... (yes, I can read your mind -- this was previously confirmed), but, the results confirm that an overwhelming majority of respondents to this poll believe a woman has the right to choose what to do with her very own body -- some feeling more comfortable with certain restrictions, some feeling more comfortable with no restrictions.

Are we done here?

Sorry, I disagree with your conclusion.

A woman either has a right to do as she will with her body or not. Any restriction at all takes away that right.

So, half supported the rights of a woman to do as she will, the other half didn't.

But only 16.7% of respondants agreed with you. Not that this is a scientifically valid poll.

This is why I did not vote in your poll, the choices were not crystal clear, and you will always see the results the way you want to. That half you say don't want to let a woman choose, actually do. She could still choose to have an abortion, just not as late as your poll options let her.

I think we're still waiting on some proof of all these late term abortions being performed for convenience....

I think our beloved president, George W Bush said it best when he said:

"It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet." —George W. Bush, Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000


Siobhan (living in the dark dungeons of the Internet)

I agree, Sally. What kind of idiot thinks that women go through 8 and a half months of pregnancy and then decide to have an abortion? It's just not possible under normal circumstances.

Hell, most women beg their doctors to deliver them early once they hit the last few uncomfortable weeks of pregnancy. If the doctor decides to induce labor and god forbid, the baby dies of complications, does Kevn count that as an abortion?

I'm growing weary of Kevn's convoluted arguments which try to trick people into agreeing with him.

Does that mean half would support giving me a woman's kidney if I needed it? Being as they do not support a woman having a "right to do as she will with her body."

Blood shortages are also a problem, we could start rounding up women and bleed them a little; nothing they are not already quite used to. It would only take a couple of minutes instead of nine months and if I understand the procedure correctly the needle is somewhat less painful to remove and far less deadly. They can also get juice and cookies.

People are dying every day because of these selfish women. Something must be done.

I'll go further --The Government should be crating all women like veal calfs, and using their bodies for everything from birthing to growing hair for toupes.

Stop giving Kevn ideas, Kendra.

By this logic consider the situation:
Premise: There is a restriction that prevents a woman from having an abortion after the first trimester.
Your conclusion: She can not do what she wills with her body.
An example: Some woman finds that she is 6 weeks pregnant and chooses to have an abortion.
In the example, she does what she wills with her body. As far as I can tell, this does not violate the premise. Thus your conclusion must be wrong.

On a more serious note; why is organ donation (after death) optional?

It is not disputed as to if the people who are dying because of shortages are living. The people from whom the organs would be harvested, being dead, would be making very poor use of them so why do they get to be selfish and hold onto them?

How many children die every year for want of a transplant?

You're right - Listening to rednecks fighting alligators would be a heap of fun!
As long as the alligators weren't harmed, of course.
Wouldn't want PETA swarming all over the thread, would ya?

Waves magic wand... you will agree with Kevn..... sleep... sleep... SNAP.. wake up!

Gators like to fight, with that enlarged medulla oblongata. lol

hmmm...resorting to hypnosis now? Just face it, you're entitled to your opinions and beliefs, you are not entitled to force those on others.

Now, what are we drinking today ladies?

I dunno, I'm in the mood for Malibu and pineapple juice. How's that sound?