If you're "pro choice"

[atlkvb]

So if the baby is not a protected person inside the womb, explain how it can be murdered by a criminal who attacks the mother during a robbery and kills her baby? Another stupid question?

@Is This Moron Serious
Guess this stupid question was too tough for your "smart" answer? Maybe I missed it? Post it again. (the criminal was charged with murder of a "non person" killing the unborn Baby)

Explain that if the unborn baby is NOT a person?

 

[wvu2007]

This is many months old. Immediately after the interview, Northam's office issued multiple statements to clarify his misspeak. His comments were meant to be about nonviable babies, thus his comment about resuscitation. He could have been a lot clearer with his answers, but based on everything, it seemed he was clueless about what was in the bill. Regardless, this issue was put to bed immediately after his interview many months ago.

You're racist.

 

[atlkvb]

Moron, did you even bother to read your entire link? Here is the quote from the bio-ethicists who presented that discussion to promote discussion:

“We never meant to suggest that after-birth abortion should become legal. This was not made clear enough in the paper. Laws are not just about rational ethical arguments, because there are many practical, emotional, social aspects that are relevant in policy making (such as respecting the plurality of ethical views, people’s emotional reactions etc). But we are not policy makers, we are philosophers, and we deal with concepts, not with legal policy.”

Do you realize what bio-ethicists do? They present an argument in order to promote and facilitate discussion, ideas, and future problems. That's exactly what they did with this and is quite clear in the quote in your own damn link. I really don't know the answer to this next question: Are you so stupid that you believe the bogus things you say (you've been extremely wrong on this, in vitro, your strawman arguments, not understanding the stance of pro-choicers) or do you simply read things that don't exist and try to turn them into support for your argument, thus making you dishonest? I don't know if it's one of those or both, but you really are not good at this.

While you're complaining about what I'm not backing up in my arguments you are not answering my questions. It's your side arguing for lifting all abortion "restrictions". ALL means, even after birth! It's your side that doesn't think a fetus has any rights. It's your side that argues for late term abortions up to moments before birth. What part of their agenda are you opposed to? When do you cut off the baby killing? Three months, two months, one month, while the Baby is in the birth canal? You do realize all of those are currently legal in some places correct? Who opposes those restrictions? YOUR SIDE!!!!!!!

I'll give you there is an argument about post birth abortions, but your side isn't arguing for preventing them, it's arguing for considering them! You keep calling me stupid and the more you say it the deeper into your own self created pit of stupidity you sink.

 

[atlkvb]

Those are laws which have no relation to what is/isn't considered a baby with rights by pro-choicers.

It's the same thing as asking you if abortion is right. You will argue "no," but I will show Roe vs. Wade showing it is. See how those things don't align, moron?

I highly suggest enrolling in some logic and debate classes at your local middle school. You're all over the place and have no idea what you're even talking about.

I asked you to explain the difference between an unborn baby with "no rights" being killed by a criminal attacking its mother who is charged with murder, and an unborn fetus being legally killed because it has "no rights" as a person according to you.

You answered:
"Those are laws which have no relation to what is/isn't considered a baby with rights by pro-choicers. It's the same thing as asking you if abortion is right. You will argue "no," but I will show Roe vs. Wade showing it is".

Now I know you think I'm stupid, but explain to me how this answers that specific question? If this were your final exam question, how should I grade that answer?

 

[atlkvb]

@You Really Are This Dumb

When is it OK to kill a baby before it's born?

Still waiting for your answer?

 

[atlkvb]

@You Really Are This Dumb

Or put another way, at what point does killing an unborn baby become infanticide?

Just pick any time between conception and moments before birth for your answer. You have roughly a 9 month time frame before you have to decide killing that "non person" is infanticide. So when does that baby become a person worth "protecting" for you? Please explain to me why two weeks before whatever date you select to call it "infanticide" it's NOT entitled to your protection?

I'm stupid remember? [eyeroll]

 

[atlkvb]

This is many months old. Immediately after the interview, Northam's office issued multiple statements to clarify his misspeak. His comments were meant to be about nonviable babies, thus his comment about resuscitation. He could have been a lot clearer with his answers, but based on everything, it seemed he was clueless about what was in the bill. Regardless, this issue was put to bed immediately after his interview many months ago.

It was "put to bed" by his sorry *** avoiding anymore discussion of it following the outrage of even considering such a bill! Of course YOU claim there is no such discussion on the Left. Georgia's "heartbeat" bill was a direct response to that moral outrage and other similar legislation which was either under consideration or passed.(I linked to the States earlier in the thread) Alabama went one step further and banned ALL abortions! Who got their boxers all in a wad over both States responding to Virginia's insanity?

I'll give you one guess. I know the answer, but I'm stupid remember? [eyeroll]

 

[atlkvb]

I'm not answering those questions, because they are strawmen.

OK...You're obviously smarter than me so YOU get to decide my questions to you are "strawmen"?

How do I know you're not a "strawman" posing as an intellect?

 

[atlkvb]

No side, let alone my side, is saying that they are considering trying to legalize post-birth abortions (which is infanticide/murder). You continue to make that claim. I've asked for proof of your claim. The first time you tried offering proof was about ten links that had absolutely nothing to do with post-birth abortions. Every single one of them was about late-term abortions which is entirely different.

My whole "argument" is that there is essentially NO DIFFERENCE between a "late term" abortion or killing a fully born baby! It amazes me you still haven't caught on to that? So can I assume then you're OK with late term abortions? You still haven't told me when you're ready to stop the baby killing? How about two days before the baby tells its mother it's on the way. Baby sends a text message from its in utero ipad telling mom "it's time". I'm on the way, so don't kill me! You'd be OK with that?

 

[atlkvb]

For your question, in order to stay intellectually honest, I believe that abortions should be legal until the baby exits the vaginal canal (vaginal births of course). Am I personally comfortable with that? No. But it isn't my right to determine how others treat their bodies. My argument is that a fetus should not have legal rights until it is born.

You are a typical Leftist accusing others of what YOU do! In this one paragraph you both dodge the heart of the question, and accuse me of setting up a "strawman" argument. You say a Baby has no rights until it is born, yet you refused to answer my question earlier in the thread how a criminal is charged with murder of an unborn "non person" fetus while attacking its Mother and killing the baby. Your answer was as convoluted as your entire argument.

Then you accuse me of avoiding the post birth question, which I raised in my OP to demonstrate the idiotic logic of late term abortions which the Left not only currently argues for, but is aggressively promoting! Again, I asked you to tell me when do you stop the baby killing? Your answer in this paragraph was quote: "I believe that abortions should be legal until the baby exits the vaginal canal"

That means two minutes before that Baby is born, you'd allow the mother to have it killed and that is INFANTICIDE which you claim to be against! You did not specify any time limit on your refusal to allow that mother to have that baby killed. You said "until it leaves the birth canal" it's OK to murder it.

Unreal.

You're arguing this absurd position most Leftists have been arguing about late term abortions, and yes including post birth in their arguments for "no restrictions" on the mother's choice to terminate that innocent Life. I simply take the argument to the final step, where the baby is free from the birth canal and you call that a "stupid" argument. However, you can't explain the difference between that baby not being a fully formed person two minutes before delivery where you're OK with it being slaughtered to death, or two minutes after delivery where you then call slaughtering it "infanticide"

My argument is there is no difference except for Leftist insanity, which you have clearly demonstrated through this exchange. I'll Pray for your sick demented Soul...only the power of Almighty God can convince you of not only your own stupidity in making such a heinous argument in total disregard for innocent human life, but your own moral depravity.

 

[atlkvb]

In the view of pro-choicers, there is a huge difference: one is before a fetus is born, the other is after a fetus is born. That is the determining factor. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I can understand if you disagree with it, but it appears that the overall concept is something you just can't grasp.



You don't have to assume as I have already stated as such. You're just wasting my time at this point, as it's clear you are severely out of your league, amateur.



Can you not read? I already gave specifics to this. Until the baby exits the vaginal canal, I accept abortion. I personally am not comfortable with that, but that isn't my decision to make for what a woman should do with her body. If I had a right to determine what people should do with their bodies, I would make @dave 's fat *** be chained to a treadmill 18 hours a day. Even though I am not personally comfortable with it, in order to stay intellectually honest, I must accept it.

Intellectually honesty - something you severely lack. It's why you run around claiming that anything after conception is wrong, but then you support a process (in vitro) which results in the purposeful destruction of numerous embryos.



You need to work on your reading comprehension. My claim that a fetus has no rights until it is born was an explanation as to the beliefs of pro-choicers. It wasn't a legal statement regarding laws on the books. You asked for what I/we believed, and I answered it. I then gave an analogy to you: you claim it is murder to abort anything after conception, but the laws don't state that. It's the same thing as my explanation regarding a fetus not having rights until birth.



No, that is not infanticide by any definition of the word. A baby must be born for infanticide to take place.

Why do you continue to fabricate ********? Do you think you won't be called out on it or is it a case of you just being uneducated about so much of what you discuss?

I'm glad you clarified your position on this. You've made your case. Babies can be killed up to and including moments before they are actually born. Until that time, they are "non persons", and killing them is perfectly fine...not with you, but with Mothers who choose to do so. It's clear. You made your case. I have no further questions on exactly where you stand.

Obviously I strenuously disagree with your position on this, and I'm not alone. This is why we vote, this is why we have debate, this is why it's important to hear each other out. You of course also have your supporters. We go to the polls with our opinions, and vote for the candidates who will promote our wishes through the legislative process.

We'll see where the country stands after this next election on this issue of when do we protect innocent human Life? Our answers will determine what kind of people we are, and what type of country we choose to live in?

 

[atlkvb]

your claim is that anything after conception is wrong? So, if a woman has sex, three days later finds out she is pregnant, you don't think she should be able to have an abortion that day?

Still trying to prove my "stupidity"? Just so you understand, I believe Human Life is a miracle and a gift from our Creator God. Since we as humans are incapable of creating Life on our own, we have no right to indiscriminately terminate it.

Sex and all of its ramifications is no legitimate reason for us to assume total authority over the resultant formation of human Life. My desire is that all would see the beauty, wonder, and majesty of Divinely created Life, so I of course being both fearful of and a respecter of Almighty God's power and ultimate authority over human Life would never advocate a woman terminating her miracle gift no matter the circumstances of her conception.

Despite arguments from the Left that it's "her body"...it is NOT her body, and from a strictly practical point of view she has very little control over the development of that baby even if she ever conceives at all? Of course she has some participation in that process, but ultimately very little "control" over how that baby turns out, sex, hair color, talent, etc.

What are your thoughts on the morning-after-pill (at least do some research on it so you don't get stuck contradicting yourself like you did with in vitro)?

How did I "contradict" myself on in vitro you really are this dumb? Which embryos "discarded" in your hypothetical were "accidental" conceptions or "unwanted" pregnancies? Isn't the whole idea of using that technique for a woman to conceive a child? Why would a woman who doesn't want a baby abort a successful conception using in vitro? I thought I explained myself to you on that, but perhaps YOU were too stupid to understand my answer?

Since I don't consume "morning after pills" I honestly have no way to explain their long term effects. What little I do know of them is similar to many abortion procedures, in that they can often cause severe damage to a woman's reproductive system and in some cases permanently disable her ability to conceive. If women who consume them do so to have Sex without risk or fear of unwanted pregnancies, that is of course their choice. But it's not without potential severe consequences and ironically in their zeal to avoid unwanted pregnancies by using it, they may find themselves one day unable to conceive children when they really wish to.

 

[atlkvb]

Let me dumb this down for you:

Your argument is that once conception occurs, any purposeful end to that potential baby should be prohibited. In other words, any purposeful destruction of an embryo is wrong. Yet with most cases of in vitro, there are multiple embryos purposely destroyed. The doctor only implants the very most likely embryo(s) likely to succeed. It doesn't mean the ones he discards have 0%, but rather, the other ones are more likely to develop into a sustainable fetus.

You contradict yourself with your support of this.

Your analogy would make more sense if the expectant Mother who paid a gazillion dollars to be implanted with at least one fertilized egg waited 9 months, 3 days, 12 hours, 2 minutes and 21 seconds before telling her OB/GYN "ooops, sorry I've changed my mind I don't want this Baby so kill it!"

That's something you've brilliantly argued for in this thread accepting the willing murder of innocent fully developed children right up until moments before they leave the last 2 inches of a uterus. Those other discarded embryos in your weak attempt at some sort of parallell to abortion on demand right up to the point of delivery is absurd because the fertilized eggs aren't sitting inside a woman's body growing into full grown children until moments before she decides to slaughter them!

You're a really smart guy ya know?

 

[atlkvb]

So your entire belief and argument that you force on others is based on a mythical, guy-in-the-sky, violent, egotistical, unjust, historically inaccurate, and perverted superhero. Brilliant.

It's a good thing our laws aren't based on that superhero's directives or else we'd end up being just like many countries in the Middle East.

No my entire argument is based on the fact that not even you, the self described "smartest" poster ever to assess anyone else's intelligence can turn a fertilized sub microscopic embryo into a beautiful fully formed human being inside of 9 months! Post us the instruction manual once you figure out how to explain step-by-step process the you've developed to produce such a miracle?

 

[atlkvb]

@Two Time Teamer TarHeel

Hey two quick questions....

Earlier in the thread you said it "bothered you" that Women terminate late term unwanted pregnancies but you never explained why? You just said you can't "impose" that onto someone else.

Then real quick, why do you keep changing your handle every time you post? Are you hiding out from NSA or FBI trackers using unauthorized FISA warrants to spy on your ill informed posts?

 

[atlkvb]

The doctor only implants the very most likely embryo(s) likely to succeed. It doesn't mean the ones he discards have 0%

So what percent chance do "discarded" embyos have to succeed if they aren't "implanted"?

Smart people want to know? [eyeroll]

 

[atlkvb]

Hey @Two Time Teamer TarHeel do you know what percentage of late term abortions are discarded fertilized embryos?

Come to think of it, why don't you take some time & look up the statistics on what the average length of time has passed by the time most women decide to abort their unwanted fetuses? On average, how old are those developing embryos inside their wombs since you're so concerned about the ones that haven't even been implanted yet that are "aborted" using your analogy?
(btw, we're not even talking about the ones aborted two minutes before they're born) [eyeroll]

Smart people want to know?

 

[atlkvb]

I'm not concerned about those embryos that are discarded during in vitro. That doesn't bother me, and it aligns perfectly with my argument and morals. I am consistent with mine. You're the one who isn't consistent, and that's why you need to change one of your stances (either having flexibility to destroy things after conception or changing your support of in vitro).

Well then, your analogy doesn't work because no "discarded" embryos are developing fetuses. Life begins at conception correct. Those embryos are alive, no argument there. But they can't be "aborted" until they're implanted. You're saying throwing them away because they can't develop is the same as "aborting" them?

OK...then why throw them away?

 

[atlkvb]

@TarHeelEer keeps blacklisting me, so I have to register a new name. He takes away from the board by doing so, but he is too stupid to realize that. So when you tag my old names, I don't see the notifications.

That doesn't make any sense. If he doesn't want you posting on this board he can just ban your IP address. You still have account access, changing your handle doesn't restrict you from posting on the board.

 

[atlkvb]

you need to change one of your stances (either having flexibility to destroy things after conception or changing your support of in vitro).

How many of those fertilized embryos can be aborted inside a woman's uterus if they aren't there? What is the purpose of in vitro if not to eventually successfully implant at least one good fertilized embryo? At that point isn't it then only possible to "abort" it from an expectant mother? You're saying they're all being aborted even if they aren't implanted or can't develop? So what are they being "aborted" from?

 

[atlkvb]

My analogy isn't between aborting a baby at full-term and in vitro.

That is EXACTLY your argument, because you have said in the thread that a full term baby inside the womb is NOT a person and therefore has no right to Life. Now you're arguing that embryos outside the womb have the same status as a fully developed Baby yet they aren't placed inside a womb! They can be "aborted" outside the womb as mere fertilized embryos according to you. Place them inside the womb and they still can be aborted, even while being delivered, but since they can't be developed outside the womb it's the same thing as aborting them fully developed inside the womb?

Here's the real laugher....outside the womb as fully fertilized embryos the hopeful mothers paying for the process themselves want them, any one of them, which they desire to develop inside their womb into a fully healthy baby. Yet inside other wombs, where the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are terminated, none of those marvelously developing fetuses are even wanted by their ungrateful mothers many of whom demand taxpayers fund their terminated pregnancies.

Go figure....Women!

 

[atlkvb]

You really don't understand the process, which is why I urged you to educate yourself.

Hypothetically, say the in vitro process results in ten eggs being fertilized (that means conception). It's now an embryo. Of those ten fertilized eggs, a doctor must determine which one(s) have the best chance to attach to the uterine wall and culminate in a full term pregnancy. Sometimes it is zero. Many times it is one. Sometimes, it is more than one. The ones he doesn't think have a strong enough chance (but theoretically, still could work)? They are trashed.

In other words, conception has occurred, it's the start of life as you claimed, but they are then "killed." Based on your belief, that is wrong. It is the killing of life according to you since it is after conception. For some reason, you're getting strung up on the word "abortion." My use of that word was to show that aborting a fetus (which you are against because it is killing life after conception) is the same as what happens during in vitro (the intentional killing of life after conception).

Your stance isn't consistent on those, so you need to evaluate your morals.

Well okay I'm still trying to stick with your analogy. So there are many reasons women give for aborting their developing fetuses. I won't go into all of them but it was listed earlier in the thread if you want to look at them. What's the reason given for aborting fertilized embryos that are waiting insertion into a womb to develop?

While you're answering that why don't you go and look up the statistics on the number of those types of abortions as you are describing them here in this discussion compared to either later term abortions or even pre-birth abortions which is the main point of our discussion here?

 

[atlkvb]

Your stance isn't consistent on those, so you need to evaluate your morals.

My claim that a fetus has no rights until it is born was an explanation as to the beliefs of pro-choicers

aborting a fetus (which you are against because it is killing life after conception) is the same as what happens during in vitro (the intentional killing of life after conception).

Again sticking with your analogy, if you agree that a fertilized embryo in vitro as it may be is nevertheless alive and can be aborted and therefore is the deliberate killing of human life then how do you on the same hand turn around and say that murdering a fully developed baby is not? (killing a human life, which has no rights)

Read your posts quoted here and explain this dichotomy in your argument against protected status for a fully developed baby?

 

[atlkvb]

You really don't understand the process, which is why I urged you to educate yourself.

I'm wondering if YOU, being as smart as you insist you are, fully understand the reproductive process? Inside a woman's fallopian tubes hundreds, thousands, even perhaps millions over a lifetime of ovulation of fertile eggs are spawned waiting for a male sperm to penetrate and generate a miraculous new life. Each month, a woman systematically discards most if not all of those ova through her menstrual cycle, only to begin the process all over again for her next cycle. Somehow you equate the destruction of those artificially fertilized embryos (you call them abortions) with the natural process, none of which the woman has full autonomy over!

Many times she can't even know for certain when she is "ripe" for fertilization (particularly if she is a Lesbo and there is no male present) or even if she has been successfully fertilized if a male sperm is available and one of them manages to find its happy way home traveling along her fallopian tubes all the way up to one of her ova? How is that "hit or miss" process significantly different from what you are describing during in vitro fertilization since only one lucky sperm is usually all that's needed to complete the union? The rest simply cease to exist and all are eventually destroyed (aborted) naturally during the woman's menstrual cycle.

But of course you're a smart guy...you knew all of this already correct?

Female ovum

 

[atlkvb]

Women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions in 2015 and throughout the period of analysis. The majority of abortions in 2015 took place early in gestation: 91.1% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (7.6%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. In 2015, 24.6% of all abortions were early medical abortions (a non-surgical abortion at ≤8 weeks’ gestation). The percentage of abortions reported as early medical abortions increased 114% from 2006 to 2015, with an 8% increase from 2014 to 2015.
Source: Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2015. MMWR Surveill Summ 2018;67(No. SS-13).

Facts on late term abortions
https://www.livestrong.com/article/193363-facts-on-late-term-abortion/

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 88 percent of abortions occur within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, with only 1.5 percent occurring after 21 weeks' gestation. In the United States, 67 percent of abortion service providers perform abortions after 13 weeks, in the second trimester. Eight percent of these providers provide abortions at 24 weeks. The possibility of a woman's death associated with abortion increases with the length of gestation. The risk of the mother's death for an abortion at between 16 and 20 weeks' gestation is one in 29,000, while the risk increases to one in 11,000 for abortions after 21 weeks.

*editor's note (Zero abortions are done at fertilization stage either inside or outside of the womb)

 

[atlkvb]

Based on your argument for conception being the start of a human with rights, your support of in vitro is hypocritical considering embryos are trashed in that process.

aborting a fetus (which you are against because it is killing life after conception) is the same as what happens during in vitro (the intentional killing of life after conception).

If I'm arguing life begins at conception (I am) why are you arguing a baby killed moments before it's born isn't human life deserving of no protections? You certainly agree a fertilized embryo is Life, but it isn't developing as a baby unless it's in a womb (by your analogy) I'm saying once in a womb it's not only alive and a developing baby, but should be protected because it's human. Tell me why that's wrong?

 

[atlkvb]

@I Am Blacklisted

I promise you this is the last question I'll ask you because it's clear to me you can't handle dialogue on this issue without resorting to name calling or just dismissing anything you don't agree with as "stupid". My last question to you is to the extent there is resistance, disapproval, non support, even outrage for late term abortions in most parts of the country why do you suppose it's there? What bothers you about them?

(you said you were uncomfortable with them)

in order to stay intellectually honest, I believe that abortions should be legal until the baby exits the vaginal canal (vaginal births of course). Am I personally comfortable with that? No. But it isn't my right to determine how others treat their bodies. My argument is that a fetus should not have legal rights until it is born.

So then exactly what is it about near term or late term abortions most folks like you find "uncomfortable" given you don't even believe that's a fully live human (person) deserving of some form of protection of its Life? I know you said you favor abortions all the way up until the baby is born, but you also said here you were uncomfortable with later term abortions.

Why?

 

[mule_eer]

Atl, I looked up the statistics on "late term" abortions, defined by the source as gestational age greater than 20 weeks. That's less than 2% of all abortions. I know that you frequently use the late term issue, and I tend to agree that those are usually problematic, but they are a very small percentage of the legal procedures. That's also why I think using a 20-week rule with possible exceptions for certain well-defined circumstances would be a great compromise position for all involved.

I'll note that I didn't want to jump into the fray and respond to recent posts. I wanted to keep the discussion outside of that.

Here's the link I found to support my stats, and it claims to be using CDC sourced data.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/late_term_abortion_usa.html

 

[BoremanSouth]

Atl, I looked up the statistics on "late term" abortions, defined by the source as gestational age greater than 20 weeks. That's less than 2% of all abortions. I know that you frequently use the late term issue, and I tend to agree that those are usually problematic, but they are a very small percentage of the legal procedures. That's also why I think using a 20-week rule with possible exceptions for certain well-defined circumstances would be a great compromise position for all involved.

I'll note that I didn't want to jump into the fray and respond to recent posts. I wanted to keep the discussion outside of that.

Here's the link I found to support my stats, and it claims to be using CDC sourced data.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/late_term_abortion_usa.html

Now you've f*cking done it! Get ready for a veritable orgy of charts, graphs and female anatomy images. Hallelurya!

 

[atlkvb]

Atl, I looked up the statistics on "late term" abortions, defined by the source as gestational age greater than 20 weeks. That's less than 2% of all abortions. I know that you frequently use the late term issue, and I tend to agree that those are usually problematic, but they are a very small percentage of the legal procedures. That's also why I think using a 20-week rule with possible exceptions for certain well-defined circumstances would be a great compromise position for all involved.

I'll note that I didn't want to jump into the fray and respond to recent posts. I wanted to keep the discussion outside of that.

Here's the link I found to support my stats, and it claims to be using CDC sourced data.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/late_term_abortion_usa.html

I linked to some stats earlier in the thread mule confirming your stats posted here so you are correct about that. Quite honestly that isn't the heart my argument as opposed as I remain to late term abortions. Regardless of when the termination of human life happens in the gestational period, I oppose it.

I understand you and others in the pro choice movement don't see it that way, but none of you can explain what makes that human Life less worth saving at 20 weeks than @ 39 weeks? It's the same living baby is it not?

Even more so, what makes it perfectly OK to slaughter that baby inside its mother's birth canal two minutes before it's born as one pro choice activist in this thread advocated to remain "intellectually honest", but most of you will turn right back around and freely admit it's infanticide to slaughter that same child two minutes after its taken from that same birth canal?

Being "intellectually honest" I can't draw that line, how do you?

 

[atlkvb]

Now you've f*cking done it! Get ready for a veritable orgy of charts, graphs and female anatomy images. Hallelurya!

Actually I could have shown these images to better make my point. You never want to see the end result of the butchery you approve of do you?

 

[atlkvb]

Atl, I looked up the statistics on "late term" abortions, defined by the source as gestational age greater than 20 weeks. That's less than 2% of all abortions. I know that you frequently use the late term issue, and I tend to agree that those are usually problematic, but they are a very small percentage of the legal procedures. That's also why I think using a 20-week rule with possible exceptions for certain well-defined circumstances would be a great compromise position for all involved.

I'll note that I didn't want to jump into the fray and respond to recent posts. I wanted to keep the discussion outside of that.

Here's the link I found to support my stats, and it claims to be using CDC sourced data.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/late_term_abortion_usa.html

@mule_eer
Baby @ 20 weeks

Why is the 20 week old fetus above less entitled to life than the 39 weeks old fetus below? Can you give me a rational explanation?

 

[mule_eer]

@mule_eer
Baby @ 20 weeks

Why is the 20 week old fetus above less entitled to life than the 39 week fetus below? Can you give me a rational explanation?

The earliest a child has survived out the womb is 23-weeks. Rationale explained.

 

[atlkvb]

The earliest a child has survived out the womb is 23-weeks. Rationale explained.

 

[atlkvb]

The earliest a child has survived out the womb is 23-weeks. Rationale explained.

It can easily survive earlier than that if it's not slaughtered in the womb mule.

 

[atlkvb]

So is it safe to assume @mule_eer that the smaller that aborted child is, the less reluctant you are to approve of its death before it's born? Babies between 16 and 23 weeks are OK to dismember, choke to death in saline solution, or inject with poison, even though they're perfectly healthy babies growing safely inside their mother's womb?

After 23, or maybe a few weeks after, we shouldn't do that? Is this your argument?

 

[mule_eer]

It can easily survive earlier than that if it's not slaughtered in the womb mule.

Actually, I was wrong - youngest delivered and survived was 21 weeks, 5 days. Still, there are significant developmental stages between 21 weeks and 39 weeks. Their organs aren't developed enough to allow the majority of them to survive, and most who do survive have significant disabilities.

 

[mule_eer]

So is it safe to assume @mule_eer that the smaller that aborted child is, the less reluctance you are to approve of it's death before its born? Babies between 16 and 23 weeks are OK to dismember, choke to death in saline solution, or inject with poison, even though they're perfectly healthy babies growing safely inside their mother's womb?

After 23, or maybe a few weeks after, we shouldn't do that? Is this your argument?

I've already said that I support a ban starting at the 20-week mark. I made the point about 23 weeks because I, incorrectly, believed that was the record for early delivery to surviving toddler. I was wrong, and that mark is just shy of 22-weeks.

My imaginary line is based on survivability. If it is reasonable to believe that the fetus could survive delivery and continue to develop, I'm fine with saying that abortion is off the table. Until that point, I'm not. That's a personal opinion. Obviously, yours differs.

 

[atlkvb]

Actually, I was wrong - youngest delivered and survived was 21 weeks, 5 days. Still, there are significant developmental stages between 21 weeks and 39 weeks. Their organs aren't developed enough to allow the majority of them to survive, and most who do survive have significant disabilities.

I understand that mule....a deformed baby has the same difficulties, yet we don't slaughter them and they do still survive. Babies born @ 39 weeks don't have hair in many cases, or fully formed central nervous systems, or skeletal foundations. We don't slaughter them lacking those things either.

Why is it just because children are still growing at 24 weeks is it more "humane" to abort them than it is at 30 weeks (where it's still perfectly legal in some places to chop them into little pieces)?

I'm still waiting for a rational argument from you on this.

 

[atlkvb]

I've already said that I support a ban starting at the 20-week mark. I made the point about 23 weeks because I, incorrectly, believed that was the record for early delivery to surviving toddler. I was wrong, and that mark is just shy of 22-weeks.

My imaginary line is based on survivability. If it is reasonable to believe that the fetus could survive delivery and continue to develop, I'm fine with saying that abortion is off the table. Until that point, I'm not. That's a personal opinion. Obviously, yours differs.

Yes it does mule. As I was growing up before abortion became legal, it was unthinkable to kill a child before it was born. It happened, but it wasn't common. Then roe v wade came along and we were shocked at abortions being done after six months! Now we're arguing abortions right up until moments before birth (partial birth) and some are even advocating for post birth murders!

Meanwhile back in 1973 it was nearly impossible to observe a baby in the womb. Then ultra sound grew more sophisticated in the mid 80's and we had grainy black and white photos of rough images at four-to-six months of gestation...fast forward to today's fabulous technology where we can actually view 3-D videos of fully formed babies inside the womb as young as 13 weeks, and we can detect heartbeats as early as 8 weeks!

My point mule is as we've become more sophisticated in both our ability to view growing fetuses as well as save them as early as after only 4 months of development, we've also become more cavalier about the specialty of innocent human life and I'd argue even more barbaric.