Is it okay to kill this?

[McBell]

Oh.. I figured if it wasn't required to specify between the definition of a fetus or a baby when referring to two separately defined things that I wouldn't have to be so nit picky on definitions.

Fair enough.
Though I think the distinction will be lost.
Whether intentionally or not, I have no idea.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Please be so kind as to note the location of the baby in question.
It is NO LONGER in the womb.
Which you will notice is something I did mention in the post you quoted...

This isn't some stupid word game. Womb, incubator, it doesn't matter...it is being kept alive.

 

[Runewolf1973]

It is nothing more than an appeal to emotion tactic.
Much like the pic of the premature baby.

It is the most common tactic used by the anti-choice crowd.

I was asked a question, I gave an example. It was not a "tactic" and I am not part of any anti-choice crowd, but thanks for falsely stereotyping me. I am pro-choice, but against people (adults) just being stupid and irresponsible. If someone has a history and is prone to making stupid and careless decisions, they should not get the choice to make decisions that may be even more stupid.

 

[dust1n]

What makes it right or wrong at 19 weeks depends on what the reasons behind it are. If the baby would for sure have died anyways, then there is nothing wrong with it. I just wish people would take responsibility for their actions.

So then in what specific situations is aborting a 10 week year old fetus right and wrong?

 

[dust1n]

What does being born have anything to do with it being a baby or a life? Being born only determines where the baby is living. The only difference between killing the baby before it is born is they go inside the mother to do it.

I never said it had nothing to do with determining a 'life'. Amoeba's have life, we kill them millions at a time. What does it have to do with being a baby? Easy. The definition of a fetus is a pre-born offspring that lives within it's mothers womb. The definition of a baby is a post-born offspring that lives separately for the mother's womb.

Of course now with this reasoning, once society gets comfortable with abortions, they will use this logic to justify killing infants for such reasons as you know, I can't afford to feed it, Can't go to school now ,etc... Its not that much of a difference between killing it inside or outside the womb.It is still a life and it still has to be killed.

Actually, not at all.

 

[dust1n]

This right here is where the problem stems.

Interesting. So you don't determine the 'worth' of something yourself?

Ah, nevermind. This is a separate thread.

 

[dust1n]

So let me ask you this. Is it okay to cause pain and suffering?

The thalamus doesn't develop until 28-31 weeks, so before then there is no pain or suffering.

 

[dust1n]

This isn't some stupid word game. Womb, incubator, it doesn't matter...it is being kept alive.

Indeed, except a womb belongs to a single woman who feels everything included. It is part of her body.

 

[dust1n]

I was asked a question, I gave an example. It was not a "tactic" and I am not part of any anti-choice crowd, but thanks for falsely stereotyping me. I am pro-choice, but against people (adults) just being stupid and irresponsible. If someone has a history and is prone to making stupid and careless decisions, they should not get the choice to make decisions that may be even more stupid.

I can agree with this. If you are wanting a third abortion, than the woman should be required to have her tubes tied.

 

[Runewolf1973]

So then in what specific situations is aborting a 10 week year old fetus right and wrong?

Specifically if the fetus is fatally impaired (would not survive anyways), or the womans life or physical health are at risk, or a girl/woman was raped, these are conditions in which an abortion may be acceptable. It may be the wrong thing to do however, if everything is otherwise healthy and normal and the woman was simply careless about sex/birth control and/or just did not want to lose her figure to being pregnant. This is why people who are irresponsible should not be having sex. If you are not responsible enough to take care of a baby (as a potential outcome), then you are not responsible enough to be having sex in my opinion. Birth control can fail though...nothing is 100%, but people should know that full well when they proceed with sex....there is always a possibility. I don't take sides on this matter of abortion, but I do expect people to be responsible for their actions.

 

[Smoke]

If you are not responsible enough to take care of a baby (as a potential outcome), then you are not responsible enough to be having sex in my opinion.

Usually, people who make such simplistic and dismissive judgments on the lives of others lack experience or intellectual depth. I don't think that describes you, so I'm not sure exactly what's going on here.

In any case, I think the notion that women who are demonstrably irresponsible should be forced to have children is an incredibly stupid one.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Usually, people who make such simplistic and dismissive judgments on the lives of others lack experience or intellectual depth. I don't think that describes you, so I'm not sure exactly what's going on here.

In any case, I think the notion that women who are demonstrably irresponsible should be forced to have children is an incredibly stupid one.

That is fine if that is your opinion. In my opinion, stupidity or being irresponsible is not an excuse to kill life. They should be forced to be responsible by having the baby and giving it to someone who can be a responsible parent. I am not the one making judments about people either, that should be left to someone qualified to make those assessments. I am just giving my opinion on the matter, like it or not, I don't really care.

 

[Smoke]

They should be forced to be responsible by having the baby and giving it to someone who can be a responsible parent.

But think about what you're saying here. That's one of the most horrific forms of involuntary servitude you could think of.

 

[dust1n]

If you are not responsible enough to take care of a baby (as a potential outcome), then you are not responsible enough to be having sex in my opinion.

Indeed; that is an opinion. Now where is the validity for it? If someone is no responsible enough to have sex, let alone have a kid, but have sex anyways and get pregnant, what reasoning is behind making someone not responsible enough to have a kid have a kid?

Birth control can fail though...nothing is 100%, but people should know that full well when they proceed with sex....there is always a possibility. I don't take sides on this matter of abortion, but I do expect people to be responsible for their actions.

I'm glad you don't take sides. If you are on birth control, is that not taking all possible precautions?

 

[Smoke]

Here's what I notice about the abortion debate. Almost everybody believes abortion should be permitted in some circumstances. I don't see anybody, even the Pope, calling for a total prohibition on all abortions, though the Vatican indulges in its usual rhetorical dishonesty in this case as it does in the case of divorce. The Pope is willing to permit an abortion if he can find a way not to call it abortion.

But anyway, abortion is almost universally viewed as permissible in some circumstances. Most people who want to make abortion illegal aren't looking to deprive the rape victim or the woman in imminent danger of death of the right to choose an abortion. The women whose choice they want to take away are precisely those women for whom they are unable to muster any sympathy or compassion. It seems to me that this is taking you onto some very shaky moral ground.

 

[DallasApple]

But think about what you're saying here. That's one of the most horrific forms of involuntary servitude you could think of.

Yep..I cant believe Im still shocked at the crap people come up with.How they seem to rejoice in making her "suffer" physically and emotionally then they say its "not punishment".

Love

Dallas

 

[Runewolf1973]

But think about what you're saying here. That's one of the most horrific forms of involuntary servitude you could think of.

There are always repercussions. Personally I would rather protect first those that are the least protected...the unborn children.

 

[dust1n]

They should be forced to be responsible by having the baby and giving it to someone who can be a responsible parent.

Who should do the forcing? (Just for clarification).

I would also like to point out the soaring number of parentless kids now. How is society being responsible if it's forcing women to carry on pregnancies when there is no one willing to take care of the child?

 

[dust1n]

There are always repercussions. Personally I would rather protect first those that are the least protected...the unborn children.

Me too. Hell.. there is about 20k kids who starve a day I wish I could have protected when they were unborn.

 

[DallasApple]

And if you are "forcing the person" how is that them being "responsible"???

That isnt "forcing responsibilty" thats forcing consequences that you decide are appropriate for "her" having the nerve to have sex.

And I've asked and I've asked and no one will answer..WHO PAYS for 40 weeks of prenatal care and delivery for all these sexually irresponsible women to carry and deliver?

Love

Dallas