Curious...why is it "pro-lifers" (generally) have to lie so much?

Please define for me a fetus having a condition that makes him/her incompatible to live. I can also very much understand your "the life of the mother exception", belief.

But other than those exceptions, then, yes.

You still didn't explain to me what that suction caddula does.

Also, no matter what either side says, the other side will come up with some more rebuttals, a never ending cycle of arguing and debating with each other.

There is no federal law that bans late term abortions (with the exception of the mother's life, or if the fetus is not going to survive anyway, i can understand then). There should be. he/she can definitley feel pain then. That sounds like some josef mengele or unit 731 torture chamber lab if you ask me.

 

Do you have evidence that ultrasounds "save thousands of fetuses"?

http://womenslawproject.wordpress.c...ave-very-little-impact-on-abortion-decisions/

We’ve been hearing this argument for years. According to the Family Research Council (an ultra-conservative group that actively opposes abortion, divorce, LGBT rights, and embryonic stem-cell research to name a few), “eight in ten pregnancy resource centers report that ‘abortion-minded’ women decide to keep their babies after seeing ultrasound images,” and “[a]ccording to an executive director of an Iowa pregnancy resource center, 90 percent of women who see their baby by ultrasound choose life.” Americans United for Life insists that “medical evidence indicates that women feel bonded to their children after seeing them on the ultrasound screen” – as evidence, they refer to a 1983 study that reported exactly two cases of women, around three months pregnant, feeling bonded with their fetuses after viewing ultrasounds.

Now, almost thirty years later, assistant medical professor Tracy Weitz is conducting a more comprehensive study – interviewing twenty abortion-seeking women in two states and surveying ultrasound clinicians about their practices – to determine whether ultrasound advocates’ claims are accurate. And while research is far from over, preliminary results suggest that women consistently choosing to carry their pregnancies to term after viewing the ultrasound image is less documented phenomenon, and more pro-life fantasy.

The majority of clinicians interviewed felt that ultrasound viewing typically had little or no impact on a woman’s decision. Some reported that the information gathered through the ultrasound was useful to women making their decisions – information such as gestational age – but the ultrasound itself was rarely a game-changer. Said one:

I’ve never had a patient change their mind simply by seeing the ultrasound… just seeing the ultrasound hasn’t made anyone say, “Okay well, I don’t want to do this.”

 

Here is a web site just about severe skeletal problems - I warn you it is graphic - http://www.jaypeejournals.com/eJour...N=_eJournals/images/JPLOGO.gif&IID=2&isPDF=NO

or Anencephaly

Basically it evacuates the uterus through suction.

Sadly true, but necessary while there is an ongoing attack in the females right to choose, and don't think it will end there. Pro-life people already want to cut funding towards contraception.

Maybe something was lost in translation, while there is no federal law banning late term abortion per se, it can only be done for medical reasons, not because the woman chooses to.

 

Umm, more specifically, how does the suction caddula terminate the life of the fetus???

Oh, really. Late term abortions have happened for elective reasons in the USA too. Maybe not as much as other abortions, but too many have been happening. A lesser of two evils is still an evil. Obama is evil just like Hitler.

That fetus won't die during labor. So, according to your logic, abortions, even a late term abortion, is giving that fetus some mercy because it won't survive anyways. However, that fetus might still be alive to survive. How do you know???

That "womans right to choose arguement" doesn't really address the main issue over here. The main issue is "is a fetus sentinent concious and can it feel pain, thereby making it a person with legal rights", or something along those lines. Otherwise, their pro abortion/pro choice arguements are just like saying "it was hitler's right to choose".

Comparing somebody that you don't like to hitler is a pretty stupid arguementative strategy for the most part, but it makes sense to argue that with pro abortion-advocates, because they do remind me of hitler a lot.

 

To be honest I don't know the full medical way .. I would assume that the suction removes the zygote/fetus and uterus lining.

Would you care to provide evidence to support that claim, otherwise it is just opinion.
The rest is just ad hominem

Quite a number of healthy fetuses die during labor, around 6.2 per 1,000 births in the US in 2005
Modern methods are very, very good at diagnosing fetal viability .. unfortunately some problems can only be confirmed in the later stages of pregnancy. Test can be performed early in the pregnancy, but these can only give a possibility of a fetal abnormality not consistent for life, hence why they wait and see to give the fetus a chance that they are wrong.

The womans right to choose is a part of the debate, where you use Hitler as an analogy you fail to remember that Hitler made his choices concerning already born people that were not reliant on him to survive .. a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb before a min of 22 weeks (and then rarely) and the womb does belong to the woman.
You have hit the nail on the head and all the scientific evidence points to the 24th week being that time.

Doing this (and I am guilty of it as well) does nothing to help you argument, all it does it annoy you opponent who will respond in the same manner, thus the debate devolves into a slanging match.

 

You're ignoring the central Issue. Does a fetus, or at the very least, at certain stages, deserve the legal protections and should abortion be a crime, or, well, at least in those instances.

Because if a fetus is not a viable sentinent organism, then, yes, absolutley, women do have the right to control their bodies, under that assumption.

I personally am a Christian and I do believe that life begins at conception, but, while arguing with athiests and agnostics and pro abortion people, you got to compromise just for the sake of arguement in order so that they would understand your arguements a bit more. I will only use strictly legal, medical, and scientific arguements, NOT spiritual arguements. I will not mention Jesus or god or the bible verses to win my argumenets, since that's discussing on a different line of reasoning than you guys can relate to.

I can understand why pro abortion people would argue that aborting zygotes and that aborting a few week old or even aborting embryos should be legal. Because the fetus aint viable or sentinent at that point. I disagree with them, but let's not argue about that right now, let's try to argue from strictly medical and scientific and legal reasons.

However, we must address the central main issue. Are fetuses humans? If the answer is no, then women, yes, should have the right to control their own bodies. If the answer is yes, then, well, to be continued onto the next paragraph.......................

By that very twisted logic, rapists have the right to control their own bodies. And, yes, Godwin's Law is invoked right now over here, Hitler and the Nazis had the right to choose what they did in the 1940's. You see that ridiclous arguement being used by me playing the devil's advocate, dude???

Also, these "women have the right to choose" arguements are all secondary arguements. But they aint addressing the main issue at all.

 

I am in no way ignoring the central issue . the fetus does have legal protection after 24 weeks, the only time an abortion can be carried out after this time is for medical reasons.

Thank you for agreeing and by the way it is not an assumption it is a scientific fact.

I can relate to the bible very well .. I studied it for long enough.
Life does begin at conception, no one I know here will disagree with you on that.
The compromise already exists, up to 24 weeks womans choice, after 24 weeks for medical reasons only.
You can mention as many bible verses as you like they won't win any of your arguments.

Fair enough,

There are members of the human species, so yes they are potential humans .. to me the main issue is on when they become independent sentient persons .. all conceptions between a man and woman are potential humans, including the ones I provided in earlier links .. however some of them will never be independent sentient persons.

rapists do control their bodies, just as you do, just as I do, just as woman do, yet pro-lifers want to introduce laws which remove that right and turn it over to the state for nine months .. her womb no longer belongs to her, could she in theory then have her womb removed on the grounds that as it is not hers anymore she should not have to support it (I can come up with ridiculous arguments as well ).
Your part about the nazi's having the right to choose being a comparison to the womans right to choose relies on a premise that the zygote/fetus is an independent sentient person, unless you can show it is than the analogy fails.

 

If a crime is committed, then there should be an investigation. If the DA feels they wont be able to prosecute or find sufficient evidence that foul play was involved, then it will be let go. The fact is, a majority of pregnancies end in miscarriages, so unless there is a witness or some other certified evidence that a woman intentionally cause it, then just like every other circumstantial crime, it wont get prosecuted and less tax dollars would be spent. That is not "weaseling out" of the answer, that is an explaination to a question that is not simply answered with a "yes/no". But please, throw more hypotheticals out there and try to present them as black or white.

 

you don't seem to get it at all do you?

If abortion is made illegal then all miscarriages that are a known event would have to be reported and investigated, otherwise a woman could get something from the internet, force the miscarriage and just say, "oh it was natural" .. if the police just accept that then what is the point in the law. Just how much police time and resources would be taken up investigating these things. that still has to be paid for alongside the current police work being done and how about responding to the necessary increase in welfare to sustain the approx 114,000 children per year that would go into the care system?

 

We still spend more time prosecuting minor weed posession than we could processing this. It is so rare to actually determine the cause of miscarriage, you wouldnt even know someone was pregnant. Unless they (the gov) start putting in transmitters into the EPT pregnancy tests, no is really going to know a woman was pregnant till she was showing or went to a doctor. If the woman was against the pregnancy from the begining, she would buy the test from Walgreens and never go to the doctor. You seriously think more time is going to be spent on going after precieved miscariages when they are so hard to determine the cause of why it happened in the first place? Probable cause would be needed first to even check into whether or not a woman bought something online that could cause a miscarriage, and that would only come from a doctor.

 

So please explain to me what use is a law that makes all abortions, from the moment of conception, illegal .. if it can be so easily got around.
Also there are a number of miscarriages that happen after the 12 week mark, where a woman would have had her first doctors appointment, if she were to miscarriage then an investigation would be required by law. More stress to the woman after the miscarriage .. in these cases assuming no actually intentional method were used in order to trigger the miscarriage could she be prosecuted for having something containing a natural abortifacient such as a pomegranate?

 

Sam's Ego....a few simple questions-

1. Is abortion (even back to conception) "murder" in your opinion? "Pre-meditated, co-ordinated, deliberate murder in the 1st degree"?

or "something less than murder"?

 

It is murder...perpetuated by people who are pro-choice. They want it legal so they can kill....based on their idea of morality. These people have no consciences. It is premeditated...and deliberate.

- - - Updated - - -

No this is an excuse. Miscarriages are acts of nature...they are not premeditated. Your being ridiculous by even saying this.

 

They can do this today can't they? Why do they seek out abortionists? You tell me? You pro-death advocates, you child haters.....will go to any...AND I MEAN ANY...extremes to perpetrate your hatred towards the human life in the womb and those that love it. You don't care about life...not really. You go out of your way to ditch scientific information. You ignore the truth because it does not matter.

The fact is if abortion was made illegal....millions of unborns would live. Over 50 millions of dead babies since 1973. That figure is just probably to low for you isn't it?

 

Self loathing much ?????

 

Fugazi said,

The central issue for you is the right to kill a living human being....a woman's choice, her body, her decision.

Abortions are performed all the time in late term abortion facilities. This is a fact you pro-aborts won't face.

Mark Crutcher has this to say.

"Of course, it is true that, as a percentage of all abortions, only about 10% are late term procedures. What this truth is intended to obscure is that, because the sheer numbers of abortions done are so large, 10% translates into more than 300 second and third trimester babies butchered every day in the U.S. Further, virtually all of these abortions are carried out for no medically indicated reason and involve healthy babies being carried by healthy moms. And that is a fact. The bottom line is, the sole reason these babies are killed is because someone wants them dead and someone else is willing to kill them.



On April 2nd through the 4th, 1995, George Tiller, the notorious late-term abortionist in Wichita, Kansas, was speaking at the National Abortion Federation’s 19th Annual Meeting, in New Orleans, Louisiana. The subject was late term abortion and Tiller made the following statement: “We have some experience with late terminations, about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past five years.

Listen to what this man is saying. He is admitting to killing 10,000 babies between 24 and 36 weeks in a five year period and over 90% of the babies had no fetal anomalies. Moreover, it is illogical to assume that the remaining 9,200 abortions were performed to protect the lives of the mothers involved since, (a) with today’s medical technology it is extraordinarily rare for pregnancy to be life-threatening, and (b) abortions done to protect the lives or health of the mothers are done far earlier in the pregnancies.

The point is, Tiller is admitting that the vast majority of the late-term abortions he does are strictly elective. To understand how sickening this is, consider that a 36-week baby is almost full term and that it is not uncommon even for babies born at 24 weeks to survive without major health problems.

The next year, the 20th Annual Meeting of the National Abortion Federation was held from March 31 to April 2, 1996, in San Francisco, California. At this event, Martin Haskell, the Ohio abortionist who invented the D&X (Partial-Birth) abortion procedure made the following statement: “Two of the criticisms that I've been hearing lately about how our side is structuring its debate is that, one, we seem to be taking a position that—in the case of the D&X—that the fetuses are dead at the beginning of the procedure, which is generally not the case. The second criticism has been that we are really skewing the debate to a very small percentage of women that have fetal anomalies or some other problem that really need the procedure verses the 90% who it’s elected, at least through the 20 to 24 week time period, and then as you get on towards 28 weeks it becomes closer to a hundred percent. But these seem to be very uncomfortable issues for people on our side of the debate to deal with.”

Haskell is openly criticizing his pro-choice colleagues for lying about, (a) the babies targeted by late term abortions being dead before the procedures start and, (b) the women having these procedures needing them for any kind of health reason. Amazingly, he even admitted that as the abortions got later, the percentage that was “elective” went up, with 28-week and later abortions being virtually 100% elective.

I realize that, for people who defend legalized abortion, 300 dead late-term babies per day is no big deal. They lack the basic moral foundations necessary for this to matter. But they are smart enough to realize that, for people with even a minimal amount of morality or human decency, it is a big deal. That’s why they always direct the debate toward percentages and away from numbers.

http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/statistics

Your side won't admit that late term abortions even happen today. Funny that clinics all over the country have been shut down for the very reason.





"I can relate to the bible very well .. I studied it for long enough.
Life does begin at conception, no one I know here will disagree with you on that.
The compromise already exists, up to 24 weeks womans choice, after 24 weeks for medical reasons only.
You can mention as many bible verses as you like they won't win any of your arguments."

No your wrong and don't know the Bible. You might read it...but unless your a believer you can't possibly know it.
Life starts before conception in the Bible. Not going into this with you....as you know it so well. LOL

God values human life....all human life. You are saying God does not care that abortions happen within the guideline you present. This is a lie, complete lie. There is no compromises with God. God is PRO-LIFE.
I will go head to head with you any time if you want over this issue. Make a thread I will be there.....WITH BIBLE VERSES. AND THE VERSES DON'T LIE.

There is nothing potential about a new human life....if left alone this life would be born. It should be none of anyones concern whether something is viable or not. And if your dealing with a human life....then you would have to pinpoint in EVERY CONCEIVED HUMAN LIFE...when they became viable. This would be impossible. Those on your side say...well viability happens somewhere around.....well somewhere around is not accurate enough when your dealing with murder....and the unlawful killing of a human life.

And you want to control the unborns life...by virtue of your own position. WAIT...HERE IS WHERE YOUR THE HYPOCRITE. You just talked about viability and when to DENY THE WOMAN THE RIGHTS TO HER BODY. HOW CAN YOU DO THAT? LMAO THEN YOU SAY HERE...WE WANT TO TAKE CONTROL AWAY. WELL SKIPPY SO DO YOU.

DOES A WOMAN HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE OR NOT? OR DO YOU BASED ON YOUR BIAS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DENY HER BODILY RIGHTS? YOUR STATEMENT IS RIDICULOUS.

YOUR ALL OVER THE PLACE ON THIS....your position is unsound.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course you won't address any information or answer any questions in my post.

Above your pay grade? LOL

 

hmm act of nature, which in your world is also an act of god, so god is an abortionist.

Lets not forget CM, you are the only one here who has admitted to murder (in your views) why should anybody listen to the projected guilt of a murderer.

 

Maybe because going to a doctor gives them a sense of it being safer . .rightly or wrongly as the case may be.

You call me a hypocrite yet you are a person who supports the death penalty . .that is hatred to human life, you yourself took a human life (in your opinion) yet you changed your views after the fact, shouldn't you be giving the same right to every other person who has killed someone .. shouldn't they have the same right to change their views as you did.
Do you fight of those who have been born, do you give them as much attention as you do the ones pre-born, no you don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) once the cord has been cut .. its not your responsibility then, so what makes you think its your responsibility at any other time.
Their is no fact in your statement "millions would live" .. its based on your own perceptions and even one of your own pro-lifers states that making abortion illegal would have very little effect on 1st trimester abortions, which as you well know is when the vast majority occur.
I'll put up this link from The Lancet to show you that comparisons between countries where abortion is illegal and countries where it is legal have very little difference in their rates . .no doubt you will proclaim it is biased and run by the left wing.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360761575X/abstract

and in case you don't know The Lancet is one of the oldest, most respected medical journals throughout the world.

Please tell me what scientific information I have "ditched" as you put it, hell half the time you ignore anything that doesn't adhere to your radical extremist views.

 

Churchmousey: "The people who scream the loudest are sometimes the most intolerant"""


Of course , you don't think that applies to you...just everyone else...egomaniac?

I don't answer you posts because all they are are self loathing exploding all over on other people... and lies and hyperbole and name calling and vile insults and have no logic or facts ...

 

No doctors sucking a life out of a woman through a vaccum.

Getting way into these hypotheticals now. Again, it would be up to the DA on whether or not to procescute. Cant make a blanket answer to a situation that will have numerous variables.

 

I'm sure churchmouse believes "God controls everything"....so a miscarriage WOULD be "premeditated", right?

- - - Updated - - -

How do you make self-inducing with RU-486 illegal...and prosecute it?

 

Even though a large proportion of abortions require no doctor "sucking" anything out of anything

how is this hypothetical, if the law says abortion is illegal then by default any known miscarriage would have to be investigated, that investigation would have to be done before the DA made the decision whether to prosecute .. you know the gathering evidence bit, usually done by the police.

 

How would a police officer "spot" a woman on a Thursday, who was two weeks pregnant on Tuesday....and self-induced an abortion on Wednesday with RU-486?

 

republican in congress said it best, pro-lifers do not intend to make factual statements

 

Evil people deserve to be lied to. End of story. Honesty is only a moral absolute if you're dealing with people that don't cross the live into moral depravity.

People that support abortions during terms where fetal pain exists are in that category.

Pro lifers need to lie to get their way, by definition. And we are proud of that.

By "lying", in this context, I mean creating laws that involve loopholes to bypass Roe VS. Wade.

For example, I would support a law, if I were a politician, that women who have late term abortions are denied tax cuts or government benefits. And they would be faced to pay more in taxes.

But, no, I support far more than that. Pro lifers politicians should make laws that literally use loopholes in Roe Vs. Wade. They take Roe Vs. Wade's wording, and bypass roe vs. wade's restrictions, probably based on twisted the wording into a certain context. And, yes, lying and dishonesty is nessecary in only some situations.