Late Term Abortion - lazy women or desperately sad

Hmmmm - you are not seriously suggesting that an anencephalic is viable are you?

 

Just stop it. I already told you I support euthenasia on the severely retarded— whether inside or outside the womb, as the geographical position of the baby really makes no difference.

Most pro-lifers do not want to force women to carry retarded babies. The problem is that women are killing perfectly normal healthy babies in droves. If abortion is done, it should for the best interests of the fetus whose life is at stake, not the woman for her convenience.

 

So in essence then you are only pro-life for the "perfect" little bundle of joy .. then its ok to "force women to carry" .. and you don't see how hypocritical this is?

No reply to post #25 then I see

 

I'm gonna go with lazy here, at least in most cases.
We have become a society of convenience now. Everything when we want it, whatever the cost.

How is this hypocritcal?. Assuming the pregnancy is not posing an imminent and immediate danger to the mother, abortion should be soley about the best interests of the fetus. Quality of life is as important as quantity. Indeed, this is exactly what pro-choicers believe, otherwise they would not by advocating for abortion.

 

Who do you think you are that YOU get to decide who aborts what and when?????!!! YOU have an issue...

 

Because the woman is obviously not looking out for the best interests of her unborn child if she decides to abort. Her right to make decisions for her child should be taken away the moment she trys to kill her child. Just like little children are pulled out of abusive households. The mother can get her parental rights back when a court appointed social worker determines if or when she is no longer homocidal.

Besides, Libs just LOVE to make decisions for other people. They are trying and have already banned an endless list of things. Conservatives just want to ban murder. Is that so much to ask for?

 

Best post in this entire thread. Calls out liberal hypocrisy and drives the point home at the end.

 

Murder is already banned.

 

""The moment she TRIES to " ???? Is that before or after the abortion?

Do you arrest her while she's thinking about it?

Do you arrest her after she has a private legal medical procedure?

How do you find out she had one.....assign a guard to every woman in the world?

Put women in breeding cages or on breeding farms so they can be watched?

Do you guard every woman in the world who COULD get pregnant?


How long a jail term should women get for having a legal medical procedure?

Do you ever think how much taxes it would take for all that?


It would be even more than the taxes we pay our military to slaughter women and actual babies in other countries....but you're OK with that.


What sort of punishment would you like for those who don't want one penny of their taxes to go to poor children?

 

Life is life, whether it is perfect or not . you advocate "euthenasia on the severely retarded", are these not a person then, or human in your opinion. It is completley hypocritical of you to spout on the "rights" of the unborn and then quite callously remove those rights if it is "severely retarded"

What your comment shows all here is that you care nothing about the unborn, its all about controlling and forcing woman to do your biding.

 

But late term abortion is overwhelmingly done for foetal abnormalities usually gross abnormalities and not just "retarded"

Boy! Am I going to use this next "Sanger was a eugenicist" thread

 

Yeah that's all well and good until you (or your gestapo) decide that the fetus is "retarded" then you lose interest or more likely would insist she have an abortion.

Lets take a hypothetical situation -

A young woman finds herself pregnant, as it is now illegal to have an abortion and she cannot afford to go to a country where it is still legal, she must continue the pregnancy .. all seems fine until she goes for her 13 week scan where it is discovered the fetus she is carrying has a high risk of having Downs Syndrome, but they cannot be sure until her 20 week scan and because the law doesn't allow an abortion unless it is obvious there is a problem she has to wait .. at her 20 week scan it is confirmed that the fetus has Downs Syndrome .. in your world its then ok for her to have an abortion at 20 weeks or as you prefer late-term, despite the fact that if born this fetus will likely live well into it's thirties as an active member of society, all be it in a "retarded" state.

where does this leave your assertion that ALL life, persons etc begins at conception and all should have the rights of a person ... there is little wrong with a DS person, but in your world because they are retarded its ok to abort them .. Hypocrite

 

In my world, the mother should wait till the Downs syndrome baby is born, just to be completely sure. Then they can euthenise "it". Like I said, the geographical position of the baby should not make a difference here.

But yes, that is an interesting question. How sure must the doctors be that the fetus is retarded before an abortion is allowed? Because diagnostic tests are not 100% accurate.

This topic was discussed in another thread

 

Euthanize a baby for downs? You talk ill of women for having an abortion for convenience, but support euthanizing a person with downs out of convenience?

Late term elective abortion should not be legal. I support it being an option for a baby that will greatly suffer due to defects. Just as a support euthanasia for people who are suffering.

 

Of course not. It should be treated similar to how child abuse investigations are done. No one is actually investigated until detectives have some reason to believe abuse may have taken place.

How do police know whether a woman has given birth, secretly had a baby for a few months, then killed it? In most cases they would probably not.
By your logic, infanticide should be legal because police cannot keep watch over women 24/7

 

That was so vague it was no answer at all.....you sure conveniently missed some other questions :

The moment she TRIES to " ???? Is that before or after the abortion?

Do you arrest her while she's thinking about it?

Do you arrest her after she has a private legal medical procedure?

How do you find out she had one.....assign a guard to every woman in the world?

Put women in breeding cages or on breeding farms so they can be watched?

Do you guard every woman in the world who COULD get pregnant?


How long a jail term should women get for having a legal medical procedure?

Do you ever think how much taxes it would take for all that?


It would be even more than the taxes we pay our military to slaughter women and actual babies in other countries....but you're OK with that.


What sort of punishment would you like for those who don't want one penny of their taxes to go to poor children?

 

It's an uphill battle just to get women to stop aborting perfectly normal healthy babies! Trying to make the abortion of retarded babies illegal too is not going to help save all those other babies. Pro-lifers would probably be able to convince more voters on the fence about the issue of abortion if they backed down a little. When a woman fears someone is going to tell her that she has to carry the zygote or retarded fetus within her to term, you really can't blame her for voting pro-choice.

The vast majority of abortions are on perfectly normal embryos and fetuses. So if you want to save them, the best thing you can do is to back off from abortions of retarded babies.

 

Please be honest enough to NEVER call anyone else a hypoctite....you are the epitome.
Your stance, "abortion is OK for the abortions I appprove of. If I don't like the child-to-be it can die".

Again, WHO are YOU to rule on this????

 

I do not see a difference in quality between a "normal healthy" person and one with disabilities. I advocate euthanasia for people who are suffering pain. People who live with downs are not suffering for down syndrome, many people with a wide array of disabilities, diseases, and mental retardations can have the a quality of life. I do not support killing someone because a parent may not want to have to deal with their handicaps. However up until the second trimester I support whatever reason a woman may have for terminating her pregnancy. After that I feel she better have a legit reason; ie the fetus' well being or her life is at risk.

 

So again in your world you call pro-choice people murderers, but you want a woman to wait until she actually gives birth before killing her child .. what planet do you actually come from, you stand there and bemoan the lack of rights and personhood for a zygote/fetus and then say its perfectly ok to kill a baby with a disability like DS, even though in your world it is a person and in the real world by virtue of being born it has rights. You advocate murder and have the balls to call pro-choicers murderer .. since when did you become god.

Really Anders you have no creditability at all when it comes to this debate, and if the rest of the people who use this forum had any sense they would just reply "Hypocrite" to every single thing you post.

 

YOU ARE PRO-CHOICE/ABORTION. YOU ARE PRO-CHOICE BECAUSE ITS THE WOMANS BODY AND SHOULD BE HER DECISION ONLY.

SO what difference does it make why some woman would want to abort to you? Do you want to deny her that right to kill? For you and those who also champion this right...should it matter why women abort and when they do it?

If your pro-choice....and then you take her right away...your a hypocrite. No other way to say it.

Late term abortion is not legal....but it should be right? That is your position isn't it?

 

I am pro-choice until someone can prove they know more about the woman and her life than she does. Until someone can show me a line in the sand that can say "this one is allowed an abortion because her health is at too great a risk" until someone can draw a definitive line in the sand between natural and induced abortion in these days of increasingly easy to access abortifacients

The rest is just AD Hom - not worth even acknowledging except as a sign that the poster has no other discussion points

 

Why should anyone show you anything? Your pro-abortion on demand for any reason...any time...that is your identity.

 

Didn't you use the system for your own benefit?
What gives you the right to try and stop others using the very same .. hypocrite

 

Ya know don't you beleive someone can change positions? Obama did when he went from being against gay marriage to now wanting it.

I changed posiitons 15 years ago. Norma McCorvey changed positions. People change political parties...

Boy are you something...believing someone can never change.