re: Abortion Question For Those In Favor...

quote:

---

Some kids should be aborted well into adulthood.

---

I have two that I would abort in a minute about 12 hours out of every 24 every day of their lives....seeing as how they sleep at least 7 hours out of the 12 that I can tolerate them they are skating on extremely thin ice LOL. If they hadn't been so dammed cute and cuddly when they were little it would be much easier to throw 'em down a well somewhere....that is a genetic thing that goes back to the beginning of man, making babies cute so they are harder to kill when they are surly teenagers....

quote:

---

Gay marriage is one thing, taking a life is quite another, IMO. If you apply that same logic to everything, then you shouldn't care about laws governing, say, homicide, you know?

---

I am simply saying that people ride these issues into the ground when there are other more important issues that should be addressed. If you can't see that I am sorry.

quote:

---

I am simply saying that people ride these issues into the ground when there are other more important issues that should be addressed.

---

Right, because whether we as a society destroy human life by the millions is a minor issue.

quote:

---

If you support abortion rights, are there any limits as to when an abortion should not performed based on age of the fetus? If you believe there should be limitations (i.e., nothing after first trimester), what is your justification for that opinion?

---

I do support the woman's right to choose to have an abortion. I guess you can argue that any timeline is arbitrary if you look at all the factors. For me, once viability is reached (hell, we can argue over what is "viability", I guess) I can't support the choice to abort except, perhaps, in extreme circumstances. For me, I've focused a lot on sentience on the part of the fetus. At the embryo stage, it's not a difficult issue for me. But later, certainly after the first trimester, it gets really complicated. For all the criticism, Roe v. Wade probably does as well as can be expected in outlining legal rights for practical purposes (I'm not arguing, for now, the source of the right of privacy, etc).

quote:

---

And what's always overlooked in all of this is that the gender of the kid getting hacked to bits en utero is never considered.

---

The viability argument is "viable" because of a mistaken assumption parroted over and over again by pro-abortionists and summed up by, "it's a woman's body; it's her choice." I am "pro-abortion" in the very narrow and limited exceptions where the mother's life is at certain risk.

The baby/fetus is never an appendage or organ of the mother's body but is a distinct organism which is far more in control of the mother's body and her pregnancy than she is.

1.The preborn child is genetically distinct from the mother.
2.Often, the preborn child's blood type is distinct from the mother's.
3. In roughly 50% of pregnancies the preborn child is a different gender than the mother.
4. When the embryo implants itself in the uterine lining it biochemically locally disables the mother's immune system so that it will not be rejected, unnecessary if it is part of the mother's body.
5. A preborn child may die in utero but the mother may live just as the mother may die and the preborn child may live. If the child were part of the mother's body this would not be so.
5. Sperm and ovaries are part of the male and female bodies respectively and remain so and die unless mated creating an entirely new and distinct human embryo with characteristics of its parents.
6. The preborn child is racially distinct from its mother. If an Korean zygote is placed in the ovum of a Swiss woman, the developing embryo does not take on the racial characteristics of the female.
7. Upon fertilization, the initial cell is distinctly unique human, different from its mother, with all of its characteristics such as eye color, hair color, height, gender and skin color already determined.

Even the late Christopher Hitchens, militant atheist and pro-abortion advocate recognized the fallacy of the "it's a woman's body" argument. In his God Is Not Great he states:

quote:

---

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.

---

Arbitrary definitions of viability are constructions to either extend the window for allowable abortions or to narrow it and limit them. They have little bearing on the fact that abortions kill human infants at all points along the spectrum.

Perhaps the real question is not when is the child viable outside or inside the womb but under what medical conditions crucial to the survival of the mother is abortion warranted?

As it is now, abortion is a highly profitable industry offering primary birth control, responsible for the death of 55,000,000 humans and has become a grotesque, ghoulish and ghastly sacrament in the liturgy of radical progressives.

I think once the baby is out of the womb, but still teathered via the umbilical cord, the mother should be allowed to take the thing in her arms, give it a quick once-over and then tell the doctor whether it lives or dies. Of course, if it dies, she gets to say how. "Get a rope", or "Kill it with fire" etc..

Hate informed decisions? You're probably a dude.