Jinx 2 said:

---

As for evil, I think it's truly evil for anyone to presume to make such a personal decision for someone else. We give people freedom to commit lots of sins and do things deleterious to their health--drink too much, smoke cigarettes, own an unlimited number of firearms that include assault-style weapons and keep them around the house and carry them everywhere, We're very sanguine when those choices result in death--either of the person who made bad choices or innocent victims. But oh-my-God, if a woman dare make a choice regarding an unwanted pregnancy for whatever reason, it's evil. During at least the first 4 months of pregnancy and possibly the first five, I don't think it's evil--and I think a world in which women control their own bodies rather than being forced to cede that control to their state or federal government the instant an egg is fertilized--or even before, if they are raped and end up in a Catholic E.R.--is a better place for everyone to grow up in. Especially girls.

---

There's only one sort of world where everyone gets to grow up, and it's not yours. Especially for girls.

cms186 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

a Fetus cannot survive in the Womb without the body of the Mother, but you're saying the Woman should have no control over what goes on with her own Body?

---

A fetus is designed to live in a mother's womb.

Can a newborn survive on its own without assistance from a human? What about a two-year old that one puts outside in Alaska in the dead of winter? Will it survive on its own? What about a 4-year old on the streets of Mexico city? Can he survive on his own?

The answer is obviously no. As humans we are designed to grow and learn from our parents usually until we are adults. Interestingly enough, our brains don't fully mature until we are humans are in their early twenties.

Back to the fetus in the womb ... the fetus created by two people thru an act KNOWN to cause babies. It shouldn't be a surprise that one is in the womb. It did not make a decision to enter the world. It was created by them

---

Absolutely, but circumstances change, maybe the Father died and the Mother cant financially cope with a Pregnancy?

Maybe the Mother was raped and the psychological Pain of going through a Pregnancy where the Father of the Fetus Raped her is more than the Mother is willing to go through?

Maybe the couple were looking to start a Family and then the Father (or the Mother) left the other and a baby is no longer in their future plans?

Maybe they used Birth Control but for whatever reason, the Mother got Pregnant anyway?

---

Answer to all questions: ADOPTION.

---

well then you would get a fail for all questions because i specifically worded them to mention Pregnancy, how does adoption help with the psychological pain of going through a Pregnancy caused by a Rape?

---

Is that the test we are going to use now? If that's the case, how does abortion help with the psychological pain of terminating a pregnancy?

contrario said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

a Fetus cannot survive in the Womb without the body of the Mother, but you're saying the Woman should have no control over what goes on with her own Body?

---

A fetus is designed to live in a mother's womb.

Can a newborn survive on its own without assistance from a human? What about a two-year old that one puts outside in Alaska in the dead of winter? Will it survive on its own? What about a 4-year old on the streets of Mexico city? Can he survive on his own?

The answer is obviously no. As humans we are designed to grow and learn from our parents usually until we are adults. Interestingly enough, our brains don't fully mature until we are humans are in their early twenties.

Back to the fetus in the womb ... the fetus created by two people thru an act KNOWN to cause babies. It shouldn't be a surprise that one is in the womb. It did not make a decision to enter the world. It was created by them

---

Absolutely, but circumstances change, maybe the Father died and the Mother cant financially cope with a Pregnancy?

Maybe the Mother was raped and the psychological Pain of going through a Pregnancy where the Father of the Fetus Raped her is more than the Mother is willing to go through?

Maybe the couple were looking to start a Family and then the Father (or the Mother) left the other and a baby is no longer in their future plans?

Maybe they used Birth Control but for whatever reason, the Mother got Pregnant anyway?

---

Answer to all questions: ADOPTION.

---

well then you would get a fail for all questions because i specifically worded them to mention Pregnancy, how does adoption help with the psychological pain of going through a Pregnancy caused by a Rape?

---

Is that the test we are going to use now? If that's the case, how does abortion help with the psychological pain of terminating a pregnancy?

---

Your question makes no sense

cms186 said:

---

contrario said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

a Fetus cannot survive in the Womb without the body of the Mother, but you're saying the Woman should have no control over what goes on with her own Body?

---

A fetus is designed to live in a mother's womb.

Can a newborn survive on its own without assistance from a human? What about a two-year old that one puts outside in Alaska in the dead of winter? Will it survive on its own? What about a 4-year old on the streets of Mexico city? Can he survive on his own?

The answer is obviously no. As humans we are designed to grow and learn from our parents usually until we are adults. Interestingly enough, our brains don't fully mature until we are humans are in their early twenties.

Back to the fetus in the womb ... the fetus created by two people thru an act KNOWN to cause babies. It shouldn't be a surprise that one is in the womb. It did not make a decision to enter the world. It was created by them

---

Absolutely, but circumstances change, maybe the Father died and the Mother cant financially cope with a Pregnancy?

Maybe the Mother was raped and the psychological Pain of going through a Pregnancy where the Father of the Fetus Raped her is more than the Mother is willing to go through?

Maybe the couple were looking to start a Family and then the Father (or the Mother) left the other and a baby is no longer in their future plans?

Maybe they used Birth Control but for whatever reason, the Mother got Pregnant anyway?

---

Answer to all questions: ADOPTION.

---

well then you would get a fail for all questions because i specifically worded them to mention Pregnancy, how does adoption help with the psychological pain of going through a Pregnancy caused by a Rape?

---

Is that the test we are going to use now? If that's the case, how does abortion help with the psychological pain of terminating a pregnancy?

---

Your question makes no sense

---

Do you not believe there is an emotional toll after an abortion?

CSIBear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

contrario said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

a Fetus cannot survive in the Womb without the body of the Mother, but you're saying the Woman should have no control over what goes on with her own Body?

---

A fetus is designed to live in a mother's womb.

Can a newborn survive on its own without assistance from a human? What about a two-year old that one puts outside in Alaska in the dead of winter? Will it survive on its own? What about a 4-year old on the streets of Mexico city? Can he survive on his own?

The answer is obviously no. As humans we are designed to grow and learn from our parents usually until we are adults. Interestingly enough, our brains don't fully mature until we are humans are in their early twenties.

Back to the fetus in the womb ... the fetus created by two people thru an act KNOWN to cause babies. It shouldn't be a surprise that one is in the womb. It did not make a decision to enter the world. It was created by them

---

Absolutely, but circumstances change, maybe the Father died and the Mother cant financially cope with a Pregnancy?

Maybe the Mother was raped and the psychological Pain of going through a Pregnancy where the Father of the Fetus Raped her is more than the Mother is willing to go through?

Maybe the couple were looking to start a Family and then the Father (or the Mother) left the other and a baby is no longer in their future plans?

Maybe they used Birth Control but for whatever reason, the Mother got Pregnant anyway?

---

Answer to all questions: ADOPTION.

---

well then you would get a fail for all questions because i specifically worded them to mention Pregnancy, how does adoption help with the psychological pain of going through a Pregnancy caused by a Rape?

---

Is that the test we are going to use now? If that's the case, how does abortion help with the psychological pain of terminating a pregnancy?

---

Your question makes no sense

---

Do you not believe there is an emotional toll after an abortion?

---

there can be, sure

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

As for evil, I think it's truly evil for anyone to presume to make such a personal decision for someone else. We give people freedom to commit lots of sins and do things deleterious to their health--drink too much, smoke cigarettes, own an unlimited number of firearms that include assault-style weapons and keep them around the house and carry them everywhere, We're very sanguine when those choices result in death--either of the person who made bad choices or innocent victims. But oh-my-God, if a woman dare make a choice regarding an unwanted pregnancy for whatever reason, it's evil. During at least the first 4 months of pregnancy and possibly the first five, I don't think it's evil--and I think a world in which women control their own bodies rather than being forced to cede that control to their state or federal government the instant an egg is fertilized--or even before, if they are raped and end up in a Catholic E.R.--is a better place for everyone to grow up in. Especially girls.

---

There's only one sort of world where everyone gets to grow up, and it's not yours. Especially for girls.

---

Countries where women sought abortions for sex selection are paying the consequences. India is becoming infamous for rapes and sexual assaults.

But one reason women in India and China chose to abort female fetuses is that women have low status and are considered a burden. In India and some parts of China, the daughter you raise ends up living with her inlaws and working essentially as slave labor for them--while a son (in theory) supports the parents and brings in a wife the husband's family will actually be paid a dowry to work to death. And if the dowry isn't high enough, the wife may be murdered or forced to commit suicide.

There's a huge economic disincentive to have daughters, and a big economic incentive to have sons. Once technology made it possible to choose the sex of your child, people did.

IMO, we in the U.S. don't have a lot to say to people in India and China about their moral choices when we are allowing sects like the FLDS Mormons to force girls into child marriages and routine sexual abuse. Freedom of religion should not extend to forced marriage, child marriage and child abuse.

cms186 said:

---

CSIBear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

contrario said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

a Fetus cannot survive in the Womb without the body of the Mother, but you're saying the Woman should have no control over what goes on with her own Body?

---

A fetus is designed to live in a mother's womb.

Can a newborn survive on its own without assistance from a human? What about a two-year old that one puts outside in Alaska in the dead of winter? Will it survive on its own? What about a 4-year old on the streets of Mexico city? Can he survive on his own?

The answer is obviously no. As humans we are designed to grow and learn from our parents usually until we are adults. Interestingly enough, our brains don't fully mature until we are humans are in their early twenties.

Back to the fetus in the womb ... the fetus created by two people thru an act KNOWN to cause babies. It shouldn't be a surprise that one is in the womb. It did not make a decision to enter the world. It was created by them

---

Absolutely, but circumstances change, maybe the Father died and the Mother cant financially cope with a Pregnancy?

Maybe the Mother was raped and the psychological Pain of going through a Pregnancy where the Father of the Fetus Raped her is more than the Mother is willing to go through?

Maybe the couple were looking to start a Family and then the Father (or the Mother) left the other and a baby is no longer in their future plans?

Maybe they used Birth Control but for whatever reason, the Mother got Pregnant anyway?

---

Answer to all questions: ADOPTION.

---

well then you would get a fail for all questions because i specifically worded them to mention Pregnancy, how does adoption help with the psychological pain of going through a Pregnancy caused by a Rape?

---

Is that the test we are going to use now? If that's the case, how does abortion help with the psychological pain of terminating a pregnancy?

---

Your question makes no sense

---

Do you not believe there is an emotional toll after an abortion?

---

there can be, sure

---

So if the test, as you suggested, is how does one method or the other help with the psychological impacts, how does abortion help with the psychological impacts? I'm just using your argument in reverse to show how illogical it is.

contrario said:

---

cms186 said:

---

CSIBear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

contrario said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

a Fetus cannot survive in the Womb without the body of the Mother, but you're saying the Woman should have no control over what goes on with her own Body?

---

A fetus is designed to live in a mother's womb.

Can a newborn survive on its own without assistance from a human? What about a two-year old that one puts outside in Alaska in the dead of winter? Will it survive on its own? What about a 4-year old on the streets of Mexico city? Can he survive on his own?

The answer is obviously no. As humans we are designed to grow and learn from our parents usually until we are adults. Interestingly enough, our brains don't fully mature until we are humans are in their early twenties.

Back to the fetus in the womb ... the fetus created by two people thru an act KNOWN to cause babies. It shouldn't be a surprise that one is in the womb. It did not make a decision to enter the world. It was created by them

---

Absolutely, but circumstances change, maybe the Father died and the Mother cant financially cope with a Pregnancy?

Maybe the Mother was raped and the psychological Pain of going through a Pregnancy where the Father of the Fetus Raped her is more than the Mother is willing to go through?

Maybe the couple were looking to start a Family and then the Father (or the Mother) left the other and a baby is no longer in their future plans?

Maybe they used Birth Control but for whatever reason, the Mother got Pregnant anyway?

---

Answer to all questions: ADOPTION.

---

well then you would get a fail for all questions because i specifically worded them to mention Pregnancy, how does adoption help with the psychological pain of going through a Pregnancy caused by a Rape?

---

Is that the test we are going to use now? If that's the case, how does abortion help with the psychological pain of terminating a pregnancy?

---

Your question makes no sense

---

Do you not believe there is an emotional toll after an abortion?

---

there can be, sure

---

So if the test, as you suggested, is how does one method or the other help with the psychological impacts, how does abortion help with the psychological impacts? I'm just using your argument in reverse to show how illogical it is.

---

My assertion isnt illogical at all, if a Woman is raped and doesn't want to go through a Pregnancy because she doesn't feel she could cope with the psychological damage, she shouldn't be forced to, thats a simple enough concept to understand (whether you agree with it or not), right?

But with your assertion, it makes no sense, because she has the choice, no one is forcing her to have an abortion, if she doesn't feel she could cope with the psychological damage of having an abortion, then she just doesn't get an abortion

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

As for evil, I think it's truly evil for anyone to presume to make such a personal decision for someone else. We give people freedom to commit lots of sins and do things deleterious to their health--drink too much, smoke cigarettes, own an unlimited number of firearms that include assault-style weapons and keep them around the house and carry them everywhere, We're very sanguine when those choices result in death--either of the person who made bad choices or innocent victims. But oh-my-God, if a woman dare make a choice regarding an unwanted pregnancy for whatever reason, it's evil. During at least the first 4 months of pregnancy and possibly the first five, I don't think it's evil--and I think a world in which women control their own bodies rather than being forced to cede that control to their state or federal government the instant an egg is fertilized--or even before, if they are raped and end up in a Catholic E.R.--is a better place for everyone to grow up in. Especially girls.

---

There's only one sort of world where everyone gets to grow up, and it's not yours. Especially for girls.

---

Countries where women sought abortions for sex selection are paying the consequences. India is becoming infamous for rapes and sexual assaults.

But one reason women in India and China chose to abort female fetuses is that women have low status and are considered a burden. In India and some parts of China, the daughter you raise ends up living with her inlaws and working essentially as slave labor for them--while a son (in theory) supports the parents and brings in a wife the husband's family will actually be paid a dowry to work to death. And if the dowry isn't high enough, the wife may be murdered or forced to commit suicide.

There's a huge economic disincentive to have daughters, and a big economic incentive to have sons. Once technology made it possible to choose the sex of your child, people did.

IMO, we in the U.S. don't have a lot to say to people in India and China about their moral choices when we are allowing sects like the FLDS Mormons to force girls into child marriages and routine sexual abuse. Freedom of religion should not extend to forced marriage, child marriage and child abuse.

---

Women do have it much better in the West, where the culture was formed by centuries of Catholicism and later Protestantism. On the other hand, China and India have a rich sense of the inter-connectedness of humans, rocks, trees, and animals.

cms186 said:

---

contrario said:

---

cms186 said:

---

CSIBear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

contrario said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

a Fetus cannot survive in the Womb without the body of the Mother, but you're saying the Woman should have no control over what goes on with her own Body?

---

A fetus is designed to live in a mother's womb.

Can a newborn survive on its own without assistance from a human? What about a two-year old that one puts outside in Alaska in the dead of winter? Will it survive on its own? What about a 4-year old on the streets of Mexico city? Can he survive on his own?

The answer is obviously no. As humans we are designed to grow and learn from our parents usually until we are adults. Interestingly enough, our brains don't fully mature until we are humans are in their early twenties.

Back to the fetus in the womb ... the fetus created by two people thru an act KNOWN to cause babies. It shouldn't be a surprise that one is in the womb. It did not make a decision to enter the world. It was created by them

---

Absolutely, but circumstances change, maybe the Father died and the Mother cant financially cope with a Pregnancy?

Maybe the Mother was raped and the psychological Pain of going through a Pregnancy where the Father of the Fetus Raped her is more than the Mother is willing to go through?

Maybe the couple were looking to start a Family and then the Father (or the Mother) left the other and a baby is no longer in their future plans?

Maybe they used Birth Control but for whatever reason, the Mother got Pregnant anyway?

---

Answer to all questions: ADOPTION.

---

well then you would get a fail for all questions because i specifically worded them to mention Pregnancy, how does adoption help with the psychological pain of going through a Pregnancy caused by a Rape?

---

Is that the test we are going to use now? If that's the case, how does abortion help with the psychological pain of terminating a pregnancy?

---

Your question makes no sense

---

Do you not believe there is an emotional toll after an abortion?

---

there can be, sure

---

So if the test, as you suggested, is how does one method or the other help with the psychological impacts, how does abortion help with the psychological impacts? I'm just using your argument in reverse to show how illogical it is.

---

My assertion isnt illogical at all, if a Woman is raped and doesn't want to go through a Pregnancy because she doesn't feel she could cope with the psychological damage, she shouldn't be forced to, thats a simple enough concept to understand (whether you agree with it or not), right?

But with your assertion, it makes no sense, because she has the choice, no one is forcing her to have an abortion, if she doesn't feel she could cope with the psychological damage of having an abortion, then she just doesn't get an abortion

---

I apologize, I misread the point you were making. Fair point.

Do you mind responding to my last longer post to you?

contrario said:

---

cms186 said:

---

contrario said:

---

cms186 said:

---

CSIBear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

contrario said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

a Fetus cannot survive in the Womb without the body of the Mother, but you're saying the Woman should have no control over what goes on with her own Body?

---

A fetus is designed to live in a mother's womb.

Can a newborn survive on its own without assistance from a human? What about a two-year old that one puts outside in Alaska in the dead of winter? Will it survive on its own? What about a 4-year old on the streets of Mexico city? Can he survive on his own?

The answer is obviously no. As humans we are designed to grow and learn from our parents usually until we are adults. Interestingly enough, our brains don't fully mature until we are humans are in their early twenties.

Back to the fetus in the womb ... the fetus created by two people thru an act KNOWN to cause babies. It shouldn't be a surprise that one is in the womb. It did not make a decision to enter the world. It was created by them

---

Absolutely, but circumstances change, maybe the Father died and the Mother cant financially cope with a Pregnancy?

Maybe the Mother was raped and the psychological Pain of going through a Pregnancy where the Father of the Fetus Raped her is more than the Mother is willing to go through?

Maybe the couple were looking to start a Family and then the Father (or the Mother) left the other and a baby is no longer in their future plans?

Maybe they used Birth Control but for whatever reason, the Mother got Pregnant anyway?

---

Answer to all questions: ADOPTION.

---

well then you would get a fail for all questions because i specifically worded them to mention Pregnancy, how does adoption help with the psychological pain of going through a Pregnancy caused by a Rape?

---

Is that the test we are going to use now? If that's the case, how does abortion help with the psychological pain of terminating a pregnancy?

---

Your question makes no sense

---

Do you not believe there is an emotional toll after an abortion?

---

there can be, sure

---

So if the test, as you suggested, is how does one method or the other help with the psychological impacts, how does abortion help with the psychological impacts? I'm just using your argument in reverse to show how illogical it is.

---

My assertion isnt illogical at all, if a Woman is raped and doesn't want to go through a Pregnancy because she doesn't feel she could cope with the psychological damage, she shouldn't be forced to, thats a simple enough concept to understand (whether you agree with it or not), right?

But with your assertion, it makes no sense, because she has the choice, no one is forcing her to have an abortion, if she doesn't feel she could cope with the psychological damage of having an abortion, then she just doesn't get an abortion

---

I apologize, I misread the point you were making. Fair point.

Do you mind responding to my last longer post to you?

---

happens to us all, np

the one on the last page? i have responded to it, havent i?

cms186 - These are great questions (all of which are addressed in the aforementioned book).

Before I answer, I would like to paraphrase and old legal adage:

Hard Cases make bad law.

cms186 said:

---

Absolutely, but circumstances change, maybe the Father died and the Mother cant financially cope with a Pregnancy?

---

Should poor parents with children that are 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, and 1 be allowed to kill the one year old because the can no longer afford to feed and diaper him?

cms186 said:

---

Maybe the Mother was raped and the psychological Pain of going through a Pregnancy where the Father of the Fetus Raped her is more than the Mother is willing to go through?

---

Rape is a detestable, violent act that haunts a person for years. Rarely will a rapist be given the death penalty for raping a woman. Should we allow another violent act of abortion to happen which is a death penalty to the fetus?

cms186 said:

---

Maybe the couple were looking to start a Family and then the Father (or the Mother) left the other and a baby is no longer in their future plans?

---

I'll ask the same question of your first statement ... should we allow a parent to kill a two-year old because the other parent left?

cms186 said:

---

Maybe they used Birth Control but for whatever reason, the Mother got Pregnant anyway?

---

All forms of birth control fail. This is a known fact. It is printed on each device. Does that give the right to a parent to kill a child later because their particular method failed?

Jinx 2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.

---

cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.

Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.

You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.

Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.

I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TLR category.

I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.

I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.

---

I appreciate the reasoned debate, people cant agree on everything and Abortion is certainly a divisive subject, I appreciate other peoples points of View, im not ignorant of why they feel that way

---

I'm on his side.

Women should be free to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy.

Period.

Under this scenario, those who agree with the entirely religious view that a fertilized egg and early-stage fetus are a fully formed human being whose rights supercede those of the mother the instant conception occurs are free to choose to continue with any pregnancy, as their beliefs dictate. If you believe that there is a benevolent God in control of the universe and also believe that everything that happens is part of His plan, your choice not to have an abortion if you become pregnant unexpectedly may be dictated by those beliefs. (Although my experience at Baylor in the 1970s was that women quietly made a choice to have an abortion to avoid the very public shame of a pregnancy out of wedlock.)

Women who are not religious and who believe we are one biological organism among many--but one with a tremendous talent for adaptation and self-determination--may or may not choose abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. They may choose to view the pregnancy as a gift. They may choose to end the pregnancy. Either choice fits with their beliefs, and they should be free to make that choice for themselves.

Whatever you believe, in a country that touts both separation of church and state AND freedom of religion/freedom from religion, this very personal choice, which has lasting physical consequences for women, should be up to the woman.

As it currently is under national law--with the result that the religious right has very successfully eliminated access to abortion services wherever that was possible.

Bottom line: A belief that the life of a fertilized egg or an early-stage fetus is fully human and that its rights should supercede the rights of the pregnant woman is based on a religious belief in the sanctity of human life--and only human life. We eat animals; we spay and neuter them; we breed them selectedly; we do scientific experiments on them; we do all sorts of things that are considered heinous when done to humans. Human life is the only life several religions--especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which have a common root--truly value above all other life.

I am beginning to wish with all my heart and soul that other religions--those that recognize that the quality and continuance of human life depend on the qualiy and continuance of the animals and plants we share our planet with--had been dominant.

---

Bottom line: you have expressed you opinion that a woman should have the right to kill her unborn offspring at any time during pregnancy and under any circumstances, that society has no interest whatsoever in protecting unborn human offspring. That is a pretty radical view and well outside the mainstream of even the "pro choice" side of the issue. You support the right to kill unborn human offspring at 41 weeks gestation should delivery be late. That's just flat out evil.

---

That is not what I said.

Any woman who remains pregnant beyond the time the fetus is viable has signed on for the duration, IMO.

I'll leave it to medical professionals to argue where that "viability line" is--but I think most people agree that it's before 20 weeks.

You want this to be a "one extreme or the other" argument, but the fetus develops rapidly over a 9-month period.

That has been exploited by "pregnancy crisis centers" that string women who want abortions along until it's too late. So, if we're on opposite sides, the "too late for abortion" issue is something your "side" of this fight is very much aware of.

What I am saying is that women who discover they are pregnant early enough so that abortion is a medically safe option for them should have the right to choose that option.

That is ALL I am saying.

I also have serious concerns about the implications for women's health if women do not have this option. I've known people who have discovered their baby would die at or shortly before birth because of a defect. One family chose to go through with the birth and held the baby for 5 minutes until she died. Another family chose to end the pregnancy; the woman was in her late 30s and truly wanted a baby. A delay of months made that less likely, so that was the basis of their decision.

I've also known many women who have suffered numerous miscarriages. That's heartbreaking in and of itself, but the possibility of criminal charges due to extremely strict abortion prohibitions really concerns me. That is happening in some central American countries.

As for evil, I think it's truly evil for anyone to presume to make such a personal decision for someone else. We give people freedom to commit lots of sins and do things deleterious to their health--drink too much, smoke cigarettes, own an unlimited number of firearms that include assault-style weapons and keep them around the house and carry them everywhere, We're very sanguine when those choices result in death--either of the person who made bad choices or innocent victims. But oh-my-God, if a woman dare make a choice regarding an unwanted pregnancy for whatever reason, it's evil. During at least the first 4 months of pregnancy and possibly the first five, I don't think it's evil--and I think a world in which women control their own bodies rather than being forced to cede that control to their state or federal government the instant an egg is fertilized--or even before, if they are raped and end up in a Catholic E.R.--is a better place for everyone to grow up in. Especially girls.

---

Obfuscate and bloviate all you want, but that is exactly what you said. Way back on Baylorfans I asked you and you said you supported a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy (kill her unborn offspring) at any point. If you don't support a woman's right to kill her unborn offspring at 41 weeks you have changed your position.

---

Once the fetus can survive outside the women, a woman cannot realistically expect to "abort" that viable fetus.


Your anger and disgust at me for supporting a woman's right to choose is getting in the way of your usual careful argument.

We disagree on this issue. I find a lot more men have very definite ideas about abortion--they're opposed to it--than women. Especially women who have given birth at least once.

---

The bolded statement above is a major change compared your prior position.

The italicized part is ridiculous. My argument is very careful, and, in this case, my point isn't really even an argument. It is an observation of an indisputable fact: you told me in the past that you supported a woman's right to choose to kill her unborn offspring at any point during her pregnancy. I am not angry and disgusted with you, I am sorry that your life has brought you to the point where you told me that you believe a woman should have a right to kill her unborn offspring at any point.

When you say "I find a lot more men have definite ideas about abortion--they're opposed to it--than women," statistics do not back up your personal perceptions as men and women have very similar views on the topic.

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 - These are great questions (all of which are addressed in the aforementioned book).

Before I answer, I would like to paraphrase and old legal adage:

Hard Cases make bad law.

cms186 said:

---

Absolutely, but circumstances change, maybe the Father died and the Mother cant financially cope with a Pregnancy?

---

Should poor parents with children that are 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, and 1 be allowed to kill the one year old because the can no longer afford to feed and diaper him?

cms186 said:

---

Maybe the Mother was raped and the psychological Pain of going through a Pregnancy where the Father of the Fetus Raped her is more than the Mother is willing to go through?

---

Rape is a detestable, violent act that haunts a person for years. Rarely will a rapist be given the death penalty for raping a woman. Should we allow another violent act of abortion to happen which is a death penalty to the fetus?

cms186 said:

---

Maybe the couple were looking to start a Family and then the Father (or the Mother) left the other and a baby is no longer in their future plans?

---

I'll ask the same question of your first statement ... should we allow a parent to kill a two-year old because the other parent left?

cms186 said:

---

Maybe they used Birth Control but for whatever reason, the Mother got Pregnant anyway?

---

All forms of birth control fail. This is a known fact. It is printed on each device. Does that give the right to a parent to kill a child later because their particular method failed?

---

the answer to all your questions about killing Infants is an obvious no, our fundamental difference is that you consider abortion to be the murder of a Human being, I do not

Jinx 2 said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.

---

cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.

Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.

You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.

Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.

I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TLR category.

I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.

I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.

---

I appreciate the reasoned debate, people cant agree on everything and Abortion is certainly a divisive subject, I appreciate other peoples points of View, im not ignorant of why they feel that way

---

Human life is the only life several religions--especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which have a common root--truly value above all other life.

I am beginning to wish with all my heart and soul that other religions--those that recognize that the quality and continuance of human life depend on the qualiy and continuance of the animals and plants we share our planet with--had been dominant.

---

Yeah, sorry Paganism didn't win out.

The reason those religions value human life above all other life is because they have souls. By the way, you value human life over all other life as well. You would mourn the death of a human being above the death of your neighbor's crepe myrtle. If you wouldn't, then you're a monster.

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 - These are great questions (all of which are addressed in the aforementioned book).

Before I answer, I would like to paraphrase and old legal adage:

Hard Cases make bad law.

cms186 said:

---

Absolutely, but circumstances change, maybe the Father died and the Mother cant financially cope with a Pregnancy?

---

Should poor parents with children that are 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, and 1 be allowed to kill the one year old because the can no longer afford to feed and diaper him?

cms186 said:

---

Maybe the Mother was raped and the psychological Pain of going through a Pregnancy where the Father of the Fetus Raped her is more than the Mother is willing to go through?

---

Rape is a detestable, violent act that haunts a person for years. Rarely will a rapist be given the death penalty for raping a woman. Should we allow another violent act of abortion to happen which is a death penalty to the fetus?

cms186 said:

---

Maybe the couple were looking to start a Family and then the Father (or the Mother) left the other and a baby is no longer in their future plans?

---

I'll ask the same question of your first statement ... should we allow a parent to kill a two-year old because the other parent left?

cms186 said:

---

Maybe they used Birth Control but for whatever reason, the Mother got Pregnant anyway?

---

All forms of birth control fail. This is a known fact. It is printed on each device. Does that give the right to a parent to kill a child later because their particular method failed?

---

the answer to all your questions about killing Infants is an obvious no, our fundamental difference is that you consider abortion to be the murder of a Human being, I do not

---

Yes you do.

You said earlier that you consider a growing fetus to be an unborn human. So you admit it's a human being.

mur.der
noun
The premeditated killing of a human being.

If this is just about the semantics of the requirement that the killing be unlawful . . . well that's kind of the point of this debate.

Cms said ". a Fetus cannot survive in the Womb without the body of the Mother, but you're saying the Woman should have no control over what goes on with her own Body?" Thank you for making point but you will never get an answer unless it's "Yes, she has control until she's pregnant." Never the reasons or circumstances which led to the pg. and then it's her selfish for wanting an abortion.

bearassnekkid said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 - These are great questions (all of which are addressed in the aforementioned book).

Before I answer, I would like to paraphrase and old legal adage:

Hard Cases make bad law.

cms186 said:

---

Absolutely, but circumstances change, maybe the Father died and the Mother cant financially cope with a Pregnancy?

---

Should poor parents with children that are 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, and 1 be allowed to kill the one year old because the can no longer afford to feed and diaper him?

cms186 said:

---

Maybe the Mother was raped and the psychological Pain of going through a Pregnancy where the Father of the Fetus Raped her is more than the Mother is willing to go through?

---

Rape is a detestable, violent act that haunts a person for years. Rarely will a rapist be given the death penalty for raping a woman. Should we allow another violent act of abortion to happen which is a death penalty to the fetus?

cms186 said:

---

Maybe the couple were looking to start a Family and then the Father (or the Mother) left the other and a baby is no longer in their future plans?

---

I'll ask the same question of your first statement ... should we allow a parent to kill a two-year old because the other parent left?

cms186 said:

---

Maybe they used Birth Control but for whatever reason, the Mother got Pregnant anyway?

---

All forms of birth control fail. This is a known fact. It is printed on each device. Does that give the right to a parent to kill a child later because their particular method failed?

---

the answer to all your questions about killing Infants is an obvious no, our fundamental difference is that you consider abortion to be the murder of a Human being, I do not

---

Yes you do.

You said earlier that you consider a growing fetus to be an unborn human. So you admit it's a human being.

mur.der
noun
The premeditated killing of a human being.

If this is just about the semantics of the requirement that the killing be unlawful . . . well that's kind of the point of this debate.

---

insofar as that a fetus belongs to the human race.

I do not consider abortion to be murder.

Waco1947 said:

---

Cms said ". a Fetus cannot survive in the Womb without the body of the Mother, but you're saying the Woman should have no control over what goes on with her own Body?" Thank you for making point but you will never get an answer unless it's "Yes, she has control until she's pregnant." Never the reasons or circumstances which led to the pg. and then it's her selfish for wanting an abortion.

---

47, do you have control over your body? Do you get to make your own medical choices like you state a woman should be able to do?

Of course.

I ask "Conception = Life = Human? Is this equation right? Think carefully."
I did not say "Convince me."
Now, if the equation is right, does a pro life person 1,000 humans or one 5 yr old.

Waco1947 said:

---

Of course.

---

If you went to a surgeon with two healthy lungs and asked him to remove one, would they do it?

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 - These are great questions (all of which are addressed in the aforementioned book).

Before I answer, I would like to paraphrase and old legal adage:

Hard Cases make bad law.

cms186 said:

---

Absolutely, but circumstances change, maybe the Father died and the Mother cant financially cope with a Pregnancy?

---

Should poor parents with children that are 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, and 1 be allowed to kill the one year old because the can no longer afford to feed and diaper him?

cms186 said:

---

Maybe the Mother was raped and the psychological Pain of going through a Pregnancy where the Father of the Fetus Raped her is more than the Mother is willing to go through?

---

Rape is a detestable, violent act that haunts a person for years. Rarely will a rapist be given the death penalty for raping a woman. Should we allow another violent act of abortion to happen which is a death penalty to the fetus?

cms186 said:

---

Maybe the couple were looking to start a Family and then the Father (or the Mother) left the other and a baby is no longer in their future plans?

---

I'll ask the same question of your first statement ... should we allow a parent to kill a two-year old because the other parent left?

cms186 said:

---

Maybe they used Birth Control but for whatever reason, the Mother got Pregnant anyway?

---

All forms of birth control fail. This is a known fact. It is printed on each device. Does that give the right to a parent to kill a child later because their particular method failed?

---

the answer to all your questions about killing Infants is an obvious no, our fundamental difference is that you consider abortion to be the murder of a Human being, I do not

---

Considering "murder" a legal term, abortion is only "murder" when a legislative body has made it so. Whether something is "murder" depends on a variety of factors. Killing, however, is a bit more straightforward. If the unborn offspring is alive, abortion is killing. It is alive, someone does something intentional to make it dead. It is killing as surely as slaughtering a cow to eat is killing the cow. One can quibble over whether abortion should be classified as murder, butt it is most certainly killing. The question remaining is whether the unborn offspring is human. I would argue that the unborn offspring of a human being is human. It's a living thing with uniquely human characteristics, what else could it be? So, do you not consider the unborn offspring to be alive (even though it meets any reasonable definition for life), do you not consider abortion to be murder (even though its is killing if the unborn offspring) or do you consider the unborn offspring of a human to not be human?

I guess a desperate woman seeking an abortion is not my definition of evil

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.

---

cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.

Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.

You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.

Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.

I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TLR category.

I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.

I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.

---

I appreciate the reasoned debate, people cant agree on everything and Abortion is certainly a divisive subject, I appreciate other peoples points of View, im not ignorant of why they feel that way

---

I'm on his side.

Women should be free to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy.

Period.

Under this scenario, those who agree with the entirely religious view that a fertilized egg and early-stage fetus are a fully formed human being whose rights supercede those of the mother the instant conception occurs are free to choose to continue with any pregnancy, as their beliefs dictate. If you believe that there is a benevolent God in control of the universe and also believe that everything that happens is part of His plan, your choice not to have an abortion if you become pregnant unexpectedly may be dictated by those beliefs. (Although my experience at Baylor in the 1970s was that women quietly made a choice to have an abortion to avoid the very public shame of a pregnancy out of wedlock.)

Women who are not religious and who believe we are one biological organism among many--but one with a tremendous talent for adaptation and self-determination--may or may not choose abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. They may choose to view the pregnancy as a gift. They may choose to end the pregnancy. Either choice fits with their beliefs, and they should be free to make that choice for themselves.

Whatever you believe, in a country that touts both separation of church and state AND freedom of religion/freedom from religion, this very personal choice, which has lasting physical consequences for women, should be up to the woman.

As it currently is under national law--with the result that the religious right has very successfully eliminated access to abortion services wherever that was possible.

Bottom line: A belief that the life of a fertilized egg or an early-stage fetus is fully human and that its rights should supercede the rights of the pregnant woman is based on a religious belief in the sanctity of human life--and only human life. We eat animals; we spay and neuter them; we breed them selectedly; we do scientific experiments on them; we do all sorts of things that are considered heinous when done to humans. Human life is the only life several religions--especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which have a common root--truly value above all other life.

I am beginning to wish with all my heart and soul that other religions--those that recognize that the quality and continuance of human life depend on the qualiy and continuance of the animals and plants we share our planet with--had been dominant.

---

Bottom line: you have expressed you opinion that a woman should have the right to kill her unborn offspring at any time during pregnancy and under any circumstances, that society has no interest whatsoever in protecting unborn human offspring. That is a pretty radical view and well outside the mainstream of even the "pro choice" side of the issue. You support the right to kill unborn human offspring at 41 weeks gestation should delivery be late. That's just flat out evil.

---

That is not what I said.

Any woman who remains pregnant beyond the time the fetus is viable has signed on for the duration, IMO.

I'll leave it to medical professionals to argue where that "viability line" is--but I think most people agree that it's before 20 weeks.

You want this to be a "one extreme or the other" argument, but the fetus develops rapidly over a 9-month period.

That has been exploited by "pregnancy crisis centers" that string women who want abortions along until it's too late. So, if we're on opposite sides, the "too late for abortion" issue is something your "side" of this fight is very much aware of.

What I am saying is that women who discover they are pregnant early enough so that abortion is a medically safe option for them should have the right to choose that option.

That is ALL I am saying.

I also have serious concerns about the implications for women's health if women do not have this option. I've known people who have discovered their baby would die at or shortly before birth because of a defect. One family chose to go through with the birth and held the baby for 5 minutes until she died. Another family chose to end the pregnancy; the woman was in her late 30s and truly wanted a baby. A delay of months made that less likely, so that was the basis of their decision.

I've also known many women who have suffered numerous miscarriages. That's heartbreaking in and of itself, but the possibility of criminal charges due to extremely strict abortion prohibitions really concerns me. That is happening in some central American countries.

As for evil, I think it's truly evil for anyone to presume to make such a personal decision for someone else. We give people freedom to commit lots of sins and do things deleterious to their health--drink too much, smoke cigarettes, own an unlimited number of firearms that include assault-style weapons and keep them around the house and carry them everywhere, We're very sanguine when those choices result in death--either of the person who made bad choices or innocent victims. But oh-my-God, if a woman dare make a choice regarding an unwanted pregnancy for whatever reason, it's evil. During at least the first 4 months of pregnancy and possibly the first five, I don't think it's evil--and I think a world in which women control their own bodies rather than being forced to cede that control to their state or federal government the instant an egg is fertilized--or even before, if they are raped and end up in a Catholic E.R.--is a better place for everyone to grow up in. Especially girls.

---

Obfuscate and bloviate all you want, but that is exactly what you said. Way back on Baylorfans I asked you and you said you supported a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy (kill her unborn offspring) at any point. If you don't support a woman's right to kill her unborn offspring at 41 weeks you have changed your position.

---

Once the fetus can survive outside the women, a woman cannot realistically expect to "abort" that viable fetus.


Your anger and disgust at me for supporting a woman's right to choose is getting in the way of your usual careful argument.

We disagree on this issue. I find a lot more men have very definite ideas about abortion--they're opposed to it--than women. Especially women who have given birth at least once.

---

The bolded statement above is a major change compared your prior position.

The italicized part is ridiculous. My argument is very careful, and, in this case, my point isn't really even an argument. It is an observation of an indisputable fact: you told me in the past that you supported a woman's right to choose to kill her unborn offspring at any point during her pregnancy. I am not angry and disgusted with you, I am sorry that your life has brought you to the point where you told me that you believe a woman should have a right to kill her unborn offspring at any point.

When you say "I find a lot more men have definite ideas about abortion--they're opposed to it--than women," statistics do not back up your personal perceptions as men and women have very similar views on the topic.

---

There were literally dozens of abortion threads on Baylorfans.

What I remember is expressing disgust at the concept that a woman can have an abortion at 32 weeks or 34 weeks of 36 weeks or 40 weeks or 41 weeks. At the point where the fetus can survive outside the womb, it's a birth--and the woman's choice at that time is whether to raise the baby or put him up for adoption. No responsible medical professional will help a woman end a pregnancy at that point unless the woman's life is at stake.

If the woman's health is threatened by continuing the pregnancy, I think her life should be the first priority. There was a case in Ireland a few years ago where a woman was having a miscarriage that didn't progress. The fetus was in the birth canal. It still had a heartbeat. The hospital refused to induce because the fetus still had a heartbeat, although the death of the fetus was a foregone conclusion--it was too premature. By the time the fetus died and the hospital acted, the woman died too, of septicemia. She was begging for help, and medical personal would not help her; this case may have helped Ireland's recent abortion rights referendum pass, because what it said was that the life of the woman was less important than the prohibition on abortion under any circumstances. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/27/world/europe/savita-halappanavar-ireland-abortion.html . This should not happen in this day and time.

You have picked an extreme example and claimed that my support for a woman's right to choose abortion when that is still possible extends to the point where it's not.

I definitely support late-term abortions of profoundly handicapped babies or babies with defects that mean they will either die before they are born or immediately after birth. That's a personal tragedy and women should be allowed to choose how to deal with it in consultation with their spouses and their doctors.

Jinx 2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.

---

cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.

Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.

You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.

Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.

I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TLR category.

I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.

I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.

---

I appreciate the reasoned debate, people cant agree on everything and Abortion is certainly a divisive subject, I appreciate other peoples points of View, im not ignorant of why they feel that way

---

I'm on his side.

Women should be free to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy.

Period.

Under this scenario, those who agree with the entirely religious view that a fertilized egg and early-stage fetus are a fully formed human being whose rights supercede those of the mother the instant conception occurs are free to choose to continue with any pregnancy, as their beliefs dictate. If you believe that there is a benevolent God in control of the universe and also believe that everything that happens is part of His plan, your choice not to have an abortion if you become pregnant unexpectedly may be dictated by those beliefs. (Although my experience at Baylor in the 1970s was that women quietly made a choice to have an abortion to avoid the very public shame of a pregnancy out of wedlock.)

Women who are not religious and who believe we are one biological organism among many--but one with a tremendous talent for adaptation and self-determination--may or may not choose abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. They may choose to view the pregnancy as a gift. They may choose to end the pregnancy. Either choice fits with their beliefs, and they should be free to make that choice for themselves.

Whatever you believe, in a country that touts both separation of church and state AND freedom of religion/freedom from religion, this very personal choice, which has lasting physical consequences for women, should be up to the woman.

As it currently is under national law--with the result that the religious right has very successfully eliminated access to abortion services wherever that was possible.

Bottom line: A belief that the life of a fertilized egg or an early-stage fetus is fully human and that its rights should supercede the rights of the pregnant woman is based on a religious belief in the sanctity of human life--and only human life. We eat animals; we spay and neuter them; we breed them selectedly; we do scientific experiments on them; we do all sorts of things that are considered heinous when done to humans. Human life is the only life several religions--especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which have a common root--truly value above all other life.

I am beginning to wish with all my heart and soul that other religions--those that recognize that the quality and continuance of human life depend on the qualiy and continuance of the animals and plants we share our planet with--had been dominant.

---

Bottom line: you have expressed you opinion that a woman should have the right to kill her unborn offspring at any time during pregnancy and under any circumstances, that society has no interest whatsoever in protecting unborn human offspring. That is a pretty radical view and well outside the mainstream of even the "pro choice" side of the issue. You support the right to kill unborn human offspring at 41 weeks gestation should delivery be late. That's just flat out evil.

---

That is not what I said.

Any woman who remains pregnant beyond the time the fetus is viable has signed on for the duration, IMO.

I'll leave it to medical professionals to argue where that "viability line" is--but I think most people agree that it's before 20 weeks.

You want this to be a "one extreme or the other" argument, but the fetus develops rapidly over a 9-month period.

That has been exploited by "pregnancy crisis centers" that string women who want abortions along until it's too late. So, if we're on opposite sides, the "too late for abortion" issue is something your "side" of this fight is very much aware of.

What I am saying is that women who discover they are pregnant early enough so that abortion is a medically safe option for them should have the right to choose that option.

That is ALL I am saying.

I also have serious concerns about the implications for women's health if women do not have this option. I've known people who have discovered their baby would die at or shortly before birth because of a defect. One family chose to go through with the birth and held the baby for 5 minutes until she died. Another family chose to end the pregnancy; the woman was in her late 30s and truly wanted a baby. A delay of months made that less likely, so that was the basis of their decision.

I've also known many women who have suffered numerous miscarriages. That's heartbreaking in and of itself, but the possibility of criminal charges due to extremely strict abortion prohibitions really concerns me. That is happening in some central American countries.

As for evil, I think it's truly evil for anyone to presume to make such a personal decision for someone else. We give people freedom to commit lots of sins and do things deleterious to their health--drink too much, smoke cigarettes, own an unlimited number of firearms that include assault-style weapons and keep them around the house and carry them everywhere, We're very sanguine when those choices result in death--either of the person who made bad choices or innocent victims. But oh-my-God, if a woman dare make a choice regarding an unwanted pregnancy for whatever reason, it's evil. During at least the first 4 months of pregnancy and possibly the first five, I don't think it's evil--and I think a world in which women control their own bodies rather than being forced to cede that control to their state or federal government the instant an egg is fertilized--or even before, if they are raped and end up in a Catholic E.R.--is a better place for everyone to grow up in. Especially girls.

---

Obfuscate and bloviate all you want, but that is exactly what you said. Way back on Baylorfans I asked you and you said you supported a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy (kill her unborn offspring) at any point. If you don't support a woman's right to kill her unborn offspring at 41 weeks you have changed your position.

---

Once the fetus can survive outside the women, a woman cannot realistically expect to "abort" that viable fetus.


Your anger and disgust at me for supporting a woman's right to choose is getting in the way of your usual careful argument.

We disagree on this issue. I find a lot more men have very definite ideas about abortion--they're opposed to it--than women. Especially women who have given birth at least once.

---

The bolded statement above is a major change compared your prior position.

The italicized part is ridiculous. My argument is very careful, and, in this case, my point isn't really even an argument. It is an observation of an indisputable fact: you told me in the past that you supported a woman's right to choose to kill her unborn offspring at any point during her pregnancy. I am not angry and disgusted with you, I am sorry that your life has brought you to the point where you told me that you believe a woman should have a right to kill her unborn offspring at any point.

When you say "I find a lot more men have definite ideas about abortion--they're opposed to it--than women," statistics do not back up your personal perceptions as men and women have very similar views on the topic.

---

There were literally dozens of abortion threads on Baylorfans.

What I remember is expressing disgust at the concept that a woman can have an abortion at 32 weeks or 34 weeks of 36 weeks or 40 weeks or 41 weeks. At the point where the fetus can survive outside the womb, it's a birth--and the woman's choice at that time is whether to raise the baby or put him up for adoption. No responsible medical professional will help a woman end a pregnancy at that point unless the woman's life is at stake.

If the woman's health is threatened by continuing the pregnancy, I think her life should be the first priority. There was a case in Ireland a few years ago where a woman was having a miscarriage that didn't progress. The fetus was in the birth canal. It still had a heartbeat. The hospital refused to induce because the fetus still had a heartbeat, although the death of the fetus was a foregone conclusion--it was too premature. By the time the fetus died and the hospital acted, the woman died too, of septicemia. She was begging for help, and medical personal would not help her; this case may have helped Ireland's recent abortion rights referendum pass, because what it said was that the life of the woman was less important than the prohibition on abortion under any circumstances. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/27/world/europe/savita-halappanavar-ireland-abortion.html . This should not happen in this day and time.

You have picked an extreme example and claimed that my support for a woman's right to choose abortion when that is still possible extends to the point where it's not.

I definitely support late-term abortions of profoundly handicapped babies or babies with defects that mean they will either die before they are born or immediately after birth. That's a personal tragedy and women should be allowed to choose how to deal with it in consultation with their spouses and their doctors.

---

Your memory is faulty. I specifically asked you about it and your answer was that you supported a woman's right to choose an abortion at any point. You prefaced your statement with something like: "If it was up to me..."

The bolded part of your post above is absurd. An abortion procedure is possible at any point before birth. I have not argued that your position extends until after birth.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

This isnt about Religion, surely you're capable of making up your own mind without being told what to think by the Church? Also, a Fertilised egg cant become a Person on its own, it needs the womb of its Mother to grow in.

---

cms186 - I agree with you concerning the ability to discuss the abortion subject without using religion. I am happy to discuss the topic using only logic and reason.

Having said that, I do appreciate that you've remained in conversation about this difficult topic even when no one appears to be on your side.

You did state that you are not in favor of Late-Term abortions. That's great. The reason why some here have asked you why is because they want your reasoning or rationale for the 3rd trimester only vs. earlier in term.

Some people choose viability or recognizable characteristics for this point to demarcation. Others, who consider themselves Pro-Life, choose conception because scientifically, that's when life begins.

I could type two posts worth of refutations to the pro-choice arguments, but that would fall under the TLR category.

I am happy to discuss any of the specific points about this topic.

I'll offer to you, like I did to all in the other post a copy of a book called Persuasive Pro-Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue by Trent Horn. It answers most of the common objections that you and others have about the topic.

---

I appreciate the reasoned debate, people cant agree on everything and Abortion is certainly a divisive subject, I appreciate other peoples points of View, im not ignorant of why they feel that way

---

I'm on his side.

Women should be free to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy.

Period.

Under this scenario, those who agree with the entirely religious view that a fertilized egg and early-stage fetus are a fully formed human being whose rights supercede those of the mother the instant conception occurs are free to choose to continue with any pregnancy, as their beliefs dictate. If you believe that there is a benevolent God in control of the universe and also believe that everything that happens is part of His plan, your choice not to have an abortion if you become pregnant unexpectedly may be dictated by those beliefs. (Although my experience at Baylor in the 1970s was that women quietly made a choice to have an abortion to avoid the very public shame of a pregnancy out of wedlock.)

Women who are not religious and who believe we are one biological organism among many--but one with a tremendous talent for adaptation and self-determination--may or may not choose abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. They may choose to view the pregnancy as a gift. They may choose to end the pregnancy. Either choice fits with their beliefs, and they should be free to make that choice for themselves.

Whatever you believe, in a country that touts both separation of church and state AND freedom of religion/freedom from religion, this very personal choice, which has lasting physical consequences for women, should be up to the woman.

As it currently is under national law--with the result that the religious right has very successfully eliminated access to abortion services wherever that was possible.

Bottom line: A belief that the life of a fertilized egg or an early-stage fetus is fully human and that its rights should supercede the rights of the pregnant woman is based on a religious belief in the sanctity of human life--and only human life. We eat animals; we spay and neuter them; we breed them selectedly; we do scientific experiments on them; we do all sorts of things that are considered heinous when done to humans. Human life is the only life several religions--especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which have a common root--truly value above all other life.

I am beginning to wish with all my heart and soul that other religions--those that recognize that the quality and continuance of human life depend on the qualiy and continuance of the animals and plants we share our planet with--had been dominant.

---

Bottom line: you have expressed you opinion that a woman should have the right to kill her unborn offspring at any time during pregnancy and under any circumstances, that society has no interest whatsoever in protecting unborn human offspring. That is a pretty radical view and well outside the mainstream of even the "pro choice" side of the issue. You support the right to kill unborn human offspring at 41 weeks gestation should delivery be late. That's just flat out evil.

---

That is not what I said.

Any woman who remains pregnant beyond the time the fetus is viable has signed on for the duration, IMO.

I'll leave it to medical professionals to argue where that "viability line" is--but I think most people agree that it's before 20 weeks.

You want this to be a "one extreme or the other" argument, but the fetus develops rapidly over a 9-month period.

That has been exploited by "pregnancy crisis centers" that string women who want abortions along until it's too late. So, if we're on opposite sides, the "too late for abortion" issue is something your "side" of this fight is very much aware of.

What I am saying is that women who discover they are pregnant early enough so that abortion is a medically safe option for them should have the right to choose that option.

That is ALL I am saying.

I also have serious concerns about the implications for women's health if women do not have this option. I've known people who have discovered their baby would die at or shortly before birth because of a defect. One family chose to go through with the birth and held the baby for 5 minutes until she died. Another family chose to end the pregnancy; the woman was in her late 30s and truly wanted a baby. A delay of months made that less likely, so that was the basis of their decision.

I've also known many women who have suffered numerous miscarriages. That's heartbreaking in and of itself, but the possibility of criminal charges due to extremely strict abortion prohibitions really concerns me. That is happening in some central American countries.

As for evil, I think it's truly evil for anyone to presume to make such a personal decision for someone else. We give people freedom to commit lots of sins and do things deleterious to their health--drink too much, smoke cigarettes, own an unlimited number of firearms that include assault-style weapons and keep them around the house and carry them everywhere, We're very sanguine when those choices result in death--either of the person who made bad choices or innocent victims. But oh-my-God, if a woman dare make a choice regarding an unwanted pregnancy for whatever reason, it's evil. During at least the first 4 months of pregnancy and possibly the first five, I don't think it's evil--and I think a world in which women control their own bodies rather than being forced to cede that control to their state or federal government the instant an egg is fertilized--or even before, if they are raped and end up in a Catholic E.R.--is a better place for everyone to grow up in. Especially girls.

---

Obfuscate and bloviate all you want, but that is exactly what you said. Way back on Baylorfans I asked you and you said you supported a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy (kill her unborn offspring) at any point. If you don't support a woman's right to kill her unborn offspring at 41 weeks you have changed your position.

---

Once the fetus can survive outside the women, a woman cannot realistically expect to "abort" that viable fetus.


Your anger and disgust at me for supporting a woman's right to choose is getting in the way of your usual careful argument.

We disagree on this issue. I find a lot more men have very definite ideas about abortion--they're opposed to it--than women. Especially women who have given birth at least once.

---

The bolded statement above is a major change compared your prior position.

The italicized part is ridiculous. My argument is very careful, and, in this case, my point isn't really even an argument. It is an observation of an indisputable fact: you told me in the past that you supported a woman's right to choose to kill her unborn offspring at any point during her pregnancy. I am not angry and disgusted with you, I am sorry that your life has brought you to the point where you told me that you believe a woman should have a right to kill her unborn offspring at any point.

When you say "I find a lot more men have definite ideas about abortion--they're opposed to it--than women," statistics do not back up your personal perceptions as men and women have very similar views on the topic.

---

There were literally dozens of abortion threads on Baylorfans.

What I remember is expressing disgust at the concept that a woman can have an abortion at 32 weeks or 34 weeks of 36 weeks or 40 weeks or 41 weeks. At the point where the fetus can survive outside the womb, it's a birth--and the woman's choice at that time is whether to raise the baby or put him up for adoption. No responsible medical professional will help a woman end a pregnancy at that point unless the woman's life is at stake.

If the woman's health is threatened by continuing the pregnancy, I think her life should be the first priority. There was a case in Ireland a few years ago where a woman was having a miscarriage that didn't progress. The fetus was in the birth canal. It still had a heartbeat. The hospital refused to induce because the fetus still had a heartbeat, although the death of the fetus was a foregone conclusion--it was too premature. By the time the fetus died and the hospital acted, the woman died too, of septicemia. She was begging for help, and medical personal would not help her; this case may have helped Ireland's recent abortion rights referendum pass, because what it said was that the life of the woman was less important than the prohibition on abortion under any circumstances. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/27/world/europe/savita-halappanavar-ireland-abortion.html . This should not happen in this day and time.

You have picked an extreme example and claimed that my support for a woman's right to choose abortion when that is still possible extends to the point where it's not.

I definitely support late-term abortions of profoundly handicapped babies or babies with defects that mean they will either die before they are born or immediately after birth. That's a personal tragedy and women should be allowed to choose how to deal with it in consultation with their spouses and their doctors.

---

Your memory is faulty. I specifically asked you about it and your answer was that you supported a woman's right to choose an abortion at any point. You prefaced your statement with something like: "If it was up to me..."

The bolded part of your post above is absurd. An abortion procedure is possible at any point before birth. I have not argued that your position extends until after birth.

---

Here's some info about third-trimester abortions that jives with what I've said in my comments on this thread: After 20 to 22 weeks, abortion is only available if the mother's or baby's life is at risk. So the "choice" we're talking about is during the first half of pregnancy.

If you want to keep arguing with what you think I've said--a position that's not medically feasible nor morally acceptable if the fetus is capable of living outside the womb independent of the mother--go ahead. I'm opting out from here on.

What you may recall is that I disagree with states that ban abortion in the third trimester because that places women's lives at risk and may also require a woman to carry a dead fetus or a fetus that will die immediately after birth to term. That decision should be hers.

https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/a19910816/how-late-can-you-get-an-abortion/

...late-term abortionsthose done towards the end of the second trimester and beginning of the third trimesterare illegal in most states. Three states currently ban abortions in the third trimester and 15 states ban it about 20 weeks post-fertilization (or about 22 weeks after the last period), according to the Guttmacher Institute. For 19 other states, the guideline for considering an abortion to be "late term" and illegal is if the fetus is considered "viable," or that it could survive outside the womb. Most medical communities consider that to be about 24 weeks, according to the American Pregnancy Association. The exception for performing a late-term abortion after these dates, however, is when it's deemed medically necessary (ex: if the pregnancy is putting the mother's life at risk).

bularry said:

---

I guess a desperate woman seeking an abortion is not my definition of evil

---

And if there's one thing we know about human nature, it's that desperation never drives us to evil acts.

Seriously, though, this is why we punish the abortionists and not the women.

Sam Lowry said:

---

bularry said:

---

I guess a desperate woman seeking an abortion is not my definition of evil

---

And if there's one thing we know about human nature, it's that desperation never drives us to evil acts.

Seriously, though, this is why we punish the abortionists and not the women.

---

That's nonsensical reasoning. The abortionist is simply the hot man if one follows your understanding of "human."

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bularry said:

---

I guess a desperate woman seeking an abortion is not my definition of evil

---

And if there's one thing we know about human nature, it's that desperation never drives us to evil acts.

Seriously, though, this is why we punish the abortionists and not the women.

---

That's nonsensical reasoning. The abortionist is simply the hot man if one follows your understanding of "human."

---

It was the reasoning of our laws before Roe v. Wade. Some night call it nonsense. Others would call it empathy.

You do believe in empathy, don't you?