Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray: "I do not, however, think of a pre-viability fetus as a human."

You think of the fetus as what, if not human? I can understand differentiating between a human fetus and a human infant, but only in the same manner as I discern between human infants, toddlers, children, and so on.

The notion or inference that a human fetus is not human, is dishonest.

---

Its an age-old opinion question. Neither my opinion nor yours is "dishonest." In fact, my opinion conforms to what are legal framework has been on this issue for 47 years. So it is hardly a radical idea.

My view is that a necessary characteristic of humanity is the capability of experiencing life. A pre-viability fetus lacks that capability.

---

A pre viable fetus gains that ability over time. Does it not?
Again, there's law and there's reality.
Just because law says something or there's a consensus...that doesn't change reality of the situation.
Also laws change.

Would you support an abortion law that is extreme in it's vetting of responsible abortion? Meaning you can't get one just because it requires personal responsibility? If so, abortions would drop 90%.

---

It does. And when a "certain time" is reached, the ability to legally abort changes.

---

My argument is that a certain time will be reached and abortion prevents that from happening.

Again, all that matters are results.

My argument would have led to millions living lives, contributing to society, loving, etc. Your view leads to the opposite.

You need to ask yourself what results you want.

---

Abortion, contraception, abstinence and ugliness all led to less lives. Are you going to outlaw the other three?

You act like I am "pro-abortion." I am not. I just recognize that it is a difficult question with lots of issues attached. At the very least, I think we need to do as much as possible to reduce abortions.

But until I see a world where we actually support the women who we take the choice away from, I am going to be receptive to their arguments.

---

Booray, in my lifetime it abortion will be solidified legally as "my body, my choice, for ANY reason". 100% at the expense of taxpayers.

This is where society is headed. The radical left already largely accepts it as such. I have coworkers who have desired such.

Those that disagree will be character assassinated and labeled as hateful and against progress.

Does this concern you at all?

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So answer please - if the fetus inside a human woman is not a human fetus, what is it?

Just want to be clear.

---

Its a fetus, period.. You are the one who wants to attach "human" as a qualifier.

---

That's where the 'dishonest' part comes in. The word fetus does not define what kind of animal it is, puppies are dog fetuses before they are born, kittens are cat fetuses before they are born.

You can still argue that abortion is sometimes necessary and maybe you believe it's right. But denying that abortions kill human organisms is dishonest and there's no two ways about that.

Quote:

---

For the first time of my life I really looked, I really looked at that pile of body parts on the side of the table and I didn't see her wonderful right to choose, and I didn't see all the money I just made. All I could see was somebody's son or daughter.

---

MoneyBear said:

---

If SCOTUS ruled tomorrow that life begins at conception and it is now incumbent on the father of the child to begin paying child support at conception if he is not already supporting the mother, how many of you would back away from the "the man doesn't bear the same burden as the woman" argument?

Just curious for an honest answer here...

---

Pregnancy changes a woman's body permanently. It also involves health risks, some of which are grave. The U.S. now has a relatively high maternal mortality rate compared with other first-world countries. In particular, black women are more likely to die.

Women who want to have children within or outside of a committed relationship accept those risks knowingly. A rape victim or underaged child does not. In countries where women are forced into marriages at two young an age, fistulas--tears between the vaginal walls and the urethra and rectum are so common it's a health crisis, because the woman is rendered incontinent in a country where surgery to correct that condition may not be available and certainly is not affordable. Often, these women are shunned because they leak pee and poop. I know a couple of women who have had surgery to correct issues like this. One decided never to have another baby, because the two years following the birth of her first child were so painful and the first surgery to correct a tear that was originally undetected didn't work.

Some women do choose abortion because they can't afford to raise a child. But money is far from the only issue. And women should not be scorned for considering the long-term health impacts of childbirth. Frequent childbearing is the big reason that women used to have much shorter lives than men. My grandfather was the product of a second marriage after the first wife, who had 8 children, died. His mother bore 5 more before she was widowed.

I'm going to post a video that's on The Atlantic's website this week where women talk about how pregnancy affected their bodies, their self-perception and their feelings about sex: https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/589231/after-birth/

I can guarantee that women who want children don't less these risk stop them from having children. But if you become pregnant by a rape, in an abusive relationship, or at a time when you can't afford to support a child or another child, they may factor into your decision making. I don't know any woman who wants to see her body go through the extreme changes it does during pregnancy and bear the child of a rapist. That's a level of violation that should shock the conscience.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So answer please - if the fetus inside a human woman is not a human fetus, what is it?

Just want to be clear.

---

Its a fetus, period.. You are the one who wants to attach "human" as a qualifier.

---

That's where the 'dishonest' part comes in. The word fetus does not define what kind of animal it is, puppies are dog fetuses before they are born, kittens are cat fetuses before they are born.

You can still argue that abortion is sometimes necessary and maybe you believe it's right. But denying that abortions kill human organisms is dishonest and there's no two ways about that.

---

Right, this is the propaganda piece. They try to label it as a fetus or a clump of cells so they can justify ending the life of an unborn baby. If they call it an unborn baby, they have to directly confront what they are advocating for which is ending the life of an unborn baby. They know that will be far less palatable to the general public so they invent new words to hide the reality. It is the same reason words like "undocumented" were used to hide the illegality of illegal immigrants or why they are now calling Christians "Easter worshipers."

Notice how adamant Booray is in calling it a fetus. He/she shows they can't really come to grips with what they are doing and advocating for. The funny part is many of these same folks would be perfectly willing to say some molecules is evidence of life on Mars but can't call an unborn baby life here on Earth.

BaylorFTW said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So answer please - if the fetus inside a human woman is not a human fetus, what is it?

Just want to be clear.

---

Its a fetus, period.. You are the one who wants to attach "human" as a qualifier.

---

That's where the 'dishonest' part comes in. The word fetus does not define what kind of animal it is, puppies are dog fetuses before they are born, kittens are cat fetuses before they are born.

You can still argue that abortion is sometimes necessary and maybe you believe it's right. But denying that abortions kill human organisms is dishonest and there's no two ways about that.

---

Right, this is the propaganda piece. They try to label it as a fetus or a clump of cells so they can justify ending the life of an unborn baby. If they call it an unborn baby, they have to directly confront what they are advocating for which is ending the life of an unborn baby. They know that will be far less palatable to the general public so they invent new words to hide the reality. It is the same reason words like "undocumented" were used to hide the illegality of illegal immigrants or why they are now calling Christians "Easter worshipers."

Notice how adamant Booray is in calling it a fetus. He/she shows they can't really come to grips with what they are doing and advocating for. The funny part is many of these same folks would be perfectly willing to say some molecules is evidence of life on Mars but can't call an unborn baby life here on Earth.

---

Fetus is the medicall correct term: https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3424

It's a embryo or fetus in the womb; and it's a baby after birth.

It's unsuprising that people with a complete and utter disrespect of science thinks all it takes is semantics to turn a fertlized egg into a baby and seek to do that with the same speed you can pour boiling water into a cup of instant coffee and have something ready to drink.

I was horrified to read that some Catholic priests don't condone the safest treatment for an ectopic pregnancy, which involves a medication that dissoves the fetus. Because a fertlized egg is involved, some Catholics ONLY support surgery to remove the fallopian tube in which the egg has implanted. That's a more dangerous, complicated and costly procedure, and it also means it will be harder for the woman to get pregnant in the future. It shows how crazy the obsession over fertilized eggs is.

Jinx: "It's a embryo or fetus in the womb; and it's a baby after birth."

And the point is, it's human all through the pregnancy.

BaylorFTW said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So answer please - if the fetus inside a human woman is not a human fetus, what is it?

Just want to be clear.

---

Its a fetus, period.. You are the one who wants to attach "human" as a qualifier.

---

That's where the 'dishonest' part comes in. The word fetus does not define what kind of animal it is, puppies are dog fetuses before they are born, kittens are cat fetuses before they are born.

You can still argue that abortion is sometimes necessary and maybe you believe it's right. But denying that abortions kill human organisms is dishonest and there's no two ways about that.

---

Right, this is the propaganda piece. They try to label it as a fetus or a clump of cells so they can justify ending the life of an unborn baby. If they call it an unborn baby, they have to directly confront what they are advocating for which is ending the life of an unborn baby. They know that will be far less palatable to the general public so they invent new words to hide the reality. It is the same reason words like "undocumented" were used to hide the illegality of illegal immigrants or why they are now calling Christians "Easter worshipers."

Notice how adamant Booray is in calling it a fetus. He/she shows they can't really come to grips with what they are doing and advocating for. The funny part is many of these same folks would be perfectly willing to say some molecules is evidence of life on Mars but can't call an unborn baby life here on Earth.

---

Ethnic cleansing , re education camps, final solution


Folks who condone mass murder always require conscience numbing terminology.

Jinx 2 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So answer please - if the fetus inside a human woman is not a human fetus, what is it?

Just want to be clear.

---

Its a fetus, period.. You are the one who wants to attach "human" as a qualifier.

---

That's where the 'dishonest' part comes in. The word fetus does not define what kind of animal it is, puppies are dog fetuses before they are born, kittens are cat fetuses before they are born.

You can still argue that abortion is sometimes necessary and maybe you believe it's right. But denying that abortions kill human organisms is dishonest and there's no two ways about that.

---

Right, this is the propaganda piece. They try to label it as a fetus or a clump of cells so they can justify ending the life of an unborn baby. If they call it an unborn baby, they have to directly confront what they are advocating for which is ending the life of an unborn baby. They know that will be far less palatable to the general public so they invent new words to hide the reality. It is the same reason words like "undocumented" were used to hide the illegality of illegal immigrants or why they are now calling Christians "Easter worshipers."

Notice how adamant Booray is in calling it a fetus. He/she shows they can't really come to grips with what they are doing and advocating for. The funny part is many of these same folks would be perfectly willing to say some molecules is evidence of life on Mars but can't call an unborn baby life here on Earth.

---

Fetus is the medicall correct term: https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3424

It's a embryo or fetus in the womb; and it's a baby after birth.

It's unsuprising that people with a complete and utter disrespect of science thinks all it takes is semantics to turn a fertlized egg into a baby and seek to do that with the same speed you can pour boiling water into a cup of instant coffee and have something ready to drink.

I was horrified to read that some Catholic priests don't condone the safest treatment for an ectopic pregnancy, which involves a medication that dissoves the fetus. Because a fertlized egg is involved, some Catholics ONLY support surgery to remove the fallopian tube in which the egg has implanted. That's a more dangerous, complicated and costly procedure, and it also means it will be harder for the woman to get pregnant in the future. It shows how crazy the obsession over fertilized eggs is.

---

I bet you agree with this.

Does a state that criminalizes abortion but ranks 50th in education really give a **** about children?

robby44 said:

---

Does a state that criminalizes abortion but ranks 50th in education really give a **** about children?

---

Thank God for Mississippi?

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

It's largely because of abortion and contraception that men's share of the burden has been removed.

---

Abortion and contraception reduce the risk of burden on both the man and woman.

---

Burden and risk of burden are two different things. The risk may be reduced, but the burden itself is increased for women.

Jack and DP said:

---

---

Pro life Alabama:

2nd in gun violence
46th in health care
50th in education
45th in opportunity for residents
45th in crimes and corrections
2nd in infant mortality rates
No family or maternal leave laws in the state
Half of the state's 67 counties have no obstetrician
5th highest child poverty rate in the country

cinque: first in made-up assertions and self-righteous hypocrisy.

Quote:

---

5. If you want to make the argument, tell my why abortion before viability should qualify as murder.

---

First, thank you for acknowledging that a baby is involved in this process at some point. 5 pages discussing abortion and you are the first pro-abortion person who will acknowledge a baby.

To address the viability question:

Viability is a function of knowledge and technology. The age of viability has changed as we learn more and produce better tools.

Was a 25 week old in the womb in 1990's not a baby and a 25 week old in the womb today a baby? Viability is not a legitimate marker for whether a baby is a baby.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

Well lets argue what's really happening with abortion:
The vast majority of abortions are out of convenience.

You're argument applies to less than 1% of all pregnancies and you're going to apply it to 100% of all pregnancies.

---

1. Its not "my argument."

2. You asked why undue burden should excuse murder. I gave you the legal rationale: abortion before viability is not murder.

3. You responded by saying "why are you relying on burden? Its really about convenience."

4. If its not murder, then burden/convenience are irrelevant. And "burden/convenience" are the same concept.

5. If you want to make the argument, tell my why abortion before viability should qualify as murder.

---

A fetus almost always becomes viable therefore abortion is preventing viability.

---

So? We are just arguing over when to define "human" for purposes of abortion regulation. The law is "when the fetus becomes viable" not "something that will likely obtain viability." People are trying to change that law. Until they do, my explanation is what you asked for: why does the law not look at abortion as murder.

---

And my argument is law doesn't change reality.

What is your argument outside the law? Why are you pro abortion under any circumstance which is exactly what is happening in our country?

---

Where do you get the idea I am "pro-abortion under any circumstance?"

Where do you get the idea that women can get an abortion at any time and under any circumstance?

Neither of those are remotely the case. You asked why abortion is not considered murder? That is a legal question. I give you the legal answer and you say, yeah, well outside the law what is the answer? ***?

---

You support Roe V, Wade, therefore you are pro abortion under any circumstance which is what the law allows.

Where the hell have you been?
The left is advocating second, third trimesters and even in some cases "aborting" after birth (ostensibly, murder). See NY.

More than 54 million abortions have been performed since U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. The sheer numbers PROVE abortion is for pretty much any reason.

They are too readily available. They should be last resort in extreme circumstances. Also they and the organizations supporting them shouldn't be taxpayer funded.

---

The ignorance in your post is astounding.

Roe v. Wade gives a general definition of the circumstances under which an abortion is a constitutionally protected right. It says the right is inviolate in the first trimester, can be burdened by reasonable healthcare regulations in the second trimester and does not protect the third trimester, except where the mother's life is in danger. In other words, Roe v. Wade on its face explains that there are circumstances when abortion is not a protected right. For you to argue that Roe means abortion "under any circumstance" is just stupidity. It does the exact opposite.

No one is advocating for third trimester abortions except for highly unusual circumstances related to the health of the mother or the unborn. And as I posted yesterday, your interpretation of the NY law is just as inept as your interpretation of Roe.

I am anti-abortion at any stage, in the sense that I don't like it. We should continue to focus on reducing abortions, which we have successfully done since 1990. The two best ways to reduce abortion are: (1) education/contraception and (2) making sure men bear the consequences of their fatherhood.

I do not, however, think of a pre-viability fetus as a human. Therefore, I support the right to choose until that point.

---

Roe v. Wade allows abortion in the third trimester to preserve the life or health of the mother, not just the life. Doe v. Bolton, decided on the same day, broadly defines health to include "all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient."

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx: "It's a embryo or fetus in the womb; and it's a baby after birth."

And the point is, it's human all through the pregnancy.

---

I'm not trying to be an a$$ with this comment but I think you are in a semantics debate over "human". Hell, a cancerous tumor is human tissue, as is the fat sucked out during liposuction. Are you concerned about that human organism?

I'm pro life so not trying to pick a fight.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

It's largely because of abortion and contraception that men's share of the burden has been removed.

---

Abortion and contraception reduce the risk of burden on both the man and woman.

---

Burden and risk of burden are two different things. The risk may be reduced, but the burden itself is increased for women.

---

Contraception reduces the risk of being burdened with rearing a child or for some the burden of an abortion.

Jinx 2 said:

---

It's a embryo or fetus in the womb; and it's a baby after birth.

---

Not a baby until birth? Is there some kind of magic in the birth canal that converts the fetus into a baby?

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

It's largely because of abortion and contraception that men's share of the burden has been removed.

---

Abortion and contraception reduce the risk of burden on both the man and woman.

---

Burden and risk of burden are two different things. The risk may be reduced, but the burden itself is increased for women.

---

Contraception reduces the risk of being burdened with rearing a child or for some the burden of an abortion.

---

And increases the burden of rearing a child by making it less likely that men will participate.

Iron Claw said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx: "It's a embryo or fetus in the womb; and it's a baby after birth."

And the point is, it's human all through the pregnancy.

---

I'm not trying to be an a$$ with this comment but I think you are in a semantics debate over "human". Hell, a cancerous tumor is human tissue, as is the fat sucked out during liposuction. Are you concerned about that human organism?

I'm pro life so not trying to pick a fight.

---

The problem I see here is that some of each side try to deny important facts to the matter:

Pro-life people sometimes ignore the difficult situation a woman may be in, when she finds her self pregnant but not ready for the responsibilities of being a parent, along with the financial and time burdens that raising a child incurs. Add to that the social prevalence of missing dads in many of these occasions, and it's no shock the woman may feel she has no option but to abort the baby.

Pro-choice people generally refuse to admit that after the first few weeks the fetus has brain activity, a heartbeat, is visibly human in form and can sense fear and pain ... aborting such a fetus, even in the first trimester, is killing a human. This fact is vital to the discussion, not least because abortion advocates are often guilty of providing no help to the mother following the abortion, when guilt and emotional loss are not uncommon. An abortion kills a living human organism. You may feel it's necessary, but euphemisms don't alter the reality.

Booray said:

---

JXL said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Will be surprised if the Alabama governor signs the anti abortion bill into law.

Would be shocked if the Supreme Court then overturned Roe vs Wade

Too many folks demand the 'right' to undisciplined behavior free of inconvenient consequences.

---

Like the right to impregnate a women and then leave her to deal with the consequences?

The Alabama GOP consciously decided not to include a rape/incest exclusion. How is a rape victim guilty of "undisciplined behavior?"

---

That was a very big mistake if you ask me.

---

The evangelicals have sold their soul to the devil; they want the golden fiddle.

---

Actually, had The New Extreme Liberal Left just left well enough alone and not literally celebrated laws legalizing the killing of newborn children (i.e., New York and Virginia), none of this would have gotten this far. Most moral Americans are now WOKE and are saying "enough".

---

You are just flat wrong about the NY and Virginia laws.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/

---

And yet abortionists themselves tell their patients that if the child is born alive, they will let it die.

---

When you find a doctor who refused to aid a surviving infant, let me know. It doesn't happen.

---

So the abortionists on the video are lying to their patients when they say that is exactly what they would do?

Iron Claw said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx: "It's a embryo or fetus in the womb; and it's a baby after birth."

And the point is, it's human all through the pregnancy.

---

I'm not trying to be an a$$ with this comment but I think you are in a semantics debate over "human". Hell, a cancerous tumor is human tissue, as is the fat sucked out during liposuction. Are you concerned about that human organism?

I'm pro life so not trying to pick a fight.

---

Your hair is also human, but is not a distinct, separate human as is the case with the unborn human offspring.

Oldbear83 said:

---

cinque: first in made-up assertions and self-righteous hypocrisy.

---

Why do pro birthers such as yourself think that more gun laws will not stop unchecked gun violence but believe that more abortion laws will stop abortion?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

Well lets argue what's really happening with abortion:
The vast majority of abortions are out of convenience.

You're argument applies to less than 1% of all pregnancies and you're going to apply it to 100% of all pregnancies.

---

1. Its not "my argument."

2. You asked why undue burden should excuse murder. I gave you the legal rationale: abortion before viability is not murder.

3. You responded by saying "why are you relying on burden? Its really about convenience."

4. If its not murder, then burden/convenience are irrelevant. And "burden/convenience" are the same concept.

5. If you want to make the argument, tell my why abortion before viability should qualify as murder.

---

A fetus almost always becomes viable therefore abortion is preventing viability.

---

So? We are just arguing over when to define "human" for purposes of abortion regulation. The law is "when the fetus becomes viable" not "something that will likely obtain viability." People are trying to change that law. Until they do, my explanation is what you asked for: why does the law not look at abortion as murder.

---

And my argument is law doesn't change reality.

What is your argument outside the law? Why are you pro abortion under any circumstance which is exactly what is happening in our country?

---

Where do you get the idea I am "pro-abortion under any circumstance?"

Where do you get the idea that women can get an abortion at any time and under any circumstance?

Neither of those are remotely the case. You asked why abortion is not considered murder? That is a legal question. I give you the legal answer and you say, yeah, well outside the law what is the answer? ***?

---

You support Roe V, Wade, therefore you are pro abortion under any circumstance which is what the law allows.

Where the hell have you been?
The left is advocating second, third trimesters and even in some cases "aborting" after birth (ostensibly, murder). See NY.

More than 54 million abortions have been performed since U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. The sheer numbers PROVE abortion is for pretty much any reason.

They are too readily available. They should be last resort in extreme circumstances. Also they and the organizations supporting them shouldn't be taxpayer funded.

---

The ignorance in your post is astounding.

Roe v. Wade gives a general definition of the circumstances under which an abortion is a constitutionally protected right. It says the right is inviolate in the first trimester, can be burdened by reasonable healthcare regulations in the second trimester and does not protect the third trimester, except where the mother's life is in danger. In other words, Roe v. Wade on its face explains that there are circumstances when abortion is not a protected right. For you to argue that Roe means abortion "under any circumstance" is just stupidity. It does the exact opposite.

No one is advocating for third trimester abortions except for highly unusual circumstances related to the health of the mother or the unborn. And as I posted yesterday, your interpretation of the NY law is just as inept as your interpretation of Roe.

I am anti-abortion at any stage, in the sense that I don't like it. We should continue to focus on reducing abortions, which we have successfully done since 1990. The two best ways to reduce abortion are: (1) education/contraception and (2) making sure men bear the consequences of their fatherhood.

I do not, however, think of a pre-viability fetus as a human. Therefore, I support the right to choose until that point.

---

Roe v. Wade allows abortion in the third trimester to preserve the life or health of the mother, not just the life. Doe v. Bolton, decided on the same day, broadly defines health to include "all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient."

---

Viability shouldn't be a basis for determination. Babies (in the womb or outside) and toddlers are not viable without the support of their mother or a substitute mother.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can someone explain why burden outweighs murder?

There are living people born out of incest and rape: are you to say their existence is tainted and worthy of being prevented? If you're pro abortion, you are absolutely making this statement.

Murder is only acceptable if someone is consciously and purposely threatening your life IMO.

---

Not that you are really interested in the answer, but this is the logic: "murder" is the act of ending a human life. If the fetus/baby is not capable of life, abortion cannot end that life and is therefore not murder. That is why post-Roe "viability" has always played a role in determining when abortions can occur.

---

Well lets argue what's really happening with abortion:
The vast majority of abortions are out of convenience.

You're argument applies to less than 1% of all pregnancies and you're going to apply it to 100% of all pregnancies.

---

1. Its not "my argument."

2. You asked why undue burden should excuse murder. I gave you the legal rationale: abortion before viability is not murder.

3. You responded by saying "why are you relying on burden? Its really about convenience."

4. If its not murder, then burden/convenience are irrelevant. And "burden/convenience" are the same concept.

5. If you want to make the argument, tell my why abortion before viability should qualify as murder.

---

A fetus almost always becomes viable therefore abortion is preventing viability.

---

So? We are just arguing over when to define "human" for purposes of abortion regulation. The law is "when the fetus becomes viable" not "something that will likely obtain viability." People are trying to change that law. Until they do, my explanation is what you asked for: why does the law not look at abortion as murder.

---

And my argument is law doesn't change reality.

What is your argument outside the law? Why are you pro abortion under any circumstance which is exactly what is happening in our country?

---

Where do you get the idea I am "pro-abortion under any circumstance?"

Where do you get the idea that women can get an abortion at any time and under any circumstance?

Neither of those are remotely the case. You asked why abortion is not considered murder? That is a legal question. I give you the legal answer and you say, yeah, well outside the law what is the answer? ***?

---

You support Roe V, Wade, therefore you are pro abortion under any circumstance which is what the law allows.

Where the hell have you been?
The left is advocating second, third trimesters and even in some cases "aborting" after birth (ostensibly, murder). See NY.

More than 54 million abortions have been performed since U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. The sheer numbers PROVE abortion is for pretty much any reason.

They are too readily available. They should be last resort in extreme circumstances. Also they and the organizations supporting them shouldn't be taxpayer funded.

---

The ignorance in your post is astounding.

Roe v. Wade gives a general definition of the circumstances under which an abortion is a constitutionally protected right. It says the right is inviolate in the first trimester, can be burdened by reasonable healthcare regulations in the second trimester and does not protect the third trimester, except where the mother's life is in danger. In other words, Roe v. Wade on its face explains that there are circumstances when abortion is not a protected right. For you to argue that Roe means abortion "under any circumstance" is just stupidity. It does the exact opposite.

No one is advocating for third trimester abortions except for highly unusual circumstances related to the health of the mother or the unborn. And as I posted yesterday, your interpretation of the NY law is just as inept as your interpretation of Roe.

I am anti-abortion at any stage, in the sense that I don't like it. We should continue to focus on reducing abortions, which we have successfully done since 1990. The two best ways to reduce abortion are: (1) education/contraception and (2) making sure men bear the consequences of their fatherhood.

I do not, however, think of a pre-viability fetus as a human. Therefore, I support the right to choose until that point.

---

Roe v. Wade allows abortion in the third trimester to preserve the life or health of the mother, not just the life. Doe v. Bolton, decided on the same day, broadly defines health to include "all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient."

---

Viability shouldn't be a basis for determination. Babies (in the womb or outside) and toddlers are not viable without the support of their mother or a substitute mother.

---

But they're human beings...

and a Fetus will become a Human being 99% of the time.

The argument always boils down to timing.

Why is it not OK to abort at birth or after? Time?

Redbrickbear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Will be surprised if the Alabama governor signs the anti abortion bill into law.

Would be shocked if the Supreme Court then overturned Roe vs Wade

Too many folks demand the 'right' to undisciplined behavior free of inconvenient consequences.

---

Like the right to impregnate a women and then leave her to deal with the consequences?

The Alabama GOP consciously decided not to include a rape/incest exclusion. How is a rape victim guilty of "undisciplined behavior?"

---

That was a very big mistake if you ask me.

---

The evangelicals have sold their soul to the devil; they want the golden fiddle.

---

evangelicals are not the only ones who oppose child killing.

Also, why should a little female girl child be killed because her father is a rapist? Is she somehow guilty of his crime?

I can totally understand a woman not wanting to raise the child of her rapist......but she should give the child over to the State or to an adopted family.......not murder it.

---

Let me guess, you're a male.

cinque said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

cinque: first in made-up assertions and self-righteous hypocrisy.

---

Why do pro birthers such as yourself think that more gun laws will not stop unchecked gun violence but believe that more abortion laws will stop abortion?

---

I haven't made the argument that more restrictive gun laws would not reduce gun violence. Certainly you will not "stop" gun violence as long as guns (and bullets) exist. When we had more restrictive abortion laws, however, we had fewer abortions by several orders of magnitude.

cinque said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

cinque: first in made-up assertions and self-righteous hypocrisy.

---

Why do pro birthers such as yourself think that more gun laws will not stop unchecked gun violence but believe that more abortion laws will stop abortion?

---

poor cinque, desperately trying to change the topic as another effort to lie through a thread blows up in cinque's face

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

It's largely because of abortion and contraception that men's share of the burden has been removed.

---

Abortion and contraception reduce the risk of burden on both the man and woman.

---

Burden and risk of burden are two different things. The risk may be reduced, but the burden itself is increased for women.

---

Contraception reduces the risk of being burdened with rearing a child or for some the burden of an abortion.

---

And increases the burden of rearing a child by making it less likely that men will participate.

---

How does contraception incrase the burden of rearing a child?

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

It's largely because of abortion and contraception that men's share of the burden has been removed.

---

Abortion and contraception reduce the risk of burden on both the man and woman.

---

Burden and risk of burden are two different things. The risk may be reduced, but the burden itself is increased for women.

---

Contraception reduces the risk of being burdened with rearing a child or for some the burden of an abortion.

---

And increases the burden of rearing a child by making it less likely that men will participate.

---

How does contraception incrase the burden of rearing a child?

---

I think he said by making it less likely that men will participate.

lrwells50 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Will be surprised if the Alabama governor signs the anti abortion bill into law.

Would be shocked if the Supreme Court then overturned Roe vs Wade

Too many folks demand the 'right' to undisciplined behavior free of inconvenient consequences.

---

Like the right to impregnate a women and then leave her to deal with the consequences?

The Alabama GOP consciously decided not to include a rape/incest exclusion. How is a rape victim guilty of "undisciplined behavior?"

---

That was a very big mistake if you ask me.

---

The evangelicals have sold their soul to the devil; they want the golden fiddle.

---

evangelicals are not the only ones who oppose child killing.

Also, why should a little female girl child be killed because her father is a rapist? Is she somehow guilty of his crime?

I can totally understand a woman not wanting to raise the child of her rapist......but she should give the child over to the State or to an adopted family.......not murder it.

---

Let me guess, you're a male.

---

Let me guess, you weren't aborted.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

It's largely because of abortion and contraception that men's share of the burden has been removed.

---

Abortion and contraception reduce the risk of burden on both the man and woman.

---

Burden and risk of burden are two different things. The risk may be reduced, but the burden itself is increased for women.

---

Contraception reduces the risk of being burdened with rearing a child or for some the burden of an abortion.

---

And increases the burden of rearing a child by making it less likely that men will participate.

---

How does contraception incrase the burden of rearing a child?

---

I think he said by making it less likely that men will participate.

---

Beat me to it.