Abortion video

Would you, since you've chosen to respond, consider that murder?

I wouldn't consider it murder. I don't consider abortion murder now, much less the scenario you're talking about. It's not that far removed from the idea of surrogate motherhood in the first place, but using a tank instead of another woman's womb.
 
I personally think abortion should remain legal...for the sake of the parent, whom has their possible mental well-being or life at stake should something arise...I know I sure as hell couldn't imagine having a child that was from a daterape or something horrible like that. =/ (though I also believe that if the child was an "oops" or something, that it's their own responsibility and that they shouldn't be allowed...)

That, and...there's similar, if not worse things done that people seem to not even wince at - siamese twins are often separated and the parent often is force to choose which to save. Many people are given IV drips and such so that they may pass away peacefully. I'm surprised people are totally fine with this and yet are up in arms about abortion. =/
 
personally I'd say anyone who says you can't end another persons life should think about when does life really start. When your just a few cells, maybe once you finally form a heart with a beat or a brain that actually has processes going on?

I dunno I always think to myself abortion isin't really killing anything that wasn't alive in the 1st place if it doesn't even have a heart yet.
 
Because the doctors are performing the abortion. You could of course punish the woman as well, and send her to prison, and make her a criminal for something that may/may not be in her control. Making our woman criminals is not the way we want to go.

Anyway I don't see punishing a woman for something she may feel she has to do for the best of her own life and the life of a would be child. I can see plenty of situations where punishing a woman for an abortion would put woman in an even more difficult position than they are in now. Punishing doctors however is the smartest simplist way to go about it. The doctors are getting monetary gain from this, they arn't in dire need to do abortions, and telling them they can't do abortions will not put them in a bad position in anyway.
I don't see your reasoning. You're saying that the doctors are the ones telling women to get an abortion in order to get money? I'm especially confused about the bolded part. How is an abortion not in a woman's control? The doctors simply do what the woman asked them to do.

While I believe in abortion and pro-choice there is also the fact that one day a crazed President like Bush could put laws into effect thereby making all abortions illegal. Deciding soon where the lines are may keep enough of the crazies happy so that they have their limits and we have our freedom.

Making abortions illegal during the third trimester addresses alot of the "inhumane" videos we see, and also gives woman alot of time to make a decison if they want to have an abortion or not. Because when you think about it, what if a baby is due 1 week from today, and the mother aborts the baby? There has to be a line somewhere and I think that line needs to be drawn before the freedom to have an abortion is taken away.
If someone decides to make an abortion one week before the baby is due, something is seriously wrong with them to have gone through 9 months of pregnancy and then change their mind. The majority of women go through with an abortion before 3 months, while quite a lot do it earlier once they find out they are pregnant. Almost everyone else do it pre-5 months. After 5 months, doctors normally recommend you to NOT perform an abortion, due to the baby being rather large and well-developed at this stage, which can cause serious complications, since the only way to do it is surgically. To be honest, I think most doctors in all countries would refuse to do an abortion past 7 or 8 months, unless the mother's health were in danger, or other problems arise with the pregnancy.
 
Your comparing getting pregnant and having a baby to buying gil?

I was using an analogy to compare it to buying stolen goods. The provider of the service is guilty along with the reciever, when both know the service is ilegal.

So, why should the women not be punished as well? She knew it was Ilegal and went anyways.
 
I don't see your reasoning. You're saying that the doctors are the ones telling women to get an abortion in order to get money? I'm especially confused about the bolded part. How is an abortion not in a woman's control? The doctors simply do what the woman asked them to do.

It's because your not reading. Read again. And don't read only what you want to read, read the whole thing. Where did I say it absolutely was not in the womans control? Read the bolded part again.

Uzor said:
If someone decides to make an abortion one week before the baby is due, something is seriously wrong with them to have gone through 9 months of pregnancy and then change their mind. The majority of women go through with an abortion before 3 months, while quite a lot do it earlier once they find out they are pregnant. Almost everyone else do it pre-5 months. After 5 months, doctors normally recommend you to NOT perform an abortion, due to the baby being rather large and well-developed at this stage, which can cause serious complications, since the only way to do it is surgically. To be honest, I think most doctors in all countries would refuse to do an abortion past 7 or 8 months, unless the mother's health were in danger, or other problems arise with the pregnancy.

Most, normally, or the majority is not all. The number may be 1% but thats about 1000 babies your talking about per year. It's true making third trimester abortions won't really affect abortions in general, all women need to do is decide earlier. But it will appease the pro-lifers, and even people like you and me that babies that could possibly be born arn't being aborted and killed. And yes third trimester abortions is still legal here in the united states, though not in all states.

Succeed in this and you remove the argument that you could abort a baby due 1 week from today, then you leave the pro-lifers with the impossible decision of when a baby's life starts for them to try to proceed further. Everyone knows a baby is pretty much a baby 1 week before being born, but everyone is in disagreement when a baby becomes a baby before that.

marajade said:
I was using an analogy to compare it to buying stolen goods. The provider of the service is guilty along with the reciever, when both know the service is ilegal.

So, why should the women not be punished as well? She knew it was Ilegal and went anyways.

Bad analogy, like I said. How's holding a gun to someone's head and taking something comparable to making a decision that will affect your life, your childs life?

True you can look at it blindly in the legal sense, and you would be right. Or you can put yourself in the shoes of the woman making the decision. Some women have it alot harder than others, factor that into your view also. LIke I said making criminals out of our woman for deciding what to do with their bodies is not the thing you want to do.
 
Bad analogy, like I said. How's holding a gun to someone's head and taking something comparable to making a decision that will affect your life, your childs life?

True you can look at it blindly in the legal sense, and you would be right. Or you can put yourself in the shoes of the woman making the decision. Some women have it alot harder than others, factor that into your view also. LIke I said making criminals out of our woman for deciding what to do with their bodies is not the thing you want to do.

A) Sale of stolen goods, not stealing.

B) Why not make them criminals? They broke the law didn't they? They made the decision, now they live with it. Saying don't make criminals out of them because they're women is rather sexist statement. You're implying they had no control over the situation (getting the abortion, not getting pregnant)
 
A) Sale of stolen goods, not stealing.

B) Why not make them criminals? They broke the law didn't they? They made the decision, now they live with it. Saying don't make criminals out of them because they're women is rather sexist statement. You're implying they had no control over the situation (getting the abortion, not getting pregnant)

Actually they didn't break the law. They could be conspirators, but are not actually the law breaker.

The person perfroming the abortion is the law breaker, and you could create a law to define that. If the woman did the abortion herself in her home then yes, she's the law breaker. But then you could only make laws that outlaw doctors and leave woman out of it.
For ex. You could want to steal something, ask to steal something, but if nobody stole that thing, you would be guilty of nothing. Someone needs to actually steal something first, and even then they are guilty not you, you could be guilty of conspiring with them.

I'm implying they might feel they have no choice, everybody feels differntly. Are you saying you think all woman only get pregnant when they want to? Are you saying birth control is 100% effective? Just what are you implying? Woman are in 100% control of themselves getting pregnant? If that were the case abortions would not be needed.

And hell I"m sexist either way because I'm a man, so sue me.
 
Last edited:
Actually they didn't break the law. They could be conspirators, but are not actually the law breaker.

If abortion is ilegal, they're both criminals. You can't have one and not the other.

I'm implying they might feel they have no choice, everybody feels differntly. Are you saying you think all woman only get pregnant when they want to? Are you saying birth control is 100% effective? Just what are you implying? Woman are in 100% control of themselves getting pregnant? If that were the case abortions would not be needed.

I'm implying that those who are Anti-Choice just want to blame doctors. They don't see that if they get what they want that they're villifying women too. She performed an illegal act by going to see a doctor who would perform an abortion. The only way she could not be is if she was dragged there by someone and forced to undergo it, which is illegal currently anyways.

For the record, i'm extreemly pro-choice, and also Male.
 
If abortion is ilegal, they're both criminals. You can't have one and not the other.

If she participated she would be illegal. A desire to have an abortion is not participating in the actual abortion which is the crime. Going to the doctor's office is not a crime, lying on the table is not a crime, the procedure to do the abortion is the crime.

marajade said:
I'm implying that those who are Anti-Choice just want to blame doctors. They don't see that if they get what they want that they're villifying women too. She performed an illegal act by going to see a doctor who would perform an abortion. The only way she could not be is if she was dragged there by someone and forced to undergo it, which is illegal currently anyways.

For the record, i'm extreemly pro-choice, and also Male.

Going to a doctor is not illegal. Planning a robbery is not illegal.

How are you villifying woman when 99% of the abortions are done in the first and second trimester?

Say you have a sister. She goes 9 months of pregnancy. 1 week before she knows the baby is due, she has an abortion. How you feel about that? This is the basis of pro-lifers, you remove this kinda stuff, you take the fuel from thier fire. You remove this kinda stuff, pro-choice will barely even notice. The issue will basically be moot after that.
 
If she participated she would be illegal. A desire to have an abortion is not participating in the actual abortion which is the crime. Going to the doctor's office is not a crime, lying on the table is not a crime, the procedure to do the abortion is the crime.

And saying "hey doc, do this illegal thing to me" is illegal too. Going to the office and having the procedure of your own free will is "participating"

And yes, to be a part of a planned robbery that you truthfully know will be carried out is illegal.

i swear, this is the most retarded debate i've had in a long while. Not the Pro-choice vs Anti-Choice thing, but that women shouldn't be punnished if it was indeed illegal. Its astoundingly ignorant.
 
And saying "hey doc, do this illegal thing to me" is illegal too. Going to the office and having the procedure of your own free will is "participating"

And yes, to be a part of a planned robbery that you truthfully know will be carried out is illegal.

i swear, this is the most retarded debate i've had in a long while. Not the Pro-choice vs Anti-Choice thing, but that women shouldn't be punnished if it was indeed illegal. Its astoundingly ignorant.

Show me a law that sends you to jail for asking a doctor to perform a procedure on you. If you ask the doctor to euthanize you, you don't get punished the doctor does. IF you ask the doctor to perfrom surgery and you die, the doctor gets sued. Even when the law obligates the doctor to perfrom a procedure on a patient the doctor can still be sued for malpractice. Can the doctor sue you for asking him? Of course not.

The reason people like you get confused about the whole situation is because you got it worked out in your mind that it's Murder, and so you want to go around looking for all those responsible for conspiring the murder. But we arn't talking about Murder here were just talking about making the procedure of assisted abortions illegal. Like assisted suicide, like the partial birth abortion ban act of 2003 both laws that are already in effect and punish the physicians.

These laws are already in effect and already work in the real world.
 
Show me a law that sends you to jail for asking a doctor to perform a procedure on you. If you ask the doctor to euthanize you, you don't get punished the doctor does.

Because if he does, YOU'RE DEAD. And if he doesn't, than nothings happened, and you get refered to a psyhiatric hospital for wanting to kill yourself.

IF you ask the doctor to perfrom surgery and you die, the doctor gets sued. Even when the law obligates the doctor to perfrom a procedure on a patient the doctor can still be sued for malpractice. Can the doctor sue you for asking him? Of course not

If you ask a doctor to perfrom surgery and you die, he either made a mistake resulting in your death, or it was a possible outcome of a dangerous surgery and you die as a result (in that case you likely signed a waiver saying you knew there was a high chance that you wouldn't survive the surgery)

Malpractice included in above answer. He fucked up, thats why you sued him. Also FYI, Malpractice isn't acualy illegal. Its just a grounds to file a claim on.

I'm not worked up that its murder, remember, pro-choice.
But in every other case where all parties involved know the act for which you are planning is illegal, all parties involved are guilty. This proposed law of yours would be the single exception to that rule anywhere, wherin that not all parties knowingly and voluntarily involved are not guilty.

partial birth abortion ban act of 2003

this was against a specific way of preforming abortion, not against the idea itself. It was done so because it was deemed inumane, when there are other viable options that can be used at that stage of pregnancy.
 
Last edited:
DarkDante, you're about as wrong as it gets on the idea that the woman is not part of the decision and wouldn't be breaking the law. If you hire a hitman, you're as guilty as if you'd pulled the trigger yourself. Attempted suicide is illegal; the only way you escape punishment for that is if you manage to pull it off.

I don't confuse it with murder, but the anti-choice crowd does. Watch the video and see the blank looks on their faces when they're asked about it. They hold up their signs and yell about it being murder, but when you ask them if the woman should be charged with murder... they clam up. They think women are dupes, victims incapable of making their own decisions. They want to blame it all on the doctors for making the service available in the first place instead of the people who demand it.

Darkdante said:
It's true making third trimester abortions won't really affect abortions in general, all women need to do is decide earlier. But it will appease the pro-lifers...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Nothing will appease those people short of the complete illegality of abortion. Too much of their religion is invested in the idea of keeping women "in their place," so there is no way in hell they're going to stop with third-trimester abortion. That's not a victory for them; it's just a stepping stone to fight their way back along the other six months.

this was against a specific way of preforming abortion, not against the idea itself. It was done so because it was deemed inumane, when there are other viable options that can be used at that stage of pregnancy.

It's worth pointing out that it was deemed inhumane by politicians and not by the doctors who said it was one of the safer methods. Now they're left with the one that has higher risks. But hey, what's the life of a woman when you're trying to Protect The Children™?
 
Last edited:
Thank you hali, i was begining to wonder if i was alone in my train of thought.
 
It's because your not reading. Read again. And don't read only what you want to read, read the whole thing. Where did I say it absolutely was not in the womans control? Read the bolded part again.
What is it I'm not reading? I did read the whole thing. Several times actually, but it still said the same thing. Here's the bolded part you wanted me to read again.

and make her a criminal for something that may/may not be in her control.
I weren't refering to you saying it was absolutely out of the woman's control. You said it MAY not be in a woman's controll. I honestly don't see your reasoning and basis for that, since its the woman HERSELF that decide to do the abortion, unless the doctor says she needs to perform an abortion, otherwise she'll die. Its completely within her control.

Most, normally, or the majority is not all. The number may be 1% but thats about 1000 babies your talking about per year. It's true making third trimester abortions won't really affect abortions in general, all women need to do is decide earlier. But it will appease the pro-lifers, and even people like you and me that babies that could possibly be born arn't being aborted and killed. And yes third trimester abortions is still legal here in the united states, though not in all states.
I didn't say it was the majority. I just explained that the situation you describe is very small. Way less then 1%.

True you can look at it blindly in the legal sense, and you would be right. Or you can put yourself in the shoes of the woman making the decision. Some women have it alot harder than others, factor that into your view also. LIke I said making criminals out of our woman for deciding what to do with their bodies is not the thing you want to do.
Hence why it should remain legal. If someone decides to attempt a suicide, that's illegal. They decided they wanted to do that with their bodies. How is that any different from a woman deciding she doesn't want the baby? Not the killing part, but the decision over your own body part.

How are you villifying woman when 99% of the abortions are done in the first and second trimester?
WRONG, you just said earlier that it wasn't a majority. That even 1% is still 1000 babies, and now you suddenly changed your mind and decided that 99% are done at this stage?

Like I said earlier, a reat majority is BEFORE 3 months. Second trimester is 4-6 months in to the pregnancy. So 4-5 month is still without great risk, although more risky then before 3 months. Third trimester is 6-9 months.

The reason people like you get confused about the whole situation is because you got it worked out in your mind that it's Murder, and so you want to go around looking for all those responsible for conspiring the murder. But we arn't talking about Murder here were just talking about making the procedure of assisted abortions illegal. Like assisted suicide, like the partial birth abortion ban act of 2003 both laws that are already in effect and punish the physicians.
Actually, that's the whole thing we're saying its NOT. So you mean pro-lifers don't say its murder? Then what is your whole argument that abortion should be illegal? Additionally, why are the people demonstrating against abortion holding signs of dead fetuses and signs that say "Stop the murder!"?

Additionally, you want to know WHY your "abortion 1 week prior to when the baby is due" never happens?

Well, at that point the baby can survive being prematurely born. So the doctor would most likely recommend performing caesarean section and put the baby up for adoption.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't consider it murder. I don't consider abortion murder now, much less the scenario you're talking about. It's not that far removed from the idea of surrogate motherhood in the first place, but using a tank instead of another woman's womb.

To anyone following the thread of mine and Hali's specific discussion - the quote above is in response to the question I posed a few posts earlier.

To Hali:

So from your point of view, an infant's life doesn't begin and become legally protected until . . . when exactly? When it can sustain life on its own? That point doesn't come until 16 or 17 years of age by the laws of our society, arguably somewhat younger if you view humanity as simply the world's weakest, slowest-maturing primate. At the veritable instant of birth? Rather an "out of sight, out of mind" stance to take, is it not, considering that, when left to the dictates of nature, that event adheres to no set timetable?

The reason I'm pressing this point is to drive home the view that I particularly hold, a viewpoint that is decidedly middle of the road in my opinion. In my beliefs, there comes a point where sentience and potential sentience come to the same thing. I'm not making an argument for the souls of the unborn. Matter of fact, I'm going to rather great lengths to sidestep that issue entirely, since it is a matter of personal faith and shouldn't enter in to a discussion on whether or not abortion is murder in the legal sense, and if it is, at what point it becomes so. From a legal standpoint, the period upon which time a child becomes viable outside the womb seems like a logical place to draw the line.
 
No Abortion! What if your mom aborted you? Think of all the good/bad things you woulda missed. Enjoy Life!
 
No Abortion! What if your mom aborted you? Think of all the good/bad things you woulda missed. Enjoy Life!

what if hitler or stalin had been aborted? think of all the good/bad things we would have missed! that argument works as well for either point of view.

I feel abortion is simply a personal choice and shouldn't be done lightly. I wouldn't advocate it as a solution but i simply don't see the problem people have with it.
 
Back
Top