Yet Another Reason Why I Don't Agree With Liberals

No. I think once the third trimester is reached then it's too late.

 

It's not always a choice though is it? Rape, incest, accidents, or just plain foolish behavior can lead to pregnancy. You can't legislate human sexuality.
What about children born with birth defects? Who will adopt them? Damn few people. Approximately 30,000 children "age out" of foster care every year because they were not adopted. So much for those people that would be glad to adopt them.
I would support a tax incentive for the first two children that would not be extended to any additional children. Let the market take care of it.

 

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but what difference should the third trimester make? After all, according to most people who advocate abortion, it should be the woman's choice to abort any time during pregnancy. After all, they say it's "her body, her choice".

So, by saying "third trimester" are you saying that the baby isn't alive before that? Or that it can't be a viable human being outside the womb before the third trimester? Would you say that once the third trimester is reached, the baby is covered by the Constitution's "right to life", but not before that? How do you feel about babies who are killed during the third trimester or even after birth as the story in the OP stated?

 

As you know, I advocate abortion in case of rape or incest. I don't believe you've ever answered this question in any of the discussions we've had on abortion, but how far into the pregnancy do YOU advocate abortion? From the moment of conception to the moment before birth is there any point during the pregnancy when you would say "if you abort it, it's homicide"?

 

I think that there is a price to be paid for any woman having an abortion. No woman I have ever met has an abortion like she is going to get her hair done. I think that since I will never need to have an abortion, any position I take is like leaving the choice of edible animals up to the vegetarians. Whatever decision I make has no consequences for me personally or at least damn few. I wish nobody ever had an abortion but I also believe that a seed is not a tree nor is a fertilized egg a baby. I could say 1st trimester, 2nd, or 3rd, or even prebirth but then again I'd have to think that what I prefer actually matters to any woman having to make the choice. And I just don't believe that.

 

Oh, OK. In that case, since you don't have a dog in the hunt, it shouldn't matter to you whether or not the woman has a choice. Thanks for your input anyway. Would anyone other than JoeNation care to discuss the issue? Perhaps on the aspect that killing a human pre-birth or post-birth is homicide?

 

Don't mistake me thinking that a woman should be able to make her own decision about abortion without the intrusion of another irrelevant male opinion with me not caring whether she has the choice in the first place. So saying that it shouldn't matter to me if a woman has a choice or not is a rather naive conclusion on your part. I just don't think that you or any other male should be making her decisions for her any more than women should be able to decide whether all men should be subjected to vasectomies by law to prevent unintended pregnancies in women.

 

You're completely off base if you equate the taking of a human life with that of a man getting a vasectomy. You've already said that, being a man, abortions don't affect you in any way, shape or form. If the killing of babies doesn't affect you, so be it. I think it's an absurd position to take, but I guess that's par for the course.

 

View attachment 1574

 

Sorry, CoinOKC, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. The fact that someone can do something wrong does not mean that everyone should be banned. That sounds very much like your argument for not further regulating guns.

 

You simply hear what you want to hear in spite of what is actually written. I can't do anything about your interpreting a statement I make like "no consequences for me personally or at least damn few" and you hearing "abortions don't affect you in any way, shape or form". You have to move beyond preconceptions if you want to have an intelligent conversation.
I have also stated that a fertilized egg is not a baby any more than a seed is a tree. A fertilized egg brought to term is a baby. You simply use the term baby as a loaded word that neither the legal or the medical system would agree with. I understand that you believe that a woman's egg is an adolescent child just after the wedding cake is ordered but the reality is that nobody but self-serving religious groups and their Republican shills would define a fertilized egg as a baby but the rest of us are not subject to your religious beliefs. Take your superstitious beliefs in magic and ghosts back inside the walls of your special little cult. Let the adults decide this issue.

 

The case of Dr. Gosnell and his post-birth abortions has everything to do with this discussion.

 

Quite humorous. You should be a comedian. Anyway, you're a man; please explain how abortions affect you.

 

The abuse of a law has nothing to do with the validity or non-validity of the law. Just as you say guns being used against the law has no bearing on the laws already in place for gun control.

 

I'm not so certain that Dr. Gosnell interpreted what he did as "abuse" in his own twisted mind. As you know, there are people in this country who believe in post-birth abortion and I think Dr. Gosnell may very well be one of those people. It certainly appears that he had little regard for the lives he took.

Yes, you're correct when you say that abuse of the law has nothing to do with the validity of a law. I doubt Dr. Gosnell saw it that way, however. He was committing homicide and had little regard for his victims. I see him no different than any of the killers who have been in the news lately. His method of choice was abortion instruments instead of guns. Disgusting either way you look at it.

 

And I doubt that the people who wish to ban guns see their actions as a problem either. I am in no way defending what Dr. Gosnell did, but he is no more an example of why abortion laws should be changed than Lee Harvey Oswald is an example of why gun laws should be changed. They both violated existing laws. So what do new laws have to do with either of them?

 

You've hit the nail on the head, RLM and this is one of the points I was trying to make. Liberals in this country are quick to point out that people using firearms are killing other people. Laws exist, but people disobey those laws every day. They see a huge problem with people using firearms who disobey those laws, but they'll give a pass to someone using a scalpel like Dr. Gosnell.

They are quick to point out that these lunatics are taking the lives of innocent people, but they can't even agree on when life begins. Members on this very forum can't even agree. Some believe life begins at conception while others believe it begins at 24 weeks of pregnancy while still others believe it begins at birth. Some people even believe life doesn't begin until AFTER birth!

Certainly, laws are in place in an attempt to stop people like Adam Lanza. They're also in place to stop people like Dr. Gosnell. But, there are always going to be people who operate outside the law. Liberals in particular need to start realizing that fact. In knee-jerk fashion they want to take guns away, but will they do the same thing for scalpels? In the wrong hands, anything becomes a killing tool.

What Dr. Gosnell is accused of doing absolutely disgusts me. Just like what Adam Lanza did disgusts me. But, where is the outcry for those innocent babies who had their spinal cords cut by Gosnell? You won't hear it from the pro-abortion liberals. Most of them probably think what he did was a good thing. Sickening. Just plain sickening.

 

Have any of you ever had to go through a abortion (and I dont mean the physical act) I mean having to sit there and wait for it to happen? I have my partner had a ectopic pregnancy and had to have a abortion it nearly killed her. I disagree with abortion but still think it is the womans choice (In my partners case there was no choice, if she had not she would have died)

 

That is pretty much what I've been saying. As long as the right isn't taken away from you, it is rather easy to sit in judgement of other's situations. What if we were to prevent abortions by forcing men have vasectomies and putting them in jail if they got a woman pregnant? You can bet that this anti-abortion crap would disapper overnight. It never has been about bringing more kids into a world that has too many already, it's about a return to a time when men controlled women. Spontaneous abortions, miscarriages, and still births happen thousands and thousands of times every day. What is the difference if we can medically initiate an abortion or a woman's body does it naturally? GOD? Give me a break.

 

As I have said on many occasions about many things (Liberalism, Conservatism, Libertarianism, Religion, etc) - most ideologies or beliefs taken to their extremes are not good. Not good at all.