late term abortions..

[gLing]

I wonder what the people who disagree with abortion would do if one day they got a "surprise" and they knew they couldn't afford/handle a baby at that moment in time?

My parents seem to manage, and they had a baby with a disability too.

 

[All Else Failed]

Well personally, even though I'm not a woman, but if I got a girl pregnant, I'd be a fucking adult and do my best to take responsibility for my own mistakes. I think murdering someone because you fucked up is discusting!

I would do the same, personally, but I thought it was just an interesting thing to put out there. You never know what you will do unless you are put into that situation.

 

[All Else Failed]

Been there, done that , got the t-shirt. My daughter was born when I was 19 and despite the struggles we've had raising her (and my son since) I wouldn't change a thing. I didnt plan to become a parent then, but I knew by having sex the chance was there. People who aren't willing to handle the possible consequences should just abstain until they can. We can live without sex.

I've had a scare before, its not fun. haha


But completely abstaining is a bit much. Just make sure you make the proper precautions.

 

[Peter Parka]

I would do the same, personally, but I thought it was just an interesting thing to put out there. You never know what you will do unless you are put into that situation.

I guess so. I had a scare 10 years ago when there was a strong possibility that I had got a girl pregnant. Although it was a shock and I had no money, my first instinct was to pack up my gear, move a couple of hundred miles to where she lived, do my best to get a job and provide as best I could for my kid. I can honestly say that murdering an innocent baby to make things easier, never crossed my mind.

 

[SRC]

So if it just a part of the mother and not a human being then how is it somebody get a murder charge for killing it along with the mother?

The law is contradictory. The baby is either a human being or it isn't. You cannot consider it a human being in one case and not a human being in another.

Did you mss or just purposefully overlook the part where I stated that unless the MOTHER CHOSE TO TERMINATE .. then it was murder.

I can't break down how the law works .. or why it works the way it does. I'm simply stating facts that are already in play for you.

And to be honest with you .. they only throw the fetus in on the murder charge .. to get a bigger reaction from the jury. It's a purely selfish move by the DA's office to get heftier sentencing for the mothers murderer.

 

[Maulds]

they only throw the fetus in on the murder charge .. to get a bigger reaction from the jury. It's a purely selfish move by the DA's office to get heftier sentencing for the mothers murderer.

I think including the fetus is justified, but murdering the mother should be enough to get the stiffest penalty all by itself. It shouldnt take "selfish" tactics.

 

[gLing]

Did you mss or just purposefully overlook the part where I stated that unless the MOTHER CHOSE TO TERMINATE .. then it was murder.

I can't break down how the law works .. or why it works the way it does. I'm simply stating facts that are already in play for you.

And to be honest with you .. they only throw the fetus in on the murder charge .. to get a bigger reaction from the jury. It's a purely selfish move by the DA's office to get heftier sentencing for the mothers murderer.

Do you bother to read before you reply? I said the law was contradictory why? Because in one case the court considers the unborn child a human being, hence the murder charge despite your conspiracy theories that it is thrown in just to get a reaction, that is irrelevant the fact is they do.
In the other case, abortion, the child is not considered a human being hence it is not murder to abort.
If you consider an unborn child a human being in one case then you must consider it a human being in all cases or the laws end up contradicting themselves.

 

[SRC]

I think including the fetus is justified, but murdering the mother should be enough to get the stiffest penalty all by itself. It shouldnt take "selfish" tactics.

I agree, but you got some shiesty ass lawyers working against the DA .. I guess they do what they feel they "gotta" do :dunno

Do you bother to read before you reply? I said the law was contradictory why? Because in one case the court considers the unborn child a human being, hence the murder charge despite your conspiracy theories that it is thrown in just to get a reaction, that is irrelevant the fact is they do.
In the other case, abortion, the child is not considered a human being hence it is not murder to abort.
If you consider an unborn child a human being in one case then you must consider it a human being in all cases or the laws end up contradicting themselves.

Yes I read, unfortunately, before I reply. You just seem to want to harp on the same thing over and over after it's been explained to you over and over though.

It's not really contradictory .. it's just the way the law works. People have rights (whether you personally think those legal rights are "right or wrong") .. but if someone else come along and "exercises" those rights against your wishes .. then it's then considered wrong.

It's not really that hard of a concept to grab onto really, unless you're trying your best not to.

 

[gLing]

I agree, but you got some shiesty ass lawyers working against the DA .. I guess they do what they feel they "gotta" do :dunno


Yes I read, unfortunately, before I reply. You just seem to want to harp on the same thing over and over after it's been explained to you over and over though.

It's not really contradictory .. it's just the way the law works. People have rights (whether you personally think those legal rights are "right or wrong") .. but if someone else come along and "exercises" those rights against your wishes .. then it's then considered wrong.

It's not really that hard of a concept to grab onto really, unless you're trying your best not to.

Nobody has explained anything. I see people trying to justify the contradiction but have yet to do it successfully.
Case A) Court sees unborn child as a human being.
Case B) Court does not see unborn child as a human being.
Court contradicts itself.
I'm sure you are capable of understanding that yes?

 

[SRC]

Case A) Court sees unborn child as a human being.


Case B) Court does not see unborn child as a human being.

they only throw the fetus in on the murder charge .. to get a bigger reaction from the jury. It's a purely selfish move by the DA's office to get heftier sentencing for the mothers murderer.

Because until the baby is born .. in the eyes of the court system .. it is actually a PART of the mother herself .. the justice system do not hold a fetus as it's own individual "person" .. until it breathes on it's own .. BUT .. the right to terminate it (since it is a PART of the mother while in the womb) lies in the mothers hands .. not the hands of someone else

.

Do you see the explanation here? It is not a side step around it to justify anything .. it is an EXPLANATION.

ex·pla·na·tion [ek-spluh-ney-shuh

n]
–noun

1.the act or process of explaining.
2.something that explains; a statement made to clarify something and make it understandable; exposition: an explanation of a poem.
3.a meaning or interpretation: to find an explanation for a mystery.
4.a mutual declaration of the meaning of words spoken, actions, motives, etc., with a view to adjusting a misunderstanding or reconciling differences: After a long and emotional explanation they were friends again.

:unsure:

 

[gLing]

Because until the baby is born .. in the eyes of the court system .. it is actually a PART of the mother herself .. the justice system do not hold a fetus as it's own individual "person" .. until it breathes on it's own .. BUT .. the right to terminate it (since it is a PART of the mother while in the womb) lies in the mothers hands .. not the hands of someone else.[/quote]

Do you see the explination here? It is not a side step around it to justify anything .. it is an EXPLANATION.

ex·pla·na·tion [ek-spluh-ney-shuh

n]
–noun

1.the act or process of explaining.
2.something that explains; a statement made to clarify something and make it understandable; exposition: an explanation of a poem.
3.a meaning or interpretation: to find an explanation for a mystery.
4.a mutual declaration of the meaning of words spoken, actions, motives, etc., with a view to adjusting a misunderstanding or reconciling differences: After a long and emotional explanation they were friends again.

:unsure:

Do you even try?

Case A) Pregnant woman gets murdered in the park. Court sees unborn child as a HUMAN BEING not JUST part of the mother. Hence the murder charge.

Case B)Abortion. The court does not see the child as a human being but it is just a non-person and only part of the mother.

Your justification for blowing this obvious contradiction off?

Originally Posted by SRC
they only throw the fetus in on the murder charge .. to get a bigger reaction from the jury. It's a purely selfish move by the DA's office to get heftier sentencing for the mothers murderer.

Well they just throw that in for a reaction so it doesn't really count.

 

[SRC]

Of course I don't try .. now,just what kind of statement is that supposed to be?

You know what, all you want to do is argue until someone either gives up or gives in to your opinion. You suck at debating, because you take the issues WAY to personal.

I'm done talking to you on this topic (and probably all others as well), consider yourself ignored from now on, since you just can't seem to debate without trying to belittle people to get your point across. :smiley24:

I'm done getting pulled into these type of conversations with you (and anyone else). If you can't type out a response that doesn't imply that the other person is just completely ignorant just because you didn't agree with what they said .. you don't belong in this section of the forum IMO.

I know Ive done it in the past, but it's usually been in response to a post just like this where I got angry for being replied to in this manner, but not anymore.

 

[gLing]

You know what, all you want to do is argue until someone either gives up or gives in to your opinion.

This is really funny coming from you.

You suck at debating, because you take the issues WAY to personal.

I'm done talking to you on this topic (and probably all others as well), consider yourself ignored from now on, since you just can't seem to debate without trying to belittle people to get your point across. :smiley24:

You mean just like you did when we had that debate about the child bringing a knife to school for lunch?
Or statements like this?

Did you mss or just purposefully overlook the part where I stated that unless the MOTHER CHOSE TO TERMINATE .. then it was murder.

It's not really that hard of a concept to grab onto really, unless you're trying your best not to.

I'm done getting pulled into these type of conversations with you (and anyone else). If you can't type out a response that doesn't imply that the other person is just completely ignorant just because you didn't agree with what they said .. you don't belong in this section of the forum IMO.

I know Ive done it in the past, but it's usually been in response to a post just like this where I got angry for being replied to in this manner, but not anymore.

You are the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[DavyBoy]

uhhh... ok just to get this back on track.

I recently had a very robust debate about this very subject on another board I posted on, and frankly, I think every single argument that has ever been dreamt up for or against abortion was referenced.

Frankly, it only confirmed in my mind that my view has a lot of validity to it: that the law and society should not even provide abortion as an option to pregnant mothers, and it is frankly terrible that it is considered so common nowadays.

I hope that at some point in the future, a lot of people will realise this and some laws and societal views will be changed, radically.