For those of you who support abortion...

[HmDBrian]

So you don't care if the child is birthed then killed, as long as it is below a certain age?

Do I personally care? No. Its not effecting me or my family so why would I.

Do I personally believe in them or would I ever let my wife have one? Hell no, ill take care of my child by any means, but in the same sense, I dont feel anyone should be able to tell someone else they are wrong for what they believe.

 

[steveh_131]

Ok so if abortion needs to be illegal, guns should be too right? Murder is murder. Guns murder people, either it be self defense or a crazy guy with one, people die from them. Just as abortion, people die from them, either it be for whatever reason the person chooses to have it for.

You can't equate an inanimate object with an action. That doesn't even make sense.

 

[Hohn]

I think the legality of abortion should be addressed at the state level.

If we are going to allow abortion, I think we should allow parents to kill their children at any point up until 18 years. One makes as much sense to me as the other. I think it is rather arbitrary to say that at x weeks and not y weeks and before the kid comes part the way out of the mother and not when the kid has been out of the mother for days, weeks, years.

If we are going to allow mothers to kill children, then we should just come out and allow it wholesale.

Before ROE v Wade, abortion WAS a state-legality issue.


I'm not a fan of allowing kids to to murdered off wholesale, but you are ABSOLUTELY correct that the arbitrary assignment of x vs y age is completely ridiculous for something as significant as whether or not something is murder.

Might as well "minimum" IQ below which murder is OK. Of course, that would really get the Dems up in arms as their voting base would be threatened severely.

 

[BogWalker]

There's a point where a fetus really has no life signs. Not pulse, not even a nervous system, no thought no feeling. I see little difference in an abortion at that point, and using birth control in the first place. Either way you've prevented life, and in both cases there was no cognitive function yet.

I strongly believe that the cases in which abortion is legal should be limited. Not only does it need to happen before any real life begins, but only in cases of rape, incest, and in which the fetus would die anyways, have severely impaired quality of life, or would pose a major health risk for the mother. If it's a healthy child created legitimately you've made your choice and should carry it to the full. Nobody forced you to have sex. Children are a well known side effect of sex. If you aren't prepared for a child you really should use contraceptives or better yet abstinance.

 

[Expat]

Do I personally care? No. Its not effecting me or my family so why would I.

You don't feel that killing children born alive for the convenience of others would affect you or your family? If we have slipped down that far, then what if the state decides it is more convenient to kill you? You have happily accepted that precedent. So your child gets leukemia, it is going to be too costly to treat him, why not kill him.

 

[andski3]

Just because some quack committed murder doesn't change my opinion on abortion.

Has nothing to do with me having kids or Pol Pot dumping kids into mass graves.

The question was... "after reading this do you still support abortion?"

And the answer is yes... this article (as disturbing as it is) doesn't change my opinion on the right to abortion.

This
I couldn't have explained my own thoughts better.

 

[EdC]

Yes. And what lucky4034 said.

 

[jwh20]

Can you support this? After reading this, do you still support abortion in anyway shape or form? I believe if the truth of abortions were public, as in this case, the public would turn completely against abortion.

WARNING! This is disturbing.

Abortionist Joked: 'This Baby Is Big Enough to Walk Around With Me or Walk Me to the Bus Stop' | CNS News

Yes, very disturbing. But how can anything dealing with the needless killing of innocent human beings be anything BUT disturbing?

Here's the inherent conflict among the leftist-elites. On one hand they will scream, fight, demand that a woman has a right to kill her unborn child for any and every reason. But on the other hand, the Newtown, CT murders has made them say "...there is NOTHING more important than protecting the children."

How can it be BOTH ways? Except in the confused and self-conflicted liberal mind. I guess that's why they call themselves "progressive" thinkers.

 

[cobber]

Guns murder people...

Have you been drinking the Kool Aid? Guns don't commit acts.

So self-defense = abortion? Do you own a gun, or carry?

 

[jwh20]

And I, for one, believe that abortion is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The preamble says "..certain unalienable rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

To kill an unborn child intentionally deprives him of ALL THREE of these!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

And I, for one, believe that abortion is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The preamble says "..certain unalienable rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

To kill an unborn child intentionally deprives him of ALL THREE of these!

I think you meant the preamble of the DOI, not the Constitution. But I whole heartedly agree with your point.

The stone-cold heartedness in this thread deeply saddens me.

 

[HmDBrian]

Have you been drinking the Kool Aid? Guns don't commit acts.

So self-defense = abortion? Do you own a gun, or carry?

Read all my posts before commenting please. I clearly state not my train of thought, but showing how he was going about abortion the same as most anti gun nuts are towards gun. I am just as pro 2a as any other on these forums. As for guns dont kill people, cmon. I mean I understand the statement, but its over used and annoying. Guns do kill, yes they need someone to pull the trigger, but its still the gun. On thier death certificate it dont say murdered by a person, it says murdered with a firearm.

 

[steveh_131]

The stone-cold heartedness in this thread deeply saddens me.

Yeah...politics aside, anyone should be saddened by something like this.

 

[BogWalker]

And I, for one, believe that abortion is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The preamble says "..certain unalienable rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

To kill an unborn child intentionally deprives him of ALL THREE of these!

I suppose we need to ban the use of condoms and contraceptives then. Every time you use one that's a life denied!

 

[lucky4034]

That's fair enough, but you said you "don't care". I think I interpreted that differently than you meant it.

Sorry... I just re-read my 1st post and it does sound like I don't care what happened to these kids. Thats not what I was trying to say.

The quack that did this deserves to be destroyed in a torturous manner.

 

[steveh_131]

Sorry... I just re-read my 1st post and it does sound like I don't care what happened to these kids. Thats not what I was trying to say.

The quack that did this deserves to be destroyed in a torturous manner.

Yeah, I figured that's what you meant after I wrote it.

 

[AnnieO]

There's a point where a fetus really has no life signs. Not pulse, not even a nervous system, no thought no feeling. I see little difference in an abortion at that point, and using birth control in the first place. Either way you've prevented life, and in both cases there was no cognitive function yet.

I strongly believe that the cases in which abortion is legal should be limited. Not only does it need to happen before any real life begins, but only in cases of rape, incest, and in which the fetus would die anyways, have severely impaired quality of life, or would pose a major health risk for the mother. If it's a healthy child created legitimately you've made your choice and should carry it to the full. Nobody forced you to have sex. Children are a well known side effect of sex. If you aren't prepared for a child you really should use contraceptives or better yet abstinance.

I can't figure out how to post a link from my iPod, but a quick search on fetal development shows a heartbeat at 4 weeks after conception, which is about 2 weeks after a pregnancy test will show positive.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I just posted this on FB and I am now waiting for the warning from them for inappropriate content. The picture that shows up next to the link is the one with the cut in the neck. If you are on FB post it up

 

[Bunnykid68]

There's a point where a fetus really has no life signs. Not pulse, not even a nervous system, no thought no feeling. I see little difference in an abortion at that point, and using birth control in the first place. Either way you've prevented life, and in both cases there was no cognitive function yet.

I strongly believe that the cases in which abortion is legal should be limited. Not only does it need to happen before any real life begins, but only in cases of rape, incest, and in which the fetus would die anyways, have severely impaired quality of life, or would pose a major health risk for the mother. If it's a healthy child created legitimately you've made your choice and should carry it to the full. Nobody forced you to have sex. Children are a well known side effect of sex. If you aren't prepared for a child you really should use contraceptives or better yet abstinance.

A fetus can have a heartbeat as early as 4-5 weeks

 

[Bunnykid68]

I suppose we need to ban the use of condoms and contraceptives then. Every time you use one that's a life denied!

Denied, not murdered.