this is ghastly, read at your own risk.

[EvanH]

http://www.phila.gov/districtattorne...ensMedical.pdf

do people actually believe that murdering babies (aka abortions) are all about womens health and not about the money?

Yea. You definitely used the "aka abortions", directly after you say murdering babies.

[dbest671]

that "doctor" was running an "abortion" clinic, I didn't make that up. He was not saying to his patients that he is about to murder their babies or even patients themselves. so I still see nothing wrong with what I said. nor did anybody proved me wrong yet.

Did you read the PDF file that you started this thread with? What that doctor was doing was illegal period. Under the definition of abortion, in that PDF file, the doctor was no where near the requirements of a legal abortion.

Of course that doctor was running an "abortion" clinic, do you think he would call it "killing babies" clinic? That's what happens when people break the law, THEY LIE! Just because HE called it an "abortion" clinic doesn't mean it was a legal abortion clinic. His patients were just as stupid as he was. There are requirements for an abortion, and it is not legal to have "same day service", let alone "at birth" abortions. His patients are just as much to blame as the doctor.

But you started this thread using "aka abortions"... which simply implies that all abortions equals killing babies. What you should have said, it wouldn't have seemed as bias, was doctor killing babies and calling it abortion.

And what do you mean "proved me wrong", what do you want proved? And you never answer my questions about abortion. Here I will ask you again mister pro-life.

Why force someone to have something that either A) she cannot take care of or B) she no part of it? If they make abortion illegal, what about woman who are raped? Are you going to force that woman to have a child that she could resent? Who will take care of the babies that nobody wants and could have been avoided with abortion?

[Frostedbutts]

ITT: OP ignores all defending logic.

If we're talking about real abortions, it's estimated that around .08% or less are performed after 24 weeks. A majority of these abortions are in special circumstances, such as the mother having cancer or the baby being a serious threat to their health. If you believe that women find out they're pregnant and then let the baby cook for another twenty weeks to abort it, you're one hundred-fucking-percent delusional. (not that any of us didn't know that already.)

Where do you draw the line when abortion becomes wrong? Probably when you can justify giving a clump of cells more rights than a woman. Let me go check my calendar, I could have sworn it wasn't 1950 last time I looked.

[Hemi417]

you do know from the reasearch i have done the cases of abortion done becuase of rape are 1% or so ,now that may be old data,but law makers could make exceptions they're good at making exceptions for anything that lines their pockets ,why not this ..

Now the case of a woman not wanting the child ..just goes along the lines of writing the responsibility off becuase they dont want it . They want to have their cake and eat it too. I have been with my fiance for over four years and i still aint hit that ,becuase niethier one of us is ready for a kid.. She dont have to spread them..she chose .deal with it .If i jump in my VR4 go flying down us77 get caught doing 150mph ..theres gonna be some serious consequense. Nobody wants to except consequences anymore ... (I dumped coffe in my lap,,,ring a bell)

but at the same time if the father doesnt want the child the answer would be .well you hit it .your loss,,, but they look past how the child will affect him for the rest of his life.. but it is still a responsibility that the courts will make him uphold,or at least ks is getting better at it . He doesnt have to carry that baby for 9 months or give birth to it .but why does she get the excuse it was an accident but he has to live with it.

[dbest671]

^^That's great and all, but we have an option to fix a mistake/accident. I do not condone screwing everything that walks and then get an abortion because you didn't screw responsibly. Accidents happen, whether it be too drunk to realize what is going on to condoms breaking to the pill not being 100% fail safe. Accidents happen, but I don't think we should have to tell a woman "sorry live with it whether you like it or not", if they are other options out there. I think abortion should be a one time shot, there should be a law limiting the number of abortions you can get. I also believe that if you have multiple kids you cannot take care of, then you should be prevented from having any more children period, whether is be a vasectomy or tubal ligation.

If you make abortion illegal, it will only be more dangerous for women and children. There will always be a will and a way, but it won't be safe, sterile, or regulated in any kind of way.

[alexw3000gt]

Where do you draw the line when abortion becomes wrong? Probably when you can justify giving a clump of cells more rights than a woman. Let me go check my calendar, I could have sworn it wasn't 1950 last time I looked.

Mmmmk, and when is that then? At what moment in time does the baby gain rights as a human?

[CoopKill]

I believe that has already been established in the courts has it not?

[alexw3000gt]

I believe that has already been established in the courts has it not?

It's also been established that killing a pregnant woman is the same as killing a woman and her child.

[j2k4]

I am struck by several aspects of the "when does a fetus become a human being" question; the answer is generally along the lines of "when it emerges from the womb" (which circumstance conveniently militates in favor of late-term abortion), the argument being that it becomes "viable", no longer owing it's survivability to the host/vessel/mother.

I've always wondered - if a baby is born, and "viability" can be assumed thereby...no, sorry, I don't buy that, either.

Leave a baby alone, and it will die - that's a fact.

Seems to me the abortion lobby will not rest until an 18-year-old fetus can be aborted.

This is the other end of your 'seed/watermelon' analogy.

[IPD]

imho, it should never be legal to abort a fetus at a stage of development at or greater than what we have successfully birthed premature babies at. this rules out 3rd trimester abortions entirely; and quite honestly, the decision should have been made WELL before that stage.

no, to me, the real debate is over 1st/2nd trimester abortions; and specifically those between months 2-5. later than that and a fetus is (again, my opinion) human. before that (the first 30 days following coitus)--the viability of abortion shouldn't even be questioned; as whatever is "in there" isn't a viable life-form. and most certainly anything that happens before implantation is in no way, shape or form human. a fertilized egg is simply that. it will NOT develop into a human until implanted and gestation has begun.

unfortunately, that leaves a LOT of gray area. imho, if the religious fanatics can put down the torches with regards to abortions in the first month--i'm sure that there will be a LOT less friction over this issue; as it would allow women an uncondemned "get out of jail free card" for having an abortion--without having to endure the moronic slurs of "babykiller" and other shit that bible-thumpers yell.

make the first month "penalty free" (with regards to social pressure) and i GUARANTEE women who want abortions will FLOCK to having it done in that early period...just so they can avoid stigma. the problem will nearly work itself out.