Racist Pro-Life Billboard

Post Reply New Topic

From my personal standpoint yes, but if we want to define things from a legal standpoint no. This would mean though that many abortions (which take place well after day 40) would be illegal.

-sigh- So impractical, why not just consider abortion illegal when it is done in the last portions of pregnancy right before giving birth? -.- (oh right, there's people around like Inuyasha /facepalm )

Seriously the more i read about him, the more i think he'd agree with those that want to condemn that dude in western Canada that gassed her 12 year old girl because she could hardly move, talk (or even learn language or anything) and had other unsufferable disabilities that would not have allowed her to survive on her own until reproduction.

Gosh, i can't wait until we can pretty much ASK a baby that's in the womb if it wants to live or die. -.- Would resolve the whole issue MUCH faster than leaving it to human subjectivity.

I disagree.

There's a point during the pregnancy in which the fetus is sufficiently developed enough to where, if the mother were to give birth then and there, the newborn would be able to survive with minor to moderate neonatal care. IMHO that's the cutoff point, because before then it is still dependent on being connected with the mother for minute-to-minute survival.

Of course, those who reach this point in pregnancy are usually those who are committed to keeping the baby. So it works out either way.

If I had to declare at what point abortion would be illegal, it would be when the fetus can be safely separated either surgically or through natural birth and still survive with moderate-level medical care. While I'm not familiar with the cycle, this is usually the last couple of months.

In a technical sense, for a human to be alive they must be able to function and survive autonomously. By autonomously, I mean they must not be dependent on the bodily functions of another human to survive. In the case of a fetus, it relies on it's connection to the mother for bloodflow, nutrition and excretion up until this point, where it it developed enough to be able to survive if that connection is broken. Until then I would still consider it part of the mother's body, which is the sole property of the mother.

Okay, in my opinion that is a ground breaking opinion on your part. A move toward the middle. on an issue. If it was my choice, and I was a woman, I don't think I would choose this option. But, I can't possibly understand what it is like to be a woman, or to be raped and to have to carry that child, or a multitude of other circumstances that I could never understand because I am not in the other person's shoes.

I'm glad I'll never have to make that choice, but for those that do, it is better that it is done in the most humane way possible. Per VisaGrunt's post, outlawing abortion would not stop abortion it would just make the procedure more gruesome for the mother and unborn child.

In my home town there was a young girl that was so afraid that her parents would be disappointed in her unwed pregnancy that she managed to hide the pregnancy long enough to have the baby in the woods behind her house. The family dog retrieved the dead infant and brought it up to the house. Her father had purchased a vehicle from me for the girl; I personally met her before the incident. She seemed like a very nice young girl; beyond my imagination that this would be part of her life.

The family was very religious and would have never considered anything else but abstinence for their daughter. No judgement here on the personal beliefs of the family, but it does show how important it is that young people get the information they need and accessibility to effective means of birth control before they become involved in a relationship. The parents don't always provide the information or the accessibility to birthcontrol, other sources are needed. This is the only real hope of reducing unwanted prenancies, avoiding abortions, or incidents such as this.

I don't think the choice for an abortion is a happy one for any woman. Given the opportunity between effective birthcontrol or abortion; I think most would choose the prior option. Guilt trips like the referenced billboard only serve to distance people from the help they need to make the right decisions for themselves.

A billboard advertising effective means of getting information and accessibility to effective birthcontrol would be a step in the right direction for an Anti-Abortion group.

Well here is the reasoning behind my statement:

1. By day 40 we already have a heartbeat and a functioning cardiovascular system.

2. By day 40 we see brain activity.


In my view what makes us more than a collection of cells is our central nervous system. The fact that there is a functioning brain should end the discussion right there. Difference between a child in the womb and a person that has had a stroke is that the brain of the developing child is developing at a rapid pace. We see an increase of functioning ability over time.

Just cause the child is unable to be outside the womb yet does not invalidate the fact the child is alive and functioning.

Okay the child is uncoordinated, well you would be uncoordinated too if you were paralyzed and suddenly through medical intervention you were no longer paralyzed. Difference between you and the child in the womb is the child is esscentially in a environment where the effects of gravity are significantly lessened (just like it would be if you were in a swimming pool). They have no coordination when it comes to focusing their eyes on an object. Well if a blind person was suddenly able to see, they would have trouble focussing on objects for a while too.

The ability to walk and talk is not instantaneous, it takes time to route things and figure out what connections go with what for movement and coordination.

The situation is that we know day 40 is approximately the day in which brain is turned on, that is when our Central Processing Unit (if you want to use computer terms) is finally online.

Inuyasha,

I can see that you have developped what is, to you, a logical argument. I am not going to negate your argument, because it is logical and sensical.

I think that what other people in this thread have tried to point out to you is that your opinion does not give you the right to control other people's actions. No one is trying to tell you that you should promote abortions, or even say that you agree that they are moral, they are simply asking that you try to understand that there are others out there who do not agree with you, and will choose to have abortions. And that they have just as much right to have an abortion as you do to disagree with them.

If you were the father of an unborn child, I would agree that you would have some say as to the fate of the pregnancy (not complete say, mind you, because you would not be the only parent involved. "it takes two to tango", so they say. but given your stance, i don't think you would be in a relationship with anyone who does not share your beliefs regarding abortion, so likely it would be a moot point).

But, if you are not the father of an unborn child, you do not have a right to impose your beliefs on the mother of that unborn child. You may believe that abortion is murder, but the law does not agree with you.

Just as you have no say in how I raise my children, how I vote, or what religion I choose to practice, you have no right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my uterus or any fetus I may be carrying. Likewise, I have no right to choose how you raise your children, vote, or what religion you choose to practice. If you had a uterus, I would not be able to tell you what to do with it either. Unborn children are not public property, and you cannot tell anyone else what to do with theirs. You may not agree, but that does not change the law.

Again, no one is asking you to agree that abortion is moral. And no one is saying that your reasoning is wrong when it comes to deciding how you would act if faced with the possibility of your child being aborted. People are simply asking that you respect a woman's right to access to a safe abortion if she feels she needs it.

I have an open mind when listening to your arguments; I am asking that you have an open mind when you hear opinions that differ from yours.

@ cave_canem

Stop with the moral relativism garbage, there is actually such thing as right and wrong.

If we use the definition that we're dealing with a living human being by day 40, then under that definition we are talking about murdering an innocent child for a woman's conveinence. There is no if ands or buts about it.

The problem with moral relativism is it could be used to justify anything, this issue is a matter of principle and facts.

You can try to dance around the issue all day, but the facts remain if we view the child as alive due to brain activity then quite frankly abortion is basically the legalization of cold-blooded murder.

Considering many here were trying to have a civil discussion with you, it is you yourself who has reduced it to a mud-slinging fest.

You can call my argument 'garbage' if you want, but don't think you'll 'convert' the masses (as you seem so wont to do) by degrading their viewpoint that way.

If you simply took the time to consider what has been said in this thread, you'd realize that there are many who are "pro-choice" who would not have an abortion themselves, because of their personal beliefs. They just don't want to trample on the rights of others.

You can try to trample away all you want - but it hasn't gotten you very far. And if anything, I think you'll find you have lost respect aong the way.

Again cave_canem, this isn't simply a matter for opinion, if we use the definition that brain activity defines whether or not someone is alive, then under that definition after day 40 aborting that life would be murder.

Sure, but not before day 40.

Not everyone uses the same definition as you.
Your definition is a matter of opinion.
So yes, it is a matter of opinion.
You can be angry that not everyone will agree with you, or accept that not everyone will have the same opinion as you.

There are different levels of brain activity that signify whether the Human body is capable of independent existence

Well here is the situation that completely destroys the Pro-Abortion argument.

When does life begin?

I'm defining it by brain activity at that point we are dealing with something more than a random collection of cells.

From a genetic standpoint the child in the womb is human, its DNA is different from its parents (yeah I know about the similarities but each person's DNA (barring identical twins) is unique). Barring exposure to toxins and/or something catestrophic happening the complexity of the brain that is functioning will increase at an astounding rate. We're not talking about someone whom is brain dead here.

An infant's brain isn't as well developed as a four-year old, but are we going to say the four-year old is more valuable?

A trick a lot of abortionists like to use is to claim that the child in the womb is not human and not a person. Well got news for all the pro-abortion individuals you are wrong. It is an attempt to dehumanize the child, so they can rationalize killing an innocent child, because it is "not human." The fact that we are talking about killing a human being out of conveinence is the issue.

If we define alive (the viability argument is a strawman) by the fact there are brainwaves, then we are dealing with a human life. You can't claim it is in a vegetative state, and you can't claim you're being merciful because the child's neural processing is going to increase at an astounding rate. We aren't dealing with a situation like a 10% chance someone will never wake up, we are dealing with an individual whose functioning abilities improve at a rapid pace.

So yeah, abortion is basically legalized cold-blooded murder.

The arrogance is astounding.

First of all, your statement that an argument is completely destroyed is no more significant than my declaration that I can transmute lead to gold. It is empty and ridiculous.

But what leaves me completely gobsmacked is that you have the presumption to assume that you can dictate when life begins. And people accuse my profession of having a god complex.

I am a physician. Unlike you, I have studied medicine, including, incidentally, the study of embryology. I have practiced medicine, and declared that people were beyond the capacity of our art and science to save. And even with all of that training and experience I would never presume to speak of when life begins. You may have a belief in your conclusion on the subject, but I am here to tell you that a great many people do not share your belief. It is a subject on which conclusivity is not possible.



Since murder is a term that is defined at law, your rhetoric is flawed. You would have done better had you used the word, "killing." But no matter.

But viability is in no way a strawman. When a woman goes into premature labour, viability of the fetus is an essential factor that dictates how an obstetrician will react to those circumstances. Viability is the first and most important characteristic when assessing prenatal care.

You have a highly developed moral position on the subject, and I do not pretend that my argument will persuade you. But you cannot pretend that your opponents' argument is devoid of reason when it is based upon the best assessment of medical practice available today.

@ visagrunt

And you have no right to say when life supposedly begins either. However, I'm going off the basis of an event that occurs at about day 40, of brainwaves being detectable.

Also visagrunt, it would be murder because we're talking about conducting a procedure specifically to snuff out a life. As a physician, I thought you had to take a hypocratic oath.

Okay? But that doesn't mean they aren't a person just because of a premature birth.

The same croud that wants to save the unborn, does their best to cut funding that will save them once they are born in unfortunate conditions. One republican represenative from Georgia said we are against abortions because who is going to work in our factories if abortions are allowed for the poor.
I think that was the most honest statement on the subject coming from the right.