Abortion and Capital Punishment

[MovingTarget]

Hmmm...I do support capital punishment. I take the view of Thomas Aquinas, that society has the right to cut of the "gangrenous limb" of itself. Some members of society simple cannot be rehabilitated or exist without being a threat to it. It should, however, be used only in the most heinous and extreme of cases. Abortion is a different situation. Personally, I do not support abortion as an act in most cases, but I in no way support impeding a woman's right to choose. I take a natural rights/consent point of view to this. If a woman consented to have sex, she should accept the consequences. Abortion should not be used as an easy way out birth control solution as I hear many do. If a woman was raped, i.e. not having consented to sex, then she has no obligation to carry the fetus to term. Forcing a victim of this to go through red tape having to prove rape or admit publically to it in a sense victimizes her a second time. This is why I do not support making abortion illegal in this way, allowing for the exception, but having to go through some sort of approval process. Privacy is key here. And yes, you must also allow for abortions for fetuses that have serious defects or when the mother's life is threatened. Its a complex issue, but in the end, I'd rather avoid the "slippery slope" by deeming it illegal as many neocons and the religious right want to do.

 

[rbV5]

I support capital punishment and the woman's right to chose. I also support Oregon's death with dignity law.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: rbV5
I support capital punishment and the woman's right to chose. I also support Oregon's death with dignity law.

Hmmm... Oregon's death with dignity law, huh? I support that as well (although I have not time to explain my position at the moment). Maybe this should've been added to the poll here. It certainly an interesting topic to see discussed.

 

[alphatarget1]

the state shouldn't have a right to kill its citizens.
the state shouldn't interfere with a woman's choice, be it wrong or not.

Yes, I think abortion is wrong in some cases, but the government should stay the hell out of people's business.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

against both:
but the abolition of state-sponsored cold-blooded murder of innocent human children comes first in my voting priorities.

I?m a single issue voter and as soon as abortion is abolished my issue will turn to abolishing the death-penalty.

 

[B00ne]

Capital Punishment is wrong on so many levels. Most of all it is morally wrong to kill a person and if my government would act the same as the most abominable criminals (planned, concious murder out of low motives (revenge)) I would be scared what else my governbment would do.

The womans right to choose is neither murder nor a killing unless u regard removing a few cells as killing. There is a reason abortians are allowed up to the fifth week only.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: B00ne
Capital Punishment is wrong on so many levels. Most of all it is morally wrong to kill a person and if my government would act the same as the most abominable criminals (planned, concious murder out of low motives (revenge)) I would be scared what else my governbment would do.

The womans right to choose is neither murder nor a killing unless u regard removing a few cells as killing. There is a reason abortians are allowed up to the fifth week only.

fith week only, your kidding right?

you think that's the law? wtheck state do you live in that it's only allowed up-to the end of the 1st half of the 1st trimester?

You know that the libys are fighting to get-rid of a law that says you can?t kill a child who?s viable outside of the mother?s womb?

That?s right, a unique human ?group of cells? that, if removed from the mother and given proper medical care would probably live to be a member of society? much less 5 weeks in.

If I could get a 5week-in and anti-death penalty candidate, I?d vote for 'm? but those just aren?t the options.

 

[CountZero]

You know that the libys are fighting to get-rid of a law that says you can?t kill a child who?s viable outside of the mother?s womb?

Interesting, I haven't seen any articles about this, care to post a link? I'm curious as to how they are defining viable outside of the mother's womb and what point in the pregnancy its being defined as.

One of the problems I have with making abortion illegal is what about all of those unwanted children? A discussion of capital punsihment seems fairly fitting as I'd be willing to bet a large number of those children that would be growing up unwanted would become burdens on society perhaps even criminals.

One argument goes that you could put the kid up for adoption. The statistics here show that at its peak there were 175,000 adoptions in the US. This includes related adoptions but I don't believe it includes adoptions from abroad. The site claims an extra 10,000 abroad in 1986, lets be generous and say there were 20,000 adoptions abroad at its peak. Giving a grand total of 195,000 adoptions at the peak of adoptions (in 1970).

For abortions we have 1.7 million at its peak and around 800,000 at its lowest point for the data given here So even in the year with the most adoptions (where probably a third were related adoptions) it would only cover 1/4 of the number of abortions. Thats a whole lot of unwanted children.

I think making abortion illegal would be about as much of a deterrent for people having sex as the death penalty is a deterrent for people comitting murder. The statistics here are pretty interesting to that point. Some things to note, 88% of abortions occur between 6 and 12 weeks. 8% of women having one have never used contraception, in addition 47% are performed on women who have already had one abortion. Sadly these people I believe are using abortion as a form of birth control and are not taking enough precautions but it does not justify limiting other women's right to chose. Lots of other interesting stats there (60% already have one child) etc..

So my question is if we make abortion illegal and that stops half of those people who would have relied on one from having sex at all what about the other half of the unwanted children? Are 400,000 unwanted children (at its low point) worth arguing over whether a fetus is a human or not? Are 400,00 women lives irreversible changed worth it? Half of these women are single so another 200,000 single mothers? To me it isn't, we have the ability to help these women and prevent more unwanted children we should do it.

Wanted to add that capital punishment does have one other excellent use and thats as a bargaining tool. A lawyer can offer a life sentence without a chance of parole in exchange for a guilty plea when execution of the criminal is an option. This saves thousand in legal and court fees.

Edited to add bit about captial punishment.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

One of the problems I have with making abortion illegal is what about all of those unwanted children? A discussion of capital punsihment seems fairly fitting[

what about all those poor children? A discussion of capital punishment seems fairl fitting as I?m willing to bet a large number of those children would be growing up poor and become burdens on society, perhaps even criminals?

You know the mentally-handy caped are a burden, we shouldn?t allow them to be born either.

Man, and I hate Mexicans, come across the border, pop out a baby? why not require an abortion for those little wet-back SOBs so they don?t become citizens that will probably become burdens on society, perhaps even criminals.

? do you understand how incredibly wrong-minded the idea that ?abortion is ok, irregardless due to probable circumstance?? the same argument can be made for killing already-born poor children, or mentally handicapped children, or performing a ?post-delivery? abortion on the child of a Mexican mother.

Are 400,000 unwanted children (at its low point) worth arguing over whether a fetus is a human or not?

no logical argument can be made that the unique living creature in a mothers womb isn?t a human.

You can argue that it?s not a ?person? just as I can argue that the mentally handicapped aren?t ?persons?, or that blacks aren?t ?persons?; but that they are humans is impossible to debate as the facts are that they are human[.

Just as a fetal pig is still a pig: you don?t change species just because you are inconvenient to someone with power over your life.

 

[jackschmittusa]

AndrewR

Jeffery Dahmer once lived not 15 miles from where I live. The local news covered him in great detail for a long time. There is absolutley no way he could be considered sane. How is it that you find recognising this is "excusing" him? Was he guilty? I am sure he was. Would executing him have served as a deterrent for others like him? I don't see how it could. (If executions ever had any deterrent power, it was when you could take a picnic basket to a public execution.) It seems to me that the only possible arguments for executing someone like that is either state sponsored revenge, or economic expediency. If it is economic, then why bother with mental health facilities at all?

 

[CountZero]

quote:
One of the problems I have with making abortion illegal is what about all of those unwanted children? A discussion of capital punsihment seems fairly fitting[


what about all those poor children? A discussion of capital punishment seems fairl fitting as I?m willing to bet a large number of those children would be growing up poor and become burdens on society, perhaps even criminals?

You know the mentally-handy caped are a burden, we shouldn?t allow them to be born either.

Man, and I hate Mexicans, come across the border, pop out a baby? why not require an abortion for those little wet-back SOBs so they don?t become citizens that will probably become burdens on society, perhaps even criminals.

? do you understand how incredibly wrong-minded the idea that ?abortion is ok, irregardless due to probable circumstance?? the same argument can be made for killing already-born poor children, or mentally handicapped children, or performing a ?post-delivery? abortion on the child of a Mexican mother.

quote:
Are 400,000 unwanted children (at its low point) worth arguing over whether a fetus is a human or not?

no logical argument can be made that the unique living creature in a mothers womb isn?t a human.

You can argue that it?s not a ?person? just as I can argue that the mentally handicapped aren?t ?persons?, or that blacks aren?t ?persons?; but that they are humans is impossible to debate as the facts are that they are human[.

Just as a fetal pig is still a pig: you don?t change species just because you are inconvenient to someone with power over your life.

Human or person you knew what I meant. Its a collection of human cells that could become a person but in the first trimester it isn't a person in my opinion. And while you can refer to people who are handicapped or black as not being persons you would be wrong and science and the population would agree that you are wrong. Whereas in the case of a developing fetus the question is still up for debate. As I pointed out in my first post the central argument for or against abortion generally centers around whether or not the fetus is a person.

What about mentally handicapped? If a mother found out in the first trimester that their child was going to be born severly mentally handicapped they are not allowed to have an abortion? In my opinion after the first trimester unless the mother's life is at stake then an abortion is not an option. You are saying killing a person but in the first trimester it isn't a person, its a collection of divding human cells that could become a person.

Again your parellel draws it as being equal to killing a person and again my stance is that it isn't a person.

I said abortion is ok because killing a fetus that is not yet a person is not wrong for whatever reason the woman chooses be that probable circumstances or not. Notice you are not forcing anyone to have one due to probable circumstances however if abortion was illegal you would be forcing those women to have a child under the probable cricumstance that it is a person and not just a fetus.

Thats just it though, 'pro-choice' leaves the option open for those that want it but doesn't force it on anyone, 'pro-life' removes the choice frocing people to take actions they don't want to and that in this modern time they don't have to.

But like 90% of the "discussions" on P&N my point of view and yours will not change, nor will probably 99% of the people who are reading this. I presented some factual information on the repercussions of making abortion illegal that do not rely on debating when a fetus is a person. Without the a fetus is a person at all stages argument can you show the benefit of illegal abortion?

 

[CountZero]

Jeffery Dahmer once lived not 15 miles from where I live. The local news covered him in great detail for a long time. There is absolutley no way he could be considered sane. How is it that you find recognising this is "excusing" him? Was he guilty? I am sure he was. Would executing him have served as a deterrent for others like him? I don't see how it could. (If executions ever had any deterrent power, it was when you could take a picnic basket to a public execution.) It seems to me that the only possible arguments for executing someone like that is either state sponsored revenge, or economic expediency. If it is economic, then why bother with mental health facilities at all?

Because the people in mental health facilities have not commited crimes?

If Dahmer did not know what he was doing was wrong his DA would have used that argument and plead insanity. He did know what he was doing was wrong or if the DA used that argument they were not able to prove he didn't know what he was doing was wrong. As far as the law is concerned thats the definition of sanity when commiting a crime well that and actually having some sort of mental defect which Dahmer pretty obviously did. Legal and medical insanity do have different definitions though.

As for economics because of the appeal process it makes bad economics to actually execute someone but good economics to threaten someone with execution in order to avoid any trial. Of course it seems like coersion but most people would not plead guilty unless the evdience was hard against them or they were actually guilty.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

As I pointed out in my first post the central argument for or against abortion generally centers around whether or not the fetus is a person.

just as the argument for or against slavery, or for or against killing the retarded centers around wither or not the human involved is a person.

I have a criteria that bypasses granting the spiritual 'personhood' that society may or may not want to expend to those they find utility in repressing.

my criteria is "is this a human" if a human life is in the balance, then we have to favor keeping the human alive and recognizing inalienable human rights.

it's not 'person' rights, and just because fundamentalist Islamic countries don?t recognize women as 'persons' in no way removes their human rights.

just as, in this country, just because some don't want to recognize a number of human-children as 'persons' in no way means they don't have human rights.

In my opinion after the first trimester unless the mother's life is at stake then an abortion is not an option. You are saying killing a person but in the first trimester it isn't a person, its a collection of divding human cells that could become a person.

replace 'could' with 'will probably' and you'll see the problem with 1st trimester abortions. Without the removal of life-support from this human you would most probably have a young person in 8 or so months

of course the argument for personhood doesn?t end at birth, many believe that infanticide is fully acceptable up t?ll a number of months after birth.. as it?s still not a ?person?. What defines a person? It?s a spiritual question, one pondered by those who had utilitarian reasons to call humans non-persons for as long as slaves and bigotry have existed.

Notice you are not forcing anyone to have one due to probable circumstances however if abortion was illegal you would be forcing those women to have a child under the probable circumstance that it is a person and not just a fetus.

in gaining personhood in American society women have done what humans do when they gain a new-found status: do the exact same thing that was done to them.

Calling a human child a ?non person? is as arguable and defensible as calling any other human a ?non-person?: the arguments rely on improvable emotional appeal and facts about how much ?utility? we get from calling this particular group of humans non-persons.

'pro-life' removes the choice frocing people to take actions they don't want to and that in this modern time they don't have to.

replace 'could' with 'will probably' and you'll see the problem with 1st trimester abortions. Without the removal of life-support from this human you would most probably have a young person in 8 or so months.

of course the argument for personhood doesn?t end at birth, many believe that infanticide is fully acceptable up t?ll a number of months after birth.. as it?s still not a ?person?. What defines a person? It?s a spiritual question, one pondered by those who had utilitarian reasons to call humans non-persons for as long as slaves and bigotry have existed.

'pro-life' removes the choice frocing people to take actions they don't want to and that in this modern time they don't have to.

we can kill infants that are born retarded, that way the mother doesn?t have to deal with the handicapped child. Why not give the family the ?option? instead of forcing them to deal with a life that we shouldn?t have to in these modern-times?

If I don?t recognize the personhood of a child that?s less than 3 months old, why can?t we just ?agree to disagree? over whether or not the 3month old is a person and give my family the ?choice? to kill it? If you don?t like the killing of 3 month olds, then don?t kill any.

Without the a fetus is a person at all stages argument can you show the benefit of illegal abortion?

sure:
Reducing the future population is bad for society, both in terms of the value of the nation ?land labor and capital? and in terms of respect for human life: every life is valuable to mankind, even that born to a poor unwed mother.

But like 90% of the "discussions" on P&N my point of view and yours will not change, nor will probably 99% of the people who are reading this.

that's not the point, the point is to come to an agreement that we both have logical points of view and get-past partisan single-mindedness.

But you have yet to make an argument that shows why we should accept the slaughter of 'non-person human' for the utility of a 'person human', less to beg the question of ?is a ?person? entitled to more rights than a ?non person??

I?m arguing that we?re all humans with equal rights, no matter who our law-makers determine to be ?persons?

 

[CountZero]

sure:
Reducing the future population is bad for society, both in terms of the value of the nation ?land labor and capital? and in terms of respect for human life: every life is valuable to mankind, even that born to a poor unwed mother.

Care to back that up? What is value of the nation "land labor and capital"? I've never heard the term nor have I heard we are at risk of reducing future population by any significant amount. In all seriousness I really would like to read an un-biased argument on such a thing.

of course the argument for personhood doesn?t end at birth, many believe that infanticide is fully acceptable up t?ll a number of months after birth.. as it?s still not a ?person?. What defines a person? It?s a spiritual question, one pondered by those who had utilitarian reasons to call humans non-persons for as long as slaves and bigotry have existed.

Thats totally inflammatory. You know very well that when it comes to fetuses there is no large agreement on when a fetus is a person. You think it is but it is not a scientific fact and if you are going to restrict somebody from doing something then it should be based on fact not conjecture or spirituality.

we can kill infants that are born retarded, that way the mother doesn?t have to deal with the handicapped child. Why not give the family the ?option? instead of forcing them to deal with a life that we shouldn?t have to in these modern-times?

We do give families options, retarded children are given away by families that do not want or are unable to care for that child. Is that better then an abortion?

quote:
But like 90% of the "discussions" on P&N my point of view and yours will not change, nor will probably 99% of the people who are reading this.

that's not the point, the point is to come to an agreement that we both have logical points of view and get-past partisan single-mindedness.

But you have yet to make an argument that shows why we should accept the slaughter of 'non-person human' for the utility of a 'person human', less to beg the question of ?is a ?person? entitled to more rights than a ?non person??

I?m arguing that we?re all humans with equal rights, no matter who our law-makers determine to be ?persons?

I do agree you have a logical point but I don't agree with the basis of it that is that a fetus in the first trimester has human rights that supercede that of the mother. My definition of a non-person human is a fetus in the first trimester period and a person is entitled to more rights than a non-person. Could you say that <insert whatever> is a non-person, sure, but given that I have given a clear definition of a non-person its about as sensible as saying a cow is a person. I *could* say that, and therefore draw the conclusion that eating cows is murder it makes as much sense as saying a black person isn't a person. Its *obviously* wrong while a first trimester fetus has not been proven either way.

If I could be so bold as to say both of our logics are sound but both arguments are based on something that just isn't known. Its part of the reason why abortion is such a hot topic even still. Anyways I've enjoyed the debate with you LMK but I think I'm done debating. Though I am interested in the population thing mentioned earlier.

 

[eriqesque]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
If I were a woman, I would want to be able to say when and where I reproduce.

They can do that and not have an abortion. A womans right to choose... Is whether or not she chooses to have sex.
If she keeps legs shut it's not a problem.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: eriqesque

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
If I were a woman, I would want to be able to say when and where I reproduce.

They can do that and not have an abortion. A womans right to choose... Is whether or not she chooses to have sex.
If she keeps legs shut it's not a problem.

Do you support abortion in the event of rape?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: B00ne
Capital Punishment is wrong on so many levels. Most of all it is morally wrong to kill a person and if my government would act the same as the most abominable criminals (planned, concious murder out of low motives (revenge)) I would be scared what else my governbment would do.

The womans right to choose is neither murder nor a killing unless u regard removing a few cells as killing. There is a reason abortians are allowed up to the fifth week only.

fith week only, your kidding right?

you think that's the law? wtheck state do you live in that it's only allowed up-to the end of the 1st half of the 1st trimester?

You know that the libys are fighting to get-rid of a law that says you can?t kill a child who?s viable outside of the mother?s womb?

That?s right, a unique human ?group of cells? that, if removed from the mother and given proper medical care would probably live to be a member of society? much less 5 weeks in.

If I could get a 5week-in and anti-death penalty candidate, I?d vote for 'm? but those just aren?t the options.

He is German, just like me.

 

[eriqesque]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: eriqesque

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
If I were a woman, I would want to be able to say when and where I reproduce.

They can do that and not have an abortion. A womans right to choose... Is whether or not she chooses to have sex.
If she keeps legs shut it's not a problem.

Do you support abortion in the event of rape?

I don't think it is the unborn childs fault nor the womans.
However 2 wrongs don't make it right.
I certainly can understand her position if it were to happen.
Also in the case to incest. But that is still not the childs fault and who knows who we might be killing
they could have been the next Einstein or the one who discovers the cure for aids or cancer.
It shouldn't even be a question really. If a child is not safe in his mothers womb then where in the hell is he safe. I beleive part of the problem today with people, is that they have no respect for human life.
And if a woman has not enough respect for her unborn child then there is no hope for any of us.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: eriqesque

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: eriqesque

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
If I were a woman, I would want to be able to say when and where I reproduce.

They can do that and not have an abortion. A womans right to choose... Is whether or not she chooses to have sex.
If she keeps legs shut it's not a problem.

Do you support abortion in the event of rape?

I don't think it is the unborn childs fault nor the womans.
However 2 wrongs don't make it right.
I certainly can understand her position if it were to happen.
Also in the case to incest. But that is still not the childs fault and who knows who we might be killing
they could have been the next Einstein or the one who discovers the cure for aids or cancer.
It shouldn't even be a question really. If a child is not safe in his mothers womb then where in the hell is he safe. I beleive part of the problem today with people, is that they have no respect for human life.
And if a woman has not enough respect for her unborn child then there is no hope for any of us.

Well, i don't see a fetus as a human being, and i won't argue about it.

I am for the womans right to choose.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: B00ne
Capital Punishment is wrong on so many levels. Most of all it is morally wrong to kill a person and if my government would act the same as the most abominable criminals (planned, concious murder out of low motives (revenge)) I would be scared what else my governbment would do.

The womans right to choose is neither murder nor a killing unless u regard removing a few cells as killing. There is a reason abortians are allowed up to the fifth week only.

fith week only, your kidding right?

you think that's the law? wtheck state do you live in that it's only allowed up-to the end of the 1st half of the 1st trimester?

You know that the libys are fighting to get-rid of a law that says you can?t kill a child who?s viable outside of the mother?s womb?

That?s right, a unique human ?group of cells? that, if removed from the mother and given proper medical care would probably live to be a member of society? much less 5 weeks in.

If I could get a 5week-in and anti-death penalty candidate, I?d vote for 'm? but those just aren?t the options.

He is German, just like me.

Ah!

Well, I like the Germans: none of my business who you guys kill or when: if we could get moderate party to support a 5th week law in America I?d support them.

I'm America we are having trouble illegalizing the murder of a human child that's viable outside of the womb.

Well, i don't see a fetus as a human being, and i won't argue about it.

I am for the womans right to choose.

Not seeing living creatures that have a unit human genetic code that will most-likely be able to create more humans if left not killed...

Well, we've seen all-through history blacks, women, Jews and the like treated although they weren?t "human" because someone felt they could get a benefit from killing them off.

I don't agree with the basis of it that is that a fetus in the first trimester has human rights that supercede that of the mother.

give me this:
we might both be wrong..

ok suppose that we might both be wrong... which is worse, erring on the side that forces a woman to spend time brining a new-life into the world at some personal costs... or the side that encourages people to selfishly murder their children?

When it comes down to it, i may well be wrong, but looking at it.. well much like in the death-penalty: ending a life is one of the few things that you can't 'go back and fix'.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: B00ne
Capital Punishment is wrong on so many levels. Most of all it is morally wrong to kill a person and if my government would act the same as the most abominable criminals (planned, concious murder out of low motives (revenge)) I would be scared what else my governbment would do.

The womans right to choose is neither murder nor a killing unless u regard removing a few cells as killing. There is a reason abortians are allowed up to the fifth week only.

fith week only, your kidding right?

you think that's the law? wtheck state do you live in that it's only allowed up-to the end of the 1st half of the 1st trimester?

You know that the libys are fighting to get-rid of a law that says you can?t kill a child who?s viable outside of the mother?s womb?

That?s right, a unique human ?group of cells? that, if removed from the mother and given proper medical care would probably live to be a member of society? much less 5 weeks in.

If I could get a 5week-in and anti-death penalty candidate, I?d vote for 'm? but those just aren?t the options.

He is German, just like me.

Ah!

Well, I like the Germans: none of my business who you guys kill or when: if we could get moderate party to support a 5th week law in America I?d support them.

I'm America we are having trouble illegalizing the murder of a human child that's viable outside of the womb.

Well, i don't see a fetus as a human being, and i won't argue about it.

I am for the womans right to choose.

Not seeing living creatures that have a unit human genetic code that will most-likely be able to create more humans if left not killed...

Well, we've seen all-through history blacks, women, Jews and the like treated although they weren?t "human" because someone felt they could get a benefit from killing them off.

I don't agree with the basis of it that is that a fetus in the first trimester has human rights that supercede that of the mother.

give me this:
we might both be wrong..

ok suppose that we might both be wrong... which is worse, erring on the side that forces a woman to spend time brining a new-life into the world at some personal costs... or the side that encourages people to selfishly murder their children?

When it comes down to it, i may well be wrong, but looking at it.. well much like in the death-penalty: ending a life is one of the few things that you can't 'go back and fix'.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed. Are you telling me that you equate a lump of cells without a conscious mind to women, blacks, jews?

Every skin cell in my body carries a unique genetic code, it doesn't make it anything more than a bunch of cells though, same thing applies to a fetus.

Now you can argue "soul" or whatever you want to, i don't believe such a thing exists so i'll stick with what IS known as a fact and that fact is that the best description for a fetus is a lump of cells which CAN become a human being but in most cases won't.

It's no point arguing about this, you see the fetus for what it CAN become, i see it for what it is and neither of us will change out minds. 🙂

 

[B00ne]

Sorry I was wrong a short scanning of the respective law seems to state up to 12 weeks.


BTW Klixxer a twelve week old fetus already looks quite human - it is definbately more then a few cells as I said earlier. However, it would not be able to live. Some more info most abortions seem to be carried out in the 8. week.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: B00ne
Sorry I was wrong a short scanning of the respective law seems to state up to 12 weeks.


BTW Klixxer a twelve week old fetus already looks quite human - it is definbately more then a few cells as I said earlier. However, it would not be able to live. Some more info most abortions seem to be carried out in the 8. week.

I know what it looks like, i have been to the ultrasounds with all of my kids, it doesn't really change anything for me, it is still nothing more than a mass of cells, a potential human being, yes, a human being, no.

 

[Alistar7]

I will fully support a womens right to choose, as soon as a father is given the equal right.....

2 scenarios:

A man and wife have both agreed their whole time together they did not want children yet the wife becomes pregnant. Once pregnant she decides she wants to keep the child, while the husband does not wish to be a father. In this case the child is born, and the father is at the very least financially liable for a decision he had no control over and whose wishes were not factored.

Other side of the coin, the husband decides he would like to keep the child. The wife, not wanting to put off her career decides to have an abortion. In this case the child/fetus/clumpocells is aborted, Happy Fathers Day...

Until fathers are given equal rights, I'm 100%behind Capital Punishment for all women, next subject please......

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
I will fully support a womens right to choose, as soon as a father is given the equal right.....

2 scenarios:

A man and wife have both agreed their whole time together they did not want children yet the wife becomes pregnant. Once pregnant she decides she wants to keep the child, while the husband does not wish to be a father. In this case the child is born, and the father is at the very least financially liable for a decision he had no control over and whose wishes were not factored.

Other side of the coin, the husband decides he would like to keep the child. The wife, not wanting to put off her career decides to have an abortion. In this case the child/fetus/clumpocells is aborted, Happy Fathers Day...

Until fathers are given equal rights, I'm 100%behind Capital Punishment for all women, next subject please......

i never looked at it in that light, although im not sure we should put all women on capital punishment, unless we have some robots to replace them or something (j/k)