Late term abortion is an issue?

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think it comes from needing to have a total commitment to the right to choose. If you limit the right to choose in some cases then you open the door to other cases.

It?s sort of the slippery slope argument.

If it?s wrong to kill a baby at 6 months then why is it ok to kill the same baby at 5 months and 29 days etc.

I think you are close here. I think the slippery slope is that the value of human life is relative and not absolute if the line becomes obscure. When does a person become a person. The obvious answer that satisfies me is at the moment of conception but the moment you assume that you make women slaves. You pull an absolute out of your ass that creates massive real world problems that require pragmatic and not idealistic solutions. Nobody wants to say a mother has the right to kill her unborn child if she doesn't want it. Nope she should be made to bring it to term and raise it as a sociopath to kill your next door neighbor.

The issue I see is how to preserve some practical sense in secular affairs while preserving the notion of the value of human beings. The answer, of course, is to create a society in which there is never rape or incest and sex happens only between responsible loving human beings who take all precautions and have only wanted children. So let's get busy.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: alchemize

I see. So people can only hold an opinion on an issue if the majority of the people take direct action to support that opinion. Interesting theory you have there...

Nice spin, but his point was that abortion is an unsavory solution to a real problem. Calling for an end to abortion creates another problem, hundreds of thousands of unwanted babies. If the position you advocate creates such a massive problem, you should offer a solution. Want to ban abortion? Fine. What do we do with the eventual millions of kids? It's nice your friends adopt. What do we do with the other few hundred thousand? Angelina Jolie can only do so much.

Maybe ending abortion would create a real problem, but so did ending slavery - that was a huge economic shock to the South, which was mainly an agricultural economy. Is that a good reason not to end slavery? Of course not. And it wasn't the abolitionist's obligation to come up with a solution to the slave owner's newfound labor shortage problem either.

Pay wages like everyone else. Done! Next?

The point went right over your head.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: alchemize

I see. So people can only hold an opinion on an issue if the majority of the people take direct action to support that opinion. Interesting theory you have there...

Nice spin, but his point was that abortion is an unsavory solution to a real problem. Calling for an end to abortion creates another problem, hundreds of thousands of unwanted babies. If the position you advocate creates such a massive problem, you should offer a solution. Want to ban abortion? Fine. What do we do with the eventual millions of kids? It's nice your friends adopt. What do we do with the other few hundred thousand? Angelina Jolie can only do so much.

Maybe ending abortion would create a real problem, but so did ending slavery - that was a huge economic shock to the South, which was mainly an agricultural economy. Is that a good reason not to end slavery? Of course not. And it wasn't the abolitionist's obligation to come up with a solution to the slave owner's newfound labor shortage problem either.

Pay wages like everyone else. Done! Next?

The point went right over your head.

Well, I think you don't even see the point of your own argument. Abortion is the emancipation of women from slavery and you'll just have to get used to the price.

 

[whylaff]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: alchemize

I see. So people can only hold an opinion on an issue if the majority of the people take direct action to support that opinion. Interesting theory you have there...

Nice spin, but his point was that abortion is an unsavory solution to a real problem. Calling for an end to abortion creates another problem, hundreds of thousands of unwanted babies. If the position you advocate creates such a massive problem, you should offer a solution. Want to ban abortion? Fine. What do we do with the eventual millions of kids? It's nice your friends adopt. What do we do with the other few hundred thousand? Angelina Jolie can only do so much.

Maybe ending abortion would create a real problem, but so did ending slavery - that was a huge economic shock to the South, which was mainly an agricultural economy. Is that a good reason not to end slavery? Of course not. And it wasn't the abolitionist's obligation to come up with a solution to the slave owner's newfound labor shortage problem either.

No one is profiting off of abortions.
When the actual people it has an impact on come and ask for a solution, you are just going to shrug them off and say ?Meh, I saved your life, but, you aren?t my problem now that you?re alive. Go away??

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: whylaff

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: alchemize

I see. So people can only hold an opinion on an issue if the majority of the people take direct action to support that opinion. Interesting theory you have there...

Nice spin, but his point was that abortion is an unsavory solution to a real problem. Calling for an end to abortion creates another problem, hundreds of thousands of unwanted babies. If the position you advocate creates such a massive problem, you should offer a solution. Want to ban abortion? Fine. What do we do with the eventual millions of kids? It's nice your friends adopt. What do we do with the other few hundred thousand? Angelina Jolie can only do so much.

Maybe ending abortion would create a real problem, but so did ending slavery - that was a huge economic shock to the South, which was mainly an agricultural economy. Is that a good reason not to end slavery? Of course not. And it wasn't the abolitionist's obligation to come up with a solution to the slave owner's newfound labor shortage problem either.

No one is profiting off of abortions.
When the actual people it has an impact on come and ask for a solution, you are just going to shrug them off and say ?Meh, I saved your life, but, you aren?t my problem now that you?re alive. Go away??

Is the hospital where you were born paying for your college?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Abortion is the emancipation of women from slavery and you'll just have to get used to the price.

So's infanticide. I guess that's cool with you?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: whylaff

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: alchemize

I see. So people can only hold an opinion on an issue if the majority of the people take direct action to support that opinion. Interesting theory you have there...

Nice spin, but his point was that abortion is an unsavory solution to a real problem. Calling for an end to abortion creates another problem, hundreds of thousands of unwanted babies. If the position you advocate creates such a massive problem, you should offer a solution. Want to ban abortion? Fine. What do we do with the eventual millions of kids? It's nice your friends adopt. What do we do with the other few hundred thousand? Angelina Jolie can only do so much.

Maybe ending abortion would create a real problem, but so did ending slavery - that was a huge economic shock to the South, which was mainly an agricultural economy. Is that a good reason not to end slavery? Of course not. And it wasn't the abolitionist's obligation to come up with a solution to the slave owner's newfound labor shortage problem either.

No one is profiting off of abortions.
When the actual people it has an impact on come and ask for a solution, you are just going to shrug them off and say ?Meh, I saved your life, but, you aren?t my problem now that you?re alive. Go away??

Is the hospital where you were born paying for your college?

I'm glad to see someone besides me attempting to hold the line.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
I was just looking around at candidate's positions on stuff when I realized that every single democrat running in the primaries is in favor of allowing late term abortion.

What the fuck is up with that. Seriously.

If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy and the baby is potentially viable, why not just terminate the *pregnancy* early and see if the baby can survive in the NICU for someone to adopt? Why do we have to suck the brains out before removing the fetus?

Tho I am pro-life, I can understand the argument that a woman should have a right to chose whether she carries a baby to term. I support the morning after pill / etc. I think there should be some leeway for abortion in rape/incest cases. I totally agree that a doctor and patient should have the ability to make the best uninhibited decision about how to handle medical issues. But I don't see how determining to terminate a pregnancy early *requires* that the fetus not survive.

But why should the woman even want or care to chose what the doctor does with the fetus once it is removed. If it is viable, it is its own life at that point and doesn't need to be a concern of the woman. How is it not just a way to avoid knowing you spawned someone and having to live with that? Why would a woman even want the responsibility of making a decision to remove any chance of survival a fetus might have had even if she wants to terminate the pregnancy?

If the abortion is because of an abnormality in the fetus, again, why not let it be born and see how it does either in the parent's hands or in the hands of someone else who would care for it?

I'm not trying to sound as indignant as I'm coming across ... I actually do want some answers because I'm just so confused as to how this is even something to debate.

I think cost would be a problem. Keeping a premature infant in NICU costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Who pays for that? Many grow up with severe disabilities. Who pays the cost of their life-long treatment or even support if they can not care for themselves? It is not an easy answer.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
I was just looking around at candidate's positions on stuff when I realized that every single democrat running in the primaries is in favor of allowing late term abortion.

What the fuck is up with that. Seriously.

If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy and the baby is potentially viable, why not just terminate the *pregnancy* early and see if the baby can survive in the NICU for someone to adopt? Why do we have to suck the brains out before removing the fetus?

Tho I am pro-life, I can understand the argument that a woman should have a right to chose whether she carries a baby to term. I support the morning after pill / etc. I think there should be some leeway for abortion in rape/incest cases. I totally agree that a doctor and patient should have the ability to make the best uninhibited decision about how to handle medical issues. But I don't see how determining to terminate a pregnancy early *requires* that the fetus not survive.

But why should the woman even want or care to chose what the doctor does with the fetus once it is removed. If it is viable, it is its own life at that point and doesn't need to be a concern of the woman. How is it not just a way to avoid knowing you spawned someone and having to live with that? Why would a woman even want the responsibility of making a decision to remove any chance of survival a fetus might have had even if she wants to terminate the pregnancy?

If the abortion is because of an abnormality in the fetus, again, why not let it be born and see how it does either in the parent's hands or in the hands of someone else who would care for it?

I'm not trying to sound as indignant as I'm coming across ... I actually do want some answers because I'm just so confused as to how this is even something to debate.

I think cost would be a problem. Keeping a premature infant in NICU costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Who pays for that? Many grow up with severe disabilities. Who pays the cost of their life-long treatment or even support if they can not care for themselves? It is not an easy answer.

We do it for convicted criminals.

I think the answer, however harsh, is that those concerns are tertiary, for the following reason: In the absence of the long-term care you're talking about, you or others would suggest we kill the child. What we're saying is that, since we can't ensure a child's quality of life, he has no right to life, and that to me is very wrong.

A second point to pro-abortion folks is the question of, "Why on earth should you care about the child's quality of life? You'd kill it if you thought the child were unwanted." This is terribly contradictory to me.

 

[DerekWilson]

For all those saying people should adopt all the unwanted children before we bring more into the world ... that's almost as idealistic as I am

For better or worse, children do have a hard time finding homes. It would be nice if more people had big enough hearts, homes, and enough money to handle adopting foster children and showing them the love they deserve. But that's a whole different issue.

On top of that, newborn babies do not have a hard time finding a home and it's the potential adoptive parents who are on the waiting lists. There is no lack of homes for these children especially when you take into account this next point.

This conversation was never about abortion in general. It's about late term abortion. It's about why it's necessary to make sure that the fetus has no chance of surviving outside the womb before it's removed. Late term abortions are sought less frequently than other abortions and there would be no massive influx of children if we simply tried to provide the fetus with a chance to live after a woman has decided to terminate a pregnancy after ~24 weeks.

Again, no one has addressed the question on why we need to mandate that a viable fetus not have a shot at survival just because a pregnant woman does not want to carry it.

Like I said, I'm personally pro-life. I'm also more in favor of civil liberties than I am of government control. I get that some people are anti-drug (and thus pro-terrorism), but I'd like to see the war on drugs end completely. I would fall on the side of less restrictions than more.

But I just can't see the idea that late term abortion -- and IDX in particular -- is justifiable. If you want to terminate the pregnancy early that should be a whole separate issue if the fetus is viable. Go ahead and end the pregnancy, but why the fuck not give the fetus a chance on its own?

 

[heyheybooboo]

The adoption vs. abortion myth

Abortions down 25% from peak

Nationwide, 87% of counties have no abortion services ...

Some of the biggest drops in the abortion rate, however, have come in states that do not impose tight restrictions.

Oregon, for instance, was rated this week by Americans United for Life as the nation's "least pro-life state," yet its abortion rate dropped 25% from 2000 to 2005 -- more than any state except Wyoming.

California also was ranked hostile territory by Americans United for Life, but its abortion rate fell 13%, significantly more than the national average.

An Overview of Abortion in the United States
From Guttmacher

Nine in 10 abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

About half of American women have experienced an unintended pregnancy, and at current rates more than one-third (35%) will have had an abortion by age 45.

Overall unintended pregnancy rates have stagnated over the past decade, yet unintended pregnancy increased by 29% among poor women while decreasing 20% among higher-income women.

By Race - 2004

White - 52.6%
Black - 35.3%

 

[alchemize]

I think republicans should reverse course and fully support abortion, and mandate chemical sterilization for those below the poverty line. Talk about eroding the base of Dems!*


*note, I don't really believe this.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's a slippery slope. If we do away with abortion the next thing you know the army will have its best soldiers impregnating any fertile woman to produce more and better soldiers.

 

[whylaff]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: whylaff

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: alchemize

I see. So people can only hold an opinion on an issue if the majority of the people take direct action to support that opinion. Interesting theory you have there...

Nice spin, but his point was that abortion is an unsavory solution to a real problem. Calling for an end to abortion creates another problem, hundreds of thousands of unwanted babies. If the position you advocate creates such a massive problem, you should offer a solution. Want to ban abortion? Fine. What do we do with the eventual millions of kids? It's nice your friends adopt. What do we do with the other few hundred thousand? Angelina Jolie can only do so much.

Maybe ending abortion would create a real problem, but so did ending slavery - that was a huge economic shock to the South, which was mainly an agricultural economy. Is that a good reason not to end slavery? Of course not. And it wasn't the abolitionist's obligation to come up with a solution to the slave owner's newfound labor shortage problem either.

No one is profiting off of abortions.
When the actual people it has an impact on come and ask for a solution, you are just going to shrug them off and say ?Meh, I saved your life, but, you aren?t my problem now that you?re alive. Go away??

Is the hospital where you were born paying for your college?

I was born at home, and the people running that place didn't help me with college. I like that idea though. Free money is good, even more so during that time. I have no shame. But thats another thread.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
For all those saying people should adopt all the unwanted children before we bring more into the world ... that's almost as idealistic as I am

For better or worse, children do have a hard time finding homes. It would be nice if more people had big enough hearts, homes, and enough money to handle adopting foster children and showing them the love they deserve. But that's a whole different issue.

On top of that, newborn babies do not have a hard time finding a home and it's the potential adoptive parents who are on the waiting lists. There is no lack of homes for these children especially when you take into account this next point.

This conversation was never about abortion in general. It's about late term abortion. It's about why it's necessary to make sure that the fetus has no chance of surviving outside the womb before it's removed. Late term abortions are sought less frequently than other abortions and there would be no massive influx of children if we simply tried to provide the fetus with a chance to live after a woman has decided to terminate a pregnancy after ~24 weeks.

Again, no one has addressed the question on why we need to mandate that a viable fetus not have a shot at survival just because a pregnant woman does not want to carry it.

Like I said, I'm personally pro-life. I'm also more in favor of civil liberties than I am of government control. I get that some people are anti-drug (and thus pro-terrorism), but I'd like to see the war on drugs end completely. I would fall on the side of less restrictions than more.

But I just can't see the idea that late term abortion -- and IDX in particular -- is justifiable. If you want to terminate the pregnancy early that should be a whole separate issue if the fetus is viable. Go ahead and end the pregnancy, but why the fuck not give the fetus a chance on its own?

There's a disconnect there between the number of children born in this country looking to be adopted and those seeking to adopt. Which makes me wonder why so many people are choosing to get their children from third world countries, is it because it's easier? I would really love to see Brad and Angelina get their next baby from the US.

I am not a fan of late term abortion unless there is a risk to the mother but anything up to the first 3 or 4 months should be legal. Not being a woman I can't comment on how hard it would be to actually give up your baby for adoption once it's born. It may in fact, be harder for some women having gone through the birth and seeing the baby to give it up rather than never get to that level of involvement, i.e. early termination.

That is a question that needs to be factored into the equation here.

 

[Moonbeam]

Every child should get a million dollars at birth and a free education on how to manage money.

 

[DerekWilson]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
The adoption vs. abortion myth

Abortions down 25% from peak

Nationwide, 87% of counties have no abortion services ...

Some of the biggest drops in the abortion rate, however, have come in states that do not impose tight restrictions.

Oregon, for instance, was rated this week by Americans United for Life as the nation's "least pro-life state," yet its abortion rate dropped 25% from 2000 to 2005 -- more than any state except Wyoming.

California also was ranked hostile territory by Americans United for Life, but its abortion rate fell 13%, significantly more than the national average.

An Overview of Abortion in the United States
From Guttmacher

Nine in 10 abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

About half of American women have experienced an unintended pregnancy, and at current rates more than one-third (35%) will have had an abortion by age 45.

Overall unintended pregnancy rates have stagnated over the past decade, yet unintended pregnancy increased by 29% among poor women while decreasing 20% among higher-income women.

By Race - 2004

White - 52.6%
Black - 35.3%

this has nothing to do with what I'm getting at ...

and the adoption vs. abortion myth simply states that there isn't a causal link between increasing adoption and decreasing abortion rates. which would say nothing about what would happen if we allowed late term pregnancy termination on the condition that the pregnant woman relinquish the child for adoption if the fetus survived and didn't require that the brain be sucked out before extraction.

 

[DerekWilson]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
For all those saying people should adopt all the unwanted children before we bring more into the world ... that's almost as idealistic as I am

For better or worse, children do have a hard time finding homes. It would be nice if more people had big enough hearts, homes, and enough money to handle adopting foster children and showing them the love they deserve. But that's a whole different issue.

On top of that, newborn babies do not have a hard time finding a home and it's the potential adoptive parents who are on the waiting lists. There is no lack of homes for these children especially when you take into account this next point.

This conversation was never about abortion in general. It's about late term abortion. It's about why it's necessary to make sure that the fetus has no chance of surviving outside the womb before it's removed. Late term abortions are sought less frequently than other abortions and there would be no massive influx of children if we simply tried to provide the fetus with a chance to live after a woman has decided to terminate a pregnancy after ~24 weeks.

Again, no one has addressed the question on why we need to mandate that a viable fetus not have a shot at survival just because a pregnant woman does not want to carry it.

Like I said, I'm personally pro-life. I'm also more in favor of civil liberties than I am of government control. I get that some people are anti-drug (and thus pro-terrorism), but I'd like to see the war on drugs end completely. I would fall on the side of less restrictions than more.

But I just can't see the idea that late term abortion -- and IDX in particular -- is justifiable. If you want to terminate the pregnancy early that should be a whole separate issue if the fetus is viable. Go ahead and end the pregnancy, but why the fuck not give the fetus a chance on its own?

There's a disconnect there between the number of children born in this country looking to be adopted and those seeking to adopt. Which makes me wonder why so many people are choosing to get their children from third world countries, is it because it's easier? I would really love to see Brad and Angelina get their next baby from the US.

I am not a fan of late term abortion unless there is a risk to the mother but anything up to the first 3 or 4 months should be legal. Not being a woman I can't comment on how hard it would be to actually give up your baby for adoption once it's born. It may in fact, be harder for some women having gone through the birth and seeing the baby to give it up rather than never get to that level of involvement, i.e. early termination.

That is a question that needs to be factored into the equation here.

this disconnect is that there are too many parents waiting to adopt infants and not enough infants up for adoption. Notice brad and angelina didn't adopt 10 year old foster kids. they adopted babies. That's why people look over seas -- there aren't enough infants up for adoption in the US.

Sure, it'd be great if people were more willing to become parents to older children, but that is a totally different issue.

all proposed laws against late term abortion include a clause that states it may still be performed if there is a life threatening situation where it's warranted. I don't have a problem with this, but I still doubt there's any situation in which early delivery wouldn't be the same as abortion.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
I was just looking around at candidate's positions on stuff when I realized that every single democrat running in the primaries is in favor of allowing late term abortion.

What the fuck is up with that. Seriously.

If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy and the baby is potentially viable, why not just terminate the *pregnancy* early and see if the baby can survive in the NICU for someone to adopt? Why do we have to suck the brains out before removing the fetus?

Tho I am pro-life, I can understand the argument that a woman should have a right to chose whether she carries a baby to term. I support the morning after pill / etc. I think there should be some leeway for abortion in rape/incest cases. I totally agree that a doctor and patient should have the ability to make the best uninhibited decision about how to handle medical issues. But I don't see how determining to terminate a pregnancy early *requires* that the fetus not survive.

But why should the woman even want or care to chose what the doctor does with the fetus once it is removed. If it is viable, it is its own life at that point and doesn't need to be a concern of the woman. How is it not just a way to avoid knowing you spawned someone and having to live with that? Why would a woman even want the responsibility of making a decision to remove any chance of survival a fetus might have had even if she wants to terminate the pregnancy?

If the abortion is because of an abnormality in the fetus, again, why not let it be born and see how it does either in the parent's hands or in the hands of someone else who would care for it?

I'm not trying to sound as indignant as I'm coming across ... I actually do want some answers because I'm just so confused as to how this is even something to debate.

I think its completely a liability and cost issue. Who decides what is viable all of a sudden? Do you 'birth' the unwanted baby at the time the mother wants, then spend tens (hundreds) of thousands of dollars on medical care for a baby that has almost no chance of survival specifically because you have purposely made it that way by inducing early labor? That seems like a colossal waste of resources for a logically disconnected aim.

The only rational stances I can see to take in this situation is to either impart the babies no specialized medical care beyond what is normally given (fat chance), or force the mother to carry the baby to term and give birth to it. (huge rights violation) Killing the fetus before it comes out is certainly a bit of covering our eyes for convenience, but it prevents us from having to act retardedly and wasting gigantic piles of money by in effect lighting our own house on fire and then spending tons of money to put it out.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Killing the fetus before it comes out is certainly a bit of covering our eyes for convenience, but it prevents us from having to act retardedly and wasting gigantic piles of money by in effect lighting our own house on fire and then spending tons of money to put it out.

Kinda like the egregious amounts of money we spend on death row inmates that may or may not ever actually get executed..

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Where is DMcowen saying "Save the cells! Save the cells!" ?

Baby not born = no rights
no rights = not human

So really, those who support abortion should be fine with abortions up to a minute before birth.

Why not kill the baby during birth? Not yet born. "up to a minute before birth" is rather baseless.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Killing the fetus before it comes out is certainly a bit of covering our eyes for convenience, but it prevents us from having to act retardedly and wasting gigantic piles of money by in effect lighting our own house on fire and then spending tons of money to put it out.

Kinda like the egregious amounts of money we spend on death row inmates that may or may not ever actually get executed..

No, not at all actually. That's a horrible comparison.

Of course this is largely dependant on the week that the fetus is in, but if we follow Derek's logic we are going to be deliberately placing the baby in a situation where it will be extremely likely to need massive medical care in order to survive, costing many thousands of dollars. So we are placing ourselves in this situation and then having to dig ourselves out of a massive hole. That's not very logical.

I was going to type you out a long thing on the purpose of the death penalty appeals process, and the means by which it ensures social stability, but then I realized that you wouldn't care anyway because your opinion is not based on those sorts of things. Don't you have an anti global warming thread to be making?

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I was going to type you out a long thing on the purpose of the death penalty appeals process, and the means by which it ensures social stability, but then I realized that you wouldn't care anyway because your opinion is not based on those sorts of things.

Does that work like the appeals process the unborn child has? Like the appeals process the father of the unborn child has?

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Don't you have an anti global warming thread to be making?

I would, but my hands are too cold to type with the cold weather we've been having. :moon:

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Why not kill the baby during birth? Not yet born. "up to a minute before birth" is rather baseless.

You do have a point. The "abortion care" industry could create a new licensed abortion mallet assistant. The assistant waits for the baby's head to pop out and then strikes it with a big mallet before the baby has a chance to take its first breath. No breath = not a human = no rights.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I was going to type you out a long thing on the purpose of the death penalty appeals process, and the means by which it ensures social stability, but then I realized that you wouldn't care anyway because your opinion is not based on those sorts of things.

Does that work like the appeals process the unborn child has? Like the appeals process the father of the unborn child has?

No of course not, why would an unborn child have an appeals process? What are you trying to appeal, the verdict that it is in fact an unborn child? You are deliberately ignoring the purpose of the death penalty appeals process. That argument isn't even coherant, much less persuasive.

Oh, and I'm glad to see you're sticking with the old 'it's cold outside today so global warming isn't happening' argument. It fits in nicely with this abortion one in terms of incoherance.