Fetal heartbeat and the abortion fight - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15005896
The trigger wrote:Sunttuz yes suntzu you are correct the heart will beat 4 to 10 min after death. In some cases but the mind also functions to a degree but its flooded with a strong hallucinogenic drug before death .
But that has nothing to do with a fetas

Next skinster sorry but the father has a right to imput . its his child to.
Sadly there is no way to know who the father is till little ones come out at least that I know of .


I would hope most women could narrow it down to two or three but after watching Jerry Springer . . . :lol:

The heart develops well before the brain. The brain actually starts functioning around quickening (16 weeks) when the fetus starts moving.

Most of this is academic. Abortion laws will only stop safe abortion. With the advent of drugs like RU-486, the genie is out of the bottle. No law will stop abortion.
#15005921
SpecialOlympian wrote:YOU CAN'T SPELL REPUBLICAN
WITHOUT RAPE


American ends in "I can."
Republican ends in "I can."
Democrats ends in "rats."

Republicans are happier than Democrats.
Republicans give more to family, friends, churches, secular organizations, donate more of their time and blood than Democrats.
Republicans are more likely to be married and heterosexual than Democrats.

http://DemocratsBigLies.blogspot.com
#15005924
snapdragon wrote:There no mothers or fathers until a child is born alive.


Tell that to a beautiful mother with a bulging belly. Her baby kicks her throughout the day.
The child is alive and kicking, with a heartbeat, just as you were.
Why has nobody had the courage to indicate the precise second on the timeline I drew where you claim you can destroy the life on the left side, but it is a human on the right? One person said you should be able to murder your child until they are 18. Would she have supported her father's right to murder her at age 12, to save money ?
#15005927
MrWonderful wrote:Tell that to a beautiful mother with a bulging belly. Her baby kicks her throughout the day.
The child is alive and kicking, with a heartbeat, just as you were.
Why has nobody had the courage to indicate the precise second on the timeline I drew where you claim you can destroy the life on the left side, but it is a human on the right? One person said you should be able to murder your child until they are 18. Would she have supported her father's right to murder her at age 12, to save money ?


Basically the SCOTUS said 24 weeks. For most states it is now 20. Over 90% of abortions take place before 12. Quickening is around 16 weeks. I have not heard of a premature birth before 20 weeks that has survived.
#15005940
MrWonderful wrote:Why has nobody had the courage to indicate the precise second on the timeline I drew where you claim you can destroy the life on the left side, but it is a human on the right?


In Canada, where I live, a woman can have an abortion at any time during the pregnancy. Even the day before her due date, if she wishes.

So I guess I would draw the line at nine months.

But this does not mean that the fetus is not a human being. Whether or not the fetus is a person is irrelevant.
#15005942
Pants-of-dog wrote:In Canada, where I live, a woman can have an abortion at any time during the pregnancy. Even the day before her due date, if she wishes.

So I guess I would draw the line at nine months.

But this does not mean that the fetus is not a human being. Whether or not the fetus is a person is irrelevant.


Whether or not a slave is a person you would also say is "irrelevant," correct? After all, slavery was "legal" and you support immoral acts so long as they are permitted by contemporary law.
Tell me, when Sharia becomes "the law" in Canada, will you support the stoning of women for adultery? The beating of women with sticks of appropriate size? Four wives per man?
#15005947
MrWonderful wrote:Whether or not a slave is a person you would also say is "irrelevant," correct? After all, slavery was "legal" and you support immoral acts so long as they are permitted by contemporary law.


No, I would support abortion at any t8me for the woman even if the laws were so archaic as to limit it.

Tell me, when Sharia becomes "the law" in Canada, will you support the stoning of women for adultery? The beating of women with sticks of appropriate size? Four wives per man?


No, I am not conservative and religious.
#15005957
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, I would support abortion at any t8me for the woman even if the laws were so archaic as to limit it.



Roe v. Wade was argued based on Norma McCorvey's lie that she had been raped. That was perjured testimony. Countless legal cases are overturned when perjured testimony is discovered. What is "archaic" is brutally murdering innocent, unborn babies, by immersing them in poison salt solutions, burning their skin, by spearing scissors into their skulls, spreading the scissors wide and then sticking a steel canula into their brains and aspirating them out. That is archaic. And you support it as if it were somehow enlightened.

World famous tenor, Andrea Bocelli, was born after his mother's doctor advised her to have an abortion because her baby had serious medical problems. The world is the better for her morality and courage. This situation is repeated again and again as children's abortions are botched and they are born.
#15005963
MrWonderful wrote:Roe v. Wade was argued based on Norma McCorvey's lie that she had been raped. That was perjured testimony. Countless legal cases are overturned when perjured testimony is discovered. What is "archaic" is brutally murdering innocent, unborn babies, by immersing them in poison salt solutions, burning their skin, by spearing scissors into their skulls, spreading the scissors wide and then sticking a steel canula into their brains and aspirating them out. That is archaic. And you support it as if it were somehow enlightened.

World famous tenor, Andrea Bocelli, was born after his mother's doctor advised her to have an abortion because her baby had serious medical problems. The world is the better for her morality and courage. This situation is repeated again and again as children's abortions are botched and they are born.


How dramatic and archaic. Most abortions (90% or so) are performed by taking a pill during the first trimester. There is little/no chance of a fetus surviving an abortion at 20 weeks.
#15005970
MrWonderful wrote:Roe v. Wade was argued based on Norma McCorvey's lie that she had been raped. That was perjured testimony. Countless legal cases are overturned when perjured testimony is discovered.


Yes, I also think the SCOTUS should overturn all abortion laws in the USA.

What is "archaic" is brutally murdering innocent, unborn babies, by immersing them in poison salt solutions, burning their skin, by spearing scissors into their skulls, spreading the scissors wide and then sticking a steel canula into their brains and aspirating them out. That is archaic. And you support it as if it were somehow enlightened.

World famous tenor, Andrea Bocelli, was born after his mother's doctor advised her to have an abortion because her baby had serious medical problems. The world is the better for her morality and courage. This situation is repeated again and again as children's abortions are botched and they are born.


Are you an organ donor?
#15005978
MrWonderful wrote:Tell that to a beautiful mother with a bulging belly. Her baby kicks her throughout the day.


I'd tell it to an ugly woman, too.

The child is alive and kicking, with a heartbeat, just as you were.


And? It's attached to the inside of a woman to the detriment of her health and well being.

If she wants it there, great. If not, she shouldn't be forced to keep it there.


Why has nobody had the courage to indicate the precise second on the timeline I drew where you claim you can destroy the life on the left side, but it is a human on the right?


It's always human.

It's not a person, however, until it has been born alive and is no longer attached to the inside of a woman.
In other words, it's able to function at the same basic level as all people, even if they do need the help of medical science to stay alive.

That is the point when a foetus becomes a person and killing it deliberately would be murder.

One person said you should be able to murder your child until they are 18. Would she have supported her father's right to murder her at age 12, to save money ?


Dunno. That person wasn't me.
#15005985
The sheer immorality of people that suggest sexual restrain just beggars belief in me. If I was capable of objecting to it, I would be very unhappy being aborted. But if I was capable of objecting to it, I would be even more angry about my parents practising restraint and not concieving me in the first place. In the first at least I get the chance of getting to second base. As the old saying goes it is better to have been conceived and lost than it is never to have been conceived at all.

Now I'm not a pro choice fanatic. I'm a pro choice moderate. I believe in some circumstances the right of decision should be taken out of the hands of the woman and abortion should be compulsory. Its said we pro choice / pro abortion should take So called pro life poeple's views in good faith. No absolutist morality is always, I repeat always, hypocritical.

One issue that particularly exercised me was the sanctions against Iraq. It was calculated that this led to the deaths of well over a million people including over half a million children. it was according to the U.N's own humanitarian coordinator for Iraq tantamount to genocide. I can listen and the message I got loud and clear, from the overwhelming majority of citizens of the United States (and most of the other countries party to the sanctions) was "We couldn't give a fuck." "We absolutely couldn't give a fuck."

So I treat your bleatings about abortion with total and utter contempt. We choose who we give rights to. And rights for one group always come at a cost. I support us giving rights to children, but don't lets pretend that they don't come at a huge price in interference by the state. So when people obsess on the unborn child, they are making a choice. And it is always a conscious or unconscious choice to disguise one's lack of care for the lives of other groups.
Last edited by Rich on 20 May 2019 08:21, edited 1 time in total.
#15006001
Snapdragon said: There no mothers or fathers until a child is born alive.


Wrong. And this is why pro choice people lose argument so freaking often. People are parents when they decide to be. The father who decides to support his pregnant girlfriend is a parent. When they buy the baby furniture they are parents. People are parents when they decide to act like them. There are may people who possess the results of live births who are not "parents".


It's much easier if you take that into consideration when arguing abortion, or parental rights of any description, to avoid muddying the waters.


Avoid muddying the waters? :lol: Every state has murder laws that apply to someone who assaults a woman and kills the unborn child. They are fucking muddy enough already without your simple stuff.

Also, adoption is not an alernative to abortion, but to keeping or giving away your born child.


Nonsense. It is a decision that is frequently made before birth. You are making these absurd statements to try to dehumanize the child and denigrate the seriousness with which people take pregnancy and the birthing of children.

Let me play with you. If the fetus deserves no consideration at all until born then why does my tax money go to paying for medical care for it. If the responsibility for a child does not begin until birth and it is only the inanimate property of the woman in whom it is stored then I want my tax money back.

Abortion is an alternative to going through pregnancy and giving birth - which is a life changing, body changing, mind altering experience for women.


So, frequently is the act of having an abortion. You may personally believe that a fetus is no more important than a marble but I can assure you most people (men and women) do not.

Men don't need to risk their health or even their lives to become a parent, whereas women do.


Women don't need to risk their lives to become Americans free from invasion and men do. What is your point? But if they fear their health or even their lives they can do what I would advocate men do and not have sex until they are mature enough to accept the consequences.


Due to modern medical advances, pregnancy and childbirth is relatively safe in western countries these days, but nothing is taken for granted.


Not in the US and not for poor women it is not.

Women are carefully monitored throughout and for some time afterwards.


Not in America for poor women they are not.


There is no right or wrong time during pregnancy to have an abortion.


I disagree. And so do most doctors and the overwhelming (more than 90%) of Americans. Late term abortions are abhorrent and only to be contemplated in the most extreme conditions. Killing viable children is killing children in the opinion of the vast majority of people in the world. You may be fine with it but then you may be fine with giving them 72 hours after birth to decide whether to kill it or not. What is the difference?

It's much safer and easier to terminate earlier rather than later, but not always possible for various reasons which are none of our business.


It is safer to a tiny extent. You just argued how safe pregnancy is. Then not. Then is. Make up you mind. Safety has nothing to do with this at all. There are no reasons whatsoever why a late term abortion is necessary when earlier would not have been better. A developed condition that threatens the life of the mother or the discovery of severe birth defects are the only conceivable justifications for late term abortion. The mere fact that a woman changed her mind and finds having a child inconvenient is NOT a good reason to kill a viable child.



Abortion is a valid part of women's reproductive healthcare and should be treated as such.


Correct. So is the amputation of a leg. Neither is to be take lightly.

I might not approve of a woman who terminates a pregnancy for what I consider a frivolous reason, but she doesn't, and shouldn't, need my approval.


If it is late term she should not need my permission either. It should only be an option for her if her life is in severe danger. If she wants to give it away after birth because she can't be bothered to keep it then fine. But to kill it at none months? Nope. That is murder.
#15006052
Drlee wrote:Wrong. And this is why pro choice people lose argument so freaking often. People are parents when they decide to be. The father who decides to support his pregnant girlfriend is a parent. When they buy the baby furniture they are parents. People are parents when they decide to act like them. There are may people who possess the results of live births who are not "parents".



I'm talking legally and biologically. You can call yourself whatever you want, but until you have a child that was born alive you aren't a parent.


Avoid muddying the waters? :lol: Every state has murder laws that apply to someone who assaults a woman and kills the unborn child. They are fucking muddy enough already without your simple stuff.


Which is wrong, isn't it? It's pretty shameful to equate the murder of a born child to the loss of an embryo. I'm glad we don't have that law in the UK.

Nonsense. It is a decision that is frequently made before birth. You are making these absurd statements to try to dehumanize the child and denigrate the seriousness with which people take pregnancy and the birthing of children.


It is a decision that cannot be made before birth. It isn't possible to give up an embryo or foetus for adoption.


Let me play with you. If the fetus deserves no consideration at all until born then why does my tax money go to paying for medical care for it. If the responsibility for a child does not begin until birth and it is only the inanimate property of the woman in whom it is stored then I want my tax money back.


Your tax money goes towards caring for the pregnant woman, just as my tax money goes towards caring for people who've broken their legs when skate boarding, for example.

That is how it goes.


So, frequently is the act of having an abortion. You may personally believe that a fetus is no more important than a marble but I can assure you most people (men and women) do not.


Which is their choice, but I wouldn't say most. Not by a long shot, judging by the number of abortions that are carried out every year in the US and elsewhere.


Women don't need to risk their lives to become Americans free from invasion and men do. What is your point? But if they fear their health or even their lives they can do what I would advocate men do and not have sex until they are mature enough to accept the consequences.



The consequences of having sex could be an unwanted pregnancy.

Women have the ability to end it. That is one way of taking responsibility for the consequences.


Not in the US and not for poor women it is not.


Which is shameful



Not in America for poor women they are not.


Again, that is shameful.



I disagree. And so do most doctors and the overwhelming (more than 90%) of Americans. Late term abortions are abhorrent and only to be contemplated in the most extreme conditions. Killing viable children is killing children in the opinion of the vast majority of people in the world. You may be fine with it but then you may be fine with giving them 72 hours after birth to decide whether to kill it or not. What is the difference?



The only opinion that matters is that of the pregnant woman. Killing a baby after its been born would be murder - and I'm not fine with people being murdered, or killed, for any reason other than self defence.


It is safer to a tiny extent. You just argued how safe pregnancy is. Then not. Then is. Make up you mind. Safety has nothing to do with this at all. There are no reasons whatsoever why a late term abortion is necessary when earlier would not have been better. A developed condition that threatens the life of the mother or the discovery of severe birth defects are the only conceivable justifications for late term abortion. The mere fact that a woman changed her mind and finds having a child inconvenient is NOT a good reason to kill a viable child.



Then There is no need for you, or anyone else, to do it.



Correct. So is the amputation of a leg. Neither is to be take lightly.


And not against the wishes of the owner of the leg.


If it is late term she should not need my permission either. It should only be an option for her if her life is in severe danger. If she wants to give it away after birth because she can't be bothered to keep it then fine. But to kill it at none months? Nope. That is murder.


Abortion isn't and has never been murder.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 22
The Popular Vote...

First, I'm defending the system because it works.[…]

Antifa again demonstrates its undemocratic nature

If you can show where I've said anything about mu[…]

EU-BREXIT

The illib undems just had guy vernosestud over sa[…]

You can believe in religion and have socialist va[…]