Late Term Abortion = Kill Newborns with Scissors

I give a shit. Really.

Neat. So will banning abortion make all of that go away? Are you going to deal with those barriers before you get in the way of abortions, and not simply make token gestures in that direction after the fact?

Maybe not, but your right to my wallet is fucking nonexistent.

Did you try foster care first? I've known several people over the years that fostered kids that they later adopted and adoptees who'd gone into foster care first and had later been adopted.

What are the expenses involved in the USA for adopting children?

That logic can be applied to everyone if we are applying it to late term abortions.

In my opinion there are consequences for having sex even when you use protection. If you get pregnant suffer the consequences of your decision. If you arent capable of raising a child then put it up for adoption. There are plenty of people out there who love a child.

What this asshole did was murder, pure and simple. Late-term and partial birth abortions are also murder if the fetus can survive outside of the body. I hope the fucker gets shanked in prison.

However, I have no issue with abortion in general ss long as it's done in the first trimester. The fetus can't survive out of the womb at that stage, so it's not a human being.

Anything beyond the first trimester is pushing it. I support a woman's right to choose, but I also support a cut-off date. If you can't make up your mind in the first three months that you're going to go full term or not, then you're shit out of luck and you're having a baby, wanted or not.

How can you be so resolute on one point and so... spineless on another point, black dove?

Would this apply to killing people on Welfare? Should killing them be legal unless you want to pay for them?

Yes extreme side of your argument, but the logic is the same.

Oh do feel free to go fuck yourself you self-righteous dickhead. I stated my position, and I was resolute on both points. If you don't like my position, too fucking bad!

An astronaut can't survive without a capsule/spacesuit. Would you advocate that astronauts aren't human when they are in orbit? Them old-tymey divers can't survive if someone shuts off the pump on the surface. Would that not be murder?

I didn't realize minorities, immigrants and poor women had any special rights to murder innocent babies.

Then again, if I had a problem with minorities, immigrants and poor women I'd probably think it a good idea to slaughter their offspring.

Tell me again: Who's incoherent?

I don't disagree, but you don't have to go along with that mindset to call a spade a spade in this instance. You can proactively oppose this kind of behavior without endorsing a halt to abortions. In fact, that you've got your head screwed on straight on the issue, your support for prohibition of this sort of practice is most important, because you understand that you dont throw the baby out with the bathwater (yeah....I went there ).

Look at it however you want, here is the correct sequence of events:

1) Find a solution to unwanted babies that covers all of them, and without burdening the taxpayers.
2) Find a way of gestating a fetus to viable infancy artificially, without burdening the taxpayers.
3) Outlaw abortion.

You do not get to skip to #3 just because that's the one that gives you a raging sanctimony boner.

Do you know what a "false choice" is?

I'm perfectly willing to hold parents responsible for the care of their kids. And I'm thinking that by the end of the first year of enforcement the unwanted pregnancy rate would be significantly lower.

Right, so why doncha?

Sure I do. Let's hear a third alternative that's not a load of sanctimonious bullshit. One that isn't either mainly geared towards punishing women for promiscuity or another bloated fantasyland entitlement program to leech off of the taxpayers.

Great. Bring that solution to fruition, then we can talk about abortion.

The astronauts are adults. Zygotes are tissue.

You're analogy is a heap o' FAIL!

No, your justification is fail. :|

I'm thinking that when you're saying "you", you're speaking generally and not about me, because it doesn't apply. Scold someone else, if that's what you're doing.

That said, the issue needs to be spun a different way from a pro-choice point of view. In fact, the designation "pro-choice" should be done away with, for the sake of clarity and common sense. This is a personal, privacy issue. The courts and the law have weighed in, and providing that the procedure doesn't entail what this SOB has done, it should remain that. It's not an issue for the community-at-large, nor for some lobby or special interest group. The moral intrusion which is embraced by those who advocate prohibition should make even them hold their noses. If ever there were a "slippery slope" issue, this one is right at the top.

Why people fail to see that, or ignore the foreseeable consequences, is beyond me.

The average is around $25,000.

About 7,000 of that is in the average legal fee for a lawyer to get you through the paperwork.

Another 7-9,000 is in what amounts to a background check that you have to pay the state to conduct on you.

The rest is various miscellaneous expenses.

And of course on top of that.

You have to pay for the birth of the child itself and any care related to that.

I'm sorry, but anyone who can honestly say they "support the opening of a baby's head with scissors and severing the spinal cord while it is for all intents and purposes, "alive," just not completely out of the mother" so we can't legally call it alive is a psychopath dancing around the semantics tree. The only kind of person who could perform a procedure like this is a sadist. Do you really want sadists to have licenses to be medical doctors?

Astronauts aren't made of the same biological material the unborn are?

Your comparisons bore me, and I don't feel like playing anymore.

First-trimester abortion doesn't bother me one bit. Call it murder or not, I really don't give a fuck.

That sounds more like doing the surrogate route.

I was saying what their side of the debate says. I'm anti-abortion, period. The only time I would even consider abortion ok is if the mother will die otherwise or if the child will be born with severe quality-of-life birth defects. (chalk that up to a mercy killing). Otherwise, it's murder in my mind.

Hmmmm.....

From reading this thread and a few others, it seems that UA has had a partial return to form. Although he isn't the raging misanthropic asshole he used to be, this 2011 version is better than the neutered 2010 version I read several months ago. Picking fights with his "It's Albert's world and nobody else is living in it" routine provides some nice nostalgia.

BTW, where's Mrs. A?

I agree. I don't really know why but the first trimester abortion just doesn't bother me.

Abortion keeps the crime rate down. Guess it's one of those unplanned results that comes with keeping it legal.

I remember reading that in a book.

Was it "freakonomics" or something like that?

I never bought into the reasoning on that and a lot of things the author maintains.

The book was one hell of a lot of "coincidence means causation".

It's no coincidence. Fewer children who grow up in an environment that is more likely to breed criminals will result in fewer crimes.

Dear Dr. Gosnell, if this isn't already your ringtone...well, you know...

[YT=Two! Minutes!!...]L75ikjK1vaI[/yt]

Uh huh.

Do you have evidence that an aborted child is more likely to grow up in an environment that breeds criminals?