# Prosecutor discusses legal consequences of outlawing abortion and "fetal personhood"



## TemjinStrife (Nov 3, 2012)

Fetal personhood and criminalizing abortion: a prosecutor&#8217;s perspective « the dead authors club

Absolutely worthwhile read. Even if you are ardently anti-choice, it is worth looking at simply to evaluate the consequences of your policies.


----------



## YngwieJ (Nov 3, 2012)

> "exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother... the bottom line is that this position is pro-choice. A person who takes this position is acknowledging that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy. What we are actually quibbling about here is who gets to decide when the womans reason is good enough."



This quote caught my attention early on. What a great article. The writer raised a lot of questions from a prosecutor's standpoint that I would never consider asking. So thank you for sharing that.

There's an editorial on NYT I recently read, where the author explains what "pro-life" means to him, and explains why he considers himself pro-life. He puts forward some pretty compelling points. It's fairly relevant so I thought I'd leave it here.
Why I Am Pro-Life - NYTimes.com


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Nov 3, 2012)

> And one more thing. Stop with the pandering bullshit about &#8220;small government.&#8221; Because no person who seeks to require government officials to be involved in litigation over the fertility of the uteruses of all of the women who reside in their jurisdictions can credibly claim to be a proponent of small government.



Bam.


----------



## rectifryer (Nov 3, 2012)

^^^ Yes that was brilliant.


----------



## renzoip (Nov 3, 2012)

Since we are already on this note, I also found this interesting and relevant:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html


----------



## myampslouder (Nov 3, 2012)

A must read


----------



## Demiurge (Nov 3, 2012)

Great article. With all the politicians trying to play both sides of the issue, this is the first time I've seen an honest-to-goodness examination of what it would actually entail to have the rape/incest-only contingency in place.


----------



## Eric Christian (Nov 3, 2012)

*Bottom Line*

Regardless of conception the intentional destruction and removal of any human embryo or fetus from a mothers womb or artificial womb for that matter is homicidal murder. 

Abortion is murder and those who commit this crime will be judged and sentenced to a special area of Hell.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Nov 3, 2012)

Eric Christian said:


> *Bottom Line*
> 
> Regardless of conception the intentional destruction and removal of any human embryo or fetus from a mothers womb or artificial womb for that matter is homicidal murder.
> 
> Abortion is murder and those who commit this crime will be judged and sentenced to a special area of Hell.




So are miscarriages manslaughter?


----------



## TemjinStrife (Nov 3, 2012)

Eric Christian said:


> *Bottom Line*
> 
> Regardless of conception the intentional destruction and removal of any human embryo or fetus from a mothers womb or artificial womb for that matter is homicidal murder.
> 
> Abortion is murder and those who commit this crime will be judged and sentenced to a special area of Hell.



Great. Now, how would you deal with the policy concerns raised in this article?


----------



## highlordmugfug (Nov 3, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> Great. Now, how would you deal with the policy concerns raised in this article?


*Bottom Line*

He probably didn't read it.


----------



## Necris (Nov 3, 2012)

Eric Christian said:


> *Bottom Line*
> *
> Regardless of conception* the intentional destruction and removal of any human embryo or fetus from a mothers womb or artificial womb for that matter is homicidal murder.
> 
> Abortion is murder and those who commit this crime will be judged and sentenced to a special area of Hell.





> *
> Regardless of conception*





> *
> Regardless of conception *






> *
> Regardless of conception*




 I'm just going to leave that alone because what it implies is abhorrent.

Lets not forget for a moment that the vast majority of abortions occur long before this "human embryo" is recognizably human in form or even distinct from an that of another animal to the average person, before the pathways between the forming brain and the nerves in the limbs that would allow the fetus to feel pain have actually formed, and months before the fetus gains true sentience.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Nov 4, 2012)

For Mr. Christian, a quote from her follow-up post:

Ten Thousand Views, Six Continents, 67 Countries « the dead authors club



> I did stop posting opposition comments several days ago, although I broke my rule for the guy who represents the most extreme anti-abortion view, and who is perfectly comfortable with the idea of prosecuting rape victims for the termination of a pregnancy forcibly imposed upon a woman by a rapist. I suppose I should give him credit for being honest about his view that a sentence of life in prison for both doctor and woman is a perfectly reasonable societal response to a private medical procedure that terminates a pregnancy. He did not specify what sentence a man who facilitates the woman in getting the abortion would receive, but I think it is fair to say that he is probably fine with that individual also receiving a life sentence for conspiracy to commit murder. The rapist, on the other hand, would presumably receive a sentence that is far less severe.



Ironic, isn't it, that under your particular belief system, the rapist would receive less punishment than the doctor, the victim, and anyone who helped her receive an abortion, no?



> After I wrote the post, we had yet another Republican Congressional hopeful, from the State of Washington, make yet another offensive statement about rape victims. *It seems that there is an unlimited number of such candidates who are prepared to marginalize and minimize the impact of the crime of rape on rape victims by referring to it as &#8220;the rape thing&#8221; and contending, shockingly, that &#8220;crime has consequences.&#8221; While I agree that crime should have consequences, it is my position that those consequences should be visited upon the criminal not the victim.* Preferably in the form of long-term incarceration. I would note that never, in my career, or in my life, have I heard someone refer to a serious and violent physical assault as &#8220;that assault thing&#8221; or an armed robbery as &#8220;that stealing thing&#8221; in the context of dismissing the impact upon the person who has been assaulted or robbed.


----------



## YngwieJ (Nov 4, 2012)

Eric Christian said:


> *Bottom Line*
> 
> Regardless of conception the intentional destruction and removal of any human embryo or fetus from a mothers womb or artificial womb for that matter is homicidal murder.
> 
> Abortion is murder and those who commit this crime will be judged and sentenced to a special area of Hell.



Well if what you say is true, and that truly is their punishment, then there's no need for the US to prosecute them. We call that double jeopardy.


----------



## splinter8451 (Nov 4, 2012)

Eric Christian said:


> *Bottom Line*
> 
> Regardless of conception the intentional destruction and removal of any human embryo or fetus from a mothers womb or artificial womb for that matter is homicidal murder.
> 
> Abortion is murder and those who commit this crime will be judged and sentenced to a special area of Hell.



Please tell me you also believe that the female body can magically stop itself from getting pregnant if it is legitimate rape? 

And that a man built a ship large enough to house 2 of every animal on earth?

Bottom line: the government should not be telling people what to do with their bodies. Especially when the reasoning is based on a religion that not everyone shares.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Nov 4, 2012)

Eric Christian said:


> *Bottom Line*
> 
> Regardless of conception the intentional destruction and removal of any human embryo or fetus from a mothers womb or artificial womb for that matter is homicidal murder.
> 
> Abortion is murder and those who commit this crime will be judged and sentenced to a special area of Hell.



You should have been one.


----------



## YngwieJ (Nov 4, 2012)

Guitarman700 said:


> You should have been one.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying he should have been aborted. If that is your intention, you should really consider other people's opinions. It's okay to disagree with other people, but ad hominem attacks and insulting statements are not welcome here.

If that wasn't what you were trying to say, then I suggest you clarify your statement.


----------



## Demiurge (Nov 4, 2012)

Guitarman700 said:


> You should have been one.



That is a bit much. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but as the article asserts, people can think whatever they want but _at some point_ these positions need to be contemplated as enforceable laws. And that requires a little bit more logic, legal understanding, and empathy than many extreme positions allow.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Nov 4, 2012)

Demiurge said:


> That is a bit much. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but as the article asserts, people can think whatever they want but _at some point_ these positions need to be contemplated as enforceable laws. And that requires a little bit more logic, legal understanding, and empathy than many extreme positions allow.





We may disagree vehemently with his position, but that's no reason to tell someone that they don't deserve to live.


----------



## Spike Spiegel (Nov 4, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> We may disagree vehemently with his position, but that's no reason to tell someone that they don't deserve to live.



This 1000x


----------



## will_shred (Nov 4, 2012)

thanks a lot for posting this, that was a very refreshing read.


----------



## will_shred (Nov 4, 2012)

Eric Christian said:


> *Bottom Line*
> 
> Regardless of conception the intentional destruction and removal of any human embryo or fetus from a mothers womb or artificial womb for that matter is homicidal murder.
> 
> Abortion is murder and those who commit this crime will be judged and sentenced to a special area of Hell.



Yeah... It's kind of difficult to argue the whole damnation thing to an a non christian... 

But if your wife or daughter was raped then you'd want to keep and raise that kid correct? Even if it threatened their life. because, of course, it's gods plan.


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 4, 2012)

There are cases where not aborting the fetus would result in the mother's (and as a result, the fetus's) death. So you are damned if you do, damned if you don't. How do you argue this case? Do you save the living person or do you let both the living and the potential person die?


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Nov 4, 2012)

I disagree vehemently with his opinion. 
There are so many situations where having a child could ruin a person's life. I mean, do you remember having being an embryo? You can pull the plug on someone who's permanently in a coma, because they forever lack the state of consciousness. But it's bad to kill life that is only developing?


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 4, 2012)

Why don't people just leave woman alone and let them decide if they want to have an abortion or not? You really aren't killing anything at all before a certain amount of months in anyways. I dont see why this is such a hot-button issue. 

Oh well, just let these baby-boomers die off then watch the world get better at an exponentially better rate


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 4, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Why don't people just leave woman alone and let them decide if they want to have an abortion or not?



BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAID SO.

I blame it on the fact that some people are just so against something, they feel it needs to be outlawed, even if it doesn't affect their life.

Pretty common thing with gay marriage. Some people say they don't like it because they say it goes against the sanctity of marriage, when truthfully, they just think it's icky.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 4, 2012)

Eric Christian said:


> *Bottom Line*
> 
> Regardless of conception the intentional destruction and removal of any human embryo or fetus from a mothers womb or artificial womb for that matter is homicidal murder.
> 
> Abortion is murder and those who commit this crime will be judged and sentenced to a special area of Hell.



1/3 of all pregnancies end prematurely by nature, since you have a god controlling everything, is he not in that case the greatest abortionist of all?


And yeah, even how much you'd want it, threatening people without your faith with hell is generally not very a fruitful endeavour.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 4, 2012)

Just like trying to control people that don't believe in the same religion as you. Its wrong.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Nov 4, 2012)

Trying to change another person's ability to make a choice because your religion doesn't allow you to is all this is. 
I'll probably get hated on by some for this, but i believe that freedom of religion should also come with the addition of, if it's against your religion and you don't like it, shut the fuck up about it. Because if it wasn't for that law, you might not be able to practice your religion in the first place.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 4, 2012)

Yup exactly.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 4, 2012)

Eric Christian said:


> *Bottom Line*
> 
> Regardless of conception the intentional destruction and removal of any human embryo or fetus from a mothers womb or artificial womb for that matter is homicidal murder.
> 
> Abortion is murder and those who commit this crime will be judged and sentenced to a special area of Hell.



This is a discussion that could be on repeat and never end. The majority of people who are 100% pro life are probably religious as well so there is no talking sense into them. Even when the facts say otherwise, that just matters not to them.

Lets take it a step further, lets say that abortion was murder so said person has the baby. According to the same people that would say abortion is murder probably think that having a child is a personal responsibility or burden as well, but that cannot be true because responsibility is chosen and I don't think anyone chooses to be raped. If you did not choose to have intercourse can it possibly be your responsibility for the outcome. If I get in a taxi and someone steals it and then the driver won't pull over am I responsible for his crime of evading the police and endangering citizens? Is a hostage responsible for a bank robbery? I imagine most people would say no.

Logically it is all ludicrous. We are overpopulated and religious people also seem to disagree with contraception so I guess Christians ultimately want to move in with their neighbors. Makes being nosy a little easier.  

Next part is the fact that I imagine abortions typically happen in more poverty stricken demographics and children under the age of 18. Another child in their hands will certainly not improve their (or the childs) financial situation or what they can contribute to society. Which means that to support their child they will most likely need some form of welfare which is hard enough to accomplish given how little taxes these people supporting such an opinion typically want to pay. (assuming they completely got their way)

So if we sum up this position it is anti-abortion, anti-welfare, anti-tax and some even against contraception. Why don't they just admit they want the poor to suffer and are trying to breed more people for the McDonald's staff so they don't have to wait as long in the line and move on with their lives. (No disrespect to those working such jobs)

/rant

Their position is definitely not small government.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 4, 2012)

Reminds me of some picture I saw awhile back... Saying that most pro-lifers are more on the line of "pro-birthers" since they care mostly about the child being born, but couldn't give two fucks about it being taken care of.

But I'm pretty much saying what Flint is saying.


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 5, 2012)

Well as a person that has actually lost a kid (my ex-fiancee was preggers for a few months), I can say that it is painful as shit to go through. A lot of the pro-lifers get this weird idea that pro-choicers enjoy seeing kids die or something. Like we have this weird black mass and sacrifice unborn babies to satan or some other moronic crap. Regardless of who you are, if you have any kind of paternal/maternal instincts at all, you will grieve harder than if you lost a parent or a sibling. Because it really is a part of you that dies. But there are times and situations where having a kid is just not feasible. I do get mad when people just opt for abortion because "accidents happen", but I also try to see what kind of life a kid would have if they had irresponsible parents like that. I sure as hell wouldn't wanna see yet another kid grow up in a shitty dysfunctional home and either turn to a life of crime, or have to deal with emotional scars and issues for the rest of it's life. 
Then of course in cases of rape, incest, and/or the life of the mother, it's a given imo. There is no "God's Will" to someone forcing themselves onto another human being. That shit is just evil. 
But I can tell you, even when a mother does elect for abortion, the emotional hell they undergo is not something I'd wish on my worst enemy. Why make it any worse with the "You're going to hell and God hates you" bullshit? Because you feel they deserve it? I sure as fuck did not deserve to lose my son, I can assure you of that.


----------



## Eric Christian (Nov 16, 2012)

If you're reading this then you were once an embryo and fetus that was nurtured and cared for in your mothers womb. Someone loved you with all their heart and thought you were special enough to brought into the world. No matter how a person was created I honestly believe no innocent human life is a worthless piece of trash to be discarded. I understand the principle behind terminating a life because of incest or rape. However two wrongs don't make a right. I don't think everyone sees the big picture clearly actually. Carrying the baby to full term and adoption is the logical decision. Of course this story is only designed to provoke a reaction to further the "Pro-Choice" agenda. 

Despite all the derogatory comments directed at me plus all the profanity laced anonymous neggs I think everyone here knows deep down inside that the "thing" residing in a pregnant woman's womb not a gelatinous glob of quivering goo its an actual person that is protected by the Constitution regardless of the circumstances regarding his/her conception. I also think that any person of sane mind that isn't a sociopath realizes that violently terminating the life of any innocent person regardless of their age has ramifications that may include punishment in the afterlife. Certainly abortion "providers" and the women who get them have to live with their bad decisions for the rest of their lives. This is a living purgatory I'm sure. 

That said being "Pro-Choice" is a very illogical and hypocritical thought process. On one hand we worship and cherish the unborn baby with 3D Ultrasounds and the father talking to the unborn baby through the mothers tummy. The mother goes through the ritualistic behavior of preparing a room for the new baby while the father and the entire family waits day by day in anticipation for the day the new person will arrive. This is normal behavior. Then on the other hand we have the another house right down the street where another young lady who likes to go out to clubs and sleep with different men every weekend. Shes now 2 months late for her period and takes a pregnancy test which turns positive. Now for example several months go by and shes 6 months pregnant. Then lets say one of two things happen. 

First scenario she gets physically assaulted one night while shes walking home. This results in a miscarriage. A Policeman witnesses the assault, arrests the individual and he is charged with murder. In the second scenario that same day she decides to get an abortion. So who is charged with murder in this case of infanticide? 

Its my thoughts that everyone should take the time to read more about the multi-million dollar abortion industry. I think you'd be interested to know that over 3000 people are exterminated every day in the USA. You might also find it interesting that abortions are disproportionately performed on women of color and this is part of a eugenics agenda specifically designed and engineered by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. 

Some interesting things you might also want to check out is the fact that after the abortion is performed the real money is made from sale of the fetal tissue.That's right. Due to pesky International, Federal, State and Local laws regarding the sale of human body parts the aborted babies are instantly deemed to be "medical waste" which then has to be disposed of by companies that pay a "disposal fee" to the abortion clinic. 

Isn't that adorable? This is like the garbage truck pulling up to your house Monday morning and handing you a check to take your garbage away. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Of course it doesn't make sense at all. The babies aren't thrown into a dumpster because after all they're worth a small fortune. As soon as the abortion is performed the poor lifeless carcasses of abortion victims are quickly packed in ice and frozen in large walk-in freezers. Then instead of an old garbage truck pulling up to the back of the abortion clinic and emptying a dumpster full of rotting aborted babies a refrigerated truck hauls away the precious cargo in white plastic drums. 

Then this is where things get even sicker. Take the time to investigate some of the appalling things that are done with these innocent victims. How about skin cream made from fetal proteins? How about the possibility of ground up baby parts being used in food research or how about actually being used in the food you feed your own family? So this is what its come to? This is how far we've progressed as human beings? We've perfected ways to destroy unborn babies and process them into usefull products? You as a person are worth nothing more than the constituents that you're made of? So according to that logic you're not a human being you're nothing more than a product? So how are we any different from the cannibals that lived in Africa at one point? Soylent Green is made from people....


----------



## flint757 (Nov 16, 2012)

Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion Statistics

Fetal Development Month by Month



> I am pro-choice... although reluctantly so. I found these statistics incredibly interesting. I'm also not a christian... so arguments about God's gift, or souls don't make much sense to me. I find them stupid. What does make sense to me is science. And science -not religion- says life begins at conception. At that point you have a new human life, with its own DNA. You can argue about levels of development, but its still a growing human being. I think people like to pretend its something other than human... to disassociate themselves from the fact that, they are killing their own child. I think if you are going to do it, you should accept that.
> 
> I am pro-choice... but I hate the pro-choice mantra, and talking points, about women's rights, or a man's opinion doesn't matter... or how much the child -may- suffer by being born.... pretending its anything other than the selfish whims of the mother (and oftentimes father). The reason abortion is legal in this country is because of the exceptions of rape, incest, baby defect, danger to the mother. Those 4 things trump the abortion debate.... because there's no test to determine if a baby was produced by rape. There's no way to determined exactly how dangerous giving birth could be for the mother. So for those reasons, we grant rights to the woman to make the choice. And with rights come responsibilities.
> 
> ...



This guy is about as close to your opinion that can be also rational at the same time.

The issue with making abortion illegal is not that it is a 'good' thing per se, but that to make it illegal would cause a shit ton more problems and the in-between is bureaucratically impossible.

To counter your opinion entirely though (just for the hell of it):



> Month 1: Your first month of pregnancy your baby will accomplish many things, first and foremost, conception, fertilization, and implantation. After a woman ovulates, the egg is normally fertilized within 24-48 hours. The single fertilized cell begins to rapidly divide and at this point in time is called a zygote. Many amazing things happen at fertilization. Your baby's entire physical attributes are determined including gender, hair color, and eye color. Between days 7-10 from fertilization implantation usually occurs. Implantation should occur within the uterus if it does not this is considered an ectopic pregnancy. The amniotic sac, umbilical cord and yolk sac are already beginning to form. By the end of this month your baby is approximately 2mm long and beginning early stages of development.
> 
> Month 2: Your baby is now considered a fetus. Her heart, neural tube, arms and legs, liver and other major organs begin to form. By your 6th week, her heart will be beating and visible via ultrasound. The placenta also begins to form as well as the eyes, ears, mouth, and bones. In this month, your baby's fingers and toes will become present, however, they may still be webbed. Her brain and cranial nerves will also begin to form this month. Baby's sex organs begin to become visible. Your baby is approximately 1/2 inch - 3/4 inch long and weighs about 1-2 grams by the end of this month.
> 
> Month 3: If given an ultrasound now, you would be able to see your baby's arms and legs moving. Baby's heartbeat can be detected by doppler beginning in your third month. Development of the heart and all major organs is complete by the end of the third month. Baby's sex organs continue to develop, but it is still too difficult to differentiate gender. Baby's muscles in trunk, limbs, and head are developing. Baby's face is well formed and your baby looks like a baby. By the end of your third month, your baby is 3-4 inches long and weighs about 1 ounce.



In the first month the brain and nervous system have not even begun to get developed, in the second month they only begin to be developed and it is only by the third month that, by all qualifications, it is a cognizant being that can feel pain. In terms of baby development I will say that the closer to the third month the more I'd personally be against it.

My other issue is that conception takes 24-48 hours, which means plan B (even if someone was 'pro life') is completely viable and yet many are against this too. Then you have people who are also against condoms which is just as ridiculous; actually it is more ridiculous.

In any case whether an individual thinks life starts after the first trimester or at birth, a pro birther or pro choice, is all moot because it can't be denied that anything, but legal is a problem (socially and bureaucratically).

Abortions have been on a steady decline for like 20 years now too.

[EDIT]

I assume the second half of your rant is about stem cell research? If so you are actually wrong. The majority of stem cells, AFAIK, are cultured from failed IVF's, unused embryo's, umbilical cords. Logic says it makes no difference in these situations and morality is moot. 

http://explorable.com/stem-cell-pros-and-cons.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0406_060406_cord_blood.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1410722/posts


----------



## Jakke (Nov 16, 2012)

Eric Christian said:


> If you're reading this then you were once an embryo and fetus that was nurtured and cared for in your mothers womb. Someone loved you with all their heart and thought you were special enough to brought into the world. No matter how a person was created I honestly believe no innocent human life is a worthless piece of trash to be discarded. I understand the principle behind terminating a life because of incest or rape. However two wrongs don't make a right. I don't think everyone sees the big picture clearly actually. Carrying the baby to full term and adoption is the logical decision. Of course this story is only designed to provoke a reaction to further the "Pro-Choice" agenda.


 
Pregnancy is expensive and and can dangerous to the mother, I certainly hope you understand this and why abortion is talked about in instances of incest and rape. You say the "logical" thing is to carry the child full term, but you have not provided us with any logic for it. I could say that logically you are a brussel sprout, and therefore your points on abortion is moot, without providing any logic.



Eric Christian said:


> Despite all the derogatory comments directed at me plus all the profanity laced anonymous neggs I think everyone here knows deep down inside that the "thing" residing in a pregnant woman's womb not a gelatinous glob of quivering goo its an actual person that is protected by the Constitution regardless of the circumstances regarding his/her conception. I also think that any person of sane mind that isn't a sociopath realizes that violently terminating the life of any innocent person regardless of their age has ramifications that may include punishment in the afterlife. Certainly abortion "providers" and the women who get them have to live with their bad decisions for the rest of their lives. This is a living purgatory I'm sure.



A lump of cells is not a human being.

I also think that any sane person that isn't a fundamentalist understands that your particular belief system is not universal. Thus using arguments like "you will get yours in the afterlife" is pretty weird. 



Eric Christian said:


> That said being "Pro-Choice" is a very illogical and hypocritical thought process. On one hand we worship and cherish the unborn baby with 3D Ultrasounds and the father talking to the unborn baby through the mothers tummy. The mother goes through the ritualistic behavior of preparing a room for the new baby while the father and the entire family waits day by day in anticipation for the day the new person will arrive. This is normal behavior. Then on the other hand we have the another house right down the street where another young lady who likes to go out to clubs and sleep with different men every weekend. Shes now 2 months late for her period and takes a pregnancy test which turns positive. Now for example several months go by and shes 6 months pregnant. Then lets say one of two things happen.
> 
> First scenario she gets physically assaulted one night while shes walking home. This results in a miscarriage. A Policeman witnesses the assault, arrests the individual and he is charged with murder. In the second scenario that same day she decides to get an abortion. So who is charged with murder in this case of infanticide?



First pf all, again, you call pro-choice illogical, yet no logic is supplied. You compare apples and oranges, and tries to slut-shame.

Second of all, there are no routine abortions taking place 20 weeks. There are acoupl of percent (1.3) that happen after 20 weeks, but that is very,very rare. Whatever people has told you, abortions are not like very dramatic pictures circulating with cut-off arms, and things like that.

So that point is moot. We also have precedent of pregnant woman (one month or so) getting an over-the-counter abortion medication by mistake. The clerk did not get charged with attempted murder, as he/she would have had it been a person, but they rewarded her damages.




Eric Christian said:


> Its my thoughts that everyone should take the time to read more about the multi-million dollar abortion industry. I think you'd be interested to know that over 3000 people are exterminated every day in the USA. You might also find it interesting that abortions are disproportionately performed on women of color and this is part of a eugenics agenda specifically designed and engineered by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Some interesting things you might also want to check out is the fact that after the abortion is performed the real money is made from sale of the fetal tissue.That's right. Due to pesky International, Federal, State and Local laws regarding the sale of human body parts the aborted babies are instantly deemed to be "medical waste" which then has to be disposed of by companies that pay a "disposal fee" to the abortion clinic.
> 
> ...




Again, fetal tissue is not a person. And second, Flint did a good rebuttle, so I'm not touching this.


----------



## Demiurge (Nov 16, 2012)

Eric Christian said:


> Then this is where things get even sicker. Take the time to investigate some of the appalling things that are done with these innocent victims. How about skin cream made from fetal proteins? How about the possibility of ground up baby parts being used in food research or how about actually being used in the food you feed your own family? So this is what its come to? This is how far we've progressed as human beings? We've perfected ways to destroy unborn babies and process them into usefull products? You as a person are worth nothing more than the constituents that you're made of? So according to that logic you're not a human being you're nothing more than a product? So how are we any different from the cannibals that lived in Africa at one point? Soylent Green is made from people....



[citation needed]


----------



## TheHandOfStone (Nov 18, 2012)

Eric Christian said:


> If you're reading this then you were once an embryo and fetus that was nurtured and cared for in your mothers womb. Someone loved you with all their heart and thought you were special enough to brought into the world. No matter how a person was created I honestly believe no innocent human life is a worthless piece of trash to be discarded. I understand the principle behind terminating a life because of incest or rape. However two wrongs don't make a right. I don't think everyone sees the big picture clearly actually. Carrying the baby to full term and adoption is the logical decision. Of course this story is only designed to provoke a reaction to further the "Pro-Choice" agenda.



I respect you for your brutal honesty. If it is true that the human fetus is a person, then it does deserve protection. However, actual definitions of personhood are rare in abortion debates. It seems like the assumption made by most pro-lifers is that life=personhood. I'm not sure I agree with that, but the pro-choice camp hasn't produced a clear alternative definition. So I feel as if the camps aren't even speaking the same language right now. Now as someone who has and will consider the pro-life position, I would like to hear your argument as to why personhood must necessarily include all human life.



> Despite all the derogatory comments directed at me plus all the profanity laced anonymous neggs I think everyone here knows deep down inside that the "thing" residing in a pregnant woman's womb not a gelatinous glob of quivering goo its an actual person that is protected by the Constitution regardless of the circumstances regarding his/her conception. I also think that any person of sane mind that isn't a sociopath realizes that violently terminating the life of any innocent person regardless of their age has ramifications that may include punishment in the afterlife. Certainly abortion "providers" and the women who get them have to live with their bad decisions for the rest of their lives. This is a living purgatory I'm sure.



Be careful in assuming what people "know." I've taken developmental psychology classes, so I have at least a general background in fetal development. This is actually why I'm skeptical when people talk as if fetuses lack any resemblance to infants. But a lot of people don't have that, so you shouldn't accuse them of dishonesty based on what they know "deep down."



> That said being "Pro-Choice" is a very illogical and hypocritical thought process. On one hand we worship and cherish the unborn baby with 3D Ultrasounds and the father talking to the unborn baby through the mothers tummy. The mother goes through the ritualistic behavior of preparing a room for the new baby while the father and the entire family waits day by day in anticipation for the day the new person will arrive. This is normal behavior. Then on the other hand we have the another house right down the street where another young lady who likes to go out to clubs and sleep with different men every weekend. Shes now 2 months late for her period and takes a pregnancy test which turns positive. Now for example several months go by and shes 6 months pregnant. Then lets say one of two things happen.



This part isn't particularly hypocritical - it just shows how vastly different the values of the two people are.



> First scenario she gets physically assaulted one night while shes walking home. This results in a miscarriage. A Policeman witnesses the assault, arrests the individual and he is charged with murder. In the second scenario that same day she decides to get an abortion. So who is charged with murder in this case of infanticide?



This is an issue, however. It's long bothered me that the termination of a fetus can be homicide in one case and perfectly fine in another. That's not to say the doctor would receive the exact same sentence, but it begs the question: is fetal personhood decided solely by the adults involved with the fetus? I'm not sure this is a viable position to take, so it seems as if either homicide or abortion laws should change if we are to remain logically-consistent.



> Its my thoughts that everyone should take the time to read more about the multi-million dollar abortion industry. I think you'd be interested to know that over 3000 people are exterminated every day in the USA. You might also find it interesting that abortions are disproportionately performed on women of color and this is part of a eugenics agenda specifically designed and engineered by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.



Margaret Sanger endorsed some shady things, and I'm not convinced that Planned Parenthood has the best of intentions when it comes to their parents. However, you cannot assert a eugenics agenda based on disproportion before addressing confounding variables. There are other variables to consider, such as the fact that people of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to seek abortions, and that "women of color" average lower than white women on this measure. It's definitely a reflection of a larger societal problem, but I don't think "eugenics" are the most likely explanation.



> Some interesting things you might also want to check out is the fact that after the abortion is performed the real money is made from sale of the fetal tissue.That's right. Due to pesky International, Federal, State and Local laws regarding the sale of human body parts the aborted babies are instantly deemed to be "medical waste" which then has to be disposed of by companies that pay a "disposal fee" to the abortion clinic.
> 
> Isn't that adorable? This is like the garbage truck pulling up to your house Monday morning and handing you a check to take your garbage away. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Of course it doesn't make sense at all. The babies aren't thrown into a dumpster because after all they're worth a small fortune. As soon as the abortion is performed the poor lifeless carcasses of abortion victims are quickly packed in ice and frozen in large walk-in freezers. Then instead of an old garbage truck pulling up to the back of the abortion clinic and emptying a dumpster full of rotting aborted babies a refrigerated truck hauls away the precious cargo in white plastic drums.



This is indeed horrific if persons are involved. But if they aren't, then I'm not sure it's a big deal at all. You should seek to establish the personhood of the fetus before you present shocking information such as this, otherwise people will just ignore you.



> Then this is where things get even sicker. Take the time to investigate some of the appalling things that are done with these innocent victims. How about skin cream made from fetal proteins? How about the possibility of ground up baby parts being used in food research or how about actually being used in the food you feed your own family? So this is what its come to? This is how far we've progressed as human beings? We've perfected ways to destroy unborn babies and process them into usefull products? You as a person are worth nothing more than the constituents that you're made of? So according to that logic you're not a human being you're nothing more than a product? So how are we any different from the cannibals that lived in Africa at one point? Soylent Green is made from people...



I've found the company that uses fetal skin cells in its products - at least they're brutally honest about doing so.  The "fetus in food" thing, however, was a hoax as far as I can tell, unless of course you're talking about something else.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 18, 2012)

I checked the link of that company and:



> Of course, the important question is: How does the medical community do this in a way that is respectful of the dignity of human life, and that is conducted in a highly controlled and responsible manner? This is an understandable concern that we take very seriously. The small skin donation that, ultimately, made the development of our treatment possible originated from a single terminated pregnancy that could not survive to term and was deemed medically necessary by the attending physicians. This voluntary donation to medical research was granted by the parents with their written consent, and was performed in adherence with strict Swiss laws that regulate organ donations and similar procedures.
> 
> To be clear, our products do not directly use the originally donated tissue in any way. We only use proteins derived from cultured skin cells (grown from a dedicated cell bank). These were not embryonic stem cells. No other donation will ever be necessary. In fact, this cell bank enables the production of some 900 million biological bandages for patients suffering from severe wounds, burns and other serious skin conditions.



They use medically necessary terminations only and they use the protein only from the cells so it isn't really a moral problem or a gross out problem, at least for me it isn't.

Also, it seems to be for medical treatment after surgeries and burns, etc. which is a little different than if it were for just for everyday makeup/cream.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Nov 19, 2012)

I'm not so involved in the discussion to dedicate the time to add my perspective on the previous debate, which bears considerable thought.

I still remember having a debate in person with a friend who had finished his university degree and admiring his learning. It made me consider things differently perhaps, but I regretted more my own lack of thought on this, perhaps the most important, topic.

War on the unborn, eh? 

I don't have any answers to prescribe as I think this is a personal topic, but I do have some experience.

A friend of mine had a dark secret for a long time. Once he came to terms with it things changed for him and it changed from being a bloody stigma to merely a flesh wound.
One day, around the age of 25, he got a call from a man. He claimed to be his father. Eventually they decided to meet and a friendship grew. Suddenly he had the answers to his personality, as the lineage proved the apple fell not far from the tree.
In both appearence and humour the similarities were/are great.
My friend was conceived by a rapist, though I know nothing of the actual incident.

As far as mixed up people go, my friend is a great guy, who overcomes his problems and enjoys his life. I've met people from "normal" upbringings who turned out a lot worse and lot more miserable than him. No need to detail negative people for comparison.

I'm pretty sure he's glad he wasn't aborted.

On the other side, I had a girlfriend who revealed to me she had a son from a previous relationship. As much as I respect her decision to keep her child, from the bottom of my heart, I didn't think it right to pursue our relationship.

That's something I'm going to have to live with.

Another one is a friend was manipulated into having a child he didn't expect. She thought he was better than he was and could capture him by starting a family without his consent, told him she was infertile and a few weeks later was pregnant.
He wanted nothing to do with it, abandoning her for manipulating him. I couldn't really understand it at the time, but he made his decision.
So now the daughter is 5-6 years old, he gets weekend visits and has to drive hundreds of miles to see her. Barely talks to the mother as they haven't forgiven each other and things will probably deteriorate.
He is planning a legal campaign to legitimately discredit the mother and gain custody of his daughter, the child he never wanted, never expected, but ultimately loves more than anything.

Wierd, huh? I don't know if they ever considered an abortion, it was probably too late before he knew about it. But now he has a new purpose in life and everything has changed for the better in everything he does.
The mothers a mental case, by the way, definitely best avoided. 

So for my opinion; I'd rather kill myself than kill my own children, born or unborn.
That's my stance.

The medical thing, ugh... Too difficult and painful to even consider. To be honest I think I'm too sensitive to think about this issue.

My overall view is that this is a distinctly personal issue and no one has a right to judge others. The classic _"careless woman"_ strawman/person will have to live with themselves after taking their decision, which is something I could never live with over my head.

Reducing this issue to the subhuman language of science (raw data) removes the very thing that makes life worth living; our humanity.

As it goes, I know quite a lot of single mothers, they are all incredibly strong women, despite the teddy bears and rabbit slippers. Perhaps modern culture has a responsibility to answer for with regards to the erosion of the family. Who said chivalry was dead, eh?


Perhaps the problem lies more in the way young women are taught to estimate young men? Disney?


...Anyway, back to you guys and your facts, statitistics and imperical data. Does anyones GF care to comment? 
After all, it takes two to make magic and this, so far, is a male dominated debate.

I recommend the cookies!
Singlemotherssupportgroup.com

/jk 

EDIT: after reading some more of the debate, I think it pretty obvious the potential for the life of a person is good enough for me, going as far to say pretty much any aspect of the reproductive system should be deemed "Having the potential for new life" and legally protected thusly. Pretty obvious isn't it?
For example:_"Well, if nature had taken it's course uninterrupted it would've become a person, but we terminated *it* before the legal onset of personhood."_


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Nov 19, 2012)

*yuck*
Just read the article *skimmed*. Seems normal for what I've seen in England. Can't believe some of her conclusions came as a surprise, and the politicians making hay from this?

*yuck*



> _"Those who oppose abortion are all set to vote for Romney because he has done things like voice approval for the personhood amendment, which would ban abortion."_



+1 Neg Rep Romney!!!

Maybe I've just been too nieve, not assuming people profited from this issue, with power and influence. Self disapoint 

The obvious points from the article;
Pro-abortion = Skilled treatment and protection for vulnerable people seeking this treatment.
Pro-Contraception = Reduces number of abortions, reducing greater health risks.

Banning it all just makes the world a more dangerous place to women.
Interesting repercussions for science, for example stem cell research, with a new legal definition of foetal remains, perhaps.


----------



## pink freud (Nov 19, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> We may disagree vehemently with his position, but that's no reason to tell someone that they don't deserve to live.



To be fair, he IS claiming eternal torture for people he disagrees with.

Perspective and all...


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 19, 2012)

Abortion should not be something that people do without respect for what it means. You may not be taking a life, but you are stopping one from coming to fruition, and that is quite a heavy action. You need to have the child's interests at heart. Can you really love a child if every time you look at them, you are reminded of when you were raped? Could you forgive yourself if you brought a child into poverty, or a dysfunctional home? Life is precious yes, but we shouldn't have children for the sake of it. If it really isn't the best time to have a child, and the parents are not able to fully look after them as best as they could, then an abortion saves that child growing up in a less than desirable environment.

They are not conscious of their surroundings and cannot feel pain (providing the abortion is done within the generally accepted timeframe), so how does that constitute as murder? They are a collection of cells with all the sapience of a tumour. Something that is not yet really alive cannot be murdered. You might as well say that sperm cells can be murdered, in which case every time you masturbate you commit mass genocide. 

This is a women's issue. They are the ones having the child, and so it is a moral choice they have to make. Men can obviously have input, but it does not concern us as much. It seems more often than not, the ones making the most noise about abortions are those least likely to have them. 

Lastly, this isn't a religious issue, so don't make it one. Bring religion into this matter and your opinion should not be taken seriously whatsoever.


----------



## goldsteinat0r (Nov 19, 2012)

Eric Christian said:


> If you're reading this then you were once an embryo and fetus that was nurtured and cared for in your mothers womb. Someone loved you...



Are you male or female? 

Forget the scientific arguments about at what point a fetus can feel pain along with all the other BS. If you will not experience pregnancy at any point in your life you don't have any place having an opinion on this topic. Men have NO business discussing abortion in such a way and making declarative statements about when/if it is allowed.

In my mind, NOBODY has a right to do that save for the pregnant woman who is making the decision about her own body. And in a country like the U.S., she should have the option to undergo a procedure to end her pregnancy in a safe, dignified, CONFIDENTIAL, and sanitary manner. 

As a man, how would you like being told a Vasectomy is a "crime against God?" Or that you were only allowed in cases of physical disability or retardation? Bullshit, right?


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 19, 2012)

It's not like most women take abortion lightly. I've had friends who have had to get abortions because they couldn't support a child, and it's hit them hard emotionally.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Nov 19, 2012)

> Bring religion into this matter and your opinion should not be taken seriously whatsoever.



Certainly as a policy maker or political agitatant, however the impact of religious indoctrination upon families should be considered.

After all, in certain parts of the world, eternal damnation is promised for simply failing to reveal all of your "sins" to agents of the V*****.

Best wishes to your friends. I don't have any words, but I hear you.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 19, 2012)

What people do behind closed doors with regards to religion is their concern (within reason), but in terms of contributing to this debate on a social and political level, I don't see any religion as having anything particularly useful to say. It is a human matter, something that goes beyond religion and concerns society as a whole.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Nov 19, 2012)

*sigh*
I'm not asking you to comment on religious interpretation if you don't want to, but to *deny* that belief systems, supposedly out of the political sphere, play a part in people's lives is close minded.

For certain people the Pro-Life movement is seen as an extension of their faith, an immovable point of view (Christians don't have a monopoly on this position).

Interesting that you would rather *deny the relevance of religion entirely* than say something which might offend.

Religion deniers, what next?


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Nov 19, 2012)

Try this, perhaps evidence will allow you to reconsider.

Health Minister James Reilly seeks report following woman's death after miscarriage at University Hospital Galway - RT News

*No summary, simply a tragedy*


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 19, 2012)

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> *sigh*
> I'm not asking you to comment on religious interpretation if you don't want to, but to *deny* that belief systems, supposedly out of the political sphere, play a part in people's lives is close minded.
> 
> For certain people the Pro-Life movement is seen as an extension of their faith, an immovable point of view (Christians don't have a monopoly on this position).
> ...



I get the point you're trying to make, though I think you're going an odd way about it. 'Religion denier' isn't exactly a term I'd use. I think religion is a personal choice, and nothing is stopping religious folk having an opinion on abortions, that's part of freedom of speech, however to allow that religious influence on actual policies is too far.


----------



## Semichastny (Nov 19, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> however to allow that religious influence on actual policies is too far.


 I'm tired of society being held back by the religious.


----------



## viesczy (Nov 21, 2012)

This is a little off topic... sorry. 

You know what is BAFFLING to me about the entire abortition debate? Our current population. We have seven billion +, yes it looks like 7,000,000,000+ examples of humanity. We breed like a plague, examples of utter mediocrity are making even GREATER examples of mediocrity and no one says a word. 

Our #s are too many. Me. You. We're examples of what I just said, if we weren't we'd not be on SS.org nattering away about the inane, we'd be out showing that we are ubermesch. 

Why hasn't there been a movement to stop the genetic degradation of the homo sapien?

Derek


----------



## Jakke (Nov 21, 2012)

viesczy said:


> Why hasn't there been a movement to stop the genetic degradation of the homo sapien?



They tried to weed out some things they perceived as problems in Germany in the last century.


Didn't go too well, apparently the people labeled as inferior were not too happy about being sorted out.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 21, 2012)

^^^

I laughed quite awkwardly reading that. I probably shouldn't have...


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 22, 2012)

viesczy said:


> This is a little off topic... sorry.
> 
> You know what is BAFFLING to me about the entire abortition debate? Our current population. We have seven billion +, yes it looks like 7,000,000,000+ examples of humanity. We breed like a plague, examples of utter mediocrity are making even GREATER examples of mediocrity and no one says a word.
> 
> ...



Yeah...last time I heard a guy like that, he caused one of the biggest wars in human history.

Our numbers are too many I agree, but our populations aren't so much as our distribution of resources. The majority of the world uses the minority of our resources, while the economically developed countries are the ones that consume too much. We could support a lot more humans to a good standard if our distribution of resources was up to scratch.

Also, did you just imply that everyone on this forum is mediocre because we're not outside doing amazing shit?


----------



## Varcolac (Nov 22, 2012)

viesczy said:


> Our #s are too many. Me. You. We're examples of what I just said, if we weren't we'd not be on SS.org nattering away about the inane, we'd be out showing that we are ubermesch.



Because that's just what I'd love to do of an evening when I'm not at work. Go out and show people that I'm uber. Wait, what? No, you know what? Screw you. I work in education. I do difficult work that enables the next generation to reach for their dreams and fulfil their highest ambitions. I am a freaking übermensch, and once my day's finished I go home, drink some wine and browse the internet. Deal with it.



viesczy said:


> Why hasn't there been a movement to stop the genetic degradation of the homo sapien?
> 
> Derek



I'm going to need a citation on that. Do you have any empirical evidence that our genome is degrading?

There have of course been movements to stop perceived degradations. Generally, they're created by people who don't care so much about the human race as they do about their own ethnic group. Anti-miscegenation. Eugenics. Forced sterilization. Life unworthy of life. Ethnic cleansing. Arbeit Macht Frei. We've been down that road before and I really don't like where it leads.


----------



## Painhawg (Nov 25, 2012)

I consider both side of the argument. My stance is this, whether or not one believes in abortion or not, the aborted is a unique thing. It's DNA will never happen again. Each one is once. That potential person wil never, ever, exist again. 

Think of yourself for a moment if you had not been born to your family, or were born in a different year. You would not exist as you do today. Ultimately what a person chooses is on them, wrong or right.


----------



## ElRay (Nov 25, 2012)

Eric Christian said:


> Regardless of conception the intentional destruction and removal of any human embryo or fetus from a mothers womb or artificial womb for that matter is homicidal murder.


Yes, in the exact same way that destroying blueprints is equivalent to destroying a house. I'd also say "And a lump of unleavened dough is equivalent to a loaf of bread."; however, in that case, at least all the ingredients are there, you just need time and heat.

The true bottom line is that there is no evidence that life begins at conception, there's tons of standards for life that are not met until the fetus gets a whole lot closer to 24 weeks, etc. So your *belief* is just that, a religious belief, therefore, it has no grounds for application to anything governmental/legally related.

Ray


----------



## ElRay (Nov 25, 2012)

Eric Christian said:


> Abortion is murder and those who commit this crime will be judged and sentenced to a special area of Hell.



I didn't remember the verses, so I had to look them-up:



Leviticus 24:17-21 King James Version (KJV) said:


> 17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.
> 
> 18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.
> 
> ...



and:



Exodus 21:22 King James Version (KJV) said:


> 22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.



So, even in the bible, a fetus is not equal to a human and ending the pregnancy is not punishable by death.

I guess you don't know your bible as well as you thought.

Ray


----------



## ElRay (Nov 25, 2012)

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> Reducing this issue to the subhuman language of science (raw data) removes the very thing that makes life worth living; our humanity.


That's your opinion, but, it is the only thing we have. When does life begin? 

The religious zealots that insist on forcing their beliefs on everybody, that don't even know what their own bible says, yet deem it infallible and unchanging, even though it has changed through time, and the interpretation of the passages have changed through time, would have you believe that life begins at conception, merely because all the DNA is present.

What is needed is a scientifically-based, legally viable, definition of "brain alive"/"persistently non-vegetative state" (the opposite of "brain dead"/"persistently vegetative state"). Then, all of this debate is pointless because any earlier date falls into the realm of religion and any later date defies the evidence for "self awareness".

Ray


----------



## bhakan (Nov 26, 2012)

I think life starts at conception, but where it becomes human is up for debate. At the earliest stages, a human embryo is no different from that of a bug (though, admittedly this stage is extremely early on, like in the first week iirc). All that distinguishes them is what they are set to become. Now, this could still constitute murder in some people's eyes, but to me it does not.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Nov 26, 2012)

Regardless of when or how "life" is defined, the truly fascinating part of this article was the societal and legal ramifications that would result from prosecuting a woman for "criminal abortion" or a similar offense. I'm not sure many anti-choice individuals really consider that, and I'd be interested to hear their views on how an "abortion trial" would work, especially if it is considered to be premeditated murder and decades of jail time is on the line.


----------



## McKay (Nov 28, 2012)

YngwieJ said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying he should have been aborted. If that is your intention, you should really consider other people's opinions. It's okay to disagree with other people, but ad hominem attacks and insulting statements are not welcome here.
> 
> If that wasn't what you were trying to say, then I suggest you clarify your statement.



+1

Pro-abortion here. I hate the term pro-choice because it changes the focus of the question IMO. For the record, I believe abortion is a form of murder. I don't see how that is incompatible with supporting it though, nothing is black and white and murder is no different. We sanction murder all the time with warfare and executions.

It bugs the hell out of me when people say a fetus isn't alive etc. Acquire some intestinal fortitude, you don't need to warp reality in order to avoid guilt. Abortion kills humans, and it's usually justified. Live with it.


----------



## YngwieJ (Nov 28, 2012)

Jakke said:


> They tried to weed out some things they perceived as problems in Germany in the last century.
> 
> 
> Didn't go too well, apparently the people labeled as inferior were not too happy about being sorted out.



It wasn't just Germany. The United States had their hand in compulsory sterilization and euthanasia as well. The Germans even got the idea from the Americans. 
Eugenics in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## viesczy (Nov 28, 2012)

Varc & Vamp,
Easy there on the OMG it is the Holocaust again hyperbole! I didn't say we were starting up the ole ovens and thinning the herd, I was just posing the question as to when, as stewards of our only home in the 'Verse we're going to globally tackle family planning. 

Statistically speaking, the greater the population the greater the examples of mediocrity, it is the law of large numbers. Me. You. Just about everyone we'll know are closer to being Nietzsche's bungled and botched rather than his ubermensch. 

Think about, it is pure math. 

Say I'm 1 in a million in w/e talent, being the greatest doof on the interwebs... that means there are 6,999 more that are equally as talented if there are 7,000,000,000 people. Not really special. We need to quit deluding ourselves that we are unique snowflakes, we're not!  

As for studies for genetic weakness, how about the Vadoma Tribe in Zimbabwe for a micro example.

How about Bree Walker for an even smaller than micro example of genetic weakness. Guess who has a genetic weakness and guess whose two children won the genetic weakness jackpot when she squirted them out? You're right!

How about Myopia? I have it and I bet you or many of the folks you know have it, globally it is approx 33% of the population. Yes diet plays an important part of that--yes it is a weakness. 

I'm sure we've all had genetics courses in our schooling, but BASIC genetics:
X = dominant & x = recessive

Xx carrier + Xx carrier = 50 % chance for Xx / 25 % xx condition present / 25 % non carrier.

Apply that, and the various other formulas we've learned (and forgotten as I'm prolly one of the older guys on here @ 41) to our population #s.

Again, I didn't say we're rounding up folks and actively cut the population. Also feel free to make as many people as folks want. Bust as many hot ones in your female as you can. Maybe there is that 1% awesome gene hiding in the old family genetics. Maybe it was just skipping a lot of generations. For our planet, I hope so as we have PLENTY of bungled and botched.

Derek


----------



## Jakke (Nov 28, 2012)

I think social darwinists are funny

By what metric do you consider other people weaker (because I know you do not consider yourself one of the mediocre)?


----------



## Eric Christian (Dec 2, 2012)

Another interesting circular logic puzzle I've been thinking about is the subject of creating human life utilizing In vitro fertilisation (IVF) and its relationship involving any possible scenarios related to terminating a human fetus that is being carried either by a biological mother or a surrogate mother. 

So lets analyze the situation. Basically Roe v. Wade gives any pregnant woman the option of an abortion in the first trimester. So how does this dovetail with artificial insemintion and surrogacy? Say for example a married couple can't concieve because the man had his penis removed in an industrial accident. That said, he still has his testicles and the doctors are able to remove sperm and artificially inseminate his wife. At any point in the first trimester or later depending on the state they reside in the wife could unilaterally decide to get an abortion. Ok, weve established that. 

Now consider a married couple that both have sperm and eggs but for some reason the wife is unable to carry a baby to full term for medical reasons. In this case her egg is fertilized utilizing (IVF) and implanted in a surrogate mother. Now for example does the biolgical mother have the right to terminate the pregnancy still if she chooses? How about the surrogate mother? Can she have an abortion if she wants? On one hand, the rationale behind abortion is that a fetus isn't actually a "person". Yet the biolgical parents entered into a contract with the clinic and the surrogate mother to create and incubate a person. So what gives here? 

I'm really confused here. The fetus would seem to be a person when a lab and a legal contract says it is but during a normal pregnancy its just a blob of garbage to be discarded. 

Now consider the equally confusing legal issues when same sex couples create human life either using others or their own eggs/sperm. Can a gay or lesbian couple decide to terminate the pregnancy at a time of their own choosing? How about the surrogate mother?


----------



## TemjinStrife (Dec 2, 2012)

I don't see how that is confusing at all. What a contract says about the "personhood" status (or lack thereof) of a fetus does not affect the applicable law. A contract between two private parties has nothing to do with the government's creation of a right to have an abortion.

Secondly, surrogacy law is a clusterfuck of epic proportions; so much so that some states disallow it entirely, or at least certain hold provisions of a surrogacy contract unenforceable. In other states, there are statutes that govern, but only allow surrogacy to be done "pro bono" and without a fee. Regardless, it's not exactly the best area of law to use to make a point, since it deals with private contracts instead of public policy.

These are much simpler legal issues than those presented by the criminalization of abortion.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Dec 2, 2012)

Plus, even if you WERE to accept the contract at the terms you stated ("entered into a contract with the clinic and the surrogate mother to create and incubate a person"), the process of "creation and incubation" is not instantaneous. The "creation" of a person takes a few months, and the incubation even longer. So there could easily be a period in which there simply is no "person" for the terms of the contract.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 2, 2012)

Eric Christian said:


> Another interesting circular logic puzzle I've been thinking about is the subject of creating human life utilizing In vitro fertilisation (IVF) and its relationship involving any possible scenarios related to terminating a human fetus that is being carried either by a biological mother or a surrogate mother.
> 
> So lets analyze the situation. Basically Roe v. Wade gives any pregnant woman the option of an abortion in the first trimester. So how does this dovetail with artificial insemintion and surrogacy? Say for example a married couple can't concieve because the man had his penis removed in an industrial accident. That said, he still has his testicles and the doctors are able to remove sperm and artificially inseminate his wife. At any point in the first trimester or later depending on the state they reside in the wife could unilaterally decide to get an abortion. Ok, weve established that.
> 
> ...



I imagine from a legal standpoint an abortion is still doable even under a private contract. There may be ramifications with the contract itself, but you wouldn't go to jail or anything. How they look at or value the embryo is no different than a normal pregnancy though. The value of a baby is, in all circumstance, pretty much determined by the people involved (unless someone is just being overly nosy). Nothing else and not that complicated either. If you were a surrogate mom and aborted some people might be pissed at you, but that is it. Anyone feel free to clarify if I'm wrong though, as I have done zero research in coming to this conclusion (and I'm not going to since I have no intention on being a surrogate or getting an abortion unless were talking kidney stones ).

I know what you're trying to point out FYI, but it isn't relevant. Also, this is a forum of almost all dudes so if you are trying to make some sort of grandstand against abortion this probably isn't a place that will gain you any traction (based on your posts in this thread at least).


----------



## Eric Christian (Dec 3, 2012)

Ok then. Well, at this point an artificial uterus (or womb) is only a theoretical device (that we know of). However, once this technology becomes viable then is the fetus kicking around inside this oversized mason jar a person yet and at that point who has the right to terminate?


----------



## Andromalia (Dec 3, 2012)

Honestly, in this debate, I don't see in whatever way who should have the right to tell a woman to do or not do what she wants with her body.
An embryo, a foetus, aren't a person: guess why there are different words. Aguing "personhood" is a last ditch argument from religious conservatives.
Who, seen from outside, seem to have a stupid importance in the USA.


----------



## TheHandOfStone (Dec 3, 2012)

The counterargument to that goes that if the fetus isn't a person, then the woman's decision involves more than just "her" body. Hence why arguments for fetal personhood ought to be taken seriously even by those who disagree with them. That's not to say you have to believe them, but blowing them off as some cover for religious doctrine isn't always correct.


----------



## Eric Christian (Dec 3, 2012)

Andromalia said:


> Honestly, in this debate, I don't see in whatever way who should have the right to tell a woman to do or not do what she wants with her body.
> An embryo, a foetus, aren't a person: guess why there are different words. Aguing "personhood" is a last ditch argument from religious conservatives.
> Who, seen from outside, seem to have a stupid importance in the USA.


 
However, technically speaking an embryo/fetus isn't actually part of a pregnant females body. Not only that, during prenatal development the umbilical cord is physiologically and genetically part of the fetus as well. As shown with IVF where a fertilized egg from another female and male is implanted inside her uterus she is merely a vessel to nurture the fetus until he/she is viable to live outside of the womb which at this point stands at 21 weeks and five days. An embryo/fetus is a human being and thusly a person.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 3, 2012)

And that's also around the same time the law deems an abortion,non-medical, to be no longer legal as well. Whether the last part is accurate or not doesn't change anything, it's just semantics. 

What is most humorous to me is that people always argue that having the baby and then giving it up for adoption is the better thing to do, but I don't think these people realize that US adoptions are so difficult it might as well be impossible. So these children just end up in foster care and incredibly fucked up 9/10. Obviously the more 'right' thing to do would be to have the child and keep it, second to giving it to someone (if feasible), but to make that law would be ludicrous. Right and what is best don't always coincide either (military, killing, etc.). Where people lose me on these arguments typically is when they say abortions should be completely illegal, even medically necessary ones. 

Every person I have ever heard rally crying against abortion is not out adopting 20 children and taking in potentially aborted children so they can drop the hypocrisy IMO. If they cared about 'human life' they'd be out at soup kitchens, working in public services, aiding children, etc. Most (dare I say all) are not. If they valued human life they should value all human life otherwise their position holds a lot less water IMO.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Dec 4, 2012)

So... we have the whole "abortion is murder" thing going on, and we now assume that only foetus coming from rape, incest or that are reputedly life-threatening are now "legal" to have removed in a hospital. Good. Welcome to my country, prior to a referendum that ended this nonsense.

"Nonsense, you say?!". Yes, nonsense. Other that the reasons the prosecutor already stated in her text pertaining the dignity of the women desperately trying to justify the need for an abortion, especially rape victims, there's one said reality: In Portugal, thousands of women ended up dead or sterile as a consequence of this law. Why? Because they couldn't afford to go to Spain to have the abortion performed in a clinic, so they resorted to "less than qualified" people, i.e. the traditional "deliverer", to concoct whatever they felt would terminate their pregnancy.

Explosive uterus may sound like a cool death metal band, but it's not as amusing when it occurs as a result of accumulating pus from using rudimentary tools (even coat hangers have been used in these procedures) to the point of ripping it apart and often costing a woman her life. Prostaglandin overdose side effects? Death by internal bleeding? These were frequent finds in desperate women too poor to have the procedure done in one of the few local clinics that would "remove a dead foetus" or, as I mentioned, go to Spain.

Pardon my French, but only a fucking moron believes that a law such as this will decrease the number of abortions. It won't, except for someone's precious stats, but underground abortions will prevail. As such, the wealthier strata of society will see it as a nuisance as they have to go through more trouble, whereas the not so wealthy will try to make do with what they have - inevitably, many of the later will endure consequences of suboptimal practices. Whomever proposes these things has not seen the consequences of such laws in the field - rest assured there are MANY case studies one can look at in order to shut his pipe.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Dec 4, 2012)

^ Exactly. The entire US abortion debate is essentially framing a moral/religious objection to a very secular right to health and safety.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Dec 4, 2012)

Fred the Shred said:


> Explosive uterus may sound like a cool death metal band, but it's not as amusing when it occurs as a result of accumulating pus from using rudimentary tools (even coat hangers have been used in these procedures) to the point of ripping it apart and often costing a woman her life. Prostaglandin overdose side effects? Death by internal bleeding? These were frequent finds in desperate women too poor to have the procedure done in one of the few local clinics that would "remove a dead foetus" or, as I mentioned, go to Spain.



I really wish I didn't read that


----------



## Fred the Shred (Dec 4, 2012)

Try seeing, as I have. It is a sad yet very convincing way of witnessing the end result of such policies. I wish hadn't - regardless of me agreeing or not with her reasons, no woman should have to endure that.


----------



## groph (Dec 6, 2012)

Eric Christian said:


> *Bottom Line*
> 
> Regardless of conception the intentional destruction and removal of any human embryo or fetus from a mothers womb or artificial womb for that matter is homicidal murder.
> 
> Abortion is murder and those who commit this crime will be judged and sentenced to a special area of Hell.



*Bottom Line

*No it's not.

See what I did there?


The bolded stuff is what you said.

&#8220;*If you're reading this then you were once an embryo and fetus that was nurtured and cared for in your mothers womb. Someone loved you with all their heart and thought you were special enough to brought into the world. No matter how a person was created I honestly believe no innocent human life is a worthless piece of trash to be discarded. I understand the principle behind terminating a life because of incest or rape. However two wrongs don't make a right. I don't think everyone sees the big picture clearly actually. Carrying the baby to full term and adoption is the logical decision. Of course this story is only designed to provoke a reaction to further the "Pro-Choice" agenda.&#8221;*


You start off with a nice obfuscation by gory detail or whatever that little rhetorical trick is. It doesn&#8217;t matter how gruesome an abortion may or may not be and how much your parents love you is absolutely irrelevant. No innocent human life is a piece of trash to be discarded? Okay, that sounds reasonable but you&#8217;re still begging the question by assuming a fetus qualifies as &#8220;life.&#8221; And why should rape be a reasonable ground for abortion if you just said that no innocent human life ought to be discarded? The fetus, alive or not, had nothing to do with the rape! Carrying to full term and then giving the kid for adoption sounds like a logical way out, yes, but suppose that option for whatever reason isn&#8217;t available or what if the turn-over rate, if you will, for orphanages isn&#8217;t so favorable? What if the process of giving birth itself will be fatal to the mother, like what happened in Ireland a couple of weeks ago? And your last sentence is just fucking lazy. It&#8217;s got more to do with personal autonomy than pandering to idiot &#8220;libruls.&#8221;

&#8220;*Despite all the derogatory comments directed at me plus all the profanity laced anonymous neggs I think everyone here knows deep down inside that the "thing" residing in a pregnant woman's womb not a gelatinous glob of quivering goo its an actual person that is protected by the Constitution regardless of the circumstances regarding his/her conception. I also think that any person of sane mind that isn't a sociopath realizes that violently terminating the life of any innocent person regardless of their age has ramifications that may include punishment in the afterlife. Certainly abortion "providers" and the women who get them have to live with their bad decisions for the rest of their lives. This is a living purgatory I'm sure&#8221;*


You don&#8217;t bitch about rep on here, read the forum rules. 
More obfuscation here, &#8220;violently terminating&#8221; a life, oh my god abortions must involve rusty meathooks and a bunch of gratuitous puppy slaughter so we MUST make it illegal! I bet there&#8217;s a bunch of blood and shit! Gross!
Punishment in the afterlife has nothing to do with lawmaking. You&#8217;re obviously a religious person, I&#8217;m obviously not so we&#8217;ll be at each other&#8217;s necks I guess.

&#8220;*That said being "Pro-Choice" is a very illogical and hypocritical thought process. On one hand we worship and cherish the unborn baby with 3D Ultrasounds and the father talking to the unborn baby through the mothers tummy. The mother goes through the ritualistic behavior of preparing a room for the new baby while the father and the entire family waits day by day in anticipation for the day the new person will arrive. This is normal behavior. Then on the other hand we have the another house right down the street where another young lady who likes to go out to clubs and sleep with different men every weekend. Shes now 2 months late for her period and takes a pregnancy test which turns positive. Now for example several months go by and shes 6 months pregnant. Then lets say one of two things happen. 

First scenario she gets physically assaulted one night while shes walking home. This results in a miscarriage. A Policeman witnesses the assault, arrests the individual and he is charged with murder. In the second scenario that same day she decides to get an abortion. So who is charged with murder in this case of infanticide? 

Its my thoughts that everyone should take the time to read more about the multi-million dollar abortion industry. I think you'd be interested to know that over 3000 people are exterminated every day in the USA. You might also find it interesting that abortions are disproportionately performed on women of color and this is part of a eugenics agenda specifically designed and engineered by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood*.&#8221; 


Okay, so this &#8220;hypothetical slut&#8221; you&#8217;re talking about could use contraception. It&#8217;s not like abortion exists to give people a free ticket out of responsibility. And in the second scenario, NOBODY is charged with murder if she has an abortion because abortion isn&#8217;t murder! Logic, man, logic!

*&#8220;Some interesting things you might also want to check out is the fact that after the abortion is performed the real money is made from sale of the fetal tissue.That's right. Due to pesky International, Federal, State and Local laws regarding the sale of human body parts the aborted babies are instantly deemed to be "medical waste" which then has to be disposed of by companies that pay a "disposal fee" to the abortion clinic*&#8221;
OOH, now it&#8217;s a big gubmint conspiracy!



*&#8220;Then this is where things get even sicker. Take the time to investigate some of the appalling things that are done with these innocent victims. How about skin cream made from fetal proteins? How about the possibility of ground up baby parts being used in food research or how about actually being used in the food you feed your own family? So this is what its come to? This is how far we've progressed as human beings? We've perfected ways to destroy unborn babies and process them into usefull products? You as a person are worth nothing more than the constituents that you're made of? So according to that logic you're not a human being you're nothing more than a product? So how are we any different from the cannibals that lived in Africa at one point? Soylent Green is made from people&#8221;*

Show me this skin cream made with fetal proteins. This is a hilarious slippery slope you&#8217;ve set up here. This isn&#8217;t even an argument, it&#8217;s scare tactics. 
And the &#8220;cannibals that lived in Africa at one point,&#8221; please show me the anthropological evidence that they exist and are not in fact a fiction of Western imagination. This&#8217;ll fuck you off I&#8217;m sure, now you&#8217;re coming off as racist. And that actually is a reason to neg rep you.
This entire post is 1000% horseshit.



And just to have fun, to stretch the "fetuses are life or at least potential life" logic to silly extremes, unfertilized embryos are potential life too. Women commit monthly murder. And sperm sitting around in your balls are potential life as well. Every time you jack off you commit genocide and your crusty sock is a mass grave.

EDIT: And just for my two cents on the matter, I'm not a fan of abortion but I don't think it should be illegal. I don't go into fits of orgasmic liberal convulsions where I scream Obama's name every time the word "pro-life" is said. The boogeyman that legal abortion could allow promiscuous women to sleep around as they please without contraception and rack up a considerable body count from their weekly abortions is a justification to ban abortion is absolutely laughable, it's a great example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Or throwing the baby out with the vacuum aspirator, whatever. 

It's not like women are lining up to get abortions because it's the best thing ever. It's reproductive freedom, the ability to not have any part of your body controlled by the government. And honestly I'm not 100% on the side of "a fetus is not a life" but a fetus is a part of a woman's body, it eats what she eats, it's literally connected to her. It's basically a parasite only it's not foreign in origin. I'm pretty sure if abortion were legal the streets wouldn't be running red with fetal blood and wives of good conservative husbands probably wouldn't get abortions anyway. Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-life people can't exist. It's a question of what power a state ought to have and what power a woman ought to have.


----------

