Teen mothers "sluts"

[Xavier_Onassis]

And they can absolutely chose ADOPTION, if they don't feel ready to invest for 20+yrs.  That removes the woman from having to raise the child, and still keeps the innocent child, who has no choice in the matter, living & breathing
========================================
Now see, you think you somehow have the right to choose. I say you don't. According to the Holy Mother Church, there are no innocent children, since everyone is born in sin. Except when they start blathering about how they want to butt into someone else's life.

Fetuses are not children, anyway. It's really none of your business, unless it's you that is having the abortion.

Hitler and Mussolini were on your side.

[sirs]

And they can absolutely chose ADOPTION, if they don't feel ready to invest for 20+yrs.  That removes the woman from having to raise the child, and still keeps the innocent child, who has no choice in the matter, living & breathing
========================================
Now see, you think you somehow have the right to choose.  I say you don't

That's strange....somewhere, somehow, you took my comments that indicated that the woman could choose x, or y, or z --> sirs will demand she do x.  I say that's complete feldercarb

That was pretty nifty, if not completely false.  I believe its called projecting what you think I'm thinking, without actually reading whats been written.  Tee has that tactic down to an artform.  Doesn't make it anymore valid however, just because he does it as well. 

Hitler and Mussolini were on your side.

Yea, yea, standard leftest dren, call anyone that doesn't agree with them, fascists and nazis, yada, yada.  And people wonder why those terms, and the term evil, have become so diluted in their true meanings

[kimba1]

actually adoption in the U.S. is a maybe option depending on the race of the child
it`s harder for a minority child to get adopted than a caucasian child
even the laws no purpose make it harder.
so the baby may get a not so stable life.

[Amianthus]

About 30% of all births in the US are by Caesarian section. There might be a need for as many as a tenth that amount. That's one helluva more radical procedure than abortion. No one ever seems to do anything about preventing doctors from performing unnecessary C-sections. They do it because it's more convenient for them, less time-consuming, and they get paid more, at least much of the time.

Most doctors do it because the risk of complications for many women is less with a C-section than with a vaginal birth. Therefore, they are less likely to be sued.

And all future birth MUST be by C-section after the first.

This statement is not true.

[sirs]

actually adoption in the U.S. is a maybe option depending on the race of the child it`s harder for a minority child to get adopted than a caucasian child even the laws no purpose make it harder.  so the baby may get a not so stable life.

A possibility of a not-so stable life vs the certainty of no life?  Hmmmm, not such a tough choice there, to be honest, Kimba.  Perhaps the laws can be tweaked so it is easier to adopt.  Or is that facilitating a greater chance of exploitation and abuse??  You see, there are arguements for all sides of an issue.  The the foundation to any arguent is the life itself.  Minus the asanine attempt by Tee to claim masturbation was some twisted form of abortion, are you advocating that a life be extinguished because it might be hard growing up as an adopted child?  a foster child?  No chance, what-so-ever, for it to get out of its mess, so best kill it 1st?

[Plane]

<<But Abortion is a killing and deserves limits jusrt as other sorts of killing have.>>

It's certainly not a homicide. 

It's as much a killing as masturbation is, when the guy flushes live sperm down a toilet.  It may be as much a killing as a biopsy is, when live cells are cut out of a host's body to die in the lab.  And it may be as much of a killing as the death of an amoeba would be if someone spills it out of a jar to dry up and die.

Just to call it a killing gets you nowhere, plane.  It's not the killing of a live, independent, sentient, thinking, feeling human being with its own memories of interactions with others and its own internalized identity.

So what is a Human being?

If you are sure what one is not  you must be a good one to ask what one is.

A human being must be

alive, independent, sentient, thinking, feeling -----------with its own memories of interactions with others and its own internalized identity.

You can't mean that all of these qualitys must be present elese tha autistic , the amneisiac and the very recently born don't qualify as human beings , neither I suppose would the rather stupid.

So which of these qualitys are the ones that must be present for a creature to be considered a human being ?

[Michael Tee]

You can't mean that all of these qualitys [alive, independent, sentient, thinking, feeling -----------with its own memories of interactions with others and its own internalized identity] must be present elese tha autistic , the amneisiac and the very recently born don't qualify as human beings , neither I suppose would the rather stupid.

I believe the autistic meet each and every one of the criteria stated.

The amnesiac as well, to a limited degree, but certainly more than the fetus.

The very recently born meet the test of independence (existing ex utero) and sentient and alive as well.  Once the little guy is out of the womb and on his own, he's somebody's baby and he or she has related to other humans, who have a memory of him or her as a viable human being.

[Plane]

You can't mean that all of these qualitys [alive, independent, sentient, thinking, feeling -----------with its own memories of interactions with others and its own internalized identity] must be present elese tha autistic , the amneisiac and the very recently born don't qualify as human beings , neither I suppose would the rather stupid.

I believe the autistic meet each and every one of the criteria stated.

No some of the Autistic are not handicapped much , but there are severe cases in which interaction with other people is impossible.

The amnesiac as well, to a limited degree, but certainly more than the fetus.

I don't under stand that.

The very recently born meet the test of independence (existing ex utero) and sentient and alive as well.  Once the little guy is out of the womb and on his own, he's somebody's baby and he or she has related to other humans, who have a memory of him or her as a viable human being.

So a creature that meets just one of these criteria is Human?

[sirs]

The very recently born meet the test of independence (existing ex utero) and sentient and alive as well.  Once the little guy is out of the womb and on his own, he's somebody's baby and he or she has related to other humans, who have a memory of him or her as a viable human being.

I hate to break this to you Tee, but the "little guy" in the womb is also someone's baby.  so much so, that if he dies prematurely, they even have  *gasp*  a funeral, complete with other related humans.

[Michael Tee]

I meant even the amnesiac has short-term memory.

I think the just-born are in the same category as late-term abortion victims.  Certainly there's no difference between the baby one minute before and one minute after birth.  Except that we're being dragged pretty far afield here.  Most abortions aren't last-minute. 

I'd look at it like this.  The mother's right has priority over the baby's right, expecially when the baby is just a ball of cells.  No thinking, no feeling, no nothing except raw potential.

I extend the mother's right one or two trimesters - - the last-minute abortions are pretty grim, but I regard them as a necessary sacrifice to protect the woman's right to choose what happens to and with her own body.

Once you get past birth, I say, OK, this is obviously too far to extend that protection.  It's murder because you see a viable living breathing infant outside the mother's body.  So it's an arbitrary line but so what?  Pre-meditation in murder is an arbitrary line too, and it lets off a lot of people with violent tempers who are a continuing menace to the public, as opposed to a pre-meditated murderer who may have planned and carried out a once-only operation, for revenge.  There are lots of arbitrary cut-offs in law - - age of consent for example.

[Michael Tee]

<<I hate to break this to you Tee, but the "little guy" in the womb is also someone's baby.  so much so, that if he dies prematurely, they even have  *gasp*  a funeral, complete with other related humans.>>

Don't know what planet you've been living on, sirs, but I've had personal family experiences with miscarriage and even stillborn babies.  A funeral would have been bizarre in either case.  As a matter of fact, in the Jewish religion, the baby doesn't get a funeral unless it's lived outside the womb for thirty days.

[sirs]

Don't know what planet you've been living on, sirs, but I've had personal family experiences with miscarriage and even stillborn babies.  A funeral would have been bizarre in either case. 

Strange, I've been on the same planet and have actually gone to some of these apparent bizarre acts.  I'll be sure to pass on your conclusions of how bizarre their mourning and grief really were.   

[Michael Tee]

<<Strange, I've been on the same planet and have actually gone to some of these apparent bizarre acts.  I'll be sure to pass on your conclusions of how bizarre their mourning and grief really were. >>

I didn't say the mourning and grief were bizarre.  Been there, done that.  It was the ritual that was bizarre. Never seen it happen in my entire life.  Never even heard of it.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Personally, I think that a funeral for a miscarriage is rather weird, but I believe that whether to have a funeral or flush (or anything in between) a miscarriage is up to whomever the parents might be. I think that it is none of my business how or if a couple reproduces. It's entirely up th them.

You can name the unborn fetus or wait to name the baby for as long as you wish. It's not up to me.
I have no problems with not intruding on other people's behavior so long as it does not infringe on me.

[Rich]

>>It's not the killing of a live, independent, sentient, thinking, feeling human being with its own memories of interactions with others and its own internalized identity.<<

Fathers often speak to their children in the womb and their voices are recognized by their children upon birth. Of course the same is true of mothers.  Doctors have tested children who have been read to in the womb and find that they can read much earlier than children who were not read to. Experts also suggest playing music to your child in the womb relaxes them and can lead to musical ability.
 
Nor sentient? Not thinking? Your brain is still developing into your twenties. Are you not sentient until then?

So your little comment about humans in the womb is nothing more than bullshit designed to support killing them for your own selfish reasons.