Abortion

POSTED BY: cartoon
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 03:33
VIEWED: 22628
PAGE 5 of 28

Quote:

---

According to you "Unfortunately, little smart-assed twits who think they're intelligent think they can just bully and name-call whoever they want to attack...or "whoever they deem a troll". People like that...armed with their little half-facts, their little links to obscure writing, and their obviously limited life experience, etc. make me just wanna vomit." -Ed

Yes, this is the antithesis of all you deem objectionable.-Rue

---

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!


Ed BTW- I happen to know Rue. Rue is NOT a person with "little life experience".

heh heh heh heh

snicker

stilllaughingoverthatone, rue.




---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Fixed it. I've been drinking and playing on the net again..........

---

Well, it's nice to see we're maintaining sense of humor.



---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Y'know, abortion would almost be a forgotten issue if there weren't pharmacists who objected to handing out the morning after pill (don't know how many still do, but it's been a problem here), better education in general, less poverty, and generally less human misery. Call me when the conservatives (or anyone, really) "fix it" with abstinence programs, 'kay, Cartoon?

Oh, never mind. You don't have my phone number, and it’s not gonna happen anyway.

If the general level of human misery decreases, I can guarantee there would be fewer abortions. It's one of the issues tangled up with other side effects of human life. So, if people focused on actually doing something about education, homelessness, health care, etc. (our Victorian views on sexuality?) then we would also be helping in the fight against abortions.

I am, of course, speaking as a U.S. citizen, about the U.S., because Rue, SignyM, Khyron, Citizen, Storymark, Chrisisall, AnthonyT, and DesktopHippie (gee, I could have just said "everyone but Cartoon and ShinyEd, couldn't I?) have pretty much said everything else that needs saying (or will in the future). I leave this topic to the informed debaters of RWED, along with a few fire extinguishers (just in case).

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Thankfully there are people who have some compassion and don't judge because they have little real experince of life outside of the sheltered upbringing they assume everyone got...

---

Easy, now. It's possible to have compassion and not judge and still be against abortion. It's also possible to have real-world experience and an unsheltered upbringing and still be against abortion. There are good, rational arguments against abortion, just like there are for it. Let's not take the easy way out of this conversation by simply painting the other side as ignorant morons.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets


I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DesktopHippie:
I have to admit, my first reaction to the birth control/don't have sex comment was a pretty sarcastic "Oh, gee! I never thought of that!" Which is bitchy I know, but seriously, there are very few women who choose a painful procedure that has a risk of pretty nasty complications over the pill, or asking the guy to wear a condom. And that's leaving aside the whole don't-bother-having-sex-in-the-first-place thing. None of those options takes from the fact that unwanted pregnancy happens, and when it happens it has to be dealt with. I'm not saying abortion is always the right answer. What I'm saying is that it has to be a legal option. Because the reality is that if it isn't it just becomes an illegal one.

---

See? See? We can have a calm discussion after all! Go us!

Back-slapping aside, this position assumes that abortion is a morally neutral proposition, which I'm not prepared to grant. If it's the case that abortion is in fact morally neutral, then golly, we better not make it illegal. But if it's the case that it's not, then we need to be talking about other stuff.

The problem with the abortion debate seems to be that one side casts it as a moral issue and argues it that way, and the other side casts it as a legal rights issue and argues it that way. And so no progress is ever made, because the two sides aren't even talking about the same thing!

For the record, I oppose abortion. I do so not on religious grounds, but philosophical ones (which I'd be happy to discuss--calmly--if asked). And I think that I've demonstrated that I'm neither hot-head, nor extremist, nor radical; I don't claim the Republicans nor conservatism. And I certainly think that we need to seriously address the problems of poverty in the U.S. I don't want anybody dying in back alleys. But I still oppose abortion, and I hope that I can, at the least, exemplify the calmer, more considered side of my position.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets


I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Thankfully there are people who have some compassion and don't judge because they have little real experince of life outside of the sheltered upbringing they assume everyone got...

---

Easy, now. It's possible to have compassion and not judge and still be against abortion. It's also possible to have real-world experience and an unsheltered upbringing and still be against abortion.

---

I agree.

As related to real-world experience, I was probably involved in political discussion and debate before many of the posters in this thread were even born. I've also witnessed and experienced things firsthand which many of you can only have read about long after the fact.

As regarding abortion proponents seeming unwillingness for any sort of "informed consent" (hence my posting of the original article, above), here's another from the same source: http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=6019 -- which exposes yet another aspect of "informed consent" which abortion proponents would rather not discuss -- and something which (thanks to advances in science) wasn't known when Roe vs Wade was decided more than three decades ago.

Quote:

---

Undoubtedly many of the great evils of our times have been committed because the cries of the victims were not heard—not heard by those who sat by, comfortably ignorant of the horrors around them. In early nineteenth-century England, few citizens had any real understanding that the lump of sugar they dropped in their afternoon tea was made at the high price of human bondage. The screams of men and women branded or whipped on West Indies sugar plantations were not heard in the fashionable parlors of England. Not until, that is, the great Christian statesman William Wilberforce launched his crusade against the slave trade.

Today, some two hundred years later, there are victims whose agony our ears will never hear. These are the unborn victims of abortion.

While the unborn do not have a voice to scream, science tells us that by twenty weeks a child in the womb is capable of feeling pain. Dr. Sunny Anand, director of the Pain Neurobiology Laboratory at Arkansas Children’s Hospital Research Institute, testified before Congress and said: “The pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns or older children . . . the highest density of pain receptors per square inch of skin in human development occurs in utero from twenty to thirty weeks gestation.” Sobering testimony.

To make matters worse, the biological mechanisms that inhibit the experience of pain do not begin to develop until weeks thirty to thirty-two.

Yet ironically, an unborn child has less legal protection from feeling pain than commercial livestock. In a slaughterhouse, a method of slaughter is deemed legally humane only if, as the hundred-year-old law states, “all animals are rendered insensible to pain . . . ” By contrast, D&E abortions, performed as late as twenty-four weeks, involve the dismemberment of the unborn child by a pair of sharp metal forceps. Instillation methods of abortion replace up to one cup of amniotic fluid with concentrated salt solution, which the unborn child inhales as the salt burns his or her skin. The child lives in this condition up to an hour.

These things are uncomfortable to hear and to speak about. That is precisely the point. We should not be comfortable in a society where such things exist and where we have the power to influence change. The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act is scheduled to be re-introduced into this Congress. This legislation would require that women seeking abortions are fully informed of the pain that their unborn baby feels when he or she is aborted twenty weeks or more after fertilization. If that knowledge does not deter the mother in what has come to be reduced to a mere “choice,” she must be offered the opportunity to give the unborn child drugs to ease his or her pain.

Pro-abortion adv

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME