If a woman is going to have one, I would prefer it be done early on. But I don't make that choice. Again, I don't deny one's right to a Pro Life stance, but I also think it is convenient to not take into account who will raise and pay for that unwanted child. I can barely afford the one I have and I spend hours teaching her and loving her. What kind of life is this unwanted kid gonna have on their own or as a ward of the state? Our foster care system is terrifying. And some propose doing away with the Dept of Education. The odds keep getting stacked against them. Once the kids are out of the womb, the loudest Pro Life politicians vote against any program that would help these kids.

 

If its not done by the time theres a heartbeat, then its too late (JMO), 

 

At that point I'd much rather see the child put up for adoption upon birth, rather than simply destroyed.

---

The definition of child is "a person between birth and full growth". I realize using the word child helps your agenda, but it makes you look like a fool. The correct term is fetus. Also, what do you consider "living"? A visualized and recordable heart beat can be seen by 6 weeks. Lungs, however, don't start functioning until the 3rd trimester. There is a reason health care facilities don't assign medical record numbers to a fetus. The medical record is assigned at birth.

 

I wonder if "life starts at conception" people celebrate their kids first year alive 3 months after birth. "Happy alive-day!"

 

I'm guessing you have never seen an ultrasound of a child forming in the womb.  It's a life.  Don't dance around the facts with technicalities, birthday traditions, and medical records.

---

correct nothing is universal.

 

If it was than there wouldn't be restrictions on where I can and can not carry my gun. There wouldn't be a requirement that I take a safety course and pay for a license to carry my gun. There wouldn't be a requirement that I pay for a background check before buying my gun.

 

Given this, do you think the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms and freedom of speech (accepting that there are reasonable exceptions)? Because if you do, you are accepting the same wording that you deny applies to voting rights.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

If a woman is going to have one, I would prefer it be done early on. But I don't make that choice. Again, I don't deny one's right to a Pro Life stance, but I also think it is convenient to not take into account who will raise and pay for that unwanted child. I can barely afford the one I have and I spend hours teaching her and loving her. What kind of life is this unwanted kid gonna have on their own or as a ward of the state? Our foster care system is terrifying. And some propose doing away with the Dept of Education. The odds keep getting stacked against them. Once the kids are out of the womb, the loudest Pro Life politicians vote against any program that would help these kids.

 

Adoption is very expensive, and there are plenty of families who are looking to adopt.  The foster system is filled with a lot of kids who were mistreated by their parents (malnourished, abused).

 

When I see a malnourished baby I think, "Some people should not be allowed to have children."  I don't care.  That is just how I think.  At some point, if you are a low life, in and out of jail, you should be snipped.  That would reduce a lot of suffering for innocent children.  How is that for big government?

 

---

 

 

When I see a malnourished baby I think, "Some people should not be allowed to have children."  I don't care.  That is just how I think.  At some point, if you are a low life, in and out of jail, you should be snipped.  That would reduce a lot of suffering for innocent children.  How is that for big government?

 

 

I would happen to agree and would support that idea you brought forth. 

---

Given this, do you think the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms and freedom of speech (accepting that there are reasonable exceptions)? Because if you do, you are accepting the same wording that you deny applies to voting rights.

 

Nothing in the constitution is universal, there are conditions on all rights. The least mentioned is the concept of voting. In the "Bill of Rights" the constitution addresses several issues non of them being a right to vote, because it was never designed for everyone to participate in the election process. Most of the government was to be appointed and act as a representative of their constituents.

 

Even in the Amendments that have come through out time, all of them only address specific cases where discrimination was being used to oppress voters. I don't advocate that, I advocate a voters license that requires anyone that wants to participate in the electoral process have some basic knowledge on the functions of government.

 

We can keep treating elections like American Idol and picking the one that talks most like us, looks most like us, and walks like most us. However, that's not the way it was designed to work, and it is the reason why our government is failing on every level.

---

That sounds like "alive" to me... 

A visualized and recordable heart beat is present in people in a persistent vegetative state too. If they are alive as well, why aren't their family members charged with murder when they decide to turn of the live support?

 

Fact is, there is no credible medical studies that support independent, sustainable life in the first trimester. The fetus at that point is nothing more than a clump of cells in the mother's womb. That's why miscarriages happen, because the body mistakes said cells for foreign cells and does everything in it's power to expel them. 

---

It has nothing to do with the process. I've studied fetal development for several years and all of the medical literature, professors, and doctors I've learned from refer to the the late 1st trimester to term a "fetus" and prior to that an embryo. In no medical literature is the in-utero fetus referred to as a "child". You're free to use whatever terminology you'd like to fit your agenda, but it is not the correct terminology.

 

I'm not going to keep banging my head in the wall to convince you abortion is ending a life. I'm pro life you obviously are not, time to move on.

---

A visualized and recordable heart beat is present in people in a persistent vegetative state too. If they are alive as well, why aren't their family members charged with murder when they decide to turn of the live support?

 

Fact is, there is no credible medical studies that support independent, sustainable life in the first trimester. The fetus at that point is nothing more than a clump of cells in the mother's womb. That's why miscarriages happen, because the body mistakes said cells for foreign cells and does everything in it's power to expel them. 

 

So at what point do you consider it a life?

---

Would you agree then that in the second trimester when there is sustainable life abortion is ending a life?

I can't make a statement on that because I'm not familiar with the general consensus in the medical world on when a fetus becomes a person in its own right. 

---

I can't make a statement on that because I'm not familiar with the general consensus in the medical world on when a fetus because a person in its own right. 

 

I reworded my question, I'm more curious about when do you consider it a life? I hate all abortion but past the first trimester is when I consider it legally ending a life.

---

My profession is Diagnostic Medical Sonography. I'm pretty well educated on the stages of fetal development, but nice assumption.

 

Then you disgust me.

---

I reworded my question, I'm more curious about when do you consider it a life? I hate all abortion but past the first trimester is when I consider it legally ending a life.

Again; I simply don't know. Most of the research I did was with regards to another debate where someone was claiming that life starts at conception, which practically everyone in the medical field disagrees with. 

---

We don't have to agree on pro-life/pro-choice, but that has nothing to do with terminology. The correct medical terminology used at universities, hospitals, ob/gyn clinics, etc. is "fetus" and not "child".

 

I make it a habit not to refer to it as a fetus, When my wife was pregnant I didn't refer to it as a fetus that was my child inside her womb. When we almost lost our third it wasn't the fetus that we almost lost, it was my child.

 

Universities, hospitals and clinics be damned.

---

At birth.

 

so we both at least agree infanticide is a horrible crime against humanity.

---

Um, what? I haven't even given my opinion on the issue, rather just stated facts that are being misrepresented in the thread. 

-A fetus is not a living being.

-"Child" is not a term used to describe in-utero offspring.

 

You may disagree, but the medical world doesn't. Pro-life obstetricians use the term fetus, not child, because that's what it is. Ultrasound technologists use the term fetus, not child, because that's what it is. Do you follow? I've never said that I support the decision of aborting a pregnancy and would never advocate someone I know to do so. I do, however, feel it isn't my right to tell a mother she must carry a pregnancy to term even though it could complicate her health to the point of death.

 

That isn't a "fact".  You are extremely ignorant is you think the general consensus in the medical world (Doctors) is that it isn't a life until after birth.

 

Terminology is just that; TERMS.  They don't mean anything when it comes to being living or non-living.  Common sense says its living.  It takes a lot of brain washing and pro-abortion propaganda to believe it is anything other than a life.

 

Even saying that an unborn child just a day before birth is not a life is DISGUSTING and SICK.

 

---

What about an ectopic pregnancy with a visualized heartbeat? The ectopic pregnancy has zero chance at developing to term and has a high risk of compromising maternal health (rupture, causing bleeding). This is the leading cause of maternal death in the 1st trimester. Should mothers be allowed to "abort" in those cases? ........But there is a heartbeat.....

 

That is extremely rare.  This is typical of pro-abortionists to point out the outliers to try to justify to common practice of abortion birth control.

---

That is extremely rare.  This is typical of pro-abortionists to point out the outliers to try to justify to common practice of abortion birth control.

That's what you get when you apply blanket statement like "all abortion should be illegal". The word all necessarily means including the outliers. 

---

Since you seem to be more intelligent than Let me ask you:

 

1. When does "life" began?

2. Is it ever appropriate to terminate a pregnancy?

 

 

Also, I am not "extremely ignorant" to assume that doctors refer to in-utero offspring as a fetus. I work with OB/GYN doctors nearly every day of my career and I've never heard them refer to the fetus as a child. I work with radiologists every day of my career and I've never heard them refer to the fetus as a child. I've read and studied several books on fetal development and none of them ever refer to the fetus as a child.

 

Again, you seem to be inferring that because they say "fetus" that means "non-living".

 

Life begins at some point after conception.  At which point exactly, who can say?  However, it is safe to say that the life forming within a few weeks is living.  It needs food, has a heart beat, moves, ect.

 

What's ok and what's not ok?  It's not an easy question to answer; however, it is an easy answer for the common practices going on today where men and women irresponsibly have unprotected sex and terminate a living being because they consider it an inconvenience.  The uncommon occurrences of ectopic pregnancies and rape resulting in pregnancy are not the root of the issue.

 

The problem is you have an unborn living humans being thrown in the trash.

---

Nothing in the constitution is universal, there are conditions on all rights. The least mentioned is the concept of voting. In the "Bill of Rights" the constitution addresses several issues non of them being a right to vote, because it was never designed for everyone to participate in the election process. Most of the government was to be appointed and act as a representative of their constituents.

 

Even in the Amendments that have come through out time, all of them only address specific cases where discrimination was being used to oppress voters. I don't advocate that, I advocate a voters license that requires anyone that wants to participate in the electoral process have some basic knowledge on the functions of government.

 

We can keep treating elections like American Idol and picking the one that talks most like us, looks most like us, and walks like most us. However, that's not the way it was designed to work, and it is the reason why our government is failing on every level.

 

I did not limit my discussion to rights as universal.

 

The bolded statement is simply not true. Some version of the phrase "the right to vote" is mentioned 5 times, more than any other "right". If a sentence begins with "the right to vote shall not be abridged/prevented [by/due to/etc]" is acknowledging a right to vote.

 

Anyway, we agree that registration should be simple and free. I don't agree with your proposal that voting must be limited to anyone possessing a certain level of knowledge of government functions, because that would be too easy to manipulate and skew in favor of certain groups.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley