That might make sense, except for the fact that scientifically advanced countries acknowledge the necessity of legal abortion, and countries that are behind scientifically adamantly oppose it.

“So tell me radical, when you look at an ultrasound and it’s the shape of a baby, is that just a more organized form of cells? You know, a form of cells with fingers and toes?”

Yes, I think it is a mere organized form of cells.

“Have a good weekend and a Merry Christmas.”

Likewise.

As far as overpopulation, I’d like to see the support of this. I remember in the 70’s we were told that there would not be enough food to feed those in the United states by 2000. Seems that folk are eating pretty well.

I had already suspected that you support abortion in all terms. That is very unfortunate.

As far as science, I always embrace science. One day medicine and science is going to make clear to everyone what barbarism abortion is.

So tell me radical, when you look at an ultrasound and it’s the shape of a baby, is that just a more organized form of cells? You know, a form of cells with fingers and toes?

Radical, we’re not going to agree on this point (and likely any other). The chances of you saying anything on this matter that does no nauseate me is very slim. (And likely, it’s the same with what I have said to you.) Have a good weekend and a Merry Christmas.

I believe turning women into baby machines is barbaric and has no place in a civilized society or a world that is already overpopulated. I believe it’s barbaric to dictate what a woman can and can’t do with her own body. I think it’s barbaric for a person to value forming cells more than a fully grown adult capable of making their own decisions.

“It is right to decide for all as a society does not or should not believe in abusing or killing the innocent.”

‘It is right to decide for all as a society that does not condone subjecting innocent children to sexual deviance such as homosexuality.’

Do you see the irony? Sadly, I doubt it.

“You claim that no one has proven that a fetus is life. I would argue that no one has proven that a fetus is not life.”

Exactly. I never said that anything was proven about fetuses and life. That is precisely why it is a matter of opinion and no one should be forcing their opinion on others. Why should the default position be that it is life, when even you admit it is not proven? Because you want it to be? Real convincing.
That’s like saying that the Tooth Fairy is neither proven nor disproven, therefore we should all believe in it just for the hell of it. Even though there’s no evidence either way.

“I’m guessing that you are even for late term abortions.”

“Late-term abortions” are largely a scare tactic used by anti-choicers like yourself. “Late-term abortions” are extremely, extremely rare, they account for under 1% of all abortions, and they are only performed when the mother’s life is in danger. If you are still against abortion when the woman’s life is at risk, you had better rethink your authority on lecturing about what is and is not barbaric.
In any case, I do support all abortions, as I said before.

“As technology increases, younger and younger “fetuses” have become “feasible” for survival of early birth.”

Oh, NOW you care about modern medicine? Whatever happened to “sex as designed between a man and a woman leads to pregnancy”? Now you want to intrude upon the “intelligently designed” reproductive process with evil modern scientific options? Looks like someone’s compromising their convictions. Please spare me the hypocrisy.
In any case, when a woman seeks an abortion late enough that the fetus could be feasible, doctors usually *do* birth it early and hook it up to machines to complete development. Like I said before, if pregnancy was transferable, I wouldn’t have an issue with your “force the women to carry babies cuz I think they’re life” stance.
But in reality, pregnancy is not transferable, and nearly 90% of abortions are done when the “baby” is still an embryo and looks nothing like “life” or a “person”, and are not anywhere near feasible.

“I believe we should honor and celebrate life. It really is that simple.”

I believe in celebrating LIVING life, not just bringing in more life for the sake of life. And to get the best quality out of living, everyone should be able to make their own choices about their own body. It’s simple to me.

Do not make me reiterate the point about opinion, do not.

As articulated above, whether or not a fetus constitutes “life” cannot be proven nor disproven. Therefore, everyone is free to have their own opinions about it. If you think it is life, then good for you, you celebrate it. But not everyone agrees that it is “life” or that the “life” of a cluster of cells should or needs to be celebrated.

However, after doing a little digging I discovered that medically-safe abortion procedures were not legal (let alone socially acceptable) “in this neck of the woods in the late 1960s.”

I only wish that the woman who gave birth to me would have had the option of a medically-safe and non-socially-condemned abortion procedure. So …

Well so then … I am an male adopted person who ’supports safe abortion procedures’. I don’t want to claim authority or anything but I do believe that if you disagree with me, you might find yourself in the midst of a (logical) tautology.

It is right to decide for all as a society does not or should not believe in abusing or killing the innocent.

You claim that no one has proven that a fetus is life. I would argue that no one has proven that a fetus is not life. I’m guessing that you are even for late term abortions. As technology increases, younger and younger “fetuses” have become “feasible” for survival of early birth.

I believe we should honor and celebrate life. It really is that simple.

I never said without care, I said without depending on living inside a woman 24/7.
An infant can be taken care of by anyone, or as you say put up for adoption, or whatever. When the infant is born, it is no longer a burden to only the woman carrying it. If a pregnancy was transferable to others the way a born child is, then abortion would not make much sense. The issue is forcing a woman to carry something inside her body against her will. A mother with a 3 year old is not forced to take care of that child against her will.

“I won’t go into the car analogy as we have dispelled any similarities there.”

I don’t see any dispelling of similarities in the analogy.

“I have and will always stand for the underdog. I will speak out when I think that there is injustice and harm being done to someone that can not speak or unable to speak for his/her self. I will be the fist to stand up for a drag queen or effeminate guy. I will be the best back up that a beaten down person can imagine. I am there for anyone that is the victim of abuse or neglect.”

Yeah…those are all developed people with family ties, societal ties, senses for pain and suffering, etc. Not relevant.

“There are few cases that illustrate the need of defense more than the unborn.”

I know that is your opinion. The question is: why is that your opinion? The question is also: why do you feel you have the right to force that opinion on everyone else?

You assert that the unborn are deserving of defense from “murder”, but you do not say why or how you come to that conclusion or why anyone else should agree with that conclusion. If you simply believe it is immoral, then say so. But the facts remain that a) There is no objective evidence that an embryo or a fetus is “life”, and b)You do not have the right to force your moral beliefs on others.

You believe abortion is wrong, I do not. I support everyone’s decision on whether to abort or to keep the fetus. I leave that up to the individual’s choice. You want everyone to do what you believe is right to fit in with your moral beliefs.

But, how is it right for someone to ban abortion for all because of their personal morals, and how is that different from someone banning homosexual behavior because of their personal morals?

Actually a child would be hard pressed to survive without care until they are about 7 or 8 years old in most cases. So I guess you feel that we should be able to kill the child until it can fend for and feed itself?

I won’t go into the car analogy as we have dispelled any similarities there.

There is no irony here. I have and will always stand for the underdog. I will speak out when I think that there is injustice and harm being done to someone that can not speak or unable to speak for his/her self. I will be the fist to stand up for a drag queen or effeminate guy. I will be the best back up that a beaten down person can imagine. I am there for anyone that is the victim of abuse or neglect. There are few cases that illustrate the need of defense more than the unborn.

After birth, an infant no longer has to rely solely on the woman carrying it for survival. It is no longer part of her once it leaves the uterus. That is when it has it’s own right to freedom, including the freedom not to be killed. Yes, yes, I know you think fetuses are deserving of this “right to life” too, and that is where we disagree. As long as a fetus is inside a woman, she has the right to do to it what she wants. Her rights supersede those of a clump of forming cells (that essentially need to leech off of her body to survive for every second for 9 months).

“when sex works as designed between a man and a woman it results in a pregnancy. When you drive a vehicle and it results in death, it is not as designed.”

Ha ha ha, “design”. That is where you go wrong. Just because heterosexual sex can lead to pregnancy, that doesn’t mean one has to accept pregnancy just by engaging in sex. That may be nature’s intent, but that doesn’t mean one has to submit to that result. That is what modern medicine is for. Saying sex is “supposed” to lead to pregnancy and therefore one should just accept it, is like saying cancer is “supposed” to lead to death and one should just accept it. With modern medicine, humans no longer are required to submit to every whim of nature. If you agree that one can have surgery/treatment to avoid the natural effect (death) of cancer, then you would be hypocritical in saying one must accept the natural effect of sex when there are options available to avert the consequence.

Now that it’s established that sex CAN lead to pregnancy, as opposed to SHOULD lead to pregnancy, we can compare it to someone’s choice to drive a car.

Choosing to have sex may lead to pregnancy, as choosing to drive a car may lead to death.

Let’s say in both cases, precautions are taken to prevent the possible end, i.e., contraception and wearing a seat belt.

Say the precautions fail, and someone becomes pregnant, en route to an unwanted child, while the driver of the car becomes critically injured, en route to death.

If there are options available to avert the ends (unwanted child/death), why should they not be utilized?
Saying a pregnancy should not be terminated because the woman chose to have sex and therefore agreed to have a child, is like saying someone who needs an organ transplant after a car crash should not get one because they chose to drive a car, giving their consent to die.
Why should a woman have an abortion when she CHOSE to have sex, knowing she could become pregnant?
Why should a much in-demand organ be given to someone who CHOSE to drive a car knowing the possible outcomes, when the organ could be given to young child who did not make such a choice?

Answer: Because modern medicine seeks to alleviate suffering and improve the lives of people, no matter what “choices” they make.

“And and with the resulting auto death there is often a price to pay. Luckily the pregnancy will last only 9 months before putting the child up for adoption.”

Well, I know plenty of people who would rather die than let the government force them to do something with their body against their will. Again, your opinion of pregnancy being a small price to pay is just that- an opinion.

“Radical, I know you’re a Lefty but I can’t believe that you’re so selfish.”

Selfish? Nah. I just care about women who are established adults with ties to people in their lives, and think their right to make their own reproductive choices trumps the supposed right of a clump of sperm and egg to control her body for 9 months.

What I find funny about you Trace, is that you as a Libertarian oppose any kind of government infringement on your life in the form of taxes, regulations, and even anti-discrimination laws. Yet, when it comes to womens’ actual bodies, not their money, or their business, but their physical bodies, you are eager to have that government invasion legislate its morality on one of the most personal aspects of a person’s life–reproduction.

The irony is simply hilarious.

By the way, Tom N-V raises some very good points.

By the way, when sex works as designed between a man and a woman it results in a pregnancy. When you drive a vehicle and it results in death, it is not as designed. And and with the resulting auto death there is often a price to pay. Luckily the pregnancy will last only 9 months before putting the child up for adoption.

Radical, I know you’re a Lefty but I can’t believe that you’re so selfish.

Tom in Long Beach