BF2S Forums Wave of anti-abortion Bills sweeps US

Kmar wrote:

Incestuous birth = deformities is a popular myth.

Dude, what happens in Florida, stays in Florida.

Macbeth wrote:

Would you deny a 10 year old girl who was raped and impregnated by her own father an abortion? Would you tell her she couldn't have a second chance at life? Simple yes or no.

Because it isn't developed enough.

and would the murder of a year old baby be acceptable as long as it was unconscious?

LoL. Good one chief. No of course not, it's a living baby at that point. It's fully developed, and conscious.

"A living baby" ? lol

Once that sperm hits the egg it's living. It's also a baby. "Fetus" is just a term you blokes slap on to justify killing it.

Your question is an incorrect one. Having a child at ten years old is not the end of life. Put the baby up for adoption.

Kmar wrote:

Incestuous birth = deformities is a popular myth.

Myth?

Stop trolling.

Kmar wrote:

Pug wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Incestuous birth = deformities is a popular myth.

Dude, what happens in Florida, stays in Florida.

says the guy from the biggest redneck state in the union.

He doesn't live in Mississippi, Kmar. Unless you mean by size, in which case, yes he most certainly does.

Pug wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

It's not a baby it's a fetus. It doesn't have consciousness.

So a 10 year old girl would be forced to have her fathers deformed rape baby because you draw a solid line against all abortions for whatever the reason?

Most rape babies aren't "the father's deformed rape baby", btw, but if that's the case...no she shouldn't.  BUT, in some cases it makes sense to see if she's willing to accept support from everyone until the birth comes and then adoption.

I know a couple who adopts crack babies.  They've raised three thru college so far, and have three others well on their way.  The kids who went to college: one graduated and became a priest, one is in medical school, and the other is a dentist.

Yeah, tough to think that some people beat the odds, but it happens a lot more than you think.

That's a nice story and all but we both know the amount of crack babies who don't end up in stable households far outweigh the ones that do. I don't see the point in a story of how less than 1% of crack babies got lucky.

I once was asked for money by a homeless lady who was obviously a drug addict. I talked to her for a little while after I gave her two dollars. She claimed she was pregnant and had HIV. What possible good would it do the child or the world for it to be born? She wasn't raped, she claimed she had gotten pregnant by being a prostitute, so she couldn't get an abortion if we drew the line at "only in cases of rape and incest". Would you deny her abortion knowing the child would come out with HIV and addicted to drugs?

I'm okay with a woman getting counseling if she needs it but it's obvious the bills up for debate aren't about getting woman help, they are about stopping abortion no matter the cost.

Pug wrote:

Macbeth...if it was possible to make the mother completely comfortable in every way - mentally, physically, monetarily, etc, during the pregnancy, and then the adoption was mentally, physically, and monetarily, etc, acceptable to the child...

....would that change you mind?

I'm assuming you mean no abortion, but we (the government) makes sure that she is comfortable, etc. No. Once the woman see's the child after it's born or goes through the bonding process of pregnancy and all that jazz to separate her from the child would cause unneeded psychological harm.

The plan also fails when it comes to the monetary side of the issue...


I'm sorry to cut up the post like that, could you just respond to everything in one post? I hate quote trees and arguing 20 different things at once because of them.

I know a woman who became pregnant in her teens, had the baby instead of aborting, and put the child up for adoption at birth. The baby was adopted pretty quickly and that was the end of it.

Just because a child has HIV doesn't allow you to make the choice of whether it lives or dies. The person has a right to life from the moment they're created.

Last edited by -Sh1fty- (2011-03-26 22:08:01)

its still just a baby, it doesn't know any better!  it wont even feel anything!  besides, the year old baby never said we can't do it, so we might as well just do it because the parents dont want to have to waste all their money on their baby.

and it's not fully developed, it still has to grow into an adult.

It would feel something, pinch a child sometime and you'll see. It has a very low understanding of the world but is learning from it and interacting with it. You can't compare a fetus to a baby. It just doesn't work.

Macbeth wrote:

its still just a baby, it doesn't know any better!  it wont even feel anything!  besides, the year old baby never said we can't do it, so we might as well just do it because the parents dont want to have to waste all their money on their baby.

and it's not fully developed, it still has to grow into an adult.

It would feel something, pinch a child sometime and you'll see. It has a very low understanding of the world but is learning from it and interacting with it. You can't compare a fetus to a baby. It just doesn't work.

they're both going to end up as the same thing.  it is the same thing, they're just in different stages of development

fetus

DesertFox- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Would you deny a 10 year old girl who was raped and impregnated by her own father an abortion? Would you tell her she couldn't have a second chance at life? Simple yes or no.

Because it isn't developed enough.


LoL. Good one chief. No of course not, it's a living baby at that point. It's fully developed, and conscious.

"A living baby" ? lol

Once that sperm hits the egg it's living. It's also a baby. "Fetus" is just a term you blokes slap on to justify killing it.

Your question is an incorrect one. Having a child at ten years old is not the end of life. Put the baby up for adoption.

The sperm and egg nuclei haven't even fused into a zygote when the cells meet. Even after fertilization, it's still got to implant in the endometrium to not keep from getting tossed out the uterus. Also, it's an embryo for roughly the first trimester and a fetus for the second and third.

Since when does a bundle of cells automatically get rights at some arbitrary point in its development? People just go "Awwwww" over babies for some odd reason and lose whatever sense they had.

How is protecting a baby from murder, oh I'm sorry, a fetus losing every sense a person has? So killing kids is proper sense? Oh my apology

AussieReaper wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Kmar wrote:

not trollin at all.

It is a myth. I was being hyperbolic to make a point. IIRC the genetic defect chance for non-relatives is like 3-5% and for relatives 5-7%. It's not much of a difference really.

And that again increases if the grandparents are also blood related.

Incestuous birth increases the risk of deformities simply because the recessive genes are more likely to be produced in the offspring.

I suppose yes.. if you made it a habit to restrict the gene pool. But my comment was relative to a father raping his daughter. There are societies where inbreeding is quite common, and the ratio of kids born with birth defects compared to other societies is small.

Macbeth wrote:

You still have all of those other cost that come from unwanted children that make a one time abortion cheaper than the alt.

Why do you automatically assume that the only options are abortion or a lifetime of welfare?

Your analysis is flawed.

Reform of the adoption laws (particularly post-adoption) of this nation and foster-to-adopt would greatly reduce the number of kids in the foster system (our version of orphanages) and match them to waiting families, many of whom are hesitant to adopt due to adoption laws here that allow the birth family to "change their mind" at nearly any point after the adoption, as well as a court system that forces contact with birth families that are not in the best interest of the child or their new families. (run-on sentence ftw)

Fix that and you have a VERY good option to abortion and a lifetime of welfare. Slightly more expensive than the former, much less expensive than the latter, but doesn't involve the possibility of killing a growing fetus for convenience's sake.

That doesn't mean abortion as a medical option should be outlawed. That's just insane.

The sperm and egg nuclei haven't even fused into a zygote when the cells meet. Even after fertilization, it's still got to implant in the endometrium to not keep from getting tossed out the uterus. Also, it's an embryo for roughly the first trimester and a fetus for the second and third.

Since when does a bundle of cells automatically get rights at some arbitrary point in its development? People just go "Awwwww" over babies for some odd reason and lose whatever sense they had.

Well, that's somewhat true, but then again, that doesn't tackle the moral dilemma in such case. After all, a willful ending of a consciousness is committed. Or potential consciousness, if you'd like. But, then again, a baby is no different. I guess no one would agree to killing them because they're too cute or whatever.

Also, what Kmar says is correct. The only problem with incestuous birth is the dominance of otherwise dormant genes. There's really no other problem with it.