Smiling babies in the womb have pro-abortion activists screeching

nyj

Goodbye, my puppy
Feb 5, 2002
20,966
1,303
USA
Visit site
✟39,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
ifriit said:
Much in the same way that if you're pro-carnivore, you're pro-genocide. You certainly aren't against killing.
Errrr... what? That makes no sense whatsoever. How do you get, if someone eats meat, they condone genocide? There is no logic in that conclusion whatsoever. Besides, humans are omnivorous, not carnivorous.
 
Upvote 0

burrow_owl

Senior Contributor
Aug 17, 2003
8,561
381
47
Visit site
✟25,726.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
water ripple: I think you misunderstood me, or I wasn't clear enough, or something. Here's a redo:

Sonograms are very important, as you forcefully argue. However, their importance occurs at a certain juncture in a pregnancy: it's important when the woman decides she wants to keep the baby, and it is intended to make sure that a little 'un is doing well.

The proposal at issue here, though, isn't intended for those purposes. Rather, they want to buy lots and lots of sonograms for pregnancy crisis centers, not for legitimate and valuable medical purposes like in your case, but solely to achieve political objectives. Since these things aren't cheap, and aren't necessary at that juncture in the pregnancy (since the woman either a) doesn't plan on keeping it, or b) isn't sure whether to keep it) it amounts to wasting lots and lots of money that could better be spent on other things (like, say, prenatal care for people that have been in your shoes).

I'm pretty skeptical of the 'show a woman a picture of a fetus' method - i think we should encourage people to be more rational and less emotional with decisions, rather than the other way around - but if it's decided that that's an acceptable method of achieving certain policy goals, there are way, way cheaper methods of doing it, like just putting up posters of other sonograms or something.
 
Upvote 0
nyj said:
Errrr... what? That makes no sense whatsoever. How do you get, if someone eats meat, they condone genocide? There is no logic in that conclusion whatsoever. Besides, humans are omnivorous, not carnivorous.
You're right, there is no logic in the conclusion. It was meant as an illustration. Being pro-choice doesn't mean being pro-abortion.
 
Upvote 0

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟18,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
ifriit said:
You're right, there is no logic in the conclusion. It was meant as an illustration. Being pro-choice doesn't mean being pro-abortion.
Correct. Just because I support the right of Christians to be christian does not mean that I support Christianity for examle.

But according to Sweetkitty, just because I support her right to be Christian, I would be pro-christianity. I doubt that anyone would accuse me of being pro-Christianity though.
 
Upvote 0

Brother Christman

Constitution Party->11.04
Jun 26, 2003
744
4
53
TX, USA
Visit site
✟15,914.00
Faith
Baptist
Excellent stuff, Voegelin. Thanks for sharing.
salute.gif
 
Upvote 0

EvolvEarth

Well-Known Member
Jul 2, 2003
845
20
38
Florida
✟1,109.00
Faith
Buddhist
sweetkitty said:

If you are pro-choice you are pro-abortion...you certainly aren't against abortion.
How many people out there are actually pro-abortion? I'm pro-science, that doesn't mean I only agree with using science, but also want science to be conducted. Being pro-abortion indicates that not only do you agree with abortion, but you also want it to be done. Nobody wants abortion to be done, but some see the reason to have an abortion. It's like saying someone that is anti-abortion is pro-life because nobody on this planet is pro-life. Nobody would even shower if they were pro-life to stop the death of bacteria. Here's the choices I see it:

Pro-abortion-choice
Anti-abortion

We're all for having the choice of abortion, but that doesn't mean we want abortion at all costs.
 
Upvote 0

Firscherscherling

Liberal Filthy Hairless Pig-Monkey
Apr 9, 2003
2,354
148
58
✟3,271.00
Faith
Atheist
burrow_owl said:
water ripple: I think you misunderstood me, or I wasn't clear enough, or something. Here's a redo:

Sonograms are very important, as you forcefully argue. However, their importance occurs at a certain juncture in a pregnancy: it's important when the woman decides she wants to keep the baby, and it is intended to make sure that a little 'un is doing well.

The proposal at issue here, though, isn't intended for those purposes. Rather, they want to buy lots and lots of sonograms for pregnancy crisis centers, not for legitimate and valuable medical purposes like in your case, but solely to achieve political objectives. Since these things aren't cheap, and aren't necessary at that juncture in the pregnancy (since the woman either a) doesn't plan on keeping it, or b) isn't sure whether to keep it) it amounts to wasting lots and lots of money that could better be spent on other things (like, say, prenatal care for people that have been in your shoes).

I'm pretty skeptical of the 'show a woman a picture of a fetus' method - i think we should encourage people to be more rational and less emotional with decisions, rather than the other way around - but if it's decided that that's an acceptable method of achieving certain policy goals, there are way, way cheaper methods of doing it, like just putting up posters of other sonograms or something.
The other issue is that we are not talking about regular sonograms, we are talking about this new technology that is very expensive in comparison and generally used only by very rich people who can afford it. It isn't the typical black-and-white sonogram.
 
Upvote 0

Firscherscherling

Liberal Filthy Hairless Pig-Monkey
Apr 9, 2003
2,354
148
58
✟3,271.00
Faith
Atheist
Force said:
And Im telling you I dont care, I know enough to point out that you cant for certain say the baby wasnt smiling for pleasure...your not the dang baby.

Like I am going to believe some book that tells me that life doesnt begin at conception, when I know thats not true.
Interesting. As I recall, when my daughter came early, I was told that she would be unable to take a bottle for a while because there is a specific number of weeks of development required befoer that reflex to such was developed. Turned out to be exactly true, right down to the day. The doctors and nurses had many other wise lessons for me. One was the idea that smiling is a muscular reflex until a certain level of development. Turned out to be exactly true. You can tell the difference when it happens. All of this was equally borne out for me in numerous books, none of whic claimed that early smiling was an emotional response. Two premature daughters taught me a heck of a lot about how infants develop, not everything, but a lot. I think I'll stick with the opinions of the experts, thanks.
 
Upvote 0

Brother Christman

Constitution Party->11.04
Jun 26, 2003
744
4
53
TX, USA
Visit site
✟15,914.00
Faith
Baptist
EvolvEarth said:
Pro-abortion-choice
Anti-abortion

We're all for having the choice of abortion, but that doesn't mean we want abortion at all costs.
This is pass-the-buck logic. Can you be "a little bit pregnant"?

Either you condemn abortion or by omission/indecision, you condone it. You're certainly entitled to do the latter if you must (and I will stand beside you to uphold your free-speech right to state your feelings, either way), but let's spare one another the rhetoric.
 
Upvote 0

Force

GO NOLES!!!!!!! 16 58
Sep 23, 2002
890
13
42
In Vegas at the moment....
Visit site
✟8,888.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Firscherscherling said:
The other issue is that we are not talking about regular sonograms, we are talking about this new technology that is very expensive in comparison and generally used only by very rich people who can afford it. It isn't the typical black-and-white sonogram.
Incorrect....covered under typical healthcare, the only thing is RIGHT NOW, you have to have a reason to use it (think there is a defect or something). The 3-D kind is WAY better than the typical way, you can see from every angle etc. and eventually it will overtake the old way of doing it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟18,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Brother Christman said:
This is pass-the-buck logic. Can you be "a little bit pregnant"?

Either you condemn abortion or by omission/indecision, you condone it. You're certainly entitled to do the latter if you must (and I will stand beside you to uphold your free-speech right to state your feelings, either way), but let's spare one another the rhetoric.
So I condone chrsitianity just because I support your right to be a christian? I don't think so.
 
Upvote 0

Brother Christman

Constitution Party->11.04
Jun 26, 2003
744
4
53
TX, USA
Visit site
✟15,914.00
Faith
Baptist
crazyfingers said:
So I condone chrsitianity just because I support your right to be a christian? I don't think so.
This isn't what I said: If you fail to condemn murder and, let's say, report it, you're considered guilty under current (yet-unperverted) laws. Same situation with abortion.
 
Upvote 0

Firscherscherling

Liberal Filthy Hairless Pig-Monkey
Apr 9, 2003
2,354
148
58
✟3,271.00
Faith
Atheist
Force said:
Incorrect....covered under typical healthcare, the only thing is RIGHT NOW, you have to have a reason to use it (think there is a defect or something). The 3-D kind is WAY better than the typical way, you can see from every angle etc. and eventually it will overtake the old way of doing it.
When you break a leg, you get an x-ray. you don't automatically get an MRI. Study up a bit and you will see that a typical sonogram machine is more than adequate to determine fetal growth and health, at least enough to determine if higher-quality imaging is necessary. With a typical sonogram you can measure bone growth, brain development, coronary development, etc. This new procedure is not necessary anf therefore, is not somehting most doctors intend to start using in a sweeping manner.
 
Upvote 0

Force

GO NOLES!!!!!!! 16 58
Sep 23, 2002
890
13
42
In Vegas at the moment....
Visit site
✟8,888.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Firscherscherling said:
When you break a leg, you get an x-ray. you don't automatically get an MRI. Study up a bit and you will see that a typical sonogram machine is more than adequate to determine fetal growth and health, at least enough to determine if higher-quality imaging is necessary. With a typical sonogram you can measure bone growth, brain development, coronary development, etc. This new procedure is not necessary anf therefore, is not somehting most doctors intend to start using in a sweeping manner.
That is not what the doctors out here are saying....and the doctors have said it is a WAY better procedure just more expensive....very precise...but I mean it doesnt take a brain surgeon to figure if you can get more angles etc. and a better reading that its better.

I have seen the difference personally and there is no comparison.

But all technology is that way....really expensive at first then after a few years its common and the price drops dramatically.
 
Upvote 0
Brother Christman said:
Either you condemn abortion or by omission/indecision, you condone it.
Please, try to use the language correctly. Condone means to accept without objection. One can simultaneously object to the practice while understanding its necessity as a legal choice. Claiming otherwise, as you do, is simply a strawman.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Firscherscherling

Liberal Filthy Hairless Pig-Monkey
Apr 9, 2003
2,354
148
58
✟3,271.00
Faith
Atheist
Force said:
That is not what the doctors out here are saying....and the doctors have said it is a WAY better procedure just more expensive....very precise...but I mean it doesnt take a brain surgeon to figure if you can get more angles etc. and a better reading that its better.

I have seen the difference personally and there is no comparison.

But all technology is that way....really expensive at first then after a few years its common and the price drops dramatically.
Again, you don't get an MRI for a broken leg, you get very very old technology - an x-ray. It isn't necessary to have high tech ecpensive imaging for everything. This high end sonogram is equally unecessary for 99% of patients. Sorry, just the facts. It's pretty. It's neat. Wish everyone could go out and easily get one. Ain't gonna happen.
 
Upvote 0

Force

GO NOLES!!!!!!! 16 58
Sep 23, 2002
890
13
42
In Vegas at the moment....
Visit site
✟8,888.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Firscherscherling said:
Again, you don't get an MRI for a broken leg, you get very very old technology - an x-ray. It isn't necessary to have high tech ecpensive imaging for everything. This high end sonogram is equally unecessary for 99% of patients. Sorry, just the facts. It's pretty. It's neat. Wish everyone could go out and easily get one. Ain't gonna happen.
What did I say with the first go around?

I said they only use it right now in cases of (maybe there is a defect, maybe there is a problem)

Second if the price goes down, they will by all means use the better 3-D one. Because if they both cost the same or if the cost is about equal you might as well use the better technology.

And 99% of births going well or babies being perfect.....is a REALLY REALLY REALLY far stretch. Complications and problems happen WAY more often than you think.
 
Upvote 0

EvolvEarth

Well-Known Member
Jul 2, 2003
845
20
38
Florida
✟1,109.00
Faith
Buddhist
Brother Christman said:
This is pass-the-buck logic. Can you be "a little bit pregnant"?

Either you condemn abortion or by omission/indecision, you condone it. You're certainly entitled to do the latter if you must (and I will stand beside you to uphold your free-speech right to state your feelings, either way), but let's spare one another the rhetoric.
So because I condone abortion means that I want people to abort their fetuses? Pro-abortion would be wanting abortion, I merely condone it.
 
Upvote 0

Firscherscherling

Liberal Filthy Hairless Pig-Monkey
Apr 9, 2003
2,354
148
58
✟3,271.00
Faith
Atheist
Force said:
What did I say with the first go around?

I said they only use it right now in cases of (maybe there is a defect, maybe there is a problem)

Second if the price goes down, they will by all means use the better 3-D one. Because if they both cost the same or if the cost is about equal you might as well use the better technology.

And 99% of births going well or babies being perfect.....is a REALLY REALLY REALLY far stretch. Complications and problems happen WAY more often than you think.
Okey-dokey. As with the last issue, I'll defer to the doctors and nurses for my opinion, and I'll let you just hang on to what you want to beleive based on...well, I have no idea.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

water_ripple

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2003
1,254
18
45
Visit site
✟1,561.00
Faith
Christian
burrow_owl said:
water ripple: I think you misunderstood me, or I wasn't clear enough, or something. Here's a redo:
I simply put a human spin on an opinion. I find it sad when people generalize things for political purposes. Even the humanity of an unborn child. Personally I find it revolting that people are arguing pro and con over this.

burrow_owl said:
Sonograms are very important, as you forcefully argue. However, their importance occurs at a certain juncture in a pregnancy: it's important when the woman decides she wants to keep the baby, and it is intended to make sure that a little 'un is doing well.
Also it is intended for the purpose of discovering a more realitisc due date, but again I never needed technology to convince me of my child's humanity.

burrow_owl said:
The proposal at issue here, though, isn't intended for those purposes. Rather, they want to buy lots and lots of sonograms for pregnancy crisis centers, not for legitimate and valuable medical purposes like in your case, but solely to achieve political objectives. Since these things aren't cheap, and aren't necessary at that juncture in the pregnancy (since the woman either a) doesn't plan on keeping it, or b) isn't sure whether to keep it) it amounts to wasting lots and lots of money that could better be spent on other things (like, say, prenatal care for people that have been in your shoes).
Ya know it really goes beyond a political issue. Sometimes when people are provided with extreme evidence the person arguing the position gets in the face of the opposion and says oh yeah well I have absolute proof that you are wrong all you have to do is take your blinders off and look. What's the result of all of this? Anger resentment disdain. I am right and you are wrong. It makes me better that I am right. Offending others with one's beliefs are always counterproductive. Abortion is a highly emotional issue for both sides and sometimes people try and force their opinion on others. Then people start bickering over spending to much money on things that seem intrusive and futile. Unfortunate that life is coming down to what is the cheapest method to save or destroy. Unfortunate that money is more important than the welfare of even the unborn. Unfortunate that some need expensive technology to be convinced of the humanity of a child. Unfortunate that those who are pro-life are seeking submission to those who are pro-choice. No wonder people are debating over humanity.

burrow_owl said:
I'm pretty skeptical of the 'show a woman a picture of a fetus' method - i think we should encourage people to be more rational and less emotional with decisions, rather than the other way around - but if it's decided that that's an acceptable method of achieving certain policy goals, there are way, way cheaper methods of doing it, like just putting up posters of other sonograms or something.
The emotional connection of a mother to her child even if it is unwanted, a person on the outside can never measure. I've known people who have gotten abortions and regretted doing so after it was over. The saw it as not the right time, or inconvienent, or disruptive to their future. Or it was a threat to the life of the mother. I do not think it is right to force one's beliefs on another it only makes for anger and resentment. But I do believe in respecting the belief's of others. I think putting posters up of abortion procedures (early and late) and sonograms would speak for themselves.
 
Upvote 0