Abortion Debate - Alamogordo, NM

Its murder plan and simple

I fully believe it should be up to the woman whether or not she has an abortion and I disagree with the I Know, it is not murder.

I Know wrote:

Its murder plan and simple

I was sitting at a stoplight at San Mateo and Candelaria the other day when I noticed a billboard advertising "non-invasive liposuction." Two things occured to me.....one.....isn't that an oxymoron...."NON-INVASIVE liposuction?????"

I mean....think about it. Someone is going to insert a tupe into the body and suck out tissue that belongs to the body.......LIVING cells!!!!!

How is that "non-invasive?"

Second.....if we are disposing of LIVING cells isn't that "murder"....plain and simple?

I mean....they ARE "living" things after all!

How do the anti abortion lunatics make the distinction between one living thing and another in their loose definition of "murder?"

Maybe you should be protesting liposuction as well? lol!

Mike wrote:

<quoted text>
I was sitting at a stoplight at San Mateo and Candelaria the other day when I noticed a billboard advertising "non-invasive liposuction." Two things occured to me.....one.....isn't that an oxymoron...."NON-INVASIVE liposuction?????"
I mean....think about it. Someone is going to insert a tupe into the body and suck out tissue that belongs to the body.......LIVING cells!!!!!
How is that "non-invasive?"
Second.....if we are disposing of LIVING cells isn't that "murder"....plain and simple?
I mean....they ARE "living" things after all!
How do the anti abortion lunatics make the distinction between one living thing and another in their loose definition of "murder?"
Maybe you should be protesting liposuction as well? lol!

So fat cells are now compared to a fetus or embryo? Cells that the body produces to provide warmth and protection are now being compared to a growing human being? Only a truly sick and demented excuse of a person could make that comparison with a clean conscience. I mean, cancer cells are living too, but we kill them, so why not compare a fetus to a tumor. I guess I am too late there because I have heard you pro-killers use that example in the past as well.
You truly are a sick person

Moron Alret wrote:

<quoted text>So fat cells are now compared to a fetus or embryo? Cells that the body produces to provide warmth and protection are now being compared to a growing human being? Only a truly sick and demented excuse of a person could make that comparison with a clean conscience. I mean, cancer cells are living too, but we kill them, so why not compare a fetus to a tumor. I guess I am too late there because I have heard you pro-killers use that example in the past as well.
You truly are a sick person

What is an alret? Is that another word for king of morons? That just might describe you.

Gee wrote:

<quoted text>
What is an alret? Is that another word for king of morons? That just might describe you.

It was a purposefully misspelled word to draw out additional idiots that have nothing to add to the conversation, save personal attacks on spelling and grammar.
Congratulations, you have been identified!

The point was made that the rapist doesn't get put to death but the baby does. One nation UNDER God.

If the fetus is female should she have the right to choose if she wants to live or die?

WARRIOR wrote:

If the fetus is female should she have the right to choose if she wants to live or die?

Probably not but maybe that would be a good standard to apply toward a fetus in regard to viability?

You're not a "person" until later in the pregnancy!

No "person" = no "murder!"

Mike wrote:

<quoted text>
Probably not but maybe that would be a good standard to apply toward a fetus in regard to viability?
You're not a "person" until later in the pregnancy!
No "person" = no "murder!"

Just because YOU say that you are not a person until later in the pregnancy does not make it true. Several people think that YOU are not a person but I still would grant you the right to choose to live or die!

Abortion should always remain a woman's right to have. It could never be considered by law "murder" because the fetus is not a person living and breathing on its own. I think the world is much better off with all the abortions that have been carried out. We all know of people that we wish would have been aborted.

raffe wrote:

Abortion should always remain a woman's right to have. It could never be considered by law "murder" because the fetus is not a person living and breathing on its own. I think the world is much better off with all the abortions that have been carried out. We all know of people that we wish would have been aborted.

How can you say the fetus is not living on it's own. It is living just as much inside as it does for it's first months/yea on the outside. It breathes alongside the mother as well. Am I to understand that you pro-killers believe that magically at birth, a fetus becomes a person worth saving but while it is still inside the mother, it is simply a grouping of cells that can be terminated upon request at any stage?

And by the way, I am not against abortion. I am against abortion as a form of birth control. Condoms, medical devices implanted, abstinence. and personal responsibility are forms of birth control. Not all encompassing, but a partial list. Abortion used as a cure for a night of indiscretion is wrong. Abortion used as a medical procedure to save the life of a mother or humanely terminate a prospective life that is severely damaged. I expect you to now say I want to control the body of the Woman. You Pro-Killers are always using that argument. Just like the Pro-Lifers say that there is never a valid reason for an Abortion. Even women impregnated via rape and Incest must carry to term. Another theory I do not agree with.
Plain and simple, Abortion should be used as a medical necessity and not as a for of birth control. When used as a medical necessity, it should be done humanely, medically and with as much compassion for the mother as possible. It should also be covered (paid for)under all medical programs.

Fire away

Oh Contraire wrote:

<quoted text>How can you say the fetus is not living on it's own. It is living just as much inside as it does for it's first months/yea on the outside. It breathes alongside the mother as well. Am I to understand that you pro-killers believe that magically at birth, a fetus becomes a person worth saving but while it is still inside the mother, it is simply a grouping of cells that can be terminated upon request at any stage?

It is not living on its own. It becomes a person at birth which includes breathing, and a birth certificate.

raffe wrote:

<quoted text>
It is not living on its own. It becomes a person at birth which includes breathing, and a birth certificate.

SO if the mother dies, the fetus dies as well? How can that be? I have read numerous stories where the mother dies, yet the fetus was delivered safely afterwards? Seems to me that the fetus and mother share quite a bit, but the fetus is also growing separately from the mother as well? The fetus also breathes while inside the mother.
SO basically, a piece of paper is all that is really needed for you to invoke "life" upon someone? What about babies born outside of a hospital? They aren't alive until the state recognizes them? Are Pigmies in the Australian outback not alive because they never get a certificate of birth to declare them living beings?
I am not following your argument or better yet excuse to kill something out of convenience.

so at election time, how many votes does a pregnant woman have? One... one vote per person. Same goes for census. I look at the letter of the law which is clear on abortion. Your God will take care of them Pigmies.

The fetus acts more like a parasite. It feeds off it's host.
Don't be deliberately obtuse about the matter, Oh Contraire. You claim you are only against the use of abortion as a method of birth control; yet in the same breath call those for it "pro-killers." Hyperbole much?
In your example of a fetus extracted from it's mother unnaturally; the fetus is, in fact, not living on it's own, but kept alive through assisted means (incubators, respirators, etc.). The machines and extra hospital staff take the place of its host until such time as it can function on its own.
And in your last statement regarding abortions being covered by medical programs; the ones you describe actually are. Those are usually referred to as a "D&C" and most medical plans cover that, as that is something done out of medical necessity, as you say.
An abortion is, in fact, an elective procedure. People choose to not use birth control. People choose to abort a fetus. It should never be illegal, but it should also not be covered under say, medicaid programs and the like. People need to be responsible for the mistakes they make and the elective procedures they choose to correct those mistakes. Simple as that.

Contrary wrote:

The fetus acts more like a parasite. It feeds off it's host.
Don't be deliberately obtuse about the matter, Oh Contraire. You claim you are only against the use of abortion as a method of birth control; yet in the same breath call those for it "pro-killers." Hyperbole much?
In your example of a fetus extracted from it's mother unnaturally; the fetus is, in fact, not living on it's own, but kept alive through assisted means (incubators, respirators, etc.). The machines and extra hospital staff take the place of its host until such time as it can function on its own.
And in your last statement regarding abortions being covered by medical programs; the ones you describe actually are. Those are usually referred to as a "D&C" and most medical plans cover that, as that is something done out of medical necessity, as you say.
An abortion is, in fact, an elective procedure. People choose to not use birth control. People choose to abort a fetus. It should never be illegal, but it should also not be covered under say, medicaid programs and the like. People need to be responsible for the mistakes they make and the elective procedures they choose to correct those mistakes. Simple as that.

The two extreme sides of the argument are labeled Pro Life and Pro Choice. Exactly what "choice" are you making. The choice to kill or not to kill something, thus the name Pro-killers is accurate. Am I incorrect, or is there another "choice" being made that I missed?
My example said nothing about unnatural extraction. I have read many stories of a baby being born naturally after the mother died and the baby needed nothing more special than a normal birth would require. You are using massive extremes to make your weak point. Please try better next time.
And Late term abortions are covered as are most others under the new Healthcare laws. A D&C is different from an abortion, as my spouse required on after her first child because the placenta did not fully deliver. It is quite common, but not the same procedure you compare it with.
And the elective portion of killing a fetus is what I can never justify. A fetus is alive and growing. That you make excuses for the death of that living and growing entity is the reason I used the term Pro-killers. You are as radical as the pro-lifers demanding that a woman carry a rape/incest child because they cannot waver from their extreme stance either.
I stand by my comments, and stand by my description of Pro-Killer. The only choice you are making is that of one to kill or not to kill out of convenience or elective need. Even the term "elective" shows that it is not needed but something you want for personal requirements. No regard for anyone else but yourself. Me me me

raffe wrote:

so at election time, how many votes does a pregnant woman have? One... one vote per person. Same goes for census. I look at the letter of the law which is clear on abortion. Your God will take care of them Pigmies.

The voting requirements are age based, so the fetus is not guaranteed a vote, just like a teenager or pre-teen does not get a vote. As for the Census, it is based on people born, not conceived, so that argument is fairly lame as well. The conceived and nor born are numbers kept by folks like "Planned Parenthood" so they can continue to get government funding. What does your god do with the babies born out of a hospital and have not papers yet? Are they not people because they have no papers?

raffe wrote:

Abortion should always remain a woman's right to have. It could never be considered by law "murder" because the fetus is not a person living and breathing on its own. I think the world is much better off with all the abortions that have been carried out. We all know of people that we wish would have been aborted.

Especially since she made the fetus all by herself, no one else was involved in it's inception so she absolutely should have the say over the fetuses life.

please note the "sarcasm"