If Bush wins the election, will abortion be made unconstitutional?

Considering that it seems almost certain the next president will be appointing supreme court justices, do you think abortion will be decalred unconstitutional in the next 4 years if bush wins the election?

Even if Bush gets the Supreme Court nominees he wants, all that could happen is states could make laws against abortion. Some states will ban it, some won't. And this will take a lot to happen than just Bush winning the election.

While that is true, the majority of states would outlaw abortion if left up to them.

I hope so. Abortion is murder.

You mean "illegal". not constitutional.

And to all your "abortion is murder" types - I'd like to talk to you about this subject after your thirteen year old girl gets raped and impregnated.

Finally someone sees that when Bush wins in 3 weeks he won't just the countey up for 4 more years, he will it up for 40 more.

I'd have to give a 2 part answer:

If Bush is elected, is RvW going to be overturned in the next 4 years? Rather unlikely. It'll probably be a couple of years before he's able to appoint many justices, and even after he does, they can't just overturn rulings willy-nilly: they have to wait for an applicable case to make a ruling. Justice moves slowly, plus they wouldn't want to make that sort of ruling anywhere near the 2008 election anyway, since it would hurt Republicans quite a bit, so I think its generally unlikely that it'll happen in the next 4 years

If Bush is elected, is RvW going to be overturned in the next 10 years? That's a whole lot more likely.

I'd like to see it made illegal again, but I don't think it will happen, at least in the next 4 years.

[quote name='elprincipe']I'd like to see it made illegal again[/quote]

Let me guess. You don't have a womb, right?

[quote name='eldad9'][quote name='elprincipe']I'd like to see it made illegal again[/quote]

Let me guess. You don't have a womb, right?[/quote]

What the hell does that have to do with it? I know plenty of women who want it to be outlawed as well, but so what? You think that I can't have an opinion on an issue because I'm not female? Think again.

Maybe you're one of these people who fall for the "a woman should do what she wants with her body" propaganda line. Let me clue you in: few people would argue with that statement, but it's about 2 people, not 1.

[quote name='elprincipe']
Maybe you're one of these people who fall for the "a woman should do what she wants with her body" propaganda line. Let me clue you in: few people would argue with that statement, but it's about 2 people, not 1.[/quote]

you aren't a person until you're born

and why shouldn't people do what they want to their own bodies?

[quote name='eldad9']You mean "illegal". not constitutional.

And to all your "abortion is murder" types - I'd like to talk to you about this subject after your thirteen year old girl gets raped and impregnated.[/quote]

Guess I'll respond to this too. Are you saying that if a child is conceived via rape than he/she is less of a child? If you are making such a stupid argument, what about other, non-natural ways of creating a child? Does that make he/she less of a child? Of course not.

[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='eldad9']You mean "illegal". not constitutional.

And to all your "abortion is murder" types - I'd like to talk to you about this subject after your thirteen year old girl gets raped and impregnated.[/quote]

Guess I'll respond to this too. Are you saying that if a child is conceived via rape than he/she is less of a child? If you are making such a stupid argument, what about other, non-natural ways of creating a child? Does that make he/she less of a child? Of course not.[/quote]

That's not what I was saying at all. But a "child" is not one cell, or two, or four. The word refers to somebody who has already been born (or at least about to)

Just to make sure: you would force your thirteen year old daughter to give birth to the rapist's baby. Am I correct?

[quote name='eldad9'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='eldad9']You mean "illegal". not constitutional.

And to all your "abortion is murder" types - I'd like to talk to you about this subject after your thirteen year old girl gets raped and impregnated.[/quote]

Guess I'll respond to this too. Are you saying that if a child is conceived via rape than he/she is less of a child? If you are making such a stupid argument, what about other, non-natural ways of creating a child? Does that make he/she less of a child? Of course not.[/quote]

That's not what I was saying at all. But a "child" is not one cell, or two, or four. The word refers to somebody who has already been born.

Just to make sure: you would force your thirteen year old daughter to give birth to the rapist's child. Am I correct?[/quote]

A child is the offspring of a man and a woman. Here's a nice definition for you from www.m-w.com:

Main Entry: child
Pronunciation: 'chI(&)ld
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural chil·dren /'chil-dr&n, -d&rn/
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit jathara belly
1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant
2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age
3 usually childe /'chI(&)ld/ archaic : a youth of noble birth
4 a : a son or daughter of human parents b : DESCENDANT

Yes. I don't believe in killing someone because someone has been raped. It's sad if you do, I guess...or just rationalize it as, hey, it's not a person or some other delusional stuff like you guys always do.

So a single cell would qualify as "someone"?

[quote name='eldad9']So a single cell would qualify as "someone"?[/quote]

When an egg is successfully fertilized and implanted so that it is at the point where, if left alone, it will eventually be born as a human infant, yes, that is a person.

OK, about that definition - what makes a person? Is a single cell a person?

[quote name='eldad9']OK, about that definition - what makes a person? Is a single cell a person?[/quote]

Ditto what I just said above. As it's a fairly complex process, I can't make it any simpler (the explanation).

I don't know how anybody can seriously claim that a single cell, with no hands, legs, eyes - or brain - with no thought whatsoever, no emotion, no awareness - is a person. It has the potential to become one, but that's all it is. Potential, which may or may not be realized.

By this logic, if you murder one grown-up person, you're guilty of murdering all of his possible descendants.

Well I'm pretty sure that no abortion is done early enough in the pregnancy to be a single cell. If I remeber correctly, by implantation the original zygote has already split and grown into at least 8 cells.

Then when is it a person? 8 cells? 16? 32? when the brain is formed? eyes? second trimester? third? birth?

But I digress. elprincipe claims even a single cell has the same status (and therefore the same rights) as a completed person.

It is a person when it can live outside the mother without any help.

4 cells are not a baby.

Well when it's a person is a matter of opinino really. Usually it boils down to people's scientific and religous beliefs. I was just pointing out that an abortion wouldn't take place when it's a single cell.

[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Well when it's a person is a matter of opinino really. Usually it boils down to people's scientific and religous beliefs. I was just pointing out that an abortion wouldn't take place when it's a single cell.[/quote]

That gets into the realm of the morning after pill. The bill taken the morning after conception which destroys any fetus that may have been conceived.

[quote name='eldad9']Then when is it a person? 8 cells? 16? 32? when the brain is formed? eyes? second trimester? third? birth?

But I digress. elprincipe claims even a single cell has the same status (and therefore the same rights) as a completed person.[/quote]

Why are you so quick to put words in my mouth? I'm sure you are quite capable of reading what I actually typed in my response.

[quote name='David85']It is a person when it can live outside the mother without any help.[/quote]

Medical advances are making it possible for babies to live outside the womb earlier and earlier in their lives. Are you saying that, as science marches on, babies become people at an earlier point in pregnancy?

[quote name='guardian_owl'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Well when it's a person is a matter of opinino really. Usually it boils down to people's scientific and religous beliefs. I was just pointing out that an abortion wouldn't take place when it's a single cell.[/quote]

That gets into the realm of the morning after pill. The bill taken the morning after conception which destroys any fetus that may have been conceived.[/quote]

I'm not sure on the morning after pill, but I do remember hearing somewhere that it prevented any fertilized eggs from getting implanted or starting to grow. Anyone have any more detailed information? (curious)

[quote name='eldad9']Then when is it a person? 8 cells? 16? 32? when the brain is formed? eyes? second trimester? third? birth?

But I digress. elprincipe claims even a single cell has the same status (and therefore the same rights) as a completed person.[/quote]

A baby outside the womb still has its brain developing. Is he/she not a person?

A baby outside the womb still has his/her eyes developing (newborns can't see very far at first). Is he/she not a person?

Babies in the second trimester can now survive outside the womb with medical assistance. Are they not people?

And what is this about "completed" people? Are amputees, the blind, deaf, handicapped, etc. not "completed"? Or perhaps young children are not "completed" because they haven't reached puberty? Why such a random distinction on whether a baby is outside the womb or inside? Rationalization for killing him or her, that's why.

When you think about it, life is "death":

Excerpts from
McMahan, Jeff. “Cloning, killing, and identity.” Journal of Medical Ethics. April 1999: 77-86.

Some have argued that the possibility that the human embryo may divide to form monozygotic twins shows that there cannot be a human organism present until fourteen days after fertilisation, when the possibility of twinning has ceased. For, if we suppose that the embryo is an organism and twinning does occur, there is no explanation of what happens to the organism. It makes no sense to suppose that the original organism survives as only one of the twins, for the relation that it bears to each twin is exactly the same. Nor is it coherent to suppose that the original organism is identical with both twins, for that would imply that the twins are identical to each other--that is, that they are not distinct but are one thing. Finally, it would be odd to claim that the original organism has died, for it leaves "no earthly remains".[2] So, it is claimed, it is best to accept that, prior to twinning, there was no organism there at all but merely a cell or collection of cells.

so in the initial division the single cell ceases to exist and is supplanted by its two qualitatively identical daughter cells. Similarly, when each of the daughter cells divides, it ceases to exist and is replaced by its own two qualitatively identical daughter cells. Again, there is nothing--no individual--that persists through these transformations. Only when the cells begin to be differentiated, to take on specialised functions, and to be organised together in an integrated way do they together constitute a further individual: an organism.

If this is right, to kill a human embryo during the first fourteen days after fertilisation is not to kill one of us but to prevent one of us from existing.

In summary, although it is not unreasonable to believe that an organism begins to exist at fertilisation, it is more plausible to suppose that a human organism does not begin to exist until about fourteen days after fertilisation. If an organism does not exist until a fortnight after conception, and if we are organisms, then to kill an embryo prior to that point would not be to kill one of us but would merely be to prevent one of us from existing.

Take that for what you will and read the whole article if you want a more details.

It's funny how you never hear a pregnant woman say, "I felt the fetus kick today!"

My view on this is that its ok before the 7th month. In the 6th month, the neocortex begins to form, and in the 7th month, it begins to attach to the brain and function. The neocortex is what separates us from animals, its responsible for our consciousness. If you can think, and you are aware, then I consider you alive. If you don't have the capacity for consciousness, I don't consider you alive yet. Right now, you can begin to live outside of the womb around the 6th month (or 5th, but odds are against you), inside a neonatal intensive care unit. I still don't consider them alive yet, but if its already outside of the womb, it would be wrong to kill, there would be no need.

And let me say that its very, very, very easy for a man to say that rape victims can't have abortions (I'm a guy btw). Its very easy to make blanket statements like that about things you'll never have to deal with yourself. Yes, you could know someone, but that is not even close to being the same, most guys can not even grasp what being raped is like. Also, I can respect the opinion that the father of the child should have some say if its aborted or not, however, I feel the decision is entirely up to the mother. She's the one carrying it, shes the one that will have to deal with it, not you.

I don't want to hear statements such as, you get a soul upon fertilization, therefore its wrong to abort at any time. That is a matter of your religion, and while I respect your opinion, it would also be trying to enforce your religious views on others, which is wrong.

And thank god that the neo-conservatives don't have control over our country, otherwise we'd live in a very backwards society where you're not allowed to have abortions for even rape or incest, there would be all kinds of dangerous back alley abortions going on for the poor, the rich could afford to have it done quietly and professionally, and where you're persecuted for being a single or young mother. So, if you were raped, you'd be not only forced to carry the child, you'd be persecuted for not marrying the rapist afterwards. Is this the society you want?

[quote name='dafoomie']Right now, you can begin to live outside of the womb around the 6th month (or 5th, but odds are against you), inside a neonatal intensive care unit. I still don't consider them alive yet, but if its already outside of the womb, it would be wrong to kill, there would be no need.[/quote]

I still don't understand why you all have this random distinction between a baby inside the womb and without. I don't see why that makes any difference between being a baby or not. Anyone have just one good argument for that? I've yet to hear one.

[quote name='dafoomie']And let me say that its very, very, very easy for a man to say that rape victims can't have abortions (I'm a guy btw). Its very easy to make blanket statements like that about things you'll never have to deal with yourself. Yes, you could know someone, but that is not even close to being the same, most guys can not even grasp what being raped is like. Also, I can respect the opinion that the father of the child should have some say if its aborted or not, however, I feel the decision is entirely up to the mother. She's the one carrying it, shes the one that will have to deal with it, not you.[/quote]

Sure it's easier for a guy in that situation, no doubt about that. However, if you logically feel that abortion is the same as killing someone, which I do, taking that to conclusion I feel that just because (I know rape is not a "just because" kind of thing, but I can't think of a better turn of phrase there) you were raped doesn't give you a license to kill a baby or anyone for that matter. Surely you must realize that this is just a logical conclusion from the thought that you are killing a baby when you have an abortion.

[quote name='dafoomie']I don't want to hear statements such as, you get a soul upon fertilization, therefore its wrong to abort at any time. That is a matter of your religion, and while I respect your opinion, it would also be trying to enforce your religious views on others, which is wrong.[/quote]

I don't see the logic of this argument. If you think abortion is murder, then why wouldn't you try to stop it? Someone's being deprived of their life at someone else's direction, a far cry from something like adultery.

[quote name='dafoomie']And thank god that the neo-conservatives don't have control over our country, otherwise we'd live in a very backwards society where you're not allowed to have abortions for even rape or incest, there would be all kinds of dangerous back alley abortions going on for the poor, the rich could afford to have it done quietly and professionally, and where you're persecuted for being a single or young mother. So, if you were raped, you'd be not only forced to carry the child, you'd be persecuted for not marrying the rapist afterwards. Is this the society you want?[/quote]

Obviously I never said I'd like to force people to marry those who raped them. Again you are putting words in my (or someone else's, not sure who you're talking to) mouth. Rape is a serious crime and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and persecuting someone for being single or a young mother ( :? ) is certainly nothing I've ever indicated being in favor of. This is a passionate enough issue already for me without people trying to twist my words or put ones in my mouth. Let's deal with what actually has been said and try to be civil, please.

I still don't understand why you all have this random distinction between a baby inside the womb and without. I don't see why that makes any difference between being a baby or not. Anyone have just one good argument for that? I've yet to hear one.

Click to expand...

I don't make a distinction. Its simply pointless to kill it once its outside the womb, because the purpose of the abortion is already done.

Surely you must realize that this is just a logical conclusion from the thought that you are killing a baby when you have an abortion.

Click to expand...

Can you make your beliefs a little clearer? Do you believe that it would be murder from the second of conception? And if so, based on what? I probably won't be able to reason with you if you do, because your opinion is probably based on your faith rather than logic.

I don't see the logic of this argument. If you think abortion is murder, then why wouldn't you try to stop it? Someone's being deprived of their life at someone else's direction, a far cry from something like adultery.

Click to expand...

There are people that believe that killing animals is murder. Surely you don't want them imposing their beliefs on you. I don't want to hear an argument based on religion or a soul because there can be no reasoning with it, and we can not have laws based on religious beliefs.

Obviously I never said I'd like to force people to marry those who raped them.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying you do, or that its your argument. But in an ultra neo-conservative world, this would be the scenario in which we live, based in part on Dick Cheney's and Dan Quayle's (and many others) stances.

Let me pose a question to you. Do you believe that in vitro fertilization is murder? It involves destruction of fertilized embryos. Would you ban it?

Another thing I don't get about this "abortion is murder": if person A cannot survive without being inside person B, then person B removing person A from B's body is called murder. What if person A isn't in person B in the first place? Then does B's refusal to have A put inside her constitute murder?

What if A was originally placed in person B without her consent?

My problem with the life begins at conception argument, is that 80% of all fertilized embryos abort naturally. Shouldn't there be a concern for the 4 out of 5 that die naturally, which in a year is a far greater number than all of the abortions in the history of the world?

For some people this is where god and religion come into play, and this is where it gets dicey to debate the issue.

Nah, I think just partial birth abortions, which are nasty to say the least, should be banned. Bush most definitely is not a hardcore conservative, he wouldnt go the full 9 yards on abortion in general.

[quote name='eldad9']You mean "illegal". not constitutional.

And to all your "abortion is murder" types - I'd like to talk to you about this subject after your thirteen year old girl gets raped and impregnated.[/quote]

Brings to mind bullshit hate crime legislation ... as if the reason has anything to do with how wrong it is.
I don't give a shit about abortion one way or the other, by the way.

[quote name='dafoomie']My problem with the life begins at conception argument, is that 80% of all fertilized embryos abort naturally. Shouldn't there be a concern for the 4 out of 5 that die naturally, which in a year is a far greater number than all of the abortions in the history of the world?

For some people this is where god and religion come into play, and this is where it gets dicey to debate the issue.[/quote]

Well I don't think that plays much into the argument, at least not IMO. This is because it's an act of nature, one more religious could even say act of God will's should they be so inclined. Either way the hand of man isn't coming into play here. I mean nobody is trying to place a ban on having miscarriages.

Also I see alot people making the argument about rape cases. And my personal belief somewhat agrees with you all, but I'm going to stick my neck out here to argue a point though, and I do realize that rape is a topic that calls for great sensitivity because somehow we all unfortunately are clsoe to someone who was once a victim. So I hope no one takes offense to what I say because believe me when I say that it is not what I intended. Also, I'll say upfront that these numbers I'm referencing are from memory when I reasearched the topic a couple years ago, so feel free to look up some new numbers as these may be off now. That said, if I remember correctly those types of cases hardly even make up 5% of abortion cases. And at the risk of sounding like an unfeeling asshole (Hope that's how nobody sees it), also pregnancy in rape cases is very low, about 1 in 2000 victims. And, if all rape victims were to recieve medical treatment afterwards pregnancy can be avoided in all those cases. That said I realize given the nature and circumstances of rape cases this won't happen. Then there's one study where it did ask the question of pregnant rape victims and about 80% said that would not have an abortion. Make of that one what you will. Finally, there's the slippery slope to consider that if it's made legal to abort an unwanted pregnancy for just one reason like rape you will inevitably be faced with many people presenting the case that they should be able to abort the unwanted pregnancy as well even if it's for a different reason. As another personal point, I want to say that rapists are the lowest of the low and I think we should consider much harsher sentences for them. My point after all that is that it is quite difficult to have abortion just for rapes cases, but then does that mean we should have abortion for all to include just that set? I can't and won't answer that question for everyone else, but it's just some info and questions to keep in mind when referencing rape to abortion.

If I put 2 scoops of icecream and some milk into a blender, it isn't considered a milkshake even though it has all of the vital parts of one. It is not until that concoction is blended (or in the case of a fetus, incubated), that it becomes a milkshake (or in this case, person). Deal with that analogy!

If a 12 year old girl is raped and impregnated by her father, elprincipe is still against abortion in this case. In his statement, he seems to completely disregard the health (both mentally and physically) for the mother. These are both very vital issues, and at which point does the well-being of the zygote outweigh the wellbeing of the 12 year old girl?

Also, being the product of incest, the probability that this zygote would grow to be a severely deformed fetus is high. It would be irresponsible to let these few cells develop into a child that would be severely deformed, in addition to growing up in a violent and unstable household.

The rights of a human being greatly outweigh the rights of a cell-growth, and the people who try to dispute that are out of their gords. It doesn't matter what that cell-growth will grow into IN THE FUTURE, it's a CELL GROWTH now!

[quote name='evilmax17']If I put 2 scoops of icecream and some milk into a blender, it isn't considered a milkshake even though it has all of the vital parts of one. It is not until that concoction is blended (or in the case of a fetus, incubated), that it becomes a milkshake (or in this case, person). Deal with that analogy!
[/quote]

No offense, but nobody will deal with that analogy because it's the worst analogy ever. How is incubation even a comparison to blending? Wouldn't fertalization make more sense there? By that analogy incubation would be like pouring it in a glass or something, hell I don't even know. The rest of your post makes good sense but that analogy is just weird.

I want to add something. I'm not advocating the willy-nilly use of abortions, but they should definately be available as the means of a last resort. I'm sure there are women out there that have had 5 abortions, and use it as their only means of contraception, but I don't believe that this is your stereotypical abortion patient. There are always going to be people who abuse things that are meant for good.

If you have a woman who gets abortions every other month, I would have to use this fact to judge her character. If she didn't have an abortion, would you really want somebody like that raising a child anyway? Hell, there are so many instances of children being raised by crappy parents who didn't even want kids in the first place, and as the product of that environment, these kids grow up to be criminals.

Now I'm not saying "Judge the parents and kill the kids if they're bad", but if a woman doesn't think she'd be responsible enough to raise a child, abortion will help prevent another criminal from being raised. And you're NOT KILLING A PERSON OR A CHILD via abortion. If it doesn't have a brain or a heartbeat, it isn't alive (unless it's a tree).

About adoption: the problem with this is that once pregnant, the mother might have second thoughts, or may be made to keep it because of family pressure. Then, the cycle begins again, as an unfit mother begins to raise a child.

[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='evilmax17']If I put 2 scoops of icecream and some milk into a blender, it isn't considered a milkshake even though it has all of the vital parts of one. It is not until that concoction is blended (or in the case of a fetus, incubated), that it becomes a milkshake (or in this case, person). Deal with that analogy!
[/quote]

No offense, but nobody will deal with that analogy because it's the worst analogy ever. How is incubation even a comparison to blending? Wouldn't fertalization make more sense there? By that analogy incubation would be like pouring it in a glass or something, hell I don't even know. The rest of your post makes good sense but that analogy is just weird.[/quote]

I wanted a milkshake

This is true, a milkshake does sound rather tasty, yet now that we've compared it to abortion and fetuses and such I'll pass for now.

That is probably the single most bizarre analogy I've ever read.

[quote name='dafoomie']

I still don't understand why you all have this random distinction between a baby inside the womb and without. I don't see why that makes any difference between being a baby or not. Anyone have just one good argument for that? I've yet to hear one.

Click to expand...

I don't make a distinction. Its simply pointless to kill it once its outside the womb, because the purpose of the abortion is already done.[/quote]

So in other words, you don't feel it's wrong to kill a child, since there is no difference between a child who is killed in the womb and one who is killed outside the womb. Quite revealing.

[quote name='dafoomie']

Surely you must realize that this is just a logical conclusion from the thought that you are killing a baby when you have an abortion.

Click to expand...

Can you make your beliefs a little clearer? Do you believe that it would be murder from the second of conception? And if so, based on what? I probably won't be able to reason with you if you do, because your opinion is probably based on your faith rather than logic.[/quote]

Nope, based purely on logic. You can re-read what I wrote above for my clear opinion.

[quote name='dafoomie']

I don't see the logic of this argument. If you think abortion is murder, then why wouldn't you try to stop it? Someone's being deprived of their life at someone else's direction, a far cry from something like adultery.

Click to expand...

There are people that believe that killing animals is murder. Surely you don't want them imposing their beliefs on you. I don't want to hear an argument based on religion or a soul because there can be no reasoning with it, and we can not have laws based on religious beliefs.[/quote]

Doesn't have anything to do with religion. Murdering people is wrong and not only that, it's against the law. Therefore, every citizen has a responsibility to try to prevent it from happening.

[quote name='dafoomie']

Obviously I never said I'd like to force people to marry those who raped them.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying you do, or that its your argument. But in an ultra neo-conservative world, this would be the scenario in which we live, based in part on Dick Cheney's and Dan Quayle's (and many others) stances.

Let me pose a question to you. Do you believe that in vitro fertilization is murder? It involves destruction of fertilized embryos. Would you ban it?[/quote]

I'm not a neocon, but I still would disagree with your characterization of those people.

In vitro involves destruction of fertilized embryos, but those embroys were never implanted and they never began to grow. Therefore, they were just potential lives rather than actual lives. Again, re-read what I wrote above and you would already know my answer to this question.

[quote name='eldad9']Another thing I don't get about this "abortion is murder": if person A cannot survive without being inside person B, then person B removing person A from B's body is called murder. What if person A isn't in person B in the first place? Then does B's refusal to have A put inside her constitute murder?[/quote]

Since this doesn't happen, what's the difference?

[quote name='eldad9']What if A was originally placed in person B without her consent?[/quote]

Murder is murder. Does it matter if there are other circumstances? Abortion is not self-defense, nor is it by accident. It's the intentional killing of a baby. You can rationalize all you want that since someone's been wronged they then have some right to kill someone, but that's the same as saying it would be okay to kill your cheating spouse, for example.

[quote name='evilmax17']If I put 2 scoops of icecream and some milk into a blender, it isn't considered a milkshake even though it has all of the vital parts of one. It is not until that concoction is blended (or in the case of a fetus, incubated), that it becomes a milkshake (or in this case, person). Deal with that analogy![/quote]

Faulty analogy. A more correct one would be a small amount of milkshake growing into a larger amount. And yes, the small amount is still a milkshake.

[quote name='evilmax17']If a 12 year old girl is raped and impregnated by her father, elprincipe is still against abortion in this case. In his statement, he seems to completely disregard the health (both mentally and physically) for the mother. These are both very vital issues, and at which point does the well-being of the zygote outweigh the wellbeing of the 12 year old girl?[/quote]

Not disregarding health at all. Obviously, if someone's life is threatened that is a more difficult case because this issue is all about life or death. Someone's inconvenience or injury, physical and/or mental, is of course a matter of concern, but we're weighing it against someone being killed. There's no contest there if you ask me.

[quote name='evilmax17']Also, being the product of incest, the probability that this zygote would grow to be a severely deformed fetus is high. It would be irresponsible to let these few cells develop into a child that would be severely deformed, in addition to growing up in a violent and unstable household.

The rights of a human being greatly outweigh the rights of a cell-growth, and the people who try to dispute that are out of their gords. It doesn't matter what that cell-growth will grow into IN THE FUTURE, it's a CELL GROWTH now![/quote]

You're just wrong. Random cell growth is not born as a baby human. This issue has nothing to do with "cell growth", but is about human life and death.

Another thing evilmax, why not have unlimited abortions if they aren't killing? I mean, if it's just some unwanted cell growth, what's the difference? Although I applaud any opinion that less abortions is a good thing, it doesn't seem to make logical sense.

[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='eldad9']You mean "illegal". not constitutional.

And to all your "abortion is murder" types - I'd like to talk to you about this subject after your thirteen year old girl gets raped and impregnated.[/quote]

Guess I'll respond to this too. Are you saying that if a child is conceived via rape than he/she is less of a child? If you are making such a stupid argument, what about other, non-natural ways of creating a child? Does that make he/she less of a child? Of course not.[/quote]

What the compassionate conservative seems to be avoiding is the FACT that a girl under the age of 14 will DIE during childbirth, even with surgery, if the baby is to be saved.

Would you tell a little girl "Your dad ed you, but since you have had your period, and have become pregnant, you are going to be in a lot of continually increasing pain for the next 6-8 months before we cut a baby out of your stomach. You will most likely die."