'This can't be happening in our country.'

[August]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I think what we are talking about is a child that is a constant reminder to the woman who was raped and conceived the child as a result. Rape is more than a loveless act, it is violent and brutal to the woman. This to me is considered a special case but the abortion needs to happen in the early stages. I do agree with you that the child is blameless. But, what is a woman to do that was involved in gang rape or rape at all?

Rape might be more than a loveless act but then again so is abortion.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by August

Rape might be more than a loveless act but then again so is abortion.

True! I agree with you August but it is such a fine line on most of the questions and answers. There is always the innocent one and that is the child. I have stated throughout the thread we will never get the final answer to the question in your or my lifetime. This question has had politicians dance and sing for 4 to 8 years. Obama is dancing and singing around the question right now.

[August]

Yep to both of you. "And the beat goes on"

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

True! I agree with you August but it is such a fine line on most of the questions and answers. There is always the innocent one and that is the child. I have stated throughout the thread we will never get the final answer to the question in your or my lifetime. This question has had politicians dance and sing for 4 to 8 years. Obama is dancing and singing around the question right now.

See to me the innocent one is the rape victim. The fetus is just a clump of cells for a large part of its development. But late term abortions for rape victims is another question entirely, and again circumstantial. If there is good reason for the abortion happening so late then I support it (such as she being unable to have or consent to have an abortion until that point). Babies don't become higher functioning entities until a good period after birth. But then we get into legal issues as virtually everyone considers killing a baby that is healthy and already born murder.

Ultimately I never see the question on abortion resolved just as I never see the question of God or collections of higher powers ever being proven or disproven. Part of it being the subjects are so emotionally charged and heavily interlaced with religious thought and values. Also there is no hard objective line in the sand.

[AVGWarhawk]

Babies don't become higher functioning entities until a good period after birth. But then we get into legal issues as virtually everyone considers killing a baby that is healthy and already born murder.

You lost me here. A higher entity?

[NeonSamurai]

I mean higher brain functions. Its not till about 2-3 if I recall (it might be older) that children begin to really distance themselves from mammals as far as brain function/ability and even older when compared to primates. At least according to current research.

At birth human infants are actually behind in the developmental curve compared to most other mammals. This is partially due to the necessity of birthing the child 'early' while the brain has not fully formed and reached its full size (which would make birth impossible given our physiology). Newborn infants are little more then a collection of senses, and reflexes, with almost non existent cognitive abilities.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

I mean higher brain functions. Its not till about 2-3 if I recall (it might be older) that children begin to really distance themselves from mammals as far as brain function/ability and even older when compared to primates. At least according to current research.

At birth human infants are actually behind in the developmental curve compared to most other mammals. This is partially due to the necessity of birthing the child 'early' while the brain has not fully formed and reached its full size (which would make birth impossible given our physiology). Newborn infants are little more then a collection of senses, and reflexes, with almost non existent cognitive abilities.

This therefore makes it ok to drop the hook in the back of the skull and making soup of the brain that is only capable of senses and reflexes? So if by shear luck a baby makes it past three years of age then it is considered murder? Anything before three years is fair game for disposal? You mean to tell me under this thinking anyone can snuff a kid out up to three years of age if well, it just does not suit their lifestyle or need? This train of thought is very odd in my book.

[VipertheSniper]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

This therefore makes it ok to drop the hook in the back of the skull and making soup of the brain that is only capable of senses and reflexes? So if by shear luck a baby makes it past three years of age then it is considered murder? Anything before three years is fair game for disposal? You mean to tell me under this thinking anyone can snuff a kid out up to three years of age if well, it just does not suit their lifestyle or need? This train of thought is very odd in my book.

How did you come from "virtually everyone considers killing a baby that is healthy and already born murder." to that? It's not like he's condoning killing newborn babies that are healthy, he merely presented scientific research results. What society does with that is another question. I guess some might use it as justification to drown or otherwise kill newborns, because they're of the wrong gender, but I don't think that happens anywhere in "the west".