NSG Senate Lobby: What Does Marcellus Wallace Look Like?

[Gothmogs]

But very, very few (less than 2%) of abortions occur after 24 weeks.

Why are you not getting this? If people think life starts at 24 weeks, then they are going to see abortion after that (except in certain circumstances) as killing. If we killed off 2% of the population, would you be bothered? Of course. You need to stop misunderstanding your opposition and start arguing why life doesn't begin at that stage. Until you do that, you're going to keep going in circles.

I think people are using the wrong word here. Life starts at the sperm. Cells are alive. The question is if it qualifies as having human rights.

[Dejanic]

If you are going to have a C-Section after 24 weeks you might as well have the state take control of the baby and try and let is survive in intensive care.

Why? There are enough unwanted babies already. I wouldn't want to force that life on anyone.

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people who grew up in the care system or whatever would rather be alive and "unwanted" than having not existed in the first place.

It's not your choice to decide such things. The fact that you're seemingly implying that we shouldn't let "unwanted babies" live, is very disturbing to me.

[Arkolon]

After around 6 months, D&E is the only way to abort.

Can't the foetus be removed and terminated through a c-section?

IIRC c-sections are expensive, and it doesn't really change from a D&E anyway. The fetus would still be too frail to support itself and would break into small pieces of flesh at the hands of the doctors, and it would still be tossed into the dustbin at the end of the day. All you're getting rid of is that awkward situation with a doctor and a clamp up the woman's womb.

[The Nihilistic view]

If you are going to have a C-Section after 24 weeks you might as well have the state take control of the baby and try and let is survive in intensive care.

Why? There are enough unwanted babies already. I wouldn't want to force that life on anyone.

You mean why not murder someone? Regardless I would back my house that a majority of adopted individuals or people who lived in care would rather be alive than dead.

My parents are divorced an one of them does not care much about me, I would not wish that life on anyone either but I don't want to die and neither do most people who are in a similar situation and killing somebody in that situation when they can't protect themselves is very wrong.

[Britanno]

I think people are using the wrong word here. Life starts at the sperm. Cells are alive. The question is if it qualifies as having human rights.

That's what I meant, I just wasn't sure how to phrase it.

[Dragomerian Islands]

He have very few abortion clinics in Calaverde, that it is worthless attempting to completely legalize it. I probaby make more money than all abortion clinics in Calaverde.

(ooc: partial joke, but the area around Calaverde have very few, if any, abortion clinics, thusly, it can be assumed that at this moment, it is the same way for Calaverde)

[Gothmogs]

Why? There are enough unwanted babies already. I wouldn't want to force that life on anyone.

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people who grew up in the care system or whatever would rather be alive and "unwanted" than having not existed in the first place.

It's not your choice to decide such things. The fact that you're seemingly implying that we shouldn't let "unwanted babies" live, is very disturbing to me.

Who said it was? Are you saying it's your choice? I'm confused here. I feel like you're implying abortion is for convenience. And my definition of a baby is not the same as yours, it seems. I try to keep morality out of abortion because if I included it, it would blur the lines of my ethics.

[Gothmogs]

I think people are using the wrong word here. Life starts at the sperm. Cells are alive. The question is if it qualifies as having human rights.

That's what I meant, I just wasn't sure how to phrase it.

No problem.

[The New World Oceania]

Can't the foetus be removed and terminated through a c-section?

IIRC c-sections are expensive, and it doesn't really change from a D&E anyway. The fetus would still be too frail to support itself and would break into small pieces of flesh at the hands of the doctors, and it would still be tossed into the dustbin at the end of the day. All you're getting rid of is that awkward situation with a doctor and a clamp up the woman's womb.

D&E uses vacuum aspiration.

He have very few abortion clinics in Calaverde, that it is worthless attempting to completely legalize it. I probaby make more money than all abortion clinics in Calaverde.

(ooc: partial joke, but the area around Calaverde have very few, if any, abortion clinics, thusly, it can be assumed that at this moment, it is the same way for Calaverde)

I've got a feeling no one plans on opening any abortion clinic location threads, either.

[Gothmogs]

Why? There are enough unwanted babies already. I wouldn't want to force that life on anyone.

You mean why not murder someone? Regardless I would back my house that a majority of adopted individuals or people who lived in care would rather be alive than dead.

My parents are divorced an one of them does not care much about me, I would not wish that life on anyone either but I don't want to die and neither do most people who are in a similar situation and killing somebody in that situation when they can't protect themselves is very wrong.

I feel like my statements have been misunderstood. When a foetus is aborted, it doesn't decide whether it would rather be alive or dead. It never existed. Why bring something into existence if it will only add to the number of children desperately searching for a family, or someone to love them?

[Arkolon]

IIRC c-sections are expensive, and it doesn't really change from a D&E anyway. The fetus would still be too frail to support itself and would break into small pieces of flesh at the hands of the doctors, and it would still be tossed into the dustbin at the end of the day. All you're getting rid of is that awkward situation with a doctor and a clamp up the woman's womb.

D&E uses vacuum aspiration.

And clamps, yeah. But I think we're focusing more on what happens to the baby, not how the thing is disposed of.

[Atlanticatia]

I am not necessarily saying I am a huge supporter of post-24 week abortions. From a personal standpoint, if I were a woman and seeking an abortion, I'd try to get it early.

But what I am saying is that this restriction should be a whole debate on it's own. An amendment should be debated separately. We would essentially be defining where legal personhood begins. This bill affirms that "okay, the majority of the Senate is pro-choice." Then we could vote on an amendment which will decide how we feel about legal personhood and the more tricky areas of the abortion debate.

I just want to give everyone an idea of where I'm coming from - I am trying hard to be objective and not emotional about this issue. I just think that the restriction deserves a lot more thought and debate. I think most of us are pro-choice. My personal opinion is that the restriction wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if there are exceptions for life, mental/physical health, fetal defects, etc. But I also do not know if we should define legal personhood at 24 weeks.

We need to have a greater debate about this, which is why I invite you all to vote "aye" on the pro-choice bill, and then someone should propose a 24-week amendment with exceptions, which we can all debate much more in-depth. Trust me - I would much rather have a pro-choice bill with a restriction than no bill at all (and therefore no buffer zones, etc). But I think that it is an entirely separate issue.

[Britanno]

Or you could pass a 24 week limit bill and then make an amendment. Therefore nobody's conscience is hurt.

[Dejanic]

Or you could pass a 24 week limit bill and then make an amendment. Therefore nobody's conscience is hurt.

Aye. It's not in this senates interest to pass a sloppy bill on the hope that it'll be sensibly amended later on.

[Gothmogs]

Let me just say this. I have avoided the topic of abortion for a long time, and have never once taken part in a debate about it until now. As a teenager my morals and ethics are still developing, and society is usually what determines such things, along with that inner right and wrong feeling many of us have. Unfortunately, society can't seem to decide how it feels about abortion, and my "inner voice" has no recommendations. There is nothing that seems clear cut or obvious to me, and there is too much blur and fog around time limits and procedures. This is why I generally take away any moral standpoint on this issue, and instead apply what I think would be most beneficial to society as a whole. And I believe that removing time constraints is what's best for society overall, at this point in time.

[Lucasaer]

Is Calaverde situated next to Costa Rica?

[The Nihilistic view]

I am not necessarily saying I am a huge supporter of post-24 week abortions. From a personal standpoint, if I were a woman and seeking an abortion, I'd try to get it early.

But what I am saying is that this restriction should be a whole debate on it's own. An amendment should be debated separately. We would essentially be defining where legal personhood begins. This bill affirms that "okay, the majority of the Senate is pro-choice." Then we could vote on an amendment which will decide how we feel about legal personhood and the more tricky areas of the abortion debate.

I just want to give everyone an idea of where I'm coming from - I am trying hard to be objective and not emotional about this issue. I just think that the restriction deserves a lot more thought and debate. I think most of us are pro-choice. My personal opinion is that the restriction wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if there are exceptions for life, mental/physical health, fetal defects, etc. But I also do not know if we should define legal personhood at 24 weeks.

We need to have a greater debate about this, which is why I invite you all to vote "aye" on the pro-choice bill, and then someone should propose a 24-week amendment with exceptions, which we can all debate much more in-depth. Trust me - I would much rather have a pro-choice bill with a restriction than no bill at all (and therefore no buffer zones, etc). But I think that it is an entirely separate issue.

"There was plenty of debate at the time. You just refused to include it. So do excuse me if I see this a cynical ploy to pass your bill. If you don't approve of a limit fine. But don't resort to seemingly underhand tactics of making it seem like you are open to it to get it passed when at the time you were not just because it looks like the 24 week limit might sink the bill."

[Atlanticatia]

I am not necessarily saying I am a huge supporter of post-24 week abortions. From a personal standpoint, if I were a woman and seeking an abortion, I'd try to get it early.

But what I am saying is that this restriction should be a whole debate on it's own. An amendment should be debated separately. We would essentially be defining where legal personhood begins. This bill affirms that "okay, the majority of the Senate is pro-choice." Then we could vote on an amendment which will decide how we feel about legal personhood and the more tricky areas of the abortion debate.

I just want to give everyone an idea of where I'm coming from - I am trying hard to be objective and not emotional about this issue. I just think that the restriction deserves a lot more thought and debate. I think most of us are pro-choice. My personal opinion is that the restriction wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if there are exceptions for life, mental/physical health, fetal defects, etc. But I also do not know if we should define legal personhood at 24 weeks.

We need to have a greater debate about this, which is why I invite you all to vote "aye" on the pro-choice bill, and then someone should propose a 24-week amendment with exceptions, which we can all debate much more in-depth. Trust me - I would much rather have a pro-choice bill with a restriction than no bill at all (and therefore no buffer zones, etc). But I think that it is an entirely separate issue.

"There was plenty of debate at the time. You just refused to include it. So do excuse me if I see this a cynical ploy to pass your bill. If you don't approve of a limit fine. But don't resort to seemingly underhand tactics of making it seem like you are open to it to get it passed when at the time you were not just because it looks like the 24 week limit might sink the bill."

"That is a false assumption. I simply believe that there are two different issues at hand: protections for abortion rights, and restrictions. They should be debated separately."

[The Nihilistic view]

You mean why not murder someone? Regardless I would back my house that a majority of adopted individuals or people who lived in care would rather be alive than dead.

My parents are divorced an one of them does not care much about me, I would not wish that life on anyone either but I don't want to die and neither do most people who are in a similar situation and killing somebody in that situation when they can't protect themselves is very wrong.

I feel like my statements have been misunderstood. When a foetus is aborted, it doesn't decide whether it would rather be alive or dead. It never existed. Why bring something into existence if it will only add to the number of children desperately searching for a family, or someone to love them?

A majority of children in care would rather be alive than dead, I am sure of that. So it's really not an argument with any weight at all. If the baby has a chance of living if it left the mothers womb at that point the state should have an obligation to protect that.

[Sebastianbourg]

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=329502

Join my fascist party now! Down with Marxist-Freemason conspiracy against the Fatherland.

[The Nihilistic view]

"There was plenty of debate at the time. You just refused to include it. So do excuse me if I see this a cynical ploy to pass your bill. If you don't approve of a limit fine. But don't resort to seemingly underhand tactics of making it seem like you are open to it to get it passed when at the time you were not just because it looks like the 24 week limit might sink the bill."

"That is a false assumption. I simply believe that there are two different issues at hand: protections for abortion rights, and restrictions. They should be debated separately."

"And we have debated them both plenty of times and you still refused. This is just an excuse to get people to vote for it nothing more. there is no sincerity behind it you previous refusals have seen to that. "

[Britanno]

"And we have debated them both plenty of times and you still refused. This is just an excuse to get people to vote for it nothing more. there is no sincerity behind it you previous refusals have seen to that. "

"I have to say I agree. We are the ones taking the more moderate position, and the way these things are done is to pass a moderate bill and then amend it to make it more extreme if you want later (just to clarify, I'm not saying on demand is extreme, just more extreme than 24 weeks). You have refused to compromise, and so I would rather keep the law as it is (non-existent, meaning it isn't banned) than pass a bill that I see as legalising killing."

[Geilinor]

You mean why not murder someone? Regardless I would back my house that a majority of adopted individuals or people who lived in care would rather be alive than dead.

My parents are divorced an one of them does not care much about me, I would not wish that life on anyone either but I don't want to die and neither do most people who are in a similar situation and killing somebody in that situation when they can't protect themselves is very wrong.

I feel like my statements have been misunderstood. When a foetus is aborted, it doesn't decide whether it would rather be alive or dead. It never existed. Why bring something into existence if it will only add to the number of children desperately searching for a family, or someone to love them?

Look, we often criticize people who are pro-life for resorting to overemotionalism, but you're doing the same thing.

[Murkwood]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=329502

Join my fascist party now! Down with Marxist-Freemason conspiracy against the Fatherland.

Maybe you should join your own party, Senator...

[Lykens]

I feel like my statements have been misunderstood. When a foetus is aborted, it doesn't decide whether it would rather be alive or dead. It never existed. Why bring something into existence if it will only add to the number of children desperately searching for a family, or someone to love them?

Look, we often criticize people who are pro-life for resorting to overemotionalism, but you're doing the same thing.

Eh. Gothmogs does have a point though.

Most of the time it's pro-life people getting overemotional about religion or the terrible horrors the fetus must go through.