People are taken off of life support that keeps them breathing when they have a heart beat but no brain waves and it is not considered "killing" them. So, in my opinion, no, it doesn't.

Seriously, the 8mm fetus with a heart beat does not have the same rights as the woman on which it must completely rely. I have my personal opinions about later abortions, but they are my own and apply only to my own decision making process.

General statement much?

Yes but consider who she's talking to...

Exactly, and I was responding to an extremely general statement.

Viability is all that matters.

Anything else is conflating a notion that cannot be basis of law ("soul" or other imbued characteristic) with psuedoscience and/or poor logic.

Fair point.

What do we think about post-birth abortions? Say, 6 or 7 years

Liane Cartman: [At the Unplanned Parenthood Clinic] I want to have... an abortion.
Nurse Goodly: Oh, well, we can do that. This must be a very difficult time for you, Mrs...
Liane Cartman: Cartman. Yes, it's such a hard decision but I just don't feel like I can raise a child in this screwy world.
Nurse Goodly: Yes, Ms. Cartman, if you don't feel fit to raise a child, an abortion probably is the answer. Do you know the actual time of conception?
Liane Cartman: About 8 years ago.
Nurse Goodly: [thinking] I see... So the fetus is...
Liane Cartman: 8 years old.
Nurse Goodly: Ms. Cartman, 8 years old is a little late to be considering abortion.
Liane Cartman: Really?
Nurse Goodly: Yes, this is what we would refer to as the 40th trimester.
Liane Cartman: But I just don't think I'm a fit mother.
Nurse Goodly: But we prefer to abort babies a little earlier on. In fact, there's a law against abortions after the 2nd trimester.
Liane Cartman: Well, I think you need to keep your laws off of my body!
Nurse Goodly: Hummm... I'm afraid I can't help you, Ms. Cartman. If you want to change the law, you'll have to speak with your congressman.
Liane Cartman: Well, that's exactly what I intend to do! Good day.

Not even worth a response EW. That it's a stupid argument.

However, for everyone else I recommend the book Unwind. It's interesting.

I don't believe I have ever mentioned a soul in any post. I really don't believe I have seen others who have posted about a soul either but I could be wrong. I certainly don't consider a heartbeat to be an "imbued" characteristic as we all generally have to have one in order to live. Maybe those who believe in the importance of a "woman's right to choose" lack a heart but not a heartbeat.

This from the person who picks fights constantly with other posters simply because one does not agree with her/him. :rolleyes:

You are incapable of conversing with someone who disagrees with you.

Oh yes, this wasn't an example of you trying to pick a fight at all. Learn to respond to the issue and you'll get taken more seriously.

Is this an example of your great capacity of conversing with someone you disagree with? If it is, you FAIL. Calling someone heartless because they see the other side of the issue is pretty low.

Once again, insulting those who do not agree with you won't change any minds, nor will it give you an ounce of credibility. So far all you've said is that you believe abortion is wrong and everyone who doesn't is heartless...that's all of your posts in this thread in a nutshell. It confuses me that you can feel so strongly about something and yet make no attempt whatsoever to change any minds and in fact HURT your cause. Do you have anything intelligent or thoughtful to add? It seems you're stuck on repeat.

I do believe that you are the one who mentioned that the child was a fetus until it exits the birth canal. If that is your positon then there are no rights confered to a "fetus" and a woman may choose to abort the "fetus" up to the time it exits the womb. This is an issue in which I have responded. Now I may have completely misunderstood one of your previous posts but here it is.

"There's no safe place to draw a line, as long as a fetus is dependent upon the woman's body to live, there is no ethical reason to force her to use her body to support another human life." - DF

If this is truly your position I stand by my statements. If not please feel free to correct me. I can only go by what is written.

Bottomline - I believe the child has a right to life while in the womb and you believe the "fetus" does not. I am sure I will not change your or others minds but so what?

You didn't - I didn't ascribe such beliefs to you directly, but instead jumped in front of any similar arguments preemptively, and additionally gave support to my views through the same.

It is a necessary but not sufficient condition. You cannot survive on heartbeat alone - in fact, literally by definition, the baby cannot survive until it is viable, which relies on many factors (a heartbeat is one).

The ability to survive as a human is what should define "being a human."

This is cute. It's also insipid, as is so often the case with cute things.

ADDED:

For the record, I don't consider the last statement ("lack a heart but not a heartbeat") a personal attack or an insult or anything like that - it's a rhetorical device but not one that rises to that level. So yeah, let's not pile onto GW for something he didn't do - reasonable people can disagree in reasonable fashion.

So why post irrelevant material about Margaret Sanger or South Park? If you realize that we're at an impasse, then so be it. I can respect that you have your beliefs, but when you impose that upon a woman and tell her what she can or must do with HER body at any point in time, then I'm going to fight it.

Abortions will ideally be rare, late-term abortions are already incredibly rare. Trying to draw a hard and fast line in the sand is less productive than working on the other factors involved.

And this isn't even getting into providing adequate support for and removing the shame factor from single mothers. If we stop shaming and we start supporting these women, they're less likely to turn to abortion. And it's not just single mothers, financial reasons are a motivation behind abortion for all women, among other things. Instead of trying to ban abortion, which leads to more unsafe situations, increasing other supports will decrease the need for abortion.

Ironically, however, the people who fight the most for the "right to life" and the people who argue for cutting social supports seem to have more overlap than not.

Now that is the proper way to insult someone. Stick it in and make them like it. Ha! :D

I posted about Margaret Sanger because many previous posts revolved around PP and how much good they were doing. Many were extolling its virtue. Some were also talking about how PP made a goodly percentage of its $$$ from abortion services. My point is/was that even the founder was not an abortion defender/advocate. She certainly had other idiosyncracies such as a belief in eugenics and that some people were inferior etc. but even she was opposed to abortion and felt it was taking a life.

I don't believe I posted anything about South Park. I never watch that show. I could be wrong but I do not remember that particular post.

The views of a founder don't necessarily or actually reflect the realities of the organization today. Additionally it doesn't matter what she thought whether she believed in eugenics, or as others have suggested used the language to win support among people who DID believe in eugenics. Her opinion on abortion is as relevant as any woman's, neither more nor less.

And it was EW who made the SP reference, my bad.