Thread: After birth abortion

Advertising the availability of one service among many does not equate to advertising to guide behavior towards one particular option over another.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Advertising the availability of one service among many does not equate to advertising to guide behavior towards one particular option over another.

Is there nothing so absurd that you will not write it if in the defense of abortion? The purpose of advertising it to influence behavior. It matters not how many options are advertised.

You might also note that neither of the ads I posted said adoption. Neither does this one.

Abort your baby on credit.
Internet abortion blue light specials.

Originally Posted by LJ2

Is there nothing so absurd that you will not write it if in the defense of abortion? The purpose of advertising it to influence behavior. It matters not how many options are advertised.

So, if a center advertises adoption counseling, it's obviously trying to influence behavior in that direction, too.

You can't say that, by advertising a number of different services, that they're advocating only one of them.

'Cause that'd be stupid...

Originally Posted by LJ2

Is there nothing so absurd that you will not write it if in the defense of abortion? The purpose of advertising it to influence behavior. It matters not how many options are advertised.

You might also note that neither of the ads I posted said adoption. Neither does this one.

Abort your baby on credit.
Internet abortion blue light specials.
[IMG]http://www.abortiondc.com/NB-MainPage.jpg[IMG]

And, once again - the advertising of the availability of a service is not the same thing as advertising seeking to drive behavior. The ads that you are posting are not ads saying "Pregnant? You should get an abortion! Children are burdens! Better to get an abortion!"

Originally Posted by LJ2

The US Constitution.

Please cite the article or amendment that validates your position.

I didn't read through the whole thread, but seriously, what is wrong with post birth abortion? If it is okay to kill a full term baby with only his/her head still in the birth canal, what's the difference? A few inches.

Originally Posted by jet57

Please cite the article or amendment that validates your position.

My position is that there is no constitutional right to abortion, so I cite the entire constitution.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

And, once again - the advertising of the availability of a service is not the same thing as advertising seeking to drive behavior. The ads that you are posting are not ads saying "Pregnant? You should get an abortion! Children are burdens! Better to get an abortion!"

Perhaps you think they advertise abortion services to persuade readers not to use them.

Originally Posted by Steve

So, if a center advertises adoption counseling, it's obviously trying to influence behavior in that direction, too.

You can't say that, by advertising a number of different services, that they're advocating only one of them.

'Cause that'd be stupid...

If a center advertises adoption counseling it's very rare. I've never seen such an ad, but perhaps they exist.

I've never said that abortionists want their clients to use only one of their services. Of course they don't. They want them to use many.
- They want them to take a pregnancy test to be sure they're pregnant.
- They want them to have an ultrasound. Then they can see how old the baby is and choose the proper means of execution if so desired.
- Then they want clients to hire them to abort their little one.
- Abortion includes anesthesia, but not for the little one. It includes transfusion if a complication occurrs. It includes laundry of soiled linens. It includes antibiotics. It includes disposal of the little one's remains.

Originally Posted by LJ2

My position is that there is no constitutional right to abortion, so I cite the entire constitution.

Very well. I agree with your sentiment, however there is z-e-r-o in the Constitution about birth control: which, let's face it, abortion is. (Sometimes it can save the life of the mother though). So upon what precedent, and don't gimme The Constitution !! (everyone stands - hands over heart) do you base your position?

I'm not after your belief - I'm after your logic. The world we live in bases itself on "real time" and solid material.

Sprituality I can do with you at any time. But right now, I'm interested in the logic of your position.

Originally Posted by jet57

snip there is z-e-r-o in the Constitution about birth control: which, let's face it, abortion is.

Bullshit! Abortion is murder! condoms, pills and abstinence are birth control.

(Sometimes it can save the life of the mother though).

Abortion is very, very rarely necessary to save a mother's life.

Most of what passes as a therapeutic, or medically-necessary abortion, is not necessary at all to save the mother’s life. For example, if a mother has breast cancer and requires immediate chemotherapy to survive that can kill the baby, the physician will frequently recommend a therapeutic abortion. Another example: if a mother has life-threatening seizures that can only be controlled by medication that will kill or severely deform her unborn child, the physician will frequently prescribe a therapeutic abortion. In both of these cases, the abortion is not necessary to protect the mother’s health. The necessary medication may injure or kill the pre-born child, but this is no justification for intentionally killing the child. If the child is injured or dies from the medication prescribed to the mother to save her life, the injury was unintentional and, if truly medically necessary, not unethical.

Let us illustrate this principle further: if a rescuer is venturing into a burning vehicle to try to save its injured occupants, and is only able to save one of the two occupants, is it justifiable for him to then take out his gun and shoot the occupant he was unable to save? Of course not! Intentionally killing those you were not able to save is never justified in healthcare. We have the technology and expertise to provide quality healthcare to a pregnant woman without intentionally killing her unborn baby, regardless of the severity of her disease.

Article:

And another:

(Note maternal mortality rate comparison between England and Ireland)

Originally Posted by jet57

Very well. I agree with your sentiment, however there is z-e-r-o in the Constitution about birth control: which, let's face it, abortion is. (Sometimes it can save the life of the mother though). So upon what precedent, and don't gimme The Constitution !! (everyone stands - hands over heart) do you base your position?

I'm not after your belief - I'm after your logic. The world we live in bases itself on "real time" and solid material.

Sprituality I can do with you at any time. But right now, I'm interested in the logic of your position.

Did you have something in particular in mind?

Originally Posted by LJ2

My position is that there is no constitutional right to abortion, so I cite the entire constitution.

I defy you to show us where you have a Constitutional right to post on the internet.

And, yet, you do...