PDA

View Full Version : Abortion: What do you think?


not fart knocker
March 14th, 2010, 04:03 PM
I think abortion is wrong. You're killing innocent people, sure some may argue that *they're not people yet*, but they will become people. What do you think the world would be like if Jesus was aborted? Or George Washington?

No one has the right to end another beings life.

That's just my .02

Anti-Hero
March 14th, 2010, 04:09 PM
Well, what if Jesus was aborted? Nothing would really happen. Sure, we wouldn't have Christianity, but it would just come up in another name with a slightly different belief system, nothing major.

Also, whilst I can agree that abortion is wrong as you are destroying and innocent life, but look at the other side. 1. What if you cant care for the baby? 2. If you got raped/whatever, what if you don't want the baby? There are many good reasons for abortion, and of course, the not so good reasons. Also, if abortion is banned, there will be a lot more dead babies that no one wants, people will say they can abort the baby, they will try it with other things such as metal wire hangers.

So, as it stands now, i'm on the fence about the matter.

Jolene
March 14th, 2010, 04:11 PM
I believe that abortions are perfectly fine and that restrictions on abortions should be laxed. I do not believe that the lives of unborn babies have any value. Some people say I'm cruel for thinking that, but I honestly can't see how that's cruel. Without experiences or emotions or even feelings, what value is there to a life?

not fart knocker
March 14th, 2010, 04:15 PM
Well, what if Jesus was aborted? Nothing would really happen. Sure, we wouldn't have Christianity, but it would just come up in another name with a slightly different belief system, nothing major.
Yes, that is so true.

Also, whilst I can agree that abortion is wrong as you are destroying and innocent life, but look at the other side. 1. What if you cant care for the baby?
Give it away to someone that can? I'm sure there are plenty of things to do, rather than *I can't feed you, now you die*

2. If you got raped/whatever,
Can't argue with this one. The baby has criminal genetics, yet it's a person... Put the baby in a insitution til they can make sure it's ok?

what if you don't want the baby?
Not the babies fault it's mom is irresponsible. Don't want it, don't do the deed.

There are many good reasons for abortion, and of course, the not so good reasons. Also, if abortion is banned, there will be a lot more dead babies that no one wants, people will say they can abort the baby, they will try it with other things such as metal wire hangers.
Sadly the latter is true.

reyzn
March 14th, 2010, 04:20 PM
My opinion depends entirely on the situation, I feel that abortion is perfectly okay during:
1. Instances of rape
2. If the child would be born into an unsafe environment such as an abusive household, or if the parents do not have the means to properly care/provide for the child.

I feel abortion is wrong in situations where the mother constantly undergoes the procedure because she is ignorant enough not to use protection.

All in all I feel that a woman should have the ability to decide for herself in this matter.

Timbjerr
March 14th, 2010, 04:28 PM
I love abortion debates...especially how they always boil down to whether a mother foolish enough not to use protection deserves sympathy for her foolishness or not. XD

The way I see it, abortion is no different than murder, permissible only in the case of rape or incest. Cases of abusive households and parent unable to finacially support a baby are what Child Protective services and adoption are for.

Abortion as a means of birth control is absolutely deplorable. If you don't want a child, abstain from sexy fun time. If that's too hard for you for whatever reason, at least use protection of some sort. >_<

.little monster
March 14th, 2010, 04:29 PM
A woman has all the rights to do anything to her body, be it on her body or in her body.

That's all I am going to say.

Alli
March 14th, 2010, 04:39 PM
I don't like these debates. I really don't...I end up getting torn to shreds for what I say. So I will post and move on. And if you have a problem with it, say it to my profile.

First, I don't think Jesus would have been aborted. How would they have done that back then? Would the concept even exist? God gave Jesus to marry. Why would she go against God and have an abortion? How would that even be performed in those times, anyway? Throw that out of the water.

I believe that abortions are perfectly fine and that restrictions on abortions should be laxed. I do not believe that the lives of unborn babies have any value. Some people say I'm cruel for thinking that, but I honestly can't see how that's cruel. Without experiences or emotions or even feelings, what value is there to a life?

The baby has a heart beat. It may not have emotions, but the womb is where life starts. Not even giving it a chance to grow and develop and have emotions isn't a fair chance.

For the rape/incest deal, there are people that can't have children. My friend's aunt can't have children and I know someone whose parents tried for a baby for 2 years before actually conceiving. Adoption is good. I know a lot of people who are adopted and the parents are quite blessed to have them. And I know you're thinking "well, the mom would still remember the rape", but they'd remember the scenario even if they have an abortion, and some would feel even worse because they just took a life.

For the can't afford/don't want thing, use the glove, or don't make love. I can't say it's easy to say no, but even if you're gonna say yes, it'd be wise to use protection, the pill (don't know how that works, to be honest), or

pull out.

There are many good reasons for abortion, and of course, the not so good reasons. Also, if abortion is banned, there will be a lot more dead babies that no one wants, people will say they can abort the baby, they will try it with other things such as metal wire hangers.

As much as I hate to say it, it's one of those deals like drugs. Even if abortions were illegal, it'd still be happening somewhere. So the abortion debate is honestly useless. It's gonna happen regardless. Not to mention all the feminists in the world.

Throat
March 14th, 2010, 04:45 PM
A woman has all the rights to do anything to her body, be it on her body or in her body.

That's all I am going to say.
There's a living being inside her, maybe it's a point to consider?
So is the vagina the line that separates death possibility from right to live?


If a woman is irresponsible enough to get pregnant without having means to take care of the kid, couldn't she at least take the 9 months and let hers own kid live? Surely the life of a child raising without a family might be tough, but who would rather death?

I'm only on abortion if the child came from a rape.

Well, in other hand, if it's not legal, a woman who is decided to do it will do it anyway, maybe with no safety. It's not so simple to take a side.

Porygon-Z
March 14th, 2010, 04:58 PM
I think it should be up to the woman herself to choose.

I think because of the number of people wanting to have children but unable to conceive, it would be better overall to give the child up for adoption, but a woman shouldn't have to undergo pregnancy and childbirth against her will.

I would also like to add that I think people should lay off bringing religion into these debates, because feelings will only get hurt and everybody will get irritated and offended. We can have a debate about ethics without badmouthing other people's religions. Ethics can exist independent of religion you know.

Esper
March 14th, 2010, 05:01 PM
My view: woman's body; woman's choice.

I have a question, and even though I have some ideas and preconceptions on it I want to hear from others first. Anyway, why are people who are against abortion okay with giving a woman a pass if she was raped?

Ayselipera
March 14th, 2010, 06:00 PM
I'm for abortion. I believe it's the woman's choice.

I also find it really annoying when all the men automatically say abortion is bad and talk about what a horrible thing it is to do. I feel like if men were the ones to get pregnant they'd be running over to the abortion clinic as fast as they could.

Melody
March 14th, 2010, 06:05 PM
Not gonna debate it. I feel that abortion should only be allowed to save the mother. Since this is rare...I doubt many people can get mad at that. Without a doctor who has decided that an abortion would pull the mother out of the jaws of death, there would be no abortion allowed.

Yes, it's harsh but I don't condone banning it because if a licenced medical professional thinks it will be for the best, then it SHOULD be an option. (for example, ultrasound spots an almost 100% lethal defect or a defect that could lead to death quickly after birth, not to mention that it is possible that the mother is sick or injured in a way that severely damages the unborn child so that it would be a vegtable)

Since such cases are extremely rare, it seems like a fair enough solution to a sticky issue

Amachi
March 14th, 2010, 06:07 PM
My view: woman's body; woman's choice.

I have a question, and even though I have some ideas and preconceptions on it I want to hear from others first. Anyway, why are people who are against abortion okay with giving a woman a pass if she was raped?

I'm not okay with abortions in the case of rape, and neither should anyone else who is pro-life - it's a compromise that shouldn't be made. I'm against it for several reasons.

Firstly, why punish the child for the sins of the father? The child is not to blame. Secondly, the chance of becoming pregnant as a result of being raped is very low (around 1 or 2 in 1000) - heck, many couples trying to conceive have difficultly. While I know this is no consolation to rape victims, to involve them in another violent act may only hurt them more.

"We found this experience is forgotten, replaced by remembering the abortion, because it is what they did." M. Uchtman, Director, Suiciders Anonymous, Report to Cincinnati City Council, Sept. 1, 1981

"In the majority of these cases, the pregnant victim’s problems stem more from the trauma of rape than from the pregnancy itself." Mahkorn & Dolan, "Sexual Assault & Pregnancy." In New Perspectives on Human Abortion, University Publishers of Amer., 1981, pp. 182-199 239

As to what factors make it most difficult to continue her pregnancy, the opinions, attitudes, and beliefs of others were most frequently cited; in other words, how her loved ones treated her. Mahkorn, "Pregnancy & Sexual Assault." In Psychological Aspects of Abortion, University Publishers of Amer., 1979, pp. 53-72

Furthermore, if abortions were only allowed in the case of rape, then women would simply lie about being raped. This isn't just me making such accusations.
Radical feminist guru Gloria Steinem, in a 1985 interview with USA Today said that "to make abortion legal only in cases of rape and incest would force women to lie."

Uh, I think I had another point, and there are many other points I'd like to make (put are general, rather than dealing with rape-related abortions) but I'd like to wrap up this post. Finally, you should all read this book, Why Can't We Love Them Both? (http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_contents.asp) It's an incredible book on abortion (all online as well).

I'm for abortion. I believe it's the woman's choice.

I also find it really annoying when all the men automatically say abortion is bad and talk about what a horrible thing it is do. I feel like if men were the ones to get pregnant they'd be running over to the abortion clinic as fast as they could.
Abortion is bad and is such a horrible thing to do.

Chibi-chan
March 14th, 2010, 06:20 PM
If Jesus had been aborted, countless thousands of Jews throughout history would have been spared from persecution - assuming that the religious people of the day wouldn't have found someone else to worship as their messiah, which now that I think about it, they almost certainly would have.

If Jesus had been aborted, millions would not have been saved!
We would all rot in hell; there would be no one in heaven.

Kww37
March 14th, 2010, 06:20 PM
And here we go.....

Abortion is bad mmmkay. In all seriousness abortion is both good and bad? (uhh what?) Say if a female does get rapped, and sadly gets pregnant. What if this girl is 14,15,16 etc. Or even older. But right now I am going to focus on the teenagers who sadly end up getting pregnant from rape. They will lose 9+ months of their life if they do choose to keep the baby and put it up for adoption, or just simply raise it. There goes nine months of employment, nine months of education, nine months of basically freedom. Given the choice of to suffer through a pregnancy that will remind them of such a horrifying time in their life, that is one of the few opportunities I say abortion is the right doing. Plus, I do believe that abortion is the most common weapon for the highest genocide in human history......Being China's One Child Policy. Now maybe the numbers are a little extreme, and abortions and even abandoned babies are near impossible to pin point down to just a number.....but all in all like most people here abortion should be used for the right causes.

poopnoodle
March 14th, 2010, 06:28 PM
"Don’t get me wrong, I love the idea of killing unwanted babies, it’s just that the idea of letting women make a decision doesn’t sit well with me.” - Zach Braff

I get my opinions from Zach Braff so that's what I'm going with

Åzurε
March 14th, 2010, 06:48 PM
I'm pro-life, even in the case of rape, but I'd like y'all to consider that a woman would have to be incredibly insensitive to come away entirely unscathed from an abortion. The baby (or fetus, if that's your thing) dies, and that's a given. However, developing any sort of attachment to the child leads to knowing the child is going to die and in the cases I've seen, they still feel like it's a mother-child relationship. So yeah, the mom's never really spared from complications.
It's not just "woman is pregnant- should woman abort, or should woman keep child?"

Timbjerr
March 14th, 2010, 07:52 PM
Not gonna debate it. I feel that abortion should only be allowed to save the mother. Since this is rare...I doubt many people can get mad at that. Without a doctor who has decided that an abortion would pull the mother out of the jaws of death, there would be no abortion allowed.

Yes, it's harsh but I don't condone banning it because if a licenced medical professional thinks it will be for the best, then it SHOULD be an option. (for example, ultrasound spots an almost 100% lethal defect or a defect that could lead to death quickly after birth, not to mention that it is possible that the mother is sick or injured in a way that severely damages the unborn child so that it would be a vegtable)

Since such cases are extremely rare, it seems like a fair enough solution to a sticky issue

Fun little fact for you. My mother's pregnancy with me was such a case. I was given a slim chance of survival and she was advised to have me aborted.

Granted, my mother is an extremely religious woman, but the point is that even in those instances, there is hope if you're willing to take that gambit.

.Gamer
March 14th, 2010, 08:16 PM
I don't really care one way or another. I made it into this world, so it doesn't affect me. Personally, I wouldn't like to abort a child I had "made" but situations vary. If I couldn't support a child, I would just put it up for adoption.

twocows
March 14th, 2010, 08:35 PM
I think it's tolerable, given there's a valid reason behind it. I don't particularly like the concept, though, especially when the pregnancy simply resulted from recklessness.

Chloroform Girl
March 14th, 2010, 08:39 PM
Im not against abortions
So if a girl gets raped she has to have the baby?
that doesn't seem fair to me....
But if a girl has sex all the time without protection just for the hell of it and keeps getting abortions, that's wrong

pokejungle
March 14th, 2010, 08:45 PM
LOL kudos to OP, haven't laughed that hard in awhile. He quoted himself and agreed with all of his own points. Genius <3

Anyways, me being a heartless liberal, I obviously am PRO-DEATH. Or pro-abortion. Or pro-choice. Or whatever.

I have no sympathy to waste on unborn beings. They have no value to me, especially not when my time can be spent championing the rights of PEOPLE WITH LIVES, WHO EXIST, WHO BREATH, WHO EAT, WHO FEEL PAIN. People that the Republicans often like to ignore.

So by all means, they're willing to save an unborn child but when it gets into this cold, cruel world NO HELP. It's absolute bs and insanity.

Chibi-chan
March 14th, 2010, 08:46 PM
LOL kudos to OP, haven't laughed that hard in awhile. He quoted himself and agreed with all of his own points. Genius <3

Anyways, me being a heartless liberal, I obviously am PRO-DEATH. Or pro-abortion. Or pro-choice. Or whatever.

I have no sympathy to waste on unborn beings. They have no value to me, especially not when my time can be spent championing the rights of PEOPLE WITH LIVES, WHO EXIST, WHO BREATH, WHO EAT, WHO FEEL PAIN. People that the Republicans often like to ignore.

So by all means, they're willing to save an unborn child but when it gets into this cold, cruel world NO HELP. It's absolute bs and insanity.

The Paul I knew three years ago would like to have you dead.

pokejungle
March 14th, 2010, 08:50 PM
The Paul I knew three years ago would like to have you dead.

iknorite?

I started being myself after I came out. Thought that being christian/republican would make me straight. Didn't work :(

Chibi-chan
March 14th, 2010, 08:51 PM
I'm pro-choice :| Mind you, that's not pro-abortion, it just means I support a woman's choice whether or not to carry her baby to term (abortions can only happy in like the first trimester though).

Why? Because it is not my place to say anything. It isn't murder. And I don't see why so many people care about a fetus with no emotion or anything when there are such atrocities still being committed in this world against LIVING, BREATHING people. And the unborn fetuses gather more attention.

It sickens me. Not to mention civil rights issues that remain unresolved for us who are born. I still can't get married to a guy? Really? (ps- no, marriage was no invented by religion)

PLUS I believe that anyone who is pro-life should have at least one adopted child. That would actually be doing something for your cause. That would actually be putting your money where your mouth is. Would adopting a child be outside of your means? Ok, well you don't take that as an excuse for a woman wanting an abortion, so why should it apply to you?

etc :B

Zet
March 14th, 2010, 08:51 PM
I think abortions should be allowed, no one should be forced to keep something they don't want. Also the precious stem cells can help cure stuff like AIDS, Cancer, and other stuffs.

I also heard that you don't get a soul until you're 1 year old, though I can't remember where I heard that from.... so yeah.

Noah Ridgewood
March 14th, 2010, 08:53 PM
I don't like the idea of ending another human's life before they got a chance to live it, but I have no stance on abortion. I believe that it's a woman's choice when it comes to matters of abortion; not a man's and not a couple's. In the end it comes to her decision on whether she wants to have the baby or not.

If I got a woman pregnant, however, and wanted it and she didn't... I'd be lying if I would say that I wouldn't try to have her consider having it or adoption. I might not agree with her, but I would support her decision, regardless.

loliwin
March 14th, 2010, 09:00 PM
I'm sorry, to be honest, what is abortion?

pokejungle
March 14th, 2010, 09:01 PM
I'm pro-choice :| Mind you, that's not pro-abortion, it just means I support a woman's choice whether or not to carry her baby to term (abortions can only happy in like the first trimester though).

Why? Because it is not my place to say anything. It isn't murder. And I don't see why so many people care about a fetus with no emotion or anything when there are such atrocities still being committed in this world against LIVING, BREATHING people. And the unborn fetuses gather more attention.

It sickens me. Not to mention civil rights issues that remain unresolved for us who are born. I still can't get married to a guy? Really? (ps- no, marriage was no invented by religion)

PLUS I believe that anyone who is pro-life should have at least one adopted child. That would actually be doing something for your cause. That would actually be putting your money where your mouth is. Would adopting a child be outside of your means? Ok, well you don't take that as an excuse for a woman wanting an abortion, so why should it apply to you?

etc :B
I feel like that's something I'd say.

Zet
March 14th, 2010, 09:09 PM
I'm sorry, to be honest, what is abortion?

It's when a woman goes to a special kind of doctor to push the eject button to get rid of the fetus inside of her.

That's the easiest way to sum it up without going into detail.

txteclipse
March 14th, 2010, 09:14 PM
I'm sorry, to be honest, what is abortion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion

I'm against abortion unless the mother's life is in danger. I would say that I'm even against it in cases of rape, but I've heard some well-thought-out arguments from both sides, so I can't say I'm that clear-cut. For now, I would say that if there is an obvious threat to the mother's health due to trauma from becoming pregnant from rape (i.e. she becomes suicidal or whatnot), then the baby can be aborted.

pokejungle
March 14th, 2010, 09:16 PM
But that is inferring that the life of the mother is more important than the life of her child. And who among us can judge that?

txteclipse
March 14th, 2010, 09:36 PM
But that is inferring that the life of the mother is more important than the life of her child. And who among us can judge that?

If the mother dies, both die.

pokejungle
March 14th, 2010, 09:48 PM
So the obvious flaw in your logic is that "oh I want an abortion, I'll just feign being suicidal" will be a common method to get what they want. We are creative sentient beings.

txteclipse
March 14th, 2010, 09:53 PM
So the obvious flaw in your logic is that "oh I want an abortion, I'll just feign being suicidal" will be a common method to get what they want. We are creative sentient beings.

I suppose that is a possibility, yes. But I doubt it's easy to pretend to be suicidal and fool people who are trained to detect chronic liars (i.e. social workers).

Jubilation
March 14th, 2010, 09:53 PM
I support a woman's choice, whether it be to abort the baby or not. It's her decision, not mine.

FreakyLocz14
March 14th, 2010, 10:46 PM
I am Pro-Life. I do not believe that an abortion is solely a decision about the mothers body because there are two bodies involved, not one.

That being said if we are to have legalized abortion it should be under the following conditions:
1) Women under 18 years of age would need to notify their parents if they wish to recieve an abortion unless she is the victim of rape or abuse by said parents. In those cases a judge can issue a waiver.
2) Once a fetus has reached the point where it would be viable if delivered, an abortion cannot be performed unless it meets criteria 3 or 4.
3) The women's pregnancy was the result of sexual assault or incest where the women is under 18.
4) Carrying the baby to term and delivering would pose a serious health risk to the potential mother.

pokejungle
March 14th, 2010, 11:47 PM
Nicely said from the poster who obviously supports domestic violence through his chris brown obsession :|

Just...pointing out...

Zet
March 14th, 2010, 11:53 PM
I am Pro-Life. I do not believe that an abortion is solely a decision about the mothers body because there are two bodies involved, not one.

That being said if we are to have legalized abortion it should be under the following conditions:
1) Women under 18 years of age would need to notify their parents if they wish to recieve an abortion unless she is the victim of rape or abuse by said parents. In those cases a judge can issue a waiver.
2) Once a fetus has reached the point where it would be viable if delivered, an abortion cannot be performed unless it meets criteria 3 or 4.
3) The women's pregnancy was the result of sexual assault or incest where the women is under 18.
4) Carrying the baby to term and delivering would pose a serious health risk to the potential mother.
Criteria 3 is also Criteria 1, nice job (b'-')b and Criteria 4 can be solved with the precious unused stem cells. Though to be fair, a fetus is more of a blob than a body person thingy.

Ivysaur
March 15th, 2010, 12:29 AM
I'm pro-choice mainly for two reasons:

a) The mother is the one who has to keep the baby inside her body for 9 months. I guess she should have a word on the process?

b) I don't consider the fetus to be a person until it has been born. So I don't consider it to be a murder on my books. Of course, there is a moment in the development of the fetus (4 months) where an abortion would start being risky to the mother as well. But, until then, I think the mother should have free choice. After that, it would be the doctors' opinion in cases of a serious genetic mess-up or a life-or-death situation for the mother.

txteclipse
March 15th, 2010, 12:29 AM
Though to be fair, a fetus is more of a blob than a body person thingy.

To be fair, a fetus is an individual with it's own unique set of human DNA, and is therefore a human being. Development has no bearing on the state of being a human.

Amachi
March 15th, 2010, 03:07 AM
I'm pro-choice :| Mind you, that's not pro-abortion, it just means I support a woman's choice whether or not to carry her baby to term (abortions can only happy in like the first trimester though).

Why? Because it is not my place to say anything. It isn't murder. And I don't see why so many people care about a fetus with no emotion or anything when there are such atrocities still being committed in this world against LIVING, BREATHING people. And the unborn fetuses gather more attention.

It sickens me. Not to mention civil rights issues that remain unresolved for us who are born. I still can't get married to a guy? Really? (ps- no, marriage was no invented by religion)

PLUS I believe that anyone who is pro-life should have at least one adopted child. That would actually be doing something for your cause. That would actually be putting your money where your mouth is. Would adopting a child be outside of your means? Ok, well you don't take that as an excuse for a woman wanting an abortion, so why should it apply to you?

etc :B
But see, allowing abortions in only one situation (such as in the first trimester) is a slippery slope. It'll slip to the second, and eventually third, as seen in many countries.

It is so. You obviously haven't seen an abortion take place. Of course, it's the third trimester abortions (the ones that are legal in your country, btw), which are the nastiest and most horrifying. But hey, if it makes you feel better to just try and ignore it, to desensitise yourself, by all means, look away from murder.
cjNo_0cW-ek
I personally feel it deserves a lot more attention, and I ain't alone in that thought either.

By arguing that abortion should be a valid choice if you can't afford the costs of raising a child, you're implying that abortions are something that the poor wants (and perhaps even needs). Why is that? (this is all quite related to tax-funded abortions)

Oh and btw, you're against discrimination, right? ;) Why are you okay with abortion then? It is discrimination based on age and place of residence, and at times based on sex and handicap. Still down with it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion

I'm against abortion unless the mother's life is in danger. I would say that I'm even against it in cases of rape, but I've heard some well-thought-out arguments from both sides, so I can't say I'm that clear-cut. For now, I would say that if there is an obvious threat to the mother's health due to trauma from becoming pregnant from rape (i.e. she becomes suicidal or whatnot), then the baby can be aborted.
Well having an abortion can have impacts on the mother's health as well. It can make them infertile, increase their chances of getting breast cancer (if they abort a child before the first time they give birth), and Post-Abortion Syndrome can result in depression years after the abortion.
But that is inferring that the life of the mother is more important than the life of her child. And who among us can judge that?
There was a time when an abortion was only performed to save a life. While killing the unborn child is sometimes an unfortunate necessity (and in the modern, developed world, this necessity is very unlikely), the preservation of life is a noble thing.

Now abortion is simply used to end a life - no one is helped.
So the obvious flaw in your logic is that "oh I want an abortion, I'll just feign being suicidal" will be a common method to get what they want. We are creative sentient beings.
You (and txteclipse) are implying that getting an abortion is a suitable treatment for suicidal persons. That's horrible. I can't even perceive how it'd help someone who is traumatised. In case you lot didn't read my previous post, referring to abortion and rape, here (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showpost.php?p=5621579&postcount=14).

I'm pro-choice mainly for two reasons:

a) The mother is the one who has to keep the baby inside her body for 9 months. I guess she should have a word on the process?

b) I don't consider the fetus to be a person until it has been born. So I don't consider it to be a murder on my books. Of course, there is a moment in the development of the fetus (4 months) where an abortion would start being risky to the mother as well. But, until then, I think the mother should have free choice. After that, it would be the doctors' opinion in cases of a serious genetic mess-up or a life-or-death situation for the mother.
Why does the mother get a choice and not the child? They are two distinctly different people after all. Also, why is it that abortion is the only choice?

What changes after the child is born? What is the difference between the child in the womb and the child outside?

Why is it that none of you pro-abortionists can agree on when a "human" becomes a "person"? Some of you say after the first trimester, some say after birth. Your answers all vary because the question is philosophical in nature and thus cannot be proven by any scientific method. None of you think it's absurd that a life or death decision is based on something that weak?

Guillermo
March 15th, 2010, 04:11 AM
"Don’t get me wrong, I love the idea of killing unwanted babies, it’s just that the idea of letting women make a decision doesn’t sit well with me.” - Zach Braff

I get my opinions from Zach Braff so that's what I'm going with
Zach Braff mentions, Guillermo agrees.

I have so many things I could say on this topic, but I won't, because no matter what anyone says, this is going to get locked eventually. It's the same for this, racism and other violent debates.

However, I will say that I do not, under any circumstances, agree with abortion.

Zizi
March 15th, 2010, 04:25 AM
Well it's not like I believe abortion to be such a good thing, I don't but at the end of the day it's the woman who has the baby grow inside her and the woman who has to give birth - therefore womans choice as to what she wants to do. And I know people baw because of the whole 'you're not giving it a chance to live' thing but what, would people prefer a kid to be born to a mother who didn't want the baby and therefore does not love the baby? Or be born to a person who just isn't ready or dependent on alcohol or drugs? I mean yeah, it's a chance at life but what sort of life? The kid would be unhappy and who wants that? I feel a kid should only be born if the parents are fully ready to love and bring up a child to give it a happy life. Be it 2 parents or single parent, as long as the kid will be happy. that's just what I think. :D

pokejungle
March 15th, 2010, 08:46 AM
We have too many people in the world and we don't take care of them as it is. Period.

There is no such thing as pro-life. If there were really as many 'pro-life' people as there were 'anti-abortionists' we'd have universal healthcare in America. We'd have robust support groups for 3rd world countries. We'd have 0 poverty here. Etc.

Fact is a fetus is a person, but the homeless guy who needs your help on the street sure ain't.

I don't want to hear the phrase "pro-life" used again unless you're a Democrat who actually fights for equality in all walks of life. Otherwise you're just anti-abortion. Or maybe pro-overpopulation.

Ivysaur
March 15th, 2010, 09:06 AM
Why does the mother get a choice and not the child? They are two distinctly different people after all. Also, why is it that abortion is the only choice?

What changes after the child is born? What is the difference between the child in the womb and the child outside?

Why is it that none of you pro-abortionists can agree on when a "human" becomes a "person"? Some of you say after the first trimester, some say after birth. Your answers all vary because the question is philosophical in nature and thus cannot be proven by any scientific method. None of you think it's absurd that a life or death decision is based on something that weak?

Because the fetus can't think and/or express their thoughts, so their opinion can't be taken into account. And because we are talking about abortion in this topic. The mother may choose giving the baby to somebody else, but, in this thread, we discuss the possibility of letting them choose abortion as well.

The changes? That the fetus is outside of the mother and thus no longer needs her and only her to survive. This is where I draw my line. But, I have into account that there is a moment in the fetus' development where an abortion would not only kill the fetus, but the mother as well.

And, pretty much all the law is based on philosophical thoughts regarding the correct punishment for certain crimes. Since some people may disagree with when a fair punishment becomes unfair, we should remove all law. We are talking about taking some person's freedom and/or life away, after all.

Answering your question, people usually have different views on a subject, you know. The final decision is taken by majority. I still don't think that's enough reason to consider absurd that reasoning, or else we should destroy all the laws until every single person in the country agrees to them, don't you agree?

Galukxy
March 15th, 2010, 10:05 AM
To be honest, It's that persons choice if they want an abortion or not, but I'm totally against the whole thing. I think it's sick someone is taking away a young life the way they do it. I just wonder whats going through the doctors mind when he is doing that. all I want to say is if you don't want children, don't have sex or just use protection! but I do agree people will disagree and have different views and opinions on the subject.

pokejungle
March 15th, 2010, 10:06 AM
I dunno, if I were the doctor I'd prob be thinking about what I wanted for lunch. Looking at women naked always reminds me of Arby's.

Cherrim
March 15th, 2010, 10:23 AM
I'm pro-choice. I think abortion should be legalized everywhere. If it isn't, the people who are dead-set on getting an abortion will just look for unsafe means of having one anyway.

That's not to say I approve of any reason for having an abortion, and I am by no means "pro-abortion". It's a horrifying process and many women who have one either regret it for the rest of their life or feel horrible about it for many years afterward. It's not a decision to take lightly but I feel it's a decision every woman should have the right to have.

Jordan
March 15th, 2010, 10:39 AM
We have too many people in the world and we don't take care of them as it is. Period.Wouldn't war and famine be better for population control? I mean these adults are at a stage where they can actually produce more humans. :o

Anyhow, I'll just state my opinions and be on my way. I'm pro-life (or anti-abortion or whatever >____>;). I believe that the fetus is a developing human, but a human regardless and that to take away their lives are akin to anyone else's. Making it alright to kill someone based on where they live doesn't sound right to me.
The purpose of having an abortion to save a life has died a long time ago, and the number of abortions go up every year. And it's not like these babies are coming out of nowhere; most of them are the choices made by the mothers to have a good time and not thinking of what those times may hold for them (i.e. a baby).

pokejungle
March 15th, 2010, 10:55 AM
Being gay, I do enough myself to prevent having more children. I also want to be a foster parent for all those kids who didn't get aborted and had unloving and uncaring parents. Who suffer from depression because they really would have rather not been born.

Jolene
March 15th, 2010, 12:33 PM
But that is inferring that the life of the mother is more important than the life of her child. And who among us can judge that?

The mother's life is obviously more important than the unborn child. The mother has thoughts and feelings. The mother cares about her life and would want to live. The unborn baby is just a body, incapable of thinking.

Esper
March 15th, 2010, 12:47 PM
I really hate all the shame that women are made to feel if they choose to have an abortion.

Here you have someone who is making a very difficult, very personal choice that could affect her life for years and people are screaming at her and calling her a murderer like she's some heartless inhuman monster who would just as soon shoot a stranger on the street as she would brush her teeth. She has to go through uncomfortable, sometimes painful and humiliating medical procedures which she'll undoubtedly have to lie to people around her about when they ask where she went that afternoon. She has to keep the secret from nearly everyone because she can never be sure who she can trust and who will try to shame her, bully her, make her feel like she shouldn't have control over her own life.

Objection!
March 15th, 2010, 01:46 PM
I really hate all the shame that women are made to feel if they choose to have an abortion.

Here you have someone who is making a very difficult, very personal choice that could affect her life for years and people are screaming at her and calling her a murderer like she's some heartless inhuman monster who would just as soon shoot a stranger on the street as she would brush her teeth. She has to go through uncomfortable, sometimes painful and humiliating medical procedures which she'll undoubtedly have to lie to people around her about when they ask where she went that afternoon. She has to keep the secret from nearly everyone because she can never be sure who she can trust and who will try to shame her, bully her, make her feel like she shouldn't have control over her own life.

This.

I'm also going to have to agree with user who said nobody is pro-life. Except maybe Jebus. :/ I'm basically pro-choice.

I'm not saying that it's OK, because, I won't lie, that video was pretty sickening. BUT, I may agree with early stage abortions: like, when the fetus is merely a blob, far from taking shape and even farther from actual thought.

I'm also going to point out the fact that abortion could damage potential fathers as much as mothers. Just, on a more emotional level. A man (or even teen) who went through certain types of situations in his childhood could really want a family, and after being that close, an abortion could destroy him.

I also think it should be allowed in the instance of rape. Several users on this thread are ridiculing people and calling them cold-hearted, and yet they say all women should have to deal with that?

Some girls will eventually get over it and live to raise their child happily, but a majority probably won't. Some might not be able to take that sort of guilt staring them in the face every day. Rape can hurt just as bad as abortion.

Anyways, besides that, I try to stay away from this type of thing. I felt the need to put my opinion here though... Must be that PC vibe. >.>

Amachi
March 15th, 2010, 02:53 PM
We have too many people in the world and we don't take care of them as it is. Period.

There is no such thing as pro-life. If there were really as many 'pro-life' people as there were 'anti-abortionists' we'd have universal healthcare in America. We'd have robust support groups for 3rd world countries. We'd have 0 poverty here. Etc.

Fact is a fetus is a person, but the homeless guy who needs your help on the street sure ain't.

I don't want to hear the phrase "pro-life" used again unless you're a Democrat who actually fights for equality in all walks of life. Otherwise you're just anti-abortion. Or maybe pro-overpopulation.
Wow. Your post was completely useless. Can you do nothing but behave like a rabid political fanboy? It only shows that you know absolutely nothing. Heck, not even everyone here is from America.

But hey, you want to argue overpopulation? Ok sure.
It is estimated that the earth can support a population of 10 billion people. We aren't even near that now, and I think that by then humanity would have figured out a way to support even more people. Cause we're awesome like that.

So don't worry about the future. Instead, we'll think about now. Fertility rates have been declining for quite some time in Western countries, and populations are aging. With a diminished adult population, who is going to support the elderly? Heck, who is going to run our economy? Immigration is but a temporary solution, and not a good one as due to the lowered fertility rate, the culture is already dying as it is, and immigration only speeds that up. While this isn't really an issue in the USA, Europe definitely has a problem with losing its culture.
Because the fetus can't think and/or express their thoughts, so their opinion can't be taken into account. And because we are talking about abortion in this topic. The mother may choose giving the baby to somebody else, but, in this thread, we discuss the possibility of letting them choose abortion as well.

The changes? That the fetus is outside of the mother and thus no longer needs her and only her to survive. This is where I draw my line. But, I have into account that there is a moment in the fetus' development where an abortion would not only kill the fetus, but the mother as well.

And, pretty much all the law is based on philosophical thoughts regarding the correct punishment for certain crimes. Since some people may disagree with when a fair punishment becomes unfair, we should remove all law. We are talking about taking some person's freedom and/or life away, after all.

Answering your question, people usually have different views on a subject, you know. The final decision is taken by majority. I still don't think that's enough reason to consider absurd that reasoning, or else we should destroy all the laws until every single person in the country agrees to them, don't you agree?
It can express pain. It has a desire to live. In the video I posted before, "The Silent Scream", the child in the womb dodges the medical instruments that are trying to tear it apart.

But besides it's place of residence and age, there is no difference. The child is exactly the same on the inside as it is outside. In the third trimester, a child can be born prematurely and yet still live.

Is that so? But "philosophical" law can still be wrong. I know you aren't American, but back in the days of slave usage, a black slave was not regarded as a person. Their master could do whatever they wanted with them. Unborn children are discriminated against in the same way, because of varying interpretations of what makes a person.

It's hardly taken by a majority. We don't live in a perfect democracy. Is there something wrong with the reasoning that an unborn child should be protected because it is human and it is alive? Both of those can be proven by science, and neither are based on religious faith or philosophical theory. We may very well turn to religion or philosophy to guide the creation of law, but in this case the obvious scientific facts are being ignored, and so human lives are being destroyed as a consequence of that.
I'm pro-choice. I think abortion should be legalized everywhere. If it isn't, the people who are dead-set on getting an abortion will just look for unsafe means of having one anyway.
Well first off, abortion isn't even safe, but secondly, people always say that people will start dying from backyard abortions. I've never actually seen anything that seems to back that up. Heck, I've never seen anything outside of urban-myths regarding the use of a coat-hanger in abortions.
Being gay, I do enough myself to prevent having more children. I also want to be a foster parent for all those kids who didn't get aborted and had unloving and uncaring parents. Who suffer from depression because they really would have rather not been born.
Gianna Jessen; Aborted but Alive (http://www.abortionfacts.com/survivors/giannajessen.asp): Read the story of a young woman who has been aborted and lived to tell about it. Gianna's testimony was given before the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on April 22, 1996.

My Mom tried to abort me three times (http://www.abortionfacts.com/survivors/amy.asp): Amy Charlton survived three saline abortion attempts by her mom. Here's her story.
Two stories by those who have survived an abortion. Stop talking crap.

I really hate all the shame that women are made to feel if they choose to have an abortion.

Here you have someone who is making a very difficult, very personal choice that could affect her life for years and people are screaming at her and calling her a murderer like she's some heartless inhuman monster who would just as soon shoot a stranger on the street as she would brush her teeth. She has to go through uncomfortable, sometimes painful and humiliating medical procedures which she'll undoubtedly have to lie to people around her about when they ask where she went that afternoon. She has to keep the secret from nearly everyone because she can never be sure who she can trust and who will try to shame her, bully her, make her feel like she shouldn't have control over her own life.
I really hate that women are made to feel that abortion is the only choice when they are pregnant.

Yet once again you make it seem like the only choice. I express sympathy for these women that kill their own child - I can't imagine the pain they go through, nor do I ever want to. Which is why I argue against abortions, so that they don't have to go through the pain of one.
This.

I'm also going to have to agree with user who said nobody is pro-life. Except maybe Jebus. :/ I'm basically pro-choice.

I'm not saying that it's OK, because, I won't lie, that video was pretty sickening. BUT, I may agree with early stage abortions: like, when the fetus is merely a blob, far from taking shape and even farther from actual thought.

I'm also going to point out the fact that abortion could damage potential fathers as much as mothers. Just, on a more emotional level. A man (or even teen) who went through certain types of situations in his childhood could really want a family, and after being that close, an abortion could destroy him.

I also think it should be allowed in the instance of rape. Several users on this thread are ridiculing people and calling them cold-hearted, and yet they say all women should have to deal with that?

Some girls will eventually get over it and live to raise their child happily, but a majority probably won't. Some might not be able to take that sort of guilt staring them in the face every day. Rape can hurt just as bad as abortion.

Anyways, besides that, I try to stay away from this type of thing. I felt the need to put my opinion here though... Must be that PC vibe. >.>
There is no difference between a child at the start of the pregnancy and at the end - they are just merely in different stages of development. Calling it a blob is just your attempt to dehumanise it so that you don't feel bad about it being murdered.

Several users are calling themselves cold-hearted. I'd rather that women not deal with having to kill their own child. (Doesn't anyone read older posts anymore?)

Man, I really need to do my homework. This response has taken me way too long to type D:

Jessie
March 15th, 2010, 02:58 PM
Personally, I wouldn't do it, but I believe it should be up to the individual.

Who am I to tell others what they can and can't do?

pokejungle
March 15th, 2010, 03:12 PM
Personally, I wouldn't do it, but I believe it should be up to the individual.

Who am I to tell others what they can and can't do?
Well obviously you're not some other members of this forum who are in the position to judge what is best for a woman and her womb.

No, but seriously folks, don't ever take me too seriously. ;) I simply elaborate on my beliefs.

Guillermo
March 16th, 2010, 03:26 AM
What people are blatantly forgetting is that you were once in the position that baby was in now. You depended on your mother, just as other babies do also. I do believe that it should be up to the individual, as it is their child, but that doesn't in any sense mean I agree with it. I don't care if the baby is breathing, walking, eating, drinking or nesting inside a womb, it's still living.

The mother's life is obviously more important than the unborn child. The mother has thoughts and feelings. The mother cares about her life and would want to live. The unborn baby is just a body, incapable of thinking.
So because it does not think makes it much, much less important than the mother? The mother has lived a life, and the baby has not. Why the mother is automatically more important is beyond me. Everyone should have a chance to live, or else what is the point in being produced at all? A lot of mothers die during childbirth anyway, Jolene. Regardless of when or how, she's going to die at some point anyway.

Saltare.
March 16th, 2010, 08:58 AM
I would never get an abortion. My mom said if I got pregnant before I was married, I was getting an abortion. But I wouldn't let her make me have one.

As for some people, it may be right. Like, if they can't pay for the baby they can have an abortion. But if they plain just don't want it, give it up for adoption and make it a closed adoption so you won't see the baby.

Why do I know this and I'm 13? I watch 16&Pregnant!

But this girl in my school, she has had already two abortions and she is only 14.

Cassino
March 16th, 2010, 11:46 AM
I feel a mother should be allowed to do whatever she deems appropriate with her child up to the point at which it truly thinks for itself and can decide otherwise.

Many animals will reabsorb embryos and/or eat their young when threatened. It's like homosexuality, should be legal because it's natural. I don't see why humans should feel the need distance themselves from nature.


Note I am not willing to argue my position, merely expressing my beliefs for whatever personal consideration others may have, so don't expect much of a response if you wish to retort against my post.

ryty1231
March 16th, 2010, 06:31 PM
In my opinion, if the mother can't support their child, they should abort it.

Chrisbob78
March 16th, 2010, 07:00 PM
"most of them are the choices made by the mothers to have a good time and not thinking of what those times may hold for them (i.e. a baby)." So the baby should suffer from the mothers stupid descion? What if she is not able to support this baby? And it is raised in a broken home?

FreakyLocz14
March 17th, 2010, 06:41 AM
Here in California, we're offically confused about abortion.

We say a fetus isn't a living human so abortion is OK, yet we charge people with double murder for killing a pregnant woman if he fetus dies as well.

When will we make up our minds?

SquirtleGirl
March 17th, 2010, 08:11 AM
I'm not really gonna get into it like you guys do, cause really there's n point in me pretending I'm an expert on this stuff.

I don't really have a clear cut opinion. But if I was in that situation, being the age I am now, I probably would have one. True, the mother shouldn't have been so foolish to not have used protection [with all the methods of contraception out there, there's really no excuse in my opinion [Except maybe it's part of some people's religion but I am not clear on those maters so don't shoot me!]]
everybody's only human, and people make mistakes. As long as she doesn't keep doing it over and over again without taking protection into account like was said earlier

In instances of rape and incest I totally agree. To me, It would be more ignorant to let the child live than grow up being ashamed of who they are [if they even know who they are.]
Then again, it's down to what the mother wants.

In my cold mind, something that has not lived outside the uterus does not know what it's missing. That may sound heartless but that's what I believe and I'm sorry if anyone disagrees with that.

That's all my thoughts anyway.

Note I am not willing to argue my position, merely expressing my beliefs for whatever personal consideration others may have, so don't expect much of a response if you wish to retort against my post.

Ditto.

pokejungle
March 17th, 2010, 11:21 AM
Here in California, we're offically confused about abortion.

We say a fetus isn't a living human so abortion is OK, yet we charge people with double murder for killing a pregnant woman if he fetus dies as well.

When will we make up our minds?
Well the only point there is that a mother who is carrying a fetus did not willingly give it up when she was murdered.

NarutoActor
March 17th, 2010, 12:00 PM
A woman has all the rights to do anything to her body, be it on her body or in her body.

That's all I am going to say. Well that's not true. If anybody trys to commit suicide, and fail they will be arested. You are not allowed to kill your self, so why would you be allowed to kill your baby.


I believe that abortions are perfectly fine and that restrictions on abortions should be laxed. I do not believe that the lives of unborn babies have any value. Some people say I'm cruel for thinking that, but I honestly can't see how that's cruel. Without experiences or emotions or even feelings, what value is there to a life?A baby still feels pain. If you do a sonogram on a baby during an abortion you will see it trying to run away, or if it is devolved enough scream. Also it is going to developed feelings. Why not just have the baby, and give it to adoption. What ever happened to a baby is a blessing, and the merical of childbirth. Now babies are looked open as mistakes.

Cherrim
March 17th, 2010, 12:02 PM
Well the only point there is that a mother who is carrying a fetus did not willingly give it up when she was murdered.
I don't think that makes it any different. If you consider the foetus to be a human being in a murder case, it should be considered a human being in the case of an abortion. :/

Rich Boy Rob
March 17th, 2010, 01:07 PM
I am definitely pro-choice. I agree with the current law we have on abortion in the UK now. We did about a months worth of work on abortion in Philosophy & Ethics (fancy name for RE) quite recently, and I forget exactly what week it is, but I think it was either when the the baby can start kicking or can survive independently outside the womb, I can't remember which.
I don't really think that a blob that looks more like a lizard than a human and has no brain, so therefore can obviously not feel or think can be considered a person.

Menasay
March 17th, 2010, 01:13 PM
I'm sorry but if Abortion wasn't legal then women who got raped and such would have children and it wouldn't be their fault.

Saltare.
March 17th, 2010, 06:10 PM
Like, I'm against it but if a mother cant support the child, I'm all for it.

I'm like, borderline...

pokejungle
March 17th, 2010, 07:03 PM
I think children should be abortable up to age 8...

FreakyLocz14
March 18th, 2010, 08:30 AM
I think children should be abortable up to age 8...

Standard Pro-Choicer is standard...

I don't think that makes it any different. If you consider the foetus to be a human being in a murder case, it should be considered a human being in the case of an abortion. :/

I agree. There are other contradictions in California law but the one I stated is one that's relevant. Does anyone remember People v. Peterson? A man named Scott Peterson alledgedly murdered his pregnant wife and was charged with double murder (one count for his wife and a second count for the unborn child).

I also find it funny that the "Pro-Life" district attorney had Peterson sentenced to death.

Honest
March 18th, 2010, 01:10 PM
I dislike people who go through abortion, but I don't hate them. The fetus (if I'm using my correct vocabulary) isn't developed, so thus, it is not technically a person, but technically, it is. You do take away a life, and in an extent, a whole lot more. I personally don't believe anything major would have happened if someone such as Jesus was aborted. He wasn't however, so who are we to judge? What I don't like about abortion is that generally, people who go through it are people (I think usually teens) who go through sex without some sort of protection. They shouldn't leave it to chance, and hope that an egg doesn't get fertilized. They should be ready to take the responsibility of a parent. Not take the easy way and go through abortion.

pokejungle
March 18th, 2010, 02:43 PM
I dislike people who go through abortion, but I don't hate them. The fetus (if I'm using my correct vocabulary) isn't developed, so thus, it is not technically a person, but technically, it is. You do take away a life, and in an extent, a whole lot more. I personally don't believe anything major would have happened if someone such as Jesus was aborted. He wasn't however, so who are we to judge? What I don't like about abortion is that generally, people who go through it are people (I think usually teens) who go through sex without some sort of protection. They shouldn't leave it to chance, and hope that an egg doesn't get fertilized. They should be ready to take the responsibility of a parent. Not take the easy way and go through abortion.
Yeah making the life altering choice to have an abortion is a great reason to dislike someone. As if their lives could get any crappier.

NarutoActor
March 18th, 2010, 02:47 PM
I'm sorry but if Abortion wasn't legal then women who got raped and such would have children and it wouldn't be their fault.Ever herd of abortion. But if a women dose get raped, is it fair that the innocent baby dies? Also you are going to remember the rape rather it be with/ or with out killing the baby.

Esper
March 18th, 2010, 03:03 PM
What I don't like about abortion is that generally, people who go through it are people (I think usually teens) who go through sex without some sort of protection. They shouldn't leave it to chance, and hope that an egg doesn't get fertilized. They should be ready to take the responsibility of a parent. Not take the easy way and go through abortion.
So I'd assume you're for better education, ie., teaching kids about sex, reproduction, STIs, contraception, etc.

Does anyone else see hypocrisy when churches and politicians and people like that condemn abortion and the teaching sex ed in schools in the same breath? I bet you'd see fewer abortions among teens if sex ed classes were mandatory in school and they did away with the silly abstinence-only teaching which doesn't prepare teens for when they do have sex. I mean, face it, most are going to. They should know how to be safe about it.

FreakyLocz14
March 18th, 2010, 06:56 PM
So I'd assume you're for better education, ie., teaching kids about sex, reproduction, STIs, contraception, etc.

Does anyone else see hypocrisy when churches and politicians and people like that condemn abortion and the teaching sex ed in schools in the same breath? I bet you'd see fewer abortions among teens if sex ed classes were mandatory in school and they did away with the silly abstinence-only teaching which doesn't prepare teens for when they do have sex. I mean, face it, most are going to. They should know how to be safe about it.

I'm all for sexual education but abstinence should be mentioned. It is after, the most effective method of not getting pregnant or getting an STI.

Yusshin
March 18th, 2010, 07:06 PM
I feel like I've already replied to this thread, but I scrolled through and I didn't.

I'm pro-life unless:

- The mother's life is in danger
- The baby is the result of rape or something else unwanted
- The baby has chances of being born with a life-endangering or life-altering condition
- The mother / family would be an unfit parent / parent figure
- The woman is under the age of twenty-two (22)

^ In these scenarios, I'm pro-choice

Mana
March 19th, 2010, 02:59 AM
Abortion is O.K., as long as it isn't abused.

Aborting frequently due to unsafe sex = Wrong.

Aborting due to Rape, being unable to care for the child, health implications = Fine by me.

I'd even go as far as to say that in the event of protection failure (as condoms only have a 99% working rate) is O.K., atleast that person was using protection in the first place.

As for the people saying that a rape-child is still a living being and deserves to be given a chance, think of the mentality of the mother. Yes abortion can cause breakdowns if it's not wanted, but carrying a child who was made from an act of sexual violence is going to be slightly more scarring I'm going to assume. Not to mention raising the child, having a constant reminder of what happened, :\ can't be a pleasant feeling.

So yeah, abortion should be accepted but the procedure should not be abused.

Idiot!
March 19th, 2010, 07:19 AM
I am all for pro-choice. Freedom of choice is important IMHO. Regardless of whichever side someone takes in issues like abortion, there will be losers because either side can be argued as unfair. Pro-life people will say it's unfair to the baby; pro-choice counterparts will say it's unfair to the mother.

Rich Boy Rob
March 19th, 2010, 03:10 PM
I bet you'd see fewer abortions among teens if sex ed classes were mandatory in school and they did away with the silly abstinence-only teaching which doesn't prepare teens for when they do have sex. I mean, face it, most are going to. They should know how to be safe about it.


:\ I thought Sex-Ed was mandatory? We only ever had one lesson about abstinence, but it wasn't really suggested to be a realistic alternative to contraception.

FreakyLocz14
March 19th, 2010, 03:19 PM
Sex is sort of mandatory. Parents can opt-their children out of it but the entire student body with no objecting parents go through it.

twocows
March 19th, 2010, 04:26 PM
Sex is sort of mandatory. Parents can opt-their children out of it but the entire student body with no objecting parents go through it.
I think you mean sexual education is mandatory. Sex is certainly not mandatory, unless you're referring to sex in the technical sense (genitalia), which I'd argue is still not mandatory, since you can survive without them.

Eпvy
March 19th, 2010, 05:14 PM
I am a bit more conservative on abortion than I am on other issues. I feel that abortion is wrong, but I do believe that in extreme cases it should be allowed, but beyond that I simply can not agree with it.

tomylee1
March 19th, 2010, 10:52 PM
i am against of abortion.
it death of a small child who never see this world.
i suggest to every women control your sex habbits.

tehGDS
March 20th, 2010, 07:00 PM
Pro: If the mom's going to die, and it's because of that
Con: baby could save a person
Pro: The baby's going to kill
Con: hookers
Pro: person gets raped n the rapit health proble

I want it to be nolegal but I want them to do itifthelifeisdanger

Aurako
March 20th, 2010, 07:09 PM
I honestly believe it depends.

Say its just because you didn't want a child.
Then you should have it and give it up for adoption, you shouldn't have had unsafe intercourse.


If however the mother/father realize they have a terrible condition that could be passed on to the baby, or the baby is harming the mother, or there is NO way they could put it up for adoption and cannot support it... I believe those are legitimate causes. If its hurting someone to the point it may kill someone, or it will come into the world only to suffer are really the only good reasons IMO for abortion.


But I do not criticize people's choices.
That's just my opinion.

Feign
March 20th, 2010, 07:12 PM
What gives society or the government the right to decide if a woman is allowed to keep the fetus growing inside of her, or not?

While I find that the act of aborting is quite unkind, it is wholly necessary if it has to be (as this also includes the numerous examples mentioned above by others). Thus more power to the woman who decides to go through with the child birth and give it up to adoption.

Angela
March 20th, 2010, 07:28 PM
I'm pro abortion, I think everyone should get one (kidding about the everyone should get one.) I think abortion should be an option for everyone. And I don't think religion should really be involved with this.

But on the subject of fetuses.. I know this may sound bi-assed.. But I think stem cell research should be allowed. I mean if it can help someone whom has an "incurable" illness then I think they should go for it. I know off an example were this helped a paralyzed woman gain some movement in her legs, enough to allow her to stand in her feet and if she has support she can walk. And she's gonna get some more injections this summer (In India, Asia) and I can say that I'm waiting to hear how that is gonna effect her life, will it help her some more.


But the main point is that abortion should be an option for everyone. I've seen some good reasons above on why one should get an abortion such as health issues and rape. But then again there are some opinions above that are vaguely missing a argument for their opinion. Tho I do feel the need to say this but most of the member on this forum are early pre-teen males whom actually have the least say in this both because of lacking the maturity and experience in pretty much everything needed to make this decision. It has been proven that the mind of an adult thinks more logical then the mind of an child. So don't expect much coming out of this discussion. Also there are reasons here that are greatly lacking (Haven't been mentioned), some people haven't posted them because some know it all n00b will probably flame them for mentioning it. But simply not wanting to have a baby is reason enough to have a abortion, if one wants to have a baby later on in life, or simply not have a child then that is a valid reason enough for a abortion. Some people are simply not meant to be parents and aren't smart enough to see that at the beginning thus do not consider adoption, so why not just let them abort? Examples of that could be a drug addict, an alcoholic, an abusive person. So instead of ruining a child's childhood wouldn't it have been better to allow the person to abort and hopefully the child is born somewhere else (I mean who knows what happens after we die, or maybe the soul just moves on to another unborn child) were there is a better family waiting.
So like I say, I think abortion should always be an option.

Amachi
March 20th, 2010, 08:02 PM
What gives society or the government the right to decide if a woman is allowed to keep the fetus growing inside of her, or not?

While I find that the act of aborting is quite unkind, it is wholly necessary if it has to be (as this also includes the numerous examples mentioned above by others). Thus more power to the woman who decides to go through with the child birth and give it up to adoption.
What gives anyone the right to do what is wrong? It used to be in America that black people were not legal persons, and that as a slave they were the property of the owner, who had the power to do what ever they wanted to them, including kill. While this fortunately no longer is the case, we can see a direct analogy with abortion, where the child is not legally considered to be a person and is the property of the mother.

Those who opposed slavery were often told, "We understand you oppose slavery and find it morally offensive. That is your privilege. You don’t have to own a slave if you don’t want to. But, don’t impose your morality on the slave owner. He has the constitutionally protected right to choose to own a slave."

Likewise, us who oppose abortion are often told, "We understand that you oppose abortion and find it morally offensive. That is your privilege. You don’t have to have an abortion if you don’t want to. But don’t impose your morality on the owner, the mother, for she has the constitutional right to choose to kill, if she wishes."

However, Abraham Lincoln, in his debates with Mr. Douglas responded, "No one has the right to choose to do what is wrong." And so that is our reasoning for trying to prevent this murder - because no one has the right to do what is wrong.

"Wholly necessary"? I don't see it that way. In fact if you looked at previous posts you would have seen reasons against abortion.
In the case of rape or incest: While unfortunate, why punish the child for the mistakes of the father? How would murdering a child help your own pain? (and it has been shown that it can cause further harm to the mother to abort the child).
Disability: Sure, lets go around killing disabled people because they obviously are unfit to live.
Unable to support the child: 1. Don't engage in risky activities. 2. Put it up for adoption. Murdering it shouldn't be an option.
Mother's life is in danger: Very rare nowadays, but the only case in which it should be allowed. Both lives should be saved if possible however.

If you look at statistics though, most abortions don't occur for the above reasons however, but for the sake of convenience. It is pretty much another form of contraceptive for idiots.

I'm pro abortion, I think everyone should get one (kidding about the everyone should get one.) I think abortion should be an option for everyone. And I don't think religion should really be involved with this.

But the main point is that abortion should be an option for everyone. I've seen some good reasons above on why one should get an abortion such as health issues and rape. But then again there are some opinions above that are vaguely missing a argument for their opinion. Tho I do feel the need to say this but most of the member on this forum are early pre-teen males whom actually have the least say in this both because of lacking the maturity and experience in pretty much everything needed to make this decision. It has been proven that the mind of an adult thinks more logical then the mind of an child. So don't expect much coming out of this discussion. Also there are reasons here that are greatly lacking (Haven't been mentioned), some people haven't posted them because some know it all n00b will probably flame them for mentioning it. But simply not wanting to have a baby is reason enough to have a abortion, if one wants to have a baby later on in life, or simply not have a child then that is a valid reason enough for a abortion. Some people are simply not meant to be parents and aren't smart enough to see that at the beginning thus do not consider adoption, so why not just let them abort? Examples of that could be a drug addict, an alcoholic, an abusive person. So instead of ruining a child's childhood wouldn't it have been better to allow the person to abort and hopefully the child is born somewhere else (I mean who knows what happens after we die, or maybe the soul just moves on to another unborn child) were there is a better family waiting.
So like I say, I think abortion should always be an option.
There are plenty of reasons to not get an abortion without involving religion. If you look at my posts in this thread I haven't once mentioned religion.

Accusing every pro-life supporter of being a pre-teen male isn't a very compelling argument, nor is it very strong.

If you don't want to have a baby, don't risk your chances by having sex, and if you're going to have sex, make sure to take the proper precautions. It's pretty simple really, and most "logical" adults should be able to get a grasp of it. But no, because people are immature and are afraid to take responsibility for their actions, they take the easy way out and kill an innocent child.

You just said not to mention religion, but then you bring up the possibility of a soul, thus stepping into theological and philosophical thought.

IceSage
March 20th, 2010, 08:08 PM
I think abortion is wrong. You're killing innocent people, sure some may argue that *they're not people yet*, but they will become people.

Perhaps a bit too mature for a Pokemon forum, so I won't get into it too much. However, in a nutshell, the same biological materials that create humans, get destroyed on a regular basis, in both males and females. Additionally, when you really think about it, the building blocks that make up a new being are basic things that we eat, and produce within our own bodies ourselves, none of which are even near sentient or even considered alive.

What do you think the world would be like if Jesus was aborted?

Not part of what you're talking about at all... However, nothing would change. If you're to believe in that aspect of religion, rest assured that even if the biological components were destroyed, "Jesus" would still be born, and still exist, no matter what.

Or George Washington?

Then the world would be different, wouldn't it? "What if" scenarios are just plain silly. Either way, George Washington could still possibly be George Washington. In fact, going back to my original post, George Washington was technically aborted a thousand times over before he became "George Washington."

No one has the right to end another beings life.

Really? I'm sure you wouldn't be saying that when you get infected with the flu, or some other virus.

That's just my .02

An accurate number, considering the length of your visit with us. (More like .32, in fact.)

Aureol
March 20th, 2010, 08:10 PM
I think abortion is wrong because... wait a minute, the TC has only 2 posts. I ain't entering a heated debate this easily!

Esper
March 20th, 2010, 09:30 PM
Accusing every pro-life supporter of being a pre-teen male isn't a very compelling argument, nor is it very strong.
She's saying that on this forum a lot, not all, of the pro-life members are pre-teen males. Males don't get pregnant so it's easy for them to say abortion is bad because they'll never have to make that choice for themselves and that as much as it's everyone's right to have an opinion you can't expect more than simple answers from someone without much life experience.

If you don't want to have a baby, don't risk your chances by having sex, and if you're going to have sex, make sure to take the proper precautions.
And women who become pregnant despite taking steps to stop that from happening?

Everyone of legal age can have sex if they want (and can find a willing partner of course). Pregnancy can happen even when people use protection. A woman is not irresponsible if she chooses to have sex (her right) and does what she can do protect herself (being responsible), but still gets pregnant. Honestly, a person would only be irresponsible if she planned to carry a baby to term without any idea of how to care for it.

And telling a woman to go through 9 months of pregnancy (or just plain telling a woman what she should and shouldn't do) is wrong. It's no different from forcing medical procedures on her when her life isn't at risk. Giving birth involves pain, drugs, and health risks. It's never necessary to give birth so it should never be forced on anyone.

Alli
March 20th, 2010, 09:39 PM
I know I said I wouldn't post here again, but I have to say something about this.

Giving birth involves pain, drugs, and health risks.

Yeah, because abortion doesn't involve any pain and totally doesn't have any health risks. Honestly, it's more risky having an abortion than actually having the child. And the drugs they give you for labor help reduce the pain. Yeah, it's still gonna hurt. Your pelvis has shifted and there's a body coming out of you, but it's worth it to see that child's face. Tell you what. Go look at an aborted baby's face. It's not beautiful at all. It's heart breaking.

IceSage
March 20th, 2010, 09:45 PM
Yeah, because abortion doesn't involve any pain and totally doesn't have any health risks. Honestly, it's more risky having an abortion than actually having the child.

1) Go to doctor.
2) Get pill.
3) Swallow it.

And if you're talking about those abortions which need surgical procedures, I'm quite sure by the time that's necessary, you're stuck with it. There are points in pregnancy where abortion is, and is not allowed.

PS. EVERYTHING has risks in life. It's just that in certain circumstances, you have to determine which is healthier for you, AND something you might possibly give life to. I think that was the point that was trying to be made by Scarf.

If I were to have complications by being pregnant, and possibly die, I wouldn't go through it with, period. The reverse is true, it's possible for something to go wrong with the child, and they could end up being born with MANY defects, or die painfully after birth.

Esper
March 20th, 2010, 09:59 PM
Yeah, because abortion doesn't involve any pain and totally doesn't have any health risks.
'Course it has risks which is why no one should be forced to have an abortion either. Potentially risky medical procedures should always be a choice, even if your only options are both risky.

IceSage
March 20th, 2010, 10:12 PM
Tell you what. Go look at an aborted baby's face. It's not beautiful at all. It's heart breaking.

http://www.paternityangel.com/PicsAndPhotos/FoetalDevelop/ectoderm.jpg

Yeah, totally looks like a baby's face.

Amachi
March 20th, 2010, 10:17 PM
She's saying that on this forum a lot, not all, of the pro-life members are pre-teen males. Males don't get pregnant so it's easy for them to say abortion is bad because they'll never have to make that choice for themselves and that as much as it's everyone's right to have an opinion you can't expect more than simple answers from someone without much life experience.

And women who become pregnant despite taking steps to stop that from happening?

Everyone of legal age can have sex if they want (and can find a willing partner of course). Pregnancy can happen even when people use protection. A woman is not irresponsible if she chooses to have sex (her right) and does what she can do protect herself (being responsible), but still gets pregnant. Honestly, a person would only be irresponsible if she planned to carry a baby to term without any idea of how to care for it.

And telling a woman to go through 9 months of pregnancy (or just plain telling a woman what she should and shouldn't do) is wrong. It's no different from forcing medical procedures on her when her life isn't at risk. Giving birth involves pain, drugs, and health risks. It's never necessary to give birth so it should never be forced on anyone.
Is it really? The easier choice would be to kill the child and forget about the whole thing, if you have the nerve to ignore the whole murder part. Being a father and a male pro-lifer would mean that you'd commit yourself to support the child and the mother till at least the age of 18. Now considering that all of you think that having a child is so difficult, wouldn't this be the hard way out?

And you think your argument is complex? Please.

They had sex. If they really really didn't want to risk it, then abstain from having sex. Heck, the fact that they went through all that trouble and still got pregnant is a miracle in itself, considering that even couples that want to have a baby may try for months with no luck.
And killing the child isn't the only option. It shouldn't even be an option.

You say all that as if abortion isn't an entirely optional medical procedure that has many risks, including infertility, breast cancer, and post-abortion syndrome. Furthermore, childbirth is like.. natural. That's like saying no one should be forced to walk when we have motorised scooters. In addition, hardly anyone (if anyone, at least in Western civilisation) even dies as a result of giving birth nowadays anyway, with the "risks" being significantly reduced since the advent of modern medical procedures.
1) Go to doctor.
2) Get pill.
3) Swallow it.

And if you're talking about those abortions which need surgical procedures, I'm quite sure by the time that's necessary, you're stuck with it. There are points in pregnancy where abortion is, and is not allowed.
You're ignoring possible long term health risks that are associated with all abortions, such as infertility, breast cancer, post-abortion syndrome, and so on. Abortion is not only dangerous for the child (go figure), but dangerous for the mother as well. Heck, even the mother's other children can be impacted by abortion (survivor syndrome).

IceSage
March 20th, 2010, 10:25 PM
You're ignoring possible long term health risks that are associated with all abortions, such as infertility, breast cancer, post-abortion syndrome, and so on. Abortion is not only dangerous for the child (go figure), but dangerous for the mother as well. Heck, even the mother's other children can be impacted by abortion (survivor syndrome).

Risk is the keyword here. There are PLENTY of women who have abortions and are 100%, perfectly fine; even when they need to have surgery or need to stop it during fetal development.

A question I would like to pose to those who are AGAINST abortions, is this:

What (in life in general) do you consider living and sentient?

Also, at what point do you believe the development in pregnancy in which the "baby" is sentient, or "human?"

Explain your views and reasons and I'll chime my two cents in.

Alli
March 20th, 2010, 10:33 PM
http://www.paternityangel.com/PicsAndPhotos/FoetalDevelop/ectoderm.jpg

Yeah, totally looks like a baby's face.

Yeah, but this sure does. I hope you do realize that most aborted babies look something along the lines of the image in the tag.

This is very graphic, but hey, if you're going to support it, look at what you support. But I'll say it again, it's very graphic.

http://endued.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/malachi-aborted-baby.jpg

And yes, I have permission from Ausaudriel to post this.

Amachi
March 20th, 2010, 10:41 PM
Risk is the keyword here. There are PLENTY of women who have abortions and are 100%, perfectly fine; even when they need to have surgery or need to stop it during fetal development.

A question I would like to pose to those who are AGAINST abortions, is this:

What (in life in general) do you consider living and sentient?

Also, at what point do you believe the development in pregnancy in which the "baby" is sentient, or "human?"

Explain your views and reasons and I'll chime my two cents in.
The risks, while very important, are only part of the issue, the other part being that children are being murdered.

Uh, well there's no argument that the child in the womb is alive. Sentience is a completely different and more complex issue, and may ultimately be philosophical in nature. At least that's my understanding of sentience, and thus why arguing about it is pointless since no one knows for certain when we develop it. It's the same issue with souls, which is ultimately a religious matter (and I know how most of you folk feel about that ;))

But scientifically, we can prove two things: the child is human and it is alive. That is the truth, right from fertilisation.

IceSage
March 20th, 2010, 10:53 PM
Yeah, but this sure does. I hope you do realize that most aborted babies look something along the lines of the image in the tag.

This is very graphic, but hey, if you're going to support it, look at what you support. But I'll say it again, it's very graphic.

Congratulations, you just posted a (fake, by the way, read PS) picture of a child supposedly in the 5th month of development, nearing the 3rd trimester. Also, that image is suppose to be from an illegal "abortion mill," in which is a picture of "Baby Malachi," coined by fundie (extreme) religious groups.

Late abortions that take place after 5 months are EXTREMELY rare, and not only that, illegal. This is the point where abortion isn't even a possibility and you better be prepared for parenthood.

When people discuss abortion, they don't talk about babies 5 months in. They talk about recent pregnancies where you need to make a decision if you're going to have a child or not. At this point, the "baby" looks NOTHING like that image. That's WAY past the Embryo stage (Embryogenesis).

If that's the type of thing you picture when you think "abortion" then no wonder you're so against it. Unfortunately for you, me, and the rest of the world, that's not how abortions are performed, and not WHEN abortions are performed.

When people talk about the "Abortion" debate, and they're FOR abortion, that's totally NOT what they're talking about, at all, period.

However, certain fundamentalists and "shock value" groups would like you to believe that, to support their case. (Which is usually, but not always, based off a religious belief.)

I hope I cleared that up for you. So, now you'll show me a REAL image of a "baby's face" that occurs in the first 1-3 weeks of pregnancy, or during Embryogenesis, right?

PS. After you read this, or even if you have read it, I think I should point out and explain just how the picture is fake (and also misleading) and why I described the origins of something that's suppose to be fake. First off, note the ruler. The side you're seeing there is CM, not Inches. That was done on purpose by the aforementioned groups, to give the appearance of a larger fetus. Secondly, the source of this picture is real, but a slightly different image from what you just linked. The original image is of an aborted fetus with gray skin. It was aborted via laminaria through an intra-amniotic injection, something done on fetuses which will not survive a few days past birth; or was done in an instance to preserve the mother's life. If the procedure was done while the fetus was alive, its skin would be the pinkish color of its left leg.

In a nutshell, the fetus was dying during the child birth anyway, or was causing complications in which would kill the mother (and thus, the child.) A procedure was done, which is NOT part of standard "abortion" -- nor was it really an "abortion" under the term of the debate.

Again, I state, that abortions THAT LATE in the pregnancy rarely happen, aren't meant to happen, and is not what people are talking about when they talk about abortion. People use such images to "scare" and frighten people into changing their minds about abortions... But the same exact people are altering pictures and showing mutilated pictures of fetuses and babies that have nothing to do with standard abortion procedures. Why would these groups do this, I wonder? Couldn't be anything about hiding, scaring, or imposing certain religious views onto the general public, now could it?

Amachi
March 20th, 2010, 11:12 PM
Congratulations, you just posted a (fake, by the way) picture of a child supposedly in the 5th month of development, nearing the 3rd trimester. Also, that image is from an illegal "abortion mill," in which is a picture of "Baby Malachi," coined by fundie (extreme) religious groups.

Late abortions that take place after 5 months are EXTREMELY rare, and not only that, illegal. This is the point where abortion isn't even a possibility and you better be prepared for parenthood.

When people discuss abortion, they don't talk about babies 5 months in. They talk about recent pregnancies where you need to make a decision if you're going to have a child or not. At this point, the "baby" looks NOTHING like that image. That's WAY past the Embryo stage (Embryogenesis).

If that's the type of thing you picture when you think "abortion" then no wonder you're so against it. Unfortunately for you, me, and the rest of the world, that's not how abortions are performed, and not WHEN abortions are performed.

When people talk about the "Abortion" debate, and they're FOR abortion, that's totally NOT what they're talking about, at all, period.

However, certain fundamentalists and "shock value" groups would like you to believe that, to support their case. (Which is usually, but not always, based off a religious belief.)

I hope I cleared that up for you. So, now you'll show me a REAL image of a "baby's face" that occurs in the first 1-3 weeks of pregnancy, or during Embryogenesis, right?
Frozen Fetuses Found During Doctor's Office Raid (http://cbs3.com/local/West.Philadelphia.Dr.2.1512077.html)
Regardless of the authenticity of the photo, your claims are false. Abortion is just as much an issue later on as it is at the start of the pregnancy, you do not speak for the rest of the world, and both should be discussed. "More than two dozen frozen fetuses" were found at this one clinic, demonstrating that it is not as rare as you would like it to be. Late-term abortions are legal in a number of US states and other countries, so you're wrong again about the legality of such abortions. Furthermore, what is the difference between a 20 week and a 21 week old baby besides a few days? Abortion is a slippery slope my friend.

It's nice you admit that these people actual support the murder of children rather than "choice" - political correctness has always bothered me.

Oh and to further demonstrate the risks associated with abortion, the woman in the article died during the procedure.

I myself don't approve of shock techniques - people don't learn that way. However, again while the image may be false, the circumstances that may lead to such an occurrence exist and are active even today.

So now that you know about just how grim an abortion can be, how do you feel?

Human
March 20th, 2010, 11:18 PM
This is very graphic, but hey, if you're going to support it, look at what you support. But I'll say it again, it's very graphic.

Isn't that like saying if you support your relative having brain surgery, you need to know what the surgery looks like?

Just saying. I could really care less about the matter, but what makes me mad is when you get these retards who plaster images like the above one all over the side of a van and park it along the road during parade's/car cruises. Kids don't need to see that crap.

IceSage
March 20th, 2010, 11:36 PM
Frozen Fetuses Found During Doctor's Office Raid (http://cbs3.com/local/West.Philadelphia.Dr.2.1512077.html)
Regardless of the authenticity of the photo, your claims are false. Abortion is just as much an issue later on as it is at the start of the pregnancy, you do not speak for the rest of the world, and both should be discussed. "More than two dozen frozen fetuses" were found at this one clinic, demonstrating that it is not as rare as you would like it to be.

2 dozen = 24. Also, this type of thing does go on in some places, yes. "Rare" is a term to compare the very small number of around 24, to the possibly millions of "regular" abortions that go on. The fact that it gets a specific story in the news, and you don't see this story popping up every day, every hour... Makes it rare.

Late-term abortions are legal in a number of US states and other countries, so you're wrong again about the legality of such abortions.
The fetuses are now being analyzed to reveal if illegal late-term abortions may have been performed.

It was obviously considered illegal by this guy. Again, this isn't the type of abortion people are talking about when they talk about "pro-choice" or simply having an abortion. This is the type of thing, the thing you're talking about, is where shady doctors and misinformed victims, are conned and put in harms way.

Furthermore, what is the difference between a 20 week and a 21 week old baby besides a few days? Abortion is a slippery slope my friend.

None, but I'm talking about more like a 1-2 week compared to 5 months. There IS a difference, a very big one, in fact.

It's nice you admit that these people actual support the murder of children rather than "choice" - political correctness has always bothered me.

No, they don't support the murder of children. People believe women should have a "choice" to abort an embryo, and in rare cases a fetus in it's early development.

There's no political correctness needed. It's called "abortion" for a reason. The process is aborted, before it can be considered "whole."

Oh and to further demonstrate the risks associated with abortion, the woman in the article died during the procedure.

The woman died at the hands of an illegal procedure and a doctor performing poorly, yes.

I myself don't approve of shock techniques -

Aside from reiterating the fact that you believe people who wish to stop pregnancy are MURDERing CHILDREN. You use those words a lot, to try to place shock value in those who are reading what you're attempting to convey.

people don't learn that way. However, again while the image may be false, the circumstances that may lead to such an occurrence exist and are active even today.

And in that particular case, of that particular image, depending on the backstory, is completely wrong. (Not sure if you read my PS before typing this.)

So now that you know about just how grim an abortion can be, how do you feel?

I've always known how grim illegal, 5th month, almost 3rd trimester, unnecessary termination of almost fully developed fetuses is.

Of course, that has nothing to do with the choice of aborting an embryo after you get "knocked up."

Alli
March 20th, 2010, 11:38 PM
Just saying. I could really care less about the matter, but what makes me mad is when you get these retards who plaster images like the above one all over the side of a van and park it along the road during parade's/car cruises. Kids don't need to see that crap.

We're not in a van, you know. I have a heavy warning over the image and it's in a spoiler tag. So if a kid does look at it, I'm not at fault; they were warned. And I feel that people do need to see what this is. People need to see what they're allowing and what's really going on in that clinic.

Also, get your definitions straight. I'm not mentally retarded, and if people chose to plaster pictures around (which I have never even seen. I only posted one picture that you didn't even have to look at.) then that doesn't make them "retards". Derogatory terms aren't getting anyone anywhere.

Isn't that like saying if you support your relative having brain surgery, you need to know what the surgery looks like?

That's not even a correct analogy. Brain surgery is saving a life and abortion is ending them.

Human
March 20th, 2010, 11:43 PM
We're not in a van, you know. I have a heavy warning over the image and it's in a spoiler tag. So if a kid does look at it, I'm not at fault; they were warned. And I feel that people do need to see what this is. People need to see what they're allowing and what's really going on in that clinic.

Also, get your definitions straight. I'm not mentally retarded, and if people chose to plaster pictures around (which I have never even seen. I only posted one picture that you didn't even have to look at.) then that doesn't make them "retards". Derogatory terms aren't getting anyone anywhere.

You're confused - I wasn't referring to your post, or name calling anyone in this thread.

I was referring to one time when I saw a guy parked sideways on the side of the road during a car cruise (where lots of people were driving by) with gruesome images put on the side of the van, that any kid could see, even though they're too young to have an opinion.

IceSage
March 20th, 2010, 11:43 PM
We're not in a van, you know. I have a heavy warning over the image and it's in a spoiler tag. So if a kid does look at it, I'm not at fault; they were warned.

I'm quite sure he's talking about in real life, outside of the forums, not your specific post... >_>

And I feel that people do need to see what this is. People need to see what they're allowing and what's really going on in that clinic.

Did you read my direct reply to the image? It's above, I'm waiting for your response.

Also, get your definitions straight. I'm not mentally retarded, and if people chose to plaster pictures around (which I have never even seen. I only posted one picture that you didn't even have to look at.) then that doesn't make them "retards". Derogatory terms aren't getting anyone anywhere.


Again, I'm sure he was talking about those people who like to wear T-Shirts with the fetuses and shove them into people's faces, screaming "IT'S MURDER" when all you're trying to do is get a cup of coffee at Dunkin Donuts.


Edit:
You're confused - I wasn't referring to your post, or name calling anyone in this thread.

I was referring to one time when I saw a guy parked sideways on the side of the road during a car cruise (where lots of people were driving by) with gruesome images put on the side of the van, that any kid could see, even though they're too young to have an opinion.

Yeah, I was right. He wasn't talking about your post. References (like images) are GOOD thing in a debate thread. (Even when they're altered images.)

Amachi
March 22nd, 2010, 05:46 PM
2 dozen = 24. Also, this type of thing does go on in some places, yes. "Rare" is a term to compare the very small number of around 24, to the possibly millions of "regular" abortions that go on. The fact that it gets a specific story in the news, and you don't see this story popping up every day, every hour... Makes it rare.
Ok you're right, it is rare, but that still doesn't mean that children who could have survived being born at the time of abortion were instead killed. Heck, you even have children who survived a late term abortion and yet managed to survive such a procedure.

It was obviously considered illegal by this guy. Again, this isn't the type of abortion people are talking about when they talk about "pro-choice" or simply having an abortion. This is the type of thing, the thing you're talking about, is where shady doctors and misinformed victims, are conned and put in harms way.
Yet this type of abortion is legal in several places. It may not have been legal in the author's state, but it certainly is legal in other US states.
None, but I'm talking about more like a 1-2 week compared to 5 months. There IS a difference, a very big one, in fact.
Oh yeah, but the only difference is age. There's no difference between a baby and an elderly person besides their age, and it's the same with the child in the womb.

And again, it is a slippery slope. If there is very little difference between a 20 and 21 week old baby, then there isn't much difference between 21 and 22, 23 and 24, and so on. That's how late-term abortions come into practice - because abortion is permitted in the first place.
No, they don't support the murder of children. People believe women should have a "choice" to abort an embryo, and in rare cases a fetus in it's early development.

There's no political correctness needed. It's called "abortion" for a reason. The process is aborted, before it can be considered "whole."
How is it not already a "whole"? The child is alive and its human. Everything needed for its development is already there. All it needs is time to grow.
The woman died at the hands of an illegal procedure and a doctor performing poorly, yes.
You do understand that it is legal in some places, yeah?
Aside from reiterating the fact that you believe people who wish to stop pregnancy are MURDERing CHILDREN. You use those words a lot, to try to place shock value in those who are reading what you're attempting to convey.
That's shocking? Really?

Well I suppose it would be, since everyone seems to pussyfoot around the issue with nice words such as "abort" and "fetus" and "clump o' cells". You too use such words in order to desensitise the issue, to make it seem a bit more pleasant.
And in that particular case, of that particular image, depending on the backstory, is completely wrong. (Not sure if you read my PS before typing this.)
Yeah I know the story was fabricated (at least according to you, though I trust that you wouldn't lie). Still doesn't mean that such circumstances don't occur (admittedly without any horrifying regularity, though that isn't good enough). I shall post a video once again. It's a bit old, but still relevant.

The Silent Scream
um... teenagers I guess? Don't watch it if you don't want to see a live abortion :/
cjNo_0cW-ek
The Silent Scream Complete Version - Abortion as Infanticide

Dr. Bernard Nathanson's classic video that shocked the world. He explains the procedure of a suction abortion, followed by an actual first trimester abortion as seen through ultrasound. The viewer can see the child's pathetic attempts to escape the suction curette as her heart rate doubles, and a "silent scream" as her body is torn apart. A great tool to help people see why abortion is murder. The most important video on abortion ever made. This video changed opinion on abortion to many people.
Introduction by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, host. Describes the technology of ultrasound and how, for the first time ever, we can actually see inside the womb. Dr. Nathanson further describes the ultrasound technique and shows examples of babies in the womb. Three-dimensional depiction of the developing fetus, from 4 weeks through 28 weeks. Display and usage of the abortionists' tools, plus video of an abortionist performing a suction abortion. Dr. Nathanson discusses the abortionist who agreed to allow this abortion to be filmed with ultrasound. The abortionist was quite skilled, having performed more than 10,000 abortions. We discover that the resulting ultrasound of his abortion so appalled him that he never again performed another abortion. The clip begins with an ultrasound of the fetus (girl) who is about to be aborted. The girl is moving in the womb; displays a heartbeat of 140 per minute; and is at times sucking her thumb. As the abortionist's suction tip begins to invade the womb, the child rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the instrument. Her mouth is visibly open in a "silent scream." The child's heart rate speeds up dramatically (to 200 beats per minute) as she senses aggression. She moves violently away in a pathetic attempt to escape the instrument. The abortionist's suction tip begins to rip the baby's limbs from its body, ultimately leaving only her head in the uterus (too large to be pulled from the uterus in one piece). The abortionist attempts to crush her head with his forceps, allowing it to be removed. In an effort to "dehumanize" the procedure, the abortionist and anesthesiologist refer to the baby's head as "number 1." The abortionist crushes "number 1" with the forceps and removes it from the uterus. Abortion statistics are revealed, as well as who benefits from the enormously lucrative industry that has developed. Clinics are now franchised, and there is ample evidence that many are controlled by organized crime. Women are victims, too. They haven't been told about the true nature of the unborn child or the facts about abortion procedures. Their wombs have been perforated, infected, destroyed, and sterilized. All as a result of an operation about which they they have had no true knowledge. Films like this must be made part of "informed consent." NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and Planned Parenthood are accused of a conspiracy of silence, of keeping women in the dark about the reality of abortion. Finally, Dr. Nathanson discusses his credentials. He is a former abortionist, having been the director of the largest clinic in the Western world. Also, going back to your PS in a previous post,
Couldn't be anything about hiding, scaring, or imposing certain religious views onto the general public, now could it?
You mean like the view that killing is wrong? A position that almost every religion, culture and civilisation has ever had ever? What about going against discrimination? Is that so wrong as well?

Furthermore, both sides hide the truth and use scare tactics. An abortion clinic isn't going to tell the truth about a prospective client - they'll just let them know that it's only a bunch of cells (if they ask). They won't offer support for a pregnant woman - they'll scare them into believing that the child may very well ruin their life. For behaviours such as this I'm opposed to abortion as well.

I've always known how grim illegal, 5th month, almost 3rd trimester, unnecessary termination of almost fully developed fetuses is.

Of course, that has nothing to do with the choice of aborting an embryo after you get "knocked up."
Why are they separate? They are both abortions. As stated earlier, there is no change besides the age, abortion is a slippery slope, etc. etc.

But clearly we're thinking differently. You make a distinction between the stages of development, while I perceive them as all being the same and just as important as the other. I don't think I would be able to go against only some abortions, and so I treat them all the same, with the only circumstance I accept for an abortion being that the mother's life is in danger.

Also, sorry it took so long to reply. I had an assignment due yesterday (and another due by Thursday that I should be working on now, haha).

Erica
March 22nd, 2010, 09:27 PM
I believe that abortion is wrong but taking the right of getting an abortion is also wrong.
I mean think of the people who get raped and get pregnant.
Think of the pregnant mishaps.
If a person is not ready to give birth then abortion is a choice
Plus, we have people hungry out there and ppl in orphanages already, the world is heading through the stages of overpopulation :3

TJgamer
March 22nd, 2010, 11:54 PM
I say it's a rather cruel act.
Of course, some people may say that the child has no value until after birth. I heavily disagree.
Our God sees all of us equally, no matter how young or old we may be.
And I have to agree with some of you. If the mother doesn't want the child or thinks she can't take care of him or her, it would be far better to give it to an orphanage. Who knows, maybe the child will grow up to be a successful person.

...and if Jesus was aborted.........I don't know what the world would be like. But simply speaking, we...would...all...be...doomed.

Aureol
March 23rd, 2010, 12:03 AM
I believe that abortion is wrong but taking the right of getting an abortion is also wrong.
I mean think of the people who get raped and get pregnant.
Think of the pregnant mishaps.
If a person is not ready to give birth then abortion is a choice
Plus, we have people hungry out there and ppl in orphanages already, the world is heading through the stages of overpopulation :3

While rape is a tougher issue, anyone that says abortion should 100% be outlawed isn't very nice. In the case of mother's health issues, definitely, in case of rape... tough call, should be LEGAL, but I would love it if everyone considered before getting it aborted, and abortion should be illegal for convenience. There IS an alternate to abortion: abstinence.

I say it's a rather cruel act.
Of course, some people may say that the child has no value until after birth. I heavily disagree.
Our God sees all of us equally, no matter how young or old we may be.
And I have to agree with some of you. If the mother doesn't want the child or thinks she can't take care of him or her, it would be far better to give it to an orphanage. Who knows, maybe the child will grow up to be a successful person.

...and if Jesus was aborted.........I don't know what the world would be like. But simply speaking, we...would...all...be...doomed.

It's illegal to refer to religion in supposedly political issues. Just letting you know ;)

Ascaris
March 23rd, 2010, 01:55 AM
Copypaste of my hand analogy from another forum:

Now my hand has 23 pairs of chromosomes. Therefore it is 'human', and keep in mind that I'm using the term as most pro-lifers do: very loosely. My hand is also 'alive'. Let me take you back to the seven signs of life:

1. Growth
2. Stimulus Response
3. Metabolism
4. Homeostasis
5. Reproduction
6. Mutation
7. Autonomous Motion

I'm not going to go on a tangent to try and prove my hand fits into every single criteria. Many of them are debatable; the list itself is a horrible indicator of life. But contrast my hand's results with this test to the foetus' during the first and second trimesters. You'll find that the results of the latter and former are easily interchangable. I could go on a further dissection of this if you like.

Now you wonder: where exactly do my hand and the foetus differ? In truth, they don't. My hand is to my body as the foetus is to the mother. The first cannot survive when remove from the second. I could very well cut off my hand right now, and neither you nor anyone else can tell me otherwise.

Now this begs the question: if the foetus and my hand are so strikingly similar then what's the fuss about; why is no-one protest about self-mutilation the way they do about abortion. For the answer I'm going to have to go to where your arguments and your entire stance stems from. You're giving the foetus personhood, sentience, humanity, a 'soul', blah blah whatever you want to call it. Why? Don't know, don't care. Maybe it's because of your misguided sentimentality of the clump of cells.

Fact of the matter is the foetus does not have any sense of individuality at its early stages of development simply because it does not have any organ to process its sentience. When pro-choicers revoke the foetus of any rights and call it 'not human' what they mean is this: my sixteen month old cousin cries when hungry, sleeps, gets up, laughs when I make a face; a foetus does not. It can't. It's basically a vegetable. It's in the third trimester that the foetus develops brain cells and starts developing its sentience about whose assumptions dictate your stance. And the third trimester is the period where even the most dedicated pro-choices stop condoning abortion.

Of course you could very well bring up the 'potential developed human' as nearly everyone does when I present them with the hand analogy, but as you or some other enlightened individual said during the course of this debate, 'we are not looking at what could be, we are looking at what is'.

And Amachi, stop spamming The Silent Scream. It's a video made by pro-lifers to specifically induce shock and appeal to emotion. Get a more unbiased source or get out of the thread and stop scaring the kids.

Trap-Eds
March 23rd, 2010, 02:11 PM
It's up to the mother. If she wants to get rid of her baby, then so be it. Sure, a chance at a new life is lost. But lives are being lost every minute of every day, whether intentionally or not, and it's not like people are getting any better.

namora
March 23rd, 2010, 03:19 PM
Frankly, abortion debates just depress me, so I'm just going to post some information and then get out of here. I think this has been cited, but I'm going to post it now. Pro-life, by the way. Yes, it is really long, which is why I'm using spoiler tags, but I, personally, think that much of it is very interesting. Anyway, it's in question-and-answer form, so it should be easy enough to scan through, or at least easier than a big block of text. Ignore it or read it. Your choice. Only when you have certain knowledge can you truly make a stand on whether an unborn baby is a person or not. In regards to illegal abortions and such, I have another chapter, but unfortunately, there's not enough room.


WHY CAN'T WE LOVE THEM BOTH
by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke
CHAPTER 11
THE HUMAN EMBRYO

When and where does fertilization occur?
Sperm enter the woman’s vagina, swim through the cavity of her uterus and out through her Fallopian tubes. This can take as brief a time as five minutes to pass through the uterus and reach the tubes, and as brief as another 15 minutes to pass through the tubes and reach the ovaries. The egg, breaking out of the shell of her ovary, is penetrated by the head of one spermatozoa. Immediately the ovum creates a chemical or electrical charge or fence preventing other sperm from entering.

The pronucleus of the sperm, containing its 23 chromosomes, in about 12 hours migrates to meet the ovum’s pronucleus with its 23 chromosomes. Their fusion takes about 2 hours.

Then in another 18 hours this 46 chromosome nucleus divides into two cells.
Then into 3 cells at which time some new opinion believes the "decision" is made to stay single or pro-gram to divide into twins.
Then to 4 cells, to 8, to 16 and on and on. Jones and Schraeder, "The Process of Human Fertilization," Fertility and Sterility, vol. 48, no. 2, Aug. 1987, p. 191 Word Wars, E. Diamond, Physician, Nov. 1992, Pp. 14-15 Personal Communication, J. Lejeune 1994

What is this "moment of conception" bit?
Most use the moment of sperm penetration as the "moment of conception." Others wait until their pronuclei fuse at 12-14 hours to say conception is a completed process. In either case this new human life is complete at the first cell stage.

This is then only a single cell?
Yes. But a remarkable and unique one. This single cell is now either male or female. This human is unique, i.e., never before in the history of the world has this exact individual human existed. Never again in history will another exactly like this human exist.
This being is complete, i.e., nothing else — no bits or pieces — will be added from this time until the old man or woman dies — nothing but nutrition and oxy-gen. This being is programmed from within, moving for-ward in a self-controlled, ongoing process of growth, development, and replacement of his or her own dying cells.
This living being is dependent upon his or her mother for shelter and food, but in all other respects is a to-tally new, different, unique, and independent being.

How does it grow?
This single celled human being divides into two cells, each containing the same total and identical DNA message, the same total contents. Two becomes three, three becomes four, then eight, sixteen, etc., as it moves down the Fallopian tube. Ultimately, each human being’s body contains 30 million cells. When sufficient cells are present, organ formation, body structure, and function begins. Cell doubling occurs only 45 times. 8by implantation18%30by 8 weeks 66%41by birth91%44by kindergarten98%45by adulthood100%A. W. Liley, The Tiniest Humans CA: Sassone Press, p. 14

I’ve heard that another animal also has 46 chromosomes!
True, but not 46 human chromosomes. Different species have different types of chromosomes.

But what of a human with 47 chromosomes, doesn’t this disprove your "humans have 46" statement?
Certain humans have 12 toes. Others are born with one arm. Are they human? They certainly are, but they are humans with an abnormality. A "Triple X" or a Down’s Syndrome human has an extra chromosome. Are they human? Yes, but humans with an abnormal number of chromosomes.

This tiny human moves down the Fallopian tube?
Yes, and at about one week of life, at the blastocyst stage of about 128 to 256 cells, it implants into the nutrient lining of the uterus. There, only three days later, this tiny male or female human sends a chemical-hormonal message into the mother’s body, which stops her menstrual periods.

The new being controls her body?
Yes, for the balance of pregnancy. It is the develop-ing baby who enlarges her breasts to prepare her for nursing and softens her pelvic bones in preparation for labor. It is even the baby who "determines his own birthday." A. Liley, A Case Against Abortion, Liberal Studies, Whitcombe & Tombs, 1971

Isn’t the fertilized ovum only a potential human being?
No. This is not a potential human being; it is a human being with vast potential. One could say that the sperm and ovum, before their union, constitute a potential human being. Once their union is completed, however, they have become an actual human being.

What if this being dies soon after fertilization? Was it human then?
Human death can occur at any time during our journey through life. This could be minutes after fertilization or 95 years after fertilization. Human death is merely the end of human life.
There are those who claim that about 20% are lost in the first week. If this is so, it would mean that there is a mortality rate of almost 20% in the first week of life. This is not relevant to the question of whether or not this is human life — anymore than infant mortality is a justification for infanticide, or death in old age justifies euthanasia. All it means is that the mortality rate in the first week of life may be 20%.
Of very early pregnancies, "22% ended before pregnancy was detected clinically." "The total rate of pregnancy loss after implantation, including clinically recognized spontaneous abortions, was 31%." The testing used was able to detect pregnancy accurately by day seven or eight. Wilcox, et al., "Incidence of Early Loss of Pregnancy" New Eng. J. Med., vol 319, no. 4, July 28, 1988, p. 189
One reason for the apparent high percent of pre- or immediate post-implantation loss may be due to chromosome abnormalities. Wramsby et al., "Chromosome Analysis of Human Oocytes . . ." New Eng. J. Med., vol. 316, no. 3, Jan. 15, 1987, p. 121

I’ve heard the fertilized ovum described as only a blueprint. What of this comparison?
The blueprint of your home is merely the plan for your home. After using this instruction sheet to build your house, you can throw the blueprint away. It has not become the house. The fertilized ovum is not the blueprint, but is, in fact, the house in miniature. It, it-self, will grow into the house in time. It is the house already.
Your home was built piece by piece until it ultimately assumed a shape which could be identified as a house. The tiny human, who you once were, developed into the adult you now are, but you were there totally at conception. All you needed to become the adult you now are was nutrition, oxygen, and time.

But it is so small. How can it be human yet?
If the only scientific instruments you use are your own unaided eyes, then a common judgment that you might make would be that "it isn’t human until it looks human." We do have microscopes, ultrasonic movies, stethoscopes, and genetic knowledge now, all of which go far beyond the limited knowledge obtained by sight alone. To base your opinion solely on what you see, rather than upon what science is capable of telling you, isn’t very rational.

What of a cell from some part of a person’s body which can be kept alive in a tissue culture, either separated from his living body or maintained after that person has died. Does this not upset the concept of the fertilized ovum as a human life?
No. Those cells were a part of a complete human body and can only reproduce themselves as a specific type of cell. The fertilized ovum is not a part of another body, but is a whole body him or herself. It (he or she) will not merely reproduce, but is, in totality, a complete human being and will grow into a full adult if given time. Any one of hundreds of millions or billions of these cells in a human’s body can die and we do not say that human has died. When a single fertilized ovum cell dies, however, the entire new human being dies. The other important difference is that the fertilized ovum, which subdivides and multiplies into many cells, moves immediately in the direction of specialized and differing parts, which are organized as a single unified complex being. Cells from parts of an adult human body in a tissue culture can only reproduce their own kind and cannot go on to develop differing specialized parts.

Wouldn’t a successful human clone upset this reasoning?
First, there has never been a human clone. It may well be that man, the highest species, can never be successfully cloned. However, even granting that possibility, the clone, at the first moment of his or her existence, would be an intact and complete human life. He or she would be, in effect, the identical twin of the donor human, but of a different age. Being a total human, this living human would, in justice, be due the same protection of the law as the older donor human. R. McKinnelly, Professor of Genetics and Cell Biology at the University of Minnesota, who does frog cloning, has said, "I never expect to witness the construction of carbon copy humans. I do not believe that nuclear [the cell nucleus] transplantation for the purpose of producing human beings will ever routinely occur." R. McKinnelly, Cloning, University of Minnesota Press, 1979, p. 102

Can’t we consider the developing embryo a form of plant or animal life which only becomes human at some later state of development?
Definitely not! The fertilized seed or ovum of a plant, or an animal, or of a human, at the time of fertilization and beginning growth, already is, in totality, that plant, animal, or human. Because of our present scientific knowledge of chromosome and gene structure and because of the intricate genetic programming that we are now aware of, we know that a plant can only develop into what it already is — that is, a plant.
An animal, a dog, for instance, can only develop into a dog and a specific species of that dog. All this is predetermined and already exists in totality when fertilization occurs. The same is true of a human.

But can you then call an acorn an oak tree?
That is like saying "can you call an infant an adult?" Rather, you must ask "are they both complete oaks?"
Yes they are, all the acorn needs to develop into an adult tree is time and nutrition.

What of twins?
Non-identical twins are two separate individuals created by the union of two eggs and two sperm. Identical twins, however, occur when one fertilized ovum or zygote apparently splits into two, after which each of the two divided parts (each now a zygote in itself) grows independently in the very same manner toward full development and maturity as the average single zygote will. This occurs sometime between fertilization and implantation, but never after implantation.

Can we say, then, that one living human being (zygote) can split into two living human beings (identical twins)?
Scientific opinion is far from unanimous about how to consider this. One way of considering it is that the original human zygote, in splitting in half (whatever exactly happens, we don’t know), can be considered, in effect, the parent of the new human being. This might be a form of parthenogenesis, or non-sexual reproduction.
We know that this does occur in certain forms of plant and animal life. We could postulate this type of process to explain identical twinning in a human.
The other possibility is that the existing human being, in splitting, dies, to give new life to two new identical human beings like himself (herself).
What is crucial to either of these explanations is that, at the time when a total human being exists, he or she should be recognized as such and given all rights due other living human beings.

But the sperm has life. The ovum has life. Why is either of these lives any different than when the two join and become a fertilized ovum?
The sperm has life, but not an independent life; it shares in the life of the body of the father. The sperm is genetically identified as a cell of the father’s body. It has reached the endpoint of its maturation. It cannot reproduce itself. It is destined to fertilize an ovum or to die. It is at the end of the line.
The ovum has life, but not an independent life; it shares in the life of the body of the mother. The ovum is genetically identified as a cell of the mother’s body.
It has reached the endpoint of its maturation. It cannot reproduce itself. Its destiny? To be fertilized or die. It, too, is at the end of the line.
But when sperm and ovum join, there is created at that time a new living being; a being who has never be-fore existed in the history of the world and never again will exist; a being not at the end of the line, but at the dawn of existence; a being completely intact and containing within himself or herself the totality of every-thing that this being will ever be; a being moving for-ward in an orderly process of growth and maturation,destined to live inside the mother for almost nine months and for as many as a hundred years outside.

Will you cite some scientific authorities as to human life beginning at fertilization?
In 1981 the U.S. Senate considered Senate Bill #158, the "Human Life Bill." Extensive hearings (eight days, 57 witnesses) were conducted by Senator John
East. National and international authorities testified. We quote from the official Senate report, 97th Congress, S-158:
"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception [they defined fertilization and conception to be the same] marks the beginning of the life of a human being — a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, p. 7 On pages 7-9, the report lists a "limited sample" of 13 medical textbooks, all of which state categorically that the life of an individual human begins at conception. Then, on pages 9-10, the report quotes several out-standing authorities who testified personally:
- Professor J. Lejeune, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down’s Syndrome: "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
- Professor W. Bowes, University of Colorado: Be-ginning of human life? — "at conception."
- Professor H. Gordon, Mayo Clinic: "It is an established fact that human life begins at conception."
- Professor M. Matthews-Roth, Harvard University: "It is scientifically correct to say that individual human life begins at conception."

But Dr. Leon Rosenberg, from Yale University, and others said otherwise!
Dr. Rosenberg did state that he knew of no scientific evidence showing when actual human life begins. But, he then defined human life in a philosophic way, and spoke to a value judgment.
To quote the Senate report (on page 11): "Those witnesses who testified that science cannot say whether unborn children are human beings were speaking in every instance to the value question rather than the scientific question. No witness raised any evidence to refute the biological fact that from the moment of human conception there exists a distinct individual being who is alive and is of the human species."
Even though Dr. Rosenberg and others used the word, "science," they did not mean biologic science. Rather, they were speaking of their philosophic beliefs such as what Dr. Rosenberg called, "the complex quality of humanness."Hearings, S-158, 24 April at 25

This confusion of provable natural biologic science with value judgments based upon non-provable theories and beliefs must be shown at every opportunity to be two entirely different ways of reasoning.

How about other proof?
See the First International Symposium on Abortion, which concluded:
"The changes occurring between implantation, a six-weeks embryo, a six-months fetus, a one-week- old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. "The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life." Willke & Willke, Handbook on Abortion, (1971, 1975, 1979 Editions), Ch. 3, Cincinnati: Hayes Publishing Co.

What is a pre-embryo?
It is a million sperm swimming after an ovum. When one penetrates it, the "pre" is over and this now be-comes a zygote (a fertilized egg) which on dividing is called an embryo.

But the term "pre-embryo" is used for the first week or two.
This is an arbitrary term recently introduced by pro-abortion people in an attempt to dehumanize this early human. "In rigorous ethical debate such arbitrary terminology, particularly if used to assign moral values, should be avoided." Arbitrary Partitions of Prenatal Life, Biggers, Human Reproduction, Oxford U-Press, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1-6, 1990



WHY CAN'T WE LOVE THEM BOTH

by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke
CHAPTER 12
FETAL DEVELOPMENT

When does implantation occur?
The tiny human implants himself or herself in the nutrient lining the womb at one week of life.

And then?
At ten days, this tiny living human male or female sends a chemical hormonal message out into the mother’s body, which stops her menstrual periods. Later, it is this tiny passenger who causes her breasts to enlarge in preparation for nursing, softens her pelvic bones to prepare for labor, and, without question, sets his or her birthday. The onset of labor is a unilateral fetal decision (see chapter 10).

Why is the primitive streak important?
It really isn’t. Much is made of the fact that identical twinning cannot occur after the 14th day when this early spinal cord can be seen. Actually, identical twinning probably happens in the first 2-4 days of life. Use of the primitive streak is a thinly veiled attempt to dehumanize the early human embryo, so that destructive embryo experimentation can proceed and that I.V.F. embryos can be killed.

When does the heart begin to beat?
At 18 days [when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period], and by 21 days it is pumping, through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different from that of the mother. J.M. Tanner, G. R. Taylor, and the Editors of Time-Life Books, Growth, New York: Life Science Library, 1965, p.

When is the brain functioning?
Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG). H. Hamlin, "Life or Death by EEG," JAMA, Oct. 12, 1964, p. 120
Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six weeks after conception. J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564
Only several generations ago, doctors used the ending of respiration to measure the end of human life.
This is no longer true, for the use of artificial ventilators is common. Only one generation ago, doctors were using the ending of the heartbeat to measure the end of human life. This is no longer true, for now the heart can be stopped and restarted for different operations. It also may stop during a heart attack and sometimes can be restarted.
Today, the definitive and final measure of the end of human life is brain death. This happens when there is irreversible cessation of total brain function. The final scientific measurement of this is the permanent ending of brain waves. Since all authorities accept that the end of an individual’s life is measured by the ending of his brain function (as measured by brain waves on the EEG), would it not be logical for them to at least agree that individual’s life began with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument?

Early on, this being has gill slits and a tail. Isn’t this proof that it is not human then?
The "gill slits" are not slits but folds of skin much like an infant’s "double chin." These stretch out as he grows. The tail isn’t a tail either. The central nervous system consists of brain and spinal cord. It is the most important part of the early body and grows the fastest. The tail is really the end of the spinal cord which grows faster than the torso. The torso catches up with it, and its tip then becomes your adult "tail bone." "The body of the unborn baby is more complex than ours. The preborn baby has several extra parts to his body which he needs only so long as he lives inside his mother. He has his own space capsule, the amniotic sac. He has his own lifeline, the umbilical cord, and he has his own root system, the placenta. These all belong to the baby himself, not to his mother. They are all developed from his original cell." Day & Liley, The Secret World of a Baby, Random House, 1968, p. 13

How early do some organs form?
The eye, ear and respiratory systems begin to form four weeks after fertilization. K. Moore, Before We Were Born, 3rd ed., 1989, p. 278

And function?
Very early, e.g., glucagon, a blood sugar hormone, has been demonstrated in the fetal pancreas 6 weeks after fertilization, and insulin by 7 to 8. F. Cunningham, "Pancreas," William’s Obstet., 19th ed., 1993, p. 183-4
Thumbsucking has been photographed at 7 weeks after fertilization. W. Liley, The Fetus As Personality, Fetal Therapy, 1986, p. 8-17

When does the developing baby first move?
"In the sixth to seventh weeks. . . . If the area of the lips is gently stroked, the child responds by bending the upper body to one side and making a quick backward motion with his arms. This is called a ‘total pattern response’ because it involves most of the body, rather than a local part." L. B. Arey, Developmental Anatomy (6th ed.), Philadelphia: W. B. Sanders Co., 1954
At eight weeks, "if we tickle the baby’s nose, he will flex his head backwards away from the stimulus." A. Hellgers, M.D., "Fetal Development, 31," Theological Studies, vol. 3, no. 7, 1970, p. 26
Another example is from a surgical technician whose letter said, "When we opened her abdomen (for a tubal pregnancy), the tube had expelled an inch-long fetus, about 4-6 weeks old. It was still alive in the sack. "That tiny baby was waving its little arms and kicking its little legs and even turned its whole body over." J. Dobson, Focus on the Family Mag., Aug. ’91, pg. 16

But pregnant women don’t "feel life" until four or five months!
The inside of the uterus has no feeling. The baby has to be almost a foot long (30 cm.) and weigh about one pound (454 gm.) before he or she is large enough to brace a shoulder against one wall and kick hard enough against the opposite wall to dent it outward. Then the mother feels it because the outside of the uterus is covered by a sensitive peritoneal surface.

What is the development at seven to eight weeks?
The baby’s stomach secretes gastric juice by eight weeks. Now we can listen to the tiny one’s heartbeat on an ultrasonic stethoscope. These are now common in doctors’ offices and on hospital wards. They are never used in abortion facilities, however, as this information is universally withheld from mothers prior to abortion. Abortionists know that if they tell women there already is a heartbeat — and certainly if they would let her listen to the heartbeat — some mothers would change their minds. The actual sounds of an six-week-old baby’s heartbeat are available on tape from Cincinnati Right to Life, 1802 W. Galbraith Rd., Cincinnati, OH 45239 ($3.00).
"Eleven years ago, while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured tubal pregnancy (at two months), I was handed what I believed to be the smallest human being ever seen. The embryo sac was intact and transparent. Within the sac was a tiny (one-third inch) human male swimming extremely vigorously in the amniotic fluid, while attached to the wall by the umbilical cord. This tiny human was perfectly developed with long, tapering fingers, feet and toes. It was almost transparent as regards the skin, and the delicate arteries and veins were prominent to the ends of the fingers.
"The baby was extremely alive and swam about the sac approximately one time per second with a natural swimmers stroke. This tiny human did not look at all like the photos and drawings of ‘embryos’ which I have seen, nor did it look like the few embryos I have been able to observe since then, obviously because this one was alive. "When the sac was opened, the tiny human immediately lost its life and took on the appearance of what is accepted as the appearance of an embryo at this stage (blunt extremities, etc.)." P.E. Rockwell, M.D., Director of Anesthesiology, Leonard Hospital, Troy, New York, U.S. Supreme Court., Markle vs. Abele, 72-56, 72-730, p. 11, 1972

When are all his body systems present?
By eight weeks (two months). Hooker & Davenport, The Prenatal Origin of Behavior, University of Kansas Press, 1952

When do teeth form?
All 20 milk-teeth buds are present at six and a half weeks."Life Before Birth," Life Magazine, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 10
And include dental lamina at 8 weeks. Med. Embryology, Longman, 3rd Ed., 1975, p. 406

How about nine weeks?
At nine to ten weeks, he squints, swallows, moves his tongue, and if you stroke his palm, will make a tight fist.
By nine weeks he will "bend his fingers round an object in the palm of his hand." Valman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Jour., Jan. 26, 1980

When does he start to breathe?
"By 11 to 12 weeks (3 months), he is breathing fluid steadily and continues so until birth. At birth, he will breathe air. He does not drown by breathing fluid with-in his mother, because he obtains his oxygen from his umbilical cord. This breathing develops the organs of respiration." "Life Before Birth," Life Magazine, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 13
"Maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy decreases the frequency of fetal breathing by 20%. The ‘well documented’ higher incidence of prematurity, stillbirth, and slower development of reading skill may be related to this decrease." 80 F. Manning, "Meeting of Royal College of Physicians & Surgeons," Family Practice News, March 15, 1976
"In the 11th week of gestation fetal breathing is irregular and episodic. As gestation continues, the breathing movements become more vigorous and rapid." C. Dawes, "Fetal Breathing: Indication of Well Being," Family Practice News, Mar. 16, 1976, p. 6
Episodic spontaneous breathing movement have been observed in the healthy human fetus as early as ten weeks gestational age. Conners et al., "Control of Fetal Breathing in the Human Fetus," Am J. OB-GYN, April ‘89, p. 932
And 11 weeks (9 weeks post-fertilization). Cunningham, Wm. Obstetrics, 1993, p. 193

When can he swallow?
At 11 weeks. Valman & Pearson, British Med. Jour., "What the Fetus Feels," 26 Jan. 1980, p. 233

What of detailed development, like fingernails and eyelashes?
Fingernails are present by 11 to 12 weeks; eyelashes by 16 weeks. Fingerprints are completely established during the fourth month of gestation. Hamilton et al., Human Embryology, Fourth Ed., 1972, p. 567

At what point are all his body systems working?
By 11 weeks. "Life Before Birth," Life Magazine, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 13

How does the size of the baby increase in weight?
At 12 weeks (three months) she weighs about 30 gm (1.0 ounce); at 16 weeks about 170 gm (6 ounces); and at 20 weeks (four months), approximately 454 gm (one pound).

When is taste present?
"Taste buds are working between 13 and 15 weeks gestation" (11 to 13 weeks after conception). Mistretta & Bradley, Taste in Utero, 1977, p. 62 Bradley et al., "Dev. Taste Buds . . . ," J. Anat. 101 (4) 1967, p. 743-752

How about hearing?
"Auditory sense is present in the infant 24 weeks before birth [14 weeks after conception]. This involves brain functioning and memory patterns." M. Clemens, "5th International Congress Psychosomatic," OB & GYN, Rome: Medical Tribune, Mar. 22, 1978, p. 7
Recent technology allowed a tiny microphone to be placed by the fetus’s head and "We heard almost everything, from people talking 12 feet away, to a door opening in the room, to a cart going down the hall with the door closed. The clarity was incredible. It was easy to tell who was talking."
The results showed the fetus hears everything we do, only 10 decibels less. Their earliest response to sound was at 26 weeks. Is Noise an Intrauterine Threat, Phelan & Satt, by R. McGuire, Med. Tribune, Nov. 30, 1989

He certainly can’t cry!
Although the watery environment in which he lives presents small opportunity for crying, which does require air, the unborn knows how to cry, and given a chance to do so, he will. A doctor ". . . injected an air bubble into the baby’s amniotic sac and then took x-rays. It so happened that the air bubble covered the baby’s face. The whole procedure had no doubt given the little fellow quite a bit of jostling about, and the moment that he had air to inhale and exhale they heard the clear sound of a protesting wail emitting from the uterus. Late that same night, the mother awakened her doctor with a telephone call, to report that when she lay down to sleep the air bubble got over the baby’s head again, and he was crying so loudly he was keeping both her and her husband awake. The doctor advised her to prop herself up-right with pillows so that the air could not reach the baby’s head, which was by now in the lower part of the uterus." Day & Liley, Modern Motherhood, Random House, 1969, pp. 50-51

Does the unborn baby dream?
Using ultrasound techniques, it was first shown that REM (rapid eye movements) which are characteristic of active dream states have been demonstrated at 23 weeks. J. Birnhaltz, "The Development of Human Fetal Eye Movement Patterns," Science, 1981, vol. 213, pp. 679-681
REM have since been recorded 17 weeks after conception. S. Levi, Brugman University of Brussels, American Medical Association News, February 1, 1983
Since REM are characteristic of dream states after birth, researchers are asking if the unborn child also dreams?

Does he/she think?
In adults, when we contemplate a physical move or action from a resting state, our heart rate accelerates several seconds before the motion. Similarly, the fetal baby’s heart rate speeds up six to ten seconds prior to fetal movement. Is this conscious thought and planning? 83 N. Lauerson & H. Hochberg, "Does the Fetus Think?" JAMA, vol. 247, no. 23, July 18, 1982
"We now know that the unborn child is an aware, reacting human being who from the sixth month on (and perhaps earlier) leads an active emotional life."
The fetus can, on a primitive level, even learn in utero.
"Whether he ultimately sees himself and, hence, acts as a sad or happy, aggressive or meek, secure or anxiety-ridden person depends, in part, on the messages he gets about himself in the womb." T. Verney & J. Kelly, The Secret Life of the Unborn Child, Delta Books, 1981, p. 12
"At eight weeks of life a tapping stimulus on the amniotic sac results in arm movements . . . the primitive brain receives the stimulus, selects a response and transmits the response as a signal to the arm." M. Rosen, "Learning Before Birth," Harpers Magazine, April 1978

You mean that the unborn baby’s emotions can be affected?
This is probably true. "We know already that even embryonic nervous tissue is ‘open’ to maternal communication via brain chemicals called ‘neurotransmitters.’ This is a finding with enormous implications. It means that the mother’s emotional state can affect the unborn almost from conception onward. Even before the baby can hear in the womb, or think consciously, it is capable of sensing discord between its parents. If the mother is in constant turmoil, its own environment will be tainted by the biochemistry of fear and hostility, grief, and anger." Shettles & Varick, Rites of Life, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983, pp. 87-89
At four and one-half months, a very bright light on a woman’s abdomen will cause the baby to slowly move its hand to a position shielding the eyes.
Loud music will cause the baby to cover its ears. A woman in an unhappy marriage has a 237% greater risk of bearing a child with physical and psychological problems than a woman in a secure relationship. T. Verney & J. Kelly, The Secret Life of the Unborn Child, Delta Books, 1981, p. 49
Agreeing with Dr. Liley, Dr. W. Freud (grandson of Sigmund Freud), observed 10,000 ultrasound visualizations and reported, "It looks as if the fetus has a lot of intentionality." He also once saw unborn twins fighting. 1st International Congress, Pre & Peri Natal Psychology, Toronto, July 8-10, 1983

So the fetus is really the Second Patient? Can he or she be treated?
"The status of the fetus has been elevated to that of a patient who, in large measure, can be given the same meticulous care that obstetricians have long given the pregnant woman." Cunningham, F.G., et. al, Williams Obstetrics, 19th ed. (Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange, 1993), 165.
Diaphragmatic hernia and obstructive hydrocephalus can be corrected while still in the womb. In addition: "Medical treatment of the fetus includes exchange transfusion, thyroid hormone replacement and administration of steroids for surfactant induction. Correction of obstructive uropathy with urinary diversion has proved successful in decreasing fetal morbidity and mortality, while other procedures are still in the experimental stage. Extrauterine fetal surgery is performed only rarely but represents an exciting new direction in the treatment of medicine’s youngest patients." Camosy, P., "Fetal Medicine: Treating the Unborn Patient," Am. Fam. Physician, 52 (5)(October 1995): 1385-92

How many weeks are there in a pregnancy and how do you measure them?
There are 40 weeks. We measure a pregnancy from the time the ovum begins to grow, that is, at the start of a woman’s menstrual period. After about two weeks of growth, the egg is released from the ovary. Fertilization can then occur. This is about two weeks before her next period is due. Four of the 40 weeks have already elapsed at the time she misses her first period.
Gestational age dates from the first day of the mother’s last menstrual period. Actual age of the baby dates from conception.

What is birth?
Birth is the emergence of the infant from the mother’s womb, the severing of the umbilical cord, and the beginning of the child’s existence physically detached from the mother’s body. The only change that occurs at birth is a change in the external life support system of the child. The child is no different before birth than after, except that he has changed his method of feeding and obtaining oxygen. Before birth, nutrition and oxygen were obtained from the mother through the baby’s umbilical cord. After birth, oxygen is obtained from his own lungs and nutrition through his own stomach, if he is mature enough to be nourished that way. If he is quite premature, nourishment would continue through our present reasonably sophisticated external life support systems in the form of intravenous feeding, which is similar to the umbilical cord feeding from the mother.
Did you "come from" a fertilized ovum? No, you once were a fertilized ovum who grew and developed into the child or adult you are today. Nothing has been added to the fertilized ovum who you once were except nutrition.


For further information, http://abortionfacts.com/fetal_development/prenatal_developement.asp

Trap-Eds
March 24th, 2010, 10:54 AM
WHY CAN'T WE LOVE THEM BOTH
by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke
CHAPTER 11
THE HUMAN EMBRYO

When and where does fertilization occur?
Sperm enter the woman’s vagina, swim through the cavity of her uterus and out through her Fallopian tubes. This can take as brief a time as five minutes to pass through the uterus and reach the tubes, and as brief as another 15 minutes to pass through the tubes and reach the ovaries. The egg, breaking out of the shell of her ovary, is penetrated by the head of one spermatozoa. Immediately the ovum creates a chemical or electrical charge or fence preventing other sperm from entering.

The pronucleus of the sperm, containing its 23 chromosomes, in about 12 hours migrates to meet the ovum’s pronucleus with its 23 chromosomes. Their fusion takes about 2 hours.

Then in another 18 hours this 46 chromosome nucleus divides into two cells.
Then into 3 cells at which time some new opinion believes the "decision" is made to stay single or pro-gram to divide into twins.
Then to 4 cells, to 8, to 16 and on and on. Jones and Schraeder, "The Process of Human Fertilization," Fertility and Sterility, vol. 48, no. 2, Aug. 1987, p. 191 Word Wars, E. Diamond, Physician, Nov. 1992, Pp. 14-15 Personal Communication, J. Lejeune 1994

What is this "moment of conception" bit?
Most use the moment of sperm penetration as the "moment of conception." Others wait until their pronuclei fuse at 12-14 hours to say conception is a completed process. In either case this new human life is complete at the first cell stage.

This is then only a single cell?
Yes. But a remarkable and unique one. This single cell is now either male or female. This human is unique, i.e., never before in the history of the world has this exact individual human existed. Never again in history will another exactly like this human exist.
This being is complete, i.e., nothing else — no bits or pieces — will be added from this time until the old man or woman dies — nothing but nutrition and oxy-gen. This being is programmed from within, moving for-ward in a self-controlled, ongoing process of growth, development, and replacement of his or her own dying cells.
This living being is dependent upon his or her mother for shelter and food, but in all other respects is a to-tally new, different, unique, and independent being.

How does it grow?
This single celled human being divides into two cells, each containing the same total and identical DNA message, the same total contents. Two becomes three, three becomes four, then eight, sixteen, etc., as it moves down the Fallopian tube. Ultimately, each human being’s body contains 30 million cells. When sufficient cells are present, organ formation, body structure, and function begins. Cell doubling occurs only 45 times. 8by implantation18%30by 8 weeks 66%41by birth91%44by kindergarten98%45by adulthood100%A. W. Liley, The Tiniest Humans CA: Sassone Press, p. 14

I’ve heard that another animal also has 46 chromosomes!
True, but not 46 human chromosomes. Different species have different types of chromosomes.

But what of a human with 47 chromosomes, doesn’t this disprove your "humans have 46" statement?
Certain humans have 12 toes. Others are born with one arm. Are they human? They certainly are, but they are humans with an abnormality. A "Triple X" or a Down’s Syndrome human has an extra chromosome. Are they human? Yes, but humans with an abnormal number of chromosomes.

This tiny human moves down the Fallopian tube?
Yes, and at about one week of life, at the blastocyst stage of about 128 to 256 cells, it implants into the nutrient lining of the uterus. There, only three days later, this tiny male or female human sends a chemical-hormonal message into the mother’s body, which stops her menstrual periods.

The new being controls her body?
Yes, for the balance of pregnancy. It is the develop-ing baby who enlarges her breasts to prepare her for nursing and softens her pelvic bones in preparation for labor. It is even the baby who "determines his own birthday." A. Liley, A Case Against Abortion, Liberal Studies, Whitcombe & Tombs, 1971

Isn’t the fertilized ovum only a potential human being?
No. This is not a potential human being; it is a human being with vast potential. One could say that the sperm and ovum, before their union, constitute a potential human being. Once their union is completed, however, they have become an actual human being.

What if this being dies soon after fertilization? Was it human then?
Human death can occur at any time during our journey through life. This could be minutes after fertilization or 95 years after fertilization. Human death is merely the end of human life.
There are those who claim that about 20% are lost in the first week. If this is so, it would mean that there is a mortality rate of almost 20% in the first week of life. This is not relevant to the question of whether or not this is human life — anymore than infant mortality is a justification for infanticide, or death in old age justifies euthanasia. All it means is that the mortality rate in the first week of life may be 20%.
Of very early pregnancies, "22% ended before pregnancy was detected clinically." "The total rate of pregnancy loss after implantation, including clinically recognized spontaneous abortions, was 31%." The testing used was able to detect pregnancy accurately by day seven or eight. Wilcox, et al., "Incidence of Early Loss of Pregnancy" New Eng. J. Med., vol 319, no. 4, July 28, 1988, p. 189
One reason for the apparent high percent of pre- or immediate post-implantation loss may be due to chromosome abnormalities. Wramsby et al., "Chromosome Analysis of Human Oocytes . . ." New Eng. J. Med., vol. 316, no. 3, Jan. 15, 1987, p. 121

I’ve heard the fertilized ovum described as only a blueprint. What of this comparison?
The blueprint of your home is merely the plan for your home. After using this instruction sheet to build your house, you can throw the blueprint away. It has not become the house. The fertilized ovum is not the blueprint, but is, in fact, the house in miniature. It, it-self, will grow into the house in time. It is the house already.
Your home was built piece by piece until it ultimately assumed a shape which could be identified as a house. The tiny human, who you once were, developed into the adult you now are, but you were there totally at conception. All you needed to become the adult you now are was nutrition, oxygen, and time.

But it is so small. How can it be human yet?
If the only scientific instruments you use are your own unaided eyes, then a common judgment that you might make would be that "it isn’t human until it looks human." We do have microscopes, ultrasonic movies, stethoscopes, and genetic knowledge now, all of which go far beyond the limited knowledge obtained by sight alone. To base your opinion solely on what you see, rather than upon what science is capable of telling you, isn’t very rational.

What of a cell from some part of a person’s body which can be kept alive in a tissue culture, either separated from his living body or maintained after that person has died. Does this not upset the concept of the fertilized ovum as a human life?
No. Those cells were a part of a complete human body and can only reproduce themselves as a specific type of cell. The fertilized ovum is not a part of another body, but is a whole body him or herself. It (he or she) will not merely reproduce, but is, in totality, a complete human being and will grow into a full adult if given time. Any one of hundreds of millions or billions of these cells in a human’s body can die and we do not say that human has died. When a single fertilized ovum cell dies, however, the entire new human being dies. The other important difference is that the fertilized ovum, which subdivides and multiplies into many cells, moves immediately in the direction of specialized and differing parts, which are organized as a single unified complex being. Cells from parts of an adult human body in a tissue culture can only reproduce their own kind and cannot go on to develop differing specialized parts.

Wouldn’t a successful human clone upset this reasoning?
First, there has never been a human clone. It may well be that man, the highest species, can never be successfully cloned. However, even granting that possibility, the clone, at the first moment of his or her existence, would be an intact and complete human life. He or she would be, in effect, the identical twin of the donor human, but of a different age. Being a total human, this living human would, in justice, be due the same protection of the law as the older donor human. R. McKinnelly, Professor of Genetics and Cell Biology at the University of Minnesota, who does frog cloning, has said, "I never expect to witness the construction of carbon copy humans. I do not believe that nuclear [the cell nucleus] transplantation for the purpose of producing human beings will ever routinely occur." R. McKinnelly, Cloning, University of Minnesota Press, 1979, p. 102

Can’t we consider the developing embryo a form of plant or animal life which only becomes human at some later state of development?
Definitely not! The fertilized seed or ovum of a plant, or an animal, or of a human, at the time of fertilization and beginning growth, already is, in totality, that plant, animal, or human. Because of our present scientific knowledge of chromosome and gene structure and because of the intricate genetic programming that we are now aware of, we know that a plant can only develop into what it already is — that is, a plant.
An animal, a dog, for instance, can only develop into a dog and a specific species of that dog. All this is predetermined and already exists in totality when fertilization occurs. The same is true of a human.

But can you then call an acorn an oak tree?
That is like saying "can you call an infant an adult?" Rather, you must ask "are they both complete oaks?"
Yes they are, all the acorn needs to develop into an adult tree is time and nutrition.

What of twins?
Non-identical twins are two separate individuals created by the union of two eggs and two sperm. Identical twins, however, occur when one fertilized ovum or zygote apparently splits into two, after which each of the two divided parts (each now a zygote in itself) grows independently in the very same manner toward full development and maturity as the average single zygote will. This occurs sometime between fertilization and implantation, but never after implantation.

Can we say, then, that one living human being (zygote) can split into two living human beings (identical twins)?
Scientific opinion is far from unanimous about how to consider this. One way of considering it is that the original human zygote, in splitting in half (whatever exactly happens, we don’t know), can be considered, in effect, the parent of the new human being. This might be a form of parthenogenesis, or non-sexual reproduction.
We know that this does occur in certain forms of plant and animal life. We could postulate this type of process to explain identical twinning in a human.
The other possibility is that the existing human being, in splitting, dies, to give new life to two new identical human beings like himself (herself).
What is crucial to either of these explanations is that, at the time when a total human being exists, he or she should be recognized as such and given all rights due other living human beings.

But the sperm has life. The ovum has life. Why is either of these lives any different than when the two join and become a fertilized ovum?
The sperm has life, but not an independent life; it shares in the life of the body of the father. The sperm is genetically identified as a cell of the father’s body. It has reached the endpoint of its maturation. It cannot reproduce itself. It is destined to fertilize an ovum or to die. It is at the end of the line.
The ovum has life, but not an independent life; it shares in the life of the body of the mother. The ovum is genetically identified as a cell of the mother’s body.
It has reached the endpoint of its maturation. It cannot reproduce itself. Its destiny? To be fertilized or die. It, too, is at the end of the line.
But when sperm and ovum join, there is created at that time a new living being; a being who has never be-fore existed in the history of the world and never again will exist; a being not at the end of the line, but at the dawn of existence; a being completely intact and containing within himself or herself the totality of every-thing that this being will ever be; a being moving for-ward in an orderly process of growth and maturation,destined to live inside the mother for almost nine months and for as many as a hundred years outside.

Will you cite some scientific authorities as to human life beginning at fertilization?
In 1981 the U.S. Senate considered Senate Bill #158, the "Human Life Bill." Extensive hearings (eight days, 57 witnesses) were conducted by Senator John
East. National and international authorities testified. We quote from the official Senate report, 97th Congress, S-158:
"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception [they defined fertilization and conception to be the same] marks the beginning of the life of a human being — a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, p. 7 On pages 7-9, the report lists a "limited sample" of 13 medical textbooks, all of which state categorically that the life of an individual human begins at conception. Then, on pages 9-10, the report quotes several out-standing authorities who testified personally:
- Professor J. Lejeune, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down’s Syndrome: "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
- Professor W. Bowes, University of Colorado: Be-ginning of human life? — "at conception."
- Professor H. Gordon, Mayo Clinic: "It is an established fact that human life begins at conception."
- Professor M. Matthews-Roth, Harvard University: "It is scientifically correct to say that individual human life begins at conception."

But Dr. Leon Rosenberg, from Yale University, and others said otherwise!
Dr. Rosenberg did state that he knew of no scientific evidence showing when actual human life begins. But, he then defined human life in a philosophic way, and spoke to a value judgment.
To quote the Senate report (on page 11): "Those witnesses who testified that science cannot say whether unborn children are human beings were speaking in every instance to the value question rather than the scientific question. No witness raised any evidence to refute the biological fact that from the moment of human conception there exists a distinct individual being who is alive and is of the human species."
Even though Dr. Rosenberg and others used the word, "science," they did not mean biologic science. Rather, they were speaking of their philosophic beliefs such as what Dr. Rosenberg called, "the complex quality of humanness."Hearings, S-158, 24 April at 25

This confusion of provable natural biologic science with value judgments based upon non-provable theories and beliefs must be shown at every opportunity to be two entirely different ways of reasoning.

How about other proof?
See the First International Symposium on Abortion, which concluded:
"The changes occurring between implantation, a six-weeks embryo, a six-months fetus, a one-week- old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. "The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life." Willke & Willke, Handbook on Abortion, (1971, 1975, 1979 Editions), Ch. 3, Cincinnati: Hayes Publishing Co.

What is a pre-embryo?
It is a million sperm swimming after an ovum. When one penetrates it, the "pre" is over and this now be-comes a zygote (a fertilized egg) which on dividing is called an embryo.

But the term "pre-embryo" is used for the first week or two.
This is an arbitrary term recently introduced by pro-abortion people in an attempt to dehumanize this early human. "In rigorous ethical debate such arbitrary terminology, particularly if used to assign moral values, should be avoided." Arbitrary Partitions of Prenatal Life, Biggers, Human Reproduction, Oxford U-Press, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1-6, 1990



WHY CAN'T WE LOVE THEM BOTH

by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke
CHAPTER 12
FETAL DEVELOPMENT

When does implantation occur?
The tiny human implants himself or herself in the nutrient lining the womb at one week of life.

And then?
At ten days, this tiny living human male or female sends a chemical hormonal message out into the mother’s body, which stops her menstrual periods. Later, it is this tiny passenger who causes her breasts to enlarge in preparation for nursing, softens her pelvic bones to prepare for labor, and, without question, sets his or her birthday. The onset of labor is a unilateral fetal decision (see chapter 10).

Why is the primitive streak important?
It really isn’t. Much is made of the fact that identical twinning cannot occur after the 14th day when this early spinal cord can be seen. Actually, identical twinning probably happens in the first 2-4 days of life. Use of the primitive streak is a thinly veiled attempt to dehumanize the early human embryo, so that destructive embryo experimentation can proceed and that I.V.F. embryos can be killed.

When does the heart begin to beat?
At 18 days [when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period], and by 21 days it is pumping, through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different from that of the mother. J.M. Tanner, G. R. Taylor, and the Editors of Time-Life Books, Growth, New York: Life Science Library, 1965, p.

When is the brain functioning?
Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG). H. Hamlin, "Life or Death by EEG," JAMA, Oct. 12, 1964, p. 120
Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six weeks after conception. J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564
Only several generations ago, doctors used the ending of respiration to measure the end of human life.
This is no longer true, for the use of artificial ventilators is common. Only one generation ago, doctors were using the ending of the heartbeat to measure the end of human life. This is no longer true, for now the heart can be stopped and restarted for different operations. It also may stop during a heart attack and sometimes can be restarted.
Today, the definitive and final measure of the end of human life is brain death. This happens when there is irreversible cessation of total brain function. The final scientific measurement of this is the permanent ending of brain waves. Since all authorities accept that the end of an individual’s life is measured by the ending of his brain function (as measured by brain waves on the EEG), would it not be logical for them to at least agree that individual’s life began with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument?

Early on, this being has gill slits and a tail. Isn’t this proof that it is not human then?
The "gill slits" are not slits but folds of skin much like an infant’s "double chin." These stretch out as he grows. The tail isn’t a tail either. The central nervous system consists of brain and spinal cord. It is the most important part of the early body and grows the fastest. The tail is really the end of the spinal cord which grows faster than the torso. The torso catches up with it, and its tip then becomes your adult "tail bone." "The body of the unborn baby is more complex than ours. The preborn baby has several extra parts to his body which he needs only so long as he lives inside his mother. He has his own space capsule, the amniotic sac. He has his own lifeline, the umbilical cord, and he has his own root system, the placenta. These all belong to the baby himself, not to his mother. They are all developed from his original cell." Day & Liley, The Secret World of a Baby, Random House, 1968, p. 13

How early do some organs form?
The eye, ear and respiratory systems begin to form four weeks after fertilization. K. Moore, Before We Were Born, 3rd ed., 1989, p. 278

And function?
Very early, e.g., glucagon, a blood sugar hormone, has been demonstrated in the fetal pancreas 6 weeks after fertilization, and insulin by 7 to 8. F. Cunningham, "Pancreas," William’s Obstet., 19th ed., 1993, p. 183-4
Thumbsucking has been photographed at 7 weeks after fertilization. W. Liley, The Fetus As Personality, Fetal Therapy, 1986, p. 8-17

When does the developing baby first move?
"In the sixth to seventh weeks. . . . If the area of the lips is gently stroked, the child responds by bending the upper body to one side and making a quick backward motion with his arms. This is called a ‘total pattern response’ because it involves most of the body, rather than a local part." L. B. Arey, Developmental Anatomy (6th ed.), Philadelphia: W. B. Sanders Co., 1954
At eight weeks, "if we tickle the baby’s nose, he will flex his head backwards away from the stimulus." A. Hellgers, M.D., "Fetal Development, 31," Theological Studies, vol. 3, no. 7, 1970, p. 26
Another example is from a surgical technician whose letter said, "When we opened her abdomen (for a tubal pregnancy), the tube had expelled an inch-long fetus, about 4-6 weeks old. It was still alive in the sack. "That tiny baby was waving its little arms and kicking its little legs and even turned its whole body over." J. Dobson, Focus on the Family Mag., Aug. ’91, pg. 16

But pregnant women don’t "feel life" until four or five months!
The inside of the uterus has no feeling. The baby has to be almost a foot long (30 cm.) and weigh about one pound (454 gm.) before he or she is large enough to brace a shoulder against one wall and kick hard enough against the opposite wall to dent it outward. Then the mother feels it because the outside of the uterus is covered by a sensitive peritoneal surface.

What is the development at seven to eight weeks?
The baby’s stomach secretes gastric juice by eight weeks. Now we can listen to the tiny one’s heartbeat on an ultrasonic stethoscope. These are now common in doctors’ offices and on hospital wards. They are never used in abortion facilities, however, as this information is universally withheld from mothers prior to abortion. Abortionists know that if they tell women there already is a heartbeat — and certainly if they would let her listen to the heartbeat — some mothers would change their minds. The actual sounds of an six-week-old baby’s heartbeat are available on tape from Cincinnati Right to Life, 1802 W. Galbraith Rd., Cincinnati, OH 45239 ($3.00).
"Eleven years ago, while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured tubal pregnancy (at two months), I was handed what I believed to be the smallest human being ever seen. The embryo sac was intact and transparent. Within the sac was a tiny (one-third inch) human male swimming extremely vigorously in the amniotic fluid, while attached to the wall by the umbilical cord. This tiny human was perfectly developed with long, tapering fingers, feet and toes. It was almost transparent as regards the skin, and the delicate arteries and veins were prominent to the ends of the fingers.
"The baby was extremely alive and swam about the sac approximately one time per second with a natural swimmers stroke. This tiny human did not look at all like the photos and drawings of ‘embryos’ which I have seen, nor did it look like the few embryos I have been able to observe since then, obviously because this one was alive. "When the sac was opened, the tiny human immediately lost its life and took on the appearance of what is accepted as the appearance of an embryo at this stage (blunt extremities, etc.)." P.E. Rockwell, M.D., Director of Anesthesiology, Leonard Hospital, Troy, New York, U.S. Supreme Court., Markle vs. Abele, 72-56, 72-730, p. 11, 1972

When are all his body systems present?
By eight weeks (two months). Hooker & Davenport, The Prenatal Origin of Behavior, University of Kansas Press, 1952

When do teeth form?
All 20 milk-teeth buds are present at six and a half weeks."Life Before Birth," Life Magazine, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 10
And include dental lamina at 8 weeks. Med. Embryology, Longman, 3rd Ed., 1975, p. 406

How about nine weeks?
At nine to ten weeks, he squints, swallows, moves his tongue, and if you stroke his palm, will make a tight fist.
By nine weeks he will "bend his fingers round an object in the palm of his hand." Valman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Jour., Jan. 26, 1980

When does he start to breathe?
"By 11 to 12 weeks (3 months), he is breathing fluid steadily and continues so until birth. At birth, he will breathe air. He does not drown by breathing fluid with-in his mother, because he obtains his oxygen from his umbilical cord. This breathing develops the organs of respiration." "Life Before Birth," Life Magazine, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 13
"Maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy decreases the frequency of fetal breathing by 20%. The ‘well documented’ higher incidence of prematurity, stillbirth, and slower development of reading skill may be related to this decrease." 80 F. Manning, "Meeting of Royal College of Physicians & Surgeons," Family Practice News, March 15, 1976
"In the 11th week of gestation fetal breathing is irregular and episodic. As gestation continues, the breathing movements become more vigorous and rapid." C. Dawes, "Fetal Breathing: Indication of Well Being," Family Practice News, Mar. 16, 1976, p. 6
Episodic spontaneous breathing movement have been observed in the healthy human fetus as early as ten weeks gestational age. Conners et al., "Control of Fetal Breathing in the Human Fetus," Am J. OB-GYN, April ‘89, p. 932
And 11 weeks (9 weeks post-fertilization). Cunningham, Wm. Obstetrics, 1993, p. 193

When can he swallow?
At 11 weeks. Valman & Pearson, British Med. Jour., "What the Fetus Feels," 26 Jan. 1980, p. 233

What of detailed development, like fingernails and eyelashes?
Fingernails are present by 11 to 12 weeks; eyelashes by 16 weeks. Fingerprints are completely established during the fourth month of gestation. Hamilton et al., Human Embryology, Fourth Ed., 1972, p. 567

At what point are all his body systems working?
By 11 weeks. "Life Before Birth," Life Magazine, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 13

How does the size of the baby increase in weight?
At 12 weeks (three months) she weighs about 30 gm (1.0 ounce); at 16 weeks about 170 gm (6 ounces); and at 20 weeks (four months), approximately 454 gm (one pound).

When is taste present?
"Taste buds are working between 13 and 15 weeks gestation" (11 to 13 weeks after conception). Mistretta & Bradley, Taste in Utero, 1977, p. 62 Bradley et al., "Dev. Taste Buds . . . ," J. Anat. 101 (4) 1967, p. 743-752

How about hearing?
"Auditory sense is present in the infant 24 weeks before birth [14 weeks after conception]. This involves brain functioning and memory patterns." M. Clemens, "5th International Congress Psychosomatic," OB & GYN, Rome: Medical Tribune, Mar. 22, 1978, p. 7
Recent technology allowed a tiny microphone to be placed by the fetus’s head and "We heard almost everything, from people talking 12 feet away, to a door opening in the room, to a cart going down the hall with the door closed. The clarity was incredible. It was easy to tell who was talking."
The results showed the fetus hears everything we do, only 10 decibels less. Their earliest response to sound was at 26 weeks. Is Noise an Intrauterine Threat, Phelan & Satt, by R. McGuire, Med. Tribune, Nov. 30, 1989

He certainly can’t cry!
Although the watery environment in which he lives presents small opportunity for crying, which does require air, the unborn knows how to cry, and given a chance to do so, he will. A doctor ". . . injected an air bubble into the baby’s amniotic sac and then took x-rays. It so happened that the air bubble covered the baby’s face. The whole procedure had no doubt given the little fellow quite a bit of jostling about, and the moment that he had air to inhale and exhale they heard the clear sound of a protesting wail emitting from the uterus. Late that same night, the mother awakened her doctor with a telephone call, to report that when she lay down to sleep the air bubble got over the baby’s head again, and he was crying so loudly he was keeping both her and her husband awake. The doctor advised her to prop herself up-right with pillows so that the air could not reach the baby’s head, which was by now in the lower part of the uterus." Day & Liley, Modern Motherhood, Random House, 1969, pp. 50-51

Does the unborn baby dream?
Using ultrasound techniques, it was first shown that REM (rapid eye movements) which are characteristic of active dream states have been demonstrated at 23 weeks. J. Birnhaltz, "The Development of Human Fetal Eye Movement Patterns," Science, 1981, vol. 213, pp. 679-681
REM have since been recorded 17 weeks after conception. S. Levi, Brugman University of Brussels, American Medical Association News, February 1, 1983
Since REM are characteristic of dream states after birth, researchers are asking if the unborn child also dreams?

Does he/she think?
In adults, when we contemplate a physical move or action from a resting state, our heart rate accelerates several seconds before the motion. Similarly, the fetal baby’s heart rate speeds up six to ten seconds prior to fetal movement. Is this conscious thought and planning? 83 N. Lauerson & H. Hochberg, "Does the Fetus Think?" JAMA, vol. 247, no. 23, July 18, 1982
"We now know that the unborn child is an aware, reacting human being who from the sixth month on (and perhaps earlier) leads an active emotional life."
The fetus can, on a primitive level, even learn in utero.
"Whether he ultimately sees himself and, hence, acts as a sad or happy, aggressive or meek, secure or anxiety-ridden person depends, in part, on the messages he gets about himself in the womb." T. Verney & J. Kelly, The Secret Life of the Unborn Child, Delta Books, 1981, p. 12
"At eight weeks of life a tapping stimulus on the amniotic sac results in arm movements . . . the primitive brain receives the stimulus, selects a response and transmits the response as a signal to the arm." M. Rosen, "Learning Before Birth," Harpers Magazine, April 1978

You mean that the unborn baby’s emotions can be affected?
This is probably true. "We know already that even embryonic nervous tissue is ‘open’ to maternal communication via brain chemicals called ‘neurotransmitters.’ This is a finding with enormous implications. It means that the mother’s emotional state can affect the unborn almost from conception onward. Even before the baby can hear in the womb, or think consciously, it is capable of sensing discord between its parents. If the mother is in constant turmoil, its own environment will be tainted by the biochemistry of fear and hostility, grief, and anger." Shettles & Varick, Rites of Life, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983, pp. 87-89
At four and one-half months, a very bright light on a woman’s abdomen will cause the baby to slowly move its hand to a position shielding the eyes.
Loud music will cause the baby to cover its ears. A woman in an unhappy marriage has a 237% greater risk of bearing a child with physical and psychological problems than a woman in a secure relationship. T. Verney & J. Kelly, The Secret Life of the Unborn Child, Delta Books, 1981, p. 49
Agreeing with Dr. Liley, Dr. W. Freud (grandson of Sigmund Freud), observed 10,000 ultrasound visualizations and reported, "It looks as if the fetus has a lot of intentionality." He also once saw unborn twins fighting. 1st International Congress, Pre & Peri Natal Psychology, Toronto, July 8-10, 1983

So the fetus is really the Second Patient? Can he or she be treated?
"The status of the fetus has been elevated to that of a patient who, in large measure, can be given the same meticulous care that obstetricians have long given the pregnant woman." Cunningham, F.G., et. al, Williams Obstetrics, 19th ed. (Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange, 1993), 165.
Diaphragmatic hernia and obstructive hydrocephalus can be corrected while still in the womb. In addition: "Medical treatment of the fetus includes exchange transfusion, thyroid hormone replacement and administration of steroids for surfactant induction. Correction of obstructive uropathy with urinary diversion has proved successful in decreasing fetal morbidity and mortality, while other procedures are still in the experimental stage. Extrauterine fetal surgery is performed only rarely but represents an exciting new direction in the treatment of medicine’s youngest patients." Camosy, P., "Fetal Medicine: Treating the Unborn Patient," Am. Fam. Physician, 52 (5)(October 1995): 1385-92

How many weeks are there in a pregnancy and how do you measure them?
There are 40 weeks. We measure a pregnancy from the time the ovum begins to grow, that is, at the start of a woman’s menstrual period. After about two weeks of growth, the egg is released from the ovary. Fertilization can then occur. This is about two weeks before her next period is due. Four of the 40 weeks have already elapsed at the time she misses her first period.
Gestational age dates from the first day of the mother’s last menstrual period. Actual age of the baby dates from conception.

What is birth?
Birth is the emergence of the infant from the mother’s womb, the severing of the umbilical cord, and the beginning of the child’s existence physically detached from the mother’s body. The only change that occurs at birth is a change in the external life support system of the child. The child is no different before birth than after, except that he has changed his method of feeding and obtaining oxygen. Before birth, nutrition and oxygen were obtained from the mother through the baby’s umbilical cord. After birth, oxygen is obtained from his own lungs and nutrition through his own stomach, if he is mature enough to be nourished that way. If he is quite premature, nourishment would continue through our present reasonably sophisticated external life support systems in the form of intravenous feeding, which is similar to the umbilical cord feeding from the mother.
Did you "come from" a fertilized ovum? No, you once were a fertilized ovum who grew and developed into the child or adult you are today. Nothing has been added to the fertilized ovum who you once were except nutrition.


For further information, http://abortionfacts.com/fetal_development/prenatal_developement.asp

Whoa. I have a sudden urge to watch Discovery Health. That was very intriguing.
But, my original opinion still stands: It's up to the mother whether or not that being lives. Yes, that isn't very fair to the baby. But since when is life fair?
...And now I'm going to go back to just reading this debate.

Ascaris
March 24th, 2010, 11:20 AM
I like how this thread nearly died after I made my post.

HeidiMoose
March 25th, 2010, 08:54 AM
In cases of rape or incest I think it's perfectly permissable, but there is otherwise no reason to kill a baby.

I just recently found out I was pregnant.. almost 7 weeks in at this point, and my baby already has a developing brain and a beating heart.
Sure it hasn't had any experiences yet, it hasn't developed any emotions.. but it's still alive. If I were to kill it now it would be murder.
I can't imagine killing my baby.
Sure.. I didn't plan for one, but it's my own mistake and I will live with it and love it and take care of it the best I can.

Women who use abortion as a form of birth control should all be killed.

twocows
March 25th, 2010, 02:45 PM
In cases of rape or incest I think it's perfectly permissable, but there is otherwise no reason to kill a baby.

I just recently found out I was pregnant.. almost 7 weeks in at this point, and my baby already has a developing brain and a beating heart.
Sure it hasn't had any experiences yet, it hasn't developed any emotions.. but it's still alive. If I were to kill it now it would be murder.
I can't imagine killing my baby.
Sure.. I didn't plan for one, but it's my own mistake and I will live with it and love it and take care of it the best I can.

Women who use abortion as a form of birth control should all be killed.
So you're against abortion because you think it's murder, and think that people that get abortions should be murdered?

Yuukihime
March 25th, 2010, 03:20 PM
I don't approve of it, yet I'm not against it. One must take into account the family situation, how they got pregnant, could they take care of the baby or carry it to term? etc.

I think it's truly up to the person if they want an abortion or not. I actually tend to stay out of debates like that. I think there are a lot of varying factors if a person should have an abortion or not

I'm completely against abortion if you think that abortion is a fine idea for birth control. (My friends sisters thinks so, she's had..God knows how many.)

But other then that..I really think it's up to the person to decide whether or not they want one or not. :/

Sotto Voce
March 26th, 2010, 11:11 AM
^^^ I agree with Yuukihime. ^^^
The only thing that I stand strong for, really, is that it's the mother's choice alone--I don't think it's right for the government to stick their noses in business like that.

We've got enough of that already. :p

So you're against abortion because you think it's murder, and think that people that get abortions should be murdered?

I looked up past Yuukihime's post....
I also have to agree with twocows (haha)--that's quite something to say.

A tad bit strong in my opinion... And quite hypocritical.