Abortion

[warri0r45]

It's not just the woman's body. There is a human life inside of her body. And as early as a few weeks old, that baby is a human. In fact it's a human as soon as conception occurs. A woman doesn't have "two beating hearts, two blood types, two heads, four eyes, four arms, and four legs." (quoted from the lovematters advertisement supplement Volume 9, 2005 edition)

 

 

 

Consider this statement from a magazine I have about abortion:

 

 

 

Eleven years ago, while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured ectopic pregnancy (at eight week's gestation), I was handed what I believe was the smallest living human ever seen. The embryonic sac was intact and transparent. Within the sac was a tiny 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. The tiny human did not look at all like the photos and drawings and models of 'embryos' which I had seen, nor did it look like a few embryos I have been able to observe sicne then, obviously because this one was alive!

 

 

 

When the sac was opened, the tiny human immediatly lost his life and took on the appearance of what is accepted as the appearance of am embryo at this stage of life (with blunt extremeties, etc.)

 

-Paul E. Rockwell, M.D., anesthesiologist.

 

 

 

If anyone can look at me and say human life is not present at conception or the first few weeks, you're a fool. A baby is a baby from conception to the 9th month, the only difference is the stage of development.

 

 

 

Next, some quotes from professionals in the field of genetics on when life is present.

 

 

 

By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present at the moment of conception.

-Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of genetics at the Mayo Clinic

 

 

 

The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception.

 

-Dr. McCarthy De Mere, medical doctor and law professor at the University of Tennessee

 

 

 

The whole "it's the woman's body" and "it's a fetus" doesn't work. The difference between a fetus and a baby is the baby has it's basic form for birth, at appx 8 weeks. A fetus is in it's early stage of development. Does that make it any less of a human? Because it's dependent on another person to survive? So are normal babies, but they're not attached to their mother. So are severely ill people, so are those suffering from serious mental illnesses. So are the elderly. We might as well start another Holocaust then, getting rid of those who can't live on their own whom no one wants to take care of in this world.

 

 

 

You can mould definitions and use terminology to suit your view all you like. I suppose a rabid environmentalist could call the act of destroying a seed tree lopping, too. That doesn't change what's actually going on here, it only changes the minds of the easily impressionable. By the way it's not all that honest to go quote mining for the opinion of a few professionals. It's not like they're impervious to personal bias. Doing what you are is called an appeal to authority fallacy.

 

 

 

So why does the whole "it's the woman's body" and "it's a fetus" thing not work? Some people believe that the woman has a right to sanctity over her own body, just as others believe that the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby (or human being/person, if you like) has a right to life no matter what. That's the whole argument. It's not like there would be any argument if embryos could be grown entirely outside of a female.

 

 

 

As for the comparison to those outside the womb who need help (mentally [developmentally delayed]ed, etc), they aren't taking up residence inside someone else's body, so your comparison doesn't work. Again, the whole pro-choice argument is that a woman should have sanctity over her own body, not that people on welfare should be cut off from that welfare because they're a burden on the system. Besides, If you actually considered reality, people actually do want to take care of these people. I suppose if any female friends of yours wanted to rent their womb to another female who wants an abortion, then they would be more than happy to give up the embryo.

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

As for the person who posted this link:

 

 

 

http://www.afterabortion.org/hope/arti17.htm

 

 

 

Please, try and think a little more critically. The endorsments of David Reardon's site are from pro-life organisations. One of the major stated issues is being "pro woman/pro life". He has another site called "poorchoice.org" where he the whole premise is "exposing" poor choice, aka abortion. And finally, he subtitles the institute with "our mission and ministry", with the following as an example of the rhetoric on the "healing" page:

 

 

 

Another choice is between programs with a spiritual component and those without. Spiritual beliefs are personal and are often tied-in with how we look at abortion in general and our own experience with abortion in particular. It is not uncommon to feel that we are unacceptable to God if we have had an abortion, or to feel that abortion is "the unforgivable sin". That pain is indeed hard to bear, and it is one reason that many, but not all, post-abortion groups have a spiritual basis. I indicate information about that with each listing.

 

 

 

It's worth keeping in mind that not everything on the net is Kosher. There are people with vested interests everywhere who would stop at nothing to get you to think the way they do.

 

 

 

Why not actually try a reputible professional organisation.

[wild_goat_14]

Why would a 40 or 60 year old get pregnant? If they know they could die because of their limited physical capabilities, they shouldn't have had sex in the first place.

 

Welcome to the Teenage club. 8-)

 

I don't understand.

 

 

 

Why would a teenager get pregnant? If they know they could screw up their lives, then they shouldn't have had sex in the first place.

 

 

 

In other words, your statement applies for any age.

[Cup Lion]

Teenagers don't think about the consequences first. All the think about it the pleasure of sex.

 

 

 

I guess it applies for all ages. :

[Rebdragon]

Why would a 40 or 60 year old get pregnant? If they know they could die because of their limited physical capabilities, they shouldn't have had sex in the first place.

 

There are so many [bleep]ed up things about that post that I really don't know exactly where to start.

[Cup Lion]

Why would a 40 or 60 year old get pregnant? If they know they could die because of their limited physical capabilities, they shouldn't have had sex in the first place.

 

There are so many [bleep]ed up things about that post that I really don't know exactly where to start.

 

Then refrain from posting a response at all.

[Rebdragon]

Why would a 40 or 60 year old get pregnant? If they know they could die because of their limited physical capabilities, they shouldn't have had sex in the first place.

 

There are so many [bleep]ed up things about that post that I really don't know exactly where to start.

 

Then refrain from posting a response at all.

 

Nah, if I think somethings [bleep]ed up I have a need to say so.

 

 

 

But just so you aren't left hanging, you do realize that you're saying that people above the age of forty shouldn't have sex, right?

[Cup Lion]

In my opinion, they shouldn't if there is the possibility of them dieing from it. Life or the pleasure of sex. I wouldn't choose the latter over the first. But that may just be me.

[Rebdragon]

Am I seriously the only person who finds that [bleep]ed up? I really don't want to spend five minutes explaining it. It seems too obvious for that.

[magekillr]

Am I seriously the only person who finds that [bleep]ed up? I really don't want to spend five minutes explaining it. It seems too obvious for that.

 

 

 

You're not alone, it's ok :lol:

[Cup Lion]

Hell if I care what you think.

 

 

 

Then don't.

[Nadril]

Claiming people over 40 shouldn't have sex is just [bleep]ing stupid.

[Cup Lion]

It's stupid to value life over sex?

 

 

 

...

[wild_goat_14]

It's stupid to value life over sex?

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

Do you seriously think that pregnancy at 40 will kill you? Besides, by those ages, most everyone will have the procedures done to make it impossible for pregnancy, so this argument is irrelevant.

 

 

 

But your point is still stupid. A baby at 40 will not kill you.

[DaN]

It's stupid to value life over sex?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes!

[Cup Lion]

It's stupid to value life over sex?

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

Do you seriously think that pregnancy at 40 will kill you? Besides, by those ages, most everyone will have the procedures done to make it impossible for pregnancy, so this argument is irrelevant.

 

 

 

But your point is still stupid. A baby at 40 will not kill you.

 

Obviously Silver thinks so.

 

 

 

what if the female is in her 40's? at that age, if you get pregnant.. most docs advise abortions... specially if you're not physically fit to begin with... what about age 60?

 

 

 

I seriously don't see how it is stupid to think that if you are physically incapable of having a baby, you shouldn't have sex.

[warri0r45]

It's pretty stupid to say 40-60 year olds shouldn't have sex because they'll die from pregnancy. If you agree with that then don't drive a car, because you could die doing that too. People usually don't immediately stop doing something because there's a risk of death.

 

 

 

Just wear a condom and use the pill. Hell, get a vasectomy. That should eliminate 99%+ of the risk of pregnancy, and by extention the risk of maternal mortality. Besides, if they do get pregnant, there's always the option of cesarean, which is often used if there's going to be serious harm to either the mother or baby.

 

 

 

I mean really, in this day and age using maternal death from pregnancy as an excuse not to have sex over 40 is just plain nuts.

 

 

 

If there are 9 maternal deaths per 100,000 pregancies in the developed world**, then even if all of those 9 are from people over 40, it's still an incredibly low risk.

 

 

 

** pg. 23

[Wisp]

For a start, I am for abortion.

 

Woman who stay pregnant will have a lot of issues. In a lot of cases, they can have social and professional issues.

 

For a start, they have to be pregnant for 9 months, then give birth, which, no matter how you put it, is not a fun experience. After giving birth, in most cases a woman's body is different, the muscles in the stomach are almost impossible to reform, for example.

 

If stem cell research was supported, an abortion could very well save another person's life.

 

Which matters more, an unthinking, unfeeling tiny mass of cells, or a thinking, living person. Giving a kid up for adoption will screw the kid's life up. they may not even be adopted, and will go from foster home to foster home for their entire life. They probably won't get the best education, or afford to go to college. The could be emotionally scarred because of all this, and so on.

 

Also, I just have to put this out there, does the world really need more people right now?

[Woodcut Lvr]

what if the female is in her 40's? at that age, if you get pregnant.. most docs advise abortions... specially if you're not physically fit to begin with... what about age 60?

 

and don't screw up your face! because people still get it on at that age. trust me.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I know that people still "get it on" at that age.

 

 

 

Anyways, I still don't think that having an abortion to save the mother from possible death is justified, killing a human is never justifiable.

 

 

 

Edit: I agree with the post below mine. Their fault they got pregnant, their baby shouldn't die because of a mistake the parents made.

 

 

 

I can think of ways it's justifiable.

 

 

 

And how is it their fault. What if the male or female wears protection and it breaks? How is that THEIR fault.

[Cup Lion]

Its a risk well known to everyone who uses protection.

[Woodcut Lvr]

Its a risk well known to everyone who uses protection.

 

 

 

Doesn't mean it was their fault. So you suggest that nobody has sex, because that is the 100 percent protection that isn't surgery.

[Cup Lion]

I did not say that. If you want a baby, have all the sex you want. If you don't plan on it, then recognize that things might go wrong and you might have one. Plan ahead and whatnot.

 

 

 

They made the conscious decision to, given the fact that the condom could break, have sex anyways.

[Woodcut Lvr]

I did not say that. If you want a baby, have all the sex you want. If you don't plan on it, then recognize that things might go wrong and you might have one. Plan ahead and whatnot.

 

 

 

They made the conscious decision to, given the fact that the condom could break, have sex anyways.

 

 

 

Well. I do see the point in that, but that doesn't cover things like rape. You can't abort for that?

[Cup Lion]

We were talking about protection for a while.

 

 

 

Not sure a rapist would whip out a condom and say, "Just incase you get pregnant!" :P

 

 

 

Rape is a completely different thing. I am not sure I'll state my opinion on it, though.

[Woodcut Lvr]

We were talking about protection for a while.

 

 

 

Not sure a rapist would whip out a condom and say, "Just incase you get pregnant!" :P

 

 

 

Rape is a completely different thing. I am not sure I'll state my opinion on it, though.

 

 

 

Yeah, sorry. Didn't make it clear I was switching topic.

[limpbizkit]

For a start, I am for abortion.

 

Woman who stay pregnant will have a lot of issues. In a lot of cases, they can have social and professional issues.

 

For a start, they have to be pregnant for 9 months, then give birth, which, no matter how you put it, is not a fun experience. After giving birth, in most cases a woman's body is different, the muscles in the stomach are almost impossible to reform, for example.

 

If stem cell research was supported, an abortion could very well save another person's life.

 

Which matters more, an unthinking, unfeeling tiny mass of cells, or a thinking, living person. Giving a kid up for adoption will screw the kid's life up. they may not even be adopted, and will go from foster home to foster home for their entire life. They probably won't get the best education, or afford to go to college. The could be emotionally scarred because of all this, and so on.

 

Also, I just have to put this out there, does the world really need more people right now?

 

 

 

 

 

IF you dont want to go through all that .. WHY THE [bLEEP] HAVE SEX IN THE FIRST PLACE!