*** In light of the recent threads about abortion, please read this. It's sure to broaden your views.

[Arkitech]

<<

<< Its a proven medical fact that at conception life is created, that life after 9 months results in a baby. >>



I don't believe I've ever seen even remote proof of this...Perhaps Arkitech has proven it and finally gotten rid of all need for debate over abortion.

I hereby nominate Arkitech for the Nobel Peace Prize for Medicine as well as Time's Man of the Year.

Care to tackle the existence of God next? >>



Although I'm itching to do so I'll refrain from any snyde comments about your reply. Apparently you question whether or not life is created at conception. Lets answer this issue by examining the facts.

1. Barring there are'nt any complications a woman will give birth to a child after the sperm has successfully fertilized the egg

2. During preganacy the unborn child often responds to stimuli outside of the womb, the sound of its parents voices, patting of mother's belly, etc.

3. Doctors can monitor the growth and progress of the fetus throughout the term of pregnancy


I don't even know why this is an issue, who would deny that once a woman learns that she is pregnant that she carries another life within her body.

 

[BlueApple]

<< Personally I don't think men really have much right to make decisions for women on this. Women are the ones who have to carry the child and they should be the ones who decide and make the laws on this. >>


Good point.

A fetus doesn't even breathe until it is born. A baby that is born and dies doesn't even get a birth certificate since it was never even considered alive. This isn't an issue for the lawmakers as it is for the medical community.

 

[Arkitech]

<<

<< Personally I don't think men really have much right to make decisions for women on this. Women are the ones who have to carry the child and they should be the ones who decide and make the laws on this. >>


Good point.

A fetus doesn't even breathe until it is born. A baby that is born and dies doesn't even get a birth certificate since it was never even considered alive. This isn't an issue for the lawmakers as it is for the medical community. >>




I can't understand why there is any issue at all over whether a fetus is a person. Every adult on the planet started its life cycle as the result of a sperm cell and a egg cell uniting. Just a child grows into an adult, the fetus grows into a baby. To end the life of a fetus, a child or an adult is murder. It does'nt matter what stage of development that life is at because they are all humans

 

[BDawg]

<< Although I'm itching to do so I'll refrain from any snyde comments about your reply. Apparently you question whether or not life is created at conception. Lets answer this issue by examining the facts. >>



You're skewing the line between a group of cells and human life. A fetus is not a human life. Without the host mother, it will die.

I cluster of cells with potential to become a human being is not life anymore than skin cells I scrape off my arm. IMHO, it has only slightly more potential to become life than a sperm or egg individually. Both require some sort of outside stimulus to reach their potential.

Edit: fixed grammar error

 

[Amused]

<<

<<

<< Personally I don't think men really have much right to make decisions for women on this. Women are the ones who have to carry the child and they should be the ones who decide and make the laws on this. >>


Good point.

A fetus doesn't even breathe until it is born. A baby that is born and dies doesn't even get a birth certificate since it was never even considered alive. This isn't an issue for the lawmakers as it is for the medical community. >>




I can't understand why there is any issue at all over whether a fetus is a person. Every adult on the planet started its life cycle as the result of a sperm cell and a egg cell uniting. Just a child grows into an adult, the fetus grows into a baby. To end the life of a fetus, a child or an adult is murder. It does'nt matter what stage of development that life is at because they are all humans >>



Tell me, if you had Richard Simmonds attached to your body, and his body shared your liver therefore removing him would kill him, would you?

The woman has the right to control her body, and anything that is biologically dependent on it. If she chooses to no longer biologically support something growing on or within her body, it should be her choice to remove it.

BTW, I find it amusing that you consider a fertilized egg to be as important as a fully developed human. A potential human is not a human.

 

[Electric Amish]

I don't see why we have to save everyone.

For you religious zealots, have you ever thought that it might be a test arranged by god to gauge a person? Not just by overcoming the temptation to have the abortion, but by being strong enough to go through with the abortion.

Anyway, I think it's as much about the woman's life as the child's until the child is born.

amish

 

[Zebo]

#7
The mother places more value on HER convenience than the life of HER unborn child.

 

[BDawg]

<< The mother places more value on HER convenience than the life of HER unborn child. >>



Convenience is being able to pick up a gallon of milk at the gas station. Convenience is not carrying a fetus for 9 months.

All of you people who are so concerned for the life and healt of this fetus (or in Jesus speak, unborn child), why aren't you leading the charge to make smoking, drinking, and not taking care of your body while pregnant a crime? Studies have shown that these factors greatly affect the health of the fetus.

 

[Cerebus451]

The major fallacy that the pro-abortion people miss is that there is in fact a 100% guaranteed method of birth control. It is a little word called abstinence. Say what you want about the word, but it is society that treats the word as a 4 letter word, not the word itself. It is society that has conditioned little girls to think they need to have sex to be accepted by boys, and society has conditioned boys to think the more notches on their bedpost the better the man they are. So, society tries to fix the problem by legalizing abortion, instead of treating the root of the problem and teaching the children that abstinence is not a 4 letter word.

And before anyone comes in here with tales of rape and incest, yes I believe the abortions still need to be an option because the woman does not always have a choice in the matter. However, this is easily solved. In order to get the abortion the woman needs to bring in a copy of the police report filed on the rape/incest case. Will other abortions still happen? Yes, but by and large abortion is removed as just another form of birth control.

There is no need to worry about when life does or does not start. If you don't want a baby, don't have sex. Period. End of argument. That's all there is to it, and it really is that simple.



<< You're skewing the line between a group of cells and human life. A fetus is not a human life. Without the host mother, it will die. >>


By that same argument, it should be legal to kill a child all the way up to the age of 18, as the law dictates that until the child reaches that age it cannot live without the "host mother".

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

proponents of choice believe that it should not be relied upon as a form of birth control.

Unfortunately, 50% of pregancies are unplanned and 50% of those will end in abortion. And technically abortion is birth control most other forms of reproductive control are contraception or conception control. The most common cause of failed conception control is NOT using conception control.

Abortion should be safe, legal, and EXTREMELY rare. Pro-lifers are typically the same people opposed to comprehensive sex education (abstinence my arse). Barrier methods and appropriate education would dramatically affect abortion and STD rates. But such rational policy cannot be considered in environments where people consider their morals more important that other peoples lives (including the lives of the unborn).

 

[Zebo]

Unfortunately, 50% of pregancies are unplanned and 50% of those will end in abortion.
I don't doubt this but do you have a link?

Abortion should be safe, legal, and EXTREMELY rare.
I agree on all points.

Pro-lifers are typically the same people opposed to comprehensive sex education (abstinence my arse).
Hmmm. My wife practiced it for 23 years? Sex ed is ok for 12 yrs+.

 

[BDawg]

<< By that same argument, it should be legal to kill a child all the way up to the age of 18, as the law dictates that until the child reaches that age it cannot live without the "host mother". >>



Now you're stretching...don't worry though, this will only take a second.

After birth, the (then) child can live without the host mother. It can live with any other host, male or female. Rudyard Kipling even suggested that the host could be a wolf.

If you could transfer an unwanted fetus to another host who desired it without any extra pain or discomfort to the original host, and there was always a waiting future host, there wouldn't be need for abortions ever. Time to get cracking on the procedure!

Edit: process != procedure

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

1. Barring there are'nt any complications a woman will give birth to a child after the sperm has successfully fertilized the egg

2. During preganacy the unborn child often responds to stimuli outside of the womb, the sound of its parents voices, patting of mother's belly, etc.

3. Doctors can monitor the growth and progress of the fetus throughout the term of pregnancy

1) Yes but 1/3 of all successful fertilizations spontaneously abort for various reasons another fraction will become elective abortions some for the health of the mother, some for nonviable conceptions, but the majority b/c the conceptus is unwanted. Poor prenatal care is probably single most important cause of morbidity and mortality to the fetus and mother. Why not start a crusade to protect the children that are wanted by parents instead of this moralistic romp about the unborn?

2) So what's your point? Live plants and animals respond to stimuli but that doesn't keep them off the dinner plate. Are you saying before spontaneous response to stimuli abortion is OK?

3) So what's your point?

The best available research shows the most significant predictor of psychiatric illness is physical illness and behavioral problems before the age of 3. That's a fact. Approximately 1 million children are abused each year. Current evidence shows child abuse induces structural changes in the brain. That's a fact. Why don't we invest more time and resources into protecting the millions of children that already need our help?

I support your opinion that abortion is wrong. But I also think the death penalty and are wrong. So how about we compromise. We make a serious, sustained effort to maximally reduce opportunity for abortion (more than abstinence or adoption), executions (more than life without parole), and war. We make the perceived necessary evil unnecessary . . .

 

[Cerebus451]

<< Now you're stretching...don't worry though, this will only take a second. >>


A stretch yes, but you have to get your exercise somehow. The problem is, it has only been theorized that a human infant could be raised by a non-human host. I'm not aware of any actual cases (though I could be wrong). At any rate, the issue is still a newborn cannot live without a host, the same as an unborn cannot, so using the argument that an unborn fetus is not alive because it cannot live without a host does not wash with me, since that same argument could be used to kill an infant, something only the die-hard pro-abortion whacko could endorse.



<< abstinence my arse >>


Care to explain that one? Please expound from your infinite wisdom how abstinence cannot be considered an option. I can guarantee that any argument you could possibly give as to why sex is a necessity of live I could easily refute within 15 seconds of seeing your argument. You cannot point to any scientific evidence that man or woman needs sex to survive. Only your hormones require sex, and they don't count because they are easily controlled (unless you are extremely weak-minded).

 

[Pliablemoose]

Any one who is pro-life & can afford it should adopt one crack baby, after that time, I'll consider their argument...

Till then, they should STFU:|

 

[Zebo]

#8
Most abortions are carried out by the best and brightest (university students, professional career women etc) IMO the gene pool getting dumber becasue of that.

 

[Amused]

#9

There is a direct correlation between the legalization of abortion in 1973 and the dramatic drop in crime in the 90s:

The Aborted Crime Wave?

"Since the early 1990s crime has fallen annually in the U.S., last year by about 7 percent. Many explanations have been put forward for this drop: more police walk the beat, more people are in prison, the economy has improved, crack use has fallen, alarms and guards are now widespread. The emphasis given to any one of these rationales varies, of course, according to philosophical bent or political expediency. In New York City, for instance, plummeting crime has been attributed to improved policing. Yet the decline exists even in cities that have not altered their approach, such as Los Angeles.

The above explanations are unsatisfactory to many researchers, among them two economists who have studied crime. Steven D. Levitt of the University of Chicago and John J. Donohue III, currently at Yale University, have proffered an alternative reason: the legalization of abortion in 1973 reduced the number of unwanted children--that is, children more likely to become criminals. In 1992, the first year crime began to fall, the first set of children born after 1973 turned 18. Because most crimes are committed by young adult males between the ages of 18 and 24, Levitt and Donohue argue that the absence of millions of unwanted children led to fewer crimes being done by that age group. In total, the researchers maintain, the advent of legal abortion may be responsible for up to 50 percent of the drop in crime.

Read more at the link...

 

[BOK]

<< A stretch yes, but you have to get your exercise somehow. The problem is, it has only been theorized that a human infant could be raised by a non-human host. I'm not aware of any actual cases (though I could be wrong). At any rate, the issue is still a newborn cannot live without a host, the same as an unborn cannot, so using the argument that an unborn fetus is not alive because it cannot live without a host does not wash with me, since that same argument could be used to kill an infant, something only the die-hard pro-abortion whacko could endorse. >>



Cerebus, your arguments hold no water. A fetus is biophysically dependant on its host. A born baby is not.



<< Tell me, if you had Richard Simmonds attached to your body, and his body shared your liver therefore removing him would kill him, would you? >>



ROFL!

 

[Cerebus451]

<< Any one who is pro-life & can afford it should adopt one crack baby, after that time, I'll consider their argument...

Till then, they should STFU >>


And until the pro-abortionists can explain why the crack mother was trying to get pregnant, they should STFU.



<< There is a direct correlation between the legalization of abortion in 1973 and the dramatic drop in crime in the 90s >>


Some interesting info, but it just goes to further prove the point that abortion is treating a symptom while ignoring the disease. We should be concentrating on stopping unwanted pregnancies rather than giving an out to the women that have them.

I have always been pro-choice, but anti-abortion. It is better to abort an unwanted fetus than it is to force a woman to raise a child she is not prepared to raise. However, to treat abortion as a simply a method of reducing crime, is a crime in and of itself. Stop the pregnancy before it happens, not after.

 

[Cerebus451]

<< Cerebus, your arguments hold no water. A fetus is biophysically dependant on its host. A born baby is not. >>


How is a baby not biophysically dependant on its host? Are you telling me that a newborn is prefectly capable of foraging for its own existence? A newborn infanct is completely incapable of sustaining its own life. It relies on a caretaker to provide for its nourishment in order to survive as well as provide shelter (and guess what, that is exactly what the womb is providing for an embryo). Show me any infant that has ever been able to move out on its own right out of the womb.

 

[Pliablemoose]

<< And until the pro-abortionists can explain why the crack mother was trying to get pregnant, they should STFU. >>



Dude, you just lost me on that one I need a map now...

 

[Amused]

<<

<< Cerebus, your arguments hold no water. A fetus is biophysically dependant on its host. A born baby is not. >>


How is a baby not biophysically dependant on its host? Are you telling me that a newborn is prefectly capable of foraging for its own existence? A newborn infanct is completely incapable of sustaining its own life. It relies on a caretaker to provide for its nourishment in order to survive as well as provide shelter (and guess what, that is exactly what the womb is providing for an embryo). Show me any infant that has ever been able to move out on its own right out of the womb. >>



Do you know what "biophysically" means?

 

[Amused]

<<

<< Any one who is pro-life & can afford it should adopt one crack baby, after that time, I'll consider their argument...

Till then, they should STFU >>


And until the pro-abortionists can explain why the crack mother was trying to get pregnant, they should STFU.



<< There is a direct correlation between the legalization of abortion in 1973 and the dramatic drop in crime in the 90s >>


Some interesting info, but it just goes to further prove the point that abortion is treating a symptom while ignoring the disease. We should be concentrating on stopping unwanted pregnancies rather than giving an out to the women that have them.

I have always been pro-choice, but anti-abortion. It is better to abort an unwanted fetus than it is to force a woman to raise a child she is not prepared to raise. However, to treat abortion as a simply a method of reducing crime, is a crime in and of itself. Stop the pregnancy before it happens, not after. >>



So women who accidentally become pregnant and don't want the baby should be forced to have it as punishment? And this will deter others...how? It didn't do a damn thing to deter unwanted pregnancies in the slightly less than 100 years abortion was illegal in the US, what makes you think it will now?

I agree that abortion should me minimized. However, the past has proven that making abortion illegal doesn't work. Education and better contraception is the key.

 

[Zebo]

#9

There is a direct correlation between the legalization of abortion in 1973 and the dramatic drop in crime in the 90s:

LOL you do have a unique sence of direct correlation. Not only do they cite controversy among scientists in that article you have failed to consider the booming economy during the 90's, stiffer sentenceing guildlines and more policeing. I would say "there is some evidence to suggest abortion has been a factor in the reduction of crime in the 1990's".
I'm very interested if thier study will hold up the peer review and get in a medical journal.

 

[Amused]

<< #9

There is a direct correlation between the legalization of abortion in 1973 and the dramatic drop in crime in the 90s:

LOL you do have a unique sence of direct correlation. Not only do they cite controversy among scientists in that article you have failed to consider the booming economy during the 90's, stiffer sentenceing guildlines and more policeing. I would say "there is some evidence to suggest abortion has been a factor in the reduction of crime in the 1990's".
I'm very interested if thier study will hold up the peer review and get in a medical journal. >>



Why would a crime study end up in a "medical journal?" It made Scientific American. I think that's pretty impressive.

And it is a direct correlation. The crime rate started dropping dramatically and steadily at the very time those children would have been entering the prime age to commit crimes. I can't think of any other "sense of correlation" than that one.

As for the "booming economy" we were still crawling out of a recession in 1993 when the crime rate drop of the 90s began. As the study pointed out, no other explaination covers all the bases.

The fact that you dismiss it out of hand without even admitting it's compelling shows bias, not critical disagreement.