<p>You would suck it up and take it like a woman? Sure, it's the father's responsibility, but how do you demand that he steps up if he runs? And if you don't get an abortion, and you raise the child, you'll wonder "what if" anyway. </p>
<p>If you give the baby away for adoption, and that baby grows up to have a very unhappy childhood, you just caused one more person on earth to suffer. Way to go.</p>
<p>It's not a matter of what's right, or what isn't right. It's a matter of freedom.</p>
<p>Having done pregancy counseling,Ican assure you the choice on what to do after an unintended pregency is not an easy one for anyone. Women may feel like failures for contraceptive errors or wish that they lived in a perfect world where the skies would open up the birds would sing and everyone would live happily ever after. The truth is that many states will not financelly assist women in obtaining contraception,thereby increasing the number of unintended pregancies, and yes those are usually the most conservative states.</p>
<p>I believe live- has got some facts wrong.</p>
<p>"Also, early on, someone said that after 30 weeks the fetus was viable, which is again wrong. Around 20 weeks is the current line for viability, meaning a woman not even 5 months pregnant could go into labor prematurely, have the baby, put it in an incubator (life support) for 3-4 months and the kid will live a completely normal life."</p>
<p>I suggest reading the following article. (<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15730874/%5B/url%5D">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15730874/</a>) I quote, "Despite medical advances in prolonging life, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics said the chances of an infant surviving after less than 22 weeks in the womb are very slim and that they often develop severe disabilities." Hardly the definition of a "normal life," I think.</p>
<p>live- also wrote, "In one common procedure, called dialation evacuation, the abortionist literally reaches into the womb with a pair of pliers, and, one-by-one, grabs onto the limbs of the unborn child and twists them off one by one."</p>
<p>webMD offers the following description of dilation and evacuation. (<a href="http://www.webmd.com/hw/inflammatory_bowel/tw2462.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.webmd.com/hw/inflammatory_bowel/tw2462.asp</a>) I'm not sure why live- thinks that all d&e procedures require pliers. Maybe they're referring to the forceps used to hold the cervix in place or extract fetal tissue? I think it's important to mention that the forceps are necessary when a pregnancy is more advanced - a cannula and curette alone can be entirely suitable for the procedure.</p>
<p>I bring this up because I believe it's important to get the facts straight, no matter what side of the argument you're on. I believe the articles I've mentioned are factually accurate. Sensationalism helps no reasonable person.</p>
<p>That being said, I've found the article "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" to be an absolutely fascinating read. (<a href="http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html%5B/url%5D">http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html</a>) Also, for insight into the reasons why women get or perform abortions, the zines "Mine: an anthology of women’s choices", "Mine: an anthology of reproductive rights #2", and "Jane: Documents From Chicago's Clandestine Abortion Service 1968-1973" are definitely worth reading.</p>
<p>I'm disgusted by your parallels between abortion and slavery.</p>
<p>The government should not forbid someone from doing something if it doesn't infringe on another citizens rights. An embryo is not a citizen and can't survive outside of a womb. The grey area lies in what age a fetus becomes a life. I would be for pushing down the age to 18-20 weeks or so, giving the would-be mother enough time to make the decision but not desroying a fetus that could survive if born today.</p>
<p>Excuse me shades_children, I guess I used the wrong term. They use tiny surgical pliers, not the pliers you use when building your deck. </p>
<p>"Pass a grasping instrument (forceps) into the uterus to grasp larger pieces of tissue. This is more likely in pregnancies of 16 weeks or more and is done before the uterine lining is scraped with a curette."</p>
<p>"Grasping larger pieces of tissue" is a nice way of saying they grab onto and remove the limbs on the fetus. "Fetal tissue" is the pro-choice way of saying "the living baby inside of the womb." Read it a little closer next time and try to envision what they are doing. Maybe read a few lines down to see "Emotional reactions." Want to know where that comes from? Search "dilation and evacuation" on Google images w/ safesearch off (WARNING: the images you find will be EXTREMELY graphic). This shows how they are actually performed (<a href="http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/medical/de.jpg)%5B/url%5D">http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/medical/de.jpg)</a>. Notice the "fetal tissue" having his/her limbs removed. If the truth is "sensationalist" because it's not what people (or you) would like to hear, then my apologies. But dilation and extraction involves the severing of the fetus's limbs using forceps (aka micro-pliers), whether you want to believe that or not.</p>
<p>Secondly, thanks for pointing out that at 22 weeks, because there is only a 1% chance of survival, we should just let those babies die (according to one British council). Yet that same council recommends intensive treatment for babies born 2-3 weeks later (24-25 weeks), which proves my point just as well. 50 years ago, there was no way for a baby born at 24-25 weeks to survive. Therefore, how can we draw the line at viability (which is the most common place to draw it for the pro-abortion side of the debate)? 50 years ago it was "right" and morally acceptable to abort a baby at 27 weeks, yet now its wrong? And in another 20 years, it will be wrong to abort it at 20 weeks, where its A-OK to do it now? Doesn't make logical sense. By the way, I still believe there is a firm, clear difference between someone dying on their own and being killed. Maybe we should just start killing all people who only have a 1% chance of living?</p>
<p>bobbo07 - so if there's a noncitizen I'm free to steal from him, assault him, murder him? Say some dude from Mexico, completely undocumented and without a connection (he knows about) in the world hops the border. Should those crazy gung-ho citizen border "guards" just be able to shoot him? He's not a citizen. The whole point is that these are basic, human rights - absolutely nothing to do with citizenship.</p>
<p>All of this being said, it's pretty clear that at some point there will have to be compromise. And thinking about that, the only really logical place (at least to me) to draw the line is before the heart begins to beat (approximately 3 weeks). Life begins at conception - that's simply a biological fact. Yet the argument could be made that the embryo is not a "human being" until its heart begins to beat, since that is more or less the defining characteristic of life outside of the womb. If someone's heart stops beating, they are dead. And this is a definitive, nonchanging point. Viability has changed in the past and will more than likely change again (until we are eventually at the point where we can grow test-tube babies from the point of conception to "birth" without a mother's womb). </p>
<p>So, if I had to draw a line, it would be at 18 days, before the baby's heart began to beat. 18 days would be plenty of time for a responsible woman to seek advice and make a decision (giving her the "choice" pro-abortion advocates demand). Yet it would put an end to late-term abortions, which I am 100% convinced are wrong.</p>
<p>One other thing - some people have said that if we outlaw abortions, some crazy women could still try and get them anyway. While that may be true to some degree (I don't believe that most woman are crazy enough to shove a rusty coathanger into themselves), the fact that a law will be broken does not mean we shouldn't have said law. Take drugs, for example. People will always find a way to get hardcore, dangerous narcotics such as heroine, yet that doesn't mean we should legalize them anyway. Sure, it would be safer for the drug addicts if they could hop on down to their local Rite-Aid and get some cocaine they know is clean and pure, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. The same parallel could be drawn with gun-control. If we make guns illegal, criminals will get them and use them anyway. Does that necessarily mean that we shouldn't make it harder for them to do so? Of course not. </p>
<p>And by the way Iowa, neither side of the abortion debate is against contraception (on a philosophical level). Both sides encourage and endorse its use if you choose to have sex recreationally. So whether it's true or not that it's harder to obtain free contraception in "conservative states" is really irrelevant to this debate.</p>
<p>Right on, Iowa.</p>
<hr>
<p>Foster homes are crowded with 'unadoptable' children, not healthy (white) babies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, if I had to draw a line, it would be at 18 days, before the baby's heart began to beat. 18 days would be plenty of time for a responsible woman to seek advice and make a decision (giving her the "choice" pro-abortion advocates demand).
[/quote]
If you'd ever been in the situation of a crisis pregnancy you'd know that there's NO WAY that 18 days is enough time to make a decision. Imagine a teenage girl or a poor woman trying to get the money together for an abortion, it's most likely going to take a lot longer than that... or else sometimes it can take much longer than that to decide. Also a woman may not know she's pregnant until later in the pregnancy.</p>
<p>^yep ...
"Life begins at conception - that's simply a biological fact."</p>
<p>Actually, that's "simply" your opinion.</p>
<p>darn it, I've forgotten how to do the quote thingie ... can someone remind me?</p>
<p>
[quote]
All of this being said, it's pretty clear that at some point there will have to be compromise. And thinking about that, the only really logical place (at least to me) to draw the line is before the heart begins to beat (approximately 3 weeks). Life begins at conception - that's simply a biological fact. Yet the argument could be made that the embryo is not a "human being" until its heart begins to beat, since that is more or less the defining characteristic of life outside of the womb.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that there should probably be some place to draw the line, but not at 3 weeks. At three weeks, the woman may not even know that she is pregnant, let alone have enough time to consider her options, like what rainbow kirby said.</p>
<p>Chickens have heartbeats. Cows have heartbeats. They get killed all the time. That's probably a bad analogy, but just because a fetus has a heartbeat doesn't mean that it shouldn't be aborted if the mother is in a situation that warrants an abortion.</p>
<p>apple green - put "quote" in brackets, and then "/quote" in brackets.</p>
<p>How about a compromise? Keep abortion legal, but require women (and the men if possible) to watch graphic videos of what exactly is happening when they have an abortion. </p>
<p>I know some will call it cold and cruel, but I think it would be empowering. Let them make the decision, but have it be an INFORMED decision. No glossing over the facts.</p>
<p>Balance this with required ultrasounds, so they can see the baby moving, the baby that will be killed.</p>
<p>While we're at it, eating animals should be illegal unless people kill the animals themselves. Hunters aside, most people wouldn't stomach the bloody mess. Yeah, our ancestors did it on a daily basis, but nowadays people prefer to buy their animals wrapped in cellophane.</p>
<p>apple green,</p>
<p>Please, PLEASE find me a single source on EITHER side of the abortion debate that tries to argue that a zygote is non-living. </p>
<p>The mother and father are alive. The sperm is alive and the ova is alive (each containing 23 chromosomes). They unite, and a new cell is created (conception) with unique HUMAN DNA (dubi, cows and chickens have heartbeats just like you have a heartbeat. So why would someone go to jail for life for stopping your heartbeat but chickens and cows are slaughtered on a regular, legal basis? Because you are human and thus have human DNA whereas chickens and cows have chicken and cow DNA). This new cell is called a zygote, and is also alive. Dead things don't grow, nor do dead things spontaneously become "alive" at some magic moment (because such an event is biologically impossible).</p>
<p>That's "simply" truth. If you'd like to find me any even remotely reliable source where a biologist claims a zygote is dead, I'd appreciate that (this "simply" won't happen).</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's "simply" truth. If you'd like to find me any even remotely reliable source where a biologist claims a zygote is dead, I'd appreciate that (this "simply" won't happen).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not that people think that zygotes are dead, it's that they think they are neither dead nor alive. Life and death isn't black and white. Zygotes have a possibility to grow into life, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are alive yet. That's where the opinion comes in. If something has the potential to grow into a full-grown organism, does that make it alive?</p>
<p>One could accuse a woman of killing a baby when an unfertilized egg leaves her body when she has a period. One could accuse a man of killing babies when he masturbates. Obviously, that's ridiculous, and if anything I agree with you that a zygote is a living thing. I'm just showing you that there are different lines to be drawn as to what is a living thing.</p>
<p>Let me go back to my cows/chickens argument. A chicken can move around, flap its wings, lay eggs, and ****-a-doodle-doo. What can a fetus do but sit in a sac of fluid? Is a fetus any more alive than a chicken? Is it less just to kill a fetus than it is to kill a chicken?</p>
<p>It's not a question of being alive; it's a question of whether it is considered human, a PERSON, or just a glob of tissue.</p>
<p>Exactly lealdragon. It's a question of personhood, not whether a zygote is alive. Again, I'm no biology major, but I can tell you 100% a zygote is alive from the moment of conception on.</p>
<p>And no, dubisteinschuh, it's really not that hard of a concept to grasp. Sperm and unfertilized ova do NOT have distinct and unique human DNA (a concept which I swear I've explained and stated about 10 times in this thread). You had the same, COMPLETELY UNIQUE human DNA at the moment you were concieved that you have now. Not a single other person in the world shares that zygotes DNA THE MOMENT IT IS CONCEIVED.</p>
<p>And to the chicken/cow argument: If something is alive, it's alive. I'm not sure what kind of questions you are even asking (is it "more alive", "is it less just to kill a fetus" - less what?). The simple fact of the matter is that our law treats HUMAN life as inherently more valuable than chicken life or cow life. If you'd like to present an argument that we should judge all life based on the attributes it acquires, then go for it. Logically, however, that leads to support for full-out euthanasia, infanticide and so on. What can a fetus do besides sit in a sac of fluid? Well what can a newborn baby do besides lay on a bed? For that matter, what can a 5-year old kid do that makes him/her somehow worthwhile to society? Why would I go to jail for about 10 or so years if I killed a braindead human being (that, according to you, is "less alive" than an embryo)?</p>
<p>Using your argument, me and you are more "alive" than someone like Stephen Hawking because we run around and walk and jump and talk but all he does is sit in a wheelchair all day. That's ridiculous.</p>
<p>The government cannot legislate morality.</p>
<p>It's as simple as that. So whether you agree with abortion or not, you have to admit that it's not the government's right to ban it.</p>
<p>"It's as simple as that. So whether you agree with abortion or not, you have to admit that it's not the government's right to ban it."</p>
<p>PP, it's not a question of morality if it is the killing of another person. People seem to be in agreement that govt. does in fact have the right to prohibit killing of other humans!</p>
<p>That is the question that will never be answered, until science can prove when the soul enters the body.</p>
<p>Until that day comes, I propose that people quit bickering about whether it's murder or not, since they will never agree, and work together to educate women about abortion and support them in these difficult times, and work together to minimize the root CAUSES of abortion.</p>
<p>Embryos are not people. People are living human beings who can survive out of the mother's womb. </p>
<p>I.E. Abortion isn't killing people. It's not murder. And honestly, what would you do if you got preagneant? You'd carry the baby to full term and ruin your life? You can say whatever you want now, but if that time came, you honestly don't know what you would do.</p>
<p>I'm going to put my two cents in here and leave...because I don't want to read the backlash against me.</p>
<p>If you're worried about getting pregnant and ruining your life (I'm assuming you're a teenager to late twenties), don't have sex.
If you aren't responsible enough to handle the consequences of having sex, than you shouldn't be doing it.</p>
<p>smurf, that's exactly what we told our son. A friend of mine, a few years ago, told me that was her philosophy in raising her kids, and I thought it was a good one. She has no religious views against premarital sex but told her kids that if they were going to engage in adult activities, then they should be prepared to face the possible adult consequences.</p>
<p>PP: Since when is carrying a baby to full term ruining one's life? It's only 9 months - actually, less than that, since usually at least a month has gone by before the woman knows for sure and has made the decision. </p>
<p>Giving a baby up for adoption is not easy, but it's a very noble thing to do, imo.</p>
<p>Pregnant women should not have to 'ruin their lives' by choosing to have their babies. Increasingly, thanks to the efforts of organizations like Feminists for Life, more and more colleges are offering accomadations for pregnant women and mothers.</p>
<p>I do agree with you, PP, that people don't really know what they'd do in any given situation until they are in that situation, so should not be so judgmental towards the decisions made by others when they really cannot relate to what the other person went thru.</p>
<p>"People are living human beings who can survive out of the mother's womb. "</p>
<p>PP, do you mean with help or without? Must they be able to survive without any assistance whatsoever to be classified as human? Did you know that some babies have been aborted that have survived? They were actually larger and better developed than many babies who were born premature and kept on life support and saved. Yes, it's true: some aborted babies were better able to survive than some preemies.</p>
<p>By your logic, no efforts should be made to save preemies because they are not human.</p>
%5B/url%5D%22>http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/medical/de.jpg)</a){kind=link}