<p>
[quote]
The fetus is a human life
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What basis are you making this statement on? The fetus is part of the mother, with no anatomical mechanisms for survival outside those of the mother. Before birth, the fetus is part of the mother and not a distinct individual.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How is abortion not murdering a baby...tetra
[/quote]
It's only murder once the baby is born.</p>
<p>WHATEVER CRAZY PPL</p>
<p>I have no religious beliefs to question. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
the thing with the squirrel is the fact that it is an animal. if you would like to call animals us citizens, then yes she should prosecuted for murder. but thats not likely. and if you would like to consider human offspring to be animals, which would make all of us animals, lets disregard everything, and just make the whole world one big hunting ground. cause if you think squirrels are the same as fetuses, you would definitely be up for being going around, hunting for you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I like to think of myself as more than a fetus.
A fetus is a potential human offspring, which I consider to be nothing more than an animal - i.e. I see nothing that distinguishes a fetus at the time it's in the womb from a squirrel. </p>
<p>
[quote]
not necessarily to prove that the constitution says abortion's a crime...just to show people what abortions really do. people arent educated on this topic, at least not very well. so using proganda to show that killing squirrels is a crime isnt the same as showing people what abortions really do. one is complete nonsense...the other, a complete fact about what really happens.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can use pictures of roadkill to show what wreckless driving "really does". You're using "what abortion really does" to make the point that abortion is wrong/ terrible (and should therefore not be allowed/tolerated). Do tell what makes my squirrel example any more nonsensical than your use of propaganda to show the "truth" about abortion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
a baby is worthy of rights (i never said full rights- just the right to life - thats one, singular right) for the mere fact that it is human and its never not been guaranteed rights.
[/quote]
sure...a baby is worthy of some human rights; a fetus is not.</p>
<p>once again you are comparing a human baby, fetus, whatever you all want to call it, to an animal. it is a small human...any way you look at it. what makes it different that you or i or a 1 year old baby other than the fact that its in a womb and we're not? and for the mere fact that a squirrel is not capable of human feelings or actions ever (while a fetus, and a baby, will both get there eventually) you cant count it on the same level as a human. it will never have in any of our lifetimes any characteristics that separate us from the animals. a baby/fetus will be capable of all of these in time.
i agree that you can use pictures of roadkill to show what wreckless driving does. but you said you were going to use it in order to show that killing those animals was a crime. that is nonsense - accidentally running over an animal a crime? but purposely taking a life? yea what nonsense about that?
and for all of you who say abortions are ok because the baby needs the mother to survive and it couldnt otherwise...then im guessing you are adamantly opposed to the abortion of babies 7months after conception. almost every baby taken from the womb at this time could most definitely survive. and if you're opposed to killing babies at this time, then when do you consider the limit of when its ok and not ok. if you're only argument is that they need the mother to survive, therefore they're not human, than i would really like to know when they do stop relying on their mother..cause it could survive without its mother before 9 months, or its natural birth.
and to those of you who believe its only murder once the baby has been born, what do you think of partial birth abortions. how much of the baby has to be completely out before its born? the head? an arm? even if its the whole baby, do you think you can call an abortion doctor a murderer if the abortion goes wrong, and once the baby is 'born' after being poisoned etc, its still alive and so they kill it outside of the womb? what do you think about that? oh and what if a person attacks a pregnant woman, takes the fetus, no matter how old, from the womb by cutting open the mother and its still breathing for only 3 seconds before the person kills it...it was out of the woman, born if you think being out of the womb constitutes being born, but still physically considered a fetus? if a fetus has no rights? can you prosecute that person for that baby's murder? if not...why? it was out of the body...and it was killed after being 'born'.</p>
<p>You do realize calling me stupid doesnt achieve anything, it just convinces me of your lack of reasoned, rational and logical arguments. You are letting your emotions overrule reason and it clearly shows. Sending links to propaganda websites with pictures of OMG DEAD BABYS doesnt prove your point much either. This does not prove that fetuss have rights or that they deserve them or that they should overrule mine. It proves nothing, but your ability to be suaded by emotion. So call me what you want. I dont really care. Your name-calling doesnt bother me one bit. I find it actually kind of amusing, that you cant even debate a simple topic without resorting to it.</p>
<p>Fetuses are in no way involved in the majority of abortions.</p>
<p>Whether or not the Constitution actually protects the right is irrelevant - it should. Any religious beliefs that aim to be integrated into law in a secular society need to be proved otherwise before they're made mandatory.</p>
<p>Then again, I'm female, which biases my opinion slightly but whatever. Kids are scary. Contraception - even shots - is 99% effective at best. Adoption is still bad because you've got to take maternity leave and any career I want won't be able to handle that slacking of duty.</p>
<p>Then again, I want to reiterate that embryonic development is a continuum - there's obviously no one point where you can take the baby and say, "Okay, it's human, it shouldn't be killed," not only because rate of development differs slightly in everyone, but because our definition of sentience is not final. I think that a line should be drawn somewhere in pregnancy where it's NOT okay to abort, but should that line be at one day? Hell no.</p>
<p>
[quote]
once again you are comparing a human baby, fetus, whatever you all want to call it, to an animal. it is a small human...any way you look at it. what makes it different that you or i or a 1 year old baby other than the fact that its in a womb and we're not?
[/quote]
I thought I already drew the distinction. Fetuses can't make any decisions of their own free will because the brain hasn't developed to that point. If you would like me to draw the distinction between a fetus in the womb and one that has just been born....(a) fetuses are >wholely< dependent on the mother and (b) newborn babies can learn from their surroundings (i think both of those put together cover all 9 months).</p>
<p>
[quote]
and for the mere fact that a squirrel is not capable of human feelings or actions ever (while a fetus, and a baby, will both get there eventually) you cant count it on the same level as a human. it will never have in any of our lifetimes any characteristics that separate us from the animals. a baby/fetus will be capable of all of these in time.
[/quote]
Ok, so the ONE distinction you can make between an animal and a fetus is the potential to become a full human being. This has already been mentioned, an unfertilized egg and sperm have that potential as well. But outlawing menstruation and masturbation is kind of...out of the question.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i agree that you can use pictures of roadkill to show what wreckless driving does. but you said you were going to use it in order to show that killing those animals was a crime. that is nonsense - accidentally running over an animal a crime? but purposely taking a life? yea what nonsense about that?
[/quote]
you do know that accidentally running over a >human< IS a crime, right? You're using pictures to incite emotions such that people equate abortion to murder. That's just as logical as using pictures to equate running over an animal to manslaughter. if the latter is nonsense, so is the first.</p>
<p>I care more about mother's than fetuses. That's quite self-explanatory. One is an actual life, the other a potential life. </p>
<p>Thus I see abortion as a symptom of societal problems. If we want to stop abortion instead of making it illegal we should try to solve the problems of society first. Women will always get an abortion if they feel they have to. If you want to stop abortions you need to stop women from feeling they need to have an abortion. No, not by showing them pictures of abortions, but by getting rid of the circumstances that lead them to seek abortions in the first place. I know if I wanted an abortion and it was illegal, I would still get one, doesn't matter the cost or where I'd have to go to get it. No one is going to tell me what to do with my body or its contents.</p>
<p>ok first of all, the main reason i ever put the link to the pictures was to show you scarlet that abortions do tear babies apart because you seem to be under the impression that very few abortions are done that way. you were wrong and i was just showing you that they are done that way!
morningtheft...???what? fetuses arent involved in abortion? then what is?
you cant call this a religious belief. its not tied to just one religion. i know people who are atheist who still think abortion are wrong and know catholics that think that abortion should be legal. so the religious issue should just be thrown out now cause you're singling out a single group even though its impossible to do.
fetuses also learn from their surroundings...if they didnt learn from them, they wouldnt be angry with their new surroundings when they're born - ie crying. and you said that fetuses cant make decisions...well once again i'll say neither can babies or small children...so that cant be one of your reasons. and i'll also say that some fetuses could survive - especially after 7 months...so i'll ask again that you must be opposed to third trimester abortions? and if you are why havent you said there needs to be a distinction?
silentsailor - what? the jobs you want wont allow you to adopt or have children??? so you must never plan to have children then? if your employers think its slacking on duty to have a baby you would have some messed up employers. and if you dont think their discriminating against pregnant women in that case you must be joking - its against the law to not give a pregnant woman maternity leave.
eggs and sperm dont have brains...they are basically animals....they'll never have self control...they'll never, in and by themselves become humans....and menstruation and masturbation arent going to create babies by the acts alone
yes i know running over a human is a crime. i'm not stupid. but i question that about you....i said to say that accidentally running over an animal is a crime is nonsense...and if you think that by saying that i also meant running over humans (some people believe animal = humans) you must also be up for the whole world is a hunting ground idea. we hunt animals, and if you think we're animals, why not hunt each other right? oh and for the last time, the pictures were to educate people about what abortions really do...they tear babies, fetuses, whatever, apart, limb by limb...they were there to show you they were murder....pictures cant show that....a picture of someone shot could show murder or suicide..you cant tell...but pictures can show what happens when you shoot yourself...or when you abort a baby. so the emotions i was trying to get people to think about were that abortion is more than just a simple procedure or nothing like what really happens...scarlet must have thought this when she said this procedure is rarely done. however the pictures were there to prove otherwise...not that its abortion. so mine was justified...you trying to equate running over an animal as murder however really isnt, and never will be.
you might still get one despite the cost, but what about those women who cant afford to have a child, which is why they get an abortion in the first place...what happens to them?</p>
<p>First thing. Could you please use paragraphs or indent, because its really hard to read what you are writing, it's in one big clump. </p>
<p>Second you ask what happens to the women who can't afford to have the child. They are the ones hurt most by making abortion illegal. Women with money will always find away. That is why I am so adamently pro-choice. Every woman deserves that choice, not just the ones who can afford it. </p>
<p>And btw I am against third trimester abortions, as heartless as you think I am. My criteria is viability. The baby must be able to survive as a separate entity.</p>
<p>You misunderstood me - it's not that maternity leave is not legally allowed, it's that I would never want to give up those months of my life that could be spent productively.</p>
<p>In regards to your statements concerning eggs & sperm, six-day old balls of cells lack self control as well. And in regards to the process itself - "tearing babies apart" - the exact point in the gestation period at which fetuses feel pain is still unknown, though a recent study has shown it to be at something like 29 weeks.</p>
<p>Learning from surroundings is an incorrect definition of sentience (though it undoubtedly is a requirement). Look at Pavlov and his conditioning experiments.</p>
<p>And no, pro-life ideals themselves are not religious, but the reasoning the majority of prolifers employ in making that decision is that the soul enters the body at conception - which is, to me and several others, absolute bull*****.</p>
<p>Well at least you think third trimester abortions are wrong. I dont see how anyone can approve of those, prolife or prochoice...</p>
<p>I didnt misunderstand you...I understood exactly what you said...you just didnt mean it that way, which i also understand. but whats not productive about having and raising a kid? is working the only way to spend your time productively?
yea one study said babies/fetuses feel pain at 29 weeks, another at 20 weeks, another at 8 weeks, and yet another at 7 weeks. the question is who to believe? and plus even then, its besides the point. Just because they cant feel pain, doesnt make it right. A paralyzed person might not feel pain, but that doesnt give you the right to tear off their legs. or stab them a million times... even if they never find out...its just not right.
i wasnt the one who brought up that learning from surroundings meant anything. that was LadyinRed's part b of her argument - post #90.
i'm not against abortions because i think the baby/fetus has a soul. I'm against it cause it has a life. but while we're on the subject, how do you know that the baby/fetus doesnt have a soul? does it tell you? is there a test for when it receives its soul? or does it say somewhere that you got your soul at birth? because even if you dont agree with the thought, without any proof etc, it doesnt make the idea absolute bull****.</p>
<p>Yeah, I see your point - I worded my opinion incorrectly. It's not about what's productive and what's not, it's about how I would prefer to spend my time, i.e. being a workaholic researcher who sleeps at the lab as opposed to giving any potential children the devotion necessary to ensure a good life ;)</p>
<p>A paralyzed person would know that something's happening that would cause them pain - a fetus doesn't possess the mental tools necessary to interpret those signals for a significant portion of the pregnancy.</p>
<p>I want to try to keep out of religious territory, but for example, in Hinduism, cows are held as sacred so Hindus don't eat beef. Now, since 1) we obviously can't proove that cows ARE sacred, and 2) not everyone is Hindu, it would be absurd to make eating beef illegal. It's the same kind of thing with the soul/conception idea.</p>
<p>Out of pure curiosity - what do you think of third-trimester abortions when the mother's life is in danger? This came up in a model UN conference the other day, I'm just trying to get a feel for the pro-life stance on the subject :)</p>
<p>A paralyzed person, in the far off chance of this happening, wouldnt have to know. Lets say they're sleeping, or they're paralyzed to the point where their head is completely immobile, and someone came by some way, cut off their arm, without moving any other part of them. they may not notice, but its still wrong. even if the baby/fetus, cant comprehend what exactly is happening they still can sense danger.</p>
<p>yes i agree with the holy cow comment. you cant prove it, you cant outlaw it. but while some people disagree with abortion due to religious beliefs, and others agree with it for the same reason, some (and im guessing many) people, myself included, disagree or agree with it for other reasons...non-religious. abortion would never be banned because the baby/fetus has a soul...it would be banned for other reasons. so i dont think we have to worry about the law and abortion being affected by religion, or at least the belief in a soul. If it's changed there will be more than religious motives involved.</p>
<p>as for third trimester abortions...i believe you save the mothers life, but not through a direct abortion. like if she has cancer, you give her radiation and chemo. if the baby dies as a result, it was indirect and unintentional. its unfortunate, but unlike abortions, the result wasnt ever really intended. probably likely, but not intended. you treat the mother, and hope for the best, while not intentionally taking the baby's/fetus's life</p>
<p>the constitution protects a woman's right to privacy; if you talk about the baby's right to 'life, liberty, and property' then you go into the debate over when life begins that will never go anywhere. The basis for Roe v. Wade was that people have a right to privacy (I mean, women have control over their own bodies you know; your body isn't and shouldn't be 'communal property' or 'property of the state') esp. when SCOTUS previously decided that use of contraceptives is legal. This is about reproductive rights; you have the right to decide whether to procreate - this is not Victorian England or Mussolini's Italy, where the state approached procreation as a woman's duty to her country...to have soldiers to fight, etc. and in Mussolini's case, paid women who did their duty exceptionally well, i.e. had 8+ kids. This is an intensely private right.</p>
<p>'ts unfortunate, but unlike abortions, the result wasnt ever really intended.' that is so wrong. you'd obviously KNOW if the baby would die from radiation - so how can that be unintended? The doctor would know that they're killing 'life' and thus, that would be intentional to the extent that they still do the radiation, knowing it'll kill the baby, but not abstaining from it. a more 'passive' abortion i guess.</p>
<p>but I think the only argument needed here is one that scarletleavy brought up:</p>
<p>That overturning Roe v. Wade or banning abortion via constitutional amendement will CHANGE NOTHING. Abortions will continue happening, and the situation will actually be worse than currently. </p>
<p>Excerpt from paper I wrote that covers my position on this issue:</p>
<p>My position may be deemed narrow, because it avoids the core issue of when life begins and opts instead for a practical viewpoint that government can never stop abortions. Hypothetically, if the newly minted conservative Roberts Court overturns Roe v. Wade or we pass a human life amendment to the Constitution, (RPP, 2004) what would come of it? The US would revert to the pre-Roe v. Wade era, when abortions were also unacceptable, both legally and socially. </p>
<p>But that does not mean that abortions did not happen. Historians estimate that since abortion was made illegal in the mid-1800s, to the ruling in Roe, at least 500,000 women a year had an illegal abortion in the United States whether in a safe, sterilized room, or in a back alley, without anesthetic. Many women had complications and were admitted to the emergency room each day, bleeding, infected, hemorrhaging dying. Women used coat hangers, scissors, the wire in plastic flowers whatever they could find that was sharp and long. Sometimes the abortionist was an actual physician; sometimes it was the womans mother. Frame these images with the fact that rich women could go to the sanitized clinics of trained physicians overseas and get abortions or pay their way into therapeutic abortions in America but the poor and the young were stuck either getting a back alley abortion in the US or in Mexico . Poor women had to take what they could get including mistreatment, complications from surgery, or even death. </p>
<p>This point is emphasized by the current situation in Latin America, where abortion is nearly illegal everywhere. Yet, according to the World Health Organization, at least four million women a year have an illegal abortion in Latin America. In October 2003, an international conference was held specifically on the issue of illegal abortions, and the subsequent death and/or suffering of the woman. Maria Consuelo Mejilla, the chairwoman of the conference, said, "[Abortion] is the first to the third cause of maternal death in different countries in Latin America . It is affecting mostly poor women . Unsafe and illegal abortion in Latin America is a social justice problem. Women who have no resources die." Poverty and inadequate access to contraception and reproductive health advice, were cited as reasons for the high illegal abortion rate.</p>
<p>Thus, it is empirically proven that women after the overturning of Roe would still get abortions and would risk death in the process. They would, again, be forced into back-alleys or Mexico, to attempt the abortion with plastic flowers or coat hangers. Overturning Roe does not solve the problem of murder, if indeed abortion is murder. Making abortion illegal is ineffective, amplifies classism, and unacceptable at the point that it simply causes more death and suffering.
It is infinitely preferable to keep abortion legal, so that all abortions may be performed in sanitary facilities, by trained doctors, and under government regulation. It is infinitely preferable to preserve the life of the woman, especially when the government cannot feasibly preserve the life of the child . Furthermore, if indeed the embryo or fetus is alive and can feel pain, and though, in the end, the baby will die if the woman is persistent (as many are), it is infinitely preferable to avoid unnecessary pain inflicted on a baby through a slow death because of poor technique in performing the abortion. Moreover, we should not oppose clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for contraception and abortion, (RPP, 2004) because government must not interfere with the physicians duty to refer a woman to get an abortion if it is necessary to save her life. Furthermore, the clinics that provide abortion counseling also provide essential family planning services that are particularly critical to the poor, for whom inadequate access to contraception and reproductive health advice is key to reducing the number of abortions. Additionally, these clinics, like Planned Parenthood, are crucial to making abortion accessible to all women who need it (and are determined to have it, one way or another), and many times are the only option for women who are poor. </p>
<p>I firmly believe that regardless of the religious issues involved, simply making abortions illegal does not stop them from happening. In fact, keeping abortions legal improves the situation by moving women from the dark back alleys into safe, sanitized physicians clinics where government regulations can apply (which distinguishes the situation from making murder legal; legalizing murder does not improve the circumstances of crime or its regulation). If religious pro-life groups key objection is to the murder of the unborn child, and not the morality involved in taking that life, then the best way to carry out their objective of preserving life is to legalize abortion, to at least preserve the life of the mother. Therefore, it is clear that the only viable chance that we have to stop abortions is to preserve Roe v. Wade, to promote family planning and adoption incentives, (DPP, 2004) and to teach birth control as well as abstinence.</p>
<p>Abstinence! that is definently the answer. but if everyone believed in abstinence and natural family planning, this wouldnt be an issue. people dont though, and it is...</p>
<p>if teaching abstinence was the best option, i'd be right there next to you. it is the obvious solution after all....no sex, no pregnancy, no baby/fetus...of course thats the ideal. in american society today, in world society actually, sex is also seen as a right...privacy, right to your own body, etc...abstinence may be the answer, but few if no one will listen and you know this just as well as i do. </p>
<p>this isnt necessarily a matter of what might or will happen. murder is also illegal, but it still happens. the fact is, however, if murder was legal, and people knew there would be no repercussions, what would stop people from killing anyone...you, me, the president, your parents... maybe if women knew the seriousness and danger of a backalley abortion, they wouldnt find themselves so desperate to rid themselves of their baby anymore. maybe it'd make them reconsider, just like people reconsider murder. </p>
<p>nothing will ever be unanimous...abortions are legal now, but back alley abortions still happen. if abortions were illegal, abortions would still happen, just like they are when its legal. it doesnt make the act of it right... or just because women are harmed for getting pregnant, doesnt mean i have to agree with them killing their babies. the fact is, that the constitution really doesnt ever say we have the right to have abortions. but it does say murder is against the law. and unless you can absolutely positively prove that abortion isnt murder, you'd have a hard time passing an amendment that allows for it.</p>
<p>no one will ever be completely happy, you will never get me to agree with you, and im sure the same could be said for you...but sometimes you've got to fight for and stick with what you believe in...even if others might think it'd cause too much trouble if what you believe is right ever came true.</p>
<p>oh and no, the result wasnt necessarily intended. it might've been known as a danger or a result, but you were treating a condition, a complication (pregnancy isnt a complication...). the baby/fetus died....sh** happens...abortions dont have to.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but if everyone believed in abstinence and natural family planning,
[/quote]
Natural family planning doesn't work. I'm the result of a 21 year old trying it.</p>