Ennazus

I say nobody CAN change your mind, until you find yourself pregnant and unwilling/unable to continue that pregnancy--for whatever reason.

At that point, you'd be glad you have the right to make that decision for yourself and you'd change your own mind.

Suzanne

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Bad argument.

I assume you're playing the troll here, but if being forcibly impregnated by one's own father is not justification for therapeutic abortion, as opposed to being compelled by the state to bear the resulting creature, I suppose we need go no further.

And I completely agree with Suzanne. Note how several socially conservative Congresspersons became supporters of stem cell research when members of their own families contracted the diseases that such research is directed toward alleviating.

Loren Pechtel

*IF* the true pro-life side is right (I'm not saying it is!) that it's a person then it's not justification. The fetus did nothing wrong, it shouldn't get the death penalty for the actions of another.

hezekiah jones

Oh yeah, I understand that. And if you're going to assume that position, that life begins at conception (with which I happen to agree, at least individual human lives do), then certain oral contraceptives are defined as abortifacients, in that they "kill" the fertilized egg prior to its implantation in the uterine wall, or maybe after, I'm not sure.

It's a consistent stance, but it's a totalitarian morality. The scary thing is, if I'm not mistaken, it's shared by the current Attorney General of these United States.

pax_vobiscum3

Hezekiah,

A child conceived by rape is still a child. Punish the rapist not the child, nor the female.

Ladyshea,


I have talked to a few fetal surgeons and countless doctors. All I have spoken to have said there is never a need for abortion. Let me make this clear, I am not saying that from some reason (although I am currently researching this) that there may not be a need to REMOVE-> read not killed by someone...I understand that simple removal equals death , depending upon the time of removal, however, to kill by whatever other means other than simply removing and TRYING to let the child live is dispicable. I say that the technology needs to quickly catch up so that those unborns removed may have a chance at survival.

Dr. Rick,

Miscarriages occur natuarally. For lack of a better term, those who cause a miscarriage intentionally are aborting.


Pyrrho,

My reasons are as follows:
I live in the U.S. and happen to follow that special document we have , called the Declaration of Independence which says...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The U.S. Constitution: Amendment V;no person.......nor be deprived of LIFE, liberty, or property, without DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW. We all know tht the law set up arbitrary paramtaers to make it impossible for the unborn to be called persons yet a corporation is called a person...tell me the logic and or fairness in that. The unborn are seen as mere property...kind of reminds one of another group of people that were seen as property. (slaves)
I can go on and on with other documents but I will guess you get my point on this.
I believe that ALL human beings deserve the right to live and indeed have that right ,based on the above. Discrimination is bad enough but to discriminate so far as to kill a whole group is atrocious. Reminds us of another group of people. (Jews in Nazi Germany)
I have other reasons also which I will not get into at this time.

Alonzo,

I am flattered that you would compae me to your family member, however let us not assume what others may be thinking.

The Other Michael,

Forgive me but I do not understand what you meant.

Loren,

Thankyou as you raise some good points. I say that ONLY if there is a 100% chanve that EITHER the mother OR the unborn will DEF. die, or BOTH then there is no reason to REMOVE. REMOVE, NOT KILL I will say again the diff. between to kill and to remove are that one seeks to HELP the other is solely used tfor a result of Death.

Suzanne,

I disagree that no one can change anyone's mind. I also must say that one does not have to be pregnant in order to stand against what they view us wrong. I believe it is wrong to kill animals just for their fur, does that means I need to beone of those animals to realize this? I think you see what I mean.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by pax_vobiscum3
Hezekiah,

A child conceived by rape is still a child. Punish the rapist not the child, nor the female.

Sorry bub, but forcing a girl to bear her own father's child is punishment in my book, not to mention cruel and unusual punishment.

Soyin Milka

I offer a challenge to you in return:
Convince me I should trust your conscience rather than mine when making decisions involving my body and my life.

Change my mind if you can.

Soyin

Ennazus

I'm not with you on this one. Did you ever hear the one about walking a mile in someone else's shoes? Until you find yourself or someone you love in this situation, I don't think you can get it.

If we are going to compare killing animals for their fur to abortion, how about this ? If we desire, we can all choose NOT to wear fur. This will substantially reduce the number of animals killed for their hides. Simple supply and demand. If we desire fewer abortions, we can reduce the number of women dealing with that decision, correct?

We can start by offering realistic sex education to our children. Abtinence only? That's ridiculous. Teens are going to think about sex and they are going to have sex. This is normal, it is the nature of our species. If you teach them that their sexual urges are sinful, they will have sex anyway and then pray for forgiveness. But they will still have sex.

We need to arm our teens with as much information as we can, so they can make informed decisions about sexual acts and the consequences of such acts.

As for forcing rape or incest victims to continue pregnancy, that is barbaric. That may well be a worse trauma for the woman than the act which caused her pregnancy. But again, it's the woman's decision to make. Not yours or anybody else's.

Imagine if the tables were turned and we were trying to force you TO abort a pregnancy? Who would we be to tell YOU what to do with your body and your life? If you are facing the decision and believe abortion is the wrong choice for you, then don't have one. It's as simple as that. Suzanne

Loren Pechtel

I don't see it as totalitarian. *IF* personhood begins at conception it's the only reasonable course.

However, the PL's haven't gotten to square one on proving their premise. Many try to evade by simply assuming it.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by pax_vobiscum3
I have talked to a few fetal surgeons and countless doctors. All I have spoken to have said there is never a need for abortion.

Then you have been talking to some doctors that don't deserve their medical license.

Simple case: A fast-growing cancer detected early in pregnancy. Chemotherapy is absolutely contraindicated during pregnancy. Most chemotherapy agents are basically poisons that selectively attack fast-growing tissue. (That's why nausea and hair loss are common side effects--the two fastest growing tissues in an adult.) What's the fetus? Very fast growing tissue.
You're left with abortion, killing or maiming the fetus through chemotherapy or letting the woman die.

Another case which I will accept the doctor not knowing: Lassa fever/third trimester pregnancy. Her survival depends on getting the uterus cleared fast. Sure, you could attempt a C-section--but you'll have an extreme preemie with lassa fever, which is basically 100% fatal at that age anyway--and you've inflicted a surgical insult on someone fighting for their life (note that lassa fever is hemmoragic--you do not want to be causing more bleeding!) and you've risked the surgeon to a scalpel nick. (Even with treatment it still kills about 1% of victims.)

kill by whatever other means other than simply removing and TRYING to let the child live is dispicable. I say that the technology needs to quickly catch up so that those unborns removed may have a chance at survival.

It's not going to quickly catch up. What improvement we have seen has basically come down to aiding the lungs. However, there must be a certain basic functionality first.

Loren,

Thankyou as you raise some good points. I say that ONLY if there is a 100% chanve that EITHER the mother OR the unborn will DEF. die, or BOTH then there is no reason to REMOVE. REMOVE, NOT KILL I will say again the diff. between to kill and to remove are that one seeks to HELP the other is solely used tfor a result of Death.

1) It doesn't matter if it's 100% or not. Justifyable homicide merely requires a reasonable threat, not a certainty.

2) Remove isn't an option. Abortions performed after the age of viability are normally because something is seriously wrong.

I disagree that no one can change anyone's mind. I also must say that one does not have to be pregnant in order to stand against what they view us wrong. I believe it is wrong to kill animals just for their fur, does that means I need to beone of those animals to realize this? I think you see what I mean.

What about their meat? Are you a vegetarian?