Abortion

[Outspoken]

Correct.

It's not the most responsible thing to do to kill the fetus. Even as a pro-choice person who's had abortions I can say that having the child would be the most responsible reaction - however, not everyone is capable of that type of responsibility (for instance I was only an adolescent (barely) when I had my first abortion and was totally unable to have and care for a child, especially after being forced into the act which created that child) so... taking responsibility for your choice to abort is the next step downwards from that I guess.

I would still say abortion is taking responsiblity as much as sucide is. They are both similar logically. if you were a teen then you put it up for adoption. You wanted a quick fix because you got caught in a situation in which the consequences you couldn't handle. Now, I have no idea what that situation was, but the outcome of that situation I can say is not correct in terms of christianity. The same logic (you couldn't hand or care of the child) is the same reason a bum can use for commiting suicide.

 

[gladiatrix]

Gladiatrix....ummm....nice rhetoric....incubator...slave....

LOL! Rhetoric?? BZZZZTT! CRrraccck! Well, pardon me while I go clean up the shattered remains of yet another irony meter... In the mean time if one wants to see some really inflammatory, violent rhetoric let's examine your side:

• When was the last time a pro-choice person videotaped a person entering a clinic, tracked them down by invading their privacy when they got someone to ILLEGALLY give them an address using a car license-plate number, THEN send his/her employer the tape with a note saying "Do you know that your employee is a baby-butcher?"
• When was the last time a pro-choicer stalked the children of a clinic employee/doctor to their school, cornered the children and said to them "Do you know that your parents are God-cursed sodomite baby-butchers doomed to burn in Hell? and/or told their classmates that "Do you know that Joe/Jane's mom/dad helps rip up babies..what is that baby was you!!?
• How many pro-choice sites are there that publish the names, addresses, and personal information about clinic doctors/personnel and calls them "bloody baby-butchers that deserve death". Then gleefully and maliciously gloat when one of the people whose info they published is harmed or killed?
  
  The Newer, Kinder, Gentler Nuremburg Files (a real joke if Horsley things this one is any different from the old "Nuremburg Files"!)
  
  After 9/11,What Can Abortion Protestors Get away with?
  
  Read about another stalwart against the "evils" of abortion sodomy, birth regulation from another hero of anti-choice, Fr. Trosch (doctor murderers are heros don't you know!)
  
  
• I guess it's okay for your lot to put the photos of women who go to abortion clinics up on the Internet (usually acompanied by their home addresses, again garnered from doing car license-plates checks or even scarier...following them home).
• And what about the "Christmas card" campaign where a bunch of anti-choicers put the photo/address of an abortion provider on "Christmas cards" and mailed them to all his neighbors ("hey watch out for you neighbor, the baby-butcher" genera type attack)

  From Christmas card carries unusual message to Barrington residents
  BARRINGTON -- The 200 neighbors who live in the abortionist Dr. Vinod Goyal's neighborhood will be receiving at least one unusual Christmas card this year.
  
  Following a quote from the Christmas story in Matthew 1:18-19, the card's text says:
  
  Your neighbor, Dr. Vinod Goyal, 777 Thompsons Way, is an abortionist. If Mary & Joseph were pro-choice, they could have visited him to terminate the life of the Prince of Peace.
  Please join with us this Christmas to pray that the Holy Spirit changes Dr. Goyal's heart so that the uses his God given talent to save babies instead of aborting them.
  
  For over a year, a band of pro-life activists have faithfully protested in front of Goyal's home for an hour each third Saturday of the month, rain or shine.
  
  Another band of protesters stand outside Goyal's Aanchor Medical Clinic, 1186 Roosevelt Road in Glen Ellyn, several times every week.

You will just have to forgive me if I find your harrumping over my "rhetoric" (nothing by comparison) to be hypocritical.

you call those who believe in life "anti-choicers"....how's that, exactly?

Anti-choice means just that...against women having any choice:

• when it comes to deciding whether or not they will give birth
• when it comes to deciding if they will get pregnant at all, ever (all sexually active women MUST submit to the tyranny of forced parenthood to "pay" for having sex, married or otherwise) In short, if women have sex they NO CHOICE but to pay a "sin tax" in the form of involuntary parenthood and should have NO options (except those doomed to fail like NFP or be forced into celibacy...YUK!) when it comes to avoiding it.

Proponents of abortion give innocent children no voice and no choice,

But that is just the point, you have yet to prove that a embryo/fetus below the age of viability IS a "child" (person with rights and deserving the protection of the law). Don't think for an instant that I am going to let you just sneak in that sort of unproven equivocation (conceptus/zygote/embryo/ fetus at every stage automatically rates the definition of human being or person). Where is your evidence that a "child" is being destroyed (you claim it, you prove it).

yet you attempt to champion such people as humanists with the mother's best interest at heart.

I can and will champion them because there is one thing that I am certain of and that is that anti-choicers real aim is to punish her with involuntary parenthood for having sex that they don't approve of. The fetus is only a means to achieve that end, i.e., punish her physically, emotionally, mentally and probably financially for daring to have sex just for the pleasure of it and/or without having some official intoning an "authorizing" ritual beforehand.

When this mother is taking no responsiblity for her actions, where does the interest of the child come in??

I find it most arrogant when anti-choicers just presume that only women who choose to have the baby are being "responsible" and that other women should be forced to be adhere to their notion of "responsibility". When queried as to why all women should be forced to adhere to the anti-choicer definition of "responsiblity", the real reason for the enforced pregnancy becomes clear==>a woman must SUFFER (euphemistically referred to as"not be allowed to escape the consequences") for having sex (sex NOT approved of by anti-choicers that is). Here's an example of this from this very thread...

Yet, because she's having some "fun" she has an abortion. Is it fair to the child that was conceived by this woman to be murdered just because of her promiscuous choices? Shouldn't this young lady be prosecuted? But it's ok, because it's all in good "clean fun".

@wisdom67
You really want to "punish" this woman with involuntary parenthood to make her pay for that "fun", don't you, Wisdom67... I notice that as with many men, you vilifiy the woman as if she were alone in the "fun" (boys will be boys, but women must PAY! the huzzies!). But then since your body won't ever be at risk it's sooo easy to be sooo righteous when you're soooo SAFE. (Pro-life!? what a joke! the only "pro" here is "pro-punishment"!) Thank you, wisdom67 for proving my point....

If pregnancy is not a punishment for having "unauthorized" sex (sex for pleasure only, in or out of marriage), then why is a woman who opts for an abortion or uses EFFECTIVE birth control said to be "avoiding the consequences. "

What are the"consequences" she seeks to avoid:

• having an unwant child who she can't love and/or support.
• having her body ravaged by that unwanted pregnancy. Pregnancy does not benefit the woman physically and carries with considerable risk of death or disability. Childbirth and debility from repeated, uncontrolled childbearing used to be leading cause of death for women before the turn of the 20th century when men outlived women (49 year vs 46 years on average). The reason women now outlive men is that they don't have to their bodies destroyed by repeated, uncontrolled childbearing.
• having her life disrupted financially and emotionally
• avoiding damage to her reputation (the double-standard is alive and well..."boys will be boys", but sexually-active women are still thought of as wh0res).

BOTTOM-LINE:

a. The pregnancy is a declaration that the woman had "unauthorized" sex and is "evidence" that she should be "ashamed" of herself.

b. She must be made to bear this mark of "shame" (the pregnancy) so that others can see the "consequences" of having "bad" sex, i.e., a baby she doesn't want

• that may destroy her reputation,
• consume her financially
• abuse her emotionally and mentally
• may even disable or kill her

c. Looks like pregnancy = "consequences" aka punishment ("sin-tax" on "doing the nasty") to me. The pregnancy is merely a means to achieve that end and reduces the woman to the level of an slave/incubator

The fact that anti-choicer "responsibility" really means "punishment" is underscored by the FACT that the vast majority of anti-choicers are also against effective birth control (making it readily accessible along with the needed information about all options), voluntary sterilization or masturbation. Such techniques which would prevent the need for the vast majority of abortions in the first place. One has to ask just why people would be AGAINST the best methods for preventing the need for an abortion?? Humans are sexual beings who aren't going to abstain from sex just to suit anti-choicer morality. IMO, this opposition to both birth control and abortion really uncovers the driving motivation for the anti-choice movement which has little to do with concern for babies and is far more concerned with controlling the sex-lives of others, especially women (it's a patriarchal "thing"). In short, the "baby" is just a means to an end and that end is the punishment of the woman for having "unauthorized" sex (it's a control issue, not a "life" issue).

There is another reason for keeping abortion legal and that is that the most effective methods fail a small percentage of the time. Even abstinence can fail (you do realize that there are people out there who not only wouldn't take NO for an answer, but wouldn't bother to ask?). There is just no such thing as a method that works 100% of the time. For that reason, abortion should remain as one possible option for resolving the above failures, IF a woman so chooses. Choosing to have an abortion is the solution for some women. This is their version of being responsible.

Is personhood separate from being human? You seem to say it is, yet that makes no logical sense.
Can you please justify the distinction between a human being and a person?

Actually I said no such thing.

How can you qualify and categorize personhood?

Since this is a thread about abortion, I confine my answer to when I think a fetus becomes a person. I have answered that question in the following post:

Post #127--The Personhood Argument

Can we really draw an arbitrary line and say "on this side are all human beings who are people with value

I NEVER said that human beings were persons with value, that is a strawman that you are flogging. A person can acquire "value" (represents an investment in time, resources, emotional involvement of others, etc.), but "value" is NOT a requirement for designating someone as a person/human being. In this case all that I would require is that a fetus be developed enough to be sentient (the appearance of cortical brain-waves or "brain-birth", occurring at 22-24 weeks) and have the most minimal organ development compatible with life outside the womb (23 weeks, no preemie has survived that is younger, and only 2% of these do with the most intensive life-support)==>No added "value" required

 

[BobKat]

O.K. folks,
My two cents again...I wish that there was no need for abortion. I wish that there were no teenagers experimenting with sex on a saturday night. I wish that there wasn't rape or incest. I wish that all sexually active people would use birth control if they did not want a child.
However...seeing as how I hate seeing kids slapped around in Walmart by their frustrated mothers, and I hate to see a rape victim carry a child that will forever remind her of her attacker, and I don't believe that anyone has the right to tell anyone else what they should do...Abortion is necessary. And some of you guys could help by keeping your pants zipped, incidentally.
BobKat

 

[MATRILEB]

O.K. folks,
My two cents again...I wish that there was no need for abortion. I wish that there were no teenagers experimenting with sex on a saturday night. I wish that there wasn't rape or incest. I wish that all sexually active people would use birth control if they did not want a child.
However...seeing as how I hate seeing kids slapped around in Walmart by their frustrated mothers, and I hate to see a rape victim carry a child that will forever remind her of her attacker, and I don't believe that anyone has the right to tell anyone else what they should do...Abortion is necessary. And some of you guys could help by keeping your pants zipped, incidentally.
BobKat

Your view is flawed. The right to life, which is inherent in all persons, supersedes all other rights, even the mother's right to her own body and her right to personal convenience; both rights are ultimately mere derivations of the right to life and thus cannot be in conflict with it. The unborn child's right to life takes precedence over the mother's rights, thence removing the mother's right to choose.

It is only when the unborn child presents an imminent danger to the mother's right to life that a genuine conflict of rights occurs. Such incidents are relatively rare. Most abortions are done for convenience, or as a means to avoid personal responsibility. In such instances, abortion is clearly an act of murder and stains whomever participates in it.

All that being said, when a zygote/embryo/fetus actually becomes a person is a mystery. I personally believe that it is at the moment of conception because I believe a substance can only be animated after it's been imbued with the "lifeforce" (for lack of a better word -- think "breathed into by God").

I'm sure many of you will disagree. However, it is a reasonable assertion that because the human brain is the foundation of personhood, the presence of a living brain is sufficient to deem a fetus a person, entitled to have its right to life be recognized (and protected!) by us. A fetus has a brain by the end of the first trimester for sure, thus I would outlaw abortion from being allowed beyond the first trimester.

I suspect some will respond with counterarguments, and I will address those I predict will show up now:

1) Outlawing abortion will result in all sorts of horrors/will destroy the lives of girls/will destroy families/will contribute to the overpopulation problem, etc.

This type of argument is logically fallacious. It is called an appeal to consequences of a belief. The potentially negative consequences of a belief do not serve to refute the veracity of it.

2) Outlawing abortion is merely an attempt to subjugate women by restricting what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

No, outlawing abortion is merely an attempt to protect the life of an innocoent person. The right of a woman to her own body and personal convenience is inconsequential in relation to the right of life of the child developing within her.

3) There's no evidence to support that a fetus is ever a person until after it's born, so abortion should be allowed.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, and I think most of us would agree that caution is a much wiser course of action than brashness.

Discuss and flame away!

 

[jazzbird]

Gladiatrix, first of all, you are equating the horrible hateful words and actions of a small group of "anti-choicers" to all of us. Let me tell you that I find those people despicable. Please do not associate me with them. I am pro-life for the very simple fact that abortion is murder. My concern is that something needs to be done - something moral and ethical - not shaming women or killing abortion doctors or bombing clinics or whatever else you suggest we all want to do to those horrible and sinful abortion people. This is a rampant problem in our society. You must agree with that. Simply because you are pro-choice I don't assume that you think abortion is the greatest thing since sliced bread and think everyone should have one. I don't believe that your intentions are bad, so please do not imply that you know me and my motivations and as I don't call you "anti-life," and imply that you rejoice in baby killing, I'd appreciate it if you do not label me as "anti-choice." But whatever.....

But that is just the point, you have yet to prove that a embryo/fetus below the age of viability IS a "child" (person with rights and deserving the protection of the law). Don't think for an instant that I am going to let you just sneak in that sort of unproven equivocation (conceptus/zygote/embryo/ fetus at every stage automatically rates the definition of human being or person). Where is your evidence that a "child" is being destroyed (you claim it, you prove it).

Don't believe that you don't have to prove to me that it is not a person. I believe the burden of proof is actually on you, though I will present evidence. I began posting on the other abortion thread yesterday, if you care to read what has been said. I know you were posting there previously. I will address this in my next post, as I believe this one will get too long.

I can and will champion them because there is one thing that I am certain of and that is that anti-choicers real aim is to punish her with involuntary parenthood for having sex that they don't approve of. The fetus is only a means to achieve that end, i.e., punish her physically, emotionally, mentally and probably financially for daring to have sex just for the pleasure of it and/or without having some official intoning an "authorizing" ritual beforehand.

This is a false accusation. The only issue here is the child. I do not desire to punish anyone. It could just as easily have been me who was faced with unwanted pregnancy. The fact is that pregnancy can be the outcome of sex, and that's just fact. Everyone knows this before they engage in it, just as they know they may contract an STD. There is a certain amount of risk. Using abortion as birth control is a quick fix to a problem that one doesn't want to be in. It's as simple as that.

a woman must SUFFER (euphemistically referred to as"not be allowed to escape the consequences") for having sex (sex NOT approved of by anti-choicers that is).

Again, the crux of the matter is a human life. Period. I am not out to punish anyone. That's not my job or my desire. I am not pro-life because I believe I am better than anyone else, or because I want to feel that I'm better than anyone else. I'm not, and I know that.

If pregnancy is not a punishment for having "unauthorized" sex (sex for pleasure only, in or out of marriage), then why is a woman who opts for an abortion or uses EFFECTIVE birth control said to be "avoiding the consequences. "

What do you mean by effective birth control? I am all for birth control that prevents pregnancy. I certainly don't believe that we should all be mothering 12 children. I am on birth control. So what? I want children, but not yet. I'm not avoiding anything. If I were to become pregnant even though it's not in our plan right now, fine. We change our plan.

Your "bottom line" is quite flimsy. You need to change your tactics and stop arguing from this point of view that all "anti-choicers" want to do is punish and shame women. It just doesn't fly. I'm sure there are some people like that, but they are the minority, and I am ashamed that they are as they are, and that I have to be associated with them. The fact is that you are avoiding the true issue here.

I will address the issue of humanness and personhood in my next post. I do appreciate that you are researched and (for the most part ) organized and intelligent in your presentation. I just think you're wrong. (I dont' mean that snidely).

 

[Kira Faye]

Something that migth help is more support for people in that predicament. you would be more lickly to keep the child or put it up for adoption if u have the support needed. I'm starting to see more schools available for young woman where they can get an education and be pregnant.

Its such a dirty subject and I think thats one of the problems, it being a taboo subject. I don't know how to stop it, but u migth be able to see where I am comming from.

Also I agree that there should be a smaller trimester limit, there is a big difference between a zygote and what looks like a child.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

I would still say abortion is taking responsiblity as much as sucide is. They are both similar logically. if you were a teen then you put it up for adoption. You wanted a quick fix because you got caught in a situation in which the consequences you couldn't handle. Now, I have no idea what that situation was, but the outcome of that situation I can say is not correct in terms of christianity. The same logic (you couldn't hand or care of the child) is the same reason a bum can use for commiting suicide.

First off your opinion about my personal example is unwanted and will be ignored. Secondly, suicide is something the person committing the act will not be around for the consequences of. Abortion is rather different in that the person who committed the act is still alive and dealing with the reprecussions long after the action. So your anlalogy is flawed deeply. Thirdly, some teens don't get to decide between abortion and adoption - their parents make that decision for them.

You wanted a quick fix because you got caught in a situation in which the consequences you couldn't handle.

How dare you presume to know anything about my circumstances. I got raped by a fricking relative! I was 12, almost 13. I got "caught" in a situation sure, but I didn't put myself there. Where was your God who protects children when I was being raped? Where was your righteous all holy God?!?! He wanted me to save the life of my unborn child to give it up to some foster home and never see it again after what I went through? He wanted me to possibly never be able to have children again in my lifetime because of what a pregnacy brought to term that young would have done to my uterous? I don't think so and I'm sorry that you seem to. Good day.

 

[Outspoken]

First off your opinion about my personal example is unwanted and will be ignored. Secondly, suicide is something the person committing the act will not be around for the consequences of. Abortion is rather different in that the person who committed the act is still alive and dealing with the reprecussions long after the action. So your anlalogy is flawed deeply. Thirdly, some teens don't get to decide between abortion and adoption - their parents make that decision for them.


How dare you presume to know anything about my circumstances. I got raped by a fricking relative! I was 12, almost 13. I got "caught" in a situation sure, but I didn't put myself there. Where was your God who protects children when I was being raped? Where was your righteous all holy God?!?! He wanted me to save the life of my unborn child to give it up to some foster home and never see it again after what I went through? He wanted me to possibly never be able to have children again in my lifetime because of what a pregnacy brought to term that young would have done to my uterous? I don't think so and I'm sorry that you seem to. Good day.

" So your anlalogy is flawed deeply"

No, there are instances of assisted suicide. They just do not happen in younger people because they can do it themselves. the analogy is quite approprate.

"Where was your God who protects children when I was being raped? "

Blaming God for someone's actions is not an approprate action. He allows that to happen, for to cut that off would also be to cut off you helping others, or you loving your mother, etc.

"He wanted me to save the life of my unborn child to give it up to some foster home and never see it again after what I went through? "

Yes. I offer my condolences for what happened to you, I have a very close person that went through the same thing, though without the pregnecy. As for the life of the child, yes he wanted you to keep that child alive.He/she might have been the person that changed your life for the better.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

I remember now why I once uttered the words 'Christianity is a religion for the heartless 'holy-er than thou' elitists who want to believe they are the only good people following the only good way'

 

[Outspoken]

I remember now why I once uttered the words 'Christianity is a religion for the heartless 'holy-er than thou' elitists who want to believe they are the only good people following the only good way'

*edited because she edited out her flame *.

Again I appologize, I understand this is a very personal matter to you, but if you enter into a discussion you have to keep your emotions in check.

Its hard to hear, but I'm going to say it, God does not like abortion, because it murders another human. I'm sorry if you don't want to hear that.

Oh, as for the holier then thou..I'm not, I'm a sinner just like you, I never once said I was better then you, that's just a defence mechanism most people use when they feel convicted about something. Again, I am in no way "holy-er then thou".

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Yes I edited out my flame, because I decided one poster is not worth losing all the friends I have here, no matter how angry I am about what they've said.

I appreciate your involvement in this discussion, and I'm sorry I flamed you - but you do come off as heartless, and so does your God. I'm glad I don't have to deal with that face of Deity...

 

[jazzbird]

Mylinkay, I am so sorry for all that you have had to go through in your life. Reading your last couple posts made me want to cry. I am sorry for your pain and for the things you should have never had to experience.

Though I am opposed to abortion, I hope you do not feel that I am opposed to you as a human being- that I think you are in any way a bad person for decisions you have had to make in your life - or that I do not care about what you have experienced.

My saying this may not help, and it may even anger you, but God really does love you, and he hurts with you. He knows your pain. He didn't cause these things to happen to you. He is there to heal you if you will let Him.

 

[jazzbird]

The more scientifically sophisticated anti-choicers will point out that the conceptus has the DNA "blue-print" (46 chromosomes) for a human being, therefore, it IS a human being at that point. But does this argument really work? No, because the logical outcome of this argument would extend the definition of "human being" to ANY cell with 46 chromosomes. That would mean that when a surgeon chucks an appendix in the trash after an appendectomy he would be guilty of mass murder.

The problem with your arguement here is that the 46 chromosomes of the fetus is new and unique. So, I have cells in my body with 46 chromosomes, so what? Don't you find your illustration of the appendix just a bit hyperbolic, and yes, even silly. We all know very well that your appendix is what it is: an appendix - one part of your body which is made to function in a specific way. It does not become something other than what it is: an appendix. It never can become a new and unique human being on it's own. So you argue that it can be used to clone a human being. So, what if it can? It isn't a human being. It's raw material. A fetus is already living and in the process of becoming a fully developed human being - your appendix is not. It doesn't matter if your appendix has the potential to be used to make a clone of yourself - who cares. I'm concerned with those beings which are already created.

The real question is not is a conception/zygote/embryo/fetus "alive" and "human'", but when is it a human being. or a "person"

You cannot seperate humanness from personhood. They are synonymous. A being is what it is and it does not change into another type of being. Beings create the same kind of being. Therefore, human beings create other human beings.

It is a genetic fact that a fertilized human ovum is 100 percent human. From the very moment of fertilization, all genetic information contained in the genetic code is present at conception. The sex of the individual child is determined at the moment of conception as well....From the moment of conception until death, no new genetic information is added. All that is added between conception and death is food, water and oxygen.

- Norman Geisler

This is the same baby we are caring for before and after birth, who before birth can be ill and need diagnosis and treatment just like any other patient.

- Dr. A. Liley (father of modern fetology)

So if it is the same baby inside the womb as outside the womb, it is a human being inside the womb as it is outside.

Do you deny that a woman who gives birth in a toilet and then throws her baby in the trash is guilty of killing that child? The only difference between that and abortion (besides the obvious legal difference) is that the baby is in a different stage of development. It is not more or less human, but only less developed and less able to live independantly.

You admit that life begins at conception because you cannot deny that whatever it is inside the woman is indeed alive, so the only arguement you have left is that of personhood. So you argue that one does not become a person until some certain point. What precisely is that magical point when a being that is made from other humans becomes a human being and a person, instead of a mere, though living, blob of tissue that you call human but not a human being? If life begins at conception, how can anyone arbitrarily decide when it is a human being?

Let's go back in time before the 23rd week, back to the beginning. The vast majority of conceptions (~65%) DO NOT result in a successful pregnancy. (NOTE: A pregnancy is defined as the successful implantation of a zygote in the endometrium or uterine lining---it takes 3 to 7 days after fertilization for the dividing egg to reach the uterus). They are simply washed out as part of the endometrial detritus when a woman has her period (many women have conceived, but the zygote never manages to establish itself in the endometrium).
If the zygote manages to establish itself, the lucky resident (the embryo) is still not out of the woods because 30-40% of these 1st trimester pregnancies are spontaneously ABORTED (70% show gross chromosomal abnormalities incompatible with life). The bottom-line is that +65% of all conceptions fail (a conception does not a successful pregnancy make!)

This is a non-issue. It's not a legitimate arguement for abortion because you are making no distinction between spontaneous death and murder. The woman is not morally responsible for spontaneous death, but she is responsible for making a decision against a fetus that is successfully developing. We don't have any moral duty to interfere with natural death, but we do have a responsibility to protect developing life.


I was wondering, Gladiatrix, to what extent you support abortion? Is there a certain timeline or do you believe a woman should be able to have one at any time during her pregnancy? Just wondering...

 

[Bob Moore]

A society that claims the 'right' to murder the most helpless of its members is a society to be pitied.

 

[Outspoken]

Yes I edited out my flame, because I decided one poster is not worth losing all the friends I have here, no matter how angry I am about what they've said.

I appreciate your involvement in this discussion, and I'm sorry I flamed you - but you do come off as heartless, and so does your God. I'm glad I don't have to deal with that face of Deity...

Yup, on this board I am very blunt with the truth and scripture. I pull no punches about what the bible says. Don't worry about loosing your emotions, all discussions when it has some personal event involved that can happen. As for your last sattement I'm not heartless, but I have seen people very close to me go through something similar. When it comes to sin, God is quite straight forward about it. Situations like the one you described to me is that the harder way out was the one to allow the child to live. That is why I said it was a quick fix, and yes, even quick fixes can have far reaching consequences.

 

[jazzbird]

THE QUESTION OF "PERSONHOOD"

If the end of an individual's life is measured by the ending of his/her brain function ( brain-death as measured by brain waves on the EEG), would it not be logical to at least agree that a "person's" life begins with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument ("brain-birth")? Anti-choicers like to fling about the MYTH that brain-waves appear as early as 40 days. However, the most recent finding show that intermittent brain-waves, don't appear until the 22-24th week, when they begin to activate auditory and visual systems. The brain nor the neural network connecting the brain to the rest of the body aren't complete until shortly after this time. Brain-waves resembling those of a new-born baby don't appear until the 26th week. Please see Anand and Hickey, New England Journal of Medicine, 11/19/87, pg 1322. for more details on brain development.

Brain waves do not equal life. They are one indicator, but that is all. Brain waves fluctuate throughout our life, but our personhood doesn't. A fetus exhibits many behaviors that are human in nature - one who is dead does not. Once one is dead, he cannot become un-dead. It is a final thing. The same cannot be said for one who is alive an growing.

Let's look at the extent of development that takes place before the 20th week (the time during which abortion is supposedly no big deal):

2 Weeks

-The embryo grows his or her first brain cells.

3 Weeks

-The embryo's heart is beating, though it has only one chamber.
-The embryo has a separate brain and spine.
-The placenta is forming.


4 Weeks

-Circulation to and from the placenta begins.
-The embryo has hands with ridges that will grow into fingers, and two-segmented arms.
-The embryo has feet, thighs, and calves.
-Internal organs are growing. The tongue, esophagus and stomach are well developed, as are the kidneys.
-The embryo's liver, gall bladder, and pancreas have been developing for several days.
-Lungs begin to develop.
-He or she has eyes, including a retina that already has color, as well as ears, a nose, and mouth.
-Reproductive organs are beginning to form.

5 Weeks

-The brain divides into more specialized segments.
-The embryo has a palate completely with tiny tooth buds.
-His or her face is nearly finished forming and looks reasonably human, though lacking the muscles needed for facial expressions like smiling or frowning.
-The embryo begins to move. These early movements are important to the development of healthy muscles.

6 Weeks
-Dr. Harley Smyth, a neurologist, testified before the Canadian Supreme Court that "at 6 weeks there is the possibility of recording electrical activity from the nervous system already so highly organized that it can subserve . . . purposeful and even co-ordinated movements."
-The embryo's face and lips are sensitive to touch.
-The embryo has distinct fingers.

7 Weeks
-All the embryo's organs and organ systems have been developed, though they are still immature and need time to finish growing. Several organ systems, including the circulatory system (heart) and nervous system (brain) are already functioning.

8 Weeks

-Eyelids begin to form.

9 to 10 Weeks

-The fetus touches his or her own face and sucks his or her thumb, and makes breathing and swallowing motions.
-The palms of the fetus's hands and the soles of his or her feet are sensitive to touch.
-The sense of smell begins to develop.
-The fetus urinates and experiences hiccups.
-He or she is moving almost constantly, and can step, kick, somersault, stretch, and move his or her arms.

11 to 13 Weeks

-The fetus's bone marrow begins to produce white blood cells.
-The fetus's external reproductive organs are visibly male or female.
-The inner parts of the ear are formed, and the fetus may be able to hear.
-The bones undergo "ossification" -- they become hard, like an adults bones, whereas they had previously been soft.
-The sense of taste develops.
-The fetus's face continues to mature, and by the end of the 3rd month, each baby has unique, individual facial features.

14 Weeks

-It can be scientifically demonstrated that the fetus hears and reacts to sound.
-Fetuses display individual personality. When a needle for amniocentesis (a method of prenatal testing for genetic anomalies) is introduced into the uterus, the fetus will react. Different fetuses react differently to this experience. Some kick or punch at the needle, some grab it, some shy away.
-The fetus can experience pleasure and happiness or displeasure and fear. Fetuses at this age are also startled, and their heart rates increased, by loud unpleasant noises.


15 to 16 Weeks

-The fetus's entire torso is sensitive to touch.
-The fetus has fingerprints.

http://www.abortiontv.com/HowUnbornBabiesGrow.htm

At two and a half months of development, this little being has emotions and a personality - not to mention all the physical development that has already taken place - and yet it is not a human being?

THE DILEMMA OF THE MICROPREEMIE

Now consider this fact.. No micropreemie under 23 weeks has ever survived for more than a few hours. Many of them that small (23 weeks), even if they live (2% survival at 23 weeks), have severe neurodevelopmental defects (30% of surviving 23 week preemies) because they weren't sufficiently developed to respond well to life-support. This is primarily due to the fact that the fetal lungs are so immature. There is no technology on the horizon that can improve the prospect of survival because of this limitation. Given these developmental facts, it would seem logical to assume that a "person" is not there until after the 22nd week. (Remember that 50% of abortions occur before the 7th week and 90% have occurred by the 12th week, there is no brain to speak of at this time).

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. The fact is there are cases where the pre-mature baby does survive outside the womb at five months - the youngest that I'm aware of is actually 19 weeks - which means that it is a human being within the womb at this time as well. Most don't survive, just as most newborns placed outside in the cold with no care won't survive. They need the proper environment and nurturing in order to properly develop and live. This has nothing to do with whether or not they are a person, but only whether they are receiving the type of nurturing that is vital at this time in their life.

(Also, they do indeed have a brain at 12 weeks).

 

[Bob Moore]

Now, now, Jazzbird, don't go confusing people with the facts.

 

[transientlife]

I am pro choice because I believe in personal responsibility. If a woman chooses to abort she will live with that, good or bad. She is the only one who knows how a pregnancy will effect her life and her emotional state. Of course this is just my opinion based on my own life experiences. Others will no doubt have different views but I will not debate abortion.

I could not agree more, Flicka. In most cases I would suppose that abortion is not something done casually. I would think most women who have gone through it only choose it after much soulsearching. So, if a woman decides that's the path she wishes to take, then she knows her own self and far be it from us to judge as we are not in her shoes. Also far be it from us to impose our unsolicited moral beliefs on others, especially for such a DEEPLY PERSONAL decision which is no one else's business but the mother and father's. It's all well and good to be ProLife and look out for the fetus, but I'm all for at least having the CHOICE...even if I wouldn't get an abortion, I still want the ability to CHOOSE. Sometimes we forget that ProChoice does not mean ProAbortion.

 

[AdJesumPerMariam]

1. Abortion is either murder
2. or it is not.
3. We either know it
4. or we do not.

A. If abortion is murder, and we know it, we are murderers.
B. If abortion is murder, and we do not know it, we are, at best manslaughterers. Much like the hunter shooting into a rustling bush, not knowing what is there, who kills another hunter.
C. If abortion is not murder, and we do not know it, we are criminally negligent. Much like the hunter shooting into a rustling bush, and happens to get a deer.
D. If abortion is not murder, and we know it, we are innocent. But this is not a possible outcome, because no one can prove that the fetus is not alive.

Therefore there is effectively zero cases where abortion can be thought of as acceptable. -Quote from Peter Kreeft

Found this in another forum, makes sense to me!!

 

[Bob Moore]

I could not agree more, Flicka. In most cases I would suppose that abortion is not something done casually. I would think most women who have gone through it only choose it after much soulsearching. So, if a woman decides that's the path she wishes to take, then she knows her own self and far be it from us to judge as we are not in her shoes. Also far be it from us to impose our unsolicited moral beliefs on others, especially for such a DEEPLY PERSONAL decision which is no one else's business but the mother and father's. It's all well and good to be ProLife and look out for the fetus, but I'm all for at least having the CHOICE...even if I wouldn't get an abortion, I still want the ability to CHOOSE. Sometimes we forget that ProChoice does not mean ProAbortion.

Excuse me. I don't want to offend, but that is complete claptrap. You somehow see virtue in refusing to defend innocent life. Apparently the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' have no place in you. What you have said is that although you wouldn't do murder, you have no problem if someone else does.

And 'pro-choice' is semantically equivalent to 'pro-abortion'. If you are not against murder, then you are for it. There is no tenable middle ground.