Abortion

[startinover]

a foetus in a woman's womb needs its mother to grow and become a human being. it needs her "love", her willingness to participate, and her organs to work towards keeping it alive. this means that the woman must feed herself, and then risk her life to bring it to life.

as far as i know, a foetus cannot just be out and grow on its own; or even be rescued by more loving parents if a pregnant woman will not have it. until its born it depends on the woman

so, i believe the pregnant woman should be surrounded, and inspired to keep the baby. she must be educated about her options for adoption in case she will not raise the baby (because maybe, abortions have been made too common and we need to do a better job at keeping them in check). But NO, NO and NO, a woman cannot be forced to grow a foetus to terms. it has to be her choice.

why would anyone want a baby to grow inside a woman who doesnt want to put her organs, her being, her energy and love at the services of growing the life that is inside her? why ?

And forcing a woman to carry a baby is enslaving her.

the day we outlaw abortion must be the day we force (by law) EVERY MEN who fathers a baby to exerce parental right, be there for the child till he turns 18, and pay child support. No exceptions made for any men.

till then, we are allowing men to get off easy after fathering gazillion babies everywhere; and we want to enslave women by removing their option to get off a 'mistake' too ? I think not. All must be fair.

 

[lovegod_will]

well if people kept their pants on untill marriage the idea of men getting off easy and not being parents would be erradicated!

 

[startinover]

yes, but that IS the reality...so what are we going to do about it?

what we are doing 'against' dead beat dads? are we marching, trying to pass laws forcing them to take care of the babies? are they called murderers when they abandon their kids to starve with a poor mother?

 

[Cerridwen]

Hey~

Okay, actually, a fetus isn't technically a fetus until 10 weeks of pregnancy. From conception to 10 weeks, it is an embryo. No fetus has ever survived outside the womb earlier than 23 weeks gestation. Even then, there are many disorders & challenges the preemie may face. If an abortion is performed within the first trimester of pregnancy, there is no "baby" to speak of-there may be an emotional attachment, as is often the case with miscarriage, but the parents are in love with what they believe the embryo or fetus will be rather than what it is. Comparing a fetus younger than 23 weeks gestation to an 18 month old child is nonsensical.

well if people kept their pants on untill marriage the idea of men getting off easy and not being parents would be erradicated!

You think so, huh? There are MANY men who still "get off easy" even though they are married. Even if they did "keep their pants on" until then. More still are pathetic excuses for parents even if they are still married to their children's mother(s) & live with their children. No premarital sex isn't the answer to everything...it isn't really the answer to anything, actually, but that's another thread.

The simple fact of the matter is, abortion should NEVER be illegal. Until you've walked a mile in that woman's shoes, you have no clue what she is having to deal with, and no one has any right to tell her what she can or cannot do with her body. It's easy, if you are against abortion, then don't have one.

Love & Blessings, Cerridwen*

(Just an FYI-the word "fetus" is also spelled as "foetus" in some countries.)

 

[SallyNow]

Comparing a fetus younger than 23 weeks gestation to an 18 month old child is nonsensical.

While this makes sense, notice how even you used the 23 week line. After 23 weeks, the fetus is an unborn baby.

The simple fact of the matter is, abortion should NEVER be illegal.

Unless it is after 23 week gestation (since that is a baby). Of course, even after the magic 23 weeks, if the mother's life is endangered, even most pro-lifers will agree that the mother's life, because she has on, is worth the loss of the unborn baby's, because the baby is still unborn (obviously, if the baby can be born safely, then that should be done instead of the abortion. But if not, let the mother live, although it is of course her choice.)

You think so, huh? There are MANY men who still "get off easy" even though they are married.

Arg, men really need to pick up their end of the bargain. If a man sleeps with someone, he must be prepared to raise a child. Why is that so hard for men to understand? If they really don't want kids, they can get a vasectomy. Okay, a little harsh, but needed.

BUT, on the other side of the coin: If a group is against abortions, they should work very hard to provide (or have the government to provide) reliable low-cost pre-natal care, a comfortable, safe hospital for the woman to give birth in, and access to reliable, legal adoption services, and councilling.

And if a group is against abortions even when the mothers life is in danger, then I strongly think they should stop whining and instead fund research in why some pregnancies go wrong!

Erm, so I sound a bit rantish, but I strongly think there is a middle ground, somewhere out there, between, for instance, www.cwfa.org (pro-lifenomatterwhat) and www.naral.org's (pro-choice nomatterwhat) positions

 

[Cerridwen]

Hey~

I couldn't agree more. I am pro-choice myself, not pro-abortion. I am against partial-birth abortion, simply because at that stage in pregnancy, the fetus has a good chance of survival. The vast majority of abortions are done within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and I have no problem with abortions being performed any time before a fetus becomes viable.

It's very harrowing to me how so many people claim to be pro-life, but where are these people when the woman who is forced to give birth can't feed the child she has, or can't handle being a mother & leaves it in a toilet or a dumpster? Adoption is a wonderful thing, but the problem with that is, many women can't or don't want to go through almost a year of being pregnant just to give the baby away.

I don't think you sound rantish at all, & I agree with you about the middle ground part.
While I doubt I would ever actually have an abortion, I don't think it is the right of the government to tell me I can't.

Love & blessings, Cerridwen*

 

[Michali]

Alright, I'm back for a day.

Justaman, when you kill a sperm cell, do you end a process that gives rise to consciousness?

 

[WiccanHeart]

Merry Meet everyone,

No fetus has ever survived outside the womb earlier than 23 weeks gestation.

It has a soul, it is a living organism. Even the morning after pill is a super early mini-abortion that I am against.

It doesn't matter that a fetus hasnt survived outside the womb earlier than 23 weeks, it NEEDS to be INSIDE the womb.

I have said it before and I'll say it again. If a couple in a loving relationship are having sex they should first use protection and even then with protection they should know in the back of their minds that they MIGHT still get pregnaunt. Every time they have sex they should know, "we can have a baby, are we ready if so?" If not they should get their lives in order to be ready.

If an abortion is performed within the first trimester of pregnancy, there is no "baby" to speak of

See above.

No premarital sex isn't the answer to everything...it isn't really the answer to anything, actually, but that's another thread.

I'm curious what you mean, please start that thread.

The simple fact of the matter is, abortion should NEVER be illegal. Until you've walked a mile in that woman's shoes, you have no clue what she is having to deal with, and no one has any right to tell her what she can or cannot do with her body. It's easy, if you are against abortion, then don't have one.

Well, I am man so I wont ever have one but I also wont put my self in the position to consider it. People speak out about it because it is murder. It is an innocent life that the parents created together through love. Why not give it a chance to live. Love it. Or, if not, put it up for adoption.

I dont need to walk a mile in a pregnaunt womens shoes, I know its hard, ive seen shows about it, known women that are pregnaunt, mood swings, nausea, etc. etc. So what, they put them selves in that position by having sex, even with protection they should know that thats how babies are made. Thats sex ed in high school maybe mid school now. Yes people have sex for fun, thats fine and dandy, but that fun can lead to a baby that is also known and should be taken into consideration.

It is simple, be aware you can get pregnaunt when you have sex and dont have an abortion.

Blessed Be,

WiccanHeart

 

[Archivist]

Erm, so I sound a bit rantish, but I strongly think there is a middle ground, somewhere out there, between, for instance, www.cwfa.org (pro-lifenomatterwhat) and www.naral.org's (pro-choice nomatterwhat) positions

SallyNow and Cerridwen,

I strongly agree that we need to reach some kind of compromise. Not since slavery has an issue done more to tear this nation apart. If only each side would be willing to give a little we might be able to reach the middle ground of which you speak.

The problem is that those at either extreme are generally not willing to compromise. I posted a thought similiar to this on a thread a couple weeks back and received a reply from a pro-life individual who said that he would compromose when everyone agreed with him that all abortions, including those where the women's life is in danger and those in cases of rape or incest, were banned--he would compromise at nothing less. This is the attitude against which we are working.

I believe that the middle ground is out there. As to whether we can reach it or not is a different matter.

 

[flicka]

I dont need to walk a mile in a pregnaunt womens shoes, I know its hard, ive seen shows about it, known women that are pregnaunt, mood swings, nausea, etc. etc. So what, they put them selves in that position by having sex, even with protection they should know that thats how babies are made. Thats sex ed in high school maybe mid school now. Yes people have sex for fun, thats fine and dandy, but that fun can lead to a baby that is also known and should be taken into consideration.

It is simple, be aware you can get pregnaunt when you have sex and dont have an abortion.

Blessed Be,

WiccanHeart

Your really do need to walk that mile. Really.

Everyone does have a right to their opinions but its harder to have an opinion on something you have never experienced for yourself. It's not that simple when sex is a natural part of life but perpetual pregnancy is not. It's agreed that BC use needs to be consistent tho.

 

[nyj]

Of course, even after the magic 23 weeks, if the mother's life is endangered, even most pro-lifers will agree that the mother's life, because she has on, is worth the loss of the unborn baby's, because the baby is still unborn (obviously, if the baby can be born safely, then that should be done instead of the abortion. But if not, let the mother live, although it is of course her choice.)

No. No. No.

I am not one of those pro-lifers, and I'll tell you why. When it comes down to talking about life, "if" statements just don't cut it. Can someone give me rock-solid figures as to how many children are aborted each year due to complications which would, if allowed to persist, would more than likely result in the death of the mother if she were to give birth? I'd say it's less than 1% of 1% (ie: 0.01%) of all abortions. With the advances of medical science, children can be born prematurely (before the mothers life is ever in any real risk) and survive and recover 100%. Also, with advances in medical science, what used to be construed as a "risk" may not be so nowadays.

Therefore, I do not buy the "abortion in case of medical emergency" scenario... it is practically non-existant and should not be allowed to be an excuse that the pro-choice community can pitch their tent on.

 

[transientlife]

I dont need to walk a mile in a pregnaunt womens shoes, I know its hard, ive seen shows about it, known women that are pregnaunt, mood swings, nausea, etc. etc. So what, they put them selves in that position by having sex, even with protection they should know that thats how babies are made

I agree with Flicka that everyone has their rights to their opinions,but if you haven't experienced it, you truly cannot understand the fear, anxiety and other multitude of feelings someone with an unplanned pregnancy experiences. TV shows and second hand experiences can only show you a small portion of it. The mood swings and nausea may be temporary unpleasantries, but the permanence of having to be responsible for another human being's life for 18+ years is harder than that.
I do not like the idea of abortion and would probably never have one, but like Cerridwen said, I don't want the government to be able to dictate my life to me.

 

[Cerridwen]

Hey~

It has a soul, it is a living organism.

Bacteria is a living organism. E. Coli is a living organism. Does it have a "soul"?

It doesn't matter that a fetus hasnt survived outside the womb earlier than 23 weeks, it NEEDS to be INSIDE the womb.

The point is, it CANNOT survive prior to that, so it IS NOT "murder" prior to the age of viablity.

I have said it before and I'll say it again. If a couple in a loving relationship are having sex they should first use protection and even then with protection they should know in the back of their minds that they MIGHT still get pregnaunt. Every time they have sex they should know, "we can have a baby, are we ready if so?" If not they should get their lives in order to be ready.

And what if a couple isn't in a "loving relationship"? What if a 10 year old is raped by her father & gets pregnant? What if a couple have both been sterilized, i.e., she a tubal ligation & he a vasectomy, in order to prevent pregnancy because it is dangerous to the woman's health, and she can't take birth control & she still gets pregnant? What if a woman has just divorced an abusive husband, left him with her 3 young kids, whom she can barely feed as it is, then finds out she's pregnant by her ex?

I'm curious what you mean, please start that thread.

There's already a thread in Phliosophy & Morality that deals with premarital sex. I only mean that some think banning sex before marriage would keep all kinds of bad things from happening, when that simply isn't the case.

Well, I am man so I wont ever have one but I also wont put my self in the position to consider it. People speak out about it because it is murder. It is an innocent life that the parents created together through love. Why not give it a chance to live. Love it. Or, if not, put it up for adoption.

Right, you're a man, so you don't know what you're talking about. Pregnancies aren't always created through "love". Are you going to take care of all these women being forced to carry pregnancies to term because you don't think they have a right to decide what to do with their bodies? Are you going to pay all their expenses, give them money for the time when they couldn't work, and then adopt their babies & raise them?

I dont need to walk a mile in a pregnaunt womens shoes, I know its hard, ive seen shows about it, known women that are pregnaunt, mood swings, nausea, etc. etc.

Oh, you've seen shows about it. So that means you know it all, right? I know about it. I have three children, I've had a miscarriage, & I'm expecting my fourth. It isn't just about "nausea & mood swings", & for you to imply that only shows your ignorance.

So what, they put them selves in that position by having sex, even with protection they should know that thats how babies are made. Thats sex ed in high school maybe mid school now. Yes people have sex for fun, thats fine and dandy, but that fun can lead to a baby that is also known and should be taken into consideration.

So that little girl who was raped by her daddy "put herself" in that postion, did she?

It is simple, be aware you can get pregnaunt when you have sex and dont have an abortion.

People are aware they can get pregnant when they have sex, genius. Your simplistic approach is disturbing. Not having an abortion isn't always that easy. Having a baby is NEVER that easy. Again, if you're against it, then don't do it. But as long as I have a voice & a vote, you are not going to prevent those who need that option from having it.

Love & Blessings, Cerridwen*

 

[justaman]

Alright, I'm back for a day.

Justaman, when you kill a sperm cell, do you end a process that gives rise to consciousness?

Absolutely. The 'process' is the life-term of that unique cell. If it is not used to fertilize a particular egg, an individual is prevented from forming. This, by your logic, is 'killing' someone, though it clearly is not.

What you're trying to do is that because the sperm cell won't give rise to consciousness without being acted upon, it cannot be considered a potential consciousness. This is, frankly, stupid. For a zygote will not give rise to a consciousness unless certain chemical reactions occur to prompt it to multiply its cell number. The same goes for every single miniscule step in the entire gestation period. At all times if the present organism in the womb is not acted upon in some way, that organism will never give rise to a consciousness.

You want to make 'human decision' distinct from 'natural' processes all the while ignoring the fact that human decisions is as natural a process as any other you choose to name. Human decisions is also required to keep the host body feeding and healthy enough to continue norishing the foetus. Human decision is also requried to not abort it, since that is more than possible to do also. It may be passive, but it is still a decision required for that consciousness to arise.

Quite simply, you are trying to draw a distinction between individual cells and the zygote and beyond purely because you think the human decision bit is, in some strange way, significant. It's understandable, but logically silly.

You aren't killing a human being, there is not a human being there to kill. It is as simple as that.

Being concerned about the potential is ridiculous, because there is a countless array of potential human beings that will never see existence. Being one or two or a hundred steps closer to seeing that potentiality fulfilled does not in any way change the fact that that particular human being does not and never has existed, so we must feel precisely the same amount of guilt as we do for all other non-existent human beings.

 

[WiccanHeart]

Hey~
Bacteria is a living organism. E. Coli is a living organism. Does it have a "soul"?

I should have worded it better. At conception the egg is an embryo with a soul. It is a living thing with a soul and is precious. e. coli is a bacteria. There are some that believe all living things have souls. Little stretch for me but I believe humans have souls and at conception the soul is there. No proof of course but thats another thread probably in itsself.

And what if a couple isn't in a "loving relationship"? What if a 10 year old is raped by her father & gets pregnant? What if a couple have both been sterilized, i.e., she a tubal ligation & he a vasectomy, in order to prevent pregnancy because it is dangerous to the woman's health, and she can't take birth control & she still gets pregnant? What if a woman has just divorced an abusive husband, left him with her 3 young kids, whom she can barely feed as it is, then finds out she's pregnant by her ex?

these are extreme circumstances and you know it. There are *some*(very very very very few) situations where it is necessary (i.e. 10 year old(if she can even get pregnant))

So that little girl who was raped by her daddy "put herself" in that postion, did she?

of course not, she cant defend herself, a rape victim is different.

There's already a thread in Phliosophy & Morality that deals with premarital sex. I only mean that some think banning sex before marriage would keep all kinds of bad things from happening, when that simply isn't the case.

i would agree.

Right, you're a man, so you don't know what you're talking about.

I do know what I am talking about.

People are aware they can get pregnant when they have sex, genius. Your simplistic approach is disturbing. Not having an abortion isn't always that easy. Having a baby is NEVER that easy. Again, if you're against it, then don't do it. But as long as I have a voice & a vote, you are not going to prevent those who need that option from having it.

Oh, you've seen shows about it. So that means you know it all, right?

I never said I knew it all, nor implied it, nor would I say I know what it is like because i dont and never will. You gave examples of extreme circumstances. A 10 year old probably wouldnt survive a pregnancy, i didnt even know a 10 year old could get pregnant, although I did see a show like 20/20 where because of a milk additive or something girls are reaching purberty sooner, I didnt realize it was that soon.

I am mainly talking about the women that want to get an abortion because it is convinient way to get out of the preg. That probably *could* be ok when going through with it but simply dont. They can have the baby and put it up for adoption. We are talking about a human life that has a soul.

People are aware they can get pregnant when they have sex, genius. Your simplistic approach is disturbing.

no need to get nasty about it. we are having a discussion and I am telling my points no need for personal attacks. I dont believe I attacked you, did i?

Blessed Be

 

[Michali]

No, forget about all the previous posts, because we have been misunderstanding eachother. You said earlier, that I was debating for the "potential human", although I had never specifically paired those words together. I am afraid that this generalization is implying too much.

Anything is a potential human. An apple is a potential human. I am not reffering to anything like this.

Drop everything. Drop everything and look at it anew.

Let's start over:

I asked, "Justaman, when you kill a sperm cell, do you end a process that gives rise to consciousness?"

You replied, "Absolutely. The 'process' is the life-term of that unique cell. If it is not used to fertilize a particular egg, an individual is prevented from forming."

Alright. I do not agree with your answer. Killing a sperm cell does not end a process that gives rise to consciousness.

A sperm cell is an ingredient that starts the process of pregnancy, but destroying it, does not end pregnancy.

Voluntarily ending pregnancy, is ending a process that gives rise to consciousness. This, in my opinion, is murder.

 

[justaman]

Anything is a potential human. An apple is a potential human.

That's a big call...

I asked, "Justaman, when you kill a sperm cell, do you end a process that gives rise to consciousness?"

You replied, "Absolutely. The 'process' is the life-term of that unique cell. If it is not used to fertilize a particular egg, an individual is prevented from forming."

Alright. I do not agree with your answer. Killing a sperm cell does not end a process that gives rise to consciousness.

A sperm cell is an ingredient that starts the process of pregnancy, but destroying it, does not end pregnancy.

Voluntarily ending pregnancy, is ending a process that gives rise to consciousness. This, in my opinion, is murder.

What are you murdering?

 

[Michali]

What are you murdering?

A person.

What does it mean to kill a person?

A person's "self", is their consciousness. You do not ever destroy the consciousness itself, you can only end the process that gives rise to it. When you kill the body, you end the process that gives rise to consciousness.

 

[justaman]

A person.

What does it mean to kill a person?

A person's "self", is their consciousness. You do not ever destroy the consciousness itself, you can only end the process that gives rise to it. When you kill the body, you end the process that gives rise to consciousness.

This is silly. You cannot destroy something which doesn't exist yet. Killing a body is killing a currently existing process, even if the consciousness is dormant.

There is a 16 week foetus about to be aborted. Define the 'person' that is about to be murdered, their tastes, their likes, their dislikes, favourite colour, etc.

 

[seebs]

This is silly. You cannot destroy something which doesn't exist yet. Killing a body is killing a currently existing process, even if the consciousness is dormant.

There is a 16 week foetus about to be aborted. Define the 'person' that is about to be murdered, their tastes, their likes, their dislikes, favourite colour, etc.

I don't entirely like an argument that would apply well to an infant...

I think that a person may not be fully developed, but nonetheless still "a person".