I don't care if you think abortion is wrong.

[Lisa0315]

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

Here it is. My number was high. It is 46 million per year.

Lisa

 

[EnemyPartyII]

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

Here it is. My number was high. It is 46 million per year.

Lisa

Worldwide.

 

[Lisa0315]

Worldwide.

Yes. It is not just American babies that are precious.

Lisa

 

[FaithLikeARock]

So you're saying that if I murder my best friend over a dispute we had, no one else can object? Because it's not anyone else's business. She was my friend and it was over our argument so no one else has any right to tell me I'm wrong or try to stop me right?

Long story short: your analogy sucks. When it comes to such a tight issue that is far more than just ABORTION, then people do have a right to intervene. Abortion isn't a cut and dry issue and it probably never will be unless either we find some scientific miracle that proves one side to be true or God Himself comes down and tells us. It just won't happen.

Also, I disagree with your opinion. I don't care if you think abortion is okay. And it's very nosy of you to go telling me what I can and can't do because it's MY decision. No random stranger is going to tell me what I can and can't say. Hypocrite.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

Here it is. My number was high. It is 46 million per year.

Lisa

When a website feels obliged to include shock factor pictures, I wouldn't trust it. People can post anything on the internet, it doesn't make it true.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Yes. It is not just American babies that are precious.

Lisa

As an Australian, I wouldn't have suggested that.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So you're saying that if I murder my best friend over a dispute we had, no one else can object? Because it's not anyone else's business. She was my friend and it was over our argument so no one else has any right to tell me I'm wrong or try to stop me right?

Long story short: your analogy sucks. When it comes to such a tight issue that is far more than just ABORTION, then people do have a right to intervene. Abortion isn't a cut and dry issue and it probably never will be unless either we find some scientific miracle that proves one side to be true or God Himself comes down and tells us. It just won't happen.

Also, I disagree with your opinion. I don't care if you think abortion is okay. And it's very nosy of you to go telling me what I can and can't do because it's MY decision. No random stranger is going to tell me what I can and can't say. Hypocrite.

it would be the business of your friend, your friend's parents, friends, employer, teachers, aquaintances, creditors and debtors.

Foetuses rarely have any of the above who aren't consenting to the action of a voluntary abortion

 

[WatersMoon110]

As for decreasing the number of abortions, I think that Pro-Choicers should be as concerned as Pro-Lifers about decreasing 50 million abortions per year.

I think they already are.

I just do not see that much energy from Pro-Choicers to stopping abortions with contraception and education.

Maybe you're not looking where I am? Like:
here specifically here, here, here, and here;
and, if you count Planned Parenthood as a Pro-Choice organization:
here specifically here (specifically here and here), here (specifically here and here) here (specifically here and here), and here (specifically here and here).

If you're talking about specific actions by specific groups try looking:
here, here, here, and here.

I see Pro-Lifers yielding legislation that forces Abortion Clinics to give full disclosure to the women, something that Pro-Choicers strongly opposed. If it is all about choice, then, why wouldn't INFORMED choice be better?

Depends on what you mean by "full disclosure". Some Pro-Life lobbyists want to see women being told statements that have been found to be mistaken or are not enough research has been done on. I do feel that unintentionally pregnant couples need to be told all of the relevant (and medically accurate) information about all of their options.

Why not allow the mother to see an ultrasound of the baby? Why?

Why should she? I mean, is there a specific medical reason that someone considering abortions needs to see an ultrasound of the unborn human? Or just that you are hoping it will convince her not to choose abortion?

I mean, I don't have anything particularly against her doing so (and I think that she should be allowed to, at the very least, ask to see one). I just don't feel it is necessary for her to be INFORMED about abortion.

What harm can it cause IF abortion is such a great solution?

I don't know why you keep insisting that abortion is a "great solution". No solutions seem "great" when one is unsure what to do with an unintentional pregnancy. But sometimes, after careful consideration of their situation, a couple can decide that abortion is the best option for them, of the many bad options available.

Also, if we're using the "what harm can it cause" argument, why not have the pregnant woman watch Casablanca before being able to get an abortion? What harm could that do? I just don't feel that either of these options are necessary for a couple to choose abortion, unlike things like a day or two waiting period (to be sure they think it through) and counseling (to be certain that they aren't being coerced and are sure about their choice).

 

[FaithLikeARock]

it would be the business of your friend, your friend's parents, friends, employer, teachers, aquaintances, creditors and debtors.

Foetuses rarely have any of the above who aren't consenting to the action of a voluntary abortion

They have themselves which is the basic instance I'm talking about. Besides. Not the point. In an abortion, the family, doctor and mother are the only ones involved. An abortion is to the dispute in my example. Now since me and my friend are the only people involved in the dispute, we're the only ones that matter.

If this example had included all the people YOU just listed, then the phone call wouldn't have been needed because I don't know a single person who is only friends with pro-lifers or only friends with pro-choicers.

 

[WatersMoon110]

To be fair, I grabbed those links off of NARAL and PP sites, so it's not quite as impressive as I could have made it (by looking up more specific sites, rather than specific information from a few sites).

 

[EnemyPartyII]

They have themselves which is the basic instance I'm talking about. Besides. Not the point. In an abortion, the family, doctor and mother are the only ones involved. An abortion is to the dispute in my example. Now since me and my friend are the only people involved in the dispute, we're the only ones that matter.

If this example had included all the people YOU just listed, then the phone call wouldn't have been needed because I don't know a single person who is only friends with pro-lifers or only friends with pro-choicers.

*double blink* huh?

If you kill your friend without your friend's parents' consent, then its going to effect them, right?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I would say the term parasite used to describe the unborn child is quite enough evidence to prove that at least some people on here do not value the life of the unborn. I have never known anyone who valued the life of a parasite.

Then you would say wrongly. Calling a fetus - correctly - a parasite says absolutely nothing about its worth. That is something you (and a few others) imagine.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I understand that the citation used parasite as a noun.

Then why did you specifically say "it is not being used as a noun"

I do understand the English language. However even so, it is being USED as descriptive language. It is not saying that the baby IS a parasite.

It does specifically say that the fetus IS a parasite. "The fetus is an efficient parasite". That specifically says that the fetus is a parasite.

As for decreasing the number of abortions, I think that Pro-Choicers should be as concerned as Pro-Lifers about decreasing 50 million abortions per year. I mean that is simply beyond comprehension.

I just do not see that much energy from Pro-Choicers to stopping abortions with contraception and education. I see Pro-Lifers yielding legislation that forces Abortion Clinics to give full disclosure to the women, something that Pro-Choicers strongly opposed. If it is all about choice, then, why wouldn't INFORMED choice be better?

Why not allow the mother to see an ultrasound of the baby? Why? What harm can it cause IF abortion is such a great solution?

All of these weren't attempts to give more information to the mother. They were attempts to confront here with images in an attempt to change her mind. They can already see an ultrasound of the baby if they want - forcing them to do so accomplishes nothing beyond trying to change their mind. It's on a par with posters showing aborted fetusses. Pro-choicers, despite the attempts of some anti-choicers to paint them, aren't against women having all the information. They're for that. It's anti-choicers who aren't.

As for the energy from pro-choicers to stopping abortions with contraception and education, two points. Firstly, much of their energy is spent fighting against efforts (like the above) to chip away at women's choice. Secondly, all of the people who are agitating for better sex education and increased availability of contraceptives - who do you think they are? And who do you think those fighting against such measures are? The people who (supposedly) want to stop abortions. Yet they continue to fight tooth and nail against the very measures that would do the most to lower the number of abortions.

 

[Renton405]

Except that that isn't part of the definition.

Two medical sources have been cited that show the fetus is a parasite. No offence, people, but deal with it. The fetus is a parasite.

please cite these medical resources. You have cited absolutely nothing to prove your outrageous claim..Just conjecture combined with ignorance..

Even in your cut and paste out of context post in 455 it still says nothing that a fetus is classified as a parasite. Espesially concerning that the baby was created by the mothers egg and males sperm and is not an external parasite from a different species..

 

[Renton405]

and heres the definition from your wonderful Stedmans medical dictionary that you cite

American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This

par·a·site (p

r

-s

t

)
n.

1. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

definition of a parasite to an organism that is phylogenetically unrelated to its host, lives in or on its host, and is a eukaryote. The latter excludes bacteria and viruses. By tradition, fungi are also excluded (although they are also eukaryotic

 

[Romanseight2005]

Also, I think that all lives are sacred, no matter the species. Doesn't mean that I would allow anything to live inside my body without permission though!

That's the whole point. When a person decides to have sex, they are giving a baby permission to be there. Since one of the functions of sex is to create life, then the very act itself is saying, I am ready for a baby. If that's not what they are thinking in their head, that's what their actions are saying.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

please cite these medical resources. You have cited absolutely nothing to prove your outrageous claim..Just conjecture combined with ignorance..

Even in your cut and paste out of context post in 455 it still says nothing that a fetus is classified as a parasite. Espesially concerning that the baby was created by the mothers egg and males sperm and is not an external parasite from a different species..

You asked for sources; you were too lazy to retrieve them from the previous threads on the subject, so it was done for you, and you were given them. See post #455.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

and heres the definition from your wonderful Stedmans medical dictionary that you cite

American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This

par·a·site (p

r

-s

t

)
n.

1. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Yup. A fetus fits that definition perfectly.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

That's the whole point. When a person decides to have sex, they are giving a baby permission to be there. Since one of the functions of sex is to create life, then the very act itself is saying, I am ready for a baby. If that's not what they are thinking in their head, that's what their actions are saying.

No, when a person decides to have sex they are not giving any baby permission to be there. Their actions are saying nothing at all to do with any baby.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Yup. A fetus fits that definition perfectly.

But then all children would be considered parasites until they reach the age of 18. Children are dependent upon their parents for survival in all ways until they reach adulthood.