Justifying Abortion

[coffee4u]

This is false. There is no evidence of that level of brain capacity before the fifth month of pregnancy.

You are more qualified than her?

Maureen Condic, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah. A bioethicist, ombudsman, and appointee to the United States's National Science Board.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are more qualified than her?

Maureen Condic, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah. A bioethicist, ombudsman, and appointee to the United States's National Science Board.

Good source. But unfortunately she backed off from that statement:

Crashing the boards: Neuroscientist Maureen Condic brings a different voice to NSF oversight body

' Many neuroscientists would draw a distinction between how spinal cord cells react to a pain stimulus in an 8-week-old fetus, as Condic initially described, and the point at which there’s a cognitive reaction to pain (which was the rationale for the legislation). Asked about the difference, Condic says she was a last-minute substitute for another witness and “maybe I wrote [her testimony] wrong.” '

It turns out that "many neuroscientists" would not make that claim. Even she did not advocate for banning abortion at eight weeks, instead she was testifying for a ban at twenty weeks. That is deep into the second trimester.

 

[artie annie]

Nope, abortion never kills a baby. This is basic biology. Babies come after delivery.

And many Christians do not agree with you. You would be very mistaken if you said that all Christians want abortion to be illegal. That was a relatively recent campaign by some Christians.

Lastly only some parts of this forum are Christian only. Most of it is only for Christians, but a good part is not.

Being a newbie I had not worked that one out, but a christian informed me that some parts were for christians only. This one isn't but I don't know why as you will not get born again christian agreeing with anything you say so them's the facts.

 

[artie annie]

You are more qualified than her?

Maureen Condic, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah. A bioethicist, ombudsman, and appointee to the United States's National Science Board.

I don't know about you but I find that those who are happy to have babies murdered in the womb are the last word on the subject of abortion and even those who are highly qualified as you have pointed out are subject to their fairy stories.

 

[artie annie]

Nope, abortion never kills a baby. This is basic biology. Babies come after delivery.

And many Christians do not agree with you. You would be very mistaken if you said that all Christians want abortion to be illegal. That was a relatively recent campaign by some Christians.

Lastly only some parts of this forum are Christian only. Most of it is only for Christians, but a good part is not.

Not logical. It is not a baby but one minute later it is a baby. So what happens in that one minute that turns a non baby into a baby? And what are people looking at in an ultrasound a few weeks before birth that shows a baby in the womb?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Being a newbie I had not worked that one out, but a christian informed me that some parts were for christians only. This one isn't but I don't know why as you will not get born again christian agreeing with anything you say so them's the facts.

Yes, of course so called "born again" Christians are not too likely to agree with me. But they are not the only Christians here, and they tend to know less about the Bible than most. They tend to fail at both logical and biblical debates.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not logical. It is not a baby but one minute later it is a baby. So what happens in that one minute that turns a non baby into a baby? And what are people looking at in an ultrasound a few weeks before birth that shows a baby in the womb?

Technically it is known as "birth". A few weeks before that they are looking at a fetus.

 

[artie annie]

Technically it is known as "birth". A few weeks before that they are looking at a fetus.

Now answer the question. What makes it a non baby a minute before it is born and a baby one minute after it is born.

And answer the question about seeing a baby in the womb by ultrasound two weeks before it is born.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now answer the question. What makes it a non baby a minute before it is born and a baby one minute after it is born.

And answer the question about seeing a baby in the womb by ultrasound two weeks before it is born.

It is both a legal and biological definition. Fetus before birth, baby after. It is not possible to kill a baby through abortion. If one makes up their own definitions for words it makes communication very difficult.

 

[coffee4u]

Not logical. It is not a baby but one minute later it is a baby. So what happens in that one minute that turns a non baby into a baby? And what are people looking at in an ultrasound a few weeks before birth that shows a baby in the womb?

They also don't have children so their perspective is completely clinical and unaware.

Technically it is known as "birth". A few weeks before that they are looking at a fetus.

There is no mother or father who looks at a 4D image of their baby in the womb and cries with joy over their beautiful 'fetus'. If you ever have a child and see it on the ultrasound neither will you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are totally out of your depth on this one. If you are a christian you are born again. If you are not born again, you are not a christian. As Jesus said " Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

And your claim about christians is ridiculous as I count if you know even 1% of the christian on the earth, so you have no idea what they fail at.

A statement like that is no different to me saying all atheists are complete idiots, which is totally unprovable. At best all I can say is that the atheists that I have met seem to be complete idiots.

The first is a lie the second isn't.

No, "born again" is simply a throw away phrase that many Christians have adopted. Most of them make the error of reading the Bible far too literally. I am betting that you make that error. That tends to lead to very bad theology and is often, ironically, a breaking of the Second Commandment. When it comes to understanding the Bible, and especially its history, it is those that call themselves "born again" that are out of their depth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They also don't have children so their perspective is completely clinical and unaware.



There is no mother or father who looks at a 4D image of their baby in the womb and cries with joy over their beautiful 'fetus'. If you ever have a child and see it on the ultrasound neither will you.

Parents are reasoning emotionally and not logically. We are trying to have a logical discussion here. Emotional arguments only win the day for people that cannot reason rationally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So far you have not answered my questions so forgive me if I have this impression your are making up your own definition.

A non baby a moment before birth. A baby when born. What makes it different. What happens when it comes out of the womb And let me remind you that my husband was at the birth of our two children so he saw everything. He said the first thing to come out of the womb was a head so in the womb it must of been a head as he didn't wave a magic wand to turn whatever it was into ahead.

I am sorry that you are having so much trouble understanding this. A fetus depends on its mother to eat and breathe for it. A baby, not so much. If you study the Old Testament you will find that life was thought to begin with the first breath or the "breath of life".

You are trying to argue emotionally. If you want success in limiting abortion I would suggest trying to find rational reasons to support your cause. If terminology is a problem how can you present a convincing argument? You will only get affirmation from those that already agree with you.

 

[artie annie]

I am sorry that you are having so much trouble understanding this. A fetus depends on its mother to eat and breathe for it. A baby, not so much. If you study the Old Testament you will find that life was thought to begin with the first breath or the "breath of life".

You are trying to argue emotionally. If you want success in limiting abortion I would suggest trying to find rational reasons to support your cause. If terminology is a problem how can you present a convincing argument? You will only get affirmation from those that already agree with you.

Just as I thought. All your claims are complete mumbo jumbo. That always happens when someone is trying to defend the murder of babies in the womb and cannot give a rational argument in their defence.

You see, I have heard all your arguments ad infinitum and to date not one of you can answer the two questions I asked so what is new. The simple reason you cannot answer them because you have painted yourself into a corner with ridiculous ideas that have been totally rubbished by those who have done in depth study of the subject.

Among our numbers are doctors, nurses, gynaecologists and various other medical personnel.

And it is a known fact that Planned parenthood, the biggest providers of abortion in America WILL NOT let a mother see an ultrasound because they know they will be looking at their baby.

If they know that why don't you. You are a very poor advocate for abortion because you can't argue with facts. All you have got is airy fairy claims like it is not a baby until it comes out of the womb.

The mother knows it is a baby. The abortionist knows it is a baby. I know it is a baby because I have seen ultrasound of babies in the womb. The only person who doesn't seem to know it is a baby is you.

So I suggest you go away and do some homework to stop yourself being embarrassed by making claims that have been debunked years ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just as I thought. All your claims are complete mumbo jumbo. That always happens when someone is trying to defend the murder of babies in the womb and cannot give a rational argument in their defence.

You see, I have heard all your arguments ad infinitum and to date not one of you can answer the two questions I asked so what is new. The simple reason you cannot answer them because you have painted yourself into a corner with ridiculous ideas that have been totally rubbished by those who have done in depth study of the subject.

Among our numbers are doctors, nurses, gynaecologists and various other medical personnel.

And it is a known fact that Planned parenthood, the biggest providers of abortion in America WILL NOT let a mother see an ultrasound because they know they will be looking at their baby.

If they know that why don't you. You are a very poor advocate for abortion because you can't argue with facts. All you have got is airy fairy claims like it is not a baby until it comes out of the womb.

The mother knows it is a baby. The abortionist knows it is a baby. I know it is a baby because I have seen ultrasound of babies in the womb. The only person who doesn't seem to know it is a baby is you.

So I suggest you go away and do some homework to stop yourself being embarrassed by making claims that have been debunked years ago.

Where have I ever used "mumbo jumbo" ? I explained to you quite clearly your errors in terminology and you had no answer. You may have heard the arguments against your beliefs but it is rather clear that you have not heard them.

Also you need to prove your claim about Planned Parenthood never showing an ultrasound to prospective parents. They do much more than abortions. You are probably confused. I am betting that they will not allow tyrants to force them to show an ultrasound. There is a big difference.

Now do you think that you can form a rational and not an emotional argument?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course you do. That is what all atheists say. I only have two degrees in theology so what would I know.

Probably less than you think you do. Where did you get your degrees from? I have heard this sort of claim before and the degrees came from the likes of Liberty University, America's finest diploma mill, it is based on a double-wide mobile home.

There is a reason that atheists make that claim. They did not decide right away to be atheists.. They critically analyzed the Bible and its flaws and that is how they became atheists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What false accusations. You mean like your accusation that you know more about the bible than christians do?

Wow! Now that is a failure. That was a claim and not an accusation. But it is true that the average atheist understands the Bible better than the average Christian:

Atheists Know More about Religion than Christians

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, there are possible and even persuasive arguments against abortion that are based on rational thought. If you want to convince someone that is the route to take. Using emotional

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Part of this line of argument is that there can be some pretty disturbing and perplexing medical cases that pregnant women face:




There are situations wherein the child/fetus has some disease that makes it so that the child will be born, suffer agony for a few hours or days, and then die. Perhaps women and families should have the option to terminate a pregnancy to spare the child and family from this pain.

Furthermore there are cases wherein the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother - sometimes to a certainty. If the mother carries the child to term she will likely die. Perhaps women and families should have the freedom to terminate such a pregnancy in order to save the life of the mother.

Admittedly, these situations are tragic and morally perplexing. But they are extreme and incredibly rare. They don't even represent 1% of abortions performed. Pro-Choice folks use these extreme situations in order to justify the vast majority of abortions which have nothing to do with saving the life of the mother or sparing a terminally ill fetus from agonizing pain.

For this reason I believe that these situations ought not be considered when debating the legality or moral permissibility of abortion. These cases are so extreme and so rare that they ought to be dealt with separately. Conclusions we make in these cases should have no bearing on conclusions made about the vast majority of abortions. And so these cases should not be used to defend abortion wholesale.

I've been told by ones that volunteer at the Pregnancy Help Center that the above is hardly never seen.
M

 

[coffee4u]

Parents are reasoning emotionally and not logically. We are trying to have a logical discussion here. Emotional arguments only win the day for people that cannot reason rationally.

Whether you in your clinical mind want to call them a 'fetus' and not a 'baby' makes no difference. They are a human life no matter the label. You call them fetus to justify killing them. You might want some cold, clinical discussion but you know very well abortion is not and never will be that kind of argument.
As a mother, I know a baby starts to show it's personality before birth. Ask any women who has had a few children.

Psalm 139
For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

This is enough for me to know that abortion is wrong.