Stopping abortion

[Helo]

This post demonstrates, again, that raised in the OP. It points out that the poster it's talking about thinks abortion is wrong and is prepared to do absolutely nothing to stop it, except preach. Her own moral view that people shouldn't have sex is far more important to her than actually helping people to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Disgusting.

The pro-life movement is the best arm-chair movement there is. You can make all the noise you want but you never have to really DO anything.

 

[livingproofGM]

You are agaisnt abortion yet you don't believe in birth control and you are not willing to help out a poor pregnant woman or adopt one of the unwanted children. Supporting education on birth control and financial and emotional support for those who need help is the better choice then wagging your finger with a smirk on your face and saying you will not help. If you are so passionate about abortion then why don't you put your money where you mouth is and help out those who feel they have no other choice? If god provides for all his children then why are there so many homeless and starving people?

I don't support birth control because you are blocking what God has intended to take place, and that is the miracle of life. However, I cannot make these choices for people, so for you to point the finger at me, saying that I don't support birth control, so I'm to blame, is quite humerous. They're having sex, not me. If we'd stop funding abortion, and put money into greater causes, then maybe those starving children would have food on the table. But what do we expect in this world when we get away with the murder of innocent kids? 45,951,133 total Abortions in the US since 1973. This country is in for a rude awakening.

 

[livingproofGM]

This post demonstrates, again, that raised in the OP. It points out that the poster it's talking about thinks abortion is wrong and is prepared to do absolutely nothing to stop it, except preach. Her own moral view that people shouldn't have sex is far more important to her than actually helping people to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Disgusting.

Who are you to judge what my posts have profited? Just because you think that they haven't had an effect on anyone doesn't mean anything to me. Two days ago, I came into this room, wondering what people thought about Prop 73 and the abortion cause in general, and you want me to save the world? There is only so much one person can do, and for you to say that I do nothing is very judgemental. You don't even know me.

 

[Helo]

Who are you to judge what my posts have profited? Just because you think that they haven't had an effect on anyone doesn't mean anything to me. Two days ago, I came into this room, wondering what people thought about Prop 73 and the abortion cause in general, and you want me to save the world? There is only so much one person can do, and for you to say that I do nothing is very judgemental. You don't even know me.

I have to say I agree with Skeptic, you come out with "You cant murder babies and what anyone else wants is wrong."

Your only solution is to ban abortion and shrug your shoulders at people who NEED the procedure for whatever reason.

You need to offer annother solution than depraved indifference, which is what your putting on the table right now

 

[livingproofGM]

Because it's not unlawful. How many times do you have to be told this?


That's nice. What makes 'the law of god' pretty unworkable is that even committed christians disagree on what it is.


Once again, completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not abortion is murder. Admitting the fact that it's not murder doesn't mean you approve of it; it just means you're being honest and accurate.


False. The law DOES give us the LEGAL right to do so. It (the law) says nothing whatever about the moral right, but to say we have no right to do it is simply false.


It DOES make it so in that country. It is not unlawful; it is not murder. I know you'd desparately like to continue using the term 'murder' for abortion, even though it's been demonstrated that it's inaccurate, and I've no doubt you will continue to so do, which shows a lot about your honesty and sincerity. But know that most of us will discard your attempt to poison the well.

The law doesn't acknowledge it as murder, but I won't heed to the laws of a country that kills (can't say murder, since "killing brutally" isn't considered murder, either ) millions of helpless kids. They can call it "termination" all they want, but you've still stripped a human of life. Murder, death, kill...all the same.

 

[DieHappy]

The studies are what they are. If you have a problem with the numbers, take it up with the authors.

The authors are guessing. You need to recognize propaganda when you see it.

If you can show me where I have used spontaneous abortion rates to directly justify abortion, I will retract. What you will find instead is that I have used spontaneous abortion rates to show that the Christian position on conception is vacuous.

I haven't found that, either. Please elaborate.

 

[flicka]

45,951,133 total Abortions in the US since 1973. This country is in for a rude awakening.

How so?

 

[DieHappy]

Wow, so many high minded insults, so many semantical errors, and so much mis-information in one post!

No, that is NOT what Teddy means. To miscarry means that a pregnancy has been established. However, most conceptions/early zygotes don't manage to establish a pregnancy and are simply washed away with the other menstruation detritus (conservative estimate is that +65% of conceptions FAIL to every result in a live birth).

Prove it.

IOW, just because a woman has conceived, i.e., a egg is fertilized (in the Fallopian tube), starts dividing (now a zygote), doesn't mean that she is pregnant.

• That zygote still has to migrate from the Fallopian tube to the uterus and implant itself in the uterine lining (provided there is one).
• The fact is that most zygotes don't manage this instead end up on a sanitary napkin/tampon or swirling down the toilet upon urination during the woman's period.​

• ​

Prove it.

She may have conceived, but never actually gotten pregnant (that zygote failed to establish a pregnancy or the uterus wasn't ready...any number of reasons for failure).Does life really begin at conception? Is there any kind of scientific basis for that assertion?

Yes.

Why your notion of fertilized egg = human being is bogus.....

WHAT BIOLOGISTS MEAN WHEN THEY DEFINE "LIFE"...

Actually the egg and sperm are "alive", as is every functioning cell in the body of the woman in whom a conception may occur. All cells are BIOLOGICALLY alive in that they meet the 7 criteria biologists associate with life:

1. presence of carbon-All living things contain carbon. With few exceptions, carbon is found exclusively in association with living things.
2. organization & complexity-All living things exhibit remarkable organization in their body plans and when compared to non-living things are extremely complex.
3. metabolism-All living things absorb, convert, store, use and release energy in a variety of complex chemical reactions.
4. homeostasis-Living organisms regulate metabolic processes to maintain a "steady state".
5. response to stimuli-Living things respond to a variety of stimuli (Ex. temperature, moisture, concentration of chemicals, light, scent, etc.)
6. growth-An organism continues to increase in size (even bacteria do this) til maturity is reached.
7. reproduction-Living organisms produce generations of like organisms.

This is what scientists mean when they say something is "alive", so

• Is the sperm and egg alive? Yes, so the contention that "life begins at conception" is falsified, because "life", i.e., biological "life" begins earlier. This implies that antichoicers must mean something "more" than biological "life"
• Is a fertilized egg "alive"?===>Yes
• Is a zygote(3-7 day old pre-implantation) "alive"?===>Yes
• Is an embryo (before 8 wks., post-implantation) "alive"?===>Yes
• Is a fetus[older than 8 wks] "alive"?===>Yes

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

So you agree that the fertalized egg is a human life? It is fully human, accoding to it's DNA, and it's fully alive according to definitions of life. If you don't want to protect human life based on it's percieved cost to society, then why can't we just kill handicapped children. What about 3 year olds that develop autism? They are going to cost us a lot of money and can't survive on their own. Shall we do away with them?

1.The "ICM" (inner cell mass) are the source of stem cells. The ICM develops into an embryo IF blastocyst or zygote implants. In 8 weeks, post-implantation, the embryo is known as a fetus.
2. The blastocoel cavity in the center is marked as "C"
3. The trophectoderm cells that will form the placenta surround the cavity - one is marked with a "T"
4. The blastocyst (stage of the zygote) is smaller that the dot of this "i".' (stage that usually implants in the uterine lining)

So size matters? I;m betting you are smaller than I am, do you have fewer rights than I do?

Also realize that 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).

Prove it.

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!)

Guess what I'm going to say here....

Anti-choicers are always saying that "life" begins at conception??? What do they really mean by that? Most of them are theists, who really mean God implants a "soul", but most will hesitate to admit that this is what they mean. They know good and well there is no evidence for a soul nor can they prove when such an "endowment" takes place (provided one could prove that such a thing as a soul exists).

Christians just get hoist on their own petard with the soul argument. A soul is important to Christians because that is the medium through which they claim to experience eternal life. It is supposed to be our "badge" of superiority over the rest of creation. This notion that it's okay to kill, eat, and experiment on animals is supposed to be because they don't have souls. What is really funny here is that many other religions believe that not only do animals have souls, but so do "inanimate" objects like rocks, fire, or trees. Without some kind of empirical evidence, how does one decide which if, any religious viewpoint, is correct?

The question of just when a fetus gets this all-important soul arises. What many anti-choicers are ignorant of is that according to the early Church fathers, life did NOT "begin at conception". Aquinas and Augustine, following Aristotle's lead, declared that a male embryo acquired a soul at 40 days and the female embryo did so at 90 days. The "ensoulment" argument leads to one big philosophical problem, namely the logical impossibility of precisely defining the "ensoulment line" (the "bald-hairy" distinction problem). For instance, how can one PRECISELY draw a line between day and night? The "hairy-bald" problem with the fetus, is how could one draw the line as to when the fetus gets a soul (not to mention the FACT that there is no evidence that such a thing as a soul exists)? Such a determination is impossible because the fetus is continually growing.

The child is continually growing, too. You're point is either not being made or is ludicrous.

Anti-choicers often quote Psalm 139:"Truly you have formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother's womb. Remember that conception takes place in the Fallopian tube and the zygote takes up to 7 days to reach the uterus. There is NO justification for claiming that ensoulment occurs at conception (where does it say so?). If one is aware of early Christain history, there is no theological basis for making such a declaration (remember Aquinas and Augustines' definition). There is also no reason to ban birth control devices that interfere with ovulation AND implantation of the zygote (trophoblastic stage). This is especially true when one considers that God seems to considers 65% of these 7 day old "humans" to be expendable at some point before the end of the first trimester (either don't implant in the lining or are spontaneously aborted)

I should program a macro.

If God really endows each and every conception (fertilized egg) with a soul (what theists REALLY mean when they say the conceptus is "alive" and a "person", not merely biologically alive), that makes GOD AN ABORTIONIST, and the biggest mass murderer of all time. (If one believes that personhood begins at fertilization)....

What about basic human rights? I don't have to argue from the theistic side of when a soul is present. We have agreed that the embryo is human life. When does it deserve the protection of human rights?

If you want to go with the "life begins at conception" route, then realize that this comes as big news to most eminent biologists and embryologists such as Dr. Charles Gardner (research at the University of Michigan Medical School's Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology):


Robert Francoeur,a Catholic embryologist trained also in Roman Catholic theology, has observed:


The National Academy of Sciences has stated:

I'm not sure why I should two turds from the bowl what these 3 clowns say. Are they posting on this forum?

The point is that "fertilized egg = human being" is a very flawed argument.

• As of now, I haven't seen any fertilized eggs functioning as CEOs of companies, driving Junior to band practice, watching television, or even taking a breath.
• The fact is that we don't celebrate "conception day", we celebrate the BIRTHday.
  • This is a good thing too when you consider that the vast majority of conceptions (+65%) never result in a birth.
• Obviously to both God (is there really any supernatural entity involved at all?) and nature(the only obvious thing is that natural processes are at work), these conceptions (human beings?) are highly expendable commodities.....

I have yet to see an 11 month old drive, celebrate a birthday, or hold a job. Are they as expendable as the unborn?

 

[TheDag]

Nah….I just think that your ideal is absurd and I thought I would have some fun by sounding absurd myself, but I bet that you already knew that. Your nit-picking my spelling errors is just proof that I was successful at my evil ploy.

However, I see teaching kids how to have sex just as absurd as some of the things that I jokingly suggested. I would prefer that we teach them about not having sex until they are married and remind them that killing babies is not cool.

I had sex education taught at school. There was very little about the how to do it or even maybe none at all. What was taught was consequences and how to avoid falling into the trap of everyone else is doing it so I should (although the truth is probably everyone else is pretending they are doing it)
I'll make a seperate reply to the original post. I'd be interested in what you have to say

 

[DieHappy]

Then you've got a real problem because the number of couples wanting to adopt is no where near sufficient (too many babies, too few parents).

This is a post by brighid on another forum which shows just why adoption is no solution...


Now that's a short-fall in the parents department! A question to anti-choicers: Any recommendations on what to do with all the tens of millions of unadopted infants you plan on enslaving women to produce? Remember a "life" means more than just getting born, there are at least 72-79 years of AFTER the birth bit (education, food, health care, a job, and last but not least LOVE that goes with that 3 score and ten!!)

Do tell us, livingproofGM, what plans do you have for providing for all these babies you are so hellbent on forcing women to have? Now consider this:

You are making the assumption that there will continue to be as many pregancies after abortion becomes restricted. The number of abortions done in 1972 was in the low thousands. It was only after it was made legal all 3 tris that the numbers exploded.

As of today, this year, ~9,500,000 people (one person every 2.43 seconds) will have died of starvation, 75% of them under the age of 5.

Right, and since Bush became president we've gotten 20 million new homeless. You should learn to recognize propaganda.

Let's not forget the hundreds of thousands adoptable childen in the US foster care system. What is their "problem"? Most of them are too "old" (older than 2 years) or not "white". Pressing other womens's wombs into service so that some upper-middle class yuppie couple can have their dream-baby is nothing more than slavery, catering to the gross, self-involved selfishness of those who won't play "house" UNLESS they can have the "perfect" little white (usually) baby. The point here is that if we can't care for those already LIVING, it makes no sense to create more of them.

Any ideas here? Most antichoicers I know just don't give a rat's patootie once they've gotten their buzz of forcing a woman to have the baby, indulging in self-righteous snickering and condemnation of her and her little( "sin-fruit", as one referred to such a child in my hearing), messaging their egos with delusion of charity when they donate their worn baby clothes, etc. and just find some excuse to walk away (most are fiscal conservatives who are against any and all programs for supporting people in need).

So, because adoption is unneccesarily expensive and time consuming it's ok to kill the kid? How about fixing the adoption process?

 

[DieHappy]

If god provides for all his children then why are there so many homeless and starving people?

Feel good socialists getting in the way of the invisble hand of the free market and the compassion of the church.

 

[TeddyKGB]

The authors are guessing. You need to recognize propaganda when you see it.

I take it you have no specific criticism then.

I haven't found that, either. Please elaborate.

If spontaneous abortion rates are indeed as high as reported, it does not bode well for the doctrine that God ensouls zygotes and/or God values the just-conceived.

 

[Helo]

Feel good socialists getting in the way of the[...] [...]compassion of the church.

So why is it that when the church had a vertible strangle-hold on Europe, everything wasnt all warm and fuzzy? The church had almost total control over NATIONS, and there were QUITE a few starving folk. As I remember, the church hoarded money and lands, sold indulgencies, and executed anyone who disagreed with them as a heretic

 

[TheDag]

Something has struck me recently about the 'pro-life' crowd. We all know they oppose abortion. They don't want it to take place. Fair enough.

I haven't followed my usual practice of reading every single post in the thread before making a reply. Basically I am against abortion except in the case of rape or if the life of the mother is in danger (I am aware this is rare but believe the option should be there for those cases). In both these cases if the woman decides to go ahead with the birth I would fully support them in that. Part of the problem I believe is that people don't know all the options. I have friends who have pretended they are pregnant go to abortion clinics and talk to a doctor. Not once were the options given. The only talk was if you don't have an abortion then your stuffed. Of course if the pro-life groups were as vocal about the options like adoption or making sure they provide support to people who choose to give birth (there are a few places that do this with the emphasis on the few) and we stopped telling the lie that if you get pregnant when young then it will ruin your life then we have a chance of stopping what I consider to be unneccesary abortions. My wife got pregnant when young. Not only has it not ruined her life her earnings are far higher than what I could ever earn. Doesn't sound like a ruined life to me. I don't believe I should force my views on others as long as all are able to give their views respectfully. I don't believe just making abortion illegal is actually going to fix the problem. A school in newcastle (just north of Sydney) actually has a program to help school students who have become mothers to keep coming to school (this includes allowing them to bring their babies to school). This program has had an interesting effect. Teen pregnancies in that are have dropped big time. Why? Because the other teens now know whats involved and how tough it can be. Wow education (along with practical support) has helped drop the single teen pregnancy rate. Could it be that education and practical help will drastically reduce abortion. I believe so. Although theere is alot more to it than handing out condoms. (although I'm not sure if that should be part of the solution or not)

 

[Sycophant]

So you agree that the fertalized egg is a human life? It is fully human, accoding to it's DNA, and it's fully alive according to definitions of life.

So is a cancerous tumour.

 

[DieHappy]

So why is it that when the church had a vertible strangle-hold on Europe, everything wasnt all warm and fuzzy? The church had almost total control over NATIONS, and there were QUITE a few starving folk. As I remember, the church hoarded money and lands, sold indulgencies, and executed anyone who disagreed with them as a heretic

Because they were missing the part of the quote you cut out.

 

[DieHappy]

So is a cancerous tumour.

Don't be coy.
A cancerous tumor doesn't have the ability to organize, in fact it's does exactly the opposite and it divides.

 

[Helo]

Because they were missing the part of the quote you cut out.

Which part? The socialists?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

The law doesn't acknowledge it as murder, but I won't heed to the laws of a country that kills (can't say murder, since "killing brutally" isn't considered murder, either ) millions of helpless kids. They can call it "termination" all they want, but you've still stripped a human of life. Murder, death, kill...all the same.

The law is what determines if something is murder or not. You can choose to not heed the laws all you like, but it doesn't change the fact. Abortion is not murder, no matter how much you want it to be.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I don't support birth control because you are blocking what God has intended to take place, and that is the miracle of life.

Exactly. Against abortion, against birth control...you expect/want everybody to immediately start acting according to YOUR moral beliefs, and you don't care about the consequences for them or the world.

However, I cannot make these choices for people, so for you to point the finger at me, saying that I don't support birth control, so I'm to blame, is quite humerous.

People like you ARE to blame for every pregnancy that occurs because a person was ignorant of or could not obtain bith control.

They're having sex, not me. If we'd stop funding abortion, and put money into greater causes, then maybe those starving children would have food on the table.

If we'd stop giving churches silly tax exemptions, and put the money into greater causes, then maybe those teens would learn about and have access to birth control and the rate of abortions would drop. But no, that's not good enough for you...

But what do we expect in this world when we get away with the murder of innocent kids?

It's not murder, but I see honesty is something you don't care much about.

45,951,133 total Abortions in the US since 1973. This country is in for a rude awakening.

lol yeah, sure it is.

Who are you to judge what my posts have profited?

I knowwhere said anything about this. What are you talking about?

Just because you think that they haven't had an effect on anyone doesn't mean anything to me. Two days ago, I came into this room, wondering what people thought about Prop 73 and the abortion cause in general, and you want me to save the world? There is only so much one person can do, and for you to say that I do nothing is very judgemental. You don't even know me.

Yes, and you've managed to show that you are one of the people the OP talks about. You are part of the problem, not the solution. Well done.