Stopping abortion

[DieHappy]

No, I would not; in the same way I would not want anti-cosmetic surgery protestors going into medical buildings to yell at women for getting breast implants or anti-homosexuality protestors going into a clinic that treats patients with HIV. I don't have a problem with people sitting on sidewalks praying or handing out information to women who ask for it. They are well within their first amendment rights to do so. Just as I would have the right to stand outside a crisis pregnancy center with abortion information, but I wouldn't stoop to that level because I respect a woman's privacy and the delicate nature of having to make choices regarding her unplanned pregnancy.

I have a problem with the verbal harassment, obscenities yelled at women, gruesome pictures for all eyes to see and blocking clinic entrances. That is when you have crossed the line from making a point to being a disruption to the normal daily functions of a public place.

So, you're concerned for the children that might see the posters until a solution is offered that protects the children. Then the posters become an invasion of the woman's privacy?

 

[DieHappy]

I am for that "option" and I oppose abortion.

Me, too.

 

[DieHappy]

See the pattern? Rarely ever have I engaged in an abortion debate where a person offers up a solid defense of the pro-life stance using an argument based upon fetal development or preserving human life. It somehow all comes back around to "women being stupid and spreading their legs and not accepting the consequences".

That is why they truly aren't interested in better access to affordable contraceptives, because it gives women even more freedom to "be stupid and have sex" and that takes the control away from them to make the decisions for other women based upon their unhealthy view of sex.

You haven't actually been reading the posts here, have you?

 

[DieHappy]

(even though it is simply an attempt to shift the burden of proof from yourself). Here's an expert on reproduction, stem cell research and bioethics, Dr. Arthur L. Caplan:


There's a reason for this kind of failure rate. Ironically evidence for just why so many fail was uncovered during in vitro fertilization (IVF). Bear in mind that doctors go to great pains to insure that the woman's body is optimally prepared to receive the zygotes generated by IVF (her temperature, uterine lining, and hormonal state are peak). However, despite their best efforts, the success rate of IVF at producing a pregnancy is only marginally better than that of getting pregnant the old-fashioned way (~25%). When one actually looks at cells from these embryos we now know why, most of them have chromosomal defects that make them non-viable. Or as the reseachers here have observed:

This says nothing to support your numbers. Any researcher who thinks an in vitro observation can be transfered to an in vivo situation and then actually claim that as "proof" is not being honest with himself. There is no proof that that many pregnancies end early and your list of embryologists willing to take a guess at it doesn't offer proof. It just takes longer to read your posts. IVF has so many errors because we've intorduced human error into the equation. It's success rate was nearly zero for decades and we've gotten better at it. That means exactly zero when you want to compare it to real life.

Furthermore, it is antichoicers like you

Is it ok if I call you a baby killer, or shall we return to the accepted pro-life, pro-choice terminoology?

and livingproofGM who assert that human BEING is present from conception. The burden of proof is on YOU (the one with the affirmative claim has the burden of proof). However, the scientific evidence (gestational development, so many conceptions "expendable") is disproof of such a claim which is why the vast majority of embryologists, ob/gyns, and biologists (myself included) don't hue to the bogus notion that a human being is present at conception (also in my references).

You are claiming that your opinion is more valuable than mine. Most of the country actually does believe the fetus is a human being, they just disagree when the life should be granted the protection of human rights. I would like to see some sort of reason that the embryo is not a human being besides the spurious claim that some die early. I have to ask questions that you will, no doubt, dismiss out of hand because they expose the faults of the arguments. Blacks overwhelmingly die before reaching 70. Does that mean that all blacks cease to be human beings after reaching 70 years old?

Most zygotes don't make it to the implantation stage? Consult references above (yes, you may actually have to open a real textbook or peer-reviewed journal)

I have, thanks for yet another insult. None offer proof, they offer extrapolations based in in vitro observations. That is poor epidemiology.

 

[Helo]

What I find ironic is how little the pro-life movement has advanced or even worked. By thier own admission, the number of abortions every year continues to climb which tells me the pro-life movement is failing

 

[TheDag]

What I find ironic is how little the pro-life movement has advanced or even worked. By thier own admission, the number of abortions every year continues to climb which tells me the pro-life movement is failing

Which is why they should try different tactics rather than just calling people murderers.

 

[TheDag]

. Plus, show me a pro-lifer who wouldn't allow her daughter to have an abortion if she were a victim of rape.

I can't show you one but sadly I'm sure they do exist out there. I hsaw comments from one pro-lifer who when asked about the life of the mother being in danger situation responded with a that is so rare and tough luck for the mother. Or in other words let the mother die which would most likely mean the baby would die as well. So in his rush to protect the baby he would happily let both mother and baby die.

 

[katautumn]

So, you're concerned for the children that might see the posters until a solution is offered that protects the children. Then the posters become an invasion of the woman's privacy?

DieHappy, that makes no sense. I am concerned that children will see those posters which puts their parents in a forced position to discuss something of a delicate and, in a round-about way, sexual nature. It's not an invasion of privacy. It's a deplorable method of getting a point across. There are much better ways to make your views known. Using shock tactics shows a lack of intellect, tact and creativity.

You haven't actually been reading the posts here, have you?

Actually, I have. I wouldn't take the time to respond as in-depth as I do had I not taken the time to read through the posts before mine. And I must give everyone credit. This has been probably the most intellectually stimulating and mature abortion debate I've ever been engaged in online.

 

[Monica02]

You are going to some length to avoid explaining why you think pictures of aborted fetuses are necessary to your cause in the first place.

The reason for showing the photos of the killed human beings should be obvious, but I will explain. They show the TRUTH that an unborn human is indeed a human and they also show the brutality of the act of abortion. People can agree or disagree about the rightness or wrongness of the act, but at least they will have seen the pictures.

 

[AcadiaMoon]

The reason for showing the photos of the killed human beings should be obvious, but I will explain. They show the TRUTH that an unborn human is indeed a human and they also show the brutality of the act of abortion. People can agree or disagree about the rightness or wrongness of the act, but at least they will have seen the pictures.

I think people who show those pictures are nuts. If somebody was on a street corner showing pictures of dead US soldiers as an argument against the war, most of these people who hold up pictures of aborted fetuses would be disgusted. So why is it OK to hold up pictures of a fetus in that kind of condition? The people who show those pictures are the fringe of the fringe set.

Cindy Sheehan protested without pictures and people were still outraged saying that she was disrespecting US soldiers. Show a fetus though and that's OK? It's all one of the tons of reasons I could never be anti-abortion. The whole debate just makes no sense to me.

 

[Monica02]

I think people who show those pictures are nuts. If somebody was on a street corner showing pictures of dead US soldiers as an argument against the war, most of these people who hold up pictures of aborted fetuses would be disgusted. So why is it OK to hold up pictures of a fetus in that kind of condition? The people who show those pictures are the fringe of the fringe set.

You can think whatever you want, but you will at least have seen the truth of what an abortion does to a little tiny human. I would not think that someone holding a picture of a dead soldier is nuts, I would simply think that that person is trying to convey the brutality of war.

 

[AcadiaMoon]

I've seen pictures on rotton.com of brains and all sorts of nasty things which looks exactly like an abortion too. If there was any sort of weight to the anti-abortion stance then there would be no need to revert to shock tactics that reflect none of the reality of abortion.

 

[TheDag]

The reason for showing the photos of the killed human beings should be obvious, but I will explain. They show the TRUTH that an unborn human is indeed a human and they also show the brutality of the act of abortion. People can agree or disagree about the rightness or wrongness of the act, but at least they will have seen the pictures.

But what about the argument that the young child should not see those pictures. It should be left to the parent to explain abortion but not forced to explain because someone thrusts a picture in their young childs face. (bearing in mind that someone earlier pointed out that they were going to PP to get birth control pills and their child was confronted with this. The person was not having an abortion and from what they said they wearn't even pregnant but was called a murderer. That is not decent behaviour no matter what)

 

[AcadiaMoon]

But what about the argument that the young child should not see those pictures. It should be left to the parent to explain abortion but not forced to explain because someone thrusts a picture in their young childs face. (bearing in mind that someone earlier pointed out that they were going to PP to get birth control pills and their child was confronted with this. The person was not having an abortion and from what they said they wearn't even pregnant but was called a murderer. That is not decent behaviour no matter what)

There's no excuse for that kind of stuff and anybody who says otherwise is straight irresponsible.

 

[Lycaenidae]

You can think whatever you want, but you will at least have seen the truth of what an abortion does to a little tiny human. I would not think that someone holding a picture of a dead soldier is nuts, I would simply think that that person is trying to convey the brutality of war.

One of my best friends almost died in childbirth this morning. Did you think giving birth was fun and safe? Because it's not. You want the ability to FORCE women to go through that hell, as though their body is some kind of incubator, some kind of machine, something that has no meaning except what the fetus gives it. We're talking about living, breathing people that we love.

 

[Dislike]

The reason for showing the photos of the killed human beings should be obvious, but I will explain. They show the TRUTH that an unborn human is indeed a human and they also show the brutality of the act of abortion. People can agree or disagree about the rightness or wrongness of the act, but at least they will have seen the pictures.

Shock tactics.

 

[GreyWolf]

Shock tactics? Or simply showing the truth? I've heard the argument dozens of times that in the first trimester an unborn baby is just a ball of cells....when people see a picture of an eight week old fetus and see arms and legs torn off and a little face, they realize it is a little person. It educates them. If there is a God, and if they die and face Him, they can't say they didn't know....can they?

 

[GreyWolf]

One of my best friends almost died in childbirth this morning. Did you think giving birth was fun and safe? Because it's not. You want the ability to FORCE women to go through that hell, as though their body is some kind of incubator, some kind of machine, something that has no meaning except what the fetus gives it. We're talking about living, breathing people that we love.

I do not agree that pregnancy is hell. I think hell is more like having your arms and legs ripped off, your skull crushed and your brains sucked out, or being burned with a toxic chemical until you die. That is what happens to babies in abortions. However, if you do regard pregnancy and childbirth as hell, there is an easy way to avoid it- don't have sex.

 

[Archivist]

I do not agree that pregnancy is hell. I think hell is more like having your arms and legs ripped off, your skull crushed and your brains sucked out, or being burned with a toxic chemical until you die. That is what happens to babies in abortions. However, if you do regard pregnancy and childbirth as hell, there is an easy way to avoid it- don't have sex.

The difference is that a pregnant woman is a life in being. A fetus is a potential human being, not a life in being. Further, a decision as to whether "pregnancy is hell" should be up to the woman who is actually pregnant, not you.

As for your statement of "don't have sex," there are individuals on this thread who have clearly stated that they believe that women wgho are raped should not be permitted to have abortions. Did they have a choice in the matter of having sex? Why should they be forced to carry the fetus that is a product of rape to term? Why should a woman who has been raped be forced to walk past these images when entering an abortion clinic?

 

[DieHappy]

We're talking about living, breathing people that we love.

And we're talking about a living, oxygen dependant, baby that we love.