Is in vitro fertilization murder?

[AllieBaba]

Good post. I must ask, though, when has a 9-year-old been "forced" to have a child that is the result of rape? This is rhetoric used by the pro-abortionists to try to terrify everyone into accepting abortion. Nobody is proposing that children be forced to carry to term the products of rape. Nobody ever has. Nobody has ever proposed that women put their lives on the line if carrying a child to term might kill them. These are false scenarios created by the left to justify a barbaric practice.

.

 

[Gem]

Alliebaba Wrote:

when has a 9-year-old been "forced" to have a child that is the result of rape?

So you do not believe that ardent pro-life supporters have argued that there is never a good reason for abortion? While I agree with you entirely...the Pro-Choice "movement" almost always falls back on the rape and incest argument for legalized abortion...when really a ridiculously small percentage of performed abortions are done for those reasons...that was not my point in this instance

My point was not to say that there was a slew of pregnant 9-year olds being forced to become mothers...but rather to state that obviously, in my opinion, there are sometimes when abortion should not only be legal, safe, and available...but is also the right decision...despite the fact that I believe that abortion is killing a human being initial stages of development.

 

[AllieBaba]

And in those circumstances, abortion always has been safe, available and legal. And it will continue to be.

I don't doubt there are a few pro-lifers who state abortion is wrong in any circumstance, including when the life of the mother is at stake. I've never heard them say it, though. I've only heard pro-abortionists say that's what pro-lifers want.

But the whole backbone of the pro-life movement isn't based upon a lie, as the pro-abortion movement is. The lie that we have to keep it tax funded and available upon request if we want to save the 9 year old rape victim from being forced to carry a child to term, at risk of her own life.

 

[Angel Heart]

WHich proves nothing.

10 percent is not "rare" in my book, btw. And "recent government reports" is a pretty bland and broad reference to nothing.

Find a study. Personally, I find 10 percent of the total number of abortions per year an awful lot of babies that could have lived if they'd been put on respirators or in an incubator with some O2.

I wonder how rare late term abortions are at these facilities?
http://www.lateabortion.com/
http://www.abortion.com/abortion_clinics_late_term.php


Here's what wikipedia says about late term abortions (basically we don't know how many there are)

Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's annual study on abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions performed past the 20th week, there is no exact data for the number of abortions performed after viability. [13] In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year.[14

So I wonder what "government study" your rag was referring to? If the CDC doesn't have numbers (and why would they, they support abortions at all stages. I wouldn't want those stats laying around, either) then what "government agency" do you suppose keeps track?

Our lib politicians and abortionist defenders don't want us to keep track:
http://www.lifenews.com/state1668.html

As I said earlier, you won't find a pro-abortionist who will support a "deadline" on abortion. They want those babies dead.

Problem, with how they record things, is that they count abortions like the one I had. It was a pregnancy that was a sack but no baby (called a blighted ovum) is counted in the elective abortion numbers. Due to it not saving my life or the result of a rape. I didn't have to have it. But I choose upon realizing that there was no baby (4 blood tests and 5 ultrasounds to prove it to me). When I could of just waited for nature to take it's course and clear my body out on it's own. I opted to end it right then. I wanted a finality.

According to your way of thinking, I'm a murder.

 

[Angel Heart]

I think he thinks it's only human once it has a beating heart.
23 days, according to wikipedia.
"Although the heart begins to beat on the 23rd day after conception, this article primarily deals with voluntary and reflex movements. Ages are given as age from fertilization rather than as gestational age."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_movement
Here are the things the non-human, non-living thing can do:

Even before the fetal stage begins, a six-week-old human embryo can arch its back and neck.[2] By seven weeks, movement in the arms and legs can be detected by ultrasound.[2] In these early movements, the limbs move together; they begin to move independently by the ninth week as the controlling neurons in the spinal cord develop.[3] At week 11, the fetus can open its mouth and suck its fingers; at week 12, it begins to swallow amniotic fluid.[4]

Problem being that the way they are counting and the way pregnancy is counted is entirely different.

Let me explain...

Full term is considered 40 weeks. However, conception occurs end of the 2nd week. So the 23rd day in your post is the 47th day (or 5.5 weeks)of pregnancy.

BTW for those that want to use that... Most women don't even know they are pregnant at this point. They are a week to two weeks late.

 

[AllieBaba]

How do you get that? I don't think you're a murderer. I don't think anybody who gets a legal abortion is a murderer. Nor do I think an empty amniotic sac is the same thing as a baby (where'd that come from, anyway?)

The fact of the matter is, there's no way to tell how your event was counted, or if it was. No records exist. No records to tell us how many abortions would be viable babies if they hadn't been killed during the abortion, no records to tell us how many abortions were so early in the pregnancy that many wouldn't even consider them human. No records to tell us how many "abortions" were simply procedures to remove empty amniotic sacs (though honestly, I doubt if you went to an abortion clinic to have that procedure...)

But no, I don't think you're a murderer.

 

[jillian]

Problem being that the way they are counting and the way pregnancy is counted is entirely different.

Let me explain...

Full term is considered 40 weeks. However, conception occurs end of the 2nd week. So the 23rd day in your post is the 47th day (or 5.5 weeks)of pregnancy.

BTW for those that want to use that... Most women don't even know they are pregnant at this point. They are a week to two weeks late.

The links also came from right to life sites and they never give accurate info on this stuff, so the numbers are inflated.

 

[Angel Heart]

Here's a sort of interesting little something I ran across...the comparision of slavery to abortion.

http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/SlaveryAbortion.htm

Interesting.

Do you have any sites that are not tied to the pro-life movement?

 

[Angel Heart]

How do you get that? I don't think you're a murderer. I don't think anybody who gets a legal abortion is murder. Nor do I think an empty amniotic sac is the same thing as a baby (where'd that come from, anyway?)

The fact of the matter is, there's no way to tell how your event was counted, or if it was. No records exist. No records to tell us how many abortions would be viable babies if they hadn't been killed during the abortion, no records to tell us how many abortions were so early in the pregnancy that many wouldn't even consider them human. No records to tell us how many "abortions" were simply procedures to remove empty amniotic sacs (though honestly, I doubt if you went to an abortion clinic to have that procedure...)

But no, I don't think you're a murderer.

The sack still had it's own DNA code. It was still classified as an elective abortion. With your views that would still be killing a child.

I was at a Kaiser hospital in So Cal. They do all the abortions at a clinic with in their own hospitals. It wasn't done by my own Dr. It was an "abortion Dr".

Conception is too hard of a line to draw. When most never reach implantation and are voided 2 weeks later with the woman's period.

You attack those that draw the line at heart beat. You attack them as if they where saying it was at 27 weeks. There's a big BIG difference between just getting a heart beat and 27 weeks.

You've shown yourself to be an extremist. When you have extreme views you should expect extreme responses.

 

[Angel Heart]

The links also came from right to life sites and they never give accurate info on this stuff, so the numbers are inflated.

It's not that it's inflated. It's mistated. It is 23 days from conception. But it's 47 days from what we call the start of pregnancy (first day of the last period).

 

[Dr Grump]

There are other questions too. Too many pro-lifers are on a religious bent. Like the human life is the most sacred of all. I disagree. My pet dog had more right to life than Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson or John Wayne Gacy. The other thing pro-lifers try and do is make people who have abortions out to be murderers. What a crock. I know a few women who have had abortions and not one single one of them took the decision lightly, nor did they look forward to the procedure. People terminate for various reasons - most because they are too young and their parents would have a fit, others because they don't have the means to support themselves. When I was a cop - many, many years ago, if I had a buck for every shitkicker teenager who was theiving and robbing and asaultin somebody who was the son of a single parent who was only 15-20 years older than them I'd have retired with a nice super annuation package. I feel bad for those that have abortions, but only in America is it a contentious issue bought about by your right-wing religious nutjobs...(in the main)

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't find religion any more repugnant than animal rights, or the religion of politics.

I've got to run today, but I will see if I can find any stats. The links I provided actually provide information about non-pro-life organizations. But when you go to other sites, you won't find stats.

There aren't any accurate stats. None. There are just best guesses.

And no, a sac with a DNA code does not meet my definition of a baby, any more than any other tissue with a DNA codes meets my definition of a baby.

 

[mattskramer]

And in those circumstances, abortion always has been safe, available and legal. And it will continue to be.

I don't doubt there are a few pro-lifers who state abortion is wrong in any circumstance, including when the life of the mother is at stake. I've never heard them say it, though. I've only heard pro-abortionists say that's what pro-lifers want.

But the whole backbone of the pro-life movement isn't based upon a lie, as the pro-abortion movement is. The lie that we have to keep it tax funded and available upon request if we want to save the 9 year old rape victim from being forced to carry a child to term, at risk of her own life.

So you are pro choice under certain circumstances. There are people and groups on all points of the pro-live vs. pro-choice spectrum. Pro-life people have tried to define pro-choice people and Pro-choice people have tried to define pro-life people. There is no distinct difference in that respect. Each side has its agenda.

You said that you have never heard pro-lifers say that abortion is wrong including when the life of the mother is at stake. It did not take long for me to find such an example. No offence, but I think that you should open your ears and look around. You can find all sorts of people and groups with all sorts of agendas and position if you search for a few minutes.

http://www.prolifeaction.org/faq/stand.htm#rape

What about abortion in the case of rape or incest?

A child conceived through rape or incest does not deserve the death penalty for his or her father's crime.

Most people who believe abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest do so without considering the actual experiences of sexual assault victims who become pregnant. In the only large-scale study of pregnant rape victims ever conducted, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that approximately 80 percent chose against abortion.

Many sexual assault victims see giving birth as a selfless, loving decision that helps to heal themselves from the horrific experience of the rape itself. Women who abort children conceived through rape often say that they didn't feel that they had any real choice but to do so, since everyone around them assumed that they would not want to give birth to their rapist's baby.
The case against abortion for pregnant victims of incest is even stronger. Incest victims hardly ever voluntarily consent to an abortion.

Rather than view the pregnancy as unwanted, the victim of incest more likely will see the pregnancy as a way to get out of the incestuous relationship because it exposes the abusive sexual activity that family members are afraid or unwilling to acknowledge. The pregnancy also poses a threat to the perpetrator, who frequently attempts to coerce his incest victim to have an unwanted abortion.

The idea that the violent act of abortion is beneficial to victims of rape and incest is completely unfounded. On the contrary: evidence clearly shows that abortion in such cases compounds the unspeakable pain that such victims experience.

What about abortion to protect the mother's life or health?

The Pro-Life Action League rejects abortion for the alleged purpose of preserving the health of the mother. Courts have defined the "health of the mother" so broadly as to include any aspect of mental or emotional health—effectively rendering this "exception" into an absolute license to abort.

We similarly reject the "life of the mother" exception. Over four hundred physicians have declared that abortion is never necessary to save a mother's life; and even if it were, it is wrong to deliberately, directly kill one innocent person to save another.

It took me less than 3 minutes to find this web page. Such positions are out there.

 

[Shogun]

Poor deluded misogynist.

A watermelon seed doesn't "change" into a watermelon. It just grows. It's a watermelon all along.

hehehe..

ok

You sure are correct!

 

[bennylava]

."under what circumstances is it appropriate to end a human life in its earliest stages?"

Nice.

Alliebaba, what is cnsnews? Is the word "Christian" in there somewhere?

 

[jillian]

Catholic News Service.

 

[Gem]

bennylava wrote:

."under what circumstances is it appropriate to end a human life in its earliest stages?"

Nice.

I'm sorry...its been a long day at the zoo for me (I teach middle school) - are you being sarcastic, are you agreeing with me, or are you disagreeing with me? I'm just too tired to tell...

 

[AllieBaba]

Ok, I'm going to look for stats and see what I come up with, but I've already done this and know there are no reliable stats on gestational age of aborted babies.

 

[Angel Heart]

Here's some more data for ya:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

Facts on Induced Abortion Worldwide


October, 2007

WORLDWIDE INCIDENCE AND TRENDS
• The number of induced abortions declined worldwide between 1995 and 2003, from nearly 46 million to approximately 42 million. About one in five pregnancies worldwide end in abortion. [1]

• For every 1,000 women of childbearing age (15–44) worldwide, 29 were estimated to have had an induced abortion in 2003, compared with 35 in 1995.[1]

• The decline in abortion incidence was greater in developed countries, where nearly all abortions are safe and legal (from 39 to 26 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44), than in developing countries, where more than half are unsafe and illegal (from 34 to 29).[1]

• Most abortions occur in developing countries—35 million annually, compared with seven million in developed countries[1]—a disparity that largely reflects the relative population distribution.

• On the other hand, a woman’s likelihood of having an abortion is similar whether she lives in a developed or developing region; in 2003, there were 26 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 in developed countries compared with 29 per 1,000 in developing countries.[1]

REGIONAL INCIDENCE AND TRENDS
• The most dramatic decline in abortion incidence occurred in Eastern Europe, a region where abortion is, for the most part, legal and safe: the rate fell from 90 to 44. The decrease coincided with substantial increases in contraceptive use in the region. [1], [2]


REGIONAL INCIDENCE AND TRENDS
• The most dramatic decline in abortion incidence occurred in Eastern Europe, a region where abortion is, for the most part, legal and safe: the rate fell from 90 to 44. The decrease coincided with substantial increases in contraceptive use in the region. [1], [2]

Although abortion rates and ratios (the number of abortions for every 100 births) in Eastern Europe have fallen significantly in recent years, they remain higher than in any other region. In 2003, there were more abortions than births in that region (105 abortions for every 100 births).[1]

• The estimated number of induced abortions in Africa has increased since 1995; however, the region’s abortion rate has declined because of an increase in the number of reproductive-age women. [1]

• Induced abortion rates and numbers in Asia and Latin America show modest declines since 1995.[1]

• The lowest abortion rate in the world is in Western Europe (12 per 1,000 women aged 15–44). The rate is 17 in Northern Europe and 21 in Northern America (Canada and the United States of America).[1]

• Because the world’s population is concentrated in Asia, most abortions occur there (26 million yearly); nine million of these take place in China.[1]

ABORTION LAW
• Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence. For example, the abortion rate is 29 in Africa, where abortion is illegal in many circumstances in most countries, and it is 28 in Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds. The lowest rates in the world are in Western and Northern Europe, where abortion is accessible with few restrictions. [1]

• Where abortion is legal and permitted on broad grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is illegal in many circumstances, it is often unsafe. For example, in South Africa, the incidence of infection resulting from abortion decreased by 52% after the abortion law was liberalized in 1996. [3]

• Between 1995 and 2005, 17 countries liberalized their laws to increase access to safe abortion: Albania, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chad, Colombia, Ethiopia, Guinea, Mali, Nepal, Portugal, Saint Lucia, South Africa, Swaziland, Switzerland and Togo. Three countries tightened restrictions on abortion: El Salvador, Nicaragua and Poland.[4]

UNSAFE ABORTION
• The World Health Organization defines unsafe abortion as a procedure for terminating an unintended pregnancy carried out either by persons lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimal medical standards, or both. [5]

• Worldwide, 48% of all induced abortions are unsafe. However, in developed regions, nearly all abortions (92%) are safe, whereas in developing countries, more than half (55%) are unsafe.[1]

Samples of Unsafe Abortion Methods Used
• Drinking turpentine, bleach or tea made with livestock manure

• Inserting herbal preparations into the vagina or cervix

• Placing foreign bodies, such as a stick, coat hanger or chicken bone, into the uterus

• Jumping from the top of stairs or a roof

• More than 95% of abortions in Africa and Latin America are performed under unsafe circumstances, as are about 60% of abortions in Asia (excluding Eastern Asia).[1]

• The worldwide unsafe abortion rate was essentially unchanged between 1995 and 2003 (15 and 14 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44, respectively). Because the overall abortion rate declined during this period, the proportion of all abortions that are unsafe increased from 44% to 47%.[1], [2]

CONSEQUENCES OF UNSAFE ABORTION
• Worldwide, an estimated five million women are hospitalized each year for treatment of abortion-related complications, such as hemorrhage and sepsis.[6]

• Complications due to unsafe abortion procedures account for an estimated 13% of maternal deaths worldwide, or 67,000 per year.[7]

• Almost all abortion-related deaths occur in developing countries. They are highest in Africa, where there were an estimated 650 deaths per 100,000 unsafe abortions in 2003, compared with 10 per 100,000 in developed regions.[7]

• Approximately 220,000 children worldwide lose their mothers every year from abortion-related deaths.[8]

• Additional consequences of unsafe abortion include loss of productivity, economic burden on public health systems, stigma and long-term health problems, such as infertility.[8]

UNINTENDED PREGNANCIES: THE ROOT OF ABORTION
• More than one-third of the approximately 205 million pregnancies that occur worldwide annually are unintended, and about 22% of all pregnancies end in induced abortion. [1,9, 10,11]

• Of the 23 million pregnancies that occur in developed countries, more than 40% are unintended, and 28% end in induced abortion. [1,9, 10,11]

• Of the 182 million pregnancies that occur in developing countries, more than one-third are unintended, and 19% end in induced abortion (8% are safe procedures and 11% are unsafe).[1,9, 10, 11]

• The average woman must use some form of effective contraception for at least 20 years if she wants to limit her family size to two children, and 16 years if she wants four children.[9]

• Two-thirds of unintended pregnancies in developing countries occur among women who are not using any method of contraception.[12]

• More than 100 million married women in developing countries have an unmet need for contraception, meaning they are sexually active; are able to become pregnant; do not want to have a child soon or at all; and are not using any method of contraception, either modern or traditional. [13]

• The reasons why women (married and unmarried) do not use contraceptives most commonly include concerns about possible health and side-effects and the belief that they are not at risk of getting pregnant.[13]

References
1. Sedgh G, Henshaw S, Singh S, Åhman E, Shah IH. Induced abortion: rates and trends worldwide. Lancet 2007; 370: 1338–45.

2. Henshaw SK, Singh S and Haas T, The incidence of abortion worldwide, International Family Planning Perspectives , 1999, 25(Suppl.):S30–S38.

3 Jewkes et al, "The impact of age on the epidemiology of incomplete abortion in South Africa after legislative change," BJOG 2005, 112, 355-9.

4. Center for Reproductive Rights, Abortion worldwide: twelve years of reform, July 2007, , accessed Sept. 13, 2007.

5. World Health Organization (WHO), The prevention and management of unsafe abortion: report of a technical working group, Geneva: WHO, 1992.

6. Singh S, Hospital admissions resulting from unsafe abortion: estimates from 13 developing countries, Lancet, 2006, 368(955):1887–1892.

7. World Health Organization (WHO). Unsafe abortion: global and regional estimates of incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality in 2003, Geneva: WHO, 2007. In Press.

8. Grimes DA et al., Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic, Lancet, 2006, 368(9550):1908–1919.

9. The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Sharing Responsibility: Women, Society and Abortion Worldwide, New York: AGI, 1999.

10. Population Division, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, World population prospects: the 2004 revision, New York: United Nations, 2005.

11. Leridon H, Human Fertility: The Basic Components, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.

12. Singh S et al., Adding It Up: The Benefits of Investing in Sexual and Reproductive Health Care, New York: AGI and United Nations Population Fund, 2003.

13. Sedgh G et al., Women with an unmet need for contraception in developing countries and their reasons for not using a method, Occasional Report, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2007, No. 37.

There's a chart that doesn't copy well on the site.

BTW we are in the Information Age, the data is out there.

So you know, I'm against abortions. I talk strongly against them to anyone that comes to talk with me about getting one. However, I do know that women will go to extremes to achieve it, even if it was illegal. I feel that restrictions need to be placed on it and monitored but to out and out make it illegal isn't our right. It also should be left up to each state. I pick my battles when it comes to this topic. I fight hardest for the ones that would have a chance if delivered. Life of the mother past a point isn't even a good argument when it comes to viability. Saline abortions, partial birth abortions are never OK in my book.

You seem to see the world in black and white. The world is full of grays. Abortion is a gray one. Even you have admitted that it shouldn't be illegal in all cases.

 

[AllieBaba]

Omg, I just had a whole huge post with links to the CDC and everything else, and I timed out and lost it.

Crap. Give me a minute. No, the information is not out there. The CDC admits it, the handbook for abortion data admits it, and a variety of states have either enacted legislation or are in the process of doing so to remedy the situation because the states are NOT required to report this information.

It makes me so mad. I had excerpts, and italics, and everything.