Abortions - The Truth - The Killing of Unborn Children

[rtwngAvngr]

Nope. That's you bringing the poor into it. I'm talking about potential criminals. I don't see how that is a certain group though. What I am talking about is one of the positive societal benefits from abortion. Let's keep in mind now that we're not talking about massive genocide. Each abortion is a choice that the individual mother makes. It's not like I'm saying that we should force tons of people to have abortions who don't want to have them.

Future criminal. It's a group. Is killing indivduals more ok then killing a targeted group anyway? No one is forced to murder either. Is murder ok then? You can keep repeating your statements, but they don't get better each time or anything.

 

[no1tovote4]

There are some grey areas. For example, I am without a doubt against abortion, unnless there are extreme circumstances surrounding conception. I think there should be choice inovled. I wouldn't call myself pro-choice, but technically I am.

It is my belief that we should, in those instances where abortion might be the norm, remove the fetus with the intent of saving it rather than with the expressed intent to kill that burgeoning life. There can in no way be found fault in the fact that the fetus is alive, it was never at fault.

At first, almost all of them would unfortunately die, but in time it would bring true choice to women around the world. Imagine a woman being able to decide to incubate ex-utero, she'd never miss work time, etc. Women who have problem pregnancies would be able to have children without fear of death. I can go on.

(This part is not for you, but for Powerman)
That somebody can go and deny the science that a human has been killed is simply that, denial. There is an entirely separate being, a fully functional human machine. That it would be unable to survive without assistance does not make it less than human, just earlier in its development toward adult.

To say it is the same as sperm is denying the DNA evidence. Your sperm carries only half of the human DNA, the egg the other half. Once the two meet a new human organism is formed. That you deny its humanity because of age does not change the fact that it is scientifically a new human.

 

[no1tovote4]

This is true...I would hate to adopt a child that wasn't healthy because the binge drinking, coke snorting mom couldn't join a 12 step program for 9 months.

So, if your mother was a binge drinker and snorted coke you would decide that death would be better than life? This argument is idiotic. There are many people that will adopt special needs children, that you are not one of them is not an argument for abortion, just an argument that you are a little more selfish than some others. (BTW - I am too, it is not a moral judgement of you based on the fact you don't want to adopt a special needs kid. It still does not however negate the fact that the kid deserves a chance to live.)

 

[no1tovote4]

ahhh, so you are saying that abortions are completely elective eh?

I thought so many of the women who have them, do so because if they dont, then their whole lifes will be destroyed, they wont have a chance at an education, a good job, that they are now doomed to lives of misery?

Doesnt sound like much of a choice to me.

Therefore they are legally allowed to end the life of their progeny? What if they hadn't an abortion, that same child could do the same things as it could when it was a fetus. Why is it not legal to end the life of their progeny at that point? An arbitrary age requirement is simply not very scientific, is not based in logic. People choose in utero as the line because they cannot see the pain and have not yet associated it in their emotional mind to life, but there is little difference logically.

 

[Said1]

It is my belief that we should, in those instances where abortion might be the norm, remove the fetus with the intent of saving it rather than with the expressed intent to kill that burgeoning life. There can in no way be found fault in the fact that the fetus is alive, it was never at fault.

At first, almost all of them would unfortunately die, but in time it would bring true choice to women around the world. Imagine a woman being able to decide to incubate ex-utero, she'd never miss work time, etc. Women who have problem pregnancies would be able to have children without fear of death. I can go on.

I know you could go on, but it's a moot point with me. I won't change my mind.

Even though I wasn't specific with regard to circumstances, there are other extreme senarios that don't involve pre-mature bith and those are generally what I am speakin of. I've seen all sorts of situations first hand and I still couldn't say for sure what I'd do. I truely think many people make different choices when faced with making that choice for themselves. I don't mean you of course.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Therefore they are legally allowed to end the life of their progeny? What if they hadn't an abortion, that same child could do the same things as it could when it was a fetus. Why is it not legal to end the life of their progeny at that point? An arbitrary age requirement is simply not very scientific, is not based in logic. People choose in utero as the line because they cannot see the pain and have not yet associated it in their emotional mind to life, but there is little difference logically.

Precisely my point when I say, either the fert egg is a human being, in which case ALL arguements for abortion are null and void. Or it isnt a human being, in which case all arguements against abortion are null and void. PM wont address that one however.

The thing about using the fert egg as a delination point, is that its clear, not gray and murky like, "when it can feel pain" "when its this or that" those are all too arbitrary.

We cant claim it starts at birth for a miriad of reasons, but its so obvious that immediately prior to birth it is a baby. Just for starters.

So, I dont see any other point than fert. that can be used if one is honest.

Its human
Its alive
Its NOT just another part of her body

regarding your incubating outside the womb, I would be opposed to that.
Unless it was used very rarely.
In my life, I have learned that often it is the hardships that create the most happiness in your life.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Canadian dollar 0.863558 to the dollar.

You guys have always been a bit behind us

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So, if your mother was a binge drinker and snorted coke you would decide that death would be better than life? This argument is idiotic. There are many people that will adopt special needs children, that you are not one of them is not an argument for abortion, just an argument that you are a little more selfish than some others. (BTW - I am too, it is not a moral judgement of you based on the fact you don't want to adopt a special needs kid. It still does not however negate the fact that the kid deserves a chance to live.)

Fact is, "Planned Parenthood" I think the original oxymoron considering their main business is abortion, their biggest revenue generator by far and away is abortion.

They are in the abortion business, make no mistake about it.

Leading feminists and NOW are not interested in womens rights, but power and money.

These two groups, when coaliced with the liberal left, who will take ANY group so long as it opposes republicans, form a group that feeds the general public and women in particular lies about abortion and adoption.

Feminists are commited to keeping abortion legal cuz it gives them power.
Planned Parenthood is committed to it because it gives them million$.

Anti religous leftists fall for their propaganda and ultimately have to resort to "emotional" arguements.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

A new research has shown that having an abortion can be the cause of mental distress in women even years after the procedure.

The study, by a team from the University of Oslo in collaboration with a team the Buskerud Hospital in Drammen, Norway, was conducted on a group of 40 women who had had a miscarriage and 80 women who had undergone an induced abortion.

According to the open access journal BMC Medicine, the results showed that while women who had had a miscarriage suffered more mental distress up until six months after the event, women who had an abortion experienced more mental distress in the long term i.e. even after two to five years.

The research showed that women who had an abortion were far more likely to experience high levels of anxiety, feelings of guilt, shame and relief, and also had to make an extra effort to avoid thoughts about the procedure.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1571534,001100020012.htm

This falls in line with my experience of 20 years of working with drug addicts. The women, I would say, around 70% of drug addicts, (not alcoholics) had abortions.

MORE:

The National Abortion Federation (NAF) has been keeping track of violence against abortion providers. Their findings include:

Abortion Provider Violence Statistics:

7 Murders
17 Attempted Murders
41 Bombings
168 Arsons
82 Attempted Bombings/Arsons
373 Invasions
1048 Incidences of Vandalism
591 Incidences of Trespassing
125 Incidences of Assault and Battery
357 Death Threats
3 Kidnappings
76 Incidences of Burglary
Abortion Provider Disruption Statistics:

9790 Incidences of Hate Mail/Calls
578 Bomb Threats
68886 Incidences of Picketing
Abortion Provider Clinic Blockades:

686 Blockades
33830 Arrests
Pro-Choice Violence

The Blackmun Wall is a listing of the women killed by legal abortions, along with information regarding the circumstances of their death.

This list is maintained by LifeDynamics.com. Their findings include:
91 Pro-Abortion Murders
347 Women Killed by "Safe and Legal" Abortions


Sponsored Links
Miami Abortion Specialist
24Hr (305) 591-2288-670-9797 All Methods Abortion Procedures
EveMedicalCenters.com

Abortions in New York
20+ years of expert Physicians performing Low Cost Safe Abortions
www.gynservices.com

Pro-Life Literature
140+ pieces of pro-life literature including 50 new publications
www.hh76.com
This list is maintained by LifeDynamics.com. Their findings include:
91 Pro-Abortion Murders
347 Women Killed by "Safe and Legal" Abortions


I put the numbers in bold. I also included the links provided by the web site to show their neutrality.

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaaborviolstats.htm

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes it's one of the silliest things you've ever heard. Maybe you need to just seriously step back and take a neutral approach to life because your beliefs and partisan views blind you to the truth. Instead of saying it's ridiculous how about you do some of your own research. But since I have literally zero confidence that you want to know the truth let me post a few links that you might enjoy reading.

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf

http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/roevscr2.htm

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=174508

Since you love your logical deductions so much chew on this idea. People who have abortions don't want kids. Unwanted kids tend to have poor childhoods. Unwanted kids with poor childhoods have a much greater chance of growing up to be criminals than anyone else. 18 years after abortion was legalized crime starts to decrease everywhere that abortion is legal. That's because a lot of would be criminals are being aborted. It's very simple to follow. Or is it still one of the silliest things you've ever heard? :blah2:

EVEN your own author of the study, Steven D Levitt, says its only a CASUAL LINK evidence and not PROOF, i.e. its an interesting idea.

You (mr scientific method) need to learn the difference between PROOF and FACTS and CASUAL LINKS. Idiot. In your world, the slightest POSSIBLE evidence that supports your agenda suddenly becomes the biggest FACT in existence.

"Donohue and Levitt (2001) present a number of analyses that suggest a causal link between legalized abortion and reductions in crime almost two decades later when the cohorts exposed to legalized abortion reach their peak crime years."

 

[MissileMan]

It is my belief that we should, in those instances where abortion might be the norm, remove the fetus with the intent of saving it rather than with the expressed intent to kill that burgeoning life. There can in no way be found fault in the fact that the fetus is alive, it was never at fault.

At first, almost all of them would unfortunately die, but in time it would bring true choice to women around the world. Imagine a woman being able to decide to incubate ex-utero, she'd never miss work time, etc. Women who have problem pregnancies would be able to have children without fear of death. I can go on.

(This part is not for you, but for Powerman)
That somebody can go and deny the science that a human has been killed is simply that, denial. There is an entirely separate being, a fully functional human machine. That it would be unable to survive without assistance does not make it less than human, just earlier in its development toward adult.

To say it is the same as sperm is denying the DNA evidence. Your sperm carries only half of the human DNA, the egg the other half. Once the two meet a new human organism is formed. That you deny its humanity because of age does not change the fact that it is scientifically a new human.

And let's say for the sake of argument that they actually build this human fetus factory. What would you consider an appropriate action if the fetus were to be afflicted with a catastrophic birth defect...not something minor, like a cleft palate, but a major one like anencephaly.

 

[no1tovote4]

And let's say for the sake of argument that they actually build this human fetus factory. What would you consider an appropriate action if the fetus were to be afflicted with a catastrophic birth defect...not something minor, like a cleft palate, but a major one like anencephaly.

I would say to keep them under wraps until we had the cure for their disorder. We have the current technology that could do that one.

 

[MissileMan]

I would say to keep them under wraps until we had the cure for their disorder. We have the current technology that could do that one.

So now it's a fetus factory/deep freeze. I'm curious, other than starting over from scratch, what "cure" might there be for a baby developing without a brain?

What about fetuses that become non-viable masses of dis-organized human tissue? Do we keep them alive until they've become a 1,000 pound tumor...2,000 pounds?

 

[no1tovote4]

So now it's a fetus factory/deep freeze. I'm curious, other than starting over from scratch, what "cure" might there be for a baby developing without a brain?

What about fetuses that become non-viable masses of dis-organized human tissue? Do we keep them alive until they've become a 1,000 pound tumor...2,000 pounds?

So you think we'll never be able to repair a genetic problem? I would disagree. If they are non-viable the stem cells could be used for other research, much like the fetuses that would die naturally at the beginning of implementation.

This becomes tired. Any further extreme and rare circumstances you want to come up with to attempt to support the unsupportable?

Either one recognizes the science and the fact that a fetus is a separate human by DNA and development or one does not. One has to be built on faith, the other is on science. Logic can determine which is which.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So you think we'll never be able to repair a genetic problem? I would disagree. If they are non-viable the stem cells could be used for other research, much like the fetuses that would die naturally at the beginning of implementation.

This becomes tired. Any further extreme and rare circumstances you want to come up with to attempt to support the unsupportable?

Either one recognizes the science and the fact that a fetus is a separate human by DNA and development or one does not. One has to be built on faith, the other is on science. Logic can determine which is which.

Yea, the old, "even though your solution is a better choice, its not perfect, so we cant change" ploy.

 

[MissileMan]

wiping out a duplicate

 

[MissileMan]

So you think we'll never be able to repair a genetic problem? I would disagree. If they are non-viable the stem cells could be used for other research, much like the fetuses that would die naturally at the beginning of implementation.

This becomes tired. Any further extreme and rare circumstances you want to come up with to attempt to support the unsupportable?

Either one recognizes the science and the fact that a fetus is a separate human by DNA and development or one does not. One has to be built on faith, the other is on science. Logic can determine which is which.

If they are non-viable and to be used as a source for stem cells, would it be fair to say that an abortion would take place in order to harvest them?

I'll wager there's a mighty fine song and dance routine in the offing.

 

[MissileMan]

Yea, the old, "even though your solution is a better choice, its not perfect, so we cant change" ploy.

It's no solution, it's a fantasy pipedream. Billions of embryos in deep freeze waiting for medical technology to catch up. Women having babies without actually giving birth, hell...why even bother to get pregnant. We can just let the administrators of the good ol' fetus factory randomly pair up sperm and eggs. After they've been weaned off their artificial milk machine, they can pack the babies off to state run mass-rearing facilities. Am I the only person who thinks this is worse than the worst idea ever to pass through a liberals lips?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

It's no solution, it's a fantasy pipedream. Billions of embryos in deep freeze waiting for medical technology to catch up. Women having babies without actually giving birth, hell...why even bother to get pregnant. We can just let the administrators of the good ol' fetus factory randomly pair up sperm and eggs. After they've been weaned off their artificial milk machine, they can pack the babies off to state run mass-rearing facilities. Am I the only person who thinks this is worse than the worst idea ever to pass through a liberals lips?

Billions?

I dont think he is taking a liberal posistion on this.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

wiping out a duplicate

is this a way of saying "aborting a twin"?