Obama to Lift Ban on Overseas Abortion Funding

[Enigma]

You're pro-choice but not pro-abortion. If your choice results in abortion how does this not make you pro-abortion. In this particular choice, the two are one in the same to me.

Just because someone is pro-choice does not mean if they themselves got pregnant, they would have an abortion. Many people are pro-choice that have never had or never would have an abortion. The basic concept of being pro-choice is only believing ever woman should have the right to choose what to do in the situation themselves. People that are pro-choice don't believe in dictating their own morality onto others.

Thank you. In the particular instance of abortion, though, it seems clear to me that the choice made results in abortion and the destruction of human life. Being pro-choice but not pro-abortion is wishy-washy and non-commital -- its the 'safe' answer, imo.

Which brings us right back to the unborn being human life and the arguments start all over again. <sigh>

In regards to being pro-choice but not pro-abortion I don't think that's exactly it. I don't think many people like the idea of anyone having an abortion, but people who are pro-choice don't feel it's their right to stop someone from having one. I think I stated before or someone else may have as well that I'd rather see a child aborted or given up for adoption instead of being unwanted, neglected, abused, etc. by its parents.

But anyway you are right it's certainly a never ending debate where each side is not likely to change the others mind.

Onto other topics I suppose...

 

[Care4all]

I will answer that for you....The Bible says that Life was given to Adam when God "Breathed life into him". then Adam took his first breath and had "life"....why didn't Adam have "life" in him when he was being formed or formed? yet it took a breath to make him "have life"?

this is why i believe the most vulnerable are those infants birthed and breathing among us, along w/ some of the handicapped disabled.

but, this bible passage also shows the importance of the foetus, indirectly....God did not twinkle his nose like Bewitched and man just showed up....he was ''formed'' by god first, then breath gave man life....but adam was FORMED.... this is what the foetus is, the formation of man, so that life can be breathed in to it....or begin.

Can't have a live, breathing person, without them being formed or a foetus.....thus great importance should surround it, but the foetus does not have ''life'' until it is birthed and breathes imo.

care

What a crock of shit. Here's the definition of the term foetus, Care. Its been posted twice but pro-choice advocates won't admit they're wrong. When a woman is pregnant, she is pregnant with life. Since humans give birth to humans, she is pregnant with human life. Stop trying to spin it as if the unborn are nothing more than dust. I like how you take the bible literally when it suits your argument.

A fetus (or foetus or f&#339;tus) is a developing human, after the embryonic stage and before childbirth.
Fetus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes Zoom, the embryo is most certainly a developing human being....I most certainly believe the embryo is living. I never said I didn't believe such?

(Tell me again how a fetus isn't human??)

I never said it wasn't* human?

An embryo (irregularly from Greek: &#7956;&#956;&#946;&#961;&#965;&#959;&#957;, plural &#7956;&#956;&#946;&#961;&#965;&#945;, lit. "that which grows," from en- "in" + bryein "to swell, be full"; the proper Latinate form would be embryum) is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development, from the time of first cell division until birth, hatching, or germination. In humans, it is called an embryo from the moment of implantation until the end of the 8th week, whereafter it is instead called a fetus.
Embryo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

('That which grows'. If it wasn't life, it wouldn't grow and change.)

You can call the unborn a zygot, embryo, fetus, baby . . . the terms change as the child changes. But the one term that is common at all stages is human.

As I have stated, and many times before on this board, I believe human conception takes place when the fertilized embryo attaches itself to the uterus, and this is the beginning stages of a new human beings life, with their own separate DNA genetic map, different from both its mother's and father's.

I don't believe this because God has made this clear through Biblical Scripture, because He hasn't. I believe this because Medical Science has pretty much proven such.

I still do not give the same "worth" to an embryo as I do a fetus, or an early week fetus to a late term fetus that is viable outside of the womb. And God forgive me if I am wrong in my thinking, but i just can't knock it....I can see a late term foetus, viable outside of the womb, equal to a newborn though...

it's just stupid logic honestly, that i can't overcome!

Part of this comes from the Bible itself, in a Scripture passage of the old testament.

A story, where there was a pregnant woman, who was struck by a man who was fighting with another man, and this forced her to miscarry her baby...but otherwise, she was not harmed.

It said, in this case, the husband could go to the Courts to seek restitution for his wife's miscarriage/baby's death....and get what the courts deemed fair, financially, for hurting his property.

But then, the story goes on to say, IF further harm is done to the wife (ex-mother to be), then the man who caused the harm should be held accountable by: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth....a life for a life.

So, to me, this Scripture could be saying, that the unborn child was worth something to the father to be...and the man that caused the death of this unborn child would be held accountable, civily...financially but NOT criminally.

HOWEVER, if the wife ended up being harmed later on, from this incident, and ended up dying, as an example, then this man that caused the miscarriage would THEN BE CRIMINALLY responsible....and held by an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth....a LIFE for a LIFE.

Exodus 21:22 "When men get in a fight, and hit a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage, [m] but there is no injury (to her), the one who hit her must be fined as the woman's husband demands (K) from him, and he must pay according to judicial assessment. 23 If there is injury that follows (to her), then you must give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, (L) hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, bruise for bruise, wound for wound.

This Passage Zoom, is what gives me second thought, and to me supports the value of a breathing human being, being of more worth than the unborn.

Also, Common Law followed in America, early on, allowed abortions up to the point of quickening, up to the point where the woman feels the baby kick....this was common law in the 1500's and the 1600's and 1700's and half of the 1800's...so they TOO gave worth to the later stage foetus as being greater than the early on embryo....

And these were very religious people back in the Day, yet this was Common Law here, and acceptable to them, though I am pretty certain it was shunned by the very religious....

So this too, gives reason to believe such.

BUT THEN there are other things, such as medical science itself, that is just too hard to get around and contradicts all that i just said....imo.

And to put it in the simplist of terms, from conception on, the embryo is a developing human being and if this embryo or fetus is not aborted, and allowed to just do its thing, it will more than likely, in 9 months, exit the mother, as a healthy, breathing baby.

Any stopping that from happening, is stopping a human being from coming in to fruition....regarless of the stage it is in when the pregnancy is terminated.


Sooooooooo, basically, on a personal level, I am conflicted on this entire "legal" issue.

Care

 

[eots]

I'd rather see a child aborted or given up for adoption instead of being unwanted, neglected, abused, etc. by its parents.

But anyway you are right it's certainly a never ending debate where each side is not likely to change the others mind.

Onto other topics I suppose...

[/QUOTE]

so you feel ever child that was abused or neglected in life would be better off dead !..how compassionate of you...how do you think abused children or neglected children feel about your arrogant opinion...on to other topics....how about we keep kicking at the darkness until it bleeds daylight instead..and woman of America stop eating thier young...

 

[WillowTree]

Did you have look at the site or are you a coward? If you so strongly believe in 'my body, my choice' -- be man enough to own up to exactly what 'your choice' does.

Why? It doesn't change the fact that government has no business inserting itself into the mix.

And get a grip... we've all seen the pictures that, more often than not, have nothing to do with what the religious right says they are.

So then government should not protect any innocent life?

Out of one side of their mouth they say the government must not insert themselves,, out of the other side they say the government must pay for it.. oh the hypocrisy.

 

[Zoom-boing]

but the foetus does not have ''life'' until it is birthed and breathes imo.

care

Care, this is what you wrote and what I read as you believing that a fetus isn't human. If I misread it or what you were saying , I truly apologize.

Yes Zoom, the embryo is most certainly a developing human being....I most certainly believe the embryo is living. I never said I didn't believe such?

I never said it wasn't* human?

Yes I believe this as well. The unborn are human (how could they not be??) and abortion destroys this human.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Why? It doesn't change the fact that government has no business inserting itself into the mix.

And get a grip... we've all seen the pictures that, more often than not, have nothing to do with what the religious right says they are.

So then government should not protect any innocent life?

Out of one side of their mouth they say the government must not insert themselves,, out of the other side they say the government must pay for it.. oh the hypocrisy.

Thanks for getting the thread back on topic Willow.

What do the pro-choice advocates say about this?

 

[Ravi]

In the plant kingdom, embryos are seeds and aren't plants (trees, flowers, shrubs) until they sprout. And the host, or mother, is free to drop her fruit if she feels she can't bear a viable plant.

I really don't see a difference in mammals except in the minds of the moralistic busybodies.

 

[dilloduck]

In the plant kingdom, embryos are seeds and aren't plants (trees, flowers, shrubs) until they sprout. And the host, or mother, is free to drop her fruit if she feels she can't bear a viable plant.

I really don't see a difference in mammals except in the minds of the moralistic busybodies.

Another great analogy from the Ravster

 

[Ravi]

In the plant kingdom, embryos are seeds and aren't plants (trees, flowers, shrubs) until they sprout. And the host, or mother, is free to drop her fruit if she feels she can't bear a viable plant.

I really don't see a difference in mammals except in the minds of the moralistic busybodies.

Another great analogy from the Ravster

Are you making fun of my beliefs?

 

[Anguille]

Seems funny to me our new President had to swear an oath on the BIBLE. There were at least two prayers to GOD asking him for guidance for this country. These prayers were a public event and they were heard by millions.

I guess God is important enough to include in our inauguration of our new President but we do not need his advice on abortions huh.

......

I firmly believe they should be told how God feels about abortion which by the way he is pro life.

LOL!!

And what about those who say God is pro choice?

Maybe God is just telling you what you want to hear.

Don't believe me ask a woman who has had an abortion. A abortion is a decision that will effect the rest of your life weather you like it or not. It will cause a wound that cannot be healed. If you get what I am saying.

No one I know who has had an abortion ever regretted it or suffered any wounds, physical or emotional.

 

[del]

In the plant kingdom, embryos are seeds and aren't plants (trees, flowers, shrubs) until they sprout. And the host, or mother, is free to drop her fruit if she feels she can't bear a viable plant.

I really don't see a difference in mammals except in the minds of the moralistic busybodies.

Another great analogy from the Ravster

Are you making fun of my beliefs?

no, just your analogies.

 

[dilloduck]

In the plant kingdom, embryos are seeds and aren't plants (trees, flowers, shrubs) until they sprout. And the host, or mother, is free to drop her fruit if she feels she can't bear a viable plant.

I really don't see a difference in mammals except in the minds of the moralistic busybodies.

Another great analogy from the Ravster

Are you making fun of my beliefs?

well not being able to see a difference between mammals and plants is a bit strange but lord knows it isn't the first time you've tried to strectch something.

A mother tree dropping her fruit if she doesn't think it's viable sorta boggles the mind.

 

[DiamondDave]

In the plant kingdom, embryos are seeds and aren't plants (trees, flowers, shrubs) until they sprout. And the host, or mother, is free to drop her fruit if she feels she can't bear a viable plant.

I really don't see a difference in mammals except in the minds of the moralistic busybodies.

And a plant will always be a plant... a seed does not start germinating a human...

And if your fruit is not viable, then what makes it any different to off you? I mean hell.. the biggest difference is just an arbitrary period of time in an air environment, passing thru a vag canal or c-section incision, and that is about it..... Pretty inconsequential things... So if your mom decides you are not going in the right direction, just cut you up into a hundred pieces and suck you up with the wet-dry vac?

 

[Ravi]

Another great analogy from the Ravster

Are you making fun of my beliefs?

well not being able to see a difference between mammals and plants is a bit strange but lord knows it isn't the first time you've tried to strectch something.

A mother tree dropping her fruit if she doesn't think it's viable sorta boggles the mind.

I'm totally insulted. In a biological sense, there really is no difference. Fruit trees drop their fruit all the time.

 

[WillowTree]

so if these are not humans what are they? frogs? dogs? cats? monkey? crickets? alligators?

 

[Care4all]

Here is what it says regarding the Common Law that was used early on in the 1600's and 1700's etc:

Early English common law provided very limited criminal punishment for abortion. In 1648, Edward Coke asserted that "quickening," the point at which a mother becomes aware of the fetus through its motion, was the dividing line between noncriminal and criminal abortion.49 He wrote: "If a woman be quick with childe, and by a potion or otherwise killeth it in her wombe; or if a man beat her, whereby the childe dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead childe, this is a great misprison, and no murder . . . ."50 Thus, abortion after quickening, which usually occurred late in the fourth or early in the fifth month of pregnancy, was only considered a misdemeanor at early common law.51

and also this regarding America:

2. American common and statutory law. Unlike the English common and statutory law, the historical treatment of self-abortion rights in American common and statutory law is ambiguous. In its earliest days, the United States lacked abortion statutes. Instead, states derived their abortion laws from the British common law.65 At this stage, states commonly adopted the early British common law concept that self-aborting or submitting to abortion was not a crime if it occurred before quickening.66 Connecticut became the first state to [*pg 1022] criminalize abortion through statute in 1821.67 The provision, which was primarily a poison control law, criminalized the administration of a poisonous substance "to cause or procure the miscarriage of any woman, then being quick with child."68

The law was aimed primarily at apothecaries who sold the poisons to women, and did not punish the women who ingested the toxins.69

Indeed, such early abortion statutes appeared to consider women seeking abortions as victims of their own moral weaknesses who needed state protection, rather than as felons.70

Duke Law Journal: Suzanne M. Alford, Is Self-Abortion a Fundamental Right?, 52 Duke L. J. 1011 (2003)



So, to me, all of this shows that even back then, in the most prudish and strictest of times for women, they were still not treated the way those on the right opposing abortion, treat them now....calling them murderers, and all kinds of SHIT, that is nothing but the work of the Devil and NOT of Jesus Christ who WOULD BE compassionate and forgiving, again, imo.

 

[WillowTree]

In the plant kingdom, embryos are seeds and aren't plants (trees, flowers, shrubs) until they sprout. And the host, or mother, is free to drop her fruit if she feels she can't bear a viable plant.

I really don't see a difference in mammals except in the minds of the moralistic busybodies.

that's cause you don't have the capacity to think E=Mc2 just like your daffodils.

 

[dilloduck]

In the plant kingdom, embryos are seeds and aren't plants (trees, flowers, shrubs) until they sprout. And the host, or mother, is free to drop her fruit if she feels she can't bear a viable plant.

I really don't see a difference in mammals except in the minds of the moralistic busybodies.

that's cause you don't have the capacity to think E=Mc2 just lkie your daffodils.

Willow---how do YOU feel about your fruit ?

 

[pegwinn]

Quite the sexist remark. It's nice to know that men don't have any role in conceiving a child!

Heh. Women claim the right of choice w/o allowing the man any say in the process. So, you get the whole process of choices.

Pro-choice: puts one's right to choose before anothers life.

Pro-life: puts another's life before one's own right to choose.

...says the radical religious right.....

Now here's a little reality without the hysteria:

pro-choice: no government intervention in personal religious choices until such time as on a realistic medical continuum, the right of government to regulate a person's body supercede's that person's own right.

anti-CHOICE: puts their own RELIGIOUS and moral determination ahead of everyone else to the point that they don't care about when it is appropriate for government to act.

Both sets of labels are stupid.
Anti-Abortion are those opposed to abortion. Period.
Pro-Abortion are those not opposed to abortion. Period.

More labels:
Geriatric, Adult, Teenager, Toddler, Infant, Newborn, Fetus, Embryo, Zygote.

All the above labels describe a stage of human development. It really isn't rocket science.

And, since when are you allowed to exercise your rights by infringing on someone else's?

 

[WillowTree]

In the plant kingdom, embryos are seeds and aren't plants (trees, flowers, shrubs) until they sprout. And the host, or mother, is free to drop her fruit if she feels she can't bear a viable plant.

I really don't see a difference in mammals except in the minds of the moralistic busybodies.

that's cause you don't have the capacity to think E=Mc2 just lkie your daffodils.

Willow---how do YOU feel about your fruit ?

my fruits don't have sex! or go to school, or invent rockets to the moon.. my fruits just kind of lay around and welll,,errrr,, vegetate.