Another abortion thread

decides2dream · July 2009

decides2dream wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

yes, and it sure plays out as sensationalistic, when you quote the article:

The statistics for 2006 showed that nearly 15,000 women in the UK have had three or more abortions, with 54 having had eight or more abortions. A total of 193,737 women in England and Wales had an abortion in 2006, 17,173 of which were on women under 18 years.

54 women, out of just how many live in the UK? that is hardly a "majority' of women who have that # of abortions. and the increase in women having abortions, again, does not mean they are having LOTs of abortions, each, just simply many women are choosing that option for themselves. all stats can spin however you like to spin em.

54 serial killers in 1 country is a big deal.

indeed it would be!

however, we both know each others views, are not about to change each other's minds....so i have something else i would like to focus on if i may. i have this question a few times in this thread, and gotten no answers....but you also weren't around. so then, it's my understanding that you are a fairly 'moderate' pro-lifer, as in yes, you believe abortion is murder....but you do also support the use of BC. that said, are you also against the use of the morning after pill? and if so, may i ask why? are you also against the use of all hormonal forms of BC ( such as the pill, IUDs, the ring, BC injection, etc) i ask this b/c all of these methods of BC MAY prevent a pregnancy by not allowing implantation of a fertilized egg. they may also work before then, as in, prevent fertiliization itself, but there is no way of knowing just when/how these BC methods do/will work in each given situation. the only methods of BC that work ONLY on preventing fertilization, are condoms and diaphraghms, since they are physical barriers to the sperm ever reaching an egg....whereas this other methods, again, may or may not prevent fertilization, or may or may not prevent implantation.

.

the other, new abortion thread 'reminded' me of this one, and my unanswered Q. i AM genuinely interested in thoughts from tho pro-lifers who do also believe in the use of BC. just pure curiosity, no ambush/judgements...just wonderment on the topic.

CJMST3K · July 2009

decides2dream wrote:

i have never in my life known of a woman who conscoiusly chooses not to use BC simply b/c " they can just as easily take the morning after pill or have an abortion if pregnancy happens." do you honestly believe there are women who think like this? and if so, what makes you think that?

just jumping in and quickly out of this thread.

I've been involved with women like this, so they are around.

cincybearcat · July 2009

decides2dream wrote:

[ so then, it's my understanding that you are a fairly 'moderate' pro-lifer, as in yes, you believe abortion is murder....but you do also support the use of BC. that said, are you also against the use of the morning after pill? and if so, may i ask why? are you also against the use of all hormonal forms of BC ( such as the pill, IUDs, the ring, BC injection, etc) i ask this b/c all of these methods of BC MAY prevent a pregnancy by not allowing implantation of a fertilized egg. they may also work before then, as in, prevent fertiliization itself, but there is no way of knowing just when/how these BC methods do/will work in each given situation. the only methods of BC that work ONLY on preventing fertilization, are condoms and diaphraghms, since they are physical barriers to the sperm ever reaching an egg....whereas this other methods, again, may or may not prevent fertilization, or may or may not prevent implantation.

It's a good question and a topic I've discussed here before I believe, maybe with you. I don't know enough about some of the forms of birth control specifically. I guess I have to say I'm for the pill, etc. It's can be natural for a fertilized egg to not be implanted, so, as you say, there is no way of knowing if it would or wouldn't have. Though, I have thought and rethought my opinion on BC that prevent implantation many times.

decides2dream · July 2009

cincybearcat wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

[ so then, it's my understanding that you are a fairly 'moderate' pro-lifer, as in yes, you believe abortion is murder....but you do also support the use of BC. that said, are you also against the use of the morning after pill? and if so, may i ask why? are you also against the use of all hormonal forms of BC ( such as the pill, IUDs, the ring, BC injection, etc) i ask this b/c all of these methods of BC MAY prevent a pregnancy by not allowing implantation of a fertilized egg. they may also work before then, as in, prevent fertiliization itself, but there is no way of knowing just when/how these BC methods do/will work in each given situation. the only methods of BC that work ONLY on preventing fertilization, are condoms and diaphraghms, since they are physical barriers to the sperm ever reaching an egg....whereas this other methods, again, may or may not prevent fertilization, or may or may not prevent implantation.

It's a good question and a topic I've discussed here before I believe, maybe with you. I don't know enough about some of the forms of birth control specifically. I guess I have to say I'm for the pill, etc. It's can be natural for a fertilized egg to not be implanted, so, as you say, there is no way of knowing if it would or wouldn't have. Though, I have thought and rethought my opinion on BC that prevent implantation many times.

no, i've never actually discussed BC in such depth with any pro-lifer, not to my recollected knowledge in any case.

it is already in this thread, but to sum up:

BC pills, IUDs, the patch, BC injections, the ring : all hormonal forms of BC. therefore they all can prevent fertilization (egg and sperm merge aka conception) and they also may prevent implantation ( fertilized egg's implantation onto the uterine wall). there is no way of knowing, definitively, exactly which way any of these methods are preventing, b/c it is entirely dependent on when exactly in the woman's menstrual cycle she is engaging in intercourse. non-hormonal forms of BC, condoms and diaphragms, prevent fertilization only since they form a physical barrier to sperm.

so my question is, if one is ok with say BC pills....why not the morning after pill? they basically are one and the same - morning after pill being a super high dose of regular BC pill. yes, one is taken before and the other after.....but again, since they both can work in the exact same manner...prevention of implantation, why not support it? to me, if one believes life begins *right* at conception (fertilized egg)....well then BOTH methods (and all other hormonal forms of BC).....are "murder" if that is one's beliefs. obviously, it is not my belief, but i still far rather higher usage of morning after pills rather than abortions, simply b/c it is less traumatic for the woman/girl, cheaper, etc.

also, it is estimated that almost all sexually active women have at least one miscarriage (aka spontaneous abortion) within their lifetimes, completely unaware...simply b/c it happens so early in their cycle. egg and sperm meet, fertilize, but it's usually a few days later before implantation on the uterine wall. obviously, w/o implantation, there can be no pregnancy. the woman's body does this all quite naturally, dispels the fertilized egg. so basically, the body is aborting a conceptualized egg, again in some people's minds...murder then.

it is genuine curiosity that there ARE those who support all forms of BC, but not the morning after pill....or are so vehemently opposed to abortion, no matter how early it may occur. and no, i realize i will not be changing anyone's minds, but if it at least makes some people think more about it - especially about acceptance of the morning after pill - that's a good start imo.

i do agree, i think many people do not educate themselves enough about the varying forms of BC (though i am so glad they use/believe in it!).....but i just think if they DID, they'd be making more informed decisions, and perhaps remove some of the stigma for morning after pill usage.basically, if you are ok with BC pills, theoretically, you should be ok with the morning after pill....tis all the same. that's why often (not saying you) i think this subject is loaded with a lot more judgements than actual discernment of facts.

thanks for answering tho, glad you gave it some thought. i was hoping for a more definitive opinion so i could 'understand' more.....especially since you did not weigh in one way or another on the morning after pill.....but i appreciate you addressing it.

i just think, as long as one is a-ok with BC pills, but against abortion....more widespread support of the morning after pill would be a really GOOd thing, and could help reduce the amount of abortions, overall....and i think we all would desire that.

ksacco_06 · July 2009

There is so much going on in this thread. It's crazy. I just wanted to share my feelings on abortion. I believe in pro-life under any circumstances. Not a whole lot of people agree with me and that is okay : ) I'm not going to get into the dialogue right now. . .but maybe later.
I am very passionate on this subject and it breaks my heart that so many individuals are having abortions and are in favor of them. If you believe in abortion, I encourage you to reseach the methods and research fetal development. The methods are horrible! And at every stage, even the very beginning you can see life beginning to form. Every child is precious and is a gift, and deserves a right to life.

decides2dream · July 2009

ksacco_06 wrote:

There is so much going on in this thread. It's crazy. I just wanted to share my feelings on abortion. I believe in pro-life under any circumstances. Not a whole lot of people agree with me and that is okay : ) I'm not going to get into the dialogue right now. . .but maybe later.
I am very passionate on this subject and it breaks my heart that so many individuals are having abortions and are in favor of them. If you believe in abortion, I encourage you to reseach the methods and research fetal development. The methods are horrible! And at every stage, even the very beginning you can see life beginning to form. Every child is precious and is a gift, and deserves a right to life.

every CHILD is a precious gift.....but a blastocyst, an embryo, even a fetus.....NOT a child. and hey, i respect you have your own pov, but many of us simply do not have the same, not even close. and i am all for respecting individual's choices and rights to said choices.

ending life that has no sensory perception - aka can feel no pain - is not cruel at all. if one is unaware, can't think or feel....how can it be 'cruel'......? so while you might think the methods 'horrible'.....just being realistic, if one wants to terminate something living within their own bodies, well, they have to do so, some way, some how.

a living thing, a cluster of cells.....even with the potential to become a thinking/feeling human being....imo has no more 'right to life' than anything else that is not fully existing/formed on it's own. but of course, is certainly a matter of opinion there.

many things break my heart, but a woman choosing to have an abortion is not one of them. i do lament a girl or woman being faced with such a decision, since obviously she has gotten pregnant when she does not desire it...so i feel for her and her choices.

_ · July 2009

ksacco_06 wrote:

There is so much going on in this thread. It's crazy. I just wanted to share my feelings on abortion. I believe in pro-life under any circumstances. Not a whole lot of people agree with me and that is okay : ) I'm not going to get into the dialogue right now. . .but maybe later.
I am very passionate on this subject and it breaks my heart that so many individuals are having abortions and are in favor of them. If you believe in abortion, I encourage you to reseach the methods and research fetal development. The methods are horrible! And at every stage, even the very beginning you can see life beginning to form. Every child is precious and is a gift, and deserves a right to life.

It's nice to see a new face (and new color

) in this conversation.

For the record, some people who believe abortion should be a legal option - and can be a moral option - HAVE researched the methods and researched fetal development.

I would encourage anyone who is anti-abortion under any circumstance to research the horrible circumstances under which some women choose abortion.

ksacco_06 · July 2009

scb wrote:

ksacco_06 wrote:

There is so much going on in this thread. It's crazy. I just wanted to share my feelings on abortion. I believe in pro-life under any circumstances. Not a whole lot of people agree with me and that is okay : ) I'm not going to get into the dialogue right now. . .but maybe later.
I am very passionate on this subject and it breaks my heart that so many individuals are having abortions and are in favor of them. If you believe in abortion, I encourage you to reseach the methods and research fetal development. The methods are horrible! And at every stage, even the very beginning you can see life beginning to form. Every child is precious and is a gift, and deserves a right to life.

It's nice to see a new face (and new color ) in this conversation.

For the record, some people who believe abortion should be a legal option - and can be a moral option - HAVE researched the methods and researched fetal development.

I would encourage anyone who is anti-abortion under any circumstance to research the horrible circumstances under which some women choose abortion.

Thank you for the welcome : )
I have researched for several years on abortion to debate people who are for it. I'm curious what horrible circumstances you are referring to. 93% of abortions are because of social reasons and not incest/rape or mother's health. Also, if a baby in the womb is diagnosed with a disease, that is no reason to terminate the life. I call that being prejudice. In fact, most women who choose to have abortions are working women with careers. Again, I say everyone has the right to life.

ksacco_06 · July 2009

decides2dream wrote:

ksacco_06 wrote:

There is so much going on in this thread. It's crazy. I just wanted to share my feelings on abortion. I believe in pro-life under any circumstances. Not a whole lot of people agree with me and that is okay : ) I'm not going to get into the dialogue right now. . .but maybe later.
I am very passionate on this subject and it breaks my heart that so many individuals are having abortions and are in favor of them. If you believe in abortion, I encourage you to reseach the methods and research fetal development. The methods are horrible! And at every stage, even the very beginning you can see life beginning to form. Every child is precious and is a gift, and deserves a right to life.

every CHILD is a precious gift.....but a blastocyst, an embryo, even a fetus.....NOT a child. and hey, i respect you have your own pov, but many of us simply do not have the same, not even close. and i am all for respecting individual's choices and rights to said choices.

ending life that has no sensory perception - aka can feel no pain - is not cruel at all. if one is unaware, can't think or feel....how can it be 'cruel'......? so while you might think the methods 'horrible'.....just being realistic, if one wants to terminate something living within their own bodies, well, they have to do so, some way, some how.

a living thing, a cluster of cells.....even with the potential to become a thinking/feeling human being....imo has no more 'right to life' than anything else that is not fully existing/formed on it's own. but of course, is certainly a matter of opinion there.

many things break my heart, but a woman choosing to have an abortion is not one of them. i do lament a girl or woman being faced with such a decision, since obviously she has gotten pregnant when she does not desire it...so i feel for her and her choices.

First, call it what you want, but when it truly truly comes down to it the "blastocyst" or "embryo" is a baby. Those are scientific terms for baby. According to science, from the moment of fertilization the woman is holding a growing human. Most abortions are not performed until about 9 weeks of gestation. By then the heart is beating and brain waves are detectable.
You said. . . "if someone wants to terminate something living within their own bodies". . . so then you must agree to some degree that a fetus, if you will, is living. And it is! A woman who carries a child has the privilege to help it grow! It certainly is forming on it's own. The mother is only providing a safe haven and nutrients. It's amazing.

decides2dream · July 2009

ksacco_06 wrote:

First, call it what you want, but when it truly truly comes down to it the "blastocyst" or "embryo" is a baby. Those are scientific terms for baby. According to science, from the moment of fertilization the woman is holding a growing human. Most abortions are not performed until about 9 weeks of gestation. By then the heart is beating and brain waves are detectable.
You said. . . "if someone wants to terminate something living within their own bodies". . . so then you must agree to some degree that a fetus, if you will, is living. And it is! A woman who carries a child has the privilege to help it grow! It certainly is forming on it's own. The mother is only providing a safe haven and nutrients. It's amazing.

i'm not calling it 'what i want'...i am calling it what it IS. these are all scientific terms for the beginning stages of a potential human being.

and of COURSe it is living, it is living cells! idk anyone who ever denied that, nor hav ei ever known anyone to deny that at all stages it is human. however, every cell in my being is human, but that doesn't make even a cluster of those human cells A human being. i think all of this is wherin lies many of the differing beliefs in regards to all opinions on abortion. a potential human being is NOT a human being to me. most abortions are performed before 12 weeks gestation, about 89% i believe. before 12 weeks, no central nervous sytem exists. therefore, no sensory perception, which would include pain. that is my personal main concern. i have no desire to inflict unnecessary upon on any living thing, if it can/may be avoided. until fully formed, imo, it's not a 'baby'.....tho obviously the further in development a fetus gets, the more it is a baby. a fetus under 12 weeks of age imo is in no way a baby. again, it is the potential. BIG difference in my mind.

i've said this often enough in these abortion threads....including this one....but i know you are new to the discsuuons around here (welcome!

) it is estimated that every sexually active woman has at least one miscarriage (aka spontaneous abortion) within her lifetime, unbeknownst to her, simply b/c it happens so early in her cycle she is unaware. many, many more have miscarriages they ARE aware of. point is, the body naturally dispels fertilized eggs quite often. so would you consider then the body is then commiting murder? there are a myraid of reasons why a fertilized egg would not implant on the uterine wall, thus ending the possibility of continuing pregnancy. as it is, many eggs get fertilized and take a few days before attching in the first place. tis the norm. so here are these fertilized eggs (human babies to you) that are naturally dispelled from the body. this is not odd, this is not rare. i do not see this as something horrific...tho it certainly IS sad when one desires a pregnancy and it happens, especially when the mother is aware.

as our dear departed hippiemom who used to post here used to say......an acorn is not a tree, an embryo is not a baby. just b/c it has ALL the makings of a fully formed human, doesn't make it one. hell, my DNA has all the makings of a human, but my heart cells, my lung cells, my blood cells, all living within my body, and yet....none ARe a human being.

and i agree, being pregnant and having a child is a privilege, if it's what you want. not everyone wants that, and even amongst those who do...sometimes abortion still becomes the 'best option' for them. you say 93% of abortions are a matter of 'convenience'...i'd take issue with your language, but it's not worthwhile. however, going with your stats....that means 7% are a result of rape, medically necessary and/or due to a fetus that will be born dead, or die. so you believe those 7% should still be FORCED to carry thru a pregnancy they do not desire? more power to ya....but that is a 'privilege' mayn a woman would gladly not have, and i am glad they have the option NOT to.

_ · July 2009

ksacco_06 wrote:

First, call it what you want, but when it truly truly comes down to it the "blastocyst" or "embryo" is a baby. Those are scientific terms for baby. According to science, from the moment of fertilization the woman is holding a growing human. Most abortions are not performed until about 9 weeks of gestation. By then the heart is beating and brain waves are detectable.
You said. . . "if someone wants to terminate something living within their own bodies". . . so then you must agree to some degree that a fetus, if you will, is living. And it is! A woman who carries a child has the privilege to help it grow! It certainly is forming on it's own. The mother is only providing a safe haven and nutrients. It's amazing.

In what context are you claiming that most abortions are not performed until 9 weeks?

_ · July 2009

ksacco_06 wrote:

I have researched for several years on abortion to debate people who are for it.

Why would you spend years researching a topic just to debate people who disagree with you? Are you part of one of those groups like Justice for All or something?

ksacco_06 wrote:

I'm curious what horrible circumstances you are referring to.

See the other thread about the total abortion ban in Nicaragua. (Just curious... would you support such a ban?)

ksacco_06 wrote:

93% of abortions are because of social reasons and not incest/rape or mother's health.

Social reasons can't be valid?

ksacco_06 wrote:

Also, if a baby in the womb is diagnosed with a disease, that is no reason to terminate the life. I call that being prejudice.

Not even depending on what the disease is?

ksacco_06 wrote:

In fact, most women who choose to have abortions are working women with careers.

What is the relevance of that?

ksacco_06 wrote:

Again, I say everyone has the right to life.

I think this statement implies that all fetuses want to be born, which I don't think is true.

cincybearcat · July 2009

scb - so much going on in your last post...

1) Why is it all of a sudden a problem for you that someone researces a topic for debate? Seems very reasonable and appropriate.

2) Social reasons can't be valid? You have to ask that question to someone that believes that human life begins at conception? (which is what I thin he/she believes)

And, now you are going to suggest that there are "unborn fetuses" that don't want to live? Seriously? Wow, just wow.

ksacco_06 · July 2009

scb wrote:

ksacco_06 wrote:

I have researched for several years on abortion to debate people who are for it.

Why would you spend years researching a topic just to debate people who disagree with you? Are you part of one of those groups like Justice for All or something?

ksacco_06 wrote:

I'm curious what horrible circumstances you are referring to.

See the other thread about the total abortion ban in Nicaragua. (Just curious... would you support such a ban?)

ksacco_06 wrote:

93% of abortions are because of social reasons and not incest/rape or mother's health.

Social reasons can't be valid?

ksacco_06 wrote:

Also, if a baby in the womb is diagnosed with a disease, that is no reason to terminate the life. I call that being prejudice.

Not even depending on what the disease is?

ksacco_06 wrote:

In fact, most women who choose to have abortions are working women with careers.

What is the relevance of that?

ksacco_06 wrote:

Again, I say everyone has the right to life.

I think this statement implies that all fetuses want to be born, which I don't think is true.

1) So you are wondering why I take time to research information. Well, if you are passionate about something you want to learn more. It's like every member in the 10club. People are passionate about Pearl Jam and want to know more and more about their lives and music. There is nothing wrong with being passionate for pro-life. As a woman and a Christian it is a big deal to me.
2)I have't taken time to read the issue around the abortion ban.
3)There is no excuse for a mother (working mother) to have an abortion. I do not believe that social reasons are valid. It's an inconvenience . . . and that's all. The revelance of a working mother means she has the means to support a child.
4)Aborting a baby because of a disability/illness is the height of prejudice. We don't cure the illness by killing the patient. The worth of that unborn baby means absolutely nothing if it is aborted because of poor health.
5) Please don't twist my words around to mean something different. It means exactly what I intended to say. Every human being has the right to live!

ksacco_06 · July 2009

scb wrote:

ksacco_06 wrote:

First, call it what you want, but when it truly truly comes down to it the "blastocyst" or "embryo" is a baby. Those are scientific terms for baby. According to science, from the moment of fertilization the woman is holding a growing human. Most abortions are not performed until about 9 weeks of gestation. By then the heart is beating and brain waves are detectable.
You said. . . "if someone wants to terminate something living within their own bodies". . . so then you must agree to some degree that a fetus, if you will, is living. And it is! A woman who carries a child has the privilege to help it grow! It certainly is forming on it's own. The mother is only providing a safe haven and nutrients. It's amazing.

In what context are you claiming that most abortions are not performed until 9 weeks?

I say that most abortions are not performed until about 9 weeks of pregnancy because that means by then there is a heartbeat and brainwaves. For those who do not believe life begins at conception would argue that if there is no heartbeat there is not life.

I think my statement is pretty clear. : )

ksacco_06 · July 2009

decides2dream wrote:

ksacco_06 wrote:

First, call it what you want, but when it truly truly comes down to it the "blastocyst" or "embryo" is a baby. Those are scientific terms for baby. According to science, from the moment of fertilization the woman is holding a growing human. Most abortions are not performed until about 9 weeks of gestation. By then the heart is beating and brain waves are detectable.
You said. . . "if someone wants to terminate something living within their own bodies". . . so then you must agree to some degree that a fetus, if you will, is living. And it is! A woman who carries a child has the privilege to help it grow! It certainly is forming on it's own. The mother is only providing a safe haven and nutrients. It's amazing.

i'm not calling it 'what i want'...i am calling it what it IS. these are all scientific terms for the beginning stages of a potential human being.

and of COURSe it is living, it is living cells! idk anyone who ever denied that, nor hav ei ever known anyone to deny that at all stages it is human. however, every cell in my being is human, but that doesn't make even a cluster of those human cells A human being. i think all of this is wherin lies many of the differing beliefs in regards to all opinions on abortion. a potential human being is NOT a human being to me. most abortions are performed before 12 weeks gestation, about 89% i believe. before 12 weeks, no central nervous sytem exists. therefore, no sensory perception, which would include pain. that is my personal main concern. i have no desire to inflict unnecessary upon on any living thing, if it can/may be avoided. until fully formed, imo, it's not a 'baby'.....tho obviously the further in development a fetus gets, the more it is a baby. a fetus under 12 weeks of age imo is in no way a baby. again, it is the potential. BIG difference in my mind.

i've said this often enough in these abortion threads....including this one....but i know you are new to the discsuuons around here (welcome! ) it is estimated that every sexually active woman has at least one miscarriage (aka spontaneous abortion) within her lifetime, unbeknownst to her, simply b/c it happens so early in her cycle she is unaware. many, many more have miscarriages they ARE aware of. point is, the body naturally dispels fertilized eggs quite often. so would you consider then the body is then commiting murder? there are a myraid of reasons why a fertilized egg would not implant on the uterine wall, thus ending the possibility of continuing pregnancy. as it is, many eggs get fertilized and take a few days before attching in the first place. tis the norm. so here are these fertilized eggs (human babies to you) that are naturally dispelled from the body. this is not odd, this is not rare. i do not see this as something horrific...tho it certainly IS sad when one desires a pregnancy and it happens, especially when the mother is aware.

as our dear departed hippiemom who used to post here used to say......an acorn is not a tree, an embryo is not a baby. just b/c it has ALL the makings of a fully formed human, doesn't make it one. hell, my DNA has all the makings of a human, but my heart cells, my lung cells, my blood cells, all living within my body, and yet....none ARe a human being.

and i agree, being pregnant and having a child is a privilege, if it's what you want. not everyone wants that, and even amongst those who do...sometimes abortion still becomes the 'best option' for them. you say 93% of abortions are a matter of 'convenience'...i'd take issue with your language, but it's not worthwhile. however, going with your stats....that means 7% are a result of rape, medically necessary and/or due to a fetus that will be born dead, or die. so you believe those 7% should still be FORCED to carry thru a pregnancy they do not desire? more power to ya....but that is a 'privilege' mayn a woman would gladly not have, and i am glad they have the option NOT to.

I don't even know where to begin with your comment : ) I'm going to be brief.

You say most abortions are performed before 12 weeks. I agree. However, in the time between 6-12 (when most abortions take place) there is a heartbeat, detectable brainwaves and fingers/toes (yay!!).

For that 7% of women who are confronted with difficulties need to be treated with compassion, support and nurturing. Forcing is a strong word which I'm not suggesting. For babies that have a detectable medical problem there is no reason to have an abortion. Aborting a baby because of an abnormality is nothing less than blatant discrimination against the disabled.

For women struggling with rape/incest (rare) need to be handled with care and professional guidance. Instead of aborting a baby that has done nothing wrong the woman should consider other options. One act of violence against the woman is enough.

I read once in a journal that there are more than enough willing families to adopt babies being aborted. How about that awesome statement?? I love stuff like that.

decides2dream · July 2009

ksacco_06 wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

ksacco_06 wrote:

First, call it what you want, but when it truly truly comes down to it the "blastocyst" or "embryo" is a baby. Those are scientific terms for baby. According to science, from the moment of fertilization the woman is holding a growing human. Most abortions are not performed until about 9 weeks of gestation. By then the heart is beating and brain waves are detectable.
You said. . . "if someone wants to terminate something living within their own bodies". . . so then you must agree to some degree that a fetus, if you will, is living. And it is! A woman who carries a child has the privilege to help it grow! It certainly is forming on it's own. The mother is only providing a safe haven and nutrients. It's amazing.

i'm not calling it 'what i want'...i am calling it what it IS. these are all scientific terms for the beginning stages of a potential human being.

and of COURSe it is living, it is living cells! idk anyone who ever denied that, nor hav ei ever known anyone to deny that at all stages it is human. however, every cell in my being is human, but that doesn't make even a cluster of those human cells A human being. i think all of this is wherin lies many of the differing beliefs in regards to all opinions on abortion. a potential human being is NOT a human being to me. most abortions are performed before 12 weeks gestation, about 89% i believe. before 12 weeks, no central nervous sytem exists. therefore, no sensory perception, which would include pain. that is my personal main concern. i have no desire to inflict unnecessary upon on any living thing, if it can/may be avoided. until fully formed, imo, it's not a 'baby'.....tho obviously the further in development a fetus gets, the more it is a baby. a fetus under 12 weeks of age imo is in no way a baby. again, it is the potential. BIG difference in my mind.

i've said this often enough in these abortion threads....including this one....but i know you are new to the discsuuons around here (welcome! ) it is estimated that every sexually active woman has at least one miscarriage (aka spontaneous abortion) within her lifetime, unbeknownst to her, simply b/c it happens so early in her cycle she is unaware. many, many more have miscarriages they ARE aware of. point is, the body naturally dispels fertilized eggs quite often. so would you consider then the body is then commiting murder? there are a myraid of reasons why a fertilized egg would not implant on the uterine wall, thus ending the possibility of continuing pregnancy. as it is, many eggs get fertilized and take a few days before attching in the first place. tis the norm. so here are these fertilized eggs (human babies to you) that are naturally dispelled from the body. this is not odd, this is not rare. i do not see this as something horrific...tho it certainly IS sad when one desires a pregnancy and it happens, especially when the mother is aware.

as our dear departed hippiemom who used to post here used to say......an acorn is not a tree, an embryo is not a baby. just b/c it has ALL the makings of a fully formed human, doesn't make it one. hell, my DNA has all the makings of a human, but my heart cells, my lung cells, my blood cells, all living within my body, and yet....none ARe a human being.

and i agree, being pregnant and having a child is a privilege, if it's what you want. not everyone wants that, and even amongst those who do...sometimes abortion still becomes the 'best option' for them. you say 93% of abortions are a matter of 'convenience'...i'd take issue with your language, but it's not worthwhile. however, going with your stats....that means 7% are a result of rape, medically necessary and/or due to a fetus that will be born dead, or die. so you believe those 7% should still be FORCED to carry thru a pregnancy they do not desire? more power to ya....but that is a 'privilege' mayn a woman would gladly not have, and i am glad they have the option NOT to.

I don't even know where to begin with your comment : ) I'm going to be brief.

You say most abortions are performed before 12 weeks. I agree. However, in the time between 6-12 (when most abortions take place) there is a heartbeat, detectable brainwaves and fingers/toes (yay!!).

For that 7% of women who are confronted with difficulties need to be treated with compassion, support and nurturing. Forcing is a strong word which I'm not suggesting. For babies that have a detectable medical problem there is no reason to have an abortion. Aborting a baby because of an abnormality is nothing less than blatant discrimination against the disabled.

For women struggling with rape/incest (rare) need to be handled with care and professional guidance. Instead of aborting a baby that has done nothing wrong the woman should consider other options. One act of violence against the woman is enough.

I read once in a journal that there are more than enough willing families to adopt babies being aborted. How about that awesome statement?? I love stuff like that.

and again, never did i deny there was a heartbeat, some brain activity nor fingers or toes....none the less...there is NO central nervous system by that time, thus, no sensory perception. just b/c it is alive doesn't mean it has a 'right to life'...nor is it a baby, or fully formed, etc. it cannot live without the mother, so it is still very much a part of the mother. so i really don't get why you keep pointing out a heartbeat, as i and no one else has never denied it.

as to the 7% that you say must be 'treated with compassion and care'.....earlier you stated that you are pro-life under all circumstances, so dress it up all you want....you are still suggesting to FORCE a woman or girl to have a child against her will, and in a very dire situation: rape, medical necessity, fetus sure to die or be born dead, etc. hey, you may put the rights of the unborn above all else...i do not.

anyhoo, i realize you're new here...but i have explained my position on the topic numerous times on this board, and have been pretty clear on this thread as well. if you are interested in my views, they are already here, no point in rehashing. obviously, it is clear you hold a pretty passionate opinion on the topic, and so do i. neither of us are going to sway the other. i will continue to post when i feel factual information is misrepresented or to elaborate on/throw support behind ideas i believe in, but i am not going to debate 'when life begins'....etc.

a potential human being is NOT a human being, anymore than an acorn is a tree....and imo, has no more 'right to life'.....my concerns are first and foremost with the already fully formed, thinking and feeling beings already existing out in the world. i will always be pro-choice.

and ya know, i don't know where you get your stats....but i call bullshit on 'every aborted fetus being desired and having a home' elsewhere. i hate to point out the obvious, but quite often, people are not open to children outside their own race....so there is limits right there. also, many people want perfectly healthy babies - no disabilities....again, more limits. add in the fetuses that will be born dead or die immediately (NOT talking about disabilities, but will die) you are just forcing a woman to endure undue pain and psychological trauma. beyond that...it really doesn't matter what 'someone else' would want, as it is not someone else who has to carry a pregnancy to term, only the woman/girl. therefore, imo, it should be HER decision, and no one else's...what she would desire for her own pregnancy - to continue or to terminate.

decides2dream · July 2009

ksacco_06 wrote:

scb wrote:

ksacco_06 wrote:

First, call it what you want, but when it truly truly comes down to it the "blastocyst" or "embryo" is a baby. Those are scientific terms for baby. According to science, from the moment of fertilization the woman is holding a growing human. Most abortions are not performed until about 9 weeks of gestation. By then the heart is beating and brain waves are detectable.
You said. . . "if someone wants to terminate something living within their own bodies". . . so then you must agree to some degree that a fetus, if you will, is living. And it is! A woman who carries a child has the privilege to help it grow! It certainly is forming on it's own. The mother is only providing a safe haven and nutrients. It's amazing.

In what context are you claiming that most abortions are not performed until 9 weeks?

I say that most abortions are not performed until about 9 weeks of pregnancy because that means by then there is a heartbeat and brainwaves. For those who do not believe life begins at conception would argue that if there is no heartbeat there is not life.

I think my statement is pretty clear. : )

of course LIFE begins at conception. every cell in my body is alive. hell, an amoeba is "alive" too. a cluster of cells, is NOT a human being, tis the POTENTIAL to become one. again, sperm fertilizing egg is just the start. if it does not implant on the uterine wall, that happens OFTEN, there will be no pregnancy, and that life will be dispelled from the body, usually unbeknownst to the woman or girl. living cells are living cells....but that does make it any more a person. to become a person takes time and nutrition within a woman or girl's womb...without that, the life will cease, whether naturally or unnaturally. btw - there is no heartbeat upon conception, so idk why you keep bringing it up. and again, a heartbeat does not mean anything beyond a heartbeat. some of us are focused on what we deem more important things, such as a central nervous system. we all choose to focus on what matters most to us.

ksacco_06 · July 2009

I guess we have to agree to disagree. It has been interesting have this conversation on this post. Pretty much what is expected.

To touch on a few points before closing, I would like to say how disgusting your comment is on "just because it is alive doesn't mean it has a right to life". It's really cold and bitter.

I do not believe in FORCING but RIGHT TO LIFE at every stage of development and under any circumstance. My heart isn't hard towards struggling women but very much open. The only difference is my heart is also open for the small growing life inside her.

As for my stats they are not BS as you so crudely put it, but instead solid and researched facts.

The only thing I am trying to bring is some clarity and light on a dark and deadly subject.

Blessings : )

_ · July 2009

cincybearcat wrote:

scb - so much going on in your last post...

1) Why is it all of a sudden a problem for you that someone researces a topic for debate? Seems very reasonable and appropriate.

Who said I had a problem with it? It was a question. I found it odd that someone would research a topic for the purpose of debate rather than to learn about the subject.

cincybearcat wrote:

2) Social reasons can't be valid? You have to ask that question to someone that believes that human life begins at conception? (which is what I thin he/she believes)

Just trying to clarify his/her position.

cincybearcat wrote:

And, now you are going to suggest that there are "unborn fetuses" that don't want to live? Seriously? Wow, just wow.

You and I have had this conversation before, so I'm surprised that you're surprised.

Another abortion thread

Comments

Categories