yes, see, but what i'm getting at is that no one can understand you when you write about abortion. i'm not trying to make fun of you in any way and im not the only one with problems with the way you write. i just think your position on abortion could be written a little clearer so that everyone can understand. clearly i'm not the only ones with problems understanding what you're saying because i'm not the first to ask what you're talking about. you have a tendency to say a lot without saying anything, and when you write like that the people reading your posts will automatically make whatever point you were trying to make moot since it's so difficult to see any point.
Firstly, it is not proven that a 7 week old has ZERO perception or pain, but that is not the point. A person who is in a coma is utterly dependant, and has no visible signs of having perception or feeling pain. We sometimes think it ok to turn off the machinery on which there life depends but ONLY if there is zero hope of them recovering. In the case of an unborn child, we KNOW that all three of these conditions are temporary.
Just as zero plus zero plus zero equals zero, dependance plus no perception plus no pain does not add up to a priciple that justifies abortion. The only argument used so far to justify abortion that works is Cate’s ‘parasite’ argument. I say it works because we all agree that in all other circumstances killing a parasite is morally permissible and should be encouraged. The problem is that a human embryo/fetus/baby is different from all other organisms that we call ‘parasites’ in that parasites are alien species that our bodies are not designed to carry. As Cate herself admits, a fetus is HUMAN, the womans body has been designed with marvelous apparatus to carry a human child, to nurture it, and to bring it forth into the world. If the fetus was truly a parasite, the argument would hold water, but it is not. Calling it a parasite is just a way of dehumanizing it in order to quiet our concience when we kill it.
Peace
i'm sorry...are you serious?
there is no central nervous system developed at 7 weeks gestation, so HOW can the possibility of pain be well, possible?
and a fetus is truly a parasite...it cannot survive outside of the mother's body. period. that is a host/parasite relationship. however, that also isn't my 'argument.' and i find no need to 'dehumanize' it.....under 12 weeks, the timeframe that close to 90% of all abortions are performed....i find it far more accurate to describe as the possibility of becoming a human, than truly a human being. it IS a living being......but it is not a human being. not yet. it is not fully formed, it has no sensory perception, no fully formed central nervous system, etc. i can't say it any plainly. you want to disagree...fine....but to me, if something does not possess ALL that makes a human, human...than it is not quite human...yet.
btw - i have no 'need' to justify abortion. i believe it is within the rights of ANY girl/woman who has an unwanted pregnancy to make a choice for herself. it is up to her to 'justify' her choice...to herself. HOW i formed my opinion on why abortions is a-ok has been detailed in numerous posts on this board, and this very thread. i am 100% comfortable with my beliefs. no justifications....beliefs. i also offer the full respect to acknowledge, even if i completely disagree....your beliefs. the only 'issue' i have...is people trying to exert THEIR beliefs on OTHER people's choices.
Calling it a parasite is just a way of dehumanizing it in order to quiet our concience when we kill it.
Peace
It is a couple of cells....that's it...couple of cells...nothing more...and we are just another animal on this planet competing for the same resources as the next animal. We aren't special and only reason we feel we're special is cause its been programed into our noggins by our families/society, oh look at little Johnnie...he's walking...oh he said his first words...woopdie do da same as all the other billion "special" humans out there.
Course in the whole grand scheme of things we are just part of evolution...and things will happen as they will....just unfortunate there are so many beutiful creatures that are being wiped off this planet due to our insistence to procreate.
it has nothing to do with whether i agree with your points or not, or whether i understand the point you're making, it has to do with whether you present them clearly or not.
.....
Upon conception, the conceived entity has it's own DNA. This DNA is independant of it's mother or father's DNA, meaning it belongs to a new human life. It's not too difficult to understand.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
for instance if the mother has type o negative (ha!) blood, and your baby has type o positive, that means the mother does not have the RhD antigen but the baby does. what does this mean? the body sees it as a foreign object and goes "what the fuck is this!? the mother doesnt have that antigen! LETS GET IT!" and a miscarriage is born (haha )
Hahahaha!!!
Next time I have to tell a patient she needs a shot of Rhogam, this is how I'm going to explain why. Excellent!
-Unique integral human DNA--meaning one human being--is an individual being. Do we have the right to end it's existence?
-many women experience devastating experience post-abortion. They post on message boards specifically for them, dealing with their pain. The pain is real for many women, whether it's acknowledged or not.
-abortion has become so political that those who need support post-abortion, in dealing with their pain, are challenged in finding what they need. Their experiences are minimized by those who say it's not been proven that there are adverse affects post-abortion. Or by those who say that these effects are a myth.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
When pro-choice individuals give the pros of abortion, or when they state abortion is the ideal option in certain circumstances, they come across as pro-abortion. This is certainly valid as one's opinion. And still, it send a pro-abortion message, even when the person with this view considers themselves pro-choice. Actions speak louder than words.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
just unfortunate there are so many beutiful creatures that are being wiped off this planet due to our insistence to procreate.
Good point. For every time we choose to continue embryonic life, we are essentially choosing death for other many other living things. And when we choose to end embryonic life, we are choosing to preserve the life of many other living things.
and dont worry ladygoodiva, i agree. if my baby happens to have an anomaly that would make life for it hell, yes i would abort it. and no, it doesn't mean i don't love it, it means that i love it so much i don't want it's life to be hell just by living! what kind of selfish person goes "oh my baby is going to be physically and mentally disabled to the point it can't even eat by itself and needs constant care and attention. but to hell with it, im going to love it anyway and care for it!" thats not loving it if you purposely bring it into the world, KNOWING it's going to be fucked up and live a horrible life, KNOWING your family will have a hard time with that baby living. it's probably THE most selfish thing i could think of. all you're doing is making life miserable for you for constantly having to worry about it and taking care of it, while making life miserable for all those involved, including the baby. if you want a child that much, adopt one. or, abort it and start all over.
__________________
well i see your answer is what i maeant i really know bec. i am born with such
and afterwards had a bad accident and had a hart live but my little lady is alright etc.
and sorry but the stuff you said about marriage etc. (sorry moods)
for me in my eyes it is old stuff and belive but ok ...
i think all ladys should have fun before marriage (use condom plus pill)
even you are marriaged
Good point. For every time we choose to continue embryonic life, we are essentially choosing death for other many other living things. And when we choose to end embryonic life, we are choosing to preserve the life of many other living things.
exactly.
life is balance.
i said it all, quite clearly - as did many, not taking 'credit' hahaha - but i'll say it again. firstly, unique living DNA in a single entity does not constitute a fully formed, thinking, feeling human being. and even this unque DNA gets wiped out, quite naturally and OFTEN thru 'spontaneous abortion' aka miscarriage. so much so that it is estimated tht almost all sexually active women have this occurance at least once in their lifetimes. this is not a feeling being...not until MUCH further growth and development as a fetus, and when abortion is illegal unless dire circumstance to the detriment/threat of the mother.
animals kill their offspring with regular occasion, it is quite natural. now sure, some like to argue that we humans ARE better...or should be 'better' than animals. to which i simply respond we ARE animals, and quite honestly, i find most animals are far 'better' than us.....and it's a silly argument imo in any case. i kill germs, bugs, eat animals that someone else killed.....all the time. many of these living, breathing, fully formed creatures that can and do experience pain. other animals do the same. so i have zero problem with the idea of killing a unique living being that could possibly become a human being while it is clearly in the stages of not being fully formed, and no sensory perception whatsoever. i believe it is the RIGHT, the choice, that ANY woman may make for herself, her body.
i am PRO-CHOICE...which means i give EQUAL value to EVERY possible choice a woman may make for herself when faced with an unwanted pregnancy. i would fully support her choice no matter what option. WHATever a woman chooses for herself, i consider HER BEST OPTION. this will vary woman to woman, choice to choice. as long as it IS the woman's choice..i respect her freewill to make such decisions for herself, as i would anyone.
i fully admit there are women out there who may deeply regret their abortions. i feel for them, i hope the can make peace with themselves and i also hope they get all the support they need. this acknowledgement, however, does NOT mean i believe abortion should not be offered to women to make their own choices. i don't have stats in front of me but have read it enough and anyone can feel free to discount or agree my point...but i do believe that statistics show more women are content with their choice to abort than are not. more women do NOT have regret or complications than those who do...and most are relieved they were able to choose the option that they felt bet suited their needs. so yes, while i do feel for those who regret their choices...it was their choice to make....and in NO WAY should impact OTHER women's availability to that very choice.
beyond that.....it would be my dream to see the following:
me, i would LOVE to see the absolute NON-neccessity of abortion. i would like to see education, access and affordability of all BC methods and social stigmas against such disappear. i think these factors alone would work wonders to reduce, and almost obliterate abortion. and even the very few abortions that may take place would occur SO early on b/c every girl/woman will know her options and make her decisions, free from the fear of social stigma.
*late edit before i go fly.....
a catapillar is a catapillar and forever will BE a catapillar if not given the oportunity to become a butterfly. same analogy holds true for an embryo...except for the VERY REAL distinction that a catapillar can survive on it's own and has sensory perception...whereas an embryo does not. without the ability to perceive, to feel pain...i see no cruelty at all....and i certainly see no humanness beyond possibility. the world is FULL of possibilities that NEVER happen, and such happens with living things ALL the time.
simply b/c i like the analogy. it appeals to me in it's simplicity and directness...and it's synthesis of my view.
have a good one all!
i kill germs, bugs, eat animals that someone else killed.....all the time. many of these living, breathing, fully formed creatures that can and do experience pain.
I think this is an important point. People so frequently want to think that "Thou shalt not kill" is a universal maxim when, in reality, this couldn't be further from the truth. We all kill. All the time. Different people draw different lines about what's acceptable and not acceptable to them, but this is highly subjective and therefore cannot be applied to abortion as a universal truth.
i fully admit there are women out there who may deeply regret their abortions. i feel for them, i hope the can make peace with themselves and i also hope they get all the support they need. this acknowledgement, however, does NOT mean i believe abortion should not be offered to women to make their own choices. i don't have stats in front of me but have read it enough and anyone can feel free to discount or agree my point...but i do believe that statistics show more women are content with their choice to abort than are not. more women do NOT have regret or complications than those who do...and most are relieved they were able to choose the option that they felt bet suited their needs. so yes, while i do feel for those who regret their choices...it was their choice to make....and in NO WAY should impact OTHER women's availability to that very choice.
People make all kinds of choices the regret. That doesn't mean the choice should not be available for other women to make or that it is necessarily a bad or risky choice.
Abortion needs to be eradicated by a paradigm shift in the mass subconscious to a higher level of understanding, not by politicians' laws. Abortion takes away a life from this world, and all life should be held sacred, whether or not you believe a fetus is actually "alive" at the time of abortion is a moot point.
And plus... When you go to heaven you think you'll be like, "hi grandma it is so cool to finally see you again" but when you actually get to Heaven, there will be this little pissed off guy giving you shit and kicking you in the crotch and it will be your abortion, furious at you. Personally, I don't want to take that risk.
What a pestilent and plastic world we live in.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
When pro-choice individuals give the pros of abortion, or when they state abortion is the ideal option in certain circumstances, they come across as pro-abortion. This is certainly valid as one's opinion. And still, it send a pro-abortion message, even when the person with this view considers themselves pro-choice. Actions speak louder than words.
I don't think anyone considers abortion an "ideal option".
Firstly, it is not proven that a 7 week old has ZERO perception or pain, but that is not the point. A person who is in a coma is utterly dependant, and has no visible signs of having perception or feeling pain. We sometimes think it ok to turn off the machinery on which there life depends but ONLY if there is zero hope of them recovering. In the case of an unborn child, we KNOW that all three of these conditions are temporary.
Just as zero plus zero plus zero equals zero, dependance plus no perception plus no pain does not add up to a priciple that justifies abortion. The only argument used so far to justify abortion that works is Cate’s ‘parasite’ argument. I say it works because we all agree that in all other circumstances killing a parasite is morally permissible and should be encouraged. The problem is that a human embryo/fetus/baby is different from all other organisms that we call ‘parasites’ in that parasites are alien species that our bodies are not designed to carry. As Cate herself admits, a fetus is HUMAN, the womans body has been designed with marvelous apparatus to carry a human child, to nurture it, and to bring it forth into the world. If the fetus was truly a parasite, the argument would hold water, but it is not. Calling it a parasite is just a way of dehumanizing it in order to quiet our concience when we kill it.
Peace
hi tim. i did not use the embryos parasitic nature to justify abortion. i merely pointed out that the embryos relationship to the mother is parasitic as fact. not once did i call the embryo a parasite. what i said was its relationship tp its mother is by nature a parasitic one. something described as bovine isnt necessarily a cow now is it?
and youre not reading properly cause i have stated previously the ONLY 'justification' for abortion is because the pregnant woman wants the pregnancy to end. and i doubt im the only one whos said it.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Firstly, it is not proven that a 7 week old has ZERO perception or pain, but that is not the point. A person who is in a coma is utterly dependant, and has no visible signs of having perception or feeling pain. We sometimes think it ok to turn off the machinery on which there life depends but ONLY if there is zero hope of them recovering. In the case of an unborn child, we KNOW that all three of these conditions are temporary.
So it sounds like you're saying the potential to live an independent life and to have sensory perception is what makes an embryo different from a person with severe brain injury, and thereby what makes it wrong to "kill" said embryo. Is that right?
Just as zero plus zero plus zero equals zero, dependance plus no perception plus no pain does not add up to a priciple that justifies abortion. The only argument used so far to justify abortion that works is Cate’s ‘parasite’ argument. I say it works because we all agree that in all other circumstances killing a parasite is morally permissible and should be encouraged. The problem is that a human embryo/fetus/baby is different from all other organisms that we call ‘parasites’ in that parasites are alien species that our bodies are not designed to carry. As Cate herself admits, a fetus is HUMAN, the womans body has been designed with marvelous apparatus to carry a human child, to nurture it, and to bring it forth into the world. If the fetus was truly a parasite, the argument would hold water, but it is not. Calling it a parasite is just a way of dehumanizing it in order to quiet our concience when we kill it.
Peace
What about the argument that it's okay to "kill" a person (or animal) if the person responsible for its well-being believes it's in it's (the person/embryo/animal's) best interest to do so?
Was EVERY European Jew killed in the Holocaust? No
Was the Holocaust still a genocide? Yes
I think that covers it
tim. the INTENT was to eradicate EVERY european jew.
abortion is not genocide because amongst other things, the intent to eradicate every potential/unborn/whatever child is simply not there.
i think that about covers it.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
tim. the INTENT was to eradicate EVERY european jew.
abortion is not genocide because amongst other things, the intent to eradicate every potential/unborn/whatever child is simply not there.
i think that about covers it.
The intent is to eradicate every "unwanted" child. So it is genocide against the unwanted child.
i think that about covers it.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
The intent is to eradicate every "unwanted" child. So it is genocide against the unwanted child.
i think that about covers it.
Well... not really. No one has the intent to eradicate ALL the unwanted children - just thier own unwanted children. As someone already pointed out, these decisions are made one at a time, by the individual and for the individual, not for a whole group.
Besides, once you start qualifying things beyond the definition of genocide, it's no longer genocide. The intent of the death penalty is to eradicate EVERY person who has been convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Is that genocide? It might be wrong, but it's not genocide.
And plus... When you go to heaven you think you'll be like, "hi grandma it is so cool to finally see you again" but when you actually get to Heaven, there will be this little pissed off guy giving you shit and kicking you in the crotch and it will be your abortion, furious at you. Personally, I don't want to take that risk.
i'm hoping that if it got into heaven it's proven itself to be very big on that christian forgiveness stuff.
Upon conception, the conceived entity has it's own DNA. This DNA is independant of it's mother or father's DNA, meaning it belongs to a new human life. It's not too difficult to understand.
But that is just one perception of the truth....:rolleyes:
Abortion needs to be eradicated by a paradigm shift in the mass subconscious to a higher level of understanding, not by politicians' laws. Abortion takes away a life from this world, and all life should be held sacred, whether or not you believe a fetus is actually "alive" at the time of abortion is a moot point.
It hardly a moot point. A ball of cells is not a human being. It has the potential to become one but that is not the same thing.
Abortion needs to be eradicated by a paradigm shift in the mass subconscious to a higher level of understanding, not by politicians' laws. Abortion takes away a life from this world, and all life should be held sacred, whether or not you believe a fetus is actually "alive" at the time of abortion is a moot point.
And plus... When you go to heaven you think you'll be like, "hi grandma it is so cool to finally see you again" but when you actually get to Heaven, there will be this little pissed off guy giving you shit and kicking you in the crotch and it will be your abortion, furious at you. Personally, I don't want to take that risk.
tim. the INTENT was to eradicate EVERY european Jew.
abortion is not genocide because amongst other things, the intent to eradicate every potential/unborn/whatever child is simply not there.
Hi cate.
I think the intent to eradicate all unwanted children is there in the minds of leading abortionists since it follows from their philosophy. To understand why, we need to go back to how abortion got started in the first place.
The idea that the human fetus is not human until the later stages of its development is based on the so-called ‘biogenetic law’ (recapitulation) proposed by Ernst Haeckel. Haeckel was an early convert to Darwinian theory and was influenced by Francis Galton (Darwin’s cousin) who applied Dawin’s theory to the human race (social Darwinism/Eugenics). The biogenetic law stated that the fetus relives human evolutionary ancestry during its 9 months in the womb. Haeckel commissioned a series of illustrations of human fetuses at various stages showing alleged ‘gill slits’ at the ‘amphibious stage’ and many other such ludicrous ideas. These illustrations have been exposed as a fraud and the Biogenetic law is now rejected by the scientific community, yet they still appear in many highschool textbooks.
Haeckel stated that ‘politics is applied biology’, a quote used by Nazi propagandists to justify many of their actions. Haeckel used his theory to justify infanticide, abortion, and assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, but he also supported the involuntary killing of the mentally ill.’
Marie Stopes, who founded the largest worldwide abortion provider (Marie Stopes International), along with the first UK family planning clinic was a committed eugenecist and called for the sterilization of the ‘lowest and worst members of the community’ whose ‘stunted and warped infants’ were burdensome to the ‘classes above them’. Likewise, Margaret Sanger founder and president of the International Planned Parenthood Association (also a eugenecist), referred to certain segments of society as ‘human waste that should never have been born.’
As a result, since 1973 there have been nearly 6 million abortions performed in the UK, and some 42 million in the USA, it is also estimated that there are currently 46 million abortions each year worldwide. This is by far the biggest genocide in human history and interestingly it is based on the same psuedo-scientific theories as the second biggest genocide – the Nazi holocaust.
I think the intent to eradicate all unwanted children is there in the minds of leading abortionists since it follows from their philosophy. To understand why, we need to go back to how abortion got started in the first place.
The idea that the human fetus is not human until the later stages of its development is based on the so-called ‘biogenetic law’ (recapitulation) proposed by Ernst Haeckel. Haeckel was an early convert to Darwinian theory and was influenced by Francis Galton (Darwin’s cousin) who applied Dawin’s theory to the human race (social Darwinism/Eugenics). The biogenetic law stated that the fetus relives human evolutionary ancestry during its 9 months in the womb. Haeckel commissioned a series of illustrations of human fetuses at various stages showing alleged ‘gill slits’ at the ‘amphibious stage’ and many other such ludicrous ideas. These illustrations have been exposed as a fraud and the Biogenetic law is now rejected by the scientific community , (also a eugenecist), yet they still appear in many highschool textbooks.
Haeckel stated that ‘politics is applied biology’, a quote used by Nazi propagandists to justify many of their actions. Haeckel used his theory to justify infanticide, abortion, and assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, but he also supported the involuntary killing of the mentally ill.’
Marie Stopes, who founded the largest worldwide abortion provider (Marie Stopes International), along with the first UK family planning clinic was a committed eugenecist and called for the sterilization of the ‘lowest and worst members of the community’ whose ‘stunted and warped infants’ were burdensome to the ‘classes above them’. Likewise, Margaret Sanger founder and president of the International Planned Parenthood Association (also a eugenecist), referred to certain segments of society as ‘human waste that should never have been born.’
As a result, since 1973 there have been nearly 6 million abortions performed in the UK, and some 42 million in the USA, it is also estimated that there are currently 46 million abortions each year worldwide. This is by far the biggest genocide in human history and interestingly it is based on the same psuedo-scientific theories as the second biggest genocide – the Nazi holocaust.
Peace
perhaps tim perhaps. have you numnbers on how many doctors who carry out abortions are actually eugenicists or influenced by them? personally i have zero time for eugenicists. my views have in no way been influenced by eugenicists. though i am aware of them, i do not care for the justifications of the nazi regime. they were wrong tis as simple as that.
as i have stated before and for the reasons mentioned abortion is not genocide. it just does not fit the criteria. to my mind they are not comparable. genocide is systematic and deliberate with the appropriate apparatus in place to make sure the agenda is carried out. and i just do not see abortion in that light.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I think the intent to eradicate all unwanted children is there in the minds of leading abortionists since it follows from their philosophy. To understand why, we need to go back to how abortion got started in the first place.
The idea that the human fetus is not human until the later stages of its development is based on the so-called ‘biogenetic law’ (recapitulation) proposed by Ernst Haeckel. Haeckel was an early convert to Darwinian theory and was influenced by Francis Galton (Darwin’s cousin) who applied Dawin’s theory to the human race (social Darwinism/Eugenics). The biogenetic law stated that the fetus relives human evolutionary ancestry during its 9 months in the womb. Haeckel commissioned a series of illustrations of human fetuses at various stages showing alleged ‘gill slits’ at the ‘amphibious stage’ and many other such ludicrous ideas. These illustrations have been exposed as a fraud and the Biogenetic law is now rejected by the scientific community, yet they still appear in many highschool textbooks.
Haeckel stated that ‘politics is applied biology’, a quote used by Nazi propagandists to justify many of their actions. Haeckel used his theory to justify infanticide, abortion, and assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, but he also supported the involuntary killing of the mentally ill.’
Marie Stopes, who founded the largest worldwide abortion provider (Marie Stopes International), along with the first UK family planning clinic was a committed eugenecist and called for the sterilization of the ‘lowest and worst members of the community’ whose ‘stunted and warped infants’ were burdensome to the ‘classes above them’. Likewise, Margaret Sanger founder and president of the International Planned Parenthood Association (also a eugenecist), referred to certain segments of society as ‘human waste that should never have been born.’
As a result, since 1973 there have been nearly 6 million abortions performed in the UK, and some 42 million in the USA, it is also estimated that there are currently 46 million abortions each year worldwide. This is by far the biggest genocide in human history and interestingly it is based on the same psuedo-scientific theories as the second biggest genocide – the Nazi holocaust.
Peace
Are you actually suggesting that abortion "got started" in the 19th century, due to the philosophies you stated above? There is record in medical texts of abortion happening since at least 2737 BC. (Of course, that's just the first record of it. There's every reason to believe it was happening since before recorded history.)
Comments
whats the deal....
i'm sorry...are you serious?
there is no central nervous system developed at 7 weeks gestation, so HOW can the possibility of pain be well, possible?
and a fetus is truly a parasite...it cannot survive outside of the mother's body. period. that is a host/parasite relationship. however, that also isn't my 'argument.' and i find no need to 'dehumanize' it.....under 12 weeks, the timeframe that close to 90% of all abortions are performed....i find it far more accurate to describe as the possibility of becoming a human, than truly a human being. it IS a living being......but it is not a human being. not yet. it is not fully formed, it has no sensory perception, no fully formed central nervous system, etc. i can't say it any plainly. you want to disagree...fine....but to me, if something does not possess ALL that makes a human, human...than it is not quite human...yet.
btw - i have no 'need' to justify abortion. i believe it is within the rights of ANY girl/woman who has an unwanted pregnancy to make a choice for herself. it is up to her to 'justify' her choice...to herself. HOW i formed my opinion on why abortions is a-ok has been detailed in numerous posts on this board, and this very thread. i am 100% comfortable with my beliefs. no justifications....beliefs. i also offer the full respect to acknowledge, even if i completely disagree....your beliefs. the only 'issue' i have...is people trying to exert THEIR beliefs on OTHER people's choices.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
It is a couple of cells....that's it...couple of cells...nothing more...and we are just another animal on this planet competing for the same resources as the next animal. We aren't special and only reason we feel we're special is cause its been programed into our noggins by our families/society, oh look at little Johnnie...he's walking...oh he said his first words...woopdie do da same as all the other billion "special" humans out there.
Course in the whole grand scheme of things we are just part of evolution...and things will happen as they will....just unfortunate there are so many beutiful creatures that are being wiped off this planet due to our insistence to procreate.
.....
Upon conception, the conceived entity has it's own DNA. This DNA is independant of it's mother or father's DNA, meaning it belongs to a new human life. It's not too difficult to understand.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Hahahaha!!!
Next time I have to tell a patient she needs a shot of Rhogam, this is how I'm going to explain why. Excellent!
-Unique integral human DNA--meaning one human being--is an individual being. Do we have the right to end it's existence?
-many women experience devastating experience post-abortion. They post on message boards specifically for them, dealing with their pain. The pain is real for many women, whether it's acknowledged or not.
-abortion has become so political that those who need support post-abortion, in dealing with their pain, are challenged in finding what they need. Their experiences are minimized by those who say it's not been proven that there are adverse affects post-abortion. Or by those who say that these effects are a myth.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
When pro-choice individuals give the pros of abortion, or when they state abortion is the ideal option in certain circumstances, they come across as pro-abortion. This is certainly valid as one's opinion. And still, it send a pro-abortion message, even when the person with this view considers themselves pro-choice. Actions speak louder than words.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Good point. For every time we choose to continue embryonic life, we are essentially choosing death for other many other living things. And when we choose to end embryonic life, we are choosing to preserve the life of many other living things.
__________________
well i see your answer is what i maeant i really know bec. i am born with such
and afterwards had a bad accident and had a hart live but my little lady is alright etc.
and sorry but the stuff you said about marriage etc. (sorry moods)
for me in my eyes it is old stuff and belive but ok ...
i think all ladys should have fun before marriage (use condom plus pill)
even you are marriaged
exactly.
life is balance.
i said it all, quite clearly - as did many, not taking 'credit' hahaha - but i'll say it again. firstly, unique living DNA in a single entity does not constitute a fully formed, thinking, feeling human being. and even this unque DNA gets wiped out, quite naturally and OFTEN thru 'spontaneous abortion' aka miscarriage. so much so that it is estimated tht almost all sexually active women have this occurance at least once in their lifetimes. this is not a feeling being...not until MUCH further growth and development as a fetus, and when abortion is illegal unless dire circumstance to the detriment/threat of the mother.
animals kill their offspring with regular occasion, it is quite natural. now sure, some like to argue that we humans ARE better...or should be 'better' than animals. to which i simply respond we ARE animals, and quite honestly, i find most animals are far 'better' than us.....and it's a silly argument imo in any case. i kill germs, bugs, eat animals that someone else killed.....all the time. many of these living, breathing, fully formed creatures that can and do experience pain. other animals do the same. so i have zero problem with the idea of killing a unique living being that could possibly become a human being while it is clearly in the stages of not being fully formed, and no sensory perception whatsoever. i believe it is the RIGHT, the choice, that ANY woman may make for herself, her body.
i am PRO-CHOICE...which means i give EQUAL value to EVERY possible choice a woman may make for herself when faced with an unwanted pregnancy. i would fully support her choice no matter what option. WHATever a woman chooses for herself, i consider HER BEST OPTION. this will vary woman to woman, choice to choice. as long as it IS the woman's choice..i respect her freewill to make such decisions for herself, as i would anyone.
i fully admit there are women out there who may deeply regret their abortions. i feel for them, i hope the can make peace with themselves and i also hope they get all the support they need. this acknowledgement, however, does NOT mean i believe abortion should not be offered to women to make their own choices. i don't have stats in front of me but have read it enough and anyone can feel free to discount or agree my point...but i do believe that statistics show more women are content with their choice to abort than are not. more women do NOT have regret or complications than those who do...and most are relieved they were able to choose the option that they felt bet suited their needs. so yes, while i do feel for those who regret their choices...it was their choice to make....and in NO WAY should impact OTHER women's availability to that very choice.
beyond that.....it would be my dream to see the following:
me, i would LOVE to see the absolute NON-neccessity of abortion. i would like to see education, access and affordability of all BC methods and social stigmas against such disappear. i think these factors alone would work wonders to reduce, and almost obliterate abortion. and even the very few abortions that may take place would occur SO early on b/c every girl/woman will know her options and make her decisions, free from the fear of social stigma.
*late edit before i go fly.....
a catapillar is a catapillar and forever will BE a catapillar if not given the oportunity to become a butterfly. same analogy holds true for an embryo...except for the VERY REAL distinction that a catapillar can survive on it's own and has sensory perception...whereas an embryo does not. without the ability to perceive, to feel pain...i see no cruelty at all....and i certainly see no humanness beyond possibility. the world is FULL of possibilities that NEVER happen, and such happens with living things ALL the time.
simply b/c i like the analogy. it appeals to me in it's simplicity and directness...and it's synthesis of my view.
have a good one all!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I think this is an important point. People so frequently want to think that "Thou shalt not kill" is a universal maxim when, in reality, this couldn't be further from the truth. We all kill. All the time. Different people draw different lines about what's acceptable and not acceptable to them, but this is highly subjective and therefore cannot be applied to abortion as a universal truth.
People make all kinds of choices the regret. That doesn't mean the choice should not be available for other women to make or that it is necessarily a bad or risky choice.
And plus... When you go to heaven you think you'll be like, "hi grandma it is so cool to finally see you again" but when you actually get to Heaven, there will be this little pissed off guy giving you shit and kicking you in the crotch and it will be your abortion, furious at you. Personally, I don't want to take that risk.
What a pestilent and plastic world we live in.
I don't think anyone considers abortion an "ideal option".
hi tim. i did not use the embryos parasitic nature to justify abortion. i merely pointed out that the embryos relationship to the mother is parasitic as fact. not once did i call the embryo a parasite. what i said was its relationship tp its mother is by nature a parasitic one. something described as bovine isnt necessarily a cow now is it?
and youre not reading properly cause i have stated previously the ONLY 'justification' for abortion is because the pregnant woman wants the pregnancy to end. and i doubt im the only one whos said it.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
So it sounds like you're saying the potential to live an independent life and to have sensory perception is what makes an embryo different from a person with severe brain injury, and thereby what makes it wrong to "kill" said embryo. Is that right?
What about the argument that it's okay to "kill" a person (or animal) if the person responsible for its well-being believes it's in it's (the person/embryo/animal's) best interest to do so?
tim. the INTENT was to eradicate EVERY european jew.
abortion is not genocide because amongst other things, the intent to eradicate every potential/unborn/whatever child is simply not there.
i think that about covers it.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The intent is to eradicate every "unwanted" child. So it is genocide against the unwanted child.
i think that about covers it.
-Enoch Powell
every unwanted potential child.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
At least you admit it lollers
-Enoch Powell
Well... not really. No one has the intent to eradicate ALL the unwanted children - just thier own unwanted children. As someone already pointed out, these decisions are made one at a time, by the individual and for the individual, not for a whole group.
Besides, once you start qualifying things beyond the definition of genocide, it's no longer genocide. The intent of the death penalty is to eradicate EVERY person who has been convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Is that genocide? It might be wrong, but it's not genocide.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
why wouldnt i admit fact?
besides as someone just said tis not EVERY unwanted potential child.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i'm hoping that if it got into heaven it's proven itself to be very big on that christian forgiveness stuff.
But that is just one perception of the truth....:rolleyes:
It hardly a moot point. A ball of cells is not a human being. It has the potential to become one but that is not the same thing.
Are you assuming everyone believes in heaven?
Hi cate.
I think the intent to eradicate all unwanted children is there in the minds of leading abortionists since it follows from their philosophy. To understand why, we need to go back to how abortion got started in the first place.
The idea that the human fetus is not human until the later stages of its development is based on the so-called ‘biogenetic law’ (recapitulation) proposed by Ernst Haeckel. Haeckel was an early convert to Darwinian theory and was influenced by Francis Galton (Darwin’s cousin) who applied Dawin’s theory to the human race (social Darwinism/Eugenics). The biogenetic law stated that the fetus relives human evolutionary ancestry during its 9 months in the womb. Haeckel commissioned a series of illustrations of human fetuses at various stages showing alleged ‘gill slits’ at the ‘amphibious stage’ and many other such ludicrous ideas. These illustrations have been exposed as a fraud and the Biogenetic law is now rejected by the scientific community, yet they still appear in many highschool textbooks.
Haeckel stated that ‘politics is applied biology’, a quote used by Nazi propagandists to justify many of their actions. Haeckel used his theory to justify infanticide, abortion, and assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, but he also supported the involuntary killing of the mentally ill.’
Marie Stopes, who founded the largest worldwide abortion provider (Marie Stopes International), along with the first UK family planning clinic was a committed eugenecist and called for the sterilization of the ‘lowest and worst members of the community’ whose ‘stunted and warped infants’ were burdensome to the ‘classes above them’. Likewise, Margaret Sanger founder and president of the International Planned Parenthood Association (also a eugenecist), referred to certain segments of society as ‘human waste that should never have been born.’
As a result, since 1973 there have been nearly 6 million abortions performed in the UK, and some 42 million in the USA, it is also estimated that there are currently 46 million abortions each year worldwide. This is by far the biggest genocide in human history and interestingly it is based on the same psuedo-scientific theories as the second biggest genocide – the Nazi holocaust.
Peace
I think that unfairly represents the other side. The chosen option when stuck between a rock and a hard place does not, the definition of Ideal, make.
perhaps tim perhaps. have you numnbers on how many doctors who carry out abortions are actually eugenicists or influenced by them? personally i have zero time for eugenicists. my views have in no way been influenced by eugenicists. though i am aware of them, i do not care for the justifications of the nazi regime. they were wrong tis as simple as that.
as i have stated before and for the reasons mentioned abortion is not genocide. it just does not fit the criteria. to my mind they are not comparable. genocide is systematic and deliberate with the appropriate apparatus in place to make sure the agenda is carried out. and i just do not see abortion in that light.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Are you actually suggesting that abortion "got started" in the 19th century, due to the philosophies you stated above? There is record in medical texts of abortion happening since at least 2737 BC. (Of course, that's just the first record of it. There's every reason to believe it was happening since before recorded history.)