Evolution and Abortion

[Tony_Blair]

Evolution and Abortion
If you believe in Evolution and you understand its fundament principals then you may know that the instinct to reproduce is a driving force in Evolution. In Evolution the instinct to reproduce may be greater then any other instinct. Jerome Lejeune, a professor of fundamental genetics in Paris and a pioneer in detecting chromosomal diseases, said to a Senate committee: "Life has a very, very long history but each individual has a very neat beginning, the moment of its conception. When the 23 chromosomes from the father and the 23 chromosomes from the mother are combined at conception, that cell now represents an entirely new individual and is not just a part of the mother's body. Sixty prominent physicians recently presented a declaration of biological facts proving that a child in the womb is conclusively a living human being. These doctors include Drs. Hofmeister and Schmidt, past presidents of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology; Dr. Joseph Faley, past president of the American Academy of Neurology; and Dr. Bernard Nathanson, formerly one of the leading abortionists in America. These doctors stated: "The developing foetus is human, with human genetic composition. As clearly demonstrated by in vitro (dish) fertilization, so also in vivo (womb), the embryo is alive, human, and unique in the special environmental support required for that stage of human development. Is Abortion just a result of forty years of psychological conditioning? The scientific and medical community agree about the foetus being human life, all agreeing that life begins at conception. And if you believe that humans are a product of Evolution then maybe you can try and explain why woman kill there own babies. All intelligent people understand that Abortion is murder .Abortion is in direct contradiction to the Evolutionary instinct to reproduce. Evolution is concerned with the idea of building for future generations. As a professor at Emory University summarized, unbridled self-indulgence on the part of one generation without regard to a future generation, is to be regarded as irrational behaviour in terms of biological evolution. This premise arose from a scientific idea that one could determine evolutionary history by studying the development of the foetus. Are women who have Abortions just mentally ill? For example, human life begins with a single cell and then multiplies in complexity. During one stage, the human foetus has so-called "gill slits" that seem to represent the "fish stage" in human development. Next, the foetus seems to have a tail segment similar to reptiles, and the yolk sac seems similar to bird evolution. Thus, the development of the foetus has appeared to some scientists as a mere reflection of how humans supposedly developed from lower animal forms. This idea was widely taught even at the beginning of this decade. Even though this evolutionary idea of foetal development has been scientifically disproved, the notion still seems to prevail. A closer examination of this premise reveals scientific error, however. The "gill slits," or pharyngeal pouches, actually become the thymus gland, the parathyroid, and the middle ear canals. The "tail", or coccyx, is a point of muscle attachment at the tailbone, and the yolk sac produces the first blood cells. All of these morphological phenomena are necessary stages in normal human development. The abortionists' justification for the termination of human life has been completely invalidated by scientific evidence. Evolution is concerned with the idea of future generations. As John Wilke has stated, "In truth we did not come from a single cell. Rather, each of us once was a single cell; and all we have done since then has been growing.

[mataj]

I'm human, and I'm unique because of what I got in my head, not in my genes. That's why I'm finding the above chromosome claptrap pretty offensive, almost as offensive as the "sanctity of life" principle. My life is my own, and nobody else will make his sacred object out of it.

The debate about genes, cells, blobs of tissue, and foetuses is pointless anyway. It's only purpose is to divert attention from the real issue: Power, political power. For centuries, only the political and religious leaders had the right to kill people, to start wars, and send millions to their death. For them, this is better than sex. They are very jelaous of their power, and they are not willing to share it with anyone, not even the pregnant women, despite of the fact, that they create life and thus have every right to take it.

The more authocratic is the regime, more fervently it persecutes the right to abortion, because it's leaders are more jelaous of their power.

[IllusionFree]

I personaly disagree with the current system of abortion, but do agree that there are reasons for it to exist. Such as rape victims.

Some woman would kill themself's if abortion didnt exist.

So in a sense, what is more important, a few human cells that have no brain, or the full developed human being. -

When your talking about a few cells without a brain you are talking about something that could be, but isnt yet...

[neo of the mind]

Tony Blair,

Thanks for the post. Abortion is murder. There is no justifiable reason for it for any reason.

If your raped, half that baby is the mother and the baby is not responsible for the biological fathers actions and therefore should not pay the penalty, the biological father should. That goes for incest to.

99% of the "mother is going to die" cases are false. The ones that are bonafide......deliver the baby, if the baby dies, it won't be because it was murdered.

The "I won't be able to have other children gambit" is also stupid. So, your going to keep killing your babies so that you get to a point where you want to have the "one" baby, that you want to keep?

All the other social reasons do not justify murder.

[burntgorilla]

Christ almighty, those are some scary views. You'd want a rape victim to carry her attacker's baby for nine months, and then give birth to it? That's just messed up. A girl gets raped by her father, and you think she should go through with the baby? You're willing to gamble with the life of the mother and baby, just to protect your sensibilities?

If your fourteen year old daughter goes out one day and gets raped, and falls pregnant, I hope for her sake that you don't have the strength of your convictions.

[mataj]

Abortion is murder. There is no justifiable reason for it for any reason. Woman, pregnant with unwanted child, does not need a reason.

[sub_zer0]

I'm human, and I'm unique because of what I got in my head, not in my genes. That's why I'm finding the above chromosome claptrap pretty offensive, almost as offensive as the "sanctity of life" principle. My life is my own, and nobody else will make his sacred object out of it.

Dude, it is the DNA that gives you that uniqueness...

[sub_zer0]

Christ almighty, those are some scary views. You'd want a rape victim to carry her attacker's baby for nine months, and then give birth to it? That's just messed up. A girl gets raped by her father, and you think she should go through with the baby? You're willing to gamble with the life of the mother and baby, just to protect your sensibilities?

If the girl is older than 18 and only in these cases, in forced sex upon her, can she have a choice NOT to have the baby.

If your fourteen year old daughter goes out one day and gets raped, and falls pregnant, I hope for her sake that you don't have the strength of your convictions.

It will be up to the parents or legal gaurdian to make that choice for here, until she is 18.

That is how it should be.

[neo of the mind]

Christ almighty, those are some scary views. You'd want a rape victim to carry her attacker's baby for nine months, and then give birth to it? That's just messed up. A girl gets raped by her father, and you think she should go through with the baby? You're willing to gamble with the life of the mother and baby, just to protect your sensibilities?

If your fourteen year old daughter goes out one day and gets raped, and falls pregnant, I hope for her sake that you don't have the strength of your convictions.

I think this covers it rather well.

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/loveboth/chapter29.html

[JoeR]

I think the mother's choice outweighs the unborn baby's life, ESPECIALLY in cases of rape or incest. There is no way I could ever support making rape illegal in those cases. The baby wasn't at fault? Tough. The mother shouldn't be forced to give birth to a child concieved under those circumstances, and that far outweights the life of the fetus, especially if she gets it done in the first trimester.

[wish]

As far as I'm concerned, it's a matter of self-defense. If a pregnancy is having a negative impact on the health of the mother, she has a right to protect herself just as anyone would have the right to protect themselves against someone/thing that was harming them. Unfortunately, it means the death of the fetus, but until we come up with a way to keep it alive outside her body, there is no other option.

Fetal transplants anyone? Think all those anti-abortionists will pony up and offer their bodies up for a few months for a good cause if it were possible?

[neo of the mind]

I think the mother's choice outweighs the unborn baby's life, ESPECIALLY in cases of rape or incest. There is no way I could ever support making rape illegal in those cases. The baby wasn't at fault? Tough. The mother shouldn't be forced to give birth to a child concieved under those circumstances, and that far outweights the life of the fetus, especially if she gets it done in the first trimester.


Then why stipulate that it's better for her to get it done in the first trimester? If it's the right thing to do in the 1st then it's the right thing to do all the way to delivery.

"There is no way I could ever support making rape illegal in those cases."
Huh? I am going to assume your thinking something else other than what you wrote.

[neo of the mind]

As far as I'm concerned, it's a matter of self-defense. If a pregnancy is having a negative impact on the health of the mother, she has a right to protect herself just as anyone would have the right to protect themselves against someone/thing that was harming them. Unfortunately, it means the death of the fetus, but until we come up with a way to keep it alive outside her body, there is no other option.

Fetal transplants anyone? Think all those anti-abortionists will pony up and offer their bodies up for a few months for a good cause if it were possible?

LOL. "negative impact on the health of the mother", all pregnancies have a negative impact on the health of the mother. Just ask any woman that has had children, I am sure they can tell you what they go through.

[neo of the mind]

A woman becomes pregnant consensually by a man who then, four hours later goes out
and rapes a different woman who becomes pregnant.

There are two babies, should they both be killed because the father is a rapist?
Would it be right for the mother of the consensual sex upon finding out, to have an abortion?

[JoeR]

"There is no way I could ever support making rape illegal in those cases."Huh? I am going to assume your thinking something else other than what you wrote.

30 hours, no sleep.

I ment there would be no way I would make abortion illegal in the cases of rape, even if it were illegal in other cases.

[JoeR]

A woman becomes pregnant consensually by a man who then, four hours later goes out
and rapes a different woman who becomes pregnant.

There are two babies, should they both be killed because the father is a rapist?
Would it be right for the mother of the consensual sex upon finding out, to have an abortion?

It's her choice.

[FlyingGuineapig]

It's a shame that some women are having abortions while others are desperate to adopt. The possibility of adoption tends to get neglected in all the abortion arguments, but it's something that should receive a lot more mention than it does. And many charities, both religious or secular, are eager to help with this.

[wish]

LOL. "negative impact on the health of the mother", all pregnancies have a negative impact on the health of the mother. Exactly. But all people are different. Some illnesses (such as the flu) may be minor for one person but end up being deadly for another. Pregnancy is no different. Who are you (or anyone else besides the woman and her doctor) to decide whether this "negative impact" is negligible or serious?

Just ask any woman that has had children, I am sure they can tell you what they go through. Which belies the claim that pregnancy is just a minor inconvenience. According to the CDC:

"During the study period (1993-1997), almost 4 million women annually gave birth. About 43 percent of these women had some kind of maternal morbidity, which is defined as a condition that has an adverse impact on a woman’s physical health during childbirth, beyond what would be expected in a normal delivery"

Fact Sheet: The Magnitude of Maternal Morbidity During Labor and Delivery (http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/Media/pressrel/fs030327.htm)

Granted, that study was from about 10 years ago, but I can't imagine much has changed.

[brainpan]

LOL. "negative impact on the health of the mother", all pregnancies have a negative impact on the health of the mother. Just ask any woman that has had children, I am sure they can tell you what they go through.And "emotional stress" qualifies as a "negative impact," according to PP. :rolleyes:

[brainpan]

Exactly. But all people are different. Some illnesses (such as the flu) may be minor for one person but end up being deadly for another. Pregnancy is no different. Who are you (or anyone else besides the woman and her doctor) to decide whether this "negative impact" is negligible or serious?Now we have babies being compared to an illness. I never thought I would see that one. :p

[heel31ok]

women certainly have the right to choose, but that does not mean that whatever they choose is right.
if my daughter was raped I would hope a she could stand for er convictions and not punish nor make the one thing good that could come out of it go away.

[burntgorilla]

If the girl is older than 18 and only in these cases, in forced sex upon her, can she have a choice NOT to have the baby.


How generous of you to allow her to have a choice.

d A woman becomes pregnant consensually by a man who then, four hours later goes out
and rapes a different woman who becomes pregnant.

There are two babies, should they both be killed because the father is a rapist?
Would it be right for the mother of the consensual sex upon finding out, to have an abortion?

Jesus, what convulted thinking. One woman was raped, one woman wasn't. The fact that the father is a rapist is irrelevant, it's the fact that the woman was forced to have sex. I'm not quite sure how you thought that made sense. To answer your question though, it's up to the woman.

[wish]

Now we have babies being compared to an illness. I never thought I would see that one. :p
I was not comparing "babies" to illnesses. I was saying that the state of pregnancy may be perfectly fine and uneventful for many women but in others creates a variety of illnesses. Without knowing the detail of a woman's health condition(s), no one has the right to judge whether an abortion is necessary or not.

[wish]

And "emotional stress" qualifies as a "negative impact," according to PP. :rolleyes: Of course. Can give me an example of a "positive impact" resulting from emotional stress?

[burntgorilla]

women certainly have the right to choose, but that does not mean that whatever they choose is right.
if my daughter was raped I would hope a she could stand for er convictions and not punish nor make the one thing good that could come out of it go away.

I don't really see it as punishment. The baby isn't aware that it's not going to live. Plus, depending on your beliefs, the baby is either going to go to Limbo, and then Heaven, or straight to Heaven, so really it's win-win for the baby.

[mataj]

Dude, it is the DNA that gives you that uniqueness...Only if you are plant or an animal.

[neo of the mind]

Jesus, what convulted thinking. One woman was raped, one woman wasn't. The fact that the father is a rapist is irrelevant, it's the fact that the woman was forced to have sex. I'm not quite sure how you thought that made sense. To answer your question though, it's up to the woman.

The trauma of rape doesn't go away if the baby is murdered. The fact that the father is a rapist is relevant and the main issue. The stigma attached to the pregnancy is the root of the problem.

This then leaves the issue to whether or not she wants to have a child and the reasons for not wanting one at this time still can not justify murder. Carry to term and put the baby up for adoption.

[burntgorilla]

The trauma of rape doesn't go away if the baby is murdered. The fact that the father is a rapist is relevant and the main issue. The stigma attached to the pregnancy is the root of the problem.

This then leaves the issue to whether or not she wants to have a child and the reasons for not wanting one at this time still can not justify murder. Carry to term and put the baby up for adoption.

You're looking at it arse about face. It's not that the father is a rapist, it's that the baby belongs to the rapist. Would you like to get raped, and then carry his child for nine months? I sure as hell wouldn't. And then we have the whole debate over whether or not a zygote is a human, which I'm not going to get into, since it's completely circular.

[Lumpen Prole]

I'm human, and I'm unique because of what I got in my head, not in my genes.

If you didn't have the same genes, you wouldn't have the same head. ;)

[julierep]

I'm human, and I'm unique because of what I got in my head, not in my genes. That's why I'm finding the above chromosome claptrap pretty offensive, almost as offensive as the "sanctity of life" principle. My life is my own, and nobody else will make his sacred object out of it.

The debate about genes, cells, blobs of tissue, and foetuses is pointless anyway. It's only purpose is to divert attention from the real issue: Power, political power. For centuries, only the political and religious leaders had the right to kill people, to start wars, and send millions to their death. For them, this is better than sex. They are very jelaous of their power, and they are not willing to share it with anyone, not even the pregnant women, despite of the fact, that they create life and thus have every right to take it.

The more authocratic is the regime, more fervently it persecutes the right to abortion, because it's leaders are more jelaous of their power.

Ah, but you were once a little "gene", and the life that you call "your own" would not have been had your parent decided you werent worth it. You wouldnt be able to even claim "your own" life if you were a result of an abortion. Just as you cherish life, so would the unborn if they were given a chance.

[burntgorilla]

I was never a gene.

[julierep]

I was never a gene.

I was using his words. Using my own words, I would have used fetus.

[mataj]

If you didn't have the same genes, you wouldn't have the same head. ;)Not the same head but similar head with the same knowledge & experience.

When you watch the movie on DVD, you don't care whether it's burned/printed on "Verbatim", "Fuji", or some other brand of DVD. Similarily, when you shoud judge the man, you should concentrate on his deeds, his knowledge & experience, not his genes. Genetic differences among humans are negligible anyway.

Ah, but you were once a little "gene", and the life that you call "your own" would not have been had your parent decided you werent worth it.But they didn't.

And even if they did, if they'd decided, that they are not able to offer me a chance of a decent life, I certainly wouldn't blame them.

You wouldnt be able to even claim "your own" life if you were a result of an abortion.So what.

Just as you cherish life, so would the unborn if they were given a chance.Not the unwanted unborn. At least not vast majority of them.

[Meek Heir]

It's a shame that some women are having abortions while others are desperate to adopt. The possibility of adoption tends to get neglected in all the abortion arguments, but it's something that should receive a lot more mention than it does. And many charities, both religious or secular, are eager to help with this.

Because we all know the huge shortage of adoptable children. They don't have special places to take care of whole swarms of children with no parents.

[Meek Heir]

If you didn't have the same genes, you wouldn't have the same head. ;)

But the nerve impulses in his head are what they are because of much more then just his DNA. Every single experience and stimuli is part of making him who he is today.

[neo of the mind]

You're looking at it arse about face. It's not that the father is a rapist, it's that the baby belongs to the rapist. Would you like to get raped, and then carry his child for nine months?


Thank you for proving my point. Just due to the fact that the baby is half made up of a rapist, is used as justification for murder. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Lumpen Prole]

Not the same head but similar head with the same knowledge & experience.

When you watch the movie on DVD, you don't care whether it's burned/printed on "Verbatim", "Fuji", or some other brand of DVD. Similarily, when you shoud judge the man, you should concentrate on his deeds, his knowledge & experience, not his genes. Genetic differences among humans are negligible anyway.

But they didn't.

Your genes determine who you are. If you had a completely different set of genes from the ones you have now, you wouldn't be you. You wouldn't analyze information in quite the same way, you wouldn't have the same IQ, and so on. I'm not saying we should judge people based on their genetics; my point was that genetics determines who you are (how you best acquire knowledge, etc.).

[cpwill]

Christ almighty, those are some scary views. You'd want a rape victim to carry her attacker's baby for nine months, and then give birth to it? That's just messed up. A girl gets raped by her father, and you think she should go through with the baby?

well, let's say we discover that the child of young woman A is actually the product of incest from her father. are you cool with us now throwing the resulting three-year-old toddler off a cliff to help her achieve closure?

You're willing to gamble with the life of the mother and baby, just to protect your sensibilities?

no, we are willing to take a risk of losing one life in order to avoid taking a certainty of losing one life.

If your fourteen year old daughter goes out one day and gets raped, and falls pregnant, I hope for her sake that you don't have the strength of your convictions.

and i hope for my grandchilds' sake that i do.

[bowerbird]

Do those of you who are violently against abaortion realise that some women have what have been terms NK or "natural killer" cells that cause spontaneous abortion aka miscarriage?

[sub_zer0]

Do those of you who are violently against abaortion realise that some women have what have been terms NK or "natural killer" cells that cause spontaneous abortion aka miscarriage?

Did you realize that miscarriage is natural and not somebody's will forced upon it, to muder it.

Like I said, if she has had sex forced upon her and is older than 18, I am pro-choice.

If she has sex forced upon her under 18 it is the choice of the parent and/or gaurdian to make the decision.

Only other reason other than forced sex to have an abortion is if it will kill the mother.

[bowerbird]

Did you realize that miscarriage is natural and not somebody's will forced upon it, to muder it.

Like I said, if she has had sex forced upon her and is older than 18, I am pro-choice.

If she has sex forced upon her under 18 it is the choice of the parent and/or gaurdian to make the decision.

Only other reason other than forced sex to have an abortion is if it will kill the mother.

How about a foetus with a syndrome that is incompatable with life? There are such of course and to force a woman to carry something (some do not even look human) to term knowing that it will never survive is cruelty beyond measure.

[JoeR]

Just due to the fact that the baby is half made up of a rapist, is used as justification for murder.

I can't speak for him, but for me it's the fact that the baby was made through an act of violence. I understand that you think an innocent life shouldn't be lost as well, but in no way can I even leap to think that a fetus, especially one as undeveloped in the first trimester, is in any way equivalent to a person that has already been born, and even if I did think that, theres no way I could fathom legally forcing a mother to give birth to a baby concieved by a violent violation of her person.

[sub_zer0]

How about a foetus with a syndrome that is incompatable with life? There are such of course and to force a woman to carry something (some do not even look human) to term knowing that it will never survive is cruelty beyond measure.

If a fetus is incompatible with life, obviously sane doctor advice is needed and a choice should be taken.

Other than that, abortion should not be practiced.

[sub_zer0]

I understand that you think an innocent life shouldn't be lost as well, but in no way can I even leap to think that a fetus, especially one as undeveloped in the first trimester, is in any way equivalent to a person that has already been born

Then you know nothing about DNA, human development cycles nor respect for life.

Now if I say that you are so different when you are born from the first trimester, why couldn't I say then you are so different from your birth compared to now, I have a right to kill you!?

[JoeR]

Then you know nothing about DNA nor respect for life.

What does knowledge of DNA have to do with it?

I respect life, but that isn't a life. It may be living, but I don't consider it a life yet. At minimum, I'd set viability at the demarcation line for that, but ever late term for the life of the mother should be kept legal.

I can't think of any reason that late term should necessarily should be kept legal for choice, but that's more of a concession to oppoenents of abortion since theres no reason to wait 6 or more months to make a choice than a moral concern.

[sub_zer0]

What does knowledge of DNA have to do with it?

Even killing something as small as a DNA molecule (or the pinhead size that holds the DNA), which is what makes you so unique, is killing not only life but the uniqueness of it.

I respect life, but that isn't a life. It may be living, but I don't consider it a life yet. At minimum, I'd set viability at the demarcation line for that, but ever late term for the life of the mother should be kept legal.

What, are you kidding me? Living is alive, it has life!

Main Entry: lived; liv·ing
intransitive verb
1 : to be alive

[JoeR]

Has life, but is not a life. In the same way that Terry Schiavo may have been alive, but was not a life.

[neo of the mind]

I can't speak for him, but for me it's the fact that the baby was made through an act of violence. I understand that you think an innocent life shouldn't be lost as well, but in no way can I even leap to think that a fetus, especially one as undeveloped in the first trimester, is in any way equivalent to a person that has already been born, and even if I did think that, theres no way I could fathom legally forcing a mother to give birth to a baby concieved by a violent violation of her person.

That baby has no knowledge of it's "purity" of conception and should not take the punishment for another person's evil actions. As far as you not considering a fetus as a "person" during the first trimester, that is a view held by many people. All I can say to that is I disagree with it and I don't think a fetus should have it's personhood determined by whether the mother wants the baby or not. Once a human's personhood can be left to another to determine, nothing good comes out of it, only evil. Slavery and Nazi Germany being two examples of many.

[neo of the mind]

Has life, but is not a life. In the same way that Terry Schiavo may have been alive, but was not a life.


Once the personhood can be decided upon by another person, then what constitutes a "life" is next for determination by another person.

Children with disabilities, mental retardation, genetic diseases...people that are "too old"......that list will continue to expand.

[JoeR]

It hasn't expanded since Roe v Wade.

It's more of an issue of the government not interfering in a woman's personal decisions than a question of the morality of killing the fetus to me anyways.

[neo of the mind]

It hasn't expanded since Roe v Wade.

It's more of an issue of the government not interfering in a woman's personal decisions than a question of the morality of killing the fetus to me anyways.



Examples of it expanding:

Nazi Germany, they made determinations on people and murdered many due to genetics, quality of life according to their perspective in regards to the mentally ill, etc.

Look towards the Northern European countries and you see that they have legally been killing old people for awhile.

How many abortions are done due to the knowledge that the baby has down's syndrome, conditions of mental retardation, other genetic disorders. Why do you think they have mothers take those blood tests? The main reason may be for preparation or in small cases, prevention, but a lot of times it's used in determinig whether or not the mother and or father want a baby will special needs. Action, via abortion is taken in a lot of those cases.

You say it's a matter of the government not interfering? The U.S. government for example, has a limited scope via the constituition and has expanded it's reach over time. That is true, but the 14th amendment may have something to say to this.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

So the Constitutional definition of a citizen of the United States is a person born or naturalized in the United states. There are privileges and immunities of being a citizen. Those that are not born yet are not citizens BUT are whithin the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore can not be denied equal protection of the laws IF they are considered a person.

But what is the Constitutional definition of a person?

There are laws and decisons that are pointing to the fact that a fetus is a person. I think it really just comes down to the fact that as a society, we are selfish and will bend our morals, ethics and reality in order to do what is expedient.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E0DF1238F934A2575BC0A9629482 60

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/78/story_7851_1.html

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/06/18/loc_kyfetus18.html

Amber Alert issued for a fetus http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/19/missouri.fetus/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act of course this excludes abortion but presents the obvious double standard, which again goes back to, if you want the baby, it's a person, if you don't want the baby, it's not a person.

[JoeR]

What does Nazi Germany have to do with Roe v Wade? Keep in mind as well that the extermination of the Jews was Hitler's goal from the beginning.

For euthanasia in northern Europe, I'd like to see a reference.

As for the rest of it, I didn't mention the Constitution. Those cases you presented also all revolve around viability, or in the case of the one on beliefnet, it was a state law. I'm not opposed to making it a state issue.

I think that double standard is a bit silly as well. They shouldn't be considered persons.

[Scaryclouds]

How about a foetus with a syndrome that is incompatable with life? There are such of course and to force a woman to carry something (some do not even look human) to term knowing that it will never survive is cruelty beyond measure.

Come now this is more syntatical based, than merit based argument. If it is known the child will be a still born, and there is nothing that can't be done to prevent it then of course abortion should be allowed (it really isn't aborting anything).

[wish]

All I can say to that is I disagree with it and I don't think a fetus should have it's personhood determined by whether the mother wants the baby or not. How hard is it for you to understand that as long as that fetus in inside a woman's body, she has a right to remove it if she feels it is causing her harm? You've already admitted that ALL pregnancies take a large toll on a woman. Who gets to decide if the pregnancy poses a serious risk to the mother or not? You? Some goverment official? Or do you feel that abortion is wrong even when the mother's life is in danger? If you really want a solution, then start lobbying for funds to a) make birth control available and free to everyone, or b) research ways to keep a fetus alive outside the mother's body if she is unable to carry a child to term.

I think it really just comes down to the fact that as a society, we are selfish and will bend our morals, ethics and reality in order to do what is expedient.I agree...including our treatment of unwanted children languishing in social services. How are the children you've adopted or fostered doing, btw? Sponsored any homeless pregnant teens lately? People love to preach, but few are willing to do more than give lip service. Apologies if you are actually one of the few that ARE doing more than just debating on a public message board.

[burntgorilla]

Thank you for proving my point. Just due to the fact that the baby is half made up of a rapist, is used as justification for murder. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The fact that the baby is made up of a rapist isn't the argument, it's that the baby was conceived through rape.

[burntgorilla]

I don't really see it as punishment. The baby isn't aware that it's not going to live. Plus, depending on your beliefs, the baby is either going to go to Limbo, and then Heaven, or straight to Heaven, so really it's win-win for the baby.

I'd like some religious views on this. If you want a baby to go to heaven, surely aborting it would be a guarantee? Or is it like sending missionaries out to tribes to convert them, when they would ahve gone to heaven anyway?

[mataj]

Your genes determine who you are. If you had a completely different set of genes from the ones you have now, you wouldn't be you. You wouldn't analyze information in quite the same way, you wouldn't have the same IQ, and so on. I'm not saying we should judge people based on their genetics; my point was that genetics determines who you are (how you best acquire knowledge, etc.).OK, let's say... 50%. Genes determine about 50% of who you are.

Then you know nothing about DNA, human development cycles nor respect for life.DNA and respect for life in the same sentence sounds a bit weird. Namely, our DNA is a result of a natural selection which means, that a lot of life has been thrown away in the process.

Life should not be respected too much anyhow. Freedom comes before it. Only thralls and slaves unconditionally respect their life, because it's someone else's property.


What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

[neo of the mind]

How hard is it for you to understand that as long as that fetus in inside a woman's body, she has a right to remove it if she feels it is causing her harm? You've already admitted that ALL pregnancies take a large toll on a woman. Who gets to decide if the pregnancy poses a serious risk to the mother or not? You? Some goverment official? Or do you feel that abortion is wrong even when the mother's life is in danger? If you really want a solution, then start lobbying for funds to a) make birth control available and free to everyone, or b) research ways to keep a fetus alive outside the mother's body if she is unable to carry a child to term.

It's not hard for me to understand it at all, I just don't think it is justifiable. How hard is it for you to understand that? The argument that a woman can die from her pregnancy is a straw man, since it is very rare. As far as the "health", that is almost always bogus as well. You can't justify this action based on the rare extremes.


I agree...including our treatment of unwanted children languishing in social services. How are the children you've adopted or fostered doing, btw? Sponsored any homeless pregnant teens lately? People love to preach, but few are willing to do more than give lip service. Apologies if you are actually one of the few that ARE doing more than just debating on a public message board.

I'll tell you what I have done in regards to this matter after you tell me how many babies you have murdered via abortion. People love to preach, about what should be acceptable, though they know it's wrong, when it deals with "other" people. Are you giving lip service? Apologies to you if you are actually one of the many that have killed their own baby, versus debating on a public message board.

[neo of the mind]

The fact that the baby is made up of a rapist isn't the argument, it's that the baby was conceived through rape.

Your proving my point as well. The conception of the child through rape or incest is a stigma is society an that's what I have been saying. This stigma does not warrant the murder of an innocent baby. Punish the rapist, not the child. To do otherwise is twisted and evil.

[Dangerrmouse]

Your proving my point as well. The conception of the child through rape or incest is a stigma is society an that's what I have been saying. This stigma does not warrant the murder of an innocent baby. Punish the rapist, not the child. To do otherwise is twisted and evil.

While treating the rape victim as an unfeeling human incubator, a mere sperm receptacle. So caring.

[wish]

It's not hard for me to understand it at all, I just don't think it is justifiable. How hard is it for you to understand that? The argument that a woman can die from her pregnancy is a straw man, since it is very rare. As far as the "health", that is almost always bogus as well. You can't justify this action based on the rare extremes.[/COLOR]So do you approve of abortion in life or death situations or not? Sound like you don't think ANY reason is justified. Fine, that's your choice for your body, but don't assume the right to decide for someone else. BTW, there were 4,200 case of maternal mortality in the previous decade according to the CDC--far too many for me to relegate as a "rare extreme."

I'll tell you what I have done in regards to this matter after you tell me how many babies you have murdered via abortion. People love to preach, about what should be acceptable, though they know it's wrong, when it deals with "other" people. Are you giving lip service? Apologies to you if you are actually one of the many that have killed their own baby, versus debating on a public message board. Strawman. I'm not arguing that a woman HAS to have an abortion the way that you are arguing that she HAS to carry the child no matter what damages it causes to her body. I'm saying that she should have the option to have one IF she needs it (and it is up to HER to decide if she needs it or not). To answer your question, I have had zero abortions. Now what have you done?

[Lumpen Prole]

But the nerve impulses in his head are what they are because of much more then just his DNA. Every single experience and stimuli is part of making him who he is today.

True, but a different set of genes would mean different experiences and stimuli. If he had different genes, he wouldn't have read the same books, had the same exact personality, etc.

[Lumpen Prole]

OK, let's say... 50%. Genes determine about 50% of who you are.

Well, it's really not that simple. I'm not arguing that your genes determine who you are 100%. The environment does play a role, but your genes determine how you interact with your environment, react to certain stimuli, and so on.

[brainpan]

BTW, there were 4,200 case of maternal mortality in the previous decade according to the CDC--far too many for me to relegate as a "rare extreme."How does that figure as a percentage of all births in the same time period? I suspect I might need to launch another discussion on probability theory. ;)
Also, how many of those deaths occurred during births that appeared to be "normal," with no known complications?
I'm saying that she should have the option to have one IF she needs it (and it is up to HER to decide if she needs it or not).What options does the baby have if she decides it should die?
To answer your question, I have had zero abortions. Now what have you done?I tell people that abortion is a serious issue but many women have abortions for frivolous reasons. PP has about as much reverence for the life of the unborn as to consider abortion to pretty much be a form of birth control. They won't say that, of course, but it's absolutely true and I find that hard to forgive.

[Meek Heir]

Well, it's really not that simple. I'm not arguing that your genes determine who you are 100%. The environment does play a role, but your genes determine how you interact with your environment, react to certain stimuli, and so on.

But he was talking about who he was being more than DNA, not independant of it. Feti(?) are not the same as the person they become because they lack experience.

[julierep]

But they didn't.

And even if they did, if they'd decided, that they are not able to offer me a chance of a decent life, I certainly wouldn't blame them.
But not all abortions are done because of your above statement. Some are just done out of convience. Trust me, I was in the same situation at one time and had someone not found out that this was my plan, my 12 year old would not be enjoying the life that I once thought I would never be able to provide for him. Its a copout, plain and simple. Why do I say that? Because I once said the same thing.


Not the unwanted unborn. At least not vast majority of them.
Yea, well that would be nice if we were actually able to ask them that. The problem is, they never get that chance. How sad for them. Of course, there are a vast majority in this country who have the same feelings as you but yet dont really care because it didnt happen to them and they were born and everything is just fine and dandy. Why not ask a child who once was a very close call for abortion and ask them how they would have felt had their mother decided to end their life without them having the chance to live it? If people cannot think from someone elses shoes, then most should just not even comment on the topic.

[julierep]

How about a foetus with a syndrome that is incompatable with life? There are such of course and to force a woman to carry something (some do not even look human) to term knowing that it will never survive is cruelty beyond measure.

Well in my experience with working with pregnant women, most cases end in spontanious abortion if one is not compatible with life. It is rare, that I have seen, that a fetus actually goes to term in this situation.

[JoeR]

Why not ask a child who once was a very close call for abortion and ask them how they would have felt had their mother decided to end their life without them having the chance to live it?

How would you feel Timmy?

Timmy: Um....dead?

[julierep]

How would you feel Timmy?

Timmy: Um....dead?
:mad: :mad: :mad:
You know, your so funny. Have you actually asked one lately how they would feel? Your comment just makes me want to puke. Have a nice freakin life dude.

[JoeR]

No I haven't asked one, because I don't think it is an important question to ask. They wouldn't feel anything.

[Sauniere]

Evolution and Abortion
If you believe in Evolution and you understand its fundament principals then you may know that the instinct to reproduce is a driving force in Evolution. In Evolution the instinct to reproduce may be greater then any other instinct. Jerome Lejeune, a professor of fundamental genetics in Paris and a pioneer in detecting chromosomal diseases, said to a Senate committee: "Life has a very, very long history but each individual has a very neat beginning, the moment of its conception. When the 23 chromosomes from the father and the 23 chromosomes from the mother are combined at conception, that cell now represents an entirely new individual and is not just a part of the mother's body. Sixty prominent physicians recently presented a declaration of biological facts proving that a child in the womb is conclusively a living human being. These doctors include Drs. Hofmeister and Schmidt, past presidents of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology; Dr. Joseph Faley, past president of the American Academy of Neurology; and Dr. Bernard Nathanson, formerly one of the leading abortionists in America. These doctors stated: "The developing foetus is human, with human genetic composition. As clearly demonstrated by in vitro (dish) fertilization, so also in vivo (womb), the embryo is alive, human, and unique in the special environmental support required for that stage of human development. Is Abortion just a result of forty years of psychological conditioning? The scientific and medical community agree about the foetus being human life, all agreeing that life begins at conception. And if you believe that humans are a product of Evolution then maybe you can try and explain why woman kill there own babies. All intelligent people understand that Abortion is murder .Abortion is in direct contradiction to the Evolutionary instinct to reproduce. Evolution is concerned with the idea of building for future generations. As a professor at Emory University summarized, unbridled self-indulgence on the part of one generation without regard to a future generation, is to be regarded as irrational behaviour in terms of biological evolution. This premise arose from a scientific idea that one could determine evolutionary history by studying the development of the foetus. Are women who have Abortions just mentally ill? For example, human life begins with a single cell and then multiplies in complexity. During one stage, the human foetus has so-called "gill slits" that seem to represent the "fish stage" in human development. Next, the foetus seems to have a tail segment similar to reptiles, and the yolk sac seems similar to bird evolution. Thus, the development of the foetus has appeared to some scientists as a mere reflection of how humans supposedly developed from lower animal forms. This idea was widely taught even at the beginning of this decade. Even though this evolutionary idea of foetal development has been scientifically disproved, the notion still seems to prevail. A closer examination of this premise reveals scientific error, however. The "gill slits," or pharyngeal pouches, actually become the thymus gland, the parathyroid, and the middle ear canals. The "tail", or coccyx, is a point of muscle attachment at the tailbone, and the yolk sac produces the first blood cells. All of these morphological phenomena are necessary stages in normal human development. The abortionists' justification for the termination of human life has been completely invalidated by scientific evidence. Evolution is concerned with the idea of future generations. As John Wilke has stated, "In truth we did not come from a single cell. Rather, each of us once was a single cell; and all we have done since then has been growing.

geez, wake me up when this current rant is over... :sleep: :sleep: :sleep:

[julierep]

No I haven't asked one, because I don't think it is an important question to ask. They wouldn't feel anything.

Really? Maybe you should ask my 12 year old son. I dont know if you have children or not, but if you did fear of death is one of their # one concerns. Not only that, but if they even found out that they were hours from being aborted it would break their little hearts. But asking you to ask one was really dumb on my part because the answer you gave shows little to no heart on your part.

[JoeR]

I mean if they were aborted, they wouldn't feel anything.

[julierep]

I mean if they were aborted, they wouldn't feel anything.

It doesnt matter. My question was, since the unborn do not have a voice, why not ask a child who was hours from abortion how they would have felt had their mother actually carried it through. Most everybody in this world values their life, and why wouldnt the unborn feel the same way?

Sure, it is easy to answer from your point of view because you have life. You have a voice. But the ones who dont should have someone to speak for them. I dont even want to hear that it was done because of the mother couldnt provide the life for them. Its not always about money, its about the love that one can give. To me, that answer is just a freakin copout because I can speak from experiece. When one is faced with a situation they think is impossible, love can do whatever it takes to make that situation work, period.

[JoeR]

And if they have no love?

[julierep]

And if they have no love?

Are you actually saying that none of the kids would have love? 9 times out of 10 the mother is scared to death. I know I was. But once I first felt the baby kick, I loved it more than anything else I could ever imagine. Women who do not have children, or think they dont ever want children find out they are mistaken with the first sign of movement. I can speak from my experience, and I can tell you, I think that I would never have been able to live with myself had I gone through with my plans. Misery would be much more than if I had not dealt with my shortcomings. If there is a will there certainly is a way.

[JoeR]

Heh, I asked one of my friends who was almost aborted, and her response was "like i would've known? who gives a ****". She is far more cynical than I am though.

One of my friends became preganant when her boyfriend intentionally put holes in the condom to get her pregnant so she couldn't leave him. In no way should abortion not have been an option for her to take.

[julierep]

Heh, I asked one of my friends who was almost aborted, and her response was "like i would've known? who gives a ****". She is far more cynical than I am though.
Ask a child. Better yet, tell a child they were hours from being aborted and see how you break their heart.

One of my friends became preganant when her boyfriend intentionally put holes in the condom to get her pregnant so she couldn't leave him. In no way should abortion not have been an option for her to take.
HMMM, I had the same thing happen to me. It wasnt an option for me, because I know that what I was killing would have been my own flesh and blood. AND, if he wanted a baby so bad, surely he would have been willing to raise it.

[JoeR]

Maybe you shouldn't tell a child such things?

As an aside, fear of death being a fear for a child? Is this a recent thing? I was more concerned with toys and what not. I suppose maybe because death never touched my life as a child?

It was an option as far as the legality of it was concerned.

[julierep]

Maybe you shouldn't tell a child such things?
Well, I guess if you would like to lie to your children, that should be fine with you. However, most would like to be clearly honest with their child. Would you rather hear it from the horses mouth or someone else? But, hey, whatever makes you sleep better at night.

As an aside, fear of death being a fear for a child? Is this a recent thing? I was more concerned with toys and what not.
Im guessing you dont have children. Fear of toys? Thats a first. Fear of death? Well, I guess you should try talking to children more often.

It was an option as far as the legality of it was concerned.
As long as abortion is legal, of course its an option of legality. Im speaking of morality, in which Im not sure you are lacking or just playing PC. But whatever, Im one who speaks with a heart. There should be more people in the world like that.

[mataj]

But not all abortions are done because of your above statement. Some are just done out of convience. Trust me, I was in the same situation at one time and had someone not found out that this was my plan, my 12 year old would not be enjoying the life that I once thought I would never be able to provide for him. Its a copout, plain and simple. Why do I say that? Because I once said the same thing.Good for you, and good for him, but everybody is not so lucky.

Yea, well that would be nice if we were actually able to ask them that. The problem is, they never get that chance. How sad for them. Of course, there are a vast majority in this country who have the same feelings as you but yet dont really care because it didnt happen to them and they were born and everything is just fine and dandy. Why not ask a child who once was a very close call for abortion and ask them how they would have felt had their mother decided to end their life without them having the chance to live it? If people cannot think from someone elses shoes, then most should just not even comment on the topic.Had my mother aborted me, I'd bear no grudge against her.

[JoeR]

Im guessing you dont have children. Fear of toys?

I don't mean a fear of toys, but I mean stuff like toys, you know childish things, are what concerned me as a child.

What possible need is there to tell a child that you almost aborted them? That sort of thing can wait until they are a teenager and could understand it.

I have morality, but I don't consider abortion to be immoral. A mother has absoulte sovereignty over the unborn child as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry about the joking about it earlier. I've been in a pretty bad mood lately.

[mataj]

What possible need is there to tell a child that you almost aborted them? That sort of thing can wait until they are a teenager and could understand it.Why tell a child at all, for that matter? It's for no good.