Right to Life Ethical Considerations

The fact that you compared an intruder to a child in utero is just beyond depraved. For starters, the "hobo" knowingly is entering a domicile uninvited. The homeowner does every right to defend their property, even by force if neccesary. Can't disagree with you there. But how you compare a fetus to an intruder is just plain ignorant. First of all, I hope its not lost upon you that you, yourself were a fetus. M'kay, that's how we all got our start. Secondly, the 'evil baby intruder' never asked to be in that womb that it's "invading." In fact, it was the mother and the father that placed that baby in the womb. Yeah, its called sex. Thirdly, what happened to you as a child that you could muster such vicious thoughts upon children as if they are tantmount to the bubonic plague?

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

What? I didn't use ad hom at all.... (not that the desire hasn't crossed my mind). Then you just further proved my point that the child is not an invading intruder. And if it was, then perhaps the parents shouldn't have placed the intruder inside their home. Its like inviting someone into your home, the shooting them for entering their home. Babies are now a threat, comparable to rabid dogs? I see... Again, your line of thinking is shockingly depraved. The landlord supplied the ability for the 'invasion.' Invasion? Threat? Parasite? Just stop for a second and listen to what you are saying. Do you have children Crashfrog? If not, do you aspire to have children one day? It happens in China all the time. Their 'laws' say that it isn't against the law. Does it now make it right because Chinese law says so? And no, if you were once a parasite, an invader, then that's what you are. So, really, the only way a fetus can be a parasite is if the mother chooses to keep the parasite? A pregnant woman gets murdered and the assailant gets charged for double-homicide, but if she's a culprit in the murder, then its simply a medical procedure? If I went around advocating the murder of one-day-olds, would you consider me to be somewhat depraved? I would hope so. Should I get angry that you noticed my depravity? I should hope not. Its really difficult for me to understand your rationale. Its just so..... insane. I don't think "choice" is an issue to establish justifiable homicide. Imagine in a courtoom such a defense, as, "Well, I just didn't want my one-day-old anymore, so I made the choice to kill him. Don't I have that right not be burdened by my own mishaps you Fascist?!!!" I'll kindly ask you to show me the number of women of who die from pregancy, juxtaposed by the millions ravaged by the bubonic plague. It is estimated that 515,000 women die annually worldwide due to complications of pregnancy. What they don't tell you is that those complications mostly occur in third world countries. What they also don't tell you is that the majority of women who suffer no adverse effects, far exceed the number that do... As if it were somehow justification for murder. And your argument is tantamount to bastardizing vehicles because people take the risk of crashing and dying in cars. I don't hear such a cry of outrage over that. Aside from which, you are clearly glancing over the obvious, which is that pregnancy is a natrual part of life, and that life itself, nor any evolutionary steps, could ever advance without it. Crashfrog wouldn't be here without it. You don't! Wear a condom, take the pill, get a tubal ligation, get a hystermectomy, get a vasectomy, abstain from sex until you have enough sense not to pregnant until the time is right. Why do babies need to die because their parents are morons, incapable of controlling themselves long enough to make an informed decision? If morals are relative, then, nope, that's your opinion. It isn't any more immoral or depraved than peeling an orange.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

I don't see women as walking uteruses any more than I see men as walking testicles. I do, however, believe that women should be in control, self-control, of their uteruses, and men should be in control, self-control, of their testicles..... But you know, I'm an odd duck, what can I say?

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

So, is that wrong? Is that a bad thing incurred by the fetus in some malicious attempt to destory then one thing that can save its life, namely, their mother? Hardly? Then the baby miracled itself inside the woman, no fault of the mother or father? If the baby is a parasite, then the parents have a responsibility for placing that baby in the womb to begin with. This isn't like going down to Mexico and you being ignorant of their water treatment capapbilities. Its more like someone telling that if you drink the water, you have a good chance of ingesting a parasite. And, uh, no one can claim ignorance on pregnancy. Everyone knows that if you engage in sexual activity, particularly, unprotected, that you have an excellent chance of becoming pregnant. How is it the fetus's fault that they were made???? How? Unlawfully? WTF? What are you talking about? The biological function for sex is to have children!!!! If you don't like it then evolve yourself the ability to procreate a choice.... otherwise, don't blame nature, and don't blame a child who has nothing to do with their parents inability to recognize their own responsibilities. Because we are talking about murder, not recinding an invitation to a formal ball. No Crash, I don't need to attack you personally, just the views that you hold fast to. The only reason I ask is because, had you had children, you might have a different view. I used to be all for abortion, that is, until I understand what a fetus really is, and what abortion actually entails. See, I think the majority of pro-aborts have only a nominal intellectual acquaintence with what abortion actually is. And the industry plays on that ignorance and plays on the sympathies of men and women by trying to tell them that the big, bad pro-lifer's are out to take away their choices. They arent out to take away choices. They are out to stop infanticide. If it were really about the cute, unassuming word, "choice," then we would be against any choices. Well, if there is no absolute law, then they 'shouldn't' do anything because that's their choice, and who are you to get in the way of someone else's personal choice? ;} I give a damn about humanity from all races, all ages, all cultures, and when someone goes rogue that undermines the whole of humanity, then its my moral obligation to speak up about it and not be a dumbfounded passerby, indifferent to it. Yes, it was a clever manipulation of the Right. You really can't understand that some women may actually want to concieve a child, and the offender that now murdered them both has taken both lives away from the husband/father? Well, if morals are absolute then that's merely your opinion, so who cares what you think? You aren't making any argument. You are making statements about your personal beliefs. But that brings me to my next question: When is a fetus allowed to be a human being? At birth? When the child shows cognizance? I think you could appreciate, for legal matters, when a baby gets to have unalienable rights like the rest of us. I said they would conceal it, becuase they do conceal it. The way you make it seem, women are dying left and right from complications all the time. I guess there is no need in pointing out how women die because of abortions or who are irreparaly maimed because of them. How would you ever know Crash? You think Planned Parenthood broadcast's how many women die or are maimed from abortions? No one forces anyone to drive cars, they do it at their own risk. And no one told them they had to get pregnant, only that murder 'after-the-fact' is unacceptable. Nope, it isn't. How you can not disassociate abortion and choice is the real problem. I might just be as inclined to kill everyone on EvC, only to turn it around and call it my "choice," instead of what it really is. No, absolutely not. She has the choice to engage in sexual activity. That was her shining moment of choice. But, she has the choice to still abort a fetus. Let it be on her conscience if she so desires. The laws says that I can't murder anyone, but I still have the ability to choose to do so. She still has that right, if she chooses. Just don't put rose petals around and puupy dogs around a crime scene, so to speak. No one is forcing them to pregnant, save the 1% of abortion that incur due to rape. By why make a horrible action to cover another horrible action? No one says that the mother of such an affront has to bear the rapists child. No one wants a mother who feels that she incapable of being a good mother to a child. Quite to the contrary. Adopt the child, and all parties are happy. The child gets to live like everyone else, the maternal mother does not have to be burdned by costs, and parents who can't concieve will recieve the child they always desired. Everybody wins in this scenario. Only the mother wins is yours. What? Its my understanding that its really only Catholic-based organizations that have an aversion to contraceptives. I don't. They aren't killing a new life by doing so. I have no moral dilemma over it. How is that hypocrtical? The intelligent thing to do is make it so that parents can control when they get pregnant. What isn't, or what shouldn't be an option, is that when they fail, they get to kill a child. Please explain to me how that possibly could be construed as hypocrtical. I have never, ever met another pro-life supporter to ever reject the notion of contraceptives. Never. And I've met alot. Does that mean that some don't agree with them? Yes, some do not agree with it. But, you know, that's their choice. No, you said that pro-lifer's were immoral. If they are immoral, then there has to first be a standard in place in order for someone to even be immoral.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

quote:

---

:Both early abortion procedures are safe. Serious complications are rare. But the risk of complications increases the longer a pregnancy continues. Abortions performed later in pregnancy may be more complicated but are still safer than labor and delivery.

---

"These have been grossly under-reported. The expose’ on this is detailed in Lime 5 published by Life Dynamics. The author and his staff have verified 23 deaths from induced abortion in 1992-93. All were reported to state agencies. There is documentation from state health departments that 18 were reported to the Federal Center for Disease Control. However, the official report of the CDC listed only 2 deaths. "At Life Dynamics we knew abortion complications were grotesquely under-reported, but attributed it to garden-variety bureaucratic incompetence." But after continuing research, they documented "that the flawed abortion data from the CDC was not from ineptitude but of dishonesty and manipulation" after finding that "a large percentage of CDC employees had direct ties to the abortion industry," they retitled the CDC to stand for "Center for Damage Control" ” "The CDC doesn’t oversee abortion, it justifies it."" M. Crutcher, Lime 5-Exploited by Choice, Genesis Pub., Chapter 4, "Cooking the Books," p. 135."Complications following abortions performed in free-standing clinics is one of the most frequent gynecologic emergencies . . . encountered. Even life-endangering complications rarely come to the attention of the physician who performed the abortion unless the incident entails litigation. The statistics presented by Cates represent substantial under- reporting and disregard women’s reluctance to return to a clinic, where, in their mind, they received inadequate treatment." L. Iffy, "Second Trimester Abortions," JAMA, vol. 249, no. 5, Feb. 4, 1983, p. 588. Yes, some do, only they don't champion it as a false sense of security as those of a more liberal persuasion would like to believe.AbortionFacts.com - Information on Abortion You Can Use

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Its funny you should mention that because just yesterday my wife and I have considered adopting our nephew on her side of the family. Its only a matter of legal documentation. If selected by my sister-in-law, I will be adopting a child. What? All children in the American 'foster care system' are my sole responsibility adopt? Maybe you didn't hear my argument. There are couples who are incapable of having children and they want nothing more than to have a child. They are reliant on children in foster care to fulfil their maternal/paternal affinities and the child gets a set of parents who love them and will nurture them. And there are those who have the ability to concieve and have done so, but out of a charitable deed, they have elected to adopt as many children as their financial situation will allow. Why is that funny? I'm not the person whoever said that. Illegal abortions are very dangerous. Solution: Don't stick foreign objects into your uterus, especially sharp objects.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

The only way to make an entirely new being is to have a sperm cell fertilize an egg. And if they two do not create one flesh, then there is no human being at all. That's why procreation is so interesting, how two people can make a third. I have no problem with preventing implantation. I'm not even sure why anyone would. But hey, that's a Catholic thing. There is alot of beliefs that I don't share with them.

quote:

---

It is not just Catholics that have problems with contraceptives. There is a huge push from mainstream protestants to outlaw post-conception contraceptives. Hence all the politics over the morning after pill.

---

Unbeknownst to alot of people, the morning after pill does not stop a pregnancy if conception has already begun. It stops the sperm from ever reaching the egg. But if the egg is fertilized it does not terminate the pregnancy. I just recently learned about it. Its a misnomer that it terminates a pregnancy.Emergency Contraception: birth control or an abortifacient?
emergencybirthcontrol.org - This website is for sale! - birth control Resources and Information.If any information contrary to this should arise, as in, it does have the ability to terminate a pregnancy once it begins, I will certainly change my opinion. But if not, then I don't see why not a married couple couldn't use this. I think some of you automatically assume that I'm one of those over-the-top nutballs. I think my beliefs are practical. If a new life begins, and you intentionally terminate that life, then that's murder-for-convenience. I do, however, believe that a couple should wisely choose when they should concieve. I have no problem with that. But if you get pregnant, then all bets are off.I don't see why adoption isn't a viable option. But I think I have an idea. The further along a pregnancy goes, an unmistakable bond between mother and child occurs. And I think prospective mothers who have been thinking about abortion fear developing a bond with their baby to help alleviate any guilt. The other theory is that they are afraid of birth pains, and why should they go through pain if they are only going to adopt the baby out anyway. But this logic fails for me because a partial birth abortion essentially has the mother gone through birth. and typically at the trimester when this heinous procedure occurs, the baby can live outside the womb as any other pre-mature baby in a neonatal intensive care unit. If that's the case, I think the latter explanation speaks more loudly.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

I can't believe this thread is still going. I think Taters has the right idea here, Crash. Your view seems a bit militant, and frankly, its scary what you will resort to in order to further your view. I mean, we've been over this. I just really don't understand how you can arrive at such a low estimation for life. That's patently false. At the 12th week of pregnancy, nothing new develops on a fetus, he/she just grows stronger and bigger. At five weeks the baby is replete with genetic information, as if the lack of such would somehow justify the action of termination.

quote:

---

At what point does the unborn child cease to "be" or "become" a human? At what point does a human have the right of protection under law?

---

The nano-second of conception, when the sperm infuses the egg. If that were true then partial birth abortions would not be illegal. The truth is that the law is still very enigmatic on the whole issue of when a person gets to have the rights of personhood. Every American recognizes the rights of women. What you are doing is pretending that women have the right to kill their children in utero, when they don't have the right to murder. So, what's the difference? Really. What is the difference? Some people say that on birth you gain your rights, others say that when one is self-aware, they gain their rights. You can't just use abortion as some back-up plan to cover up no plan to be begin with. The shining moment of choice has long since passed in a rush of emotion. Choice doesn't factor into it anymore than it would if I suddenly decided to negate the life of people EvC. If I killed every member on here it would be my choice, but would my choice be justifiable because I felt like it? Because I have my own personal rights? Because if I'm here by accident, I can remove people by incident? Where are the guidelines?

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

Its simple, most women aren't aware that they are pregnant well into the first month and often into the second. Virtually any pregnancy test will tell you if you are pregnant by that point. But as a rule of thumb, I would say that so long as foreign objects don't penetrate the cervix there is no risk of terminating a pregnancy on accident. Yes, of course they have rights as well. Afterall, its not the babies fault, its the rapist sperm donar's fault. There is no sense in turning one bad situation into another bad situation. Of course, I would understand if the woman could not bear the thought of rearing her rapists child. Any adoption agency would be more than happy to rectify that for the mother. That's a great question. You're the only person ever to ask me that. An ectopic pregnancy is the one instance where I personally believe that abortion is acceptable. The reason being, so far there is no way to reverse an ectopic pregnancy once the fertilized egg begins to develop. As well, there is no concievable way that the mother would survive this as the baby was growing larger. The baby could not live outside of the womb in their own despite any neo-natal care. There is no way to save them both, which in this case, you have to be primarily concerned for the mothers health. Is that so? Then what is thisprocedure called? Are you suggesting that a law was passed against fictitious medical procedures? Even supposing that it was wholly invented to illicit sympathy, what about this procedure? Is D&E or D&C invented too? If that is invented, describe in detail what an abortion actually entails so that we too can be educated about the truth. Then perhaps you can set the record straight for when a person gets to become a full-fledged person. Because as of now there appears to be no clear distinction. Saving a life, any life, is my buisness. That's like saying the police don't have the right to meddle in your affairs because you are exercising your right to murder your husband. It doesn't fly. But I do respect the rights of women. I'm also quite fond of choosing between things. I like to choose between vanilla and chocolate. I like to choose between baseball and basketball. I like to choose between tv or reading. I like choices. But calling abortion a choice is about as sane as calling a homicide a choice. Well, of course its a choice. But its also squalid too. Imagine a defendant when asked why he killed the man. "Well, its my choice isn't it?" Yes, I do know that. But is that supposed to make the act all peachy? No, talking about abstinence til marriage and then turning around by saying, "but in the event you dismiss everything I just told you, here are some 'rough riders,' 'trojans,' these here glow in the dark, this one is supposed to be good for anal sex, and this one tastes like cinnamin. But hey, I was being serious about that abstinence thing." It kind of sends the wrong message. Aside from which, how young should we be discussing "reproductive freedom?" Do you really, honestly, rationally expect me to accept that the endangered North African Blueworm is a priority over human life? I've seen people in tears over a stillborn seal but remain untouched by a stillborn human. To answer your question better, yes I would expect that. Does walking and talking and independance mean more? Most people are particularly horrified when children die. That's why Al-Jazeera is sure to post pictures of babies that became collateral damage. There's something about it that really allows for us to empathize with their innocence. Do you feel no remorse for children that die, or if even if you do, is it worse or easier to stomach when an adult dies in front of you? Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to addEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : add url tagsEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : more typos

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Women miscarry, yes, sticking foreign objects in your body isn't miscarrying. That's not a spontaneous abortion, that's just plain 'ole abortion. Well, she didn't want to be raped either... Can she undue that? Can she unrape herself? Yes, she should carry the child. But lets not decieve oursleves. 1% of all cases of abortion deal with the conglomerate of rape and incest. That means 99% are out of convenience. I hate women because I think killing babies is wrong, babies that statistically speaking would be 52.5% female??? Sorry, but I doubt that your invectives will make anyone think as such about me. I mean, honestly, that would require me to hate my own wife who before we met had a child out of wedlock. She could have aborted, but she didn't. In my pagan days I was always seeking some kind of sexual gratification. I didn't get anyone pregnant, but even still, in retrospect I wish I could have done things differently. So, the whole thing that I hate women is just tired, old, and an utter lie. Stop trying to turn this around on me making the erroneous claim that I'm against women when in reality I'm simply against the murder of children. Then you can abort 30 seconds prior to delivery? I hardly see how 30 seconds has the ability to determine whether or not they are a blob of well-formed molecules or they are a human being with unalienable rights. Golly-gosh, I always saw it as a symbiotic relationship between a mother and a child developed by an absolute natural occurance. Yeah, I mean now I see that you and I were once just an invading rebel force bent on destroying the one thing that provided you life-- our own mothers. I see how 'it' just saps the mother of nutrients and robs her of her reproductive, sexual destiny. What was I thinking. Maybe we should kill all fetus from now on for all species. That way we could all go extinct and nobody would ever have to face the agonizing ordeal of 'pregnancy.' *echo's word, vocals drops two octaves* I'm only trained as lowly EMT. I know nothing of pregnancy, especially nothing about the delivery. Thank's for the gynecology lesson.

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

And I could unmarry myself through murder. Is everything now copacetic if I did that? LOL! As if that fetus had any control over its own gestation. You seem to be implying that a fetus is willfuly and maliciously accosting his/her own mother. It was the parents that placed the child there to begin with. How about making them responsible? That's like kidnapping someone and placing them into your home, then shooting them, then calling the cops and telling them that this man unlawfully entered your domicile. It just doesn't fly. It was a hypothetical scenario. I'm asking so as to establish a definate line of demarcation. You say, 'birth,' but what does birth constitute? I only ask because a partial birth abortion is giving birth to a baby that is viable outside of the womb-- that is, up until a pair of surgical scissors are jammed into the base of the skull. So, what constitutes birth? The exiting of the birth canal? Well, this is a bit of a pickle for you, because on the one hand you are the great defender of nature and on the other you are the great defender of a women's right to do whatever thing she relativistically deems righteous. I assume that you can appreciate that if there is no real measure of right or wrong, least of all in natural occurances, that you can in no wise be upset at a fetus that develops the way nature intended it to. With the way you portrayed gestation who would ever want to be pregnant? Death sounds more appealing than the way you portrayed a mother/child relationship. The way you made it sound I'd opt for high powered electrodes secured to my nipples for several hours of unmitigated torture. Crash, I'm not a very extreme guy. I'm sure to you it seems that way. But I see this as murder, okay? To me, its the same as you asking me to compromise with a terrorist who says, "Okay, we'll compromise. If you let me kill all the people in Tower 1 of the Trade Center, I will let all the people from Tower 2 go free. Deal?" I understand that getting pregnant is not a pleasant experience, especially for a young girl who was most likely seeking love and hoped to find it in a shared sexual experience. I'm not uncompassionate to that. I don't see people as abject sinners stoking the fires of hell. I see people who are trapped in sin, (and consider sin to be anything unhealthy to the self and society, not merely a pact between God and man) who are about to make one bad situation even worse.

quote:

---

I'm only trained as lowly EMT. I know nothing of pregnancy, especially nothing about the delivery.

---

.......as long as your powers of perception are astute........

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Most fertilized eggs don't implant? Okay, and how have you deduced this information? However, even in the event that such a thing could be known, yes I think an attempt to save a fertilized fetus is a worthy endeavor. But one would first have to know whether or not they pregnant to begin with. No, they have equal rights. Don't kill the mother, don't kill the baby. The fetus didn't will itself in the uterus. Try not to lost sight that it was the parents actions that got them in the situation to begin with. Secondly, I find the "my body, my choice," mantra to be little more than a diatribe. For starters, the fetus isn't apart of her body. Secondly, I find it ironic that a woman can opt for any reason whatsoever to engage in abortion, which is a surgical procedure, but she can't elect to have a hysterectomy for any and all reasons, even though her uterus really is apart of her body. If a womans reproductive rights are hers without imposition, without hindrance, then why can't she elect to have whatever procedure she wants? Are you being complimentary? No, I don't but I also don't think its a tragedy of all tragedies. I also wouldn't play down the actual procedure of abortion either, along with its future medical and mental risks. Unlike Planned Parenthood's claims that longterm sadness is "extremely rare," I must be one of those people to have met many of those rare individuals. Imagine the odds. What is my involvement? Am I supposed to married to this woman? If so, yes of course. I guess we could turn this around on you. If you told your friend that abortions are great and that they don't hurt, but tickle, and she ends up crippled, maimed, or dead are you going to pay for her injuries? If she gets to be a walking uterus then I get to be a walking pancreas. Deal? Um, I have no idea how you could have extrapolated that message from what I said. If there is no chance for the survival of both but there is a chance to keep at least one of them alive, then keep one of them alive as best you can. I hardly see how that makes women walking uteri. No, they have equal rights. But in your scenario the women has all of the rights and the fetus has zero. I do care about a woman's individual rights. If she wants to have Shrimp Alfredo for dinner rather than Terriyaki Chicken, I say go for it. If she doesn't want to donate blood, that's her right not to. If she doesn't want to give anything to her brother in her will, so be it, its her money. If she wants to run over a homeless man I say go for.... Oh wait. No, you can't just do whatever you want. There are millions of choices you can make. Some of them are just plain crazy.Let me flip the coin on you. Lets say that a man accidentally impregnated the woman, and neither of them wanted to concieve. However, after some time passes, all of those motherly predilictions start to bubble up and she decides to concieve. The boyfriend is outraged. He doesn't want a child. Isn't his choice not to care for or to pay for the expenses of this child? Men don't have the same rights as women? Men are just walking testicles? Men are forced to bear a responsibility they never asked for? What say you now? I don't care if we called it bobbing for apples. Whether or not we call it Partial Birth Abortion doesn't negate that an extremely disturbing "medical procedure" is taking place. As for the legality, obviously that doesn't mean that it isn't squalid. As for my reason for mentioning it, some people say that a fetus 'gets' to become a human being as soon as they pass through the birth canal. If that's the case then Partial Birth Abortion/Bobbing For Apples/Chasing Daisy's/Frolicking in a Meadow is a clear cut case of a vicious homicide. Then you implicate yourself. Well, to be sure, you are a bundle of cells too. As for self-awareness, what are you referring to? Fetus are aware of themselves, as if it means anything. If I killed you in your sleep would it really matter to your family, other than perhaps then minor consolation that you didn't suffer? "There" what is? And if you respected the right of little babies you wouldn't advocate their murder. Which is worse Shrafster-- Murder or holding someone accountable for murder? No I'm not a pacifist, yes I'm against war, however, I know that it is an unfortunate neccesity until Messiah comes back and we can beat our weapons into plowshares, and no I don't agree with the death penalty. What about a several month old fetus? No, they have equal rights.

quote:

---

Yes, I do but is that supposed to make tha act all peachy?

---

This actBe sure to watch the whole video. I wouldn't want you to support amything you don't completely understand. You want to talk to Kindergartners about sex? Do you have children? Do you understand the mentality of that age bracket? My daughter will be starting 2nd grade in a few days and she does not yet have the understanding on sex. If I were to give her some of the details on how babies are made and the mechanism used to produce one, she'd probably be completely bewildered. Having said all that, there is a time in the not-so-distant future when I will discuss this with her. And since you're on a big kick for personal rights, it is not the job of an elementary school to be teaching my kids a single thing on sex because its inappropriate. This is the kind of nonsense that exacerbates the problem. I'll kindly ask you to look at Sweden as a classic example that incessantly talking about sex doesn't mitigate the chances of unwanted pregnancy, it only interests the kids all the more. I'll also kindly ask you to look at the rate of unwanted pregnancies of the 40's and 50's when talking about sex in school was unheard of. Were the rates through the roof? No. Are they now because that's all that people talk about? Yep. The problem is with themselves. They are just too obtuse and too wrapped up in their convoluted pop-pyscholoy world to notice. LOL! No, I sure didn't. How many abstinence-only programs are allowed through the doors? I mean, who knows whether or not it would work. No one talks about it with enough frequency. Look what happened with the anti-smoking campaign. I'll be the first to admit it, I was floored that it actually worked. The abstinence thing, I'll also admit, that I was very skeptical. When I was in high school everybody smoked. There was still that unspoken peer pressure thing very much present. Now, kids look down on you if you smoke. It works. Advertising works. It just takes a little dedication. Well, I don't know where you have garnered your opinion from but maybe you can tell where you heard this. I have no problem with contraceptives. But if you give kids the go ahead to have sex then you're just going to have another 1960-70's era of unmitigated sex, where its going to take a deadly disease, like AIDS, to make people get serious about it. My ultimate goal is the Great Commission. My goal for sexuality is that people respect what God instilled and to enjoy the benefits of taking His advice on it and to avoid the pitfalls of disregarding it.

quote:

---

Do you really, honestly, rationally expect me to accept that a several week-old fetus is the same as a walking-talking independent adult?

---

quote:

---

:To answer your question better, yes I would expect that.

---

Well, you are afforded your opinion per the Constitution.

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Because killing your wife and killing your fetus are most closely similar descriptive terms than divorce is. Actually, its completely synonymous, whereas 'divorce' factors no where in that. What's wrong with adoption? Birth mother gets to be free from responsibility, adopting parents get the bundle of joy they always wanted, and baby gets to live. All parties win in this scenario. In the abortion scenario only the prospective mother wins. What's wrong with adoption? As for self-defense, I wasn't an invader to my mother, my wife wasn't an invader to hers, my kids weren't an invader to my wife, apparently everyone's mothers on EvC weren't invaders on their mothers. I think one has to really stretch the boundaries of truth to make abortion seem okay.Hypothetical question: If you conducted an abortion and you are disembodying the fetus and dismembered limbs are coming out, suppose you yanked real hard and the fetus came out all at once. Suppose the head and torso were in still intact and you could see their face. Would you change your mind if you could see pain on their face or would you feel no emotion in the act, just a sterilization process? Zygotes don't attack, whatsoever. They just sit there and exist. Its the mothers body, her own hormones, in a natural occurance, that triggers these responses in her body. That's absurd. Does a 4 month old baby have any ill-intent? According to you he/she has just as much rights as anyone else, as well they should. No, you made it clear for me that I know nothing about pregnancy, least of all, the delivery. Therefore, I have to ask you on your advice. So, what constitutes birth to you? Look, the prospective mother is going to do whatever it is she is going to do. If she is dead set on destroying the baby she will find a way to do destroy him/her. But let that be on her own conscience until she gives that to God in earnest. Here's what I believe about the majority of proponents of pro-choice. They don't really understand what abortion entails. They also don't really know what a fetus is. See, the pro-choice movement wants to illicit sympathy to cover up a more insidious role. They paint a picture of nobility and cast doubt in the mind of the young girl who is still indecided. They use dehumanizing terms to disassociate themselves from what a fetus actually is-- a defenseless baby.Just from talking to people on the subject, I'm fully convinced that most people really just don't get it. They are actually under the impression that a fetus is just a blob of well-formed molecules, the collocation of atoms in a specific pattern, and so on. They also don't understand very well how gruesome the act is. They often know nothing of the methods used. Its important to educate them on what abortion really is. But until they see it with their own eyes, they can't understand the very thing they are against. You are completely embellishing to turn a fetus into the Gestapo. What would you do to a person in a murder-for-hire investigation found guilty? Draw your own conclusions. I'm not saying this is any easy debate with easy answers. But surely you realize this is taboo for a reason. People don't come up to pregnant women and ask if its a boy or a girl because they think the baby won't survive. People don't ask pregnant women how old their fetus is, they want to know how how far along their baby is. If a man assualts a pregnant woman and she miscarries, that man isn't charged with simple assault, he's charged with murder. If he kills a pregnant woman, he's charged with double-murder. Why do you think that is? Its because a baby resides in the mother's womb. As for criminality, it seems as long as a doctor is doing it, it isn't murder, right? This is freaky Nazi Germany type stuff. I can't believe these doctors can do this for a living and not see a baby's face. Well, you know when it comes to the murder of an innocent child I tend not to ride the fence. Call me a dangerous maverick if you will. They can have them. They are protected by US law, shocking as that is. And even if it were illegal it wouldn't stop people who wanted them from having them. But woe to me for not speaking out against that which I know is wrong. Killing innocent babies. Not extreme, folks! He's a moderate, see? Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typoEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Because the mother is aware that the baby will die outside of her womb. If the mother didn't want the baby there then she shouldn't have placed her/him in there. I mean, actions have certain consequences. Okay, so what purpose to partial birth abortions serve? The typical fetal age of this occurance is at about 6-9 months, where the mother has already gone through most of her pregnancy, and she essentially gives birth in the procedure. Why go through all of this just to end up killing the child? The child can live outside of the womb in most cases. All it would take is for them to call an ambulance and have the fetus rushed to a neo-natal unit. It just seems that in her malice she'd rather the child be dead. Perhaps she doesn't want to hear her baby cry because she might actually feel emotion for her own baby. How fortunate for us that we were the invited dinner guest instead of being turned into minced meat. Excuse me? What the hell do you call these? Those aren't arms and legs? What do you call this? Or how about this? Yes, much of the gelatenous, bloody goop that comes out is the placenta, but assuming that the body, with all his or her limbs wouldn't be coming out at some point, is a little silly. Where did you think they went? Did you think the body absorbs the fetus? A 4 month old is completely dependant on his/her mother and/or father to keep them alive. That's the thing about babies. They need us. Just like when we were babies we needed them. I'm not unclear on it. I want you to tell me what constitutes birth. I ask because if you say a life begins once a fetus passes through the birth canal then supporting a partial birth abortion might mplicate you in defending homicide. Some people have stretched the argument to mean that the baby must first draw a breath to be human, as if that was really the qualifier. I don't think it should happen at all. Having me choose between a hospital or a Mexican hellhole is not a qualifier or disqualifier for me. It shouldn't happen at all. Laws against hijacking planes and flying them into buildings doesn't stop people from trying. Should we just give up because some people will find a way through the cracks in the system? Just let people do whatever they want because we can't catch them all? If that's the case then no laws should exist. How quickly you turn a blind eye when it suits you. I don't have a grasp on what abortion entails? Perhaps if you did you wouldn't support it. I've supplied video's, pictures, and now I'll present another piece of documentation that employs all of the medical research you want. Watch this five part series and then you tell me that its I who doesn't have a clue or if its you that's been duped into believing that a fetus is just a blob of molecules. link 1
link 2
link 3
link 4Actually, I think its illegal in South Dakota. Even still, the majority of Americans still do not agree with abortion. The reason why is because they understand what a baby is and they understand what is happening to them. Sponataneous abortion occurs naturally, though its an abberation. As for women terminating their own pregnancies in the past, all forms of murder have taken place in the distant past. I wasn't aware that the past frequency of a something was a tool used for exoneration. Any man that would kick a pregnant women in the stomach in the hopes of hurting her is a despicable human being. Are you asserting that if you and your pregnant wife were out somewhere and some crazy ex-boyfriend came up to your wife and kicked her in the stomach killing your child and dashing you and your wife's dreams that you'd be concerned for whether guy was serving the appropriate sentence? Would you at least see to it that he be charged for aggravated assault?

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton