Abortion

[Kestra15]

As in like if your grandfather was linked through an organic tube to the attendants and received nutrients through the tube alone. That is what I meant by linked-through a visible link of some lind directly to another human. For example if the attendants left your grandfather alone and came back about ten minutes later he would, I assume, be still alive.

What about my patients who need 24/7 supervision, artificially vented and fed by a tube down their nose? What difference, really, is there between them and a baby? They are utterly dependent on other humans and and their actions - or lack thereof.

[Brite]

Killing anything that is living anything that is made of cells and develops is murder no matter how you try and justify it. If it an accident that the girl or woman got pregnant killing a child that has even had a chance to really live for more than a few weeks is twisted. If a woman got raped killing the fetus will no justify getting back at the rapist if anything it won't make you any better than him. True it very wrong to rape some one but it's worst to kill some one innocent and an unborn child is innocent, the unborn child doesn't deserve death for someone else actions.

 

Another point if a girl had sex on purpose and was warned by her parents about gerund pregnant or having sex behind her parents back and gets pregnant it's her own fault she didn't want to listen to reason so she paying the consequences for it, making a baby pay for what you did is twisted and inhuman. People get mad when a baby that's born is murdered or dies why not for a child that was unborn and killed because the mother was afraid of what her parents would do or that she couldn't afford a child, no life should pay for someone who made a bad decision or didn't think what they were doing through knowing very well they couldn't afford a child or were warned about getting pregnant from having sex behind their parents back.

 

Saying some one could become the next serial killer or good person is something no one can predict because humans don't have that kind of power so they can say who can or will become this or that. Things like that can be prevented your child becoming violent because they look at how others act, it's how they are treated by other people and they get sick of it and get back at the person, it's sad that it ends up like that but if people actually cared enough about each other where they wouldn't treat others like dirt then maybe we'll have les serial killers and rapists or just plain murderer's around.

It may not even have the potential to become human. They can be reabsorbed by my body and fertilized eggs can be passed through the cycle. Twins can kill each other in the womb. What would you call that? What about the mother's rights? Rape is terrible. Have you even been raped and impregnated through it? Cells and DNA do not indicate personhood. Cancers and tumors have cells and DNA, so it's murder to remove them? "I don't want it" is a very good reason not to have it. Sorry I'm pro-WANTED kids.

Edited December 1, 2011 by GhostChilli

[Silverwingwyvren]

Ok but putting something inside you to purposefuly kill it is not the same as if its reabsorbed into your body, or eggs pass on, or twins killing each other. Purposefuly killing it is something your doing not the egg passing, or the twins killing each other or your body absorbing it back into your body. If you didn't want it be smart and don't have sex with out being safe, better yet don't have it unless your married or just stay sinlge you can't always stop procreation all the time, it will catch up to you in the long run.

 

True cells and DNA don't indacte personhood but they indacte life which exists to live and grow, not to come about just to die, if that was the case we'd never be here let alone anything else.

 

Nope never have, and yeah its wrong I agree but honestly does killing the child make you a better person than the rapist, it won't heal you from your tramatic experience even though having the baby may not either, life is life bottom line weather in the womb or outside it, unborn or born the embryo is a devevloping human weather you disagree or not science proves it is and has solid facts.

 

Cancer and tumors don't develop lungs, eyes, ears, noses, their illnesses they will stay with you longer than a baby inside you.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Silverwingwyvren

[Kelkelen]

GIGANTIC RAMBLE AHOY!

 

I think one of the key issues that always arises in abortion discussions is the question of when a human life begins, and even of what a human life IS. We're culturally horrified by stories of infants being abandoned in dumpsters, and yet some people accept the killing of a 3rd-trimester fetus as a mere surgical procedure. There's a full range of perspectives on when life begins: at fertilization, conception, taking on a sex, formed organs, formed brain, ability to feel pain, 3 months, 6 months, when the infant *could* survive if born, not until after the infant leaves the womb. A lot of the disagreements on abortion are rooted in *when* we think a life counts as a life. We still don't have a sound legal basis for this concept, while different religions have differing views on it as well.

 

No matter whether you come at it from a legal or a moral perspective, I agree with AngelKitty that the infant's right to life can't "trump" the mother's. At the very most, the lives need to be weighed equally, but the unborn baby's life oughtn't to take precedent *over* the mother's. And, realistically, the mother losing her life would be a worse tragedy than the infant; as she *has* a life, a network of friends and family, goals and dreams; the infant would be robbed of its potential for a future life (in the broader sense of family, social network, sensory experience of the earth, etc.), but the mother would be losing an existing fully-rounded life. So, we can't very well pass laws that in essence prioritize the fetus or infant's life over the mother's.

 

I hate all the labels involved in such a politicized topic -- I don't want to call myself "pro-life" or "pro-choice." I want to defend and believe in BOTH the dignity and value of human life, and also of human free will and the independence of women from patriarchal control. I suppose if I had to define my views on the subject, I'm spiritually and personally pro-life, while legally and ethically pro-choice. It's a difficult position to sum up.

 

A few things that I feel any person has to *accept,* whether or not they agree with these things: Women who want abortions *will* get abortions. Particularly if they are young, if they feel unsupported, if they are scared. Without legal abortions, they *will* use coat hangers, sharp objects, toxins, etc., to attempt to abort their pregnancies, and could harm themselves badly in the process. Making abortions illegal will cause a considerable rise in harm to these young women, as they are determined to abort either way.

 

Also, there *has* to be leeway somewhere in the legal system for abortion to exist, due to several possible circumstances. Women may need to abort an ectopic pregnancy once it is discovered. With all the modern fertility treatments available, there have been rare occasions where a mother has suddenly conceived a multiple birth, and has had to either abort one or two of four or five fetuses, or else risk her life and the lives of *all* her unborn children. These are sad and tragic circumstances, but imagine the complications if those mothers weren't legally permitted to abort. Would the law force them to die of their pregnancies?

 

Furthermore, once abortion is made illegal in a country, it opens all miscarriages to the scrutiny of police inspection. This has happened in several countries. Imagine going to the hospital after miscarrying a desired pregnancy, only to be subjected to tests and questioning and suspicion of having terminated the pregnancy on purpose.

 

I do feel that we often ignore the other side of these difficulties women face, in a society that doesn't offer any proper support to pregnant women. Part of *why* young women, such as teenagers with accidental pregnancies, are likely to get an abortion, is that there are such strong cultural stigmas against unwed pregnancy and teenage sex, especially for girls, that those women feel unable to face their families and communities. It's also very difficult to know how to enter into the adoption process, or to know about foster home options, and so on; while abortion is readily available and no-strings-attached, and you never need to tell anyone about it. I think many people are just plain scared to tell anyone that they have gotten pregnant.

 

The issue needs to be approached from both sides, I think -- looking at all the possible repercussions of banning abortion versus not, at how we define a valid life and the rights of the unborn, at all the possible situations which could necessitate an abortion (not when it would be 'convenient,' but literally necessary for the mother's well-being), and at how to keep from infringing on the rights of mothers; but also looking at why abortion rates are so high, returning to functional and practical sex education, not villifying teens for having sex, and finding a way to offer more support to teenage or single mothers, so that they know they have other options.

 

In closing, I think it's important to remember that "the rights of one man end where the rights of another begin." The difficult part is determining how best to protect the rights of each individual; and, in this case, deciding when a fetus or infant IS an individual. What alarms me the most about the pro-choice side is probably when people assert that ALL rights involved are the mother's, and that the fetus is not a living human being and has no rights of its own. However, there's plenty to alarm me about the pro-life side as well, much of which I've expanded on above.

 

...that was huge. HUGE. Sorry! Just trying to think through my own thoughts on the matter, I suppose.

[Brite]

True cells and DNA don't indacte personhood but they indacte life which exists to live and grow, not to come about just to die, if that was the case we'd never be here let alone anything else.

 

Cancer and tumors DO have true cells. Again you're saying removing them is wrong. Fetuses can become tumors. Twins or more HAVE purposely killed each other in the womb. As shinytomato said, one will hold the other down while it's being happened.

 

Nope never have, and yeah its wrong I agree but honestly does killing the child make you a better person than the rapist, it won't heal you from your tramatic experience

 

Again, I'm going to throw shiny at you and say that statistics have shown that many women, probably majority feel relief when aborting a rape child. It was said in the wipe and other discussions on I don't think that women will want to look and see their attacker's face on their child.

 

I don't want to call myself "pro-life" or "pro-choice." I want to defend and believe in BOTH the dignity and value of human life

Pro-lifers don't shove their beliefs down others and they actually try helping the mother. It's the pro-births that harass and want to make sure that the child is born no matter what the excuse and not care about it anymore when it is. Those are the people I hate and it's them who are trying to outlaw the procedure.

Edited December 1, 2011 by GhostChilli

[prairiecrow]

Death is not natuarl, humans just accept it some don't, people weren't meant to die and you can see it when people morn for loved ones.

Death is not natural? People aren't meant to die? Since when?

 

Organisms have been dying since life began -- everything from amoebas to sperm whales, for millions of years. It's part of the cycle of existence: birth, life, death, and often that death provides energy for something else further down the line.

 

I'm sorry, but to say that 'death is unnatural' seems to me to indicate a profound disconnect from the world all around us. And FYI, women spontaneously abort embryos all the time.

 

ETA: Oh, and:

 

or just stay sinlge you can't always stop procreation all the time

 

So couples who never want to have children should also never have sex at all? That's... slightly unrealistic. (And I'll also point out that in humans sex is NOT solely concerned with procreation. If it were, human women would come into heat like many other animals and only want to be sexually active when they were fertile.)

Edited December 1, 2011 by prairiecrow

[Silverwingwyvren]

No no I'm saying cancer can't talk, it can't walk, it doesn't breath, it can't learn, it doesn't have nor can it develope emotion like a fetus can, its made from your body, its not pro created by having sex its made from your cells. Not that it doesn't have true cells.

 

I care about peeps thats why war is the dumbs thing in the world yet people try and justify that because oh god their freedom is in danger. Not one modern war has been fought on US soil but in other places yeah they're war torn kids have to grow up in it they have to dodge bullets and bombs and greneaides all day or are forced soilders but not in the US yet they justify it. Fight for your country cus our freedoms in danger even though its not!

 

Relief in someone else death is pretty cruel if you ask me, but what ever makes them feel normal again, I'm not saying it in a bad way.

 

Death is not natural? People aren't meant to die? Since when?

 

Organisms have been dying since life began -- everything from amoebas to sperm whales, for millions of years. It's part of the cycle of existence: birth, life, death, and often that death provides energy for something else further down the line.

 

I'm sorry, but to say that 'death is unnatural' seems to me to indicate a profound disconnect from the world all around us. And FYI, women spontaneously abort embryos all the time.

 

Its not natural for humans, not human being wants to die, feelings of suicide come from a bad life, bullying, and are side effects from some meds but no one wants to die, I'm sure you don't or your parents don't or any one else.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Silverwingwyvren

[Brite]

Silverwingwyvren,Dec 1 2011, 06:22 PM] No no I'm saying cancer can't talk, it can't walk, it doesn't breath, it can't learn, it doesn't have nor can it develope emotion like a fetus can, its made from your body, its not pro created by having sex its made from your cells. Not that it doesn't have true cells.

 

I care about peeps thats why war is the dumbs thing in the world yet people try and justify that because oh god their freedom is in danger. Not one modern war has been fought on US soil but in other places yeah they're war torn kids have to grow up in it they have to dodge bullets and bombs and greneaides all day or are forced soilders but not in the US yet they justify it. Fight for your country cus our freedoms in danger even though its not!

 

 

Fetuses can't talk, walk or have emotions either. Tumors can STILL breath if the fetus was developed enough before the cells went bad. Yea created from our body. Do you think it's easy? It takes work from our blood and body. And sometimes can be fatal work. Oh the horror if a woman decides she doesn't want to go through that. I'm against the wars too which is why I'm protesting it instead of worrying what women do with their body that's their own business and what goes on in their bed.

Edited December 1, 2011 by GhostChilli

[Silverwingwyvren]

They can develop those things if they live.

 

Welp you can thank Eve for the hardship of pregnancy.

[Brite]

They can develop those things if they live.

 

Welp you can thank Eve for the hardship of pregnancy.

But not when they're in the womb. And Eve? Are you using religion? because there are plenty of scriptures that show abortion is not wrong. And there are plenty who aren't christian so Eve means nothing to them.

Edited December 1, 2011 by GhostChilli

[skinst]

Its not natural for humans, not human being wants to die, feelings of suicide come from a bad life, bullying, and are side effects from some meds but no one wants to die, I'm sure you don't or your parents don't or any one else.

Um, no they don't. People can be born with a pre-disposition to depression. It can be genetic.

[Silverwingwyvren]

Where? I read the bible and I'm positve what you just said is contradicted in the bible. The bible does not say killing an unborn child is ok, in fact killing an unborn child is as it says a life for a life. Dude Jehovah don't play when it comes to life.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Silverwingwyvren

[Brite]

Where? I read the bible and I'm pretty what you just said is contradicted in the bible. The bible does not say killing an unborn child is ok, in fact killing an unborn child is as it says a life for a life. Dude Jehovah don't play when it comes to life.

 

Throwing Noble at you:

 

Exodus 21:22-23

 

And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit come forth (yasa), and yet no harm to her follow (ason), he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

But if any harm to her follow, then thou shalt give life for life...

 

The Numbers passage about abortions in the temple if paternity is doubted is: Numbers 5: 11-30 or so

 

 

See, for anything to be considered murder, it must be an animate human being or nefesh adam from Lev. 24:17, but a fetus is av nefesh hu, as in the Exodus verses.

 

The other bits I use are from the Talmud, not the Torah.

 

The fetus being as mere water until the 40th day is -- Yev. 69b

 

The bit that requires abortion if the life of the mother is in danger:

 

If a woman is in hard travail, one cuts up the offspring in her womb and brings it forth member by member, because her life comes before the life of her foetus. But if the greater part has proceeded forth (ie: most of the infant has been delivered), one may not set aside one person for the sake of saving another. mOholot 7:8

 

The fetus not being a person and being of doubtful viability is Niddah 44b.

 

The Talmud states that a fetus is considered "an appendage of its mother" (ubar yerekh 'imo) and not a person on it's own. (Hullin 58a)

 

 

 

You should consider reading the thread.

Edited December 1, 2011 by GhostChilli

[Silverwingwyvren]

The first scripture I said, the second one never hinted that abortion is ok at all.

 

Exodus 23:26 says - Neither a woman suffering an abortion nor a barren woman will exist in your land.

[Brite]

I prefer the old testimate. You know, the one that hasn't been tampered with by being added to or removed.

[Kestra15]

The first scripture I said, the second one never hinted that abortion is ok at all.

 

Exodus 23:26 says - Neither a woman suffering an abortion nor a barren woman will exist in your land.

Because there's no possible way that was written by a scorned chauvinist rather than an all-loving divine deity.

[Silverwingwyvren]

I got the same thing but with out all the thou's and shalt nots and 'ths basically the New World Translation so that its made to where we can understand it better. But you can learn from the old testmate if you can get pass the the Thou's and SHalt's.

 

Why do they taking gods name out of the bible? Its in the dictionary Jehovah but other bibles such as the King James took his name out.

 

Your right Kest! Its not mans words its Jehovahs!!

[Kestra15]

Of course Wyvren - He came down and wrote it Himself, and in no way did mortal man ever touch pen to paper nor contribute in any way.

[Brite]

No. More like man who fiddled with the new one. I'm glad you aren't having this conversation with NobleOwl.

[diannethegeek]

The first scripture I said, the second one never hinted that abortion is ok at all.

 

Exodus 23:26 says - Neither a woman suffering an abortion nor a barren woman will exist in your land.

That's funny, because mine says miscarry or be barren, nothing about abortion. Which translation are you using?

[Kelkelen]

The first scripture I said, the second one never hinted that abortion is ok at all.

 

Exodus 23:26 says - Neither a woman suffering an abortion nor a barren woman will exist in your land.

Um, just to shed some context on that little snippet: this is part of a promise from God to the Jews, that they will be saved from their enemies and have a fruitful future in their new land. In this context, "abortion" refers to miscarriage, or spontaneous abortion. God is promising that no woman will miscarry or be barren.

 

So, this is not actually relevant to the topic at hand.

 

EDIT: Ditto diannethegeek -- what translation do you have? I'm looking at 10 parallel translations right now, and none of them use the term abortion.

 

EDIT: P.P.S., I hope that didn't sound snide! I really was just curious what version you have.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Kelkelen

[Silverwingwyvren]

Its in my post above dianne

 

Yep me no Kel, it was just to show it wasn't talking about purposefully kill.

[Obscure_Trash]

Please re-read your posts before you post them and remember that tone doesn't carry well over the internet. I'm seeing many rather snippy and snarky posts here. We can all debate calmly and politely.

[xhunter]

Death is not natuarl, humans just accept it some don't, people weren't meant to die and you can see it when people morn for loved ones.

no death is natural, i'm shore every religious faction in the history of history will say the same if you look closely.

 

just think, or imagion if you would please, if nothing dead for just one day. meaning no death of animal or plant, human is considered animal in my example, i would say that, under my thought, that the world would feel some strain providing for everything. given no death a month almost everything will die for a few reasons.

1. plants

-would die too though it probably will take a little longer

-over population of breeds

- they need fertilizer to live as well as the sun light.

-there would be no fertilizer for it unless its a rock mineral.

-other reasons

2. animals

-would die because there would be nothing killed to feed them.

-they would die before the plants.

-plants, even though most ignore them are living creatures they have cells thus they can die

-over population of breeds

-more than likely suffer before death because of hunger and over population

-other reasons

 

so death is natural it takes so other would have. takes but gives, provides so that life can be born. death can be very beautiful if people would look past its negative, this is a prime example http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-wake.htm.

 

humans accept it because its natural though that doesn't mean that they don't morn all animals morn the death of someone

is a example (If you are younger than 14 you might want to ask your parent before watching the video, its a cat trying to revive another cat).

 

all is meant to die, even mountains will die over the years because of erosion and all though another one is made too. there can't be life without death or death without life, it would be like a snake eating its own tail there are no benefits to the action. ((my comments are not to be considered a harassment or argument, if you don't like it please just look away from it.))

 

Edit= my point is that a fetus might die though it provides for those that what a child without a overpopulation of the species. that is way all breeds of creatures can abort there offspring.

Edited December 2, 2011 by xhunter

[Silverwingwyvren]

The earth feels strain now, look around, for example it takes a year for the earth to replinish the supplies we use now. And we already over use them, like gas, and oil. It was proven that now, that if we continue to use up earths natural resources so quickly like now, it would take two earths to replinish everything in one year.

 

So humans want to die, thats what they live for is to die?