Abortion

[Obscure_Trash]

never understood the motive of those people. they kill to make a point. the first thing people don't understand that you 'should' not have to kill if their beliefs are merited. that's just someone figuring that if they kill these people its for a greater good, though its only to satisfy themselves. bombing places like that is never good when over half of those people are poor that need those services, damaging something that helps another is never good and its not like they have to use their services.

 

I agree with xhunter on this. It's way to extreme to kill for your beliefs. It's hypocritical, too, especially when your beliefs say that you shouldn't kill or abort. And damaging facilities people NEED is terrible. Just.. one of those "Wtf?" moments in my mind.

 

Very frightening, and very sad. I don't understand how random acts of terrorism are supposed to convince anyone of anything, other than that the people committing those acts are unreasonable and violent and don't deserve to be listened to. I'm glad that no one was hurt.

 

I have never understood how someone who calls themselves pro-life can possibly murder people and definitely put them in danger by doing this. The irony, if we can call it that, goes way over my head.

 

not the biggest Obama fan, defiantly after the soon to be healthcare law, but i do agree with him on this. hopfuly this video will discourage some of the violence but i doubt it.

 

I'm not, either. Trust me on that. But, I'm still going to vote for him. I'd rather have Obama than someone like Santorum in office. Obama doesn't disgust me. At least he tries to help. Santorum... Disgust is too lax of a word for the feelings I have when it comes to that man...

 

Hear, hear. I feel like, above all, Santorum is just plain a self-serving liar. He's proven that time and again. I have utterly no trust in anything he says.

 

Yeah, at least Obama (seems to, at least) have actual respect for the people in the country as real people and not just puppets he can pull the strings of or minions he can order to do things. =_=

[skinst]

Which is perfectly fine if you believe that there is only one body and one person involved. But to what extent do people have the legal right to choose what to do with another person's body, namely their child's? At what point is the fetus that mother's child and not solely a body part of the mother?

Well at what point can parents stop making desisions for their kids medically? I don't see doctors asking the baby whether or not it wants to be vaccinated, or circumcised, or operated on. They ask the parents because the baby cannot make desisions for itself yet.

 

I don't want to restrict anything that an individual can do with their own body, or between two consenting adults, or how they want to practice their faith, or anything like that... but it's the difference between "what they want to do with their own body" and "they can legally kill another individual."  Hence, the debate over when a fetus or an infant is an individual.

 

According to a logical dictionary definition, life begins at birth, therefore a fetus is not an individual until birth. How one personally feels about that is a whole other story, which is why I said several times now that one needs to seperate how they personally feel about it and instead look at the raw facts.

 

But this isn't logical -- if you believe people should be able to choose what to do with their own bodies, and that birth should be the official legal start of human life, then there's no grounds on which to outlaw abortion at any stage of pregnancy, up to the time of delivery.  It contradicts your earlier statement, about "why would I defend the rights of the fetus in the third trimester?"

 

Exactly, there isn't any grounds to outlaw abortion at any stage of pregnancy based on logic. My views on fetus's rights in the third trimester are not logical. I also said that, you know. :/

 

I understand the logic of potential versus actuality.  However, is it fair to say the fetus' rights will never equal the mother's, not even right before term?  The logical extension of that train of thought is that a child's life will never have as much worth as it's parent's.  After all, a parent will always have lived longer, have more ties and a more permanently established lifestyle, have more to lose.  But we still recognize children as legal individuals with their own rights to be protected. 

 

Up until birth, the fetus is feeding off the mother. It's a parasite. Once born, it gains rights, but it's still reliant on its parents to make choices for it because it's incapable of doing so (unless goo goo ga ga can be translated to yes and no accurately. )

 

Also, kids kinda yeah have the same rights as their parents eventually because they're, you know, not living off their mother's bodies anymore. :/

[CatCreature]

And what if an abortion induces that exact situation? Or if a baby is being delivered feet first?

Don't forget C-sections.

[KageSora]

I have never understood how someone who calls themselves pro-life can possibly murder people and definitely put them in danger by doing this. The irony, if we can call it that, goes way over my head.

I personally see four sides to the issue, that helps me categorize people who are the crazies on both sides of the issue as well as those who are the more reasonable, in-between people on both sides of the issue.

 

Pro-abortion: They're the people who just want abortion because they don't like the people who don't want it. They're also the people who honestly WOULD think of abortion as a birth control method that could replace things like condoms and The Pill and other things. (Thankfully, there don't seem to be many of those!) Additionally, they don't respect the beliefs of others, and may resort to violence to prove their points.

 

Pro-choice: They support the legality of abortion, because they feel that the mother has the right to choose, after giving proper consideration to the alternatives. They may not approve of abortion, but they think that making it illegal will cause more harm than good, and want those who HAVE made that difficult decision to be protected as much as possible under the law. They are respectful of those who disagree, and will debate the issue more or less calmly, and are willing to agree to disagree.

 

Pro-life: Those who oppose abortion, but who also care for the child once it's born. They want to improve the way things are, so that if the parent really can't support the child then they can get the kind of help they need, or adoption is a much safer alternative than it currently is with the broken system. They are respectful of those who disagree, and will debate the issue more or less calmly, and are willing to agree to disagree.

 

Pro-birth: Those who are violently against abortion, but don't seem to care for the child once it's born (I'd especially lump those who think that hurting or killing those for their sexuality is okay but hate the idea of abortion in here). They're the ones who think that those parents who use welfare to support a child they were forced to have are lazy and need to suck it up and get a proper job and stop being a drain on society because they shouldn't have had that kid if they couldn't support it. They're not against hurting or even killing to make their stance against abortion known. They don't respect the beliefs of others, and will attack verbally and/or physically to "defend" their ideas.

 

 

 

So, basically, I see the crazies on both sides as being different from those who are willing to rationally discuss/debate the issue, and who, while passionate, are also willing to agree to disagree and step away from their debate with a person when it becomes clear that neither side is getting anywhere. They're more likely to use facts whereas the crazies are the ones who rely on scare-tactics and outright BS to convince others that they're right.

 

 

 

I don't tend to see as many pro-abortion people talked about as I do pro-birth people, but I know that they're out there.

[Kelkelen]

Well at what point can parents stop making desisions for their kids medically? I don't see doctors asking the baby whether or not it wants to be vaccinated, or circumcised, or operated on. They ask the parents because the baby cannot make desisions for itself yet.

 

Right. But parents are expected to make choices in their child's best interest. They are not permitted to end the child's life, even though an infant cannot decide for itself whether it wants to live or die. So one needs to define the point at which a parent can no longer decide to end the life of a fetus/baby. Is your perspective, then, that a parent should legally be permitted and enabled to end the life of a fetus up until the full delivery of an infant?

 

According to a logical dictionary definition, life begins at birth, therefore a fetus is not an individual until birth. How one personally feels about that is a whole other story, which is why I said several times now that one needs to seperate how they personally feel about it and instead look at the raw facts.

 

Then what is the raw fact of birth? Is a baby born when only part of it has left the mother? When the head crowns? What if it doesn't emerge by normal means but is otherwise totally healthy? (i.e., in cases of C-section, breech birth, etc.)

 

Exactly, there isn't any grounds to outlaw abortion at any stage of pregnancy based on logic. My views on fetus's rights in the third trimester are not logical. I also said that, you know. :/

I know, and sorry if you felt I misunderstood you. I wasn't sure if you were saying that your stance was that abortion ought to be legal at all stages, or only up until viability -- you seemed to be saying both at different times.

 

The logic you're citing, however, is based on the assumption that a baby is not a live human until it has fully left the womb. If a baby can be defined as a living individual in possession of any rights prior to its exiting the uterus, then the whole train of logic involved would necessarily be different.

 

Also, kids kinda yeah have the same rights as their parents eventually because they're, you know, not living off their mother's bodies anymore. :/

 

Well, in terms of nature, an infant is still living off of its mother's body for quite some time, by breast-feeding. And once it's eating solid food, its mother still feeds it. And some adults still need to be fed by others. Not to mention that we all depend to some extent on other human beings for our survival and livelihood. I don't see independence from the mother as the true marker of being a fully-realized human in possession of full rights. I think people need to have those rights no matter what state of dependence or ability they are at.

[skinst]

Right. But parents are expected to make choices in their child's best interest. They are not permitted to end the child's life, even though an infant cannot decide for itself whether it wants to live or die. So one needs to define the point at which a parent can no longer decide to end the life of a fetus/baby. Is your perspective, then, that a parent should legally be permitted and enabled to end the life of a fetus up until the full delivery of an infant?

Actually, in some countries and in some situations, yes, parents CAN legally end the life of their child. Euthenasia says hello.

 

Also, as I have said several times now and will now repeat again for you; my personal view of abortion is different from the logic of when life begins and ends according to such things as the dictionary, because I am a human being with morals and emotions and not just logic.

 

Then what is the raw fact of birth?  Is a baby born when only part of it has left the mother?  When the head crowns?  What if it doesn't emerge by normal means but is otherwise totally healthy?  (i.e., in cases of C-section, breech birth, etc.)

 

When it's out of the mother, period.

 

I know, and sorry if you felt I misunderstood you.  I wasn't sure if you were saying that your stance was that abortion ought to be legal at all stages, or only up until viability -- you seemed to be saying both at different times. 

 

Because you're reading my posts not for what they are but what you're interpreting them to be by trying to read between the lines that don't exist. If you actually go back and read them for what they are you'll see that I stated in pretty much the first response to you that there is a difference between my logical assessment of abortion and how I actually feel about it.

 

The logic you're citing, however, is based on the assumption that a baby is not a live human until it has fully left the womb.  If a baby can be defined as a living individual in possession of any rights prior to its exiting the uterus, then the whole train of logic involved would necessarily be different.

 

It isn't an assumption. It's what's cited in sources such as dictionaries that one is 'alive', per say, after it has been born.

 

Well, in terms of nature, an infant is still living off of its mother's body for quite some time, by breast-feeding.  And once it's eating solid food, its mother still feeds it.  And some adults still need to be fed by others.  Not to mention that we all depend to some extent on other human beings for our survival and livelihood.  I don't see independence from the mother as the true marker of being a fully-realized human in possession of full rights.  I think people need to have those rights no matter what state of dependence or ability they are at.

 

Right, because a mother can you know, just not choose to breast feed and instead bottle feed, or you know, can abort a baby that's been born?

 

That's illogical.

 

I will state it plainly for you since you seem so very confused: There is a big difference between logic to something than applying both logical and moral reasoning behind something. THAT is the point I have been trying to make in my posts that seems to have flown over your head.

 

Logic = life begins at birth

Moral reasoning = whatever the individual feels.

 

Combine the two and you have the Pro-Birth and Pro-Choice agendas.

[Brite]

How is that different before and after the baby has been delivered? If the infant is delivered and the mother doesn't want it, is it all right for her to kill it then? If not, why not? What makes that scenario so different from, say, the day before, when the child was still in utero?

 

I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that when a fetus hits 3rd trimester, it's for sure going to become human. Since that a fetus can become a parasitic mass or tumor or miscarried or absorbed. Or a fertilized egg passes through. Which only proves fertilized egg does not equal live baby. Imagine if people got to be that stuffy about it. "Omg, how dare you shed your uterine lining, passing that innocent egg!" Oh wait, some people are already like that.

 

Not to mention that a late term abortion would probably be rather dangerous for the mother. But if pro-birthers got their wish and abortion was outlawed, they just may change their point of view when more and more babies end up being born in toilet bowls, thrown in dumpsters, chopped up or thrown on the side of streets in bags. Apparently to them, all of the above happening to an actually baby that WAS born is better than a safe abortion where a fetus has no conscience existance or aware of anything.

[hazeh]

So, who gets the say when a born kid is on life support? The parents don't get to decide whether or not to take the chance of the kid's survival? They just have to go along with the "government mandate" because it's a person and all people should be forced to live no matter what the circumstances...?

[Brite]

So, who gets the say when a born kid is on life support? The parents don't get to decide whether or not to take the chance of the kid's survival? They just have to go along with the "government mandate" because it's a person and all people should be forced to live no matter what the circumstances...?

To me, being forced to live on life support is cruel unless the person on it wants it. If the newborn has a chance of living without the life support, I may give it a chance, depends how high the chance is, but if there's little that can be done, you're basically throwing money away. It's not right to make one slowly suffer for one's satisfaction. Forcing life can be just as bad as a painful death.

 

I get your point, which is the reason why most pro-"lifers" confuse me

 

 

[Kelkelen]

Actually, in some countries and in some situations, yes, parents CAN legally end the life of their child. Euthenasia says hello.

 

Also, as I have said several times now and will now repeat again for you; my personal view of abortion is different from the logic of when life begins and ends according to such things as the dictionary, because I am a human being with morals and emotions and not just logic.

 

I know that in some countries parents legally CAN -- but that doesn't mean you think it should be legally acceptable. I'm trying to understand what your legal point of view is. I understand that your personal perspective differs from your legal one, but there's still the matter of laws being ethical, and whether or not a full-term fetus counts as an individual human being in the eyes of the law.

 

When it's out of the mother, period.

 

Then, to clarify, you believe that it ought to be legally acceptable to kill a fetus/infant at any point, provided it has not completely left the mother's body? And that legally, it is not alive or an individual human being until after it is fully delivered?

 

Right, because a mother can you know, just not choose to breast feed and instead bottle feed, or you know, can abort a baby that's been born?

 

That's illogical.

 

What's illogical is saying that an infant's level of dependence on the mother is what defines its rights as a human being.

 

It isn't an assumption. It's what's cited in sources such as dictionaries that one is 'alive', per say, after it has been born.

 

It is an assumption. I can point you to twice as many dictionary definitions of "alive" and "life" and "living" that DO describe the state of a fetus after it has begun to move in the womb, or even before. The point of logic isn't to use a dictionary but to reason out the knowledge on a topic from all possible angles.

 

I will state it plainly for you since you seem so very confused: There is a big difference between logic to something than applying both logical and moral reasoning behind something. THAT is the point I have been trying to make in my posts that seems to have flown over your head.

 

Please, there's no need to be rude. My mind is far from made up on this subject, and I do want to discuss it and think it over, but I feel like you're getting angry with me for trying to understand your specific POV.

 

I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that when a fetus hits 3rd trimester, it's for sure going to become human. Since that a fetus can become a parasitic mass or tumor or miscarried or absorbed. Or a fertilized egg passes through. Which only proves fertilized egg does not equal live baby. Imagine if people got to be that stuffy about it. "Omg, how dare you shed your uterine lining, passing that innocent egg!" Oh wait, some people are already like that.

 

...that reminds me of kids in high school who were under the mistaken impression that eating eggs meant you were killing baby chickens... o.O

 

I do think it's probably reasonable/acceptable for the law to say that after a certain point, a fetus is an individual human being. To me, the issue of viability is a logical one; you can't continue to define a fetus as solely part of the mother's body after it is capable of existing without being attached to the mother.

 

Not to mention that a late term abortion would probably be rather dangerous for the mother.

 

It generally is, yes. And even in cases where it's not an immediate health risk, it can still affect her ability to bear children later on, should she want to.

 

But if pro-birthers got their wish and abortion was outlawed, they just may change their point of view when more and more babies end up being born in toilet bowls, thrown in dumpsters, chopped up or thrown on the side of streets in bags. Apparently to them, all of the above happening to an actually baby that WAS born is better than a safe abortion where a fetus has no conscience existance or aware of anything.

 

Right. It's this knowledge that makes me refuse to support any outright ban on abortion. There will *always* be people attempting to abort no matter what. I can't in good conscience accept the idea of legally "punishing" them and their infants both by essentially saying, "well, if you choose to have an abortion, you'll just have to stick random objects into your uterus, maybe getting infected or puncturing the lining or permanently damaging your reproductive organs, or else you'll just have to kill your baby once it's born." I don't see how anyone *can* support that idea. It's unrealistic to assume that if abortion is outlawed, no one will have one any more.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Kelkelen

[skinst]

I know that in some countries parents legally CAN -- but that doesn't mean you think it should be legally acceptable.  I'm trying to understand what your legal point of view is.  I understand that your personal perspective differs from your legal one, but there's still the matter of laws being ethical, and whether or not a full-term fetus counts as an individual human being in the eyes of the law.

I'd rather not discuss my view of euthenasia as it's a subject that is extremely personal to me, sorry.

 

Then, to clarify, you believe that it ought to be legally acceptable to kill a fetus/infant at any point, provided it has not completely left the mother's body?  And that legally, it is not alive or an individual human being until after it is fully delivered?

There is a big difference between logic to something than applying both logical and moral reasoning behind something.

So in short, morally no, logically yes.

 

What's illogical is saying that an infant's level of dependence on the mother is what defines its rights as a human being. 

While inside the mother's body, which I think you missed.

 

It is an assumption.  I can point you to twice as many dictionary definitions of "alive" and "life" and "living" that DO describe the state of a fetus after it has begun to move in the womb, or even before.  The point of logic isn't to use a dictionary but to reason out the knowledge on a topic from all possible angles.

Then find them, by all means, and post them. All Dictionary definitions that I've found that don't come from a religious/biased source all say life is the period between birth and death. Short and sweet.

 

Please, there's no need to be rude.  My mind is far from made up on this subject, and I do want to discuss it and think it over, but I feel like you're getting angry with me for trying to understand your specific POV. 

Pointing out that something I said went over your head is far for being rude. It's pointing out that you missed a point, repeatedly. But sorry if you got offended as that was, of course, not my intent.

Edited April 4, 2012 by skinst

[Kelkelen]

So in short, morally no, logically yes.

 

I understood this. What I'm asking is, if your stance is "morally no, legally yes." Or, if you think that general ethics can inform laws, even if specific personal morals shouldn't.

 

Then find them, by all means, and post them. All Dictionary definitions that I've found that don't come from a religious/biased source all say life is the period between birth and death. Short and sweet.

 

Okay, if you want. Merriam-Webster:

 

alive

adj \ə-ˈlīv\

Definition of ALIVE

1

: having life : not dead or inanimate

2

a : still in existence, force, or operation : active <kept hope alive> b : still active in competition with a chance of victory <must win to stay alive in the playoffs>

3

: knowing or realizing the existence of : sensitive <alive to the danger>

4

: marked by alertness, energy, or briskness <his face came alive at the mention of food>

5

: marked by much life, animation, or activity : swarming <streets alive with traffic>

6

—used as an intensive following the noun <the proudest boy alive>

 

Definitions 1-5 fit a quickened fetus.

life

noun \ˈlīf\

plural lives

Definition of LIFE

1

a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction

2

a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual b : one or more aspects of the process of living <sex life of the frog>

3

: biography 1

4

: spiritual existence transcending physical death

5

a : the period from birth to death b : a specific phase of earthly existence <adult life> c : the period from an event until death <a judge appointed for life> d : a sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of a convict's life

6

: a way or manner of living

7

: livelihood

8

: a vital or living being; specifically : person <many lives were lost in the disaster>

 

So, 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 4, possibly 5b, 5c, and 8 all fit a quickened fetus.

 

living

adj

Definition of LIVING

1

a : having life b : active, functioning <living languages>

2

a : exhibiting the life or motion of nature : natural <the wilderness is a living museum … of natural history — NEA Journal> b : 2live 2a

3

a : full of life or vigor b : true to life : vivid <televised in living color> c : suited for living <the living area>

4

: involving living persons

5

: very —used as an intensive <scared the living daylights out of me>

 

Definitions 1-4 seem to fit a fetus, as well.

 

Those are all just from the Merriam-Webster (Encyclopedia Brittanica) dictionary, which is a major mainstream dictionary with a long history.

 

Pointing out that something I said went over your head is far for being rude. It's pointing out that you missed a point, repeatedly. :|

 

I feel like maybe you've been missing my point. I completely understand that you're separating your "emotional/personal stance" from your "logical stance," but you still haven't stated what you think is an appropriate *legal* stance to take; if you think it's possible for laws to be ethical, or if they must take only the "logical stance," regardless of the concept of ethics. I was also questioning your actual train of logic as to when a fetus counts as "alive" or as a human individual.

[skinst]

Those dictionary definitions don't seem to apply to a fetus to me, so maybe that's just personal perception playing a part.

 

As for a legal stance, to be honest? I just want abortion legal and accessable. It isn't my place to decide when the cutoff point is because I am neither a God who can tell a person when a life truly begins nor am I a medical professional who is unbiased on the issue.

 

In short, my opinion only applies to me myself and I. And that is how it should be.

[Kelkelen]

Those dictionary definitions don't seem to apply to a fetus to me, so maybe that's just personal perception playing a part.

 

As for a legal stance, to be honest? I just want abortion legal and accessable. It isn't my place to decide when the cutoff point is because I am neither a God who can tell a person when a life truly begins nor am I a medical professional who is unbiased on the issue.

 

In short, my opinion only applies to me myself and I. And that is how it should be.

I'm sure perception comes into play for most of them. Basically, though, I think any dictionary will have a broad definition of life that is never limited to only "the period between birth and death." Plus, "birth" itself will have various definitions that could alter that meaning.

 

Still... even "not being a god," you *do* say it should be illegal to kill a born infant, and that a born infant is alive, an individual human life; which I guess in my opinion makes it very hazy to draw a dividing line between born and not-quite-born, and say it's perfectly legal to kill a fetus/baby on one side of that line.

 

I definitely agree that opinion and choice of action is the freedom of every individual. I think where my opinion diverges from yours is that I think it's okay to have legal restrictions on actions which would take a life -- or, well, the real difference might be that I think it could be put forth, legally and logically, that a full-term fetus is an individual human life, and so it warrants some form of legal protection.

 

Thank you for taking the time to discuss your perspective, and I really am sorry that I've frustrated you!! I wasn't trying to be dense on purpose, I swear!

[skinst]

Still... even "not being a god," you *do* say it should be illegal to kill a born infant, and that a born infant is alive, an individual human life; which I guess in my opinion makes it very hazy to draw a dividing line between born and not-quite-born, and say it's perfectly legal to kill a fetus/baby on one side of that line.

It's hard to define because it is indeed hazy. And it's something we as a race can't really answer because logic fights morals.

 

I definitely agree that opinion and choice of action is the freedom of every individual.  I think where my opinion diverges from yours is that I think it's okay to have legal restrictions on actions which would take a life -- or, well, the real difference might be that I think it could be put forth, legally and logically, that a full-term fetus is an individual human life, and so it warrants some form of legal protection.

 

ATM there is legal protection for fetus's above 26 weeks of age, so to speak. 3rd trimester abortions are only done if the mother's life is in real danger or the fetus is severely deformed or dead. Despite it being against my logic, my moral stance agrees with that.

 

Thank you for taking the time to discuss your perspective, and I really am sorry that I've frustrated you!!  I wasn't trying to be dense on purpose, I swear! 

 

Don't worry about it. It happens.

[_Swoop_]

Still... even "not being a god," you *do* say it should be illegal to kill a born infant, and that a born infant is alive, an individual human life; which I guess in my opinion makes it very hazy to draw a dividing line between born and not-quite-born, and say it's perfectly legal to kill a fetus/baby on one side of that line.

 

Well, quite honestly, I think abortion should be illegal. It's almost like murdering. The baby is alive, it is a person. Just because it's not out of the mother's womb doesn't make it a dead thing. If it was dead, you wouldn't have to kill it. Also, if you didn't want a baby, don't have one. Now, if you'd been raped I'd somewhat understand.

 

Also, did you guys know that some companies like Pepsi and Nestle buy baby parts or even whole babies that have been killed by abortion? They use it in their products.

[Rosedamai]

Well, quite honestly, I think abortion should be illegal. It's almost like murdering. The baby is alive, it is a person. Just because it's not out of the mother's womb doesn't make it a dead thing. If it was dead, you wouldn't have to kill it. Also, if you didn't want a baby, don't have one. Now, if you'd been raped I'd somewhat understand.

 

Also, did you guys know that some companies like Pepsi and Nestle buy baby parts or even whole babies that have been killed by abortion? They use it in their products.

Just curious, are you one of those people who freak out every time you eat an egg because you're killing a chicken? Or think about the fields of poppies you could have grown when you're eating anything with poppy seeds in it? Because or else it doesn't make sense.

 

Just going to focus on this at the moment, because I find that just because you believe it's human, you're completely ignoring the fact that other people might not think otherwise, and if they believe it isn't a human, that they can go off and have as many abortions as they want, and so you're shoving your beliefs down other people's throats.

 

And another thing: before you go off and say that eggs or poppy seeds or chestnuts or what have you doesn't count because they're "not human", I, as a woman, can make a complete fertilized egg with two of my ovum cells-put one of the cell's nucleus in the other, give it a little electronic nudge, and it'll spontaneously start to "grow." Does that mean that I should be punished every time I have two periods?

 

And the last part about Nestle and Pepsi-I find that ridiculous. Where's your sources?

Edited April 4, 2012 by ylangylang

[St. Jimmy]

The baby is alive, it is a person. Just because it's not out of the mother's womb doesn't make it a dead thing. If it was dead, you wouldn't have to kill it.

Alive, yes, but not everyone believes it's a person yet (myself included).

 

Also, if you didn't want a baby, don't have one.

I'd say getting an abortion would fall under not having one. Sex isn't just for reproduction, after all.

 

Also, did you guys know that some companies like Pepsi and Nestle buy baby parts or even whole babies that have been killed by abortion? They use it in their products.

Do you have a source for this?

[Snowytoshi]

 

Also, did you guys know that some companies like Pepsi and Nestle buy baby parts or even whole babies that have been killed by abortion? They use it in their products.

I believe this is what Swoop is talking about http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=2437 There are also several other articles and video on it if you look it up.

 

In my opinion the above articles shouldn't be used as an anti-abortion argument, but rather as an argument against Pepsi and Nestle. It is not the women seeking an abortion's fault, so why prevent them from accessing a surgery that they need?

[skinst]

 

Okay seriously how the hell could anyone believe that as real? ~_~

Edited April 4, 2012 by skinst

[Rosedamai]

 

Okay seriously how the hell could anyone believe that as real? ~_~

http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/shortorder/...ells_helpin.php

 

Some counterfactuals.

 

Even if that were true I still don't see how that's an argument against abortion.

[Snowytoshi]

I have an issue with pro-lifers because some of them murder abortion providers. Obviously this isn't every pro-lifer, but it sickens me that the extremists support that. How is that any different then killing a fetus?

[Kelkelen]

I believe this is what Swoop is talking about http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=2437 There are also several other articles and video on it if you look it up.

 

In my opinion the above articles shouldn't be used as an anti-abortion argument, but rather as an argument against Pepsi and Nestle. It is not the women seeking an abortion's fault, so why prevent them from accessing a surgery that they need?

http://www.cogforlife.org/catholicguide.pdf <-- Also, this: a very factual chart of childhood vaccines, and which ones do and do not utilize aborted fetal cells. I was surprised to learn that

 

Merck, which has a monopoly on the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines in the United States, has stopped marketing their single-shot measles and mumps vaccines derived from chicken embryos, and it now offers these shots only in combination with their rubella vaccine (referred to as MMR), which is derived from two different sources of aborted fetal material: the virus, RA273 taken from an aborted fetus which is then cultivated on aborted fetal cell line WI-38.

Anyway, I agree with Snowytoshi -- each business is responsible for its own ethical practices and transparency to the public. The legal issue isn't whether or not abortion is legal, but whether or not companies first, have a right to use those materials in production, and second, must disclose full information of their methods to the buying public.

 

I also agree that murder is murder, and no one who bombs an abortion provider has any right to call themselves "pro-life."

Edited April 4, 2012 by Kelkelen

[AngelKitty]

Also, did you guys know that some companies like Pepsi and Nestle buy baby parts or even whole babies that have been killed by abortion? They use it in their products.

 

I believe this is what Swoop is talking about http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=2437

 

Holy sensational alarmist headlines, Batman! Way to make it sound like those companies' foods actually contain bits of human fetus, InvestigateDaily. The flavor enhancers don't even actually COME from the cells - the cells are just used for testing the chemicals.

 

And that's all they are. Cultured cells. From ONE aborted fetus. That was aborted in the 70's.

[Obscure_Trash]

The snopes article on the Pepsi/fetal cells thing, if anyone is interested: http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/pepsi.asp

That's definitely taken waaaaaaaaaaaay out of context.