|
|
|
|
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/4/2006 1:05:16 AM | This is a subject that I cannot own because I am a man and am not a woman who would be faced with such a choice.
I do feel a strong since of dread and anguish when I hear of things like "partial birth" abortions though. *I also do feel that individual women do have certain inalienable rights. I suppose these are the two most important stages of life for a woman.
I suppose I may have a bit of a bias after talking to someone who was for sure going to be aborted if it were not for laws prohibiting his demise, at the time of his mother's dicision, may have shifted my perspective somewhat.
*All fertilized eggs are female before they are male. That's right around the 7th week of fetal development, all fertilized eggs are all female first then they become male through the transformation of the genital region, from the genetic code of the many times smaller “Y” chromosome, when present in the sperm, of course. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/4/2006 5:34:37 PM | God is not pleased when you end a chilld's life. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/4/2006 7:07:21 PM | Is it murder? When you Murder a one year old?
What about when you murder a one month year old?
What about when you murder a one minute old?
What about when you murder one minute before its born?
And so on!!!!!!!!
Is It Murder? Yes It Is! Why? Because God Says Its So!!!
No Exceptions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Murder Is Murder! | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/6/2006 1:54:34 PM | Meat is Murder!
Abortion is a difficult thing to do, without having zelous lunatics attach thier dogmas to a person who strugles to make the hardest choice of her life.
Tell me something, is drinking camomile tea murder? Or taking the pill, or the morning after pill? The morning after pill and camomile tea and other natural chemicals prevent the Gamete from attaching itself to the uterus and devoloping into a life or even causing the fetus to abort.
If a women takes these chemicals without knowing that they will harm her baby and it is aborted, dose that make her a murder?
If a man sells a person a gun and that gun is ussed to kill someone, is the sales person a murder?
There have been excptions to murder throught history. That is why there is a court system, to determin someones guilt.
How can any of you deny, that extream circumstances happen? If it puts a womens life at risk, then abortion is a legitimate choice for a woman to make. If you had a parasite in your gut that was killing, you wouldn't hessitate to have it removed before you died.
Murder is always murder, but a death caused by another person is not always murder. Now go away and learn a little bit about the law before you talk again. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/6/2006 6:56:22 PM | | Life begins at conception....any expectant parent or parents can see this....they watch how each and every day things change and "grow" in the womb.....if we have never had that privilege of that growth in our womb....have you brought home a seedling plant...and either did not water it or dumped it or just neglected it....what do you say...I "killed my poor plant"...and that is just the life of a plant.... | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/7/2006 4:30:02 AM | Killing a plant is not the same thing.
If you kill a plant, you do not weep over it. (Well most people don't anyway.)
If you kill an insect, you don't have self doubts becuase of it.
And as bright one said, if you kill the collection of cells that are attached to a scab, you don't think twice, nor do you think twice about having a wash and killing the bacteia on your body.
Those are all living things, but they are not given the same value as a human life. The question bright one asked is when dose a collection of cells become a human life? And that is the question that is the most important when it comes to determining the law on abortion.
Tell me something, how many of you other women have taken birth controll pills? Because some of those self same pills that most women take, have the exact same efect as an abortion, they remove the lining from the woumb and take an embryo that might have just implanted itself along with it.
If you are going to campaign against abortion because it is the death of a few undiferentiated cells, then you should campaign against almost every single medical technology we have as they almost all cause a minor amount of cell death. The medical comunity and the legal comunity are united on one front however, trying to decide when a few cells become a human life. Anyone who belives that humanity begins at the point of conception, has no understanding of the most basic facts of life. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/7/2006 9:21:55 AM |
Because some of those self same pills that most women take, have the exact same efect as an abortion, they remove the lining from the woumb and take an embryo that might have just implanted itself along with it. Excellent point. Thank you for mentioning that. It is unfortunately a little-known fact. I found that out in my own research on female hormones a few years ago. Any form of birth control that uses Progestin as it's primary hormone does this. It is spontaneous abortion because it does not stop the egg from fertilizing, but instead allows for fertilization but then makes the uterus inhospitable. But a lot of women don't know that when they start using it. Research is soooo important.
Angel, is there any point when a fetus becomes of any value? When does it become a human life with a soul? Do you feel that partial birth abortion is ok as long as the woman doesn't want (or can't financially support) the baby? | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/7/2006 10:45:32 AM |
"Because some of those self same pills that most women take, have the exact same efect as an abortion, they remove the lining from the woumb and take an embryo that might have just implanted itself along with it."
"It is unfortunately a little-known fact. I found that out in my own research on female hormones a few years ago. Any form of birth control that uses Progestin as it's primary hormone does this. It is spontaneous abortion because it does not stop the egg from fertilizing, but instead allows for fertilization but then makes the uterus inhospitable"
Actually, the most recent research (Croxatto et al 2003) shows that what progestin does is inhibit ovulation. In their studies, it had no effect on fertilization or implantation. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/7/2006 12:33:58 PM | | ^^Shore, I wish that were true. But that is only what the drug companies would like us to believe. I know personally of hundreds of women (I'm in a support group) who have found quite the opposite. It can in time cause ovulation to slow or stop. It can also cause permanent infertility. But the problem is that there's no guarantee on it stopping ovulation, and often it does not. So I wish doctors were more aware of this (and many other things pertaining to that drug) so they could at least warn the patient before prescribing the stuff. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/7/2006 2:55:24 PM | | ^^^blueberry, I am afraid I don't understand your post. We are talking about the "morning after" pill, right? | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/7/2006 8:58:42 PM | Killing a plant.....killing an insect.....killing a healing scab......killing bacteria......yes, all living things....the acknowledgment is there.....and granted they are not even close to to a human life. So, what other word could be used for ending a growing and living cell within a womans womb? And, for birth control pills.......some prevent life from starting and others kill life after it has begun....
"The medical comunity and the legal comunity are united on one front however, trying to decide when a few cells become a human life. Anyone who belives that humanity begins at the point of conception, has no understanding of the most basic facts of life. "
...and what basic facts are those? | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/7/2006 10:59:46 PM | | The right of a citizen of a constitutional democracy inclusive of rights to self-determination; regarding ones physiology, to autonomy over their own body, and freedom from religious oppression, intolerance, and bigotry.. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/8/2006 1:01:43 PM | Human life is dificult to pin down to a specific orogin point.
Go on, just tryo to prove that a zygote is actualy a human life? | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/8/2006 1:06:33 PM |
Angel, is there any point when a foetus becomes of any value? When does it become a human life with a soul? Do you feel that partial birth abortion is ok as long as the woman doesn't want (or can't financially support) the baby?
To be honest, I really don't know. It’s not something I have yet ad to deal with. I've had to help out in a case where a woman’s life was at risk from an entopic pregnancy but the surgeons involved did not want to operate (For medical reasons rather than moral ones.), but I do not know if the foetus at 2 months of development, really is a human life or not. It doesn’t look human, and it can’t live without leaching nutrients from its mother, but for all I know, despite having no semblance of human life yet, it could have a soul, I just do not know.
I trust the medical professionals and the informed lawyers to make those judgments and to inform the mother of all of the possibilities, but I have also seen cases where people have not been informed about what was actually going on. I have not aided in, but know of cases where women were giving almost no information about what would happen to them and also what stage of development the unborn foetus was in.
My personal belief, is abortion is only valid for reasons other than social (for example, having enough children already or not being able to financially support one.), i.e., where a woman’s health (physical or mental) is at severe risk.
Judge Easterbrook's had this to say on Partial birth abortion, but I think it stands for most cases.
The Hope Clinic, et al. v. James E. Ryan, Attorney General of Illinois, et al., No. 98-1726 (7th Cir., October 26, 1999)
"It is always difficult for a court of appeals to predict how Justices of the Supreme Court will apply a phrase with as much plasticity as "undue burden." But our best estimate is that "undue" rather than "burden" is the key word, and that "undue" means not only "substantial" (a small cost or inconvenience is not "undue") but also that the burden must be undue in relation to the woman's interests, rather than undue in relation to the court's assessment of society's interests. Plaintiffs' (implicit) argument that every regulation of a medical procedure is "undue" fails because many regulations create small burdens. The physician-only rule was one; a prohibition of D&X is another. Even for the class of women who seek late-second-trimester abortions, there is always one or more other safe methods of abortion in addition to D&X. Let us return to the natural experiment now under way. Plaintiffs do not contend that in any of the states where a partial-birth-abortion law is in effect, even one woman has been injured or denied an abortion because of the law.
Thank you late, yes. These are the basic facts of life in a legal standing. The rights as set out by the constitution of the country and any declaration, treatise or agreement also sighed up to by that country.
The right of a citizen of a constitutional democracy inclusive of rights to self-determination; regarding ones physiology, to autonomy over their own body, and freedom from religious oppression, intolerance, and bigotry.
These are indeed the key rights in the issue, both for the mother and the foetus. For example the right to autonomy over ones own body is a right that can be waived if there is valid and sufficient reason to do so (A person suffering a mental compulsion to harm themselves for example.) Freedoms from oppression intolerance and bigotry has its obvious applications in regard to the mothers rights, but again can be waived if there is valid reason to do so.
Human rights are not automatically granted, they are earned and can be rescinded under certain conditions if the rights of others or health of the individual is at risk.
Again, not true. There are plenty of divisions in the medical community in regards to abortion. There are plenty of physicians who are against terminating Zygotes.
Sorry, you are correct, I should know by now to be more careful with my wording. What I meant to say was that, "Amongst those experts in the field, there is unity in one belief, the belief that it is presently impossible to determine when egg and sperm become a human life." It is possible to determine when they begin to develop brain tissue or when the heart starts to beat on its own or various other factors, but there is no way to yet determine what factors make a life human, perhaps it dose start with conception, or perhaps its not until the foetus can live independently of its mother. I can not say, so I will leave it up to those better informed than us to continue to strive to find out.
The most basic fact of life is a cell. Killing bacteria is not murder because bacteria are not human.
You do realise this is a contradictory statement don't you? Bacteria ARE cells.
But besides that fact, I am talking about life in the legal sense, not the biological sense, there are differences.
Bright one did make the distinction that murder is the premeditated and unlawful taking of another human life, and he also pointed out that the start of a human life is difficult to pinpoint. If the experts can not decide when human life actually begins, then why do any of us with less information believe that we can?
They were not designed to become human beings. A human zygote is alive, and it is human, hence “human life.” To terminate it is to kill a person.
And if you knew a little bit more biology you would know that this is not true. Granted a human zygote is alive, but it is not certain to become human (and I will not even go into the design argument), many embryos do not develop because they are incapable of doing so. Some can develop but will not get past certain stages of development due to not having the right genetic information. As I am not a cell biologist, I can not really go into the details of how or why, all I can say for certain is that fertilisation dose not mean that a human life will definitely be born. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/9/2006 7:27:24 PM | Okay, all religio-political crap aside, this is going to get ugly, just because everybody's got something to say, only some feel everybody else should listen. Don't like what I've got to say? Cool. Just don't call me on it, if you don't have a coherent rejoinder. Let's play.
OP
I'm guessing God spelled all this out for you, and the rest of us just need to take your word for it, yes?
I'm just stating this for the sake of argument, but in some f**ked up way wasn't Jesus the byproduct of a rape.
...THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT MURDER. That pretty much sums it up for me.
Gotta say I loved this post. In the same breath, effectively, the poster is saying rape's okay, but we gotta take the rapist's word that murder isn't. Well done!
Under the OT Law, commiting murder got you the death penalty. However, punching a woman in the stomach and causing a miscarriage only got you a fine.
Two questions: Could you provide a reference (book, chapter, verse) for those; and, in the case of fining people for punching women in the belly, is that if they didn't ask for it, or if they did?
You refer to man's laws and not God's.
Another interesting point. I would like to know, since I've seen this mentioned elsewhere, but isn't the entire Bible supposed to be divinely inspired? Wouldn't that make "man's laws" equate to being divinely sanctioned if they're in the book and not refuted?
...I find nothing wrong with abortion , but on the other hand I don't think it should be used as a regular form of birth control...
Feral agrees. Although this isn't the entirety of my position, but I'll get to that.
Now there is a question that neads to be asked, at what point dose a fetus become sentient.
...Untill you can say when a fetus becomes sentint it is imposibl to say when abortion is actualy murder. There-in lies the rub.
It's a good question, and a very pertinent one. Is it the entirety of the issue, though, I wonder?
...but sperms and eggs are living , so has not life already started at the point of conception ?? ...since if were allowed to continue a child may be born...
Or, may not. Who's to say?
Its a very tricky subject with no easy answers, I personaly belive that a fetus isnt sentient until there is brain activity, but others will disagrea and say it is earlier/later than that. We will just have to wait for better techniques I'm afraid, and untill then, er on the side of caution.
I'm with you on the sentience gig, but I don't know about "erring."
Time is the only factor that comes into play, and time is a man made tool. Whether you look at the moment of conception, the first hartbeat, first movement, first thought, birth, age 1, age 2, age 50, etc., etc., etc., The same creature still exists. It has changed many times over and does not fully resemble itself at any other moment, but it is still the same creature and still exists.
Abortion is murder, plain and simple.
Interesting point on the time gig. Not so certain I subscribe to the same view about it being the same at all points, but I don't know that it's relevant. As for time being a man-made tool, I'd certainly like to know how to shut mine off. I would argue that it's most likely the distinctions between one time and another might be human-made, but time? That's almost amusing. What this has to do with abortion, I suppose is the developmental differences in the progression of foetal growth. I'm interested in whether or not the law can or should set a point at which a foetus is to be considered a sentient, human life, or if it should simply call it all life, and any causing of that life to end should be considered murder. Thorny questions, indeed.
I NOTE ALL THE POINTS ARE MADE BY MEN AND FIND THAT FUNNY!!
It is interesting, yes. What do the women think?
I personally feel that regardless of religeous beliefs, it is pretty much the pregnant person's choice.
And, fifteen posts into the discussion, there comes the other important focus point. And a good point it is, too.
Also rape isn't the only reason someone might decide to have an abortion, other life factors usually are part and parcell to such a decision.
Yep, a whole lot goes into it, that's true. Very complex situation. I'm somewhat curious how necessary it is to further complicate the matter with the opinions and directives of others.
I'm not sure about the rest of the USA Count, but here in Wisconsin if you punched a pregnant lady and it caused her unborn to die,it is a homicide.
Sorta makes sense, especially if the prospective mother planned on carrying to term.
I've heard of such laws. It doesn't much make sense to me in a country where abortion is legal but maybe I expect too much from our representatives sometimes.
Yep, screwy political situation in this country, that's no joke. Interesting point as to how/why many folks get into political office in a secular nation by campaigning on religious issues, sometimes.
So, should I be able to kill someone if they are a henderance in my life that I don't want to deal with?
People say that it's the woman's choice, well your right it is the woman's choice. She can chose to commit murder or she can chose not to.
Abortion is murder!!!
Reason... Emotion... What matters is being right, eh?
Why do you think abortion is murder? This is the central issue in the abortion debate but it doesn't seem to get addressed.
It is a very vital issue, yes. Why is abortion murder?
I only added the "no capital punishment" in Wi because you said this "Under the OT Law, commiting murder got you the death penalty.
Interesting point here, too. I always wondered about the logic of "don't kill," but if someone does, kill him. Is that why it's okay to shoot (read: murder) abortion doctors?
Unborn babies react to the mothers emotional states and stress levels, that sounds sentient to me.
Again, that's a factor of developmental timing.
Time is still the only factor. Remove time and you have a living being. Whether a fetus or a grown person are they not the same being?
Wait. I just got it. "Remove time." "Abortion is murder." You're God! Dude, what's up with evil in the world, and is there really free will? Hook a brother up, wouldja?
the people with the strongest opinions cannot possibly ever have the chance to deal with such a decision...
Do you mean that one would only hold such beliefs if one were male? Not sure I follow.
Abortion is definitly premeditated and can be full of malice.
Can be. Interesting that oppression can be malicious as well, isn't it?
Find fault in my analogy.
Well, technically and medically (even biologically) speaking, a foetus is literally a parasite until born.
And most laws are BS!
Yeah, you're right. Screw rights to freedom and property, life and safety. Laws suck.
I've known too many women who use abortion as birth control. I see much malice in those instances.
Sounds less like malice than self-centred apathy. Sad, yes, but not necessarily evil.
and that makes everyone of the women in the world the same in your eyes does it
Can't argue with absolutism.
When life is taken it's taken regardless of whether it's lawful or not.Never know what that life could have been.
So, potential trumps actuality? Someone please explain this one to me.
But I do think that sometimes we accept technological advances blindly without seeing possible reprocutions. (like whether or not IVF facilitates murder in some way)
Gotta be murder. Yep, gotta.
For women who see abortion as acceptable birth control, yes they look the same to me.
Wow. I agree. Didn't see that coming.
Finally we get to core question!!!
What's more important, moral law, or legal law?
Interesting point. Which is it? Then, of course, it's a decision between which secular law or which moral law, eh?
Good, I can't wait untill people pull their head out their a**es and see that murder is murder and allow the legal definition to include all stages of pregnancy.
Yeah, people! Get with the program! Change your definitions to N8's def, NOW!!
Sounds to me like it's murder and life.I do not think it's right to kill of all the others and save one,if that's the case.My question is,if all the eggs are being concieved into life then how come they kill all off but one?How come scientists can not use them all if they are fertelizing them all.
Ahh... It's good to seek an education. Maybe the prejudices will even survive.
but you appear to see every woman that opts for abortion as a resolution as having the same reasons namely birth control..
You mean there can be other reasons?!?
WE DONT KNOW!, I certainly dont have the answer, science can give facts, but it cant tell you anything about morals. And because religious texts were writen hundreds of years ago, they can give us mora guidance but cant tell us exactly when to apply them in this modern context.
And, this is why we're all glad Raziel was never aborted. 
I do not see abortion due to rape or health issues as birth control.
But, it's still murder! Come on, say it...
It has no more emotional impact on these types of women as the use of a condomn would.
While it's possible that some women might look at it that way, for my part, I tend to hesitate before ascribing viewpoints to anyone else.
Okay, two pages is plenty. I'll finish catching up and find out how bad the damage is soon. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/10/2006 8:52:22 AM |
And, this is why we're all glad Raziel was never aborted.
Don know bout that, there seem to be plenty of people who think difrently.
I think it’s important to keep in mind that the baby is innocent and the criminal is not.
Criminal law = Inocent until proven guilty.
Cannonical law = Guilty of original sin from the moment of birth.
 
A parasite is considered to be a disease; an ailment that should be destroyed.
That description is poorly worded, a parasite can be a good thing. Leaches are used in Medicine and so are magots and worms and various other parasitic organisms. I blame microsoft for that poor descrition.
Also note "in a way that harms or is of no advantage to the host."
A baby can be very harmfull to the mother, but then you have never had morning sickness so you wouldnt understand that. Even if you COULD argue that a baby dose not harm the mother, you would not be able to prove that the baby was an advantage to her. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/10/2006 10:52:51 AM |
lives on or in another organism to whose survival it contributes nothing.
A baby dose not contribute anything to the survival of the woman, yes it means the survival of the species but it dose not contribute to the survival of the individual. (One, love)
A parasite is also considered to be a foreign body. And a baby is also considered by the body to be a foreign body. This is the reason that ectopic pregancies are often calcified by the imune system and why some pregnancies are aborted due to an overactive imune system.
Leeches and maggots loose their parasite status when they are used to remove blood or eat infections.
Erm, no they don't. They arwe still parasitic organisms, they are just being ussed in a way that is ussefull to the host organism at that particular time. At an other time they would still be doing the exact same thing but be detrimental to the health of the host organism. as ussed in medicine, they do not provide a symbotic relationship, a side effect of thier parasitic realtionship is exploited to produce a desired effect.
a baby dose not have a symbiotic relationship with its mother, it dose not produce anything that aids the mother during the pregnancy.
 | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/10/2006 11:08:46 AM | | Shore, sorry I missed your question way up there. No I'm not talking about the morning after pill. I'm talking about standard prescription birth control pills which are prescribed for all kinds of things including contraceptive, medical, emotional, etc. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/10/2006 1:45:03 PM |
The name “Parasite” describes function not species. If leeches are used to benefit the host than they are not parasitic.
well lets look at this again shall we. Lets try ussing a MEDICAL dictionary instead of the american heritage dictionary shall we.
"Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently."
By that definition, from the medical dictionary, a baby is a parasite for the first 21 weeks of its existance.
Secondly,
Parasites are not created by the host.
Nowhere in any of the descitions of a parasite you cited, was this mentioned. Considering that virusses are parasites and are created from the host, and in a few cases the protiens and hormones are created by the host, to state that parasites are not created by the host as most of a virus is. (and before you say anything, only half of an embryo is created by the host, not most of it.)
Just give it up, your defintion of a parasite is not supported by the sources. A baby fall into the medical dictionary ters for a parasite up untill the 21st week at which point it is capable of independant life.
And to steer back towards the subject matter a bit. My opinion is that until this point, a fetus can't be termed as human untill it can live independently of its mother, at around 21 weeks. This is the point that I would presntly say is the maximum for an abortion, and only under extream casses should it be performed this late. but earlier on in the pregnancy I am undecided and will probably remain so, I will leave the decision up to the mother and the doctors as It is not my body and I am not a medical expert. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/10/2006 2:34:13 PM | Okay, let's see... As entertaining as it is for me (and others, I'm sure) to go through and highlight the interesting quirks and cute little idiosyncracies that inform each individual's choice to support either the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" platform, I'm an impatient muthah today, so I'm cutting to the chase and will happily engage the core issue here: right to choose. I know, I know, there's plenty more involved, but this is the rock-bottom deal here. It's not a matter of whether I think it's right or someone else thinks it's wrong, or the other way around. As far as the fun-time discussion is turning out, it's about the legal aspects, but in relation to the OP, it's a question of what's morally/religiously acceptable. So, since I'm nimble like that, I'll address both.
Religiously, it depends on the religion. Plain and simple. Most have some little clause about not killing, but go on to revel in the glories of war, so you wind up with interpretations that the injunction is against murder. There's usually also something about keeping oneself healthy and respecting life (unless that life is of a "lesser" sort or doesn't, for one reason or another, pay homage to the religion making the rules). However, there are some faiths that do recognise the right of the individual to choose what's "best" for them and whatever life is inextricably attached to them, as well as the right to deal with the potential consequences of whatever choice is made. My gods don't weigh in on this one, so I take it that they trust me to make the "right" decision, should it become necessary. Ultimately, however, it's a matter of which god does the talking and whether or not that god's followers feel like choosing to respect their deity's wishes. Either way, it's on them.
Legal. Yeah, this is where it gets messy. And here's the reason: extent of influence. Some of us on here have asked similar questions, and I'll pose the same: Government's got to have the power to set limits on behaviour, if only to keep the mass of the people safe, but where does it end? What's the point where, in the name of safety, or for the sake of knowing what's legal/illegal/"right"/"wrong" we give up our autonomy, our personal sovereignty to others "for the good of the many?" And that's a major concern. For my part, I like Raziel's point about the definition of murder, especially where it will (in my belief) intersect with animal rights when we figure out that there are other sentient species, but that's neither here nor there. The big point is that it's in use. Legally. Whether that's religiously "right" or not is irrelevant. The simple fact of the matter is that this allows potential parents to not be, if that's what's deemed necessary by them. Should this be a determination made by the state? That's the big question, legally. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/10/2006 2:47:33 PM |
so I'm cutting to the chase
Truth in advertising in action, .....well done. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/10/2006 3:56:53 PM |
Okay, let's see...
Well done indeed. You’ve managed to stay totally neutral and politically correct.
| |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/10/2006 3:59:22 PM | Just keepin' it real, guys. My take? It's nobody's business but the people in the situation. Unfortunately, at least in the US, we got plenty of people with too much time on their hands and too high an opinion of themselves to keep from trying to tell others what to do with their lives. So, it gets political, and as soon as the parasi -- uh, politicians get wind of an issue they can use, it gets taken entirely out of context.
Edit: Just in case that sounds a little too "middle-of-the-road," I do support folks' right to choose. And yes, that does include the right to choose not to have an abortion, as well. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/10/2006 5:20:57 PM | | If the woman doesn't want the child, she should give it up for adoption. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/10/2006 7:44:13 PM | Considering that viruses are parasites and are created from the host, and in a few cases the proteins and hormones are created by the host, to state that parasites are not created by the host as most of a virus is.
That is a distortion of the truth. There is nothing in a cell that tells it to create viruses. Viruses invade cells and take over their cellular processes thereby forcing the cell to create new viruses. Viruses are foreign invaders. I suppose that we could get into a chicken or egg argument, but that wouldn’t do either of us any good. To date viruses are foreign invaders and the body is not made to produce them. The female body is however specifically designed to create babies.
your definition of a parasite is not supported by the sources. A baby fall into the medical dictionary ters for a parasite up until the 21st week at which point it is capable of independent life.
Let’s take a look then at the medical dictionary since that seems to be the only source that you’ll accept. It’s interesting to note that there is such a thing as a “parasitic fetus.”
Parasitic Fetus: The smaller, usually malformed member of conjoined, unequal, or asymmetric twins that is attached to and dependent on the more normal fetus for growth and development.
Consider the distinction being made here. One is the parasitic fetus and the other is the normal fetus. When all goes well a fetus is not a parasite. This definition illustrates that the term parasite both describes behavior not necessarily species, and it is associated with disease. A baby is not a disease.
My opinion is that until this point, a fetus can't be termed as human until it can live independently of its mother, at around 21 weeks. This is the point that I would presently say is the maximum for an abortion, and only under extreme cases should it be performed this late. but earlier on in the pregnancy I am undecided and will probably remain so, I will leave the decision up to the mother and the doctors as It is not my body and I am not a medical expert.
What you’re basically saying is that you don’t believe that the sanctity of human life is worth erring on the side of caution for.
| |
|
|
| Page 5 of 35
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 |
|
Home
login 
