Do you support abortion as

[jillio]

What everyone is overlooking here, especially the anti-choice faction, is that the legality of elective abortion is not based on individual moral stance. You have the right to hold onto any belief you want to regarding abortion. That is your freedom, and as a result, you are free to decide for yourself exactly how you will apply that belief to your life. However, you do not have the right to make anyone else believe the same as you, or to make the same decisions as you do regarding their own life.

It isn't about when life begins. It is about forcing your belief system on another and removing freedom of choice based on your personal moral stance.

You are free to choose not to have an abortion if it goes against your value system. However, you have no right to make that choice for anyone else.

 

[dreama]

Show me a link that indicates that this is actually being done.

I found a list of reasons for a G section and this is one of them:

You have a serious medical condition that requires intensive or emergency treatment (such as diabetes or high blood pressure).

You can find articles on G sections here: Cesarean Birth for Medical Reasons - March of Dimes
and here: MedlinePlus: Cesarean Section

Also a prematature baby can survive as young as 22 weeks in an inqubater. A mother is permitted to abort up to the age of 24 weeks in britain or more if the baby is disabled.

 

[dreama]

You keep talking about adoption. How about the many thousands of children who are already waiting to be adopted, and instead, are forced to spend their childhoods being shuttled from one foster home to another without ever having achieved security and love. How about we worry about providing for the living, breathing, suffering children that are already on this earth before we become so overly concerned with an embryo? Once you have made some effort to correct the ills suffered by the children that are alive and suffering, your argument re: using force to make women bring more children into this world will have some credibility. Until then, it is total nonsense.

Most of these are older children. Babies would find homes very quickly.

You talk about clearing up ills then you talk about legalized murder. If we taught people to respect life more then less unwanted kids would end up in care.

By allowing a mother to kill their baby if it's not quite what they wanted you are telling them that life is not sacred. That they can do what they want with babies.

I AM making effort to correct the ills of the world by being pro life and not considering babies as disposable. Because once a mum thinks it's all right to kill a baby before birth, she is just as likely to want to get rid of it after if it's too much trouble. Which is how many children ends up in care homes in the first place.

Since I'm all for steralisation on demand and the responsible use of birth control's I'm hardly for bringing about more babies. I'm just for women being made to take responsibility for their actions. If a woman can't even be bothered to check for split condom's then nip off to the chemist to get a morning after pill if neccessary why should we let her kill a preborn baby which could be as old as 24 weeks.

 

[jillio]

I found a list of reasons for a G section and this is one of them:



You can find articles on G sections here: Cesarean Birth for Medical Reasons - March of Dimes
and here: MedlinePlus: Cesarean Section

Also a prematature baby can survive as young as 22 weeks in an inqubater. A mother is permitted to abort up to the age of 24 weeks in britain or more if the baby is disabled.

I am well aware of the reasons that C-section is recommended and used. That has nothing to do with the right to choose issue, or your claim that it could be a procedure used with no medical indication of its neccessity just to deliver a child pre-term. C-section is an invasive procedure that carries risk to both mother and fetus, and is not just used for convenience, but for medical neccessity when the mother has chosen to carry a pregnancy to term, is desirous of a life birth, and natural birth carries the risk of loss of life to mother, fetus, or both.

 

[jillio]

Most of these are older children. Babies would find homes very quickly.

You talk about clearing up ills then you talk about legalized murder. If we taught people to respect life more then less unwanted kids would end up in care.

By allowing a mother to kill their baby if it's not quite what they wanted you are telling them that life is not sacred. That they can do what they want with babies.

I AM making effort to correct the ills of the world by being pro life and not considering babies as disposable. Because once a mum thinks it's all right to kill a baby before birth, she is just as likely to want to get rid of it after if it's too much trouble. Which is how many children ends up in care homes in the first place.

Since I'm all for steralisation on demand and the responsible use of birth control's I'm hardly for bringing about more babies. I'm just for women being made to take responsibility for their actions. If a woman can't even be bothered to check for split condom's then nip off to the chemist to get a morning after pill if neccessary why should we let her kill a preborn baby which could be as old as 24 weeks.

And they are still living breathing children in need of homes. Are you suggesting that an influx of newborns would not subatantially increase the risk of these older kids never finding homes? If you want to take care of children, and protect their rights, take care of the ones that are already here. To ignore them, and place all of your focus on an embryo that has not even reached the point of viability takes all of the credibility out of your argument of humane and pro-life values.

If you take away the choice for those women whose birth control has failed, then you are about bringing more babies onto this earth. If you are about taking away the choice for a woman who has been raped or the victim of incest, then you are about bringing more chidlren onto this earth. We are not adequately taking care of the ones that are here and need help, not to mention loving, stable homes. Hell, we as a nation, are not even providing adequate health care and nutrition for poor children. So don't throw a bunch of pro-life rhetoric around until you are willing to acutally put your words into action and take care of the life that exists.

And, I am using you in the collective sense, not the individual sense. I apply the same to anyone who is anti-choice.

 

[dreama]

Quite obviously, you know nothing of the psychodynamics of rape victims. I work with them on a daily basis, and can tell you that you are making assumptions that are decidedly in error.

But have you been raped yourself? Because I have. So you can't say I know nothing about it because I've experienced it first hand and can tell you that guilt is often felt by the victims of rape.

So exactly how would committing murder on top of being raped sort that out?

 

[jillio]

But have you been raped yourself? Because I have. So you can't say I know nothing about it because I've experienced it first hand and can tell you that guilt is often felt by the victims of rape.

So exactly how would committing murder on top of being raped sort that out?

Quite frankly, that is personal information, and not something I am comfortable revealing in such a judgemental atmposphere.

And yes, rape surviors ( I prefer survivor to victim) do often experience guilt. And to force her to carry a pregnancy to term and then surrender a child for adoption does absolutely nothing to relieve that guilt. It compounds it. We, as part of crisis intervention, offer the "morning after" pill to these women. They don't even know if conception has occurred at this point. It is more likely that it hasn't. But if it has, it is dealt with right then. They don't feel guilt over taking a morning after pill. They are in a state of psychological trauma, and the last thing they want is to have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy on top of dealing with the issues of rape. You would deny these women that as well.

 

[dreama]

It can survive. How much damage is done in the process? Survival is not always the preference. And we are discussing elective abortion, which only extends to 12 weeks in gestation. Keeping a prematurely born fetus alive using heroic measures is not the same as a full gestational age baby being given birth to.

Don't know if it's differant in america but here in britain you can abort a baby for any reason whatsoever up until 24 weeks.

I'll also disagree with you regarding survival. I was a premie myself so I would certainly not have wanted to be killed just because I came out a little early and was very ill. Yes I did servive as a pemature and very sick baby. I'm ever so glad I did as I would not have been born otherwise.

 

[Maria]

You are wrong there.

Zyote: A colection of cells that have just been formed. Maybe what you pro abortion people call "a gooey little splot". You don't usually abort at this stage because most mothers don't even know that they are pregnant at that stage. Most Zyote's are killed by certain types of contracptions.

That's what I called it " a living cell " but, I didn't know that it is called " Zyote ". Lol! Thanks for sayin' what it's called. Now, I know it is called " Zyote ".

Embroyo: The baby just about starts taking a form. Although not quite developed into a human form yet. I won't pretend to know how much a baby feels at this stage of development and I don't think anyone else does either.

Fetus: A fully formed human being. Some premature babies are born from the age of 22 weeks. They just have to spend the first few months of their life in an incubator. But they have the pertential to survive. So therefore killing them at that age is much like killing a new born.

In britain you can murder your baby up until the age of 24 weeks. About 30 weeks if the baby is born is disabled. Do you think that's right, because I certainly don't!

Everything you said are very true! Once it forms by a living cell, it gives a breathin' of life. Without oxygen, it can not be formed. It requires to have an oxygen to give its life to form a fetus. Thanks so much for sayin' your pieces!

 

[dreama]

Preganacy can be detected at the zygote stage. Contraception does not "kill" a zygote.

Again, you are using a legal term "murder" that does not apply legally to the concept of abortion. And there are restrictions, even in Great Britain, on the criteria that must be met for an abortion to be performed outside of the first trimester.

And the key word you have used is "potential". Potential to survive in no way equates to survival.

You don't live in Britain. At least it seems in USA the laws on abortion seem a little tighter. In Britain a woman is legally permitted to kill up to 30 weeks or more for a disabled baby. So I could have been killed and I find it very upsetting that people don't even bother to pass comment and keep making comments such as 'potential life' when it's perfectly obvious that a preborn baby IS alive already.

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's right. Legalized murder is still murder as far as I am concerned.

 

[jillio]

Everything you said are very true! Once it forms by a living cell, it gives a breathin' of life. Without oxygen, it can not be formed. It requires to have an oxygen to give its life to form a fetus. Thanks so much for sayin' your pieces!

If it has to have oxygen to give life to a fetus, then it cannot be called life until it is born and breathes its first breath.

 

[Maria]

Since you say it's in my opinion ? I didn't say it is in my opinion, it's the way I SEE it and think it is morally wrong. The word " killing " is wrong by taking a fetus' tiny life away. I am NOT trying to tell a woman or mother NOT to abort her unborn child/fetus, but I DO have the right to say that it's wrong to KILL. It's a " murder " to me by the hands of a woman/mother, not doctor's, because of its decision is made by a woman/mother who don't want to KEEP the child's life AND, if she don't want to keep this child, then she CAN give this child up for an adoption.
IF, it is about life threatening - she can give up herself and save this child's life instead. That will show love by giving this child a chance to have life. Let's not be soo selfish for one self. That word " selfish " shows not caring for fetus. The woman/mother will show " no feelings " if, not at all. If, she happens sees a child die on the street by war or murderer by shot - will she protest about this ?

Supposely, if a girl happens gives birth in the bathroom or some where and she decides not wanting to keep her child and, then DUMP this child in the trash bin... WHAT would your response be ? Are you going to disagree with that by disposing the baby in the trash bin ?

Well ? What are you gonna say about this, Jillio ?

 

[Maria]

If it has to have oxygen to give life to a fetus, then it cannot be called life until it is born and breathes its first breath.

I disagree!

 

[jillio]

Don't know if it's differant in america but here in britain you can abort a baby for any reason whatsoever up until 24 weeks.

I'll also disagree with you regarding survival. I was a premie myself so I would certainly not have wanted to be killed just because I came out a little early and was very ill. Yes I did servive as a pemature and very sick baby. I'm ever so glad I did as I would not have been born otherwise.

Well, providing that is so, then the laws are different. Roe V Wade grants elective abortion decision rights only to the end of the first trimester. An abortion can be performed into the 2nd trimester only with documented medical reasons.

I would suggest that you visit the following website. It outlines preganancy termination laws for all of Europe, including Great Britian. It also shows that your statement regarding the law is completely false.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

 

[jillio]

I disagree!

Then you are disagreeing with your own statement, because that is what you said. It must have oxygen to have life.

 

[dreama]

If you take away the choice for those women whose birth control has failed, then you are about bringing more babies onto this earth. If you are about taking away the choice for a woman who has been raped or the victim of incest, then you are about bringing more chidlren onto this earth. We are not adequately taking care of the ones that are here and need help, not to mention loving, stable homes. Hell, we as a nation, are not even providing adequate health care and nutrition for poor children. So don't throw a bunch of pro-life rhetoric around until you are willing to acutally put your words into action and take care of the life that exists.

And, I am using you in the collective sense, not the individual sense. I apply the same to anyone who is anti-choice.

I am NOT Anti choice. In fact I feel I am more Pro choice then you are because I believe in extending choice to the unborn child too. The choice of life over death. That is ALWAYS preferable regardless of the certcumstances.

So all this talk of Pro choice is just loaded pro abortion jargen. We've already established that in previous threads.

As for the woman's right to kill her baby. What about men's rights to not have their baby murdered when they would be quite happy to act as care giver. What about the babies rights to be born. What about the rights of the woman who is being presurized by family or irresponsible boyfriend into aborting in the first place. Besides the fetus is NOT part of the body it's seperate.

Do you really think that I should have been killed of before birth just because I am disabled?

 

[Maria]

Then you are disagreeing with your own statement, because that is what you said. It must have oxygen to have life.

Wrong! I said by living cell once it conceived in mother's womb, it developes a life. Heart beating, blood cells working in its body and all before a fetus born. It's what I was trying to say about " takin' a fetus' life away " is morally wrong when a fetus is in mother/woman's womb.

We don't think the same by how we see it.

 

[dreama]

Would you want someone forcing you to subscribe to their particular religious views and not allow you to decide for yourself what beliefs you choose? It is the same thing.

They already do. Secular beliefs are no differant to religious beliefs. In fact they can be just as restrictive such as many health and safety regulations that I've come across which think it is unsafe for intelligent adults to climb ladders thus all the top shelves at my university were removed which meant I didn't have enough space to put my things.

Plus I am not allowed to donate blood because someone considers that as an epileptic It could endanger my health even after explaining to them that I only suffer petit mal epilepsy so it's no big issue if I had a fit after donating blood.

Believe me there are lots of ways a secular government with a 'nanny state' attitude can govern your life just as much as a religious one would. I can't even get myself steralised.

And on top of that they want to make abortion laws even less strict and you can actually be sent to prison for writting a booklet saying that it's wrong to murder babies. How is that for freedom of speech?

 

[dreama]

What everyone is overlooking here, especially the anti-choice faction, is that the legality of elective abortion is not based on individual moral stance. You have the right to hold onto any belief you want to regarding abortion. That is your freedom, and as a result, you are free to decide for yourself exactly how you will apply that belief to your life. However, you do not have the right to make anyone else believe the same as you, or to make the same decisions as you do regarding their own life.

It isn't about when life begins. It is about forcing your belief system on another and removing freedom of choice based on your personal moral stance.

You are free to choose not to have an abortion if it goes against your value system. However, you have no right to make that choice for anyone else.

I AM NOT ANTI CHOICE! I'm pro life and Pro choice. I believe in life and I believe in rights of the baby to have choices too which will all come to and end if they are murdered.

It is all about when life begins because once a life has begun it is unethnical to kill it.

I'd rather live in a government that forbid all murders from taking place then one that lets women kill many of their babies then if you object to her doing that you are in danger of being sent to prison.

All governments will stop you doing things that harm others. That's the way it should be. I just wish that they would offer the same rights to the preborn then they do to the after born. They are just as diserving of rights you know.

 

[jillio]

I am NOT Anti choice. In fact I feel I am more Pro choice then you are because I believe in extending choice to the unborn child too. The choice of life over death. That is ALWAYS preferable regardless of the certcumstances.

So all this talk of Pro choice is just loaded pro abortion jargen. We've already established that in previous threads.

As for the woman's right to kill her baby. What about men's rights to not have their baby murdered when they would be quite happy to act as care giver. What about the babies rights to be born. What about the rights of the woman who is being presurized by family or irresponsible boyfriend into aborting in the first place. Besides the fetus is NOT part of the body it's seperate.

Do you really think that I should have been killed of before birth just because I am disabled?

A fetus cannot make an independent choice. Please, please show me a case where an embryo has been consulted about anything and been capable of making an independent choice, and then acting on that choice. That is completely absurd.

You are not extending choice, you are limiting choice to only those values with which you agree.