- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,899
- Reaction score
- 1,518
Good news? (Abortions)
- Thread starter lumbingmi
- Start date
How can I not like children when I had a child myself?
Banjo:
I'm a little late to the game with my replies, but I will try and get them in.
You say that women need to take responsibility for their actions: isn't abortion making an active choice? I will begin by saying that I do not support abortion as a means of contraception- women should know better. That said, life happens. Even without rape, there's a million reasons why a woman wouldn't want to or be able to have a child. What about poor women on welfare who hardly get enough additional money while pregnant to -eat-, much less participate in regular obg visits? What about teenage mothers who would not be able to complete their education, thus never becoming functioning members in society? What about people from ultra-conservative backgrounds who would face shunning, or even abuse, by their own family if found to be pregnant? There are a million situations, that as a man, you cannot possibly consider. It is not your body, it is not within your realm of understanding.
I strongly disagree with restricting abortions to life threatening conditions or rape. This would prevent countless raped women from accessing abortions because they are too afraid to admit what happened to them.
I even more strongly disagree with saying that rape victims shouldn't get abortions. Rape is, even compared to death, the greatest way to violate a person and collapse their world. Rape is hugely painful to get over. You say she would be making the baby her victim by choosing abortion- yet you never consider the fact that by not allowing her the choice of abortion, you are making her your victim. You are essentially saying she must be forced to relive the horrors of her rape over and over every hour of every day for months. You are saying she must bring something good out of an act that can never be good, must bear the pain for a child she can never love.
Regardless of what your views on "life" may be, please don't dare to say that the scientific community backs you up. Science backs up the fact that almost all abortions are preformed while the fetus has no chance of becoming viable life- it cannot survive without the mother, thus it is still a mere parasite. I don't support abortion past the point where the fetus is considered "viable" but I largely disagree with drawing that statement all the way back to when it's a clump of cells.
I'm a little late to the game with my replies, but I will try and get them in.
You say that women need to take responsibility for their actions: isn't abortion making an active choice? I will begin by saying that I do not support abortion as a means of contraception- women should know better. That said, life happens. Even without rape, there's a million reasons why a woman wouldn't want to or be able to have a child. What about poor women on welfare who hardly get enough additional money while pregnant to -eat-, much less participate in regular obg visits? What about teenage mothers who would not be able to complete their education, thus never becoming functioning members in society? What about people from ultra-conservative backgrounds who would face shunning, or even abuse, by their own family if found to be pregnant? There are a million situations, that as a man, you cannot possibly consider. It is not your body, it is not within your realm of understanding.
I strongly disagree with restricting abortions to life threatening conditions or rape. This would prevent countless raped women from accessing abortions because they are too afraid to admit what happened to them.
I even more strongly disagree with saying that rape victims shouldn't get abortions. Rape is, even compared to death, the greatest way to violate a person and collapse their world. Rape is hugely painful to get over. You say she would be making the baby her victim by choosing abortion- yet you never consider the fact that by not allowing her the choice of abortion, you are making her your victim. You are essentially saying she must be forced to relive the horrors of her rape over and over every hour of every day for months. You are saying she must bring something good out of an act that can never be good, must bear the pain for a child she can never love.
Regardless of what your views on "life" may be, please don't dare to say that the scientific community backs you up. Science backs up the fact that almost all abortions are preformed while the fetus has no chance of becoming viable life- it cannot survive without the mother, thus it is still a mere parasite. I don't support abortion past the point where the fetus is considered "viable" but I largely disagree with drawing that statement all the way back to when it's a clump of cells.
[thus it is still a mere parasite.]
The above statement would be true IF there were no God.
If one does not believe in God then this can be a legitimate stance.
If one does not believe in God then people are free to kill whomever
they want anytime they want, because it means we are just animals.
Abortions performed at or slightly befor the 12th week of pregnancy
are destroying more than just a "clump of cells"
at week 5 the heart begins to beat
at week 7 the umbilical chord has formed
at week 8 the fingers and toes are formed
fingers and toes are not clumps of cells and
they are there before week 12,11,10,9, when
most abortions are done.
[, though, R. Engel (1964, 1975) is said in Electroencephalography to have obtained high-voltage medium (neither fast nor slow) waves from a 19-week (133 day) premature newborn as it died from lack of oxygen.]
Most scientists think that brain wave patterns that are produced by certain
structures in the brain (and therefore determine life or not), can not be present in a baby less than 20 weeks old due to the fact that these brain structures have not formed yet. But the baby moves around at 16 weeks. The mothers body "knows" it is pregnant at implantation. And viability keeps getting pushed back further and further. And DNA joined from two people contains all the information needed to make another human. Is it so hard to think that this tiny package also contains the soul? Only if you believe there
is no God.
"A persons a person no matter how small" Horton Hears A Who
The above statement would be true IF there were no God.
If one does not believe in God then this can be a legitimate stance.
If one does not believe in God then people are free to kill whomever
they want anytime they want, because it means we are just animals.
Abortions performed at or slightly befor the 12th week of pregnancy
are destroying more than just a "clump of cells"
at week 5 the heart begins to beat
at week 7 the umbilical chord has formed
at week 8 the fingers and toes are formed
fingers and toes are not clumps of cells and
they are there before week 12,11,10,9, when
most abortions are done.
[, though, R. Engel (1964, 1975) is said in Electroencephalography to have obtained high-voltage medium (neither fast nor slow) waves from a 19-week (133 day) premature newborn as it died from lack of oxygen.]
Most scientists think that brain wave patterns that are produced by certain
structures in the brain (and therefore determine life or not), can not be present in a baby less than 20 weeks old due to the fact that these brain structures have not formed yet. But the baby moves around at 16 weeks. The mothers body "knows" it is pregnant at implantation. And viability keeps getting pushed back further and further. And DNA joined from two people contains all the information needed to make another human. Is it so hard to think that this tiny package also contains the soul? Only if you believe there
is no God.
"A persons a person no matter how small" Horton Hears A Who
Many men claim to "love" their woman to go to bed with them.
The woman comes to them and tells them that they are pregnant. The man bolts for the nearest door. Never heard from again...
Why should the woman be punished for the next 9 months and 18 years for this one man's "love"?
It's cheaper to have the abortion than to raise the kid.
Let the woman decide for herself what is best for her.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2006
- Messages
- 13,367
- Reaction score
- 3
But you have to think of the alternative to banning abortion - it will go underground into clandestine 'abortion clinics' where it will be done as cheaply as possible meaning the tools and facilities used would be questionable.
The woman not only aborted her baby but also puts her health at risk - which is not the intention. I dont think we should be going back to the days of emergency abortions in basements and alleyways.
But at the same time it should not be used as a form of birth control because yes I believe life begins at conception.
I dont think two college students who fooled around and the girl gets pregnant is a candidate to have an abortion, she is however a candidate for a life changing experience, meaning she will have to put her life on pause to raise the child before she can resume her own life again (or she can give up the child for adoption with the chance it ends up in the foster system which we can all agree is hell on earth.)
There is no easy solution. No matter which option you turn to, there is going to be a consequence due to the fact that the couple made a choice to have unprotected sex and will have to live with the consequences of that choice for the rest of their lives.
The woman not only aborted her baby but also puts her health at risk - which is not the intention. I dont think we should be going back to the days of emergency abortions in basements and alleyways.
But at the same time it should not be used as a form of birth control because yes I believe life begins at conception.
I dont think two college students who fooled around and the girl gets pregnant is a candidate to have an abortion, she is however a candidate for a life changing experience, meaning she will have to put her life on pause to raise the child before she can resume her own life again (or she can give up the child for adoption with the chance it ends up in the foster system which we can all agree is hell on earth.)
There is no easy solution. No matter which option you turn to, there is going to be a consequence due to the fact that the couple made a choice to have unprotected sex and will have to live with the consequences of that choice for the rest of their lives.
Silentwolfdog
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Messages
- 930
- Reaction score
- 1
Those who are against abortion, have you ever thought about consequences of being against it?
Women will have to find another way to get rid of the baby, through very risky production. I knew one high school girl that told me she beat up her stomach to get rid of the baby. A lot of women will undergoes very dangerous process just to get rid of the baby. I would rather have one life being lost than two.
About adoption, we will ended up with even more UNWANTED children. There are far more unwanted children than there are parents who want children.
Who will pay for raped women's medical bills? This coming from Americans who hated to see our tax being raised. And oh yeah don't bother to ask rapist to take care of the bills if he ended up in the jail. There are fathers that don't want to take responsibility or pay for child support. What are you going to do with those events? Sometimes police can't even help with that situations.
Don't bother to sue those father for child support, most of them will find a way to get around that.
Are you willing to pay for raped victim's lifetime of therapist if you forced them to go through agony 9 months of carrying baby that remind them nothing but painful experience.
I doubt most of them (Americans) will be very willing to take responsibility for the consequences. Heck they still haven't treat people who are different, properly.
Who will take a responsibility to care for those children or situations that occured? Are you even willing to pay high tax so that they can set up agencies to take care of those situations?
It's very different between saying just give up the baby for adoption rather than actually take responsibility to do something to help improve the quality life of those victims.
Do you really see the long term consequences to those children and victims? Or do you just see adoption as an excuse to spare the "possible life" from being aborted?
From what I am seeing Americans aren't even ready.
What I really want is a proper planning for those women who lost their freedom to decide what to do with their body for life of those children. So in the end both of them will be take cared for PROPERLY.
Women will have to find another way to get rid of the baby, through very risky production. I knew one high school girl that told me she beat up her stomach to get rid of the baby. A lot of women will undergoes very dangerous process just to get rid of the baby. I would rather have one life being lost than two.
About adoption, we will ended up with even more UNWANTED children. There are far more unwanted children than there are parents who want children.
Who will pay for raped women's medical bills? This coming from Americans who hated to see our tax being raised. And oh yeah don't bother to ask rapist to take care of the bills if he ended up in the jail. There are fathers that don't want to take responsibility or pay for child support. What are you going to do with those events? Sometimes police can't even help with that situations.
Don't bother to sue those father for child support, most of them will find a way to get around that.
Are you willing to pay for raped victim's lifetime of therapist if you forced them to go through agony 9 months of carrying baby that remind them nothing but painful experience.
I doubt most of them (Americans) will be very willing to take responsibility for the consequences. Heck they still haven't treat people who are different, properly.
Who will take a responsibility to care for those children or situations that occured? Are you even willing to pay high tax so that they can set up agencies to take care of those situations?
It's very different between saying just give up the baby for adoption rather than actually take responsibility to do something to help improve the quality life of those victims.
Do you really see the long term consequences to those children and victims? Or do you just see adoption as an excuse to spare the "possible life" from being aborted?
From what I am seeing Americans aren't even ready.
What I really want is a proper planning for those women who lost their freedom to decide what to do with their body for life of those children. So in the end both of them will be take cared for PROPERLY.
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 22
But those dividing cells do not even have the potential for life if the blastocyst does not implant. Implantation is required for the cells to develop. Yes, implantation occurs after fertilization, but without implantation, fertilization results in nothing. If you are going to take it back to that degree, then you might as well say that mastubation must be made illegal, because each and every sperm that is lost is life waiting to happen. Or lets outlaw birth control that prevents ovulation. Ovulation is life waiting to happen. Heck, lets just make it illegal to have sex at all excpet for the purposes of procreation. Think how many potential lives are thrown away in used condoms after recreational sex.
So the determination for weather or not another person should be
allowed to live or not, should be made on how costly it is to raise
that person? Again this is only a legitimate stance if there is no God.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2006
- Messages
- 13,367
- Reaction score
- 3
You'd think there would be a balance of unwanted children and couples wanting children but are unable to bear children of their own due to medical reasons. But sadly there's not. (either that or most of those wealthy couples are adopting from other countries rather than our own.)
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 22
Exactly. Women had abortions before Roe v Wade made it legal. They went into back alleys and got them in unsterile conditions, Many women died from the procedure. Others were left permanently scarred so that they were never able to conceive again. Making it illegal is only going to force abortion back into those conditions. Is it okay to sacrifice the mother's life?
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 45,078
- Reaction score
- 335
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 22
Well, if we are going to call the product of conception at the stage that is no more than two cells life, and confer on it all the rights that a child who has been carried to term and birthed, then where do we stop? If it is life when it is two cells, why isn't it life when it is sperm or egg?
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 45,078
- Reaction score
- 335
I know..I got your points before but just never thought of the semen in the condom that way so that is kinda freaky. LOL!
I dont think that way...if making abortions illegal means reverting to the back alley abortions, I would prefer to keep it legal even though I am not crazy about the idea of it but it is just one of those things that should be a personal decision for every person. .
Implantation is not required for the cells to develop. They have already developed considerably befor they ever implant. If that were not so they
couldn't grow them in a petri dish for later implantation. Implantation is only
required for continued development. My children are still developing.
Read the following invitro description. Clearly waiting till a certain stage of development is critical for success. But they are still growing and developing outside the womb nonetheless.
The ultimate goal of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryo culture is to provide high quality embryos which are capable of continued normal development and result in live births. However, under standard IVF culture conditions, only about 20-40% of human embryos will progress to the blastocyst stage after 5 days of culture. This low rate of embryo development is the result of a less than optimal culture environment for the embryos. For this reason, embryos are usually transferred into the uterus after only 2-3 days of culture.
One problem with this is that 2 to 3-day-old embryos are normally found in the fallopian tubes, not in the uterus. The embryo first moves into the uterus at about 80 hours after ovulation. The implantation process begins about 3 days later - after blastocyst formation and hatching have occurred. Therefore, if in vitro culture conditions could be improved so that blastocysts formed at a higher rate, then embryos could be placed into the uterus at the blastocyst stage - at a more "natural" time, and shortly before implantation should occur.