Law Requires Ultrasound Before Abortion

rockin'robin said:
Being "horny"?...We all know the consequences of unprotected sex. What's happened to "OUR responsibility to OUR SELF"? Are we not "responsible" for our bodies, (we women)....Or not taking responsibility for our actions, and having abortion after abortion after abortion....before we somehow "wake up" and use birth control?

Sex is a beautiful thing between 2 responsible people. Sadly, at times, it's being "used" just because of being "horny".....
Click to expand...

RIght what if they do use some form of protection and still get pregnant anyway, again and again. Or if they don't use protection and still get pregnant. Its their body, not mine. Its their consequence of ruining their body, not mine. why worry about them. Its very natural for anyone to get horny. That's what we are here on earth in the first place.

look at too many neglected kids out there who need good caretakers so bad. I think being neglected kids are more torture than being abortion. Im sorry to say that but really.
 
kokonut said:
Um, having distinctive features like formed separated toes and fingers to go with the feet and hands should be a pretty darned big clue that it's a human being at 9 weeks. I don't think those images of a fetus at 9 weeks would constitute as imaginary like puffy little clouds that look like a bunny rabbit or a cat.
Click to expand...

I don't even understand this. What is the point of saying that it looks human? Are you saying that if it DOESN'T look like a human, you'd be okay with abortion? I am willing to bet you STILL would not be okay with it, so....what does it matter if it does look human or a lump of flesh? The idea behind why abortion is wrong should have NOTHING to do with what it looks like at a certain time during gestation!!!!

Arguing about whether it looks human or not is pointless for BOTH pro-life and pro-choice people, in my opinion.
 
I know many married couples who found out they were pregnant and they had to abort them several times. what do you think of them ?? I thought thats their choices, not mine.
 
Daredevel7 said:
I don't even understand this. What is the point of saying that it looks human? Are you saying that if it DOESN'T look like a human, you'd be okay with abortion? I am willing to bet you STILL would not be okay with it, so....what does it matter if it does look human or a lump of flesh? The idea behind why abortion is wrong should have NOTHING to do with what it looks like at a certain time during gestation!!!!

Arguing about whether it looks human or not is pointless for BOTH pro-life and pro-choice people, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree. The case could be made then that millions of humans die during each sex act. Oh the horror!
 
kokonut said:
The discussion is about human beings.
Click to expand...

No it's not, it's about prenatal development.

Anyhow, you were the one who brought "it looks like a person, therefore it's a person" into it, which is why the discussion leaned towards "do other animals look similar or not to humans during early stages of development" - pointing out that even your extremely silly logic doesn't make sense.

Of course, what Daredevel said is completely right - what something looks like has nothing to do with what it is or the validity of either pro-choice or pro-life arguments.
 
Frisky Feline said:
I know many married couples who found out they were pregnant and they had to abort them several times. what do you think of them ?? I thought thats their choices, not mine.
Click to expand...

Well, of course, that's their choice, Frisky. But it's factual, which costs more, an abortion or a good birth control solution? I do know of one woman who has had about 6 abortions (maybe more), has 4 kids and is pregnant again. She's not using any birth control. That, to me...is ridiculous! She don't want this baby, but did not opt for an abortion this time, (I really dunno why not, as one more abortion would not hurt)...(?).....she opted for adoption.

What I'm really trying to convey here, is that (we women) need to protect ourselves. And be responsible, inasmuch as the men wear condoms also.
 
StSapphire said:
I'm saying that Bethany is a human, which means she has a whole host of very human defects, such as the ability to anthropomorphize damned near anything ever. She mentioned things such as asking why a miscarriage hurt - that's a silly question - it's not because the developing fetus was already a fully human child, any more than a 1 year old baby is a fully pre-grown adult.

Things such as miscarriages hurt because humans form anticipations and plan in advance, just like when you've just given birth, you can imagine your child going to school. I don't understand the distinction currently being made between "embryo" and "fetus", though. Fetus isn't some magical "really a real person" term or anything, so why the focus on that? It's just another stage in prenatal development.
Click to expand...

If that is what you said, then her own photo is a "lie" but, again, I'm not talked about how she feel after her miscarriages. I was pointed out at that actual photo that she had because that is what 6-9 weeks fetuses look like. By the way, I'm NOT asking or telling you to believe in personhood. I said no such thing.
 
Daredevel7 said:
I don't even understand this. What is the point of saying that it looks human? Are you saying that if it DOESN'T look like a human, you'd be okay with abortion? I am willing to bet you STILL would not be okay with it, so....what does it matter if it does look human or a lump of flesh? The idea behind why abortion is wrong should have NOTHING to do with what it looks like at a certain time during gestation!!!!

Arguing about whether it looks human or not is pointless for BOTH pro-life and pro-choice people, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Not saying anything. Just supporting what Netrox said and that a human fetus is recognizable as a human being at that stage of its development. There's a reason why one stage they're called embryo and another stage as a fetus.
 
KarissaMann05 said:
If that is what you said, then her own photo is a "lie" but, again, I'm not talked about how she feel after her miscarriages. I was pointed out at that actual photo that she had because that is what 6-9 weeks fetuses look like. By the way, I'm NOT asking or telling you to believe in personhood. I said no such thing.
Click to expand...

Huh? I'm confused as to what you're asking then. Are you asking me if I think she was lying about how old the fetus in the photo you linked to was? I never said anything like that.

I said that what she was saying in the comment you linked to (about how she "knew" it was a person by looking at it) was fallacious and her other comments about miscarriages in her post were also fallacious.

I'm not really sure what sort of response you're asking for with regards to the photos included. I certainly didn't see anything nearly as convincing that poster seemed to think the image was.
 
DeafCaroline said:
And at what point is an embryo no longer considered an embryo but a human?
Click to expand...

I don't deny that embryos doesn't look like humans at all. Still, that doesn't mean embryos can't be humans just because they don't look like humans enough. That is how human development works. If they're not humans, what are they?

EDIT: By the way, don't worry. I'm not force you to believe in personhood. In a case if you make an another assumption... =/
 
KarissaMann05 said:
I don't deny that embryos doesn't look like humans at all. Still, that doesn't mean embryos can't be humans just because they don't look like humans enough. That is how human development works. If they're not humans, what are they?
Click to expand...

They're embryos. (And then fetuses.)

That's like asking "If a sperm isn't a human, what is it?"
 
kokonut said:
Not saying anything. Just supporting what Netrox said and that a human fetus is recognizable as a human being at that stage of its development. There's a reason why one stage they're called embryo and another stage as a fetus.
Click to expand...

Lots of things are recognizable (or not), that doesn't make that a valid point to support anyone's position either way.

However, the ability for your brain to recognize patterns has nothing to do with the stages of prenatal development. It has to do with, y'know, the development of the embryo/fetus.
 
StSapphire said:
Huh? I'm confused as to what you're asking then. Are you asking me if I think she was lying about how old the fetus in the photo you linked to was? I never said anything like that.

I said that what she was saying in the comment you linked to (about how she "knew" it was a person by looking at it) was fallacious and her other comments about miscarriages in her post were also fallacious.

I'm not really sure what sort of response you're asking for with regards to the photos included. I certainly didn't see anything nearly as convincing that poster seemed to think the image was.
Click to expand...

Oh, ah. Just don't mind her pro-life or personhood belief. I just showed the photo, not her beliefs. Because you claimed that fetuses don't look like a being human when they do have head, limbs, fingers, and toes at 7-9 weeks. Of course, they are still developed until their bodies are fully formed. Still, I don't force you to believe in personhood. I don't expect you to...
 
StSapphire said:
They're embryos. (And then fetuses.)

That's like asking "If a sperm isn't a human, what is it?"
Click to expand...

Does it have head, limbs, fingers, and toes as a human being? Hence 23 chromosomes is not a human being. Of course, you'll say arms are or heart is 46, which is undeniably correct. Again, I discuss about a whole human at any stage of the human development... Which arms or heart don't have head, legs, or arms...
 
Last edited:
KarissaMann05 said:
Oh, ah. Just don't mind her pro-life or personhood belief. I just showed the photo, not her beliefs. Because you claimed that fetuses don't look like a being human when they do have head, limbs, fingers, and toes at 7-9 weeks. Of course, they are still developed until their bodies are fully formed. Still, I don't force you to believe in personhood. I don't expect you to...
Click to expand...

I gotcha. My claim wasn't quite that they don't look like human beings at all. I was saying that I don't think they look distinctly like humans, compared to other animals at similar developmental stages. If you showed me that image, without any context at all, I could easily be convinced that I was actually looking at a prenatal monkey, mouse, etc. (Of course, without context, I could have just as easily be convinced that it was an extremely disgusting chunk of snot that someone thought looked like a person, like those people who see Mary in pieces of toast.)

For clarification, I don't consider a developing fetus to be even worth consideration as an individual, at the specific moment, until nonrandom neural activity can be measured. (And for those playing the "twist my words to mean something other than what I meant" game, this doesn't mean that I think there should be no punishment for, say, harming someone and causing a miscarriage of a wanted pregnancy. I would view that as similar to, say, smashing a support pillar of a building which has laid the foundation and started putting up support pillars - it's not the same as demolishing someone's fully built house, but if they're intentionally building it, then destroying what's already been built while it's done in the middle is still reprehensible.)
 
Back
Top