Selective abortion.

[Babyblue]

A human life. At conception, a new human DNA is created by fertilization. Sperms and eggs serve as "potentials" for life.

So, that SINGLE cell embryo has DNA and that DNA serves as a blueprint for life. There's no "potential" - it's already there.

But do you think we should give that single cell the same rights that we have been granted by our Constitution when we were "born?" I'd say hell no.

I agree. The potential for life is only a potential. Doesn't mean it will take.

Abortion or Miscarriage. Potential is not a promise.

 

[Jolie77]

Thank you for comments and share with us.

On the first post -
Ah, gotcha! I get it what you do mean.

On the second post -
As for bond font, not all strangers are "bad" people. Is it really easier if there are only normal and blissful childhoods, and wonderful lifestyles of humans, correct? If the foster care or adoption system is broken, go and fix it. What kind of logic is it to say that 'foster care (or adoption) is bad, we need more abortions!' ? If foster care is overcrowded and abusive, focus on fixing it for the 'born children.' I hardly hear of pro-choice groups involved is such projects. Unwanted does not mean not valuable, too. Well, when the child is wanted is has value, if no one wants the unborn child, it seems to be worthless. Somehow I find it hard to believe that we can asses value so arbitrarily to a human being like that. That's my POV...

You know, I have to find this interesting coming from your P.O.V.

The reality is, There are no such normal and blissful childhoods or otherwise, everyone on this earth would probably be smiling as huge as Bob on the Viagra commercial does, and we probably would be clueless as well.

The point is - Whether there's an abortion involved or not, It will always remain a dicey issue when it comes to raise a child with a disability. Sure, people would say we are just aborting these disabled/non disabled fetus to make our lives easier but in fact, it is irrelevant because abortion alone is already a hard decision that a woman can ever make. It does not make things easier as well.

 

[Babyblue]

But life is a first breath.

To live or die it is all potential we can not choose when we die unless we choose suicide.

That is why I choose pro choice if a mother's life is at risk. It gives her the choice to live.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

You know, I have to find this interesting coming from your P.O.V.

The reality is, There are no such normal and blissful childhoods or otherwise, everyone on this earth would probably be smiling as huge as Bob on the Viagra commercial does, and we probably would be clueless as well.

The point is - Whether there's an abortion involved or not, It will always remain a dicey issue when it comes to raise a child with a disability. Sure, people would say we are just aborting these disabled/non disabled fetus to make our lives easier but in fact, it is irrelevant because abortion alone is already a hard decision that a woman can ever make. It does not make things easier as well.

I am not so unfeeling as to think this decision would be an easy one to make. It most certainly isn't. My position is this... Just because we can do it, should we? In other words, just because medical science is to the point where they can do extraordinary things to save a life, should they?

I pose this question in the event of extremely young premature infants. Just because you can keep that infant alive in a NICU, should you? In most cases, if they succeed in saving that little one's life, it is almost always severely disabled. Alot of preemies are deaf/blind. Some have severe cerebral palsy and so on. At what point is it pertinent to simply not intervene?

 

[Babyblue]

I know I seem off topic in the past post. But if a mother chooses to abort a child with a severe disability it is her choice.

They give all pregnant mothers a alpha fetal protein test. If it is abnormal. They do further testing. This is one of the tests they do to check for S.B. and other abnormalities. It is up to the mother to make her choice.

She is the one that has to deal with it. Not you, not I, so why should people shove the anti abortion B.S. down to an already broken hearted mother's throat?

 

[jillio]

A human life. At conception, a new human DNA is created by fertilization. Sperms and eggs serve as "potentials" for life.

So, that SINGLE cell embryo has DNA and that DNA serves as a blueprint for life. There's no "potential" - it's already there.

But do you think we should give that single cell the same rights that we have been granted by our Constitution when we were "born?" I'd say hell no.

Excellent answer.

 

[jillio]

I agree. The potential for life is only a potential. Doesn't mean it will take.

Abortion or Miscarriage. Potential is not a promise.

Well said!

 

[jillio]

You know, I have to find this interesting coming from your P.O.V.

The reality is, There are no such normal and blissful childhoods or otherwise, everyone on this earth would probably be smiling as huge as Bob on the Viagra commercial does, and we probably would be clueless as well.

The point is - Whether there's an abortion involved or not, It will always remain a dicey issue when it comes to raise a child with a disability. Sure, people would say we are just aborting these disabled/non disabled fetus to make our lives easier but in fact, it is irrelevant because abortion alone is already a hard decision that a woman can ever make. It does not make things easier as well.

 

[jillio]

I am not so unfeeling as to think this decision would be an easy one to make. It most certainly isn't. My position is this... Just because we can do it, should we? In other words, just because medical science is to the point where they can do extraordinary things to save a life, should they?

I pose this question in the event of extremely young premature infants. Just because you can keep that infant alive in a NICU, should you? In most cases, if they succeed in saving that little one's life, it is almost always severely disabled. Alot of preemies are deaf/blind. Some have severe cerebral palsy and so on. At what point is it pertinent to simply not intervene?

That is a medical decision, and it is based on probability, not a promise. Quality of life is something that should be considered.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Since I enjoyed debate with ADers, some posts I learned and thank you for debate with me. Okay... I really think it is not right to call mothers a murder. It is totally uncalled for. Why I did say that? Cos I see some pro-lifers call women & girls like that since I personally never call a such name before... I do understand why some women choose an abortion, even it is not my choice yet I still hold my "speak up" comments for unborn children. Sure, I have my own pro-life POV, it is a different than theirs... Honestly I admit that I don't understand pro-choicers sometimes. But you have to understand why women/girls really do need a legal abortion. I don't think it is fair to call women/girls a such word as murder, slut, monster, whore, or whatever it is. Because if you do, you harshly nail them down which will cause to damage their self-estreem & spiritful moods. Remember, GalaxyAngel's (or ThaokeLake I think? I don't remember) post? She explained why she wanted an abortion. So is it okay to call her a murder? Sorry, I strongly disagreed... I highly recommand you to not call them a murder. Otherwise, you will make women/girls to feel so gulity, ashamed, and upset. So... Please be consider, take some respect for women and girls who have an abortion. Do not call them a such name nor word.

Just sayin'... Peace.

 

[jillio]

Since I enjoyed debate with ADers, some posts I learned and thank you for debate with me. Okay... I really think it is not right to call mothers a murder. It is totally uncalled for. Why I did say that? Cos I see some pro-lifers call women & girls like that since I personally never call a such name before... I do understand why some women choose an abortion, even it is not my choice yet I still hold my "speak up" comments for unborn children. Sure, I have my own pro-life POV, it is a different than theirs... Honestly I admit that I don't understand pro-choicers sometimes. But you have to understand why women/girls really do need a legal abortion. I don't think it is a fair to call women/girls a such word as murder, slut, monster, whore, or whatever it is. Because if you do, you harshly nail them down which will cause to damage their self-estreem & spiritful moods. Remember, GalaxyAngel's (or ThaokeLake I think? I don't remember) post? She explained why she wanted an abortion. So is it okay to call her a murder? Sorry, I strongly disagreed... I highly recommand you to not call them a murder. Otherwise, you will make women/girls to feel so gulity, ashamed, and upset. So... Please be consider, take some respect for women and girls who have an abortion. Do not call them a such name nor word. Just sayin'... Peace.

Your post shows a lot of maturity and thought.

 

[KarissaMann05]

You know, I have to find this interesting coming from your P.O.V.

The reality is, There are no such normal and blissful childhoods or otherwise, everyone on this earth would probably be smiling as huge as Bob on the Viagra commercial does, and we probably would be clueless as well.

Correct.
The point is - Whether there's an abortion involved or not, It will always remain a dicey issue when it comes to raise a child with a disability. Sure, people would say we are just aborting these disabled/non disabled fetus to make our lives easier but in fact, it is irrelevant because abortion alone is already a hard decision that a woman can ever make. It does not make things easier as well.

I still disagreed some of that. But you are correct. It's not easy to make a such decision, I definitely agreed... I'd read some pregnancy communities on internets sometimes.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Your post shows a lot of maturity and thought.

Thanks!

 

[Oceanbreeze]

That is a medical decision, and it is based on probability, not a promise. Quality of life is something that should be considered.

Exactly. Unfortunately, quality of life is rarely an easy thing to answer. Alot of times, the doctors can't say what the outcome will be. We end up saving lives, but at the cost of quality of life.

 

[Jolie77]

I am not so unfeeling as to think this decision would be an easy one to make. It most certainly isn't. My position is this... Just because we can do it, should we? In other words, just because medical science is to the point where they can do extraordinary things to save a life, should they?

I pose this question in the event of extremely young premature infants. Just because you can keep that infant alive in a NICU, should you? In most cases, if they succeed in saving that little one's life, it is almost always severely disabled. Alot of preemies are deaf/blind. Some have severe cerebral palsy and so on. At what point is it pertinent to simply not intervene?

Jillio and OceanBreeze

These questions are to be taken in consideration because not only that, it poses a lot of struggle (mentally and emotionally wise) coming to make a decision to or not to abort.

As advanced as the technology are in the medical community - It may make help the child if it was severely compromised healthwise, so to speak but even though, the technology and the expertise of doctors and the rest of the medical community still cannot fix everything. They are only there to give you the tools to try to comfort things that are to be taken in light but when it comes to know how a difference will be made, that is when the decision comes to either save the mother's life or the fetus.

I still disagreed some of that. But you are correct. It's not easy to make a such decision, I definitely agreed... I'd read some pregnancy communities on internets sometimes.

Can you explain why you still disagree on some of the issues?

I understand what you are trying to say from being a pro-life but at the same time, Let's put yourself in a position for a minute - If you were to be pregnant with a fetus which you know has a severe disability that contains a short life span (for instance, the child only will survive for 2-5 years), would you still go with the abortion or not? Would you rather proceed with the abortion and to save yourself from a heartbreak knowing that your child will die, regardless?

 

[Jolie77]

Since I enjoyed debate with ADers, some posts I learned and thank you for debate with me. Okay... I really think it is not right to call mothers a murder. It is totally uncalled for. Why I did say that? Cos I see some pro-lifers call women & girls like that since I personally never call a such name before... I do understand why some women choose an abortion, even it is not my choice yet I still hold my "speak up" comments for unborn children. Sure, I have my own pro-life POV, it is a different than theirs... Honestly I admit that I don't understand pro-choicers sometimes. But you have to understand why women/girls really do need a legal abortion. I don't think it is a fair to call women/girls a such word as murder, slut, monster, whore, or whatever it is. Because if you do, you harshly nail them down which will cause to damage their self-estreem & spiritful moods. Remember, GalaxyAngel's (or ThaokeLake I think? I don't remember) post? She explained why she wanted an abortion. So is it okay to call her a murder? Sorry, I strongly disagreed... I highly recommand you to not call them a murder. Otherwise, you will make women/girls to feel so gulity, ashamed, and upset. So... Please be consider, take some respect for women and girls who have an abortion. Do not call them a such name nor word. Just sayin'... Peace.

Well said, Karissa.

Everyone are entitled to their opinions whether we all have different perspectives to a heated debate. All we can do is disagree to agree.

That was a mature but yet, a thoughtful post.

 

[jillio]

Jillio and OceanBreeze

These questions are to be taken in consideration because not only that, it poses a lot of struggle (mentally and emotionally wise) coming to make a decision to or not to abort.

As advanced as the technology are in the medical community - It may make help the child if it was severely compromised healthwise, so to speak but even though, the technology and the expertise of doctors and the rest of the medical community still cannot fix everything. They are only there to give you the tools to try to comfort things that are to be taken in light but when it comes to know how a difference will be made, that is when the decision comes to either save the mother's life or the fetus.



Can you explain why you still disagree on some of the issues?

I understand what you are trying to say from being a pro-life but at the same time, Let's put yourself in a position for a minute - If you were to be pregnant with a fetus which you know has a severe disability that contains a short life span (for instance, the child only will survive for 2-5 years), would you still go with the abortion or not? Would you rather proceed with the abortion and to save yourself from a heartbreak knowing that your child will die, regardless?

**nodding agreement**

 

[jillio]

thanks!

yw.

 

[netrox]

I pose this question in the event of extremely young premature infants. Just because you can keep that infant alive in a NICU, should you? In most cases, if they succeed in saving that little one's life, it is almost always severely disabled. Alot of preemies are deaf/blind. Some have severe cerebral palsy and so on. At what point is it pertinent to simply not intervene?

We are the ONLY species in the animal kingdom that intervene the process. Animals would just kill or abandon them.

Pragmatically, infanticide makes sense for a disabled newborn that would be unlikely to be adopted. The unfortunate reality is that virtually ALL children waiting to be adopted are disabled. There is absolutely NO healthy baby waiting to be adopted.

"In a public statement [1], The Minnesota Department of Human Services supports these broad claims. "Of the 1,002 children waiting for adoption: All have been traumatized during their critical developmental years. Most, if not all, will need additional educational, medical or psychological help as they grow toward maturity. 70 percent are siblings who need to be adopted together." If we extrapolate these statistics by population [2], there are 57,800 waiting children in the United States, and almost all are disabled, or associated with a disabled sibling."

Adoption - Disabled Children

Interesting to note that the father was advised to adopt a blind kid since he himself is blind but he said he DID NOT WANT a blind child. He explains his reasons. He did not want a deaf child either as he feared he would not be able to communicate.

And it's still a sad state of affairs that conservatives want to keep a ban on gay adoption because a lot of gay couples would be more likely to adopt disabled children and help reduce the long list of children waiting.

 

[Jiro]

excellent case, netrox