Real simple:

Felicity said:

Where the heck are you getting these #s?

Click to expand...

For the abortion, I assume a successful operation with a tiny chance (fairly safe operation, not involving vital organs or anything) of surgical death.
Without the abortion, the scenario was the baby having hydrocephalus, causing death shortly after birth, with unconciousness. There is a rare case of death for the mother, as was said, so I assumed that and ordinary complications from pregnancy. In other words, I pretty much made an educated guess (emphasis on "made up"). Sorry.

If you'd like a real, educated answer/scenario, here goes nothing: In 1973, there were 600,000 legal abortions (as was said earlier) and 45 deaths from them. That is an 0.0075% death rate. Assume that the technology hasn't improved right now, and that the chance of death from childbirth is approximately equal. In both cases, the 'baby', as you think of it, dies a quick death. However, when it is actually born, the mother goes through much more pain than when they are asleep for the abortion (or under anaesthetic). Also, she will have to be aware of her living child dying. Abortion seems like the best scenario here.

Felicity said:

In context--it was when D&X was medically necessary for the mother. It is NEVER medically necessary.

Tell me exactly how a woman's life is MORE at risk inducing labor or doing a c-section of a third trimester baby that is ALIVE, than doing the same for one that's DEAD?

Click to expand...

When the 'baby' is already dead, the mother has as much time for the "birth" as she needs. The baby can then be pulled out with surgical tools, with litttle or no pushing on the woman's part. No strain, and the doctors can do whatever they need to to help her without worrying about another tiny, fragile person.

Felicity said:

It wasn't an argument--it was a bitchy comment.

Click to expand...

It wasn't criticism, it was a bitchy response (although I prefer 'witty')

It wasn't criticism, it was a bitchy response (although I prefer 'witty' )

Click to expand...

Lesser mortals often seem blind to the distinction.

Edify_Always_In_All_Ways said:

When the 'baby' is already dead, the mother has as much time for the "birth" as she needs. The baby can then be pulled out with surgical tools, with litttle or no pushing on the woman's part. No strain, and the doctors can do whatever they need to to help her without worrying about another tiny, fragile person.

Click to expand...

First, you just called a fetus a "person"--do you realize that? And second, I don't mean to be rude here (or bitchy), but this denotes a huge lack of medical knowledge concerning the process of birth/abortion. They are the SAME PROCEDURE whether the baby is alive or dead. It is abortion via induction or a c-section. It is live birth via induction or a c-section. The only difference is in one procedure the baby is alive when he is born, and in the other he is killed and then "born."

1069 said:

Lesser mortals often seem blind to the distinction.

Click to expand...

Why thank-you, 1069, that's very big of you.:mrgreen:

1069 said, “Where was your "conscience", when you had your abortion?”

Click to expand...

The same place others conscience is here on this forum who justify the dismemberment of the unborn child.

I had no conscience obviously. And for your information as i have always done, I take complete responsibility for my actions. Something you think woman should not have to do.

I KILLED MY UNBORN CHILD. Does that mean I should hide from the truth? Since I know better today, have educated myself concerning fetal development and the entire subject of abortion……I shouldn’t share what I have learned with others? See I feel different about my abortion than you do about yours. We are polls apart on this issue even though we both have had abortions. I acknowledge that what I did was wrong, morally ethically and by what medical science has to say on this issue. You simply don’t. You are proud of the choice you made, because you don’t think abortion is doing anything wrong. And hey if you can live with yourself fine…….

“Temporarily out of commission? Taking a snooze? Away on a ten-day all expense paid trip to the Bahamas?”

Click to expand...

You are so smug 1069.

I was a sinner who was not walking in the light. I was not walking in truth. You bash me here, you judge me here, you call names…..etc etc…….and what your doing is nothing in comparison to what I did to myself for years. The grief over what I had done was tremendous.

So please continue on, you just make yourself look like the oh so compassionate person that you pretend to be..... your words mean NOTHING to me, because IMO you just don’t get it and you probably never will. Oh I pray that you one day like me, see that what you did was morally wrong, but if you don’t, so be it. Its not like people havent tried to show you.

I have pledged to my Lord that I will speak out about my sin and witness to people about the love and forgiveness that He gave to me. That lives can be turned around. And if He could forgive me for killing an innocent human being in the manner in which I did it……anyone can have forgiveness. IMO abortion is murder, it is killing an innocent life. And I truly believe that most who champion abortion like you do…..know that abortion is just that, taking an innocent life, but you will never admit it, least not to us.

“It seems your "conscience" fled long enough to allow you to have what you wanted- ie, freedom from an unwanted pregnancy- and returned afterward, just in time to allow you to bolster your flaccid little ego by pestering and persecuting others for making the same choice you made. Pretty convenient, this separable "conscience" of yours.”

Click to expand...

I would die to be able to take the abortion I had back. I would give anything to change that one decision I made. That decision has caused me more heartache than you can imagine: severe depression, suicidal thoughts, almost broke my marriage up. For years I suffered over my abortion, until I gave my life to Christ.

So honey bash me all you want…..I truely don’t care. I feel sorry for you. And this will make your skin crawl I’m sure, because of the obvious feelings you have towards me, but You and others like you who champion abortion are always in my prayers. I pray that somehow you will realize like I did just what abortion is and does.

“Perhaps they're squirming with boredom.”

Click to expand...

Boredom…….over an abortion video. Wow. Not gruesome enough for ya eh? A child dismembered alive and you are bored. Boy does that say it all.

As I said you are in my prayers, that much you can’t control.

doughgirl said:

The same place others conscience is here on this forum who justify the dismemberment of the unborn child.

I had no conscience obviously. And for your information as i have always done, I take complete responsibility for my actions. Something you think woman should not have to do.

I KILLED MY UNBORN CHILD. Does that mean I should hide from the truth? Since I know better today, have educated myself concerning fetal development and the entire subject of abortion……I shouldn’t share what I have learned with others? See I feel different about my abortion than you do about yours. We are polls apart on this issue even though we both have had abortions. I acknowledge that what I did was wrong, morally ethically and by what medical science has to say on this issue. You simply don’t. You are proud of the choice you made, because you don’t think abortion is doing anything wrong. And hey if you can live with yourself fine…….



You are so smug 1069.

I was a sinner who was not walking in the light. I was not walking in truth. You bash me here, you judge me here, you call names…..etc etc…….and what your doing is nothing in comparison to what I did to myself for years. The grief over what I had done was tremendous.

So please continue on, you just make yourself look like the oh so compassionate person that you pretend to be..... your words mean NOTHING to me, because IMO you just don’t get it and you probably never will. Oh I pray that you one day like me, see that what you did was morally wrong, but if you don’t, so be it. Its not like people havent tried to show you.

I have pledged to my Lord that I will speak out about my sin and witness to people about the love and forgiveness that He gave to me. That lives can be turned around. And if He could forgive me for killing an innocent human being in the manner in which I did it……anyone can have forgiveness. IMO abortion is murder, it is killing an innocent life. And I truly believe that most who champion abortion like you do…..know that abortion is just that, taking an innocent life, but you will never admit it, least not to us.



I would die to be able to take the abortion I had back. I would give anything to change that one decision I made. That decision has caused me more heartache than you can imagine: severe depression, suicidal thoughts, almost broke my marriage up. For years I suffered over my abortion, until I gave my life to Christ.

So honey bash me all you want…..I truely don’t care. I feel sorry for you. And this will make your skin crawl I’m sure, because of the obvious feelings you have towards me, but You and others like you who champion abortion are always in my prayers. I pray that somehow you will realize like I did just what abortion is and does.





Boredom…….over an abortion video. Wow. Not gruesome enough for ya eh? A child dismembered alive and you are bored. Boy does that say it all.

As I said you are in my prayers, that much you can’t control.

Click to expand...

Well, jeesh... I was just asking. No need to get hysterical.

1069 said:

Well, jeesh... I was just asking. No need to get hysterical.

Click to expand...

I prayed for you last night too as I reflected over the day, because I felt I had been too harsh and unkind in some things I said. I apologize.

Felicity said:

I prayed for you last night too as I reflected over the day, because I felt I had been too harsh and unkind in some things I said. I apologize.

Click to expand...

Awwws. So sweet. Apology accepted. :2grouphug

Felicity said:

First, you just called a fetus a "person"--do you realize that? And second, I don't mean to be rude here (or bitchy), but this denotes a huge lack of medical knowledge concerning the process of birth/abortion. They are the SAME PROCEDURE whether the baby is alive or dead. It is abortion via induction or a c-section. It is live birth via induction or a c-section. The only difference is in one procedure the baby is alive when he is born, and in the other he is killed and then "born."

Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to the fetus- I was saying that there would be NO baby person to worry about. The doctors, regardless of how similar the procedures, can afford to be more careful toward the mother without worrying about the health of the fetus- that will make a difference.
Example: The fetus is smaller than a baby would be, so itis less likely to get stuck in the birth canal, and can be more easily adjusted if that happens without doctors needing to exercise caution about pressing nerves too hard or causing brain damage.

Edify_Always_In_All_Ways said:

I wasn't referring to the fetus- I was saying that there would be NO baby person to worry about. The doctors, regardless of how similar the procedures, can afford to be more careful toward the mother without worrying about the health of the fetus- that will make a difference.
Example: The fetus is smaller than a baby would be, so itis less likely to get stuck in the birth canal, and can be more easily adjusted if that happens without doctors needing to exercise caution about pressing nerves too hard or causing brain damage.

Click to expand...

So, basically what you're saying is, D&X is medically indicated in cases of severe hydrocephalus, right?
That's what I think. In really extreme cases, the fetus's head swells up the size of a watermelon. It would kill a woman to deliver that vaginally, and I don't see any justification for cutting her open from sternum to pubic bone to deliver it by cesarean, either, since it won't live anyway.
D & X is necessary to drain some of the fluid off the head, so the thing can be compressed to a reasonable size and extracted through the vagina.
If that sounds brutal, gruesome, and horrible, sorry. Complain to the manufacturer; I didn't invent this world. There are a lot of brutal and gruesome things in it.

"I prayed for you last night too as I reflected over the day, because I felt I had been too harsh and unkind in some things I said. I apologize."

This issue is not about hatred and I might as well apologize too if I come across as being a hateful person. I am not. I have done terrible things in my life, but this one ranks at the top. This one I can't take back, this one not only affected me but also another life that I did not consider. To have an abortion simply because my wedding dress would not have fit had I kept it and it would have ruined all the big glorious wedding plans. Pathetic isnt it? Didnt cry once during the whole thing, didnt care, didnt even consider really what I was doing. Though I was abortioning a little pollywog, didnt consider anything. Well sometimes we do things that seem right at the time but have a way of coming back to haunt, and abortion did that for me.

No grey areas............no sittin on the fence over this.......Its just simple for me.............its wrong.




I have very strong feelings as you can see over this issue. It is close to my heart because I am so involved with every aspect of it. I have seen a lot of woman who have been absolutely devestated about the abortions they have had. I have seen families torn apart. They know first hand the feelings of sorrow and regret that simply at times is unbearable.

No woman should be mocked that has had an abortion, especially those who regret what they have done. But every woman should be told the truth about what an abortion does and the consequenses it just might have down the road.


Woman not only need to be given contraception and information at abortion clinics they need to be honest about what abortion does. Our public schools should not only teach about sexuality but about consequences of that sexuality especially pregnancy and ESPECIALLY about fetal development. If every woman knew what the child in their wombs was doing at the time they wanted to abort....there would be less abortion. I beleive in all my heart that there are compassionate woman who not not abort if they had ALL THE FACTS.

I don't hate anyone on here, it might seem so but I don't. I have a conscience and heart and they tell me abortion is wrong, immoral and should be illegal except in a life threatening immergency.

I have a hard time with someone who just outright thinks abortion is ok that it should be legal.... but quite honestly I have even a harder time comprehending how someone who claims to be pro-life........still condones anothers right to kill, when they know what it does.

I just don't get it. I've tried..........prayed on the scriptures. I know abortion is wrong, so i choose to stand on what I beleive to be true.

My position will never change, I am pro-life, I believe God gave life and He will take it away. I beleive what medical science says today about the fetus, child in the womb.........that life starts at conception.

FutureIncoming said:

Meanwhile, I find it hypocritical and deporable of pro-lifers to fail to put their money where their mouths are. If they so desperately want all viable unborn humans to be born, then why don't they volunteer to pay all the medical costs, plus all the child-rasing costs that follow? We do live in a "You want it? You pay for it!" culture. Which explains why unwanted unborn human animals get aborted. But it doesn't explain why pro-lifers are such hypocrites. Well?

Click to expand...

Monkey Mind said:

What a lame attempt. Is it also hypocritical and deplorable for one to speak out against child abuse but not volunteer to take in all the abused children and raise them personally? If I tell a mugger to stop robbing people and go work for a living, does that mean I'm obligated to find a job for him?

Click to expand...

You are comparing apples and oranges. Child abuse and muggings involve people harming people, granted significant rights, while abortion involves people harming animals, nonpersons as previously proved despite your invalid-and-therefore-worthless claims -- and animals are granted few rights. Therefore you have not addressed the argument. Try again. If you think an unwanted animal should instead be wanted and paid for, why don't you match your wanting with the paying?

FutureIncoming said:

Because if you think a moment, you would realize that the opposite of a "dead body" is a "live body", and a live body does not have to be human. It might be a plague bacillus, for example. When was the last time you thought a plague bacillus deserved compassion, just because it was alive? I knew what I was talking about when I wrote that "minds deserve compassion". What I didn't know was that when I immediately followed that with "empty bodies don't", you would assume that the "empty" I used meant something other than "mindless". So a plague bacillus is an empty/alive body that doesn't deserve compassion. And a mosquito is another. And a human fetus is another.

Click to expand...

MonkeyMind said:

Luckily for you, your mother and the doctors who provided you both with prenatal care didn't feel that way.

Click to expand...

This is irrelevant. The purely animal drive to reproduce is all that is needed to explain my body's existence. Compassion does not need to be a factor when the wanting-to-have-offspring (healty offspring, of course) is so powerful. See many infertile couples' efforts with in-vitro-fertilization, for plenty of examples of that powerful drive.

Monkey Mind said:

And, if a newborn is a person then by what stretch of the imagination can that same newborn not still be a person 5 minutes before birth?

Click to expand...

FutureIncoming said:

Simple. Before birth the survival mode of a human is parasitic; it takes what it wants from the host, regardless of any inclinations of the host. After birth, a human isn't parasitic. Everything it receives in order to survive can be a voluntary gift. The Law may require such gifts, due to ignoring Scientific Fact and classifying the human as a person worthy of such gifts --but keep in mind that other Law allows the newborn to be put up for adoption, should the parents not want to provide those gifts. There is no equivalent to adoption for an unborn parasitic human, so any Law that prohibits abortion is basically forcing someone to be a host to a parasite. Shall we write a Law to force you to host malaria, should you happen to contract that parasite? What makes one parasite more important than another? Prejudice? We just spent most of the last century fighting prejudice, especially in the Law!

Click to expand...

====================

Monkey Mind said:

It seems to me that the ethical thing to do is to err on the side of protecting innocent life.

Click to expand...

FutureIncoming said:

"Innocent" in what way? We routinely and automatically kill parasites of all sorts, because they are guilty of parasitism. An unborn human is equally guilty of that, not innocent at all. In spite of this, the life of the unborn human is frequently desired to continue, by the host. And in general that's perfectly fine by me. It's when some non-host declares to have some right to claim what decision a host should make, about being a host, that I object! You don't have any such right. Else I should have the right to tell you that if you contract malaria, you should keep it.

Click to expand...

==============================

Noah's Hammer said:

Did you just compare a human child in the womb to a parasite. May God help you.

Click to expand...

No, I compared a parasite to an unborn human animal nonperson, and not to an always-exists-outside-the-womb child/person. I notice that your remark fails to provide any data that might indicate that the comparison is faulty, of unborn human to parasite. Do you have any such data? If not, then why did you worthlessly blather so?

Felicity said:

The viable baby is KILLED because the mother WANTS a DEAD BABY rather than the LIVE one that might have been born.

Click to expand...

But you are again confusing "parasitic unborn human" with baby, in writing that. Therefore a more correct way of stating this is:
"The viable unborn human is killed because the mother wants a dead parasite rather than a live mouth-to-feed."


I have a humorous notion. Since many pro-lifers believe that sex causes pregnancies, suppose God was to inflict that as a fact upon pro-lifers ONLY. That's what they believe, so why not reinforce it? So, every time a prolife woman has sex, she gets pregnant, and no form of birth control works at all. Even hysterectomies are countered by Acts of God (new wombs appear to replace the removed ones). And if she has sex during pregnancy, she finds herself in a multiple-pregnancy situation, every time. Now arrives the dilemma, with voluntary sex causing many many pregnancies, how will pro-lifers respond? Will they start aborting excess fetuses when 5 are in the womb, or when 20 are in the womb? Let's pretend God extends the joke by allowing these women to safely accommodate hundreds of fetuses; eventually they start getting BORN. They need diapers and food and so on. The bills must be paid. Bankruptcy eventually results, even if they were originally multi-billionaires. Then they starve to death. But the joke has another aspect to it. Any pregnant pro-lifer who has an abortion now finds that sex doesn't always cause another pregnancy -- God grants her pro-choice status --until she makes a pro-life statement, that is...

Yes, the preceding is about as likely as God claiming that pro-choice is wrong. My only question is whether or not, if the joke happened, any pro-lifers might get the message that pro-choice is NOT wrong.

OKgrannie said:

Abortion doesn't affect another person, because no other person even needs to know it has occurred.

Click to expand...

Missing in this sentence is any concern at all for the child in the womb. In other words, you can't get to the point of saying "abortion doesn't affect another person" without first showing that the fetus isn't a person.

Sperm and egg cells ARE human, and they ARE alive.

Click to expand...

You didn't ask if they're human or alive. You asked if they're at a stage in human development. I responded with a very simple, biological answer and one that is supported by a very credible source:
YES, a fetus is at an early stage in human development.
NO, sperm cells and egg cells are not at an even earlier stage in human development.

What is so magical about their 'connecting', that suddenly, instantly, they're now "a" human being?

Click to expand...

No genetic information is added after conception occurs. It's a matter of maturation and development after that point.
The scientific community is unanimous in the belief that when the sperm cell and the egg cell unite, a completely distinct and genetically unique individual exists. While this may not be "magical" to you, it's certainly the truth.

Well, if my dentist puts his hand inside my mouth without my PERMISSION, it might be allowable. Keep in mind that a woman is not KILLING a fetus, she is just REMOVING it from her body. You are free to exert every effort to save its life, including gestating it in your own body.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and the fact that said removal results in the fetus' death is... not important.:roll:

I am not frightened about democracy, but I don't think decisions involving the inside of MY body are properly a subject for popular vote.

Click to expand...

Okay, so let me get this straight. The populace does not get to decide whether or not you can have an abortion, but the Supreme Court does? Why?? Are those nine people endowed with some sort of divine wisdom? Or, are you just happy that the decision went your way, democracy and American values be damned?
Smart money's on the latter.

Furthermore, if you read any of my link at all, you would realize that other women have the same opinion, and will continue to have abortions regardless of the law. Illegal abortions are dangerous to women.

Click to expand...

I don't care. We don't legalize crimes to protect the aggressors.

When a law causes more damage than good, it should be abolished. Anti-abortion laws cause women to die unnecessarily, the fetus dies anyway. The evidence is clear that anti-abortion laws do not stop or even slow abortion, so what is their advantage?

Click to expand...

They are advantageous because laws against anti-social behavior are meant to protect the victims of crimes, not the perpetrators. If a woman chooses to have an illegal abortion and dies because of it, that is not the fault of anti-abortion laws. It's not legally justifiable to abolish laws against abortion just because they don't prevent all women from having abortions.

Roberdorus said:

You didn't ask if they're human or alive. You asked if they're at a stage in human development. I responded with a very simple, biological answer and one that is supported by a very credible source:
YES, a fetus is at an early stage in human development.
NO, sperm cells and egg cells are not at an even earlier stage in human development.

Click to expand...

That's utterly false. A sperm and an egg cell are at earlier stages of development.

No genetic information is added after conception occurs. It's a matter of maturation and development after that point.
The scientific community is unanimous in the belief that when the sperm cell and the egg cell unite, a completely distinct and genetically unique individual exists. While this may not be "magical" to you, it's certainly the truth.

Click to expand...

You obfuscate by using the word individual as a noun rather than a descriptor. An individual and unique DNA sequence is created, but that does not an individual make.

Yeah, and the fact that said removal results in the fetus' death is... not important.:roll:

Click to expand...

No more important than the death of my hand severed from my wrist. Actually, the hand is more important because it actually served some value to a person.

Okay, so let me get this straight. The populace does not get to decide whether or not you can have an abortion, but the Supreme Court does? Why?? Are those nine people endowed with some sort of divine wisdom? Or, are you just happy that the decision went your way, democracy and American values be damned?
Smart money's on the latter.

Click to expand...

No, it's because their job is to interpret law and the Constitutionality of a law that is brought before them. A ban on abortion was seen as unconstitutional then as it is today for the very same reasons. A fetus has no claim to personhood and therefore no protection under the 14th Amendment. It's all very simple if you stop to think about it...

I don't care. We don't legalize crimes to protect the aggressors.

Click to expand...

I would agree with you here. But then, we don't make some actions illegal to enable misogynists, woman enslavers, fundamentalists, science haters, and social engineering liars either...:mrgreen:

They are advantageous because laws against anti-social behavior are meant to protect the victims of crimes, not the perpetrators. If a woman chooses to have an illegal abortion and dies because of it, that is not the fault of anti-abortion laws. It's not legally justifiable to abolish laws against abortion just because they don't prevent all women from having abortions.

Click to expand...

And it's not justifiable to ban abortions because some right wing rabid fundies bomb abortion clinics either. It's not the fault of the Constitution, science, and our laws that mobs congregate outside abortion clinics to call patients sluts, whores, and monsters. As you said, we don't change laws to help perpetrators...:doh

Roberdorus said:

Missing in this sentence is any concern at all for the child in the womb. In other words, you can't get to the point of saying "abortion doesn't affect another person" without first showing that the fetus isn't a person.

Click to expand...

First, you have to show that it IS a person.

No genetic information is added after conception occurs. It's a matter of maturation and development after that point.
The scientific community is unanimous in the belief that when the sperm cell and the egg cell unite, a completely distinct and genetically unique individual exists. While this may not be "magical" to you, it's certainly the truth.

Click to expand...

Genetic info alone does not make a person. A completely distinct and unique INDIVIDUAL does not exist until birth, as one cannot be both individual and ATTACHED.

Okay, so let me get this straight. The populace does not get to decide whether or not you can have an abortion, but the Supreme Court does? Why?? Are those nine people endowed with some sort of divine wisdom? Or, are you just happy that the decision went your way, democracy and American values be damned?
Smart money's on the latter.

Click to expand...

Americans highly value the Constitution which guarantees democratic values apply to individuals, but they constantly vote for ideas which violate those principles. BTW, the SC is not deciding whether or not I can have an abortion, they just ruled that the decision is that of the individual, not the populace.

I don't care. We don't legalize crimes to protect the aggressors.

Click to expand...

In the case of abortion, a pregnant woman is not an aggressor, she is defending her own life, or way of life.

They are advantageous because laws against anti-social behavior are meant to protect the victims of crimes, not the perpetrators. If a woman chooses to have an illegal abortion and dies because of it, that is not the fault of anti-abortion laws. It's not legally justifiable to abolish laws against abortion just because they don't prevent all women from having abortions.

Click to expand...

Our society does not believe that abortion IS anti-social behavior. It is legally justifiable to abolish laws against abortion because they don't prevent ANY women from having abortions. It will be much more difficult to prevent women from having abortion now than before RvW, since instructions for performing abortions are printed on the internet, also known herbal abortifacients are listed on the internet.

doughgirl said:

This issue is not about hatred and I might as well apologize too if I come across as being a hateful person. I am not.

Click to expand...

Neither of you come across as "hateful", at least not from my perspective.
Felicity comes across as wry and acerbic, while you come across as ... damaged.
Which I assume you won't take as an insult, because you've gone to great pains to portray yourself that way.
While I'm sorry you're damaged and I wish there was some help for it, that does not mean I will join you- or cease actively opposing you- in your efforts to take away women's reproductive rights.
Many people are damaged by many things.
The things that have hurt me- permanently- might not even seem relevant to you. They might seem laughably trivial. Just as your claims that safe, legal abortion has destroyed your life seems... incomprehensible to me.

Because I understand that each person experiences things differently, and that two people can experience the exact same event in totally different ways, I would never seek to restrict the rights and freedoms of others, simply because I personally had a bad experience with something.
It isn't safe to assume that what hurts you also hurts others, or that what makes you feel good also makes others feel good.
What I'm trying to get at and I hope you can understand is that not having access to abortion would hurt women far more than having access to it hurt you.

1069 said:

What I'm trying to get at and I hope you can understand is that not having access to abortion would hurt women far more than having access to it hurt you.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be swell if that were a point you could actually prove.

Having access to abortion wasn't what hurt doughgirl in that past of hers, making the choice that really is no choice is what hurt doughgirl--choosing abortion is what caused her pain (as if feeling totally helpless is an informed and reasoned choice).

The abortion option is not what hurts women--it's actually CHOOSING that option that hurts. I had the option when I was 19, and I never chose it--thus, I am not hurt by having the "option." However, three of my sisters-in law aborted neices and nephews--my mother's grandchildren--My brother's children. My best friend aborted. Another friend, hanging out at my house less than a month ago, drunk as a skunk and pro-choice, spilled how unforgiven she feels and how unworthy she feels--I didn't know what to do to help her...and then went back to denial the very next time I spoke with her....--I offered no opinions-- I simply was there and listened--in my "real life" I don't talk to people about abortion in general--It's too "touchy" and I'm a public school teacher so there's little opportunity and most people really aren't interested in "thinking" about the issue or it is just too painful for them so I don't push it for their sake. Anyway...with those examples, even though I personally have never had a child killed within me and pulled from my body,THEIR pain is my pain too. People I love and care for are hurt by abortion. and people that would have been someone important to me, I never got the oportunity to know. Far more people are hurt by abortion--EVEN IF the woman who had the abortion feels nothing.

For example, have you ever asked your father if he thinks about his grandchild you aborted? I don't mean that in a nasty way...have you? And what did your husband think? Even if he was a rat-bastard...he's a person...did he offer any thoughts on the abortion? Or did you never tell? If not, why not? Abortion is simply NOT something a woman chooses and experiences on her own. ....It simply is not.:2no4:

making the choice that really is no choice is what hurt doughgirl--choosing abortion is what caused her pain

Click to expand...

How can it be "really no choice", when Doughgirl later proceeded to have two children? When I chose to have two children, then have an abortion?
If it were "no choice", then we'd have to have abortions every time we got pregnant; or else never.
Trust me: it's a choice.
I'm sorry Doughgirl does not now like the choice she made.
Perhaps it would be comforting to her to speculate that had she not terminated her first pregnancy, she might not have had both of the children she has now. Or at least, they wouldn't be the same children, they'd be different ones.

1069 said:

How can it be "really no choice", when Doughgirl later proceeded to have two children? When I chose to have two children, then have an abortion?
If it were "no choice", then we'd have to have abortions every time we got pregnant; or else never.
Trust me: it's a choice.
I'm sorry Doughgirl does not now like the choice she made.
Perhaps it would be comforting to her to speculate that had she not terminated her first pregnancy, she might not have had both of the children she has now. Or at least, they wouldn't be the same children, they'd be different ones.

Click to expand...

Sorry 1069...you've revealed enough of your personal story to let others know..you, yourself, felt there was little choice available to you when you made your "choice." Just stop with the denials. Abortion is the result of feelings of desperation, NOT rational, reasoned thinking.


The "speculation" you suggest, is merely "rationalization."

jallman said:

That's utterly false. A sperm and an egg cell are at earlier stages of development.

Click to expand...

Neither eggs or sperm consitute organisms. An embryo is an organism. That's the distinction. An embryo can be considered "A HUMAN NOUN" at an early stage of development. An individual sperm or unfertilized egg can not. Yay or nay?

You obfuscate by using the word individual as a noun rather than a descriptor. An individual and unique DNA sequence is created, but that does not an individual make.

Click to expand...

Again an organism that is a member of the homosapiens species is A HUMAN:NOUN. Sperm, unfertilized eggs, hair cells, blood cells, ect can only be called "human" in a descriptive way.

Roberdorus said:

you can't get to the point of saying "abortion doesn't affect another person" without first showing that the fetus isn't a person.

Click to expand...

Easily done, especially since you have not presented any rationale to claim that the fetus is a person in the first place. Consider this:

Roberdorus said:

The scientific community is unanimous in the belief that when the sperm cell and the egg cell unite, a completely distinct and genetically unique individual exists.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY TRUE. But "individual" does not equal "person"; the individual might be a snail, for example. Why is an individual fertilized snail ovum a nonperson while an individual fertilized human ovum is claimed to be a person? Just because it is human? BUT THAT IS PURE PREJUDICE TALKING, not Scientific Fact. Especially since it implies that only humans can be persons, which is a ludicrously prejudiced notion, given what we know about the vast vast Universe.

Of course the preceding leads us to the question, "Well, if an individual fertilized human ovum cannot automatically be called a person, then at what stage of growth of that human, can person status be achieved?" The obvious answer relates to the known capabilities of mere animals, compared to persons. And physically, humans are outstanding in relatively few ways, while mentally, humans can outwit mere animals every time. Therefore, when the individual human grows more mentally capable than any mere animal, that could be good evidence that the human has achieved person status. And since this measurably does not happen until after birth, it logically follows that no human fetus can be a person.

So, Roberdorus, what nonprejudiced argument do you have, to indicate that an individual human fetus deserves person status?

jallman said:

That's utterly false.

Click to expand...

Shades of FutureIncoming...
*Shudder*

A sperm and an egg cell are at earlier stages of development.

Click to expand...

Biologically, they are not at earlier stages of humand development. See Human development (biology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You obfuscate by using the word individual as a noun rather than a descriptor. An individual and unique DNA sequence is created, but that does not an individual make.

Click to expand...

Well, I have not intentionally tried to cover anything up. The reason I used the word individual as a noun is because I consider it to be synonomous with the noun human.
in·di·vid·u·al
–noun 1. a single human being, as distinguished from a group.

See? Honest mistake. :2razz:

No more important than the death of my hand severed from my wrist. Actually, the hand is more important because it actually served some value to a person.

Click to expand...

Many people do value unborn children, namely the mothers of those children. In fact (and I understand this is completely anecdotal), many pregnant women that I've known seemed to really love the human being that was growing inside of them. So, I guess if the pregnancy is unwanted then the fetus is a "leech" or a "parasite" whose value is comparable to that of a severed appendage, but if the pregnancy is wanted then the fetus is a an unborn child whose value is comparable to that of a born child. What power the female mind possesses, eh?

No, it's because their job is to interpret law and the Constitutionality of a law that is brought before them. A ban on abortion was seen as unconstitutional then as it is today for the very same reasons. A fetus has no claim to personhood and therefore no protection under the 14th Amendment. It's all very simple if you stop to think about it...

Click to expand...

Well, sure, it's simple when you put it like that... the complication arises when we try to show why the fetus does or does not have a claim to personhood.

I would agree with you here. But then, we don't make some actions illegal to enable misogynists, woman enslavers, fundamentalists, science haters, and social engineering liars either...:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Well, as long as we're flinging partisan cliches... I'd rather be a misogynist than a baby-killer.

And it's not justifiable to ban abortions because some right wing rabid fundies bomb abortion clinics either. It's not the fault of the Constitution, science, and our laws that mobs congregate outside abortion clinics to call patients sluts, whores, and monsters. As you said, we don't change laws to help perpetrators...:doh

Click to expand...

Those rabid fundies don't represent me and the pro-life movement any more than John Brown represents the anti-slavery movement of the 19th century. It's disingenuous to infer otherwise...:doh

talloulou, it looks like the word at the tip of your fingers, which did not become keystrokes, is "adjective". As in "human being", where "being" is the noun, an intelligent/person-class entitiy, and "human" is the adjective, a descriptor. And as in "human fetus", where "fetus" is the noun, an unborn animal-class organism, and "human" is the adjective.