Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's my body. Until a fetus can survive outside the womb, it's really just a part of the woman carrying it.
My PERSONAL standard for getting an abortion is whether or not the child will be born with a birth defect or disability no rational adult would want to live with. But I'll rabidly support any woman's right to choose to my dying breath. I know multiple women who have come close to dying due to difficulties during labor, including one woman who actually DID die in childbirth. In fact, the U.S. has an unusually high rate of maternal deaths in childbirth for a developed nation.
I'm sorry, but no one gets to decide whether or not I'm putting my health at risk except for me.
And as for late-term abortions, once you know a woman who has given birth to a full-term baby without a brain that died within moments of entering the world and that she KNEW would die for several months, you tend to see the reason for those kind of abortions. A friend of a friend carried her doomed fetus for more than a full trimester, knowing there was no hope. She opted to do that, but I shudder to think of the effects on a woman forced to do so.
It's interesting to me that, while attempting to use Scripture to justify abortion, Pennies4Penny ignores that fact that "Thou shalt not kill" is plainly stated TWICE in the Bible (Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17).
"Thou shall not kill" applies to people. You know fully developed, independently functioning humans Moderator cut: Language not fetuses.
If God believes that fetuses are people, then the punishment for "murdering" a fetus would be exactly the same as the punishment for murdering an actual person. Right? But that is not what God says at all. He says the offender "must pay a fine" and right after He says that, He states "a life for a life." If a fetus is in fact a life, why is the punishment so drastically different for the two offenses; a simple fine, verses your own death?
22“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurelye but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Also why does God think it's perfectly okay to abort a fetus conceived through adultery? In number 5, He tells the woman to drink bitter water to induce a miscarriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
This may be the worst FAIL in the history of C-D, both in terms of biology and in terms of understanding Scripture. "The breath of life" is a metaphor for the living soul that God placed into Adam; the phrase is not to be taken literally.
Citing Adam as the example for determining the origin of life is to ignore the fact that Adam came into this world by a different process than almost every other human being. Because God created Adam as an adult, he had to begin breathing gaseous oxygen at the same time that cellular respiration began. Breathing via the lungs is only one part of respiration.
Babies developing in utero are exhibiting cellular respiration, just as Adam began doing the instant his life began. Due to the surrounding amniotic fluid babies cannot get oxygen into their lungs, thus, oxygen is transferred into the baby's bloodstream via the placenta instead of via the alveoli, until such time as the baby is able to inhale gaseous oxygen into the lungs. But while the baby is receiving oxygen from the placenta, oxygen is transported to the cells and cellular respiration occurs just the same as it does in a human that has already been born and is exchanging oxygen and CO2 with the atmosphere via the lungs.
Haha. You may want to reread that Bible quote because it says that "He breathed life into his nostrils." And as you so thoroughly pointed out, fetuses can't breath through their nostrils. Just because something is receiving oxygen does not mean that it is breathing. A fish needs oxygen, yet it does not breath. The word "breath" is written numerous times as the indicator of whether or not a person is alive in the Bible.
Also interesting, is so many conservatives take all of the Bible literally, yet here you say not to. I guess whichever way works best for whatever you're trying to sell, but actually the metaphor in that verse is that God creates a vessel out of the dirt, like a potter, since we obviously aren't pottery, not the "breathing life" part.
7"Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
What about all those other references to "breath of life " I noted? I guess they don't matter, even though the ones I referenced are just a few of the many.
Since you seem to be so handy with scripture, I want you to show me the EXACT verse that says abortoin is murder and/or a sin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Appendices and wisdom teeth are parts of an organism, they are not entire organisms unto themselves. The cells of the appendix and the wisdom teeth will contain the DNA of the person to whom they are attached, or from whom they have been extracted. By contrast, a baby will have her own unique genome that is not identical to that of her mother or her father.
Have a conversation with a fetus and let me know how it goes. The fetus is not viable without a constant, direct connection to the mother. Without her it does not exist and development ceases immediately and can not be revived. It IS a part of her just as much as the rest of her organs. If it was not a part of her, you could take it out and let it develop on it's own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
What about the women growing in their mothers' wombs, why don't they get to choose? What makes one woman more important than another? (hint: the one old enough to vote gets to choose, the one who isn't old enough to vote is completely at the mercy of the other)
Again, something without brain function can't choose. It doesn't know that it exists. Why would an embryo (54% of abortions occur during the embryo phrase) have more rights than an actual person with her own thoughts and feelings?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, pushed for the legalization of abortion because she believes that "we need to do something about the N***o problem in America." Legalized abortion was the means by which she wanted to advance her white supremacist agenda of eugenics, which included eliminating the African American population by abortion and attrition.
That was only one PART of her mission, which is something Planned Parenthood has acknowledged, but obviously moved far and away from. Her main mission was to provide birth control to women of all walks of life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
If a woman can't afford birth control, then she certainly can't afford to raise a child.
Well duh, and that is the exact reason why birth control should basically be free of charge. The government will pay either way and paying for birth control is much cheaper than paying for a child. And if she has birth control, then the odds of her needing an abortion are reduced to as little 2%.
They were invented in 1965 and have not been improved an iota since then.
Birth control pills have been around since early 1960 - 1961.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, pushed for the legalization of abortion because she believes that "we need to do something about the N***o problem in America." Legalized abortion was the means by which she wanted to advance her white supremacist agenda of eugenics, which included eliminating the African American population by abortion and attrition.
Margaret Sanger and the African American Community
When the movement for birth control began, organizers like Margaret Sanger believed that fertility control was linked to upward social mobility for all women, regardless of race or immigrant status. [2]
Because the medical establishment largely opposed birth control, Sanger initially emphasized woman-controlled methods that did not depend on medical assistance. Her arguments persuaded middle-class women, both Black and white, to use birth control when available.[2]
Sanger’s immediate effect on African American women was to help transform their covert support for and use of family planning into the visible public support of activists in the Club Movement. But African-American women envisioned an even more pointed concept of reproductive justice: the freedom to have, or not to have, children.
Sanger launched the Negro Project, designed by Sanger’s Birth Control Federation in 1939. It hired several African-American ministers to travel through the South to recruit African-American doctors. The project proposal included a quote by W.E.B. Dubois, saying that “the mass of ignorant Negroes still breed carelessly and disastrously, so that the increase among Negroes, even more than the increase among Whites, is from that part of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly.” [7] This quote, often mistakenly attributed to Sanger, reflected the shared race and class biases of the project’s founders. The Negro Project relied on Black ministers because of its white sponsors’ belief that “the most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal.” [8]
Among the quotations frequently and incorrectly credited to Sanger is, “More children from the fit, less from the unfit—that is the chief issue of birth control.” It is so widely misattributed to her that it appeared on the wall of an International Center for Photography exhibit on eugenics. Another common offender showed up in a recent fundraising letter from Priests for Life: “Colored people are like human weeds and have to be exterminated.” The historian Esther Katz, director of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project at New York University, explains that Sanger never said anything of the sort. [9]
“When Sanger began her work, Black communities were ignored by the medical establishment. So from early on, Sanger’s clinics in Harlem were welcomed by esteemed black leaders of the day including W.E.B. Du Bois and Mary McLeod Bethune, the founder of the National Council of Negro Women.
I tend to agree with the Clinton quote from before.. Safe, legal and rare. Dear lord, I just agreed with Slick Willy.
Someone mentioned the "I want it to be legal so it isn't driven underground and made unsafe".. You feel the same way about meth? So.. I don't buy that argument.
First trimester.. I don't like it, but.. I do agree that there are decisions to be made and that sometimes.. Unfortunately.. Abortion is the best decision. Either for the parents or the unborn child. Past the first trimester.. I'm pretty much a no unless there's rare circumstances.
What I do totally and 100% disagree with is abortion as a method of birth control. How to.. Contain that, I don't know. What? A lifetime limit on the number of abortions? That doesn't make alot of sense.. But, I also don't want some woman who is 30 years old being scraped more times than the underside of an elementary school desk.
I honestly have no problems with abortion clinics being held to a normal medical standard. I'll admit i'm not totally up to date on all the new laws with regards to this. My understanding is that in most states, it brings them up to the same medical standards as a place where you'd have a colonoscopy performed. That.. I don't see a problem with. If you can't get up to those specs, then perhaps you shouldn't be performing abortions there. Raising the standards to hospital standards is restricting access and goes too far.
I do NOT feel that should be covered by any form of health care, except in exceedingly rare situations. So, let's say we get to universal coverage in this country.. That's not going to pay for an abortion.. Elective procedure. Same as a nose job. Now there's always exceptions to rules.. Your nose is bitten off by a wild raccoon.. Ok, that'll be covered. you have to have an abortion because it's threatening your life.. Ok.. That can be covered.
I tend to agree with the Clinton quote from before.. Safe, legal and rare. Dear lord, I just agreed with Slick Willy.
Someone mentioned the "I want it to be legal so it isn't driven underground and made unsafe".. You feel the same way about meth? So.. I don't buy that argument.
First trimester.. I don't like it, but.. I do agree that there are decisions to be made and that sometimes.. Unfortunately.. Abortion is the best decision. Either for the parents or the unborn child. Past the first trimester.. I'm pretty much a no unless there's rare circumstances.
What I do totally and 100% disagree with is abortion as a method of birth control. How to.. Contain that, I don't know. What? A lifetime limit on the number of abortions? That doesn't make alot of sense.. But, I also don't want some woman who is 30 years old being scraped more times than the underside of an elementary school desk.
I honestly have no problems with abortion clinics being held to a normal medical standard. I'll admit i'm not totally up to date on all the new laws with regards to this. My understanding is that in most states, it brings them up to the same medical standards as a place where you'd have a colonoscopy performed. That.. I don't see a problem with. If you can't get up to those specs, then perhaps you shouldn't be performing abortions there. Raising the standards to hospital standards is restricting access and goes too far.
I do NOT feel that should be covered by any form of health care, except in exceedingly rare situations. So, let's say we get to universal coverage in this country.. That's not going to pay for an abortion.. Elective procedure. Same as a nose job. Now there's always exceptions to rules.. Your nose is bitten off by a wild raccoon.. Ok, that'll be covered. you have to have an abortion because it's threatening your life.. Ok.. That can be covered.
No woman uses abortion as her go-to birth control. That is a myth that is quite illogical. Firstly, nobody WANTS to get an abortion, it is a need. Secondly it's EXTREMELY expensive, the cost of several years worth of BC, and burdensome to have to make an appointment and miss work which is usually unpaid for for poor women. Abortion is an absolute last resort and it should be. Of the women who have had one abortion only about half will have another.
The standards many of these radicals want are too high. They want hospital grade standards and they want the doctor to have admitting privileges at a hospital. This is ridiculous and all for show because, one a D&C after a miscarriage is the exact same procedure and is preformed in clinics as an out patient setting all day every day and no one makes a peep about that, two there are thousands of different types of procedures preformed in standard doctor's offices that don't require the doctor to have admitting privileges like dental surgeries, colonoscopies, cataract surgery, or biopsies. These "standards" are nothing more than a charade to prevent access to abortions.
Because of criminal and immoral predators, I'd say no, it should not be illegal. It is a tough decision for sure, but when you have someone who has multiple abortions then it is out of hand.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, pushed for the legalization of abortion because she believes that "we need to do something about the N***o problem in America."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
It's still a problem.
I cannot respect anyone who displays that kind of bigotry, especially in the year 2015. Welcome to ignore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeHa
So what, she just shouldn't have sex? Why is it always abiut the woman's responsibility.
If she can't even afford a box of condoms that costs less than $10, she has more pressing needs than sex - like finding food. Lucky for her, abstinence is the only birth control method that costs nothing and is 100% effective, thus, it is a wise financial decision.
And nobody ever said that it's always the woman's responsibility, so I'm not sure where you got that from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeHa
No one ever talks about men and profalactics. What if a man can't afford condoms?
Same as the woman, see above. If he can't afford a box of condoms, then he can't even afford to care for himself, much less raise a child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatTX
I guess all the righteous Christians supporting wars and the death penalty, and murdering various people they disagree with, are going to hell then.
1. Murder and war don't get you sent to Hell; the way to get to Hell is to refuse salvation. And if murder did earn you a trip to Hell, then abortion most certainly would.
2. God sanctioned the death penalty in Exodus 21:12.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatTX
Or is the "though shalt not kill" negated by "an eye for an eye"?
Apples-to-oranges. "Thou shalt not kill" commands people not to take innocent life. By contrast, "an eye for an eye" is the punishment God sanctions when an innocent life has been wronged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatTX
Apparently, killing infants and pregnant women is also just fine: Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up."
Wrong. In that chapter of Scripture, God was not authorizing humans to kill infants and pregnant women. He was stating that those acts would be among the punishments He would inflict upon the people for disobeying His commands.
The entire verse reads as follows (NIV): "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."
It's obvious that any organization whose motto is "stand with us for reproductive justice" will be more than willing to, pardon the pun, whitewash Sanger's racism.
You'll need to find a source that could conceivably be somewhat objective if you want me to take it seriously.
Spain made abortions illegal in most cases until mid-80s, then legal with severe restrictions, and only widely legalized them in 2010.
Portugal made abortions legal around 8 years ago.
The Soviet Union made abortions illegal until 1970s when they finally gave up after a long wave of deaths related to illegal abortions.
That's a fairly recent timeframe... and I am only bringing up the examples in developed countries.
I'm not sure of your point. Except for Ireland, all the countries you mentioned now have legal abortion. And they are likely to remain that way. The U.S. is about the only developed country with legal abortion that has a majority of the population opposed to it and actively attempting to return to an earlier paradigm.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I cannot respect anyone who displays that kind of bigotry, especially in the year 2015. Welcome to ignore. 
