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.
So then, you would advocate killing the lump of cells up til 8 weeks then? Because that's when it starts looking like a fetus?
I am 100% pro choice and have no issues with anyone wanting, needing or having an abortion up to the point of viability (24 weeks). Past viability, they really don't even happen anyway.
The poster I was responding to was trying to make an emotional argument by saying that 6 week embryo looks like a person which is false. And an 8 week fetus doesn't even look like a person, but really how it LOOKS at any stage is not important. It's whether or not it has brain function, self awareness and is viable outside the womb that matters.
For the record, I am a practicing Christian. That said, I agree that the quoted sentence is completely true. All the Bible thumpers should really read that book they wave around, especially the parts of the Old Testament where punishment for crimes against pregnant women are listed and compare them to punishment for crimes against other humans.
However, once past the point of natural viability, whether it is a fetus or a baby is simply a matter of geography. Inside the body it is a fetus; move it a few inches and *poof* it magically becomes a baby. Are you arguing that killing late-term inside the womb (a.k.a., "partial birth" abortion) is acceptable as long as you cut the neck before it takes the first breath? My second son was born 29-days early (water broke; induced labor), and legally became a "human" at that point. Other than an extra shot of oxygen and a few extra tests, the early birth meant nothing. Are you suggesting that if, by random luck, my wife's water hadn't broken that it would have been acceptable to kill the fetus for another four weeks?
You can't make the "choice" argument in this case, because the fetus/baby is fully capable of living outside the womb.
This is indeed a debate that has no great answers. Take either side, and someone stands to lose quite a bit.
What I find interesting though is that most of the "pro-life" people are really only pro-birth. Everyone gets so heated up about birth and abortion being murder, and even pour tons of money after this cause.
However, once the baby has popped out, any concern for the baby's life magically vanishes. On the contrary, if the mother happens to be poor and lives on government funding or subsidy, or heck, even just wants healthcare for herself and the kid, now she and the baby are suddenly the enemy. The enemy that is now greedily sucking all the hard earned tax dollars of the other upright honest ethical compassionate citizens.
And so the same people who so vehemently and violently wanted the baby to come into existence become even more vehement and violent that the baby should not "enjoy" any special privileges or even something basic like medicines and doctors.
So, in light of these hilarious contradictions, I personally feel that this serious debate is actually quite a farce. It is in reality extremely shallow and not worth the words or the energy.
To put it another way, by all means, be "pro life". That is the right thing to do as a human being. But please be truly and honestly pro "life".
Women should have a right to decide. All abortions should be legal up to 6 weeks.
After then, the fetus is developing at a much more rapid pace and it should be illegal.
Before 6 weeks, its not a formed/living/breathing human, just a lump of cells. Like a chicken egg at that point (potential for life but not yet alive).
So, that is when you should or should not have an abortion.
It is legal, and every women should make that decision for themselves.
This is indeed a debate that has no great answers. Take either side, and someone stands to lose quite a bit.
What I find interesting though is that most of the "pro-life" people are really only pro-birth. Everyone gets so heated up about birth and abortion being murder, and even pour tons of money after this cause.
However, once the baby has popped out, any concern for the baby's life magically vanishes. On the contrary, if the mother happens to be poor and lives on government funding or subsidy, or heck, even just wants healthcare for herself and the kid, now she and the baby are suddenly the enemy. The enemy that is now greedily sucking all the hard earned tax dollars of the other upright honest ethical compassionate citizens.
And so the same people who so vehemently and violently wanted the baby to come into existence become even more vehement and violent that the baby should not "enjoy" any special privileges or even something basic like medicines and doctors.
So, in light of these hilarious contradictions, I personally feel that this serious debate is actually quite a farce. It is in reality extremely shallow and not worth the words or the energy.
To put it another way, by all means, be "pro life". That is the right thing to do as a human being. But please be truly and honestly pro "life".
I've heard folks say this is how some parts of Texas are like... abortion? NO! Raising the baby? That's on you!
I keep bringing this up, but it's truly amongst the most amusing thing I've seen was a part of a lifetime movie.... a group of women are discussing ways to raise enough money to fund a daycare for the children of high school teens. Another woman asks why not give out contraceptives? The women responded in shock, saying if they did, they'd be encouraging these kids to have sex! That woman replies that they're pregnant or had kids. They're ALREADY having sex
Women should have a right to decide. All abortions should be legal up to 6 weeks.
After then, the fetus is developing at a much more rapid pace and it should be illegal.
Before 6 weeks, its not a formed/living/breathing human, just a lump of cells. Like a chicken egg at that point (potential for life but not yet alive).
The majority of women, especially those with irregular cycles, do not even know they are pregnant before 6 weeks.
I'd bet most women are pro choice. I don't know any woman who'd appreciate being told what she can and can't do with HER OWN body....and that IS as it should be....anytime...anywhere.
There'd be no need to debate "abortion exceptions" if we'd all respect that.....as we should.
If I were female I would not tolerate some man, especially the man that impregnated me by force, telling me I had to carry a fetus to term. I would have an abortion as soon as possible. Maybe have a D and C as a precaution. I would consider my body to be MINE!
As I am a man I agree with this hypothetical position. I consider my body to be MINE. I do not believe I have any control over someone else's body.
In the matter of killing my opinion is killing humans is almost always justified. We deliberately kill some kinds of criminals. We kill enemies in war or peace. We kill people with the bad luck to be standing next to our enemies when a 500 lb. bomb shreds the neighborhood. Aborting a fetus is not even in this class of collateral damages as it is not an air breathing human.
I hear lots of people and politicians clammor for making abortion illegal, but having a loophole for Rape and Incest victims.
My questions are this:
How would we verify that the pregnancy was the product of rape or incest and not just unprotected sex?
How can one claim that abortion is murder but be okay with it under special circumstances?
Can you do prenatal DNA testing? Also, for minors, you can look at the age difference between the two people who had sex.
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.