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.
The point is, regardless if an embryo or a child is dependent on a specific person, he/she is still DEPENDENT on a PERSON. Which in essence doesn't hold up the argument that embryo's can't survive. It's an argument that has holes in it. Even when the fetus is capable of surviving on his/her own, we still have places that are making abortion legal for those times. If the premise of your argument is that an embryo/fetus can't survive without being in the womb at a certain stage, then you are essentially saying at the least that there should be a limit to the times that people are able to get an abortion. Are you not?
You failed science, didn't you? The parasitic nature of the fetus is what makes the difference. If you force a person to host a parasite that could not live on its own (even with intervention), you have dehumanized the host/mother. There does come a point when it can survive outside the womb - yes, with help. Under 25 weeks, there is an extremely low survival rate.
Quote:
When a fetus is viable, that is, when it is of sufficient maturity so that it can survive into the neonatal period and later achieve independent moral status given the availability of the requisite technological support, and when it is presented to the physician, the fetus is a patient. In the United States viability presently occurs at approximately 24 weeks of gestational age (Chervenak, L.B. McCullough; Textbook of Perinatal Medicine, 1998). In Portugal, the mortality increase significantly with GA<25 weeks. At 25 weeks mortality was 44.4% and at 26 weeks was 24.4% (I. Macedo et al. Matemidade Dr. Alfredo da Costa, Lisbon, 2000).
I agree with Roe v. Wade. Once the fetus has reached viability, it then should not be aborted unless there is a compelling reason, such as anencephaly or other severe defect, or that it would damage the health of the mother, or kill her to continue the pregnancy. Why would you have thought otherwise?
You failed science, didn't you? The parasitic nature of the fetus is what makes the difference. If you force a person to host a parasite that could not live on its own (even with intervention), you have dehumanized the host/mother. There does come a point when it can survive outside the womb - yes, with help. Under 25 weeks, there is an extremely low survival rate.
I actually did very well in science honestly. Nobody is suggesting for a child to be taken out of a mothers womb. I am annoyed that you keep inferring that this is what I am trying to suggest. You are arguing something that has nothing to do with what I am saying. And by the way I have heard instances that even a baby as young as 22 weeks is capable of surviving. It is a difficult to create a law for something like this because the time period that a child is capable of living is really dependent on many factors, not necessarily the age of the fetus, which is one of the reasons why the idea that we can say, by law, that a child that is under 25 weeks old or whatever is being stated, can't survive, is flawed.
I agree with Roe v. Wade. Once the fetus has reached viability, it then should not be aborted unless there is a compelling reason, such as anencephaly or other severe defect, or that it would damage the health of the mother, or kill her to continue the pregnancy. Why would you have thought otherwise?
But this again is the issue. How do you determine viability? It's too difficult to make a generalized view of this. Even with that said, there are a number of factors that people use to get out of this. First you had people saying oh the child doesn't have a heart beat, then you have people who are far more extreme, like our president, who believes that even if a baby survives an abortion procedure that he/she should still be killed (check his US Senate voting record). The way abortion is handled in this country, it opens the door for ignorance and people who support abortions seem to not have a standard cohesive idea of how it should be handled.
And the hypocrisy of this thread is people are appalled by the actions of this lady, but I wonder how many of those people paid any attention to the case of Kermit Gosnell?
My nephew who was given up for adoption is now eighteen and seems very happy.
His adoptive parents are a professional couple and Christians.
Imagine that!
He plays hockey, has a girlfriend and will be starting college in the fall.
Stress? Guilt? Depression?
Don't be silly.
Those things are for people who choose death for their kids.
And my boyfriend's parents were encouraged not to abort despite being in no position to raise a child (both were drug addicts). He has an older brother who was given up for adoption a few years before my boyfriend was born, but the dialogue his parents had with a Church-based family planning organization lead them to feel that it would be irresponsible to put other children up for adoption, and that the responsible thing to do would be to raise their children themselves despite not being emotionally or financially able to handle the burden. He and his two siblings were put into the foster care system and all aged out into homelessness, as do many foster care alumni. Both of his parents died before he was 16. My boyfriend was homeless from 18-20. Guilt? Depression? That's just the beginning. At least he avoided the crime, drug abuse, and teen pregnancy that his younger sisters have fallen into (and is overwhelmingly common among this group).
His best friend was given up for adoption as an infant. Because he has cerebral palsy and is a minority, he never found a permanent home. He, too, was homeless when he aged out of the system at 18.
It doesn't work out well for everyone. Thank goodness it did in your family.
Plan B or Plan B One-Step causes less nausea and vomiting than ECPs that contain both estrogen and progestin. And, you may be able to reduce any nausea or vomiting by taking the pill on a full stomach. Eating small, frequent meals over 24 hours may also help. With Plan B or Plan B One-Step, you may also have some unexpected bleeding. It should go away by the time of your next period. However, it is possible that Plan B or Plan B One-Step may cause your next period to be heavier or lighter than usual. It may also come earlier or later than is normal for you. If you don't get your period within three weeks, get a pregnancy test to make sure you're not pregnant.
With Plan B or Plan B One-Step, you may also have some unexpected bleeding.
Looks like the women haters at WebMD are in on the disinformation campaign.
No, the disinformation by the clinic is that they claim, IT causes HEMORRHAGING.
A pap smear can cause unexpected bleeding.
A diaphragm can cause unexpected bleeding.
An IUD can cause some unexpected bleeding.
What the clinic is doing is EXAGGERATING the effects of Plan B.
Unexpected bleeding: small amounts of blood, that may cause you to need a sanitary napkin for a few days. The same warning and advice my OB/GYN told me after a routine pap smear.
The clinic is CLAIMING that you are going to experience severe blood loss.
What a shame Katie doesn't spend a bit of time policing up abortion mills. Who knows, with a bit of work pro-aborts might have shut down Kermit Gosnell a lot sooner.
But I've got an idea for all you concerned pro-aborts .... form a picket outside these awful centers and try to disuade these poor, oppressed women from entering.
What a shame Katie doesn't spend a bit of time policing up abortion mills. Who knows, with a bit of work pro-aborts might have shut down Kermit Gosnell a lot sooner.
What are you talking about? His clinic was constantly reported for violations. It was up to the sTATE to follow through on those complaints. The STATE is the one that dropped the ball when it came to Gosnell.
Both pro-choice and pro-life groups reported Gosnell, including his "patients".
Quote:
But I've got an idea for all you concerned pro-aborts .... form a picket outside these awful centers and try to disuade these poor, oppressed women from entering.
Unlike pro-life picketers, we do not harass women in front of clinics.
What are you talking about? His clinic was constantly reported for violations. It was up to the sTATE to follow through on those complaints. The STATE is the one that dropped the ball when it came to Gosnell.
Both pro-choice and pro-life groups reported Gosnell, including his "patients".
Then maybe it's best to let the state handle these pro-life clinics as opposed to pro-abortion folks.
they already do. and by the time a woman has decided to have abortion, she already knows this.
Why do you anti-choice/anti-women folk, think that women are stupid when it comes to abortions?
Abortion is a medieval solution to a complicated problem. In 100 years people will be revolted.by the very idea of it.
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.
No, the disinformation by the clinic is that they claim, IT causes HEMORRHAGING.
