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.
You have stated that you realize that abortion kills a human.
Others continue to pretend that an abortion kills "potential." That there is literally nothing there. And then state that the pregnant woman needs an abortion to kill that "nothingness." That "potential."
If there is nothing there, what's to kill? And if it is something, then what it is?
Cognitive dissonance. They go back and forth tap dancing about. Sooner or later they'll get it.
Wow, this may be the first time we have agreed in this thread! I concur that the product of human conception at any stage is also human, whether a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus.
95% of unintended pregnancies are due to women voluntarily participating in unprotected sex, by their own admission.
Wrong statistic. Not all unintended pregnancies are unwanted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
I don't give a crap what anyone does with their sex life as long as they don't kill another human just because they couldn't be bothered to use birth control.
Almost half of pregnancies for which an abortion is sought were conceived in a cycle in which contraception was used.
All animals kill their young, but the human animal is the only one in the animal kingdom that will attempt to justify it, using some ridiculous means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Are we being held to be scientific? How about calling an embryo a baby or abortion, murder?
The only reason calling a fetus a parasite is not scientific is because no biologist has yet put a name to that particular form of parasitism.
Quote:
The notion that the embryo/fetus is some sort of parasite was decisively refuted forty years ago in an article titled, Why the Embryo or Fetus is Not a Parasite by Dr. Thomas L. Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Biological Sciences, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Professor Johnson has identified no less than eight significant differences between an embryo/fetus and a parasite.
1. a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host…
b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother…
c) Brood parasitism refers to intraspecies (there are different types of parasitism). Deriving its nourishment form the mother is deriving its nourishment from the host.
2. a) A parasite is an invading organism — coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.
b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg — the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother…
c) An embryo is not an embryo without being fertilized from an outside source, sperm.
3. a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.
b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother…
c) Not usually? A fetus is to some degree harmful to the host. It can be slight to fatal. A tick is an ectoparisite and usually causes no harm to the host.
7. a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host’s capacity to reproduce.
b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus…
c) WTF
8. a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).
b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.
c) again, WTF
You might want to read some biology books instead of gleaning your knowledge from an article, an article, by one professor from the university of Mary Washington.
Judging by that that you put in red --- I don't need to. The human body is designed to protect itself from (parasitic) infections. If a parasite infiltrates --- the body launches an attack. The body of a woman is not what attacks their unborn offspring nor the unborn offspring cause an attack on the woman's body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Are we being held to be scientific? How about calling an embryo a baby or abortion, murder?
Being scientific makes it easier to justify the end. It's natural for animals to kill their young.
When I took psychology in college it was pointed out that what raises the human above all other animals on the planet is the ability to reason; not act on instinct. I told the teacher, that was a debatable topic. Not the instinct part used by other animals, but the ability to reason, by humans. (watching 'animal kingdom' growing up, is how I made sense of the world; it hasn't proved untrue yet)
I am not triggered. That's a completely obnoxious term and does not apply to my response. A personhood amendment has been rejected repeatedly in my state as a justification for ending abortion access. Personhood has nothing to do with biology. I don't accept it and neither do my fellow Coloradans.
This appears to be true in Colorado which has no fetal homicide law, and the CO Supreme Court recently ruled (split decision) that one cannot be charged with or convicted of abusing a child in utero.
However, the same is not true in states that have fetal homicide laws. Such states have already conferred personhood on babies before birth by making killing them the crime of murder/homicide/manslaughter.
Wrong statistic. Not all unintended pregnancies are unwanted.
Almost half of pregnancies for which an abortion is sought were conceived in a cycle in which contraception was used.
The frequently cited and outdated statistic does not seem to be the number of women using birth control incorrectly the month they conceived. Instead it is any incorrect use over the YEAR prior to the pregnancy.
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/w...-control-pill/ - the guidance if you miss one pill is that you DO NOT need to use a backup method. So as far as we know, the women in question followed the guidance provided even though they missed a day or two of taking a pill. Unfortunately, women are individuals, so generic guidance may work for one woman but not another. At any rate, forgetting to take a pill in February isn’t going to result in a woman getting pregnant in July or November. I would imagine that the majority of women who reported no errors are on long-acting contraceptives like the IUD, sterilization, or implant.
Wrong statistic. Not all unintended pregnancies are unwanted.
No, it's the correct statistic. Here's how we get there...
1) 1.7% of abortions are due to physical health threat to the mother or the baby, rape, or incest.
2) All intended pregnancies that do not fall into any of the above categories aren't aborted.
3) Only 5% of women with unintended pregnancies were consistently using birth control.
4) 2/3 of women with unintended pregnancies keep their babies.
Adding 1.7% to 1/3 of 5% (numbers 3 and 4) equals 3.35%. The rest, 96.65% (which is actually more than 95%) of the 930,000 abortions performed per year are the termination of healthy babies in healthy pregnancies due to women who voluntarily had unprotected sex by their own admission, even though they didn't want to get pregnant.
Hence, the question asked in this thread's poll.
Quote:
Almost half of pregnancies for which an abortion is sought were conceived in a cycle in which contraception was used.
Not consistently, which means they were unprotected. Guttmacher was quite clear in stating that only 5% of women with unintended pregnancies consistently used birth control during the month in which they got pregnant.
The frequently cited and outdated statistic does not seem to be the number of women using birth control incorrectly the month they conceived. Instead it is any incorrect use over the YEAR prior to the pregnancy.
Nope. You didn't read the info given below the pie chart on the right (Unintended Pregnancies) in Guttmacher's graphic. It specifically says: "By consistency of method use during month of conception."
How do you think 3.4 million unintended pregnancies per year are happening?
Whoosh! The minority of sexual encounters are undertaken for the sole purpose of procreation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Not all unintended pregnancies are unwanted.
Exactly. I'm sure a lot of us participating in this forum were unplanned. I know I was - my parents wanted to delay parenthood for at least 2 years after they married. Oops ... My mother was unplanned as well; my grandmother was 46 and believed she was in menopause when my mom was conceived.
Quote:
Almost half of pregnancies for which an abortion is sought were conceived in a cycle in which contraception was used.
Not surprised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Ask Guttmacher (which is Planned Parenthood's research subsidiary).
Incorrect. Guttmacher Institute has been independent of Planned Parenthood for more than 15 years.
Which is about how old your statistics are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
A baby is growing and developing before it's aborted.
Except it's a zygote, embryo, or fetus. Not a baby.
That's SCIENCE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamenAddict
The frequently cited and outdated statistic does not seem to be the number of women using birth control incorrectly the month they conceived. Instead it is any incorrect use over the YEAR prior to the pregnancy.
Yeah. Anyone can fudge statistics and we're seeing that in a major way here.
The statistic that our friend is skipping over is that 68% of women are using birth control consistently, and another 18% inconsistently (which is defined as women not using their chosen method correctly), over the course of a year. Only 14% are not using birth control, or have long gaps in use ("long gap" defined as using birth control but not all the time). While we must do better in ensuring that women have the best possible access to a variety of birth control methods, that they know how to use them, and that they're empowered to insist that their partners support their use of birth control, not using birth control isn't exactly the epidemic some people are painting it to be.
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.
My mother was unplanned as well; my grandmother was 46 and believed she was in menopause when my mom was conceived. 
