NationStates Jolt Archive

Lets keep in sensbale people please, I need this as I'm doing my humanities coursework-a little info so you can't claim to be ignorent.

The Questionw where trying to answer here is:

Is abortion the Legalised Murder of the Unborn Child?

Many millions around the globe believe that Abortion is the Legalised murder of the unborn child, but they are opposed by millions more who believe abortion is a necessary part of life and a woman’s right.

These two camps, pro-life and pro-choice both believe they are right and have equally reasonable arguments when you look at it. The arguments have been a central part of elections across the globe, most notably in America but also in many other countries, including the UK.

There is also the question about ‘the pill’ and weather that counts as a abortion, most do not count it as an abortion and the figure of abortions carried out in this country would be dramatically skewed if it was.

There where 154,000 legal abortions in Great Britain in 1995, there where 175,900 abortions in 2002 and that had risen by 3.2% to 181,600 in 2003. This huge number of ‘deaths’ was one of the things that prompted me to investigate this topic.

Background Information
Abortion law in the UK

The abortion act in the UK was passed in 1967, though it was later amended by the Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill in 1990 which introduced specific time limits on Abortions in the UK.
The 1967 was not, however, the first law to deal with the matter of abortion, there are laws recorded as far back as the 13th centaury, when abortion was banned after ‘quickening’, when the babies movement could be felt. The penalty for breaking this law was life imprisonment.
The law remained like this until 1803 when the punishment was increased to the death penalty, and again in 1837 when it was amended to ban all abortion-before and after quickening.
In 1861 The Offences Against the Person Act made performing an abortion or trying to self-abort illegal, where as previously performing a successful abortion was illegal, and made these offences carry a sentence of life imprisonment.
In 1929 yet another law was passed which muddied the waters even further, the Infant Life Preservation Act created a new crime of killing a viable fetus (at that time fixed at 28 weeks) in all cases except when the woman's life was at risk. However, it was not clear whether it would be legal to terminate for the same reason before 28 weeks.
Despite the setting up of the Birkett Committee to clarify the law, there was no change until the abortion act in 1967. The current law allows abortion, up to 24 weeks of gestation, in the case of:
• Risk to the woman’s physical/mental health,
• Risk to the health of her existing children,

It is allowed to be carried out after 24 weeks if:
• The woman’s life is at risk if the pregnancy continued,
• The is a risk of grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman,
• There is substantial risk that the child would be born with a serious disability.

Abortion statistics:

How old are women who have abortions?

This is a breakdown of the ages of women who had abortions in England and Wales in 2001:

Age Number of Women
Under 16 3,658
16-19 33,431
20-24 48,267
25-29 36,506
30-34 28,782
35-39 19,146
40+ 6,550
Total: 176,364

Method Number of women Percentage of total number of women
Early Medical 18,586 11%
Vacuum Aspiration 141,931 81%
Dilation and Extraction 11,395 6%
Late Medical 3,964 2%
Other 488 - (below 1%)



English Abortion Law

The first references to abortion in English law appeared in the 13th Century. The law followed Church teaching that abortion was acceptable until 'quickening', which, it was believed, was when the soul entered the fetus. The legal situation remained like this for centuries.
1803: The Ellenborough Act - abortion after ‘quickening' (i.e. when movement is felt at 16-20 weeks) carried the death penalty. Previously the punishment had been less severe.
1837: The Ellenborough Act was amended to remove the distinction between abortion before and after quickening.
1861: The Offences Against the Person Act: performing an abortion or trying to self-abort carried a sentence of life imprisonment.
1929: Infant Life Preservation Act: this created a new crime of killing a viable fetus (at that time fixed at 28 weeks) in all cases except when the woman's life was at risk. However, it was not clear whether it would be legal to terminate for the same reason before 28 weeks.
In the 19th century and early part of the 20th century, a succession of laws was brought in to reduce access to legal abortion. These laws effectively controlled women's lives until 1967. But they did not, of course, prevent unwanted pregnancy, or the need for abortion. Thousands of women resorted to back-street abortionists, permanently damaging their health or dying. Newspapers advertised cures for ‘menstrual blockages', but women knew they were abortifacients. Many of these were ineffective and were also poisonous; one of the cheapest, a lead-based potion, poisoned and blinded many women.
1923-33: Fifteen per cent of maternal deaths were due to illegal abortion.
"In the thirties, my aunt died self-aborting. She had three children and couldn't feed a fourth ... So she used a knitting needle. She died of septicaemia leaving her children motherless."
"A high percentage of maternal mortality is due to attempted abortion ..... We, as a House of Commons and as a nation, must face up to that fact today."
During the 1930s, women's groups and MPs were deeply concerned about the great loss of life and damage to health resulting from unsafe, illegal abortion. The Conference of Co-operative Women was the first organisation to pass a resolution (1934) calling for the legalisation of abortion. The Abortion Law Reform Association was established in 1936.
1936: The Abortion Law Reform Association (ALRA) was established; its aim was to campaign for the legalisation of abortion.
1938: Dr. Alex Bourne was acquitted of having performed an illegal abortion. This set a case-law precedent.
Two years later, in a landmark case, Dr. Alex Bourne was acquitted of having performed an illegal abortion. He believed that abortion should be legal in exceptional circumstances and, most courageously, admitted having performed an abortion for a gang-raped 14-year-old who was suicidal. He argued that the law did permit abortion before 28 weeks and did allow abortion when a woman's mental or physical health was in danger. The court agreed that this was a life-threatening situation and acquitted Dr Bourne. As a result some women were able to get a safe abortion. However, uncertainty remained as a psychiatrist's approval was needed. It was usually only educated and/or relatively wealthy women who had the resources to find, and pay for, a compliant psychiatrist.
In 1939, the Birkett Committee was set up by the government to clarify whether doctors could perform an abortion to save a woman's life, but their work was interrupted by the outbreak of World War II.
1939: The Birkett Committee, which had been set up by the Government in 1936, recommended clarification that doctors could perform an abortion to save a woman's life. Unfortunately World War II interrupted any implementation of its findings.
1952-61: ALRA campaigned unsuccessfully for bills to legalise abortion. Support for reform grew.
In the fifties, support for reform grew. During the 1960s, fertility control became more widespread with the growth of the women's movement and availability of the contraceptive pill. However, illegal abortion was still killing, or ruining the health of many women. ALRA led the campaign in support of David Steel MP's private member's bill to legalise abortion.
1967: The Abortion Act (sponsored by David Steel, MP) became law, legalising abortion under certain conditions; it came into effect on 27 April 1968.
Since its passage in 1967 the Abortion Act has been unsuccessfully challenged several times by anti-choice ("pro-life") organisations which aim to restrict access to abortion.
In 1974, the Abortion Act was threatened by James White's private member's bill, sponsored by an anti-choice organisation. ALRA and other pro-choice groups combined to defend the 1967 Act against this, and successive attacks. Whilst ALRA and others made more formal representations, women's groups organised demonstrations and meetings, many brandishing wire coat-hangers, symbolic of dangerous back-street abortion methods. The campaign led to the formation of the National Abortion Campaign (NAC) in 1975. The first meeting was held in the House of Commons on 10th March.
1975: The National Abortion Campaign (NAC) was established to protect the 1967 Act and campaign for its improvement.
1990: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill introduced specific time-limits on abortion; it came into effect on 1 April 1991.
In 1990, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act introduced controls over new techniques which had been developed to help infertile couples and to monitor experiments on embryos. Despite attempts to use this law to restrict abortion rights, the 1990 Act lowered the legal time limit from 28 to 24 weeks, which is the currently accepted point of viability. It also clarified the circumstances under which abortion could be obtained at a later stage.
2003: NAC and ALRA merged to form Abortion Rights

Abortion Ethics

Women’s rights or fetal rights?
This is one of the main points of contention in the Abortion aregument, who has more rights, the woman or the tetus. To anti-Abortionists the fetus has the rights, they think Abortion is the murder of a unborn child. Pro-Abortionists balive that the Fetus is not alive and therefore has no rights.
Isn’t adoption the moral solution?
Many Pro-Life campagners balive that Adoption is the morally correct way for a unwanted child to be delt with.
When does life begin?
Some religions, such as Roman catholics, balive that life begins at fertilisation, as every feratalised egg could be a fertalised, there reasoning carries on from this to the idea that every sperm could be a human life and thus there forbiding of condoms.
Others balive that life begins at birth, whenever this may be, or when the fetus is able to surviv outside the womb.



I've given you info, now try to answer the question.

I think it depends on what stage the abortion is carried out. If it occurs when there is no actual developed human being within the womb, then no it's prevention of life which can't possibly be murder because there was no life to take away to begin with. If it's a later abortion when organs are formed, then yes I don't support that at all.

Ready for this mixed up answer... Yes, it is the murder of an unborn child and Yes, I believe it should be legal despite the fact that is the murder of an unborn child. Seriously, if a person considers terminating a pregnancy, how much would they care for the child if were to be born. Our world is now full of horrible, unsupervised children who are getting pregnant at 11 or 12 years old, killing people over silly things like sneakers, etc. If terminating a pregnancy is an option for you, then do it, because the rest of the world should not be punished for your mistake.

I'm one of the few men who think that anyone with a penis should probably shut their mouths and leave it up to the appropriate gender. Imagine the reaction if women were telling men what they should legally do with their reproductive organs! There'd be rioting in the streets, friends.

Although my political party (LP) supports freedom of choice, it's a tricky question. Whose civil liberties are being infringed upon: The woman's or the unborn child's?
I'll leave that issue up to the chicks, since they're the best equipped to responsibily deal with the issue.

Okay, let us see.

1. Legal abortion is the legal killing of an unborn child.

2. By definition, abortion is not the legalized murder of unborn child. Murder is an unlawful killing of a person.

3. Abortion is a basic human right. Women have rights to self-ownership, to personal autonomy, to bodily integrity, to privacy, to self-preservation, etc., that are all implicated by pregnancy and require a right to abortion.

4. A zygote, embryo, or early-term fetus is not a person. It has no inherent rights.

5. Even if a zygote, embryo, or fetus has a right to life, that right does not supercede the mother's right to her own body.

you could argue that fertalised egg onwards has all the genetic make up of the human being it will become should it be allowed to and is only short on a few cells. the argument that 'its just a bundle of cells' could be held to anyone of us. It doesn't have feelings, well it probably depends on teh stage of development, but even at a very early stage where it doesn't, neiher do some people with mental problems.

i am a man, but i think even if i wasn't i'd hold the same view. i'm also a catholic, please don't comments that i'm obviously biased then, as i can think for myself. here i agree with the church. this is an unusual stance for a liberal to take, but i agree with the final summing up, quote "Women’s rights or fetal rights". If i didn't think the feutus was a human being i'd be for the womans rights, but as i do...

its a difficult subject to talk about though, with the easy availability of abortion. i've stated my position and i really don't want to sound offensive, apologies if i do.

Cat-Tribe, how ya been? Can you put this into a legal framework? I feel out of step not towing the party line by indecision. You're good at this kind of thing... and like Mulder, I want to believe. ;)

Please read the 789023789024579897812345789897239784324089 posts on this topic which you didn't start?

Oh mod, not another one of these. :rolleyes:


"Abortion is not murder because you cannot kill something that isn't alive" vs. "Abortion is murder because they might become living beings and you are depriving them of life before they get it" vs. "Everyone: Official Warning for Flaming, etc. etc. etc."

That's all they are really.

Please read the 789023789024579897812345789897239784324089 posts on this topic which you didn't start?
If that was directed toward me, I usually don't read tired threads on this issue. Cat-Tribe is a bona fide lawyer with expertise in civil liberties cases.

Unless you have the cash to shell out for opinions like his (right or wrong), and would like to clue me in with your expertise, don't be a dick.

Also, do what everyone who's been here a while does... don't enter a thread just to bitch about its existence. There's plenty more that should give you something to discuss.

Many millions around the globe believe that Abortion is the Legalised murder of the unborn child, but they are opposed by millions more who believe abortion is a necessary part of life and a woman’s right.

These two camps, pro-life and pro-choice both believe they are right and have equally reasonable arguments when you look at it. The arguments have been a central part of elections across the globe, most notably in America but also in many other countries, including the UK.

You're right...we're in a gridlock here. The biggest difference however, is it was illegal to kill the unborn child a.k.a abortion, then everyone would be affected; those who wish to have one, couldn't. If it was legal to have an abortion, only those who would take advantage of it would be affected, and in a good way. The religious aspect of abortion is uncalled for. Legalizing abortion wouldn't or shouldn't create a stain on religion because Vegans and vegitarians don't go around blowing up slaughter houses, they've learned to deal with what is an abomination in their minds. As I saw in another thread regarding gay marriage: it doesn't affect the religion in any way. I can eat pork because I'm not a Jew. Jews aren't affected by my eating pork. Christians aren't affected by some girl getting an abortion.

If you don't like abortion--don't have one. It could be the new trend.

Nope. It's a medical procedure.

Is abortion the Legalised Murder of the Unborn Child?

No, it's not.... "legalized murder" is self-contradictory... "Murder" can't be legalized.... "Killing" can, however...

Is abortion legalized "killing"? Yes.

"Legalized murder?" By the constraints of the language; no, it's impossible...

Cat-Tribe, how ya been? Can you put this into a legal framework? I feel out of step not towing the party line by indecision. You're good at this kind of thing... and like Mulder, I want to believe. ;)

:D

I'm hanging in there. NS is a decent distraction from life. :)

Haven't seen you in a little while. Hope things are good.

As the thread-starter put this in the context of the UK, I'm on less certain ground with the legalisms. I was going to stick to the philosophy.

But your post was great. Made an important point.

(And I'm bad enough about injecting the legalisms. Don't encourage me! :p )

Lets keep in sensbale people please, I need this as I'm doing my humanities coursework-a little info so you can't claim to be ignorent.

Is abortion the Legalised Murder of the Unborn Child?


"Legalized Murder" is by definition an oxymoron. Murder is defined by webster as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought." A better question is based on "Legalized Killing" since you really can't leally "unlawfully kill" someone.

Unfortunately this question is in and of itself equally useless. We kill all sorts of things each and every day. A certain brand of disenfectant promotes that it "kills germs on contact." A certain brand of mouthwash "kills the germs that cause plaque." Bug zappers are not a mormal problem to most people.

(Given what I've written so far, it would probably surprise you to know that I am a solid pro-life person. But we do have to be reasonable in terms of terminology.)

I can warp the argument further, but I will get down to the final point, because it is the real key to any discussion. At what point in the development of a human being is the being a person and entitled to rights and protections under the law.

Most arguments go into viability and potentiality. Viability is a uncertain argument ... does a person who is in a coma suddently become not a person? What about those who are going through cardiac arrest? Potentiality is also based on personal preferences. Some people (such as the Catholic Church of whch I am a proud believer) suggest that the point of fertalization is when all the internal conditions allow for the completeness of personhood. Other people would suggest that since the embryo will only partially develop unless given hormones normally given by the mother post implantation, that it should be implantation, not fertalization that should be the critical point. Using partial birth abortion court cases the current U.S. attitude in jurisprudene is when the head of the infant has cleared the womb/birth canal.

The problem with this is that both sides feel the need to go into absolutes, because frankly no one wants to actually argue the pratical needs of intersecting rights. The language of absolutism is seen on both sides, and in this debate the actual needs/rights of both the post-born woman and the pre-born man/woman tend to be mostly lost in the warfare.

Please read the 789023789024579897812345789897239784324089 posts on this topic which you didn't start?

Meh. It has been awhile since we've had one of these threads.

I'm sure you've never repeated a post or a thread that someone else has made?

If you don't want to read another thread on abortion, then don't.


Oh mod, not another one of these.

"Abortion is not murder because you cannot kill something that isn't alive" vs. "Abortion is murder because they might become living beings and you are depriving them of life before they get it" vs. "Everyone: Official Warning for Flaming, etc. etc. etc."

That's all they are really.

Meh. I think we can discuss this civilly. If not, that is why we have Mods.

(And I'm bad enough about injecting the legalisms. Don't encourage me!
:D Nah, you're one of the few who doesn't bloviate without direct experience. I don't always agree with you, but I grew to respect your opinions as well-considered conclusions. It's refreshing after reading thread after thread of kneejerk reactionary windbag sentiment.

I recently moved to a new apartment, got a puppy and sold a business I ran for five years. Not much time in there for NS, but things are slowly calming down a bit. Hope you're not running yourself ragged either!

Is Abortion the legalised Murder of the Unborn Child?
Yes.
And No.
Is the child (of abortionable age) alive? Yes, it is alive. But it is not a separate life-form. Is it human? Yes, it is made of human cells; and no, it is not a human being, since it does not yet have a mind. Legally, it is not a human being until it breathes or the naval string is severed. Is it a child? Yes, it is off-spring. Is it murder? No. Legally, one can only murder born human beings, at least in my country (the old abortion law was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1988).

I am torn between wanting to protect unborn children, and allowing the woman control over her body. Personally, I cannot imagine having a child and not wanting it.

Meh. I think we can discuss this civilly. If not, that is why we have Mods.LOLSHIE!!! ROFLMAO!!! *Every other expression of laughter available in the internet universe*


Civilly....ahahahahahahahaha!!!!

The problem with this is that both sides feel the need to go into absolutes, because frankly no one wants to actually argue the pratical needs of intersecting rights. The language of absolutism is seen on both sides, and in this debate the actual needs/rights of both the post-born woman and the pre-born man/woman tend to be mostly lost in the warfare.

this is very true. i'm impressed with the civility everyone has shown here too. also, its the people with a few one one side or the other which tend to voice their opinions the loudest. the middle ground is difficult to hold in a question of 'is it right or wrong' especially when there are different criteria for right and wrong (woman vs feotus), so people with views neither pro-choice or pro-life will tend not to be very vocal.

If abortion is murder than masturbation is mass murder. Sure a fetus is alive, but so is grass.

Nobody marches in front of lawn care businesses.

A fetus is not a human, killing one is as wrong as killing a fly.

this is very true. i'm impressed with the civility everyone has shown here too. also, its the people with a few one one side or the other which tend to voice their opinions the loudest. the middle ground is difficult to hold in a question of 'is it right or wrong' especially when there are different criteria for right and wrong (woman vs feotus), so people with views neither pro-choice or pro-life will tend not to be very vocal.

A middle ground shouldn't be so hard to achieve.

Ideally, abortion should be legal but rare.

Abortion must be legal for a variety of reasons -- including the rights of the mother.

But we can do many things to make abortion rare that do not impinge on anyone's rights. We should try to make unwanted pregnancies as rare as possible. We should try to improve medical technology and availability so as to reduce the need for abortion. Etc, etc ...

If abortion is murder than masturbation is mass murder.I don't get that logic.

Besides, all those who rant against abortion also oppose masturbation.

I don't get that logic.

Besides, all those who rant against abortion also oppose masturbation.

and don't forget, they also tend to rant against any form of birth control, other than complete abstinence.

and don't forget, they also tend to rant against any form of birth control, other than complete abstinence.Yes I know, it's a little weird. They basically don't want people to have sex. :confused: Or do they rant against that too?

Yes I know, it's a little weird. They basically don't want people to have sex. :confused: Or do they rant against that too?
They don't want anyone to have sex unless they are a married heterosexual couple. Or, if they can't be married, heterosexual is fine. But they don't want anyone to have children who isn't married. But they can't use birth control or abortion. But if they get married, they can't get divorced. It's just WRONG! :rolleyes:

They don't want anyone to have sex unless they are a married heterosexual couple. Or, if they can't be married, heterosexual is fine. But they don't want anyone to have children who isn't married. But they can't use birth control or abortion. But if they get married, they can't get divorced. It's just WRONG! :rolleyes:I know. It is kind of weird. But then that was the situation 500 years ago. Tell me, conservatives, how were we better off 500 years ago than we are now? We had nothing but religion. Today we have everything but religion. What is better?

They don't want anyone to have sex unless they are a married heterosexual couple. Or, if they can't be married, heterosexual is fine. But they don't want anyone to have children who isn't married. But they can't use birth control or abortion. But if they get married, they can't get divorced. It's just WRONG! :rolleyes:


It is wrong to want people to be able to have lasting, functiong relationships with family?? It is wrong to expect people to actually work at something to make it last? it is wrong to not want adults and children to be scarred by divorce? it is wrong to want a woman not to go through post-abortion trauma?

It is wrong to want people to be able to have lasting, functiong relationships with family?? It is wrong to expect people to actually work at something to make it last? it is wrong to not want adults and children to be scarred by divorce? it is wrong to want a woman not to go through post-abortion trauma?

Is it wrong to force people to stay in a marriage they both want out of? YES.

Is is wrong to force someone to stay in an abusive marriage? YES.

Is is silly and counter-productive to oppose divorce? YES

Is "post-abortion trauma" a myth? YES

Is abortion safer and healthier -- physically, emotionally, and mentally ---than pregancy or childbirth for almost all women? YES.

It is wrong to want people to be able to have lasting, functiong relationships with family?? It is wrong to expect people to actually work at something to make it last?
Oh, it's not wrong to want healthy, long-lasting relatinoships. But eliminating divorce doesn't do that. It forces the relationships that do not work to continue!
it is wrong to not want adults and children to be scarred by divorce?
Is it any more right to have children scarred by abusive parents?

Anyway, that's a bit off-topic.

[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe]Is it wrong to force people to stay in a marriage they both want out of? YES.

I am saying that in the Christian mindset it would be that both people would want to work on and willingly persue a relationship with the other, Love is a choice not a feeling.

Is is wrong to force someone to stay in an abusive marriage? YES.

I whole-heartedly agree that someone in an abusive relationship SHOULD NOT undert any circumstances stay in that house. but in the marriage, yes. Again it is a choice to love and stay in a relationship. That can be done from a distance and should if a person is verbally abused or physically abused. But I believe that marriage is a contract that should be held under any circumstances save death.

I whole-heartedly agree that someone in an abusive relationship SHOULD NOT undert any circumstances stay in that house. but in the marriage, yes. Again it is a choice to love and stay in a relationship. That can be done from a distance and should if a person is verbally abused or physically abused. But I believe that marriage is a contract that should be held under any circumstances save death.
so...if a mairrage falls apart--which is sadly all too common--the two don't have to live under the same roof, but they're still married? They can't start a new life with someone else? They're bound in an unloving relationship because you like it that way?

so...if a mairrage falls apart--which is sadly all too common--the two don't have to live under the same roof, but they're still married? They can't start a new life with someone else? They're bound in an unloving relationship because you like it that way?


Did I say I liked it?? No that is how I think it should be. A person has a responsiblity to uphold what they agree to regardless of what the other person does. I hate seeing people get into relatioships that are wrong and are forced to take other measures. I have seen results both ways, of people being willing to work it out and it working and of people being willing to work it out and it simply failing. Oh the wonderful joys of being flawed. That is life sometimes things work sometimes they don't. I am merely presenting my belife's on how I deal with things and if I lived in a rose colored world how things would work. Of course if I lived in the world that was rose colored you could imagine just how much would be different

If abortion is murder than masturbation is mass murder. Sure a fetus is alive, but so is grass.

Nobody marches in front of lawn care businesses.

A fetus is not a human, killing one is as wrong as killing a fly.

you're oversimplifying it way too much. there may be people who think masturbation is mass muurder, i don't. i'm not getting into whether its right or wrong, that's in another thread. yes a fetus is alive, yes grass is alive. grass isn't human, a fetus is.

the important thing here is where people think that a bunch of cells, which become a bunch of differentiated cells, which become what is visibley a human form, which grows and is born, by sesarian or natural birth, becomes what people class as a live human. i place that distinction at fertilisation, as its an end point, anywhere else is relative. for example, uk laws are being (considered at least) to reduce the number of weeks after conception at which you can get an abortion. this could keep being reduced to a very short period of time after conception as medical science is able to support that child should it be born earlier (or removed from the mother). for me, there must be an absolute rather than relative point at which it is considered alive, although of course, there could be arguments about between the sperm meeting the egg and the DNA being integrated with the egg.

i can see why the rights of the mother is a strong argument for abortion, but if you consider the fetus to be a living human then for me that right comes first. its an extention of born child protection, parents can't kill there kids. i think that's the real crux of the debate (i might be wrong), the point at which the fetus becomes human.

i'd like to think i'm not ranting. i am a catholic, i'm currently trying to work out why the church has its stand as it does on masturbation, contraception and sex in general. but my views on abortion agree with the churches, whether or not we come to that conclusion through a different process i don't know.

"Is "post-abortion trauma" a myth? YES"
-whatever you call it, there will probably be issues you'd have to deal with if you have an abortion. as a man, if my partner had one i'd have major issues, and (obviously this can only be hypothetically) if i were a woman, i can only imagine those issues would be so much greater. but then maybe that's just coz i consider the fetus to be alive and human, and if i didn't i wouldn't have so much to think about.

i'd like to repeat, i am male, and so obviously don't know what its like for women to make the decision, and i am catholic, but agree with the church on this issue, rather than have this stance coz they tell me too. I think i'm still entitled to an opinion, and i don't meen to offend anyone with it.

Is "post-abortion trauma" a myth? YES

Is abortion safer and healthier -- physically, emotionally, and mentally ---than pregancy or childbirth for almost all women? YES.

In conjunction, there is "post-abortion trauma"; it's not a myth; and it's an situation that can occur in certain pregnant women regardless if they get an abortion or give birth; it's called PPD (Post-Partum Depression).

On the second issue; such does not jive with the STAKES study conducted in Finland over abortion vs. childbirth mortality rates http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1431.... The rates infact show a wide disparity between the number of post-partum induced suicides from women undergoing abortion, with those whose result from actual childbirth, or from miscarriage... Overall, suicides occuring in PPD cases after childbirth happened in 0.52% of the study; for PPD resultant from miscarriage 1.61%; and resultant from abortion 3.08%..... A women undergoing abortion is twice as likely to suffer PPD and commit suicide; as one who miscarried; and 6 times as likely as a women who gives birth...

The question in the title is analogous to 'Is cremation the legalized murder of the departed Human?'. Unborn people are NOT people.

My belief is that it becomes criminal when the fetus would be capable of surviving outside of the womb, and would not have a high liklihood of mental or physical disability. Once that is reached, abortion does become a crime, because you are killing a functioning individual. Before that is reached, you are merely eradicating a parasitic cluster of cells with the potential for life; if not fulfilling the potential is criminal, then not only are all forms of contraception criminal, not only is masturbation criminal, but indeed any woman who has a period is criminal, because she flushed out a potential baby.

For my part, I find the idea of abortion rather distasteful, but I recognize that it is better to have legal and largely safe abortions instead of back-alley jobs with knitting needles.

Is "post-abortion trauma" a myth? YES

Is abortion safer and healthier -- physically, emotionally, and mentally ---than pregancy or childbirth for almost all women? YES.

You may be thinking that this is just another Christian fanatic that has not done thier research in non-religious paraphanila and simply feels the need to promote his religious belief's without regard to what other people believe or feel. No I have done extensive research in both christian and non-religious camps. The majority of doctor's and psychologists say that in fact this is a real disease. and if it is a myth than so are things such as ADHD and depression in general. As any pregnat woman will tell you having a fetus at any stage of life can mess with the chemicals in your body, i.e. mood swings and morning sickness. On a basically molecular level abortion throws all of the chemicals off again and not in a positive way. Just as chemical depression is real so is post abotion trauma. Better physically, emotionally, and mentally?? http://www.wprc.org/21.45.0.0.1.0.phtml this is a non-religious article stating the possible health risks of abortion. http://www.wprc.org/21.46.0.0.1.0.phtml And this one shows the mental and emotional stress of women.

Now I am not saying that all women that have an abortion will have these complications or emotional issues what I am saying is that it will happen more often than not.

In conjunction, there is "post-abortion trauma"; it's not a myth; and it's an situation that can occur in certain pregnant women regardless if they get an abortion or give birth; it's called PPD (Post-Partum Depression).

On the second issue; such does not jive with the STAKES study conducted in Finland over abortion vs. childbirth mortality rates http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1431.... The rates infact show a wide disparity between the number of post-partum induced suicides from women undergoing abortion, with those whose result from actual childbirth, or from miscarriage... Overall, suicides occuring in PPD cases after childbirth happened in 0.52% of the study; for PPD resultant from miscarriage 1.61%; and resultant from abortion 3.08%..... A women undergoing abortion is twice as likely to suffer PPD and commit suicide; as one who miscarried; and 6 times as likely as a women who gives birth...

Correlation, of course, does not necessarily establish causation.

I never did like statistics, polls, and percentage studies in general. It simplifies things a lot more than accuracy requires.

you're oversimplifying it way too much. there may be people who think masturbation is mass muurder, i don't. i'm not getting into whether its right or wrong, that's in another thread. yes a fetus is alive, yes grass is alive. grass isn't human, a fetus is.

So what if grass isn't human? Grass can live on its own, but a fetus can't. Ignoring the impossible debate about whether or not a fetus is human, I said this before and I'll say it again. Making abortion legal wouldn't force people to have an abortion. Making it illegal would force people to not have an abortion, thus creating an unwanted child that would probably go up for adoption--or ruin the parents' lives--and thus be more likey to commit suicide.

This is the fallacy with pro-life. An unwanted child is an unhappy child that will most likely end up dead or in a life of crime--and be executed because pro-life ends at conception. Of course there are rare exceptions that an unwanted child could grow up in a healthy family--John Lennon probably would've probably been aborted as he was a "Saturday night special"--but he may have been born to another family at another time. It is impossible to know for sure. But what is known, is that an unwanted child is more likely to grow up in a dysfunctional houshold, the father may leave the mother and the baby and she would be forced to raise it singlehandedly. It's best to let abortions be.

Let it be.

In conjunction, there is "post-abortion trauma"; it's not a myth; and it's an situation that can occur in certain pregnant women regardless if they get an abortion or give birth; it's called PPD (Post-Partum Depression).

PPD != "post-abortion trauma." PPD is PPD.

On the second issue; such does not jive with the STAKES study conducted in Finland over abortion vs. childbirth mortality rates http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1431.... The rates infact show a wide disparity between the number of post-partum induced suicides from women undergoing abortion, with those whose result from actual childbirth, or from miscarriage... Overall, suicides occuring in PPD cases after childbirth happened in 0.52% of the study; for PPD resultant from miscarriage 1.61%; and resultant from abortion 3.08%..... A women undergoing abortion is twice as likely to suffer PPD and commit suicide; as one who miscarried; and 6 times as likely as a women who gives birth...

This is increasingly off-topic, but one oft-criticized study and even more criticized conclusions do not a fact make.

The scientific consensus is to the contrary.

APA Briefing Paper on The Impact of Abortion on Women (http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/womenabortfacts.html)
Is abortion a health risk? (http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000054E4.htm)
Induced Abortion in the United States (http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html)
Centers for Disease Control - Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2001 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm)
Psychological Responses of Women After First-Trimester Abortion (http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/57/8/777)
Testimony of Nada L. Stotland, MD, MPH (http://www.prch.org/advocacy_policy/stotland.shtml)
Therapeutic abortion and its psychological implications: the Canadian experience (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/113/8/754)
Psychosocial consequences of therapeutic abortion King's termination study III (http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/128/1/74?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=abortion&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1112592868160_5389&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=10&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1)

I've included only a few peer-reviewed journal articles among the above. If you really want to get into a battle of the studies, I have at least 20 I can post immediately.

I'd go with the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association instead. :)

The question in the title is analogous to 'Is cremation the legalized murder of the departed Human?'. Unborn people are NOT people.

My belief is that it becomes criminal when the fetus would be capable of surviving outside of the womb, and would not have a high liklihood of mental or physical disability. Once that is reached, abortion does become a crime, because you are killing a functioning individual. Before that is reached, you are merely eradicating a parasitic cluster of cells with the potential for life; if not fulfilling the potential is criminal, then not only are all forms of contraception criminal, not only is masturbation criminal, but indeed any woman who has a period is criminal, because she flushed out a potential baby.

For my part, I find the idea of abortion rather distasteful, but I recognize that it is better to have legal and largely safe abortions instead of back-alley jobs with knitting needles.

I was born by sesarian, does that make me not a person? When a fetus can survive outside the womb depends on the country its in and the healthcare available. it will also change over time, becoming gradually sooner. If you're gonna use the analogy of killing a dead person, ehich i think missess the point that fetus's are alive, its just whether you consider them to be human or not, i'll use a different far fdetched example. its a crime when the fetus could survive outside the mother, ie in an environment its not meant to be in. thats like putting an adult underwater and seeing if they'll survive...if they were left in the womb/on land, then they would survive. the point of abortion is to prevent birth, to prevent the fulfillment of a process which will result in a fully functional human. this may be why the church objects to contraception, as an extention as this idea (i don;t know), but to me the fertalised egg is a new individual i would class as human, and unarguably alive. it jsut depends at what stage you class it to be human. you appear (as many do, and the law, i think?) to put the distinction at 'where it can survive outside the mother'. as i've said, i don;t personally agree with this cut of point as it isn't meant to survive outside the mother at some points, and this point is variable on time and place.

So what if grass isn't human? Grass can live on its own, but a fetus can't. Ignoring the impossible debate about whether or not a fetus is human, I said this before and I'll say it again. Making abortion legal wouldn't force people to have an abortion. Making it illegal would force people to not have an abortion, thus creating an unwanted child that would probably go up for adoption--or ruin the parents' lives--and thus be more likey to commit suicide.

This is the fallacy with pro-life. An unwanted child is an unhappy child that will most likely end up dead or in a life of crime--and be executed because pro-life ends at conception. Of course there are rare exceptions that an unwanted child could grow up in a healthy family--John Lennon probably would've probably been aborted as he was a "Saturday night special"--but he may have been born to another family at another time. It is impossible to know for sure. But what is known, is that an unwanted child is more likely to grow up in a dysfunctional houshold, the father may leave the mother and the baby and she would be forced to raise it singlehandedly. It's best to let abortions be.

Let it be.

It impossible to know for sure... You said it yourself I could do as much damage to a child in a two parent and fully "functional" family.

Is "post-abortion trauma" a myth? YES

Is abortion safer and healthier -- physically, emotionally, and mentally ---than pregancy or childbirth for almost all women? YES.

You may be thinking that this is just another Christian fanatic that has not done thier research in non-religious paraphanila and simply feels the need to promote his religious belief's without regard to what other people believe or feel. No I have done extensive research in both christian and non-religious camps. The majority of doctor's and psychologists say that in fact this is a real disease. and if it is a myth than so are things such as ADHD and depression in general. As any pregnat woman will tell you having a fetus at any stage of life can mess with the chemicals in your body, i.e. mood swings and morning sickness. On a basically molecular level abortion throws all of the chemicals off again and not in a positive way. Just as chemical depression is real so is post abotion trauma. Better physically, emotionally, and mentally?? http://www.wprc.org/21.45.0.0.1.0.phtml this is a non-religious article stating the possible health risks of abortion. http://www.wprc.org/21.46.0.0.1.0.phtml And this one shows the mental and emotional stress of women.

Now I am not saying that all women that have an abortion will have these complications or emotional issues what I am saying is that it will happen more often than not.

**again, this is off-topic**

But bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

Unlike ADD/ADHD and depression, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Medical Association do not recognize "post-abortion trauma" or "post-abortion syndrome."

Please refer to my earlier post.

Moreoever, your source (which I happen to be very familiar with and is very, very biased) doesn't compare the risks of abortion to the risks of childbirth. Guess what? Most of the things listed there have a greater risk from childbirth than from abortion. :headbang:

But, if we are allowed to cite arguably biased sources:

Post-Abortion Issues (http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/post_abortion_issues.html)
Safety of Surgical Abortion (http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/safety_surgical_abortion.html)
POST-ABORTION SYNDROME (http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/myths/post_abortion_syndrome.html)
The Emotional Effects of Induced Abortion (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-010600-emoteff.xml)

PPD != "post-abortion trauma." PPD is PPD.

PPD happend, regardless whether through childbirth, miscarriage, or abortion.... It's a phychological disorder that simply occurs in some women POST-PARTUM... My point is, saying there is no "post-abortion trauma" is not any more correct than saying there is..... It's PPD... And it happens... Regardless if it's post-abortion, post-miscarriage, or post-birth.... It's the same disorder... It is a valid "post-abortion" disorder.... But it's not called that; and it's not unique to Abortion; occuring as a possibility amongst any pregnant woman whose pregnancy ends (naturally or unnaturally)....

Take the blinders off...


This is increasingly off-topic, but one oft-criticized study and even more criticized conclusions do not a fact make.

The scientific consensus is to the contrary.

APA Briefing Paper on The Impact of Abortion on Women (http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/womenabortfacts.html)
Is abortion a health risk? (http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000054E4.htm)
Induced Abortion in the United States (http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html)
Centers for Disease Control - Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2001 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm)
Psychological Responses of Women After First-Trimester Abortion (http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/57/8/777)
Testimony of Nada L. Stotland, MD, MPH (http://www.prch.org/advocacy_policy/stotland.shtml)
Therapeutic abortion and its psychological implications: the Canadian experience (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/113/8/754)
Psychosocial consequences of therapeutic abortion King's termination study III (http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/128/1/74?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=abortion&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1112592868160_5389&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=10&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1)

I've included only a few peer-reviewed journal articles among the above. If you really want to get into a battle of the studies, I have at least 20 I can post immediately.

I'd go with the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association instead. :)

The APA report was based off the CDC study; so they are the same study, not two seperate ones... The APA is a review and extrapolation of the CDC Study...

The STAKES study took into both induced, and PPD related deaths (natural death from procedural study, and suicide rates)... The CDC Study (of which the APA study is based from); is based upon procedural aspects only... Therefore; it's not accurate to say, overall, that "abortion" is itself safer; if people are more likely to commit suicide after such (Which neither the CDC nor APA, factored, only dealing with procedural deaths).... The only question I have for the APA; is how they managed to make assertions about a post-partum type disorder (of which PAT is) using a clinical mortality study from the CDC.... Seems like a stretch to me....Not to mention they misquoted the CDC's own study...... According to the APA, the CDC study showed that: 10 out of 100,000 (0.01%) women died in childbirth..... Whereas the CDC study clearly quotes "7.5 out of 100,000" (0.0075%).... About 1 out of 100,000 for clinical deaths in abortion from the CDC study (0.001%)... This against STAKES showing ~0.56% suicide rate in childbearing women, vice more than 3% for post-abortion suicide rates; and about 1.5% for post-miscarriage suicide rates...

The STAKES study was looking at the psychological effects inducing suicide deaths, in conjunction with mortality.... If anything it places the two (overall) on equal footing...


____________

More specifically, PAT=PPD=PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder)... Mimicing itself based on the event.... It's the same thing induced from the same source, by differing events... Same symptoms induced by any trauma.... abortion (natural or induced), childbirth, war, etc...

I'm not opposed to abortion; I opposed, however, to people telling women there is no risk involved in it, and that there are no detrimental effects possible....

I encourage any women who is encountering symptoms consistent with PPD/PAT/PTSD to seek counceling as soon as possible...

I think it depends on what stage the abortion is carried out. If it occurs when there is no actual developed human being within the womb, then no it's prevention of life which can't possibly be murder because there was no life to take away to begin with. If it's a later abortion when organs are formed, then yes I don't support that at all.

growth = life

also... it doesn't matter what stage of development the fetus/embryo is in... if sperm has fertilized the egg, it IS a human life. What else is it, a rock... a tree... a dog?

No, it's a human. So rationalize around the words "human" and "life" if it desensitizes you to killing it... the fact of the matter is, at any stage, it is human life.

that said, while i dislike abortion immensely because so often it is done for the convenience of the mother, i recognize that it is her body and i can't tell her what to do with it (imagine that argument with a murderer... "I hate murder, but it's his gun and i can't tell him what to do with it." We really have rationalized killing fetuses into an acceptable act, when in reality it mirrors murder). Also, there are instances in which it is actually okay, like when the mother's life is at risk.

If you don't like abortion--don't have one. It could be the new trend.

Using that logic... if you don't like murder, don't do it.

Agreed that this shouldn't be a religious issue, in fact I don't really understand why people say this is a religious issue any more than homicide is a religious issue. Pro-life people believe that abortion is murder, but last I checked non-religious people believe murder is wrong too.

I refuse to answer any thread that the question has an obvious answer to.

(hint: legalised murder)

Using that logic... if you don't like murder, don't do it.

Agreed that this shouldn't be a religious issue, in fact I don't really understand why people say this is a religious issue any more than homicide is a religious issue. Pro-life people believe that abortion is murder, but last I checked non-religious people believe murder is wrong too.
and yet some people don't not like murder, so they do it. Abortion is a religious issue because of when an embryo is considered a human and when that embryo has rights. It also has to do with the sanctity of marriage. It's sort of indirect and stupid, but that's how it is.

An "unborn child" is a contradictio in adjecto.

A child is someone the age of 2-12

Before that a human is a baby, and after that a teen.

An embryo is not everything that exists before a baby is born. There is egg cell first, then it incorporates a much much smaller sperm, than there is zygote, then embryo, etc.

But none of it is a human.

A human cannot be someone who has never breathed air.

There is the last breath, after which a human is no more.

And there is the first breath, before which there is NO human.

Why do people make such a big thing of 'murder'? For gods sake, its just an unborn child. Stuff dies all the time. People are so stupid. I've never understood why people have such an obsession with death. I don't consider murder a bad thing, and I never will.

I think killing people for fun is wrong, but if you have a reason then its okay. My mother taught me this, and I have never seen any evidence that it is wrong.

It isn't, because the law should recognize life as the moment when you are pyshically born. Maybe in religious terms it's before that, but the law is NOT religion and the law should recognize life as when you are actually born.

eh. on another note (and i know you religous types arent going to like this, and probabally disagree with me)

abortion is natural. i cant remember the number, but there is a suprisingly high chance for spontaneous abortions-many happen before the woman realizes she was even pregnant. but yep, if something is biologically wrong with the zygote, like chromosomes are a bit off or something, it is spontaneously aborted.

again, people arent going to like this, but it could be analagous to humans using various medical procedures and such... we have natural pathways to take care of something that goes wrong(abortion... immune system) but they dont always work, and being rational, intellegent, technically advanced critters that we are, we can recognize some problems on an intellectual level that are body is not cabable of realizing on a non-conscious level (certain medical conditions, I/we cannot support this child if it were to come to term, etc)

plus, as was stated before, i feel reproductive rights (birthcontrol, abortion, etc) are an essential part of feminism and sexual-equity, and furthermore, that denial of them has long been a tool of a patriarchal system to subjugate/oppress women.

plus the fact that ultimately, its the woman who is stuck with the burden or raising/caring for the kid (i know its not supposed to work this way legally, but it often does)

and, as said earlier, being a male, i dont feel its my place to tell some women what she can and can't do with her body.
(is it just me, or does it seem that some of the most rabid anti-abortionists tend to be male?....)

If the fetus is capable of sustaining itself outside of the uterus then an abortion could be considered murder. I take sustaining itself as breathing on it's own and basic life functions. (Up to a certain point, a fetus CANNOT do these things as it's lungs are too immature to pass the oxygen that it needs.)
If the fetus cannot sustain itself then it is not a viable organism and therefore an abortion should NOT be considered as murder in anyway.

Is abortion the taking of a life?

Personally I believe yes. By the time the majority of women have the abortion significant growth of the fetus/baby in utero if you will , has occurred. I feel it is silly to say that something that is growing and changing is not alive. Some might argue that the cells do not represent life because there is no viability involved. The point out the dependency in regards to then the mother's body. Well... a newly born infant can not survive on it's own either and if left in some forest ...would evetually die. I am saying that the fetus/infant is alive at both times, inutero/exutero. In fact to stress the point furhter an infant when born is not done devoloping.... continues to do so in a head to foot direction... nerves ect.

Face it... if you believe in abortion you believe in taking life. Some have already come to this conclusion while others choose to deny it.

I have seen many premature infants survive and do well....when a few years ago.... the viability issues would have precluded them, before birth, as living.

I would rather... and this is sad to say... women paid to have their tubes tied (not forced to) ...and then when they decide they want to have a baby.... get the procedure reversed (tubal reanastomosis)..true it would be no guarantee that the reversals would work(have seen many successes though) This would decrease, if not totally abolish unwanted pregnancies. Of course adoption is a much less drastic alternative:) Birth control is another option... but lets face facts...how many condoms break or someone forgets to take their pill.

Is abortion the taking of a life?

Personally I believe yes. By the time the majority of women have the abortion significant growth of the fetus/baby in utero if you will , has occurred. I feel it is silly to say that something that is growing and changing is not alive. Some might argue that the cells do not represent life because there is no viability involved. The point out the dependency in regards to then the mother's body. Well... a newly born infant can not survive on it's own either and if left in some forest ...would evetually die. I am saying that the fetus/infant is alive at both times, inutero/exutero. In fact to stress the point furhter an infant when born is not done devoloping.... continues to do so in a head to foot direction... nerves ect.

Face it... if you believe in abortion you believe in taking life. Some have already come to this conclusion while others choose to deny it.

I have seen many premature infants survive and do well....when a few years ago.... the viability issues would have precluded them, before birth, as living.

I would rather... and this is sad to say... women paid to have their tubes tied (not forced to) ...and then when they decide they want to have a baby.... get the procedure reversed (tubal reanastomosis)..true it would be no guarantee that the reversals would work(have seen many successes though) This would decrease, if not totally abolish unwanted pregnancies. Of course adoption is a much less drastic alternative:) Birth control is another option... but lets face facts...how many condoms break or someone forgets to take their pill.

Of course abortion destroys life.

But you destroy "life" everyday. Do you eat meat? Vegetables?

Some life is valuable. Some life isn't. By any valid moral criteria, an embryo is not a person.

BTW? are you aware of how early in a pregancy most women have an abortion?

In the US, almost 60% are within the first 8 weeks of gestation and almost 90% are within 12 weeks gestation. An increasing number (now up to about 25%) are within less than 6 weeks gestation. And this is despite the bans and limitations on medical abortions (i.e., R-U 486).

I was born by sesarian....

You mean Cesarian or Caesarian (as in Cesar/Caesar, Gaius Julius; sic. Julius Caesar)....

To the Cat-Tribe

It's always a pleasure to read your posts (even if I don't agree with you). It's amazing that you're always willing to correct the wrong "facts" posted around these forums.

abortion is natural. i cant remember the number, but there is a suprisingly high chance for spontaneous abortions-many happen before the woman realizes she was even pregnant. but yep, if something is biologically wrong with the zygote, like chromosomes are a bit off or something, it is spontaneously aborted.

First-time pregnancies have a failure rate in the region of 87%, the majority of which occur before the mother is even aware of it.

I was born by sesarian, does that make me not a person? When a fetus can survive outside the womb depends on the country its in and the healthcare available. it will also change over time, becoming gradually sooner.

:rolleyes: C-section births have nothing to do with it. Besides which, you will note that I had qualifications; "My belief is that it becomes criminal when the fetus would be capable of surviving outside of the womb, and would not have a high liklihood of mental or physical disability". So whilst I concede that medical science makes things trickier, it's still a reasonably cut-and-dried thing to me. I think the weeks within which you may have an abortion are pretty reasonable though, five to six months sounds fair in most cases.

An "unborn child" is a contradictio in adjecto.

A child is someone the age of 2-12

Before that a human is a baby, and after that a teen.

An embryo is not everything that exists before a baby is born. There is egg cell first, then it incorporates a much much smaller sperm, than there is zygote, then embryo, etc.

But none of it is a human.

A human cannot be someone who has never breathed air.

There is the last breath, after which a human is no more.

And there is the first breath, before which there is NO human.
.

I know that to be a Jewish tenant. I imagine many other religious and non religious persons hold that view ...referring to the first breath comment. I on the other hand disagree.... for example... FHR monitoring, (fetal heart rate), tracing the actual heart rate of the infant... especially if intenally placed, advances in utero surgical procedures....absolutely fantastic reading there. Seriously :). These measures and more are in place to sustain the life of an infant human while in urtero. Also are you going to tell to parents whose child died in the process of birth and never took there first humanizing breath that what they are holding and crying over is not human. I understand your point of view...just dont agree with it.

Of course abortion destroys life.

But you destroy "life" everyday. Do you eat meat? Vegetables?

Some life is valuable. Some life isn't. By any valid moral criteria, an embryo is not a person.

BTW? are you aware of how early in a pregancy most women have an abortion?

In the US, almost 60% are within the first 8 weeks of gestation and almost 90% are within 12 weeks gestation. An increasing number (now up to about 25%) are within less than 6 weeks gestation. And this is despite the bans and limitations on medical abortions (i.e., R-U 486).

I understand that many abortions are done earlier than in the past. There are many advances in the medical/obstetrical field. Example: at 8 wks you can do a trans vaginal ultrasound and see the heart pumping...quite cool I might add. We have progressed techologically on both sides of this issue. I just feel people in general have the abortions due to factors of embarrassment and or that is will present an inconvience to them.....otherwise adoption would be flourishing more than it is now. With all the couples trying IVF to have a child... it seems sad that many would kill the life inside them. I know there are many who would take that child in a heart beat.

Yes we all take life in one form or another... but when I eat my carrots :) it is to sustain my physical life. The majority of abortions are not performed for the physical sustainment of the mother's life.

eh. on another note (and i know you religous types arent going to like this, and probabally disagree with me)

abortion is natural. i cant remember the number, but there is a suprisingly high chance for spontaneous abortions-many happen before the woman realizes she was even pregnant. but yep, if something is biologically wrong with the zygote, like chromosomes are a bit off or something, it is spontaneously aborted.

again, people arent going to like this, but it could be analagous to humans using various medical procedures and such... we have natural pathways to take care of something that goes wrong(abortion... immune system) but they dont always work, and being rational, intellegent, technically advanced critters that we are, we can recognize some problems on an intellectual level that are body is not cabable of realizing on a non-conscious level (certain medical conditions, I/we cannot support this child if it were to come to term, etc)

plus, as was stated before, i feel reproductive rights (birthcontrol, abortion, etc) are an essential part of feminism and sexual-equity, and furthermore, that denial of them has long been a tool of a patriarchal system to subjugate/oppress women.

plus the fact that ultimately, its the woman who is stuck with the burden or raising/caring for the kid (i know its not supposed to work this way legally, but it often does)

and, as said earlier, being a male, i dont feel its my place to tell some women what she can and can't do with her body.
(is it just me, or does it seem that some of the most rabid anti-abortionists tend to be male?....)

Of course a spontaneous abortion(sp ab) is natural. What is not natural is an elective abortion.

Okay, let us see.

1. Legal abortion is the legal killing of an unborn child.

2. By definition, abortion is not the legalized murder of unborn child. Murder is an unlawful killing of a person.

3. Abortion is a basic human right. Women have rights to self-ownership, to personal autonomy, to bodily integrity, to privacy, to self-preservation, etc., that are all implicated by pregnancy and require a right to abortion.

4. A zygote, embryo, or early-term fetus is not a person. It has no inherent rights.

5. Even if a zygote, embryo, or fetus has a right to life, that right does not supercede the mother's right to her own body.


Well, excuse me, but I guess the mother does not have the choice to take a pill or use a diaphram but can choose to stop life?

The definition of murder: to stop life.

If you stop something from growing, then you are stopping it from living. If you stop it from living, its MURDER.

It would be totally different if she were rapped, but otherwise she has THE CHOICE TO:

- use a diaphram
- use the pill
- use the patch
- make him use a condom
- not have sex at all

Once she has sex and a zygote is formed, life has started and even though it is her body, she CHOSE to not use any of the above and therefore MUST not have an abortion because IT IS MURDER.

End of discussion. I'd like to thank everyone else who has participated.

First-time pregnancies have a failure rate in the region of 87%, the majority of which occur before the mother is even aware of it.



thanx, i was pretty sure it was way up there in the percentages, but could not remember a good number, nor a source, so i figured it was better to keep my mouth shut.


and as far as the growing bit, (dont take this too seriously, to a certain extent im playing devil's advocate with this comment)
tumors grow as well, should we be removing them? they genetic information and everything.... are we wrongfully terminating a life by removing and incinerating them?

It would be totally different if she were rapped, but otherwise she has THE CHOICE TO:

- use a diaphram
- use the pill
- use the patch
- make him use a condom
- not have sex at all

Once she has sex and a zygote is formed, life has started and even though it is her body, she CHOSE to not use any of the above and therefore MUST not have an abortion because IT IS MURDER.

End of discussion. I'd like to thank everyone else who has participated.

let me start this by saying i dont advocate abortion, id much rather see birth control being used...
but-
the pill doesnt always work, and condoms break, and people arnt going to stop having sex.
not too mention all the screw-ups over sex-ed, like 'abstinence only' (i agree that abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy and stds, but to teach _only_ abstinence and nothing but is sheer folly and idiocy.)

now this may be picking at minor differences, but what about cases where the mother's health is an issue? i have a friend who would not be alive today had she not got an abortion.... and on the way there, she was harassed by anti-abortion protestors...

not to mention there are plenty of people who feel there should be _no_ exceptions for abortion, not even rape or health....(and, im pretty sure most of them are male... go figure)

Yes.

let me start this by saying i dont advocate abortion, id much rather see birth control being used...
but-
the pill doesnt always work, and condoms break, and people arnt going to stop having sex.
not too mention all the screw-ups over sex-ed, like 'abstinence only' (i agree that abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy and stds, but to teach _only_ abstinence and nothing but is sheer folly and idiocy.)

now this may be picking at minor differences, but what about cases where the mother's health is an issue? i have a friend who would not be alive today had she not got an abortion.... and on the way there, she was harassed by anti-abortion protestors...

not to mention there are plenty of people who feel there should be _no_ exceptions for abortion, not even rape or health....(and, im pretty sure most of them are male... go figure)

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

* 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
* 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
* 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
* 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
* 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
* 7.9% of women want no (more) children.
* 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
* 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

Source:http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

Your friend was in the minority....majority is due to convience. I am sorry she was harrassed though. She actually had a legitimate reason. Example of a legitimate case...tubal pregancy. The infant will not live in this case, at least not till medicine advances to the point where they are able to surgically place the zygote in the womb, and the mother would die if the pregnancy were to continue.
On the other hand I feel no such sympathy for someone who says I dont want any more children and I dont want anyone else to have my child. They hold zero credibility with me.

thanx, i was pretty sure it was way up there in the percentages, but could not remember a good number, nor a source, so i figured it was better to keep my mouth shut.


and as far as the growing bit, (dont take this too seriously, to a certain extent im playing devil's advocate with this comment)
tumors grow as well, should we be removing them? they genetic information and everything.... are we wrongfully terminating a life by removing and incinerating them?

Ahh... I knew that one was coming about the tumor... I was also thinking someone might throw viruses in as well....

A tumor will never, if let to grow, ever become human. Obviously a fetus will grow into what anyone will call a human eventually. A woman's body has specific anatomy to naturally give birth. I know many try to make pregnancy a disease state.... lol... but it is as natural as something can get. ;)

Since you aren't a person who is getting an abortion, it rests with no one but the particular woman what can and can't happen. Abortion is no more serious of murder than when a guy jerks off. Perhaps all of us guys should be banned from masturbating. After all, sperm cells are half of what becomes a fetus. There are many views on this, good luck trying to find something neutral. Just, don't pick biased view points to quote for your homework. State the facts.

Ahh... I knew that one was coming about the tumor... I was also thinking someone might throw viruses in as well....

A tumor will never, if let to grow, ever become human. Obviously a fetus will grow into what anyone will call a human eventually. A woman's body has specific anatomy to naturally give birth. I know many try to make pregnancy a disease state.... lol... but it is as natural as something can get. ;)
Might I just add that a tumor, is made of the persons own cells and is also human? Just like your biceps are human ;)

And having a tumor is not unnatural.

Might I just add that a tumor, is made of the persons own cells and is also human? Just like your biceps are human ;)

And having a tumor is not unnatural.

True a tumor is natural... but a tumor has the possibility of ending one's life. A tumor does not function as a normal cell would. That is what I was getting at. I think comparing a bicep..... human tissue... a component of the human body, to a fetus is a fallacious analogy. A bicep in itself will not grow to become an infant just as a tumor will not. Though with all the genetic advances ..hmmm we shall see :)

True a tumor is natural... but a tumor has the possibility of ending one's life. A tumor does not function as a normal cell would. That is what I was getting at. I think comparing a bicep..... human tissue... a component of the human body, to a fetus is a fallacious analogy. A bicep in itself will not grow to become an infant just as a tumor will not. Though with all the genetic advances ..hmmm we shall see :)
Oh, but then again, a fetus can also lead you to certain doom :eek:

Before modern medicine, many, many mothers died during child birth, and often the children too.

And, the fact that something may grow into a human is also a fallacious argument, 'cause you don't know if it will.

True a tumor is natural... but a tumor has the possibility of ending one's life. A tumor does not function as a normal cell would. That is what I was getting at. I think comparing a bicep..... human tissue... a component of the human body, to a fetus is a fallacious analogy. A bicep in itself will not grow to become an infant just as a tumor will not. Though with all the genetic advances ..hmmm we shall see :)



no argument about it being fallacious....:)

i was just throwing it out there to counter the bit about 'if it grows, it is alive'



and i realize my friend was in the minority, but still, ive encountered people that would have rather she(and her fetus) die, then have access to legal abortions.

and as to the statistics, i do believe some of them are arguable as to what is convenience and what isnt.

personally, i see the 'cant afford a baby' as more of a necessity.

but still, ive encountered people that would have rather she(and her fetus) die, then have access to legal abortions.
It's not like the human population is dwindling, is it? This is survival of the fittest all over again.

no argument about it being fallacious....:)

i was just throwing it out there to counter the bit about 'if it grows, it is alive'



and i realize my friend was in the minority, but still, ive encountered people that would have rather she(and her fetus) die, then have access to legal abortions.

and as to the statistics, i do believe some of them are arguable as to what is convenience and what isnt.

personally, i see the 'cant afford a baby' as more of a necessity.

Where they can't afford the baby I really think adoption would be the best option. Who knows....someday that child may come to meet that mom..who only gave them up due to financial concerns and build a relationship with them. If abortion is the road chosen that reunion won't be happening. Also I have known some women personally who have been forced to have an abortion just because it would embarass the family. Quite sad. :(

Where they can't afford the baby I really think adoption would be the best option. Who knows....someday that child may come to meet that mom..who only gave them up due to financial concerns and build a relationship with them. If abortion is the road chosen that reunion won't be happening. Also I have known some women personally who have been forced to have an abortion just because it would embarass the family. Quite sad. :(
Or, they could spend their life moving from orphanage to orphanage and later from fosterhome to fosterhome, leading a depressed life.

An abortion could spare a lot of misery, it's not like orphans find their real parents, and go "hey, you left me because you couldn't afford me, let's build relationships people!"

Lets keep in sensbale people please, I need this as I'm doing my humanities coursework-a little info so you can't claim to be ignorent.

*snippage*

I've given you info, now try to answer the question.
Whether or not a fetus is a living human individual has nothing to do with whether or not abortion should be legal.

As a human being, I have the right (at least in my country), to refuse to donate my blood, organs, tissues, or life to any other being. I have the right to refuse this even if I not longer need them (am dead). I have the right to refuse them if the being in question is my wife, parent, best friend, and even my own child. I have the right to refuse them even if the need was caused by my own negligence (a car accident for example). I have the right to refuse even when that negligence is criminal (drunk driving). And most importantly, I have that right even when I intentionally cause the damage that creates the necessity in a purposeful criminal act (I.E. If I shot you).

If a fetus is recognized as a full human being, then I should have the guaranteed right to deny it the use of my body if I so desire. The only way abortion could be forbidden is if fetuses were granted rights that no born human being possess, and I see no reason to do that.

Or, they could spend their life moving from orphanage to orphanage and later from fosterhome to fosterhome, leading a depressed life.

An abortion could spare a lot of misery, it's not like orphans find their real parents, and go "hey, you left me because you couldn't afford me, let's build relationships people!"

reread my post. you obviously misread. I was forwarding the option of adoption.

reread my post. you obviously misread. I was forwarding the option of adoption.
And I'm saying abortion can be a better choice than adoption. Or did I misunderstand you?

And I'm saying abortion can be a better choice than adoption. Or did I misunderstand you?
When I was talking about adoption you responded with orphanages... are you saying adoption leads to orphanages... that is where my confusion as to whether you read my post correctly came from.

When I was talking about adoption you responded with orphanages... are you saying adoption leads to orphanages... that is where my confusion as to whether you read my post correctly came from.
I'm saying that unhappy life is just as, if not more, probable than the scenario you described earlier.

Abortion is no more serious of murder than when a guy jerks off. Perhaps all of us guys should be banned from masturbating. After all, sperm cells are half of what becomes a fetus. There are many views on this, good luck trying to find something neutral. Just, don't pick biased view points to quote for your homework. State the facts.

I think some people argue that. I wouldn't, or else you could argue every time a girl menstruates, or a guy has a wet dream that's murder. I don't think losing sperm, which have half the neccessary genetic material and can't survive without combining with an egg, would count as a new human life in itself. i do think a fertalised egg does though, as i've said before.

As for the tumor idea, that's a part of someone, and is made up of there own cells. a fetus isn't, it's madee up of different cells and is its own entity, even if it reuires teh mother for a while, and will go on to form a new human being (i say go on to, what i really mean is will be born, as i think it already is a human).

I'm saying that unhappy life is just as, if not more, probable than the scenario you described earlier.

The possibility for sadness and happiness exist for every individual that is alive. I for one would like the chance at a possibility of a happy life versus no life at all. Besides...my personality...I would not allow my life to stay unhappy.

How can a child be unborn?

I think some people argue that. I wouldn't, or else you could argue every time a girl menstruates, or a guy has a wet dream that's murder. I don't think losing sperm, which have half the neccessary genetic material and can't survive without combining with an egg, would count as a new human life in itself. i do think a fertalised egg does though, as i've said before.

So you contend that roughly 50% of human lives end before they are big enough to be seen by the naked eye?

As for the tumor idea, that's a part of someone, and is made up of there own cells.

So identical twins are the same person? What about conjoined twins?


a fetus isn't, it's madee up of different cells and is its own entity, even if it reuires teh mother for a while, and will go on to form a new human being (i say go on to, what i really mean is will be born, as i think it already is a human).
Which is it? If it is a new human, then it won't BECOME a new human, right? I can't become a human because I am one right now...I think...so which position are you taking?

The possibility for sadness and happiness exist for every individual that is alive. I for one would like the chance at a possibility of a happy life versus no life at all. Besides...my personality...I would not allow my life to stay unhappy.
Well your personal opinion is hardly relevant?

I've only read the last page of this thread. Should I read all of it?
Is there ANYTHING IN HERE THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE A BILLION TIMES BEFORE?
If so, tell me. Please.

Lots of quotes from pg 3 or 4 and replies, also i can't spell cesarian, sorry :rolleyes: .

Post abortion trauma/depression/issues:
I don't know if medically there is a thing called post abortion trauma/depression. But regardless you need to live with it, as i stated before. It may not be so hard if you see the fetus as not being human, i don;t know.

Definitions:
"An "unborn child" is a contradictio in adjecto.

A child is someone the age of 2-12

Before that a human is a baby, and after that a teen.

An embryo is not everything that exists before a baby is born. There is egg cell first, then it incorporates a much much smaller sperm, than there is zygote, then embryo, etc.

But none of it is a human.

A human cannot be someone who has never breathed air.

There is the last breath, after which a human is no more.

And there is the first breath, before which there is NO human. "

There's also the murder definition. I'm gonna ignore the wording of the q's and go for 'is abortion the legalised killing of an unborn human?' then people can answer the q without worrying about definitions. I think also, it makes the argument clearer as almost by definition it is.

Murder isn;t a bad thing
"Why do people make such a big thing of 'murder'? For gods sake, its just an unborn child. Stuff dies all the time. People are so stupid. I've never understood why people have such an obsession with death. I don't consider murder a bad thing, and I never will.

I think killing people for fun is wrong, but if you have a reason then its okay. My mother taught me this, and I have never seen any evidence that it is wrong. "

I'm surprised you've not had more people reply to this, but you think murder isn;t a bad thing! I think you'll find few people support this position. "just an unborn child", if i took out the word unborn would that make the sentance seem callous? Would it make it murder? yes, but of course you don;t think murder is a bad thing, so...

Maybe death isn't a bad thing, it's natural and will always happen to everyone at some point. but killing people is wrong. "if you have a reason then its okay" OK, i have a reason to kill you, your views differ to mine, would that make it ok for me to kill you, NO!

Law and recognition of life/human-ness
"It isn't, because the law should recognize life as the moment when you are pyshically born. Maybe in religious terms it's before that, but the law is NOT religion and the law should recognize life as when you are actually born. "

Why should the law recognise that as the moment of life? atm, in the uk at least, it recognises it at 24? weeks after pregnancy. What's so special about birth that makes that the time when you become 'alive', which shouldn't be the term used, but human. What happens if you have early/late/cesarian births? putting special value on the moment of birth makes no sense to me.

similar point
"If the fetus is capable of sustaining itself outside of the uterus then an abortion could be considered murder. I take sustaining itself as breathing on it's own and basic life functions. (Up to a certain point, a fetus CANNOT do these things as it's lungs are too immature to pass the oxygen that it needs.)
If the fetus cannot sustain itself then it is not a viable organism and therefore an abortion should NOT be considered as murder in anyway."

What if it could do this with medical support? and why is this the point at which you'd class it as murder? If we were put in water we wouldn't survive, if you take a fetus which can't breath yet out of its womb it will also die, but if you leave it a few weeks it wouldn't. as its just a matter of time, i don't see why you've put the cut of point there. its the same organism, its just a few weeks later. It is viable in its environment and not out of it, as are we.

There's a few points in this one:
"eh. on another note (and i know you religous types arent going to like this, and probabally disagree with me)

abortion is natural. i cant remember the number, but there is a suprisingly high chance for spontaneous abortions-many happen before the woman realizes she was even pregnant. but yep, if something is biologically wrong with the zygote, like chromosomes are a bit off or something, it is spontaneously aborted.

again, people arent going to like this, but it could be analagous to humans using various medical procedures and such... we have natural pathways to take care of something that goes wrong(abortion... immune system) but they dont always work, and being rational, intellegent, technically advanced critters that we are, we can recognize some problems on an intellectual level that are body is not cabable of realizing on a non-conscious level (certain medical conditions, I/we cannot support this child if it were to come to term, etc)

plus, as was stated before, i feel reproductive rights (birthcontrol, abortion, etc) are an essential part of feminism and sexual-equity, and furthermore, that denial of them has long been a tool of a patriarchal system to subjugate/oppress women.

plus the fact that ultimately, its the woman who is stuck with the burden or raising/caring for the kid (i know its not supposed to work this way legally, but it often does)

and, as said earlier, being a male, i dont feel its my place to tell some women what she can and can't do with her body.
(is it just me, or does it seem that some of the most rabid anti-abortionists tend to be male?....) "

I'm religious, but i agree or disagree based on the merit of what is said. Anyway, onto what's said. This discussion isn't about natural abortion, where the zygote/fetus dies due to natural causes. Its analogous to a born human dying of natural causes. That couldn't be called murder, killing or anything, its just natural death not caused by anyone. I don't understand the point your second paragraph is getting at, can you explain? or is it that parents couldn't cope if the pregnancy came to pass? If so, IMO, adoption is an option. I don't want to opress women, and although i'm still working out where i stand with contraception from a religious point of view, from a secular point of view, and therefore hte POV i feel the law should take, i don't have any problem with non-abortive contraception. there are issues with it, it needs to be used everytime and correctly, and still may not work, but its better than not using it. My problem is then if it doesn't work for whatever reason, that we then get back to the abortion issue. but i'm not anti-women or their liberty, i'm just more pro-life. i'm also male, and i don;t know whether most anti-abortionalists are or aren't. as to who the care of the child will fall to, if it were mine i would care for it as much as the mother (i'm fairly sure, but then i've not been put in that situation, so it is hypothetical), but i realise this wouldn't always be the case. I can see how this is a problem, and could restrict womens freedom, but i still feel the right to a life out-weighs the womans choice here.as has been said, contraception and adoption are at least partial answers.

Viability and who abortion laws affects
"Quote:
Originally Posted by Fernyland
you're oversimplifying it way too much. there may be people who think masturbation is mass murder, i don't. i'm not getting into whether its right or wrong, that's in another thread. yes a fetus is alive, yes grass is alive. grass isn't human, a fetus is."

[response]
"So what if grass isn't human? Grass can live on its own, but a fetus can't. Ignoring the impossible debate about whether or not a fetus is human, I said this before and I'll say it again. Making abortion legal wouldn't force people to have an abortion. Making it illegal would force people to not have an abortion, thus creating an unwanted child that would probably go up for adoption--or ruin the parents' lives--and thus be more likey to commit suicide.

This is the fallacy with pro-life. An unwanted child is an unhappy child that will most likely end up dead or in a life of crime--and be executed because pro-life ends at conception. Of course there are rare exceptions that an unwanted child could grow up in a healthy family--John Lennon probably would've probably been aborted as he was a "Saturday night special"--but he may have been born to another family at another time. It is impossible to know for sure. But what is known, is that an unwanted child is more likely to grow up in a dysfunctional houshold, the father may leave the mother and the baby and she would be forced to raise it singlehandedly. It's best to let abortions be.

Let it be."

The point of grass not being human is that i can't see how you can bring it into a debate on abortion usefully. So a fetus isn't viable by itself, neither are we without bacteria in the gut or mitochondria. we're not meant to be. also, see my examples about environment and us in water. "Making abortion legal wouldn't force people to have an abortion. Making it illegal would force people to not have an abortion, thus creating an unwanted child that would probably go up for adoption--or ruin the parents' lives--and thus be more likey to commit suicide." true, abortions being legal don't force people to have them , that would be ludacrous as no-one could then reproduce, but thats not your point. making it illegal does force childbirth. this is a downside of no abortions, and yet its whole point. it might encourage more 'responsible' sex, or more use of contraception, or it may not. i also accept that many abortions occur despite these precautions. adoption is a possibility. also, i don;t accept that the child will neccessarily ruin the parents life, that the child will neccessarily be unhappy, that either would be particularly likely to commit suicide, or that the childwill end up with a crap job. you accept this with your lennon eg, but i think its important that 'lennon' has the oportunity to be born. i place life rights before choice.

an important point, you say pro life ends after contraception. this is true of many (mostly american) right wing religious types. I am religious, but my views on abortion are my own. but i'm not right wing, i'm liberal. i think death penaltys and euthenasia are wrong too. I'm surprised more liberals aren't anri abortion and pro life as they're anti-death penalty, but i guess it's a clash with choice and most side with choice.

Organ donations...
The last point raised about organ donations, its a good point, and one i hadn't thoought of in this debate. i (controversially?) think that we should be considered default donors unless there's a moral or religious reason not to be. so while the point is a good one, it doesn't work against my debate, although probably would against many other pro-life people. (I am a blood donar now and am registered for organ donation when i die).

I realise some of what i've written will look very anti-women/choice, it may possibly be because of how i think i would treat a woman if the child was mine (i'd also take responsibility of the child), but is certainly coz i see the fetus as a living human, who's rights must be put before those of choice. that is what it all comes down to, IMO, and why there can't really be middle ground, coz you support life or choice 1st. This does raise difficult scenarios with rape (ezpecially underaged), and if a woman is going to die without an abortion. in these situations i'm not sure what's right, (especially the last one).

So you contend that roughly 50% of human lives end before they are big enough to be seen by the naked eye?

So identical twins are the same person? What about conjoined twins?


Which is it? If it is a new human, then it won't BECOME a new human, right? I can't become a human because I am one right now...I think...so which position are you taking?


I don't know about 50%, but if that's the number, then yes. They are natural deaths, and aren't mourned coz we don't know about them, but i guess if that's the % then that's what i would contend.

Identical twins, although they share genetic material, this material was split and developed into two individuals. The term is probably cloning? but in a natural sense. By my reasoning you have one life and it becomes two. I don't know if conjoined twins are neccessarily identical or not, but the same thing happens here, except they share tissue, but other than the shared parts, they develop independantly.

sorry, poorly worded. it is a human (my stance at least), but will go on to become a born human (as opposed to unborn), which is how many people appear to define human.