NationStates Jolt Archive

i just heard this story on the cbs evening news and since it has been discussed here many times i thought y'all would be interested in it.

Taking on one of the most highly charged questions in the American debate about abortion, a team of doctors has concluded that fetuses probably cannot feel pain in the first six months of gestation and therefore do not need anesthesia during abortions.

Their report, published Tuesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association, is based on a review of several hundred scientific papers, and it says that nerve connections in the brain are unlikely to have developed enough for the fetus to feel pain before 29 weeks
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/23/news/fetus.php

does this have any effect on your feeling about abortion?

does this have any effect on your feeling about abortion?Nope. But it makes me sleep a bit easier being pro choice. :)

Interesting.

I am still pro-choice.

So to cover the upcomming replies.

It's liberal propaganda.
It doesn't jusifity murdering babies.
The liberal media.

And away we go. ;)

Interesting.

I am still pro-choice.

So to cover the upcomming replies.

It's liberal propaganda.
It doesn't jusifity murdering babies.
The liberal media.

And away we go. ;)
You're no fun at all...:(

Nope. But it makes me sleep a bit easier being pro choice. :)
me too

im adamantly pro-choice but i dont like the idea of causing anyone or anything unnecessary pain.

I'm not going to argue either!

Love all around!

Yay!

No, I'm still pro-choice, because I'm a true conservative, and I don't believe in infringing upon people's basic rights. I myself believe that if you fail to prevent conception, you should raise the child yourself, but if others don't believe that, then fine, let them do as they will. Trust me, there are many in the Christian right who will tell you I'm not a Republican, or not a conservative. Don't believe them. The 80s may have destroyed the true meaning of conservative, but I remember what it is. The religious right controls the party for now, but all we must do is remember this: the religious right will vote Republican until something more in line with their views emerges. If we run a man like McCain, they will vote for him simply because he is better than whatever the Democrats run out. We aren't going to lose them anytime soon, so we don't have to play into their hands all the time. It's time to return to true conservatism!

... i dont like the idea of causing anyone or anything unnecessary pain.
Which is why I don't have sex without condoms ;)

Answer - No

why? I'm already pro-choice.

I find abortion quite funny - but it doesn't interest me as a political issue. Were I to be aborted, I might feel differently. As it is, this report doesn't surprise me - nor will the one next month showing the exact opposite.

I just don't give a shit. Being a high schooler, I've found that my life is a hell of a lot easier if I don't care.

Which is why I don't have sex without condoms ;)

It's that big? Or were you intending something else? ;)

It's liberal propaganda.
It doesn't jusifity murdering babies.
The liberal media.
Bush said it's bad so this report is untrue![/sarcasm]

Seeing as how I'm already pro choice, more ammo.

Lastly: "Vote Regressive. Against abortion. For killing babies"[/Maddox]

Interesting conclusion, considering that my son was (according to my wife) reacting to loud noises at 5 months gestational age. So he could hear, but he couldn't feel pain, hm? I wonder how that works, exactly.

Interesting conclusion, considering that my son was (according to my wife) reacting to loud noises at 5 months gestational age. So he could hear, but he couldn't feel pain, hm? I wonder how that works, exactly.When's the last time pain affected your hearing?

It's that big? Or were you intending something else? ;) Hehe, I almost wish it were that big. No, it's to prevent her from having the unnecessary pains of having to choose between studying or the child and whatever the consequences of that decision are.

When's the last time pain affected your hearing?

I just find it difficult to believe that a fetus with a nervous system sufficiently developed to hear sounds does not also possess a nervous system sufficiently developed to feel pain, that's all.

And I'm automatically suspicious of any study that has any relevance to the abortion debate. They always seem to confirm the politics of whoever commissioned the study. So I don't automatically accept the conclusions of this study as confirmed fact.

:rolleyes:

I just find it difficult to believe that a fetus with a nervous system sufficiently developed to hear sounds does not also possess a nervous system sufficiently developed to feel pain, that's all.

And I'm automatically suspicious of any study that has any relevance to the abortion debate. They always seem to confirm the politics of whoever commissioned the study. So I don't automatically accept the conclusions of this study as confirmed fact.

:rolleyes:I know. It's a problem if you have a country where there's still a mainstream debate about it. Biggest controversy in Europe that I know of was when John Paul II decided to pull the catholic church out of German "Pregnancy-conflict Counciling" (which is mandatory before having an abortion in Germany) and Kardinal Lehmann offered his resignation on it.
That basically amounts to there not being any silly studies that get refuted after a couple of days.

I just find it difficult to believe that a fetus with a nervous system sufficiently developed to hear sounds does not also possess a nervous system sufficiently developed to feel pain, that's all.

Does the nervous system even have to do with the ability to hear sounds? Isn't that a whole different system of thingies?

While I will not answer with any of the aforementioned arguments, which The Black Forrest was so kind to lay out for us, I will say that it does not change my views on abortion. I am very much pro-choice - I say let the baby decide whether it wants to be killed or not. This argument relates more to abortion in general then specifically to this report, but I'll get to that in a minute. Abortion, I believe, is a travesty against humanity. Scientific research shows that at the moment of conception, the "fetus" is biologically alive. It has all four criteria needed: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. A "fetus" can reproduce itself by twinning up to fourteen days after conception. Nine to ten days after conception, blood is circulating. Hormones are produced at twelve days. The nervous system appears at two weeks. Between eighteen and twenty one days after conception, the baby's heart begins to beat. At five weeks, arms and legs are forming. At two months, the brain forms. At ten weeks, the gender is discernable. At three months, fingernails and bones form.

Why do I begin with all of this? It is to show, scientifically, and not based on religion or the Bible (in which many people place no faith), that what many would call a "zygote" or a "fetus" is technically a human being, alive and having intrinsic value.

To answer the argument that will probably follow, that a woman has a right to do with her own body as she pleases, I agree. She does. However, she does not have the right to do with another's body as she pleases. Considering the aforementioned scientific evidence, she therefore does not have the right to an abortion.

What about the case of rape? While it wasn't the woman's choice to carry the baby, it is still a human life. Does the fact that someone wronged you give you the right to kill an innocent? No.

Now, to answer the article itself.

1) The article speaks in indefinite words such as "probably" and "maybe." Without conclusive proof, how can one actually say that the baby/"fetus" does not feel pain?
2) While it may make a "compelling case," as Dr. Grimes stated, without surity, the risk of violating the baby's rights as a human and torturing it outweighs the probability that the baby doesn't feel pain. When dealing with an issue of rights, every step away from what can be considered an infringment of rights outweighs the desire to push forward.
3) This somewhat relates to one of the arguments posted by The Black Forrest, but it still holds water, in light of my extended overview. If a "fetus" is a human being, scientifically alive and with intrinsic value, and with the rights that are conferred upon all humans, then whether or not he or she feels pain does not actually matter when deciding whether or not to kill him or her.

I think that about covers it. Feel free to engage me, preferably directly on the points I have brought up (no ad hominine arguments, please).

It should probably be mentioned that the report was sponsored by the only late-term abortion clinic in California.

It should also be noted that they didn't find a conclusive answer one way or the other.

To me, it doesn't matter anyway. If you're shot and killed, does it really matter in the long-run if you felt pain? It's sorta rediculous for this to have actually changed your mind.

honestly the thought had never occurred to me that a fetus would feel pain or be anesthestitized for an abortion. i find it fairly disturbing. does it change my opinion on the matter? no. I'm pro-choice, i dont believe the government has the right to dictate what an individual does in this situation, but practically i think there are usually better ways of dealing with it. I certainly hope they don't feel any pain, though my gut feeling on the matter is that they probably feel something if it's later along...it wasn't a very decisive study.

Interesting conclusion, considering that my son was (according to my wife) reacting to loud noises at 5 months gestational age. So he could hear, but he couldn't feel pain, hm? I wonder how that works, exactly.

Actually, it is equally unllikely that he could hear, at least in the sense that you and I think of it, at 5 months. It is more likely that he was reacting to vibration, in much the way that a deaf person might. Of course, reaction to vibration isn't exactly the same as feeling pain.

It has all four criteria needed: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. A "fetus" can reproduce itself by twinning up to fourteen days after conception. Nine to ten days after conception, blood is circulating. Hormones are produced at twelve days. The nervous system appears at two weeks.

The nervous system appears at two weeks? That is a laughable claim that can only be made by someone who has never bothered to study embryology even in the barest sense of the word study. The first organ system developed is the circulatory system - and, as you said, that is developed later than 2 weeks. At 2 weeks, the three dermal layers aren't even well defined.

Meanwhile, the term fetus does not apply until 8 weeks. On top of that, a fetus cannot, as an entity, respond to stimuli until it has a functioning nervous system - which generally occurs near the end of the first trimester.

Why do I begin with all of this? It is to show, scientifically, and not based on religion or the Bible (in which many people place no faith), that what many would call a "zygote" or a "fetus" is technically a human being, alive and having intrinsic value.

Your so-called science is contradicted by every embryology study in existence.

1) The article speaks in indefinite words such as "probably" and "maybe." Without conclusive proof, how can one actually say that the baby/"fetus" does not feel pain?

There really is no such thing as "conclusive proof" in science. If you want to know how these conclusions were reached, read the study from whence they come.

2) While it may make a "compelling case," as Dr. Grimes stated, without surity, the risk of violating the baby's rights as a human and torturing it outweighs the probability that the baby doesn't feel pain. When dealing with an issue of rights, every step away from what can be considered an infringment of rights outweighs the desire to push forward.

You are aware that, in most states, to have an abortion after three months, the woman would have to have a clear medical need to do so?

Why do I begin with all of this? It is to show, scientifically, and not based on religion or the Bible (in which many people place no faith), that what many would call a "zygote" or a "fetus" is technically a human being, alive and having intrinsic value.
A zygote is not a human being. A fetus is, or is becomeing a human being, as your "scientific" facts show.

To answer the argument that will probably follow, that a woman has a right to do with her own body as she pleases, I agree. She does. However, she does not have the right to do with another's body as she pleases. Considering the aforementioned scientific evidence, she therefore does not have the right to an abortion.

If a "fetus" is a human being, scientifically alive and with intrinsic value, and with the rights that are conferred upon all humans, then whether or not he or she feels pain does not actually matter when deciding whether or not to kill him or her.
If (when) a fetus is a human being with all human rights it still does not have the right to live as a parasite and enslave another human. The fetus is in the mother's body, is feeding off her and is forcing her to adjust her life to it's needs. If the mother does not want to accept this intrusion she has the right to defend herself with whatever means prove neccessary. If an abortion is the only way to free herself from the fetus, then she has the right to make an abortion. That would be no different if a grown up person was killed in the abortion.

Is anyone else bothered by people's reference to fetuses as "parasites?" It may be 'technically' true by some definition - IMO not even, since I think a parasite must be of a different species - but its usage is almost always done for the same reason some people call fetuses "babies" - emotional manipulation. I mean does anyone *really* see someone who is pregnant and goes, "Aha! A human being infected with a parasite!"?

Parasites contribute nothing to the host, or at least nothing in comparison with what they take from it. Fetuses constitute the host's REPRODUCTION process, a necessary component of every single organism on the planet. Calling them "parasites" is a stretch, and it's basically done to demonize the 'enemy' in arguments I've seen.

Is anyone else bothered by people's reference to fetuses as "parasites?" It may be 'technically' true by some definition - IMO not even, since I think a parasite must be of a different species - but its usage is almost always done for the same reason some people call fetuses "babies" - emotional manipulation. I mean does anyone *really* see someone who is pregnant and goes, "Aha! A human being infected with a parasite!"?

Parasites contribute nothing to the host, or at least nothing in comparison with what they take from it. Fetuses constitute the host's REPRODUCTION process, a necessary component of every single organism on the planet. Calling them "parasites" is a stretch, and it's basically done to demonize the 'enemy' in arguments I've seen.
I did not say that the fetus is a parasite, but that it acts like a parasite. If the woman does not want to reproduce, then being her "reproduction process" is not contributing anything to her. So while you are correct that the fetus is not biologically a parasite it is not logically incorrect to draw an analogy between the fetus and a parasite.

And The argument is that a woman, like any human being, has the right to defend herself against an intrusion in her body. What the fetus is is irrelevant.

I did not say that the fetus is a parasite, but that it acts in a way that is common to parasites.

The argument is that a woman, like any human being, has the right to defend herself against an intrusion in her body. What the fetus is is irrelevant.I disagree. The woman's body at least is partially responsible for the "intrusion".

I did not say that the fetus is a parasite, but that it acts in a way that is common to parasites.

The argument is that a woman, like any human being, has the right to defend herself against an intrusion in her body. What the fetus is is irrelevant.

"Defend herself" against an "intrusion?" What about defending herself against having sex and getting pregnant in the first place?

Still sounds like you want to paint pregnancy as a disease and imply that abortion is the cure.

It is the anti-abortionists who bring up that the fetus is an independent human being. That is why it is needful to discuss rights. I don't talk about somebody's rights regarding a disease, rights are only relevant in relations to other people.

Do you have a point, or are you just attacking my way of phrasing it because you are out of arguments?

Edit: Oh, and you don't need quotation marks around intrusion. If one person is in another person's body (or on hir property) without an invitation, then it is an intrusion. If the invitation is withdrawn the stranger must leave and that's it.

It is the anti-abortionists who bring up that the fetus is an independent human being. That is why it is needful to discuss rights. I don't talk about somebody's rights regarding a disease, rights are only relevant in relations to other people.

Do you have a point, or are you just attacking my way of phrasing it because you are out of arguments?

Edit: Oh, and you don't need quotation marks around intrusion. If one person is in another person's body (or on hir property) without an invitation, then it is an intrusion. If the invitation is withdrawn the stranger must leave and that's it.I'm pro-choice, and I find the wording inappropriate.

It is the anti-abortionists who bring up that the fetus is an independent human being.

Right, and that's annoying, just as the pro-choicers who refer to it constantly as a parasite is. On one hand we have people going "It's a humaaan beeeeing, don't murder it!" and on the other, people saying "It's a parasite, kill it!" You may not be, but this is a common thing in abortion arguments and its annoying in general.

Do you have a point, or are you just attacking my way of phrasing it because you are out of arguments?

Yes, yes, and no respectively.

Edit: Oh, and you don't need quotation marks around intrusion. If one person is in another person's body (or on hir property) without an invitation, then it is an intrusion. If the invitation is withdrawn the stranger must leave and that's it.

Since a fetus is not a "person," a fetus existing does not constitute an intrusion. IF you're talking about rape, then you might be valid here but otherwise no.

In fact, doctors that perform abortions try as hard as possible to keep mothers from seeing what actually happens in an abortion. After all, they don't want to loose buisiness.

This is because people in general do not want to see the gory details of ANY surgery on themselves. It's not unique to abortion doctors, so quit trying to make it sound like there's a conspiracy to hide the "truth."

I'm pro-choice, and I find the wording inappropriate.
Why? I am not born english, so my phrasing is a bit clumsy, because I don't know all the words I might like to use. But there is no fact errors in that post, so if you agree with my point, what is your problem?

I didnt want to get into religion, yet if your religious and your Pro-Abotion, you should kno that the Bible states that God knows you even before you are in the womb.

Very few pro-abortionists have actually seen a saline injected baby. For your delight and enjoyment, I will find a few abortion images online.

http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/more5.jpg
http://www.prolife.org.uk/Images/Malachi.jpg
http://www.timandmelanie.com/images/abortion/slides/Aborted%20at%2022%20weeks.jpg

You get the point. By the way, this isn't just republican propoganda. Its the truth. In fact, doctors that perform abortions try as hard as possible to keep mothers from seeing what actually happens in an abortion. After all, they don't want to loose buisiness.

Evidently, it is only considered a human life when the head leaves the womb. In other words, they can abort a baby even after the woman's water has broken. I mean, WTF. The actual birth of the child isn't even a very significant event in human developement. All it is the baby is now breathing on its own, and taking in food a different way. In the womb there is brain activity, the child does breathe amniotic fluid to strengthen the diafram, it does even have a sleeping pattern. Then, the day before birth, it is perfectly legal for a woman to go in and have the child aborted. Lets see how they are aborted during the final stages -


Quote:
1) Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's legs with forceps.

2) The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.

3) The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head

4) The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the skull.

click for larger image

5) The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.


or http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/abortion_types/ for full information.

I believe there is a story about a baby named Samuel.
ah yes.
http://www.badbishops.com/oth/samuel_reaches.html

If you are too lazy to read that, basically its a baby who underwhent surgery very early in the pregnancy, then when they were stitching the womb, the baby reached out and grabbed the doctors hand.

In - other - words
It had motor skills enough to be able to reach out, and the brain capacity to find the hole, reach out of it, and grab the doctor. Now while that isn't completely human or nessisarily baby-ish, it cirtainly is a little more human than "a lifeless mass of tissue".

Basically abortion is a REALLY big problem with me, I find it disgusting, and yes, it is murder. Laws are fucked up. Hell, wasn't Scott Peterson even charged with the murder of two humans? I mean JESUS CHRIST how fucked can it get...
I agree with you that abortions done that late (when the child can live outside the woman) are wrong and actually murder. However that thing when the fetus reached out of the stomach was not a sign of awarenness (if it is the same story I have seen). The fetus is blind and moving around in a small round space. It is quite likely to get a limb out through a hole in the wall by chance, but very unlikely to notice the whole before sticking it's hand out (even with an adult brain, which the fetus does not have).

Why? I am not born english, so my phrasing is a bit clumsy, because I don't know all the words I might like to use. But there is no fact errors in that post, so if you agree with my point, what is your problem?Connotation. It's the emotional meaning words carry and, while the words are technically correct, the way they are said is rude. I'd probably get bitched out by any anti-PCer for this, but sometimes some words aren't viable options. "Intrusion" feels violent, wrong, and most importantly with intent. The fetus doesn't "intend" to enter at all, in fact it is conceived there.
There's better ways to argue the case.

Since a fetus is not a "person," a fetus existing does not constitute an intrusion. IF you're talking about rape, then you might be valid here but otherwise no.
I, and the post I was replying to, were assuming that the fetus is person. That is obviously not true for an embryo or very early fetus. But in that case the fetus is just property, and it is not owned by anyone but the mother, so there are no rights except hers involved. The case that it makes sense to discuss is when the fetus is a human being, so that both the mother and the fetus have the same rights.

I didnt want to get into religion, yet if your religious and your Pro-Abotion, you should kno that the Bible states that God knows you even before you are in the womb.Muahahaha. You won't find many pro-abortionists at all here. In fact, I've only ever met one. :D

Connotation. It's the emotional meaning words carry and, while the words are technically correct, the way they are said is rude. I'd probably get bitched out by any anti-PCer for this, but sometimes some words aren't viable options. "Intrusion" feels violent, wrong, and most importantly with intent. The fetus doesn't "intend" to enter at all, in fact it is conceived there.
There's better ways to argue the case.
Sorry. What word would be right?

Very few pro-abortionists have actually *snip* ahh the horror attempts :rolleyes:

Actually, the one local outfit uses a weak form of cianide(sp?) to stop the the heart.


You get the point. By the way, this isn't just republican propoganda.

Actually it's the propaganda of the people that control the republicans.


Its the truth. In fact, doctors that perform abortions try as hard as possible to keep mothers from seeing what actually happens in an abortion. After all, they don't want to loose buisiness.

Actually the doctors explain the procedure in detail so there are no surprises and to make sure you want to go through with it.

As to loosing business :rolleyes: Yea I am sure every doctor hears cash register sounds when a woman or couple enters their office. :rolleyes:


*snip blah blah blah*
. Then, the day before birth, it is perfectly legal for a woman to go in and have the child aborted. Lets see how they are aborted during the final stages -

Where have you been? After 6 months is next to impossible to get an abortion.



*snip yet more horror attempts*

If you are too lazy to read that, basically its a baby who underwhent surgery very early in the pregnancy, then when they were stitching the womb, the baby reached out and grabbed the doctors hand.

And that means nothing. Just a reaction. My girl after a few months was stunned when she folded her fingers with the pointer still out.


In - other - words
It had motor skills enough to be able to reach out, and the brain capacity to find the hole, reach out of it, and grab

Sorry it's just a reaction. Babies lock onto anything you put into their hands. They don't think about it.


Basically abortion is a REALLY big problem with me, I find it disgusting, and yes, it is murder.

Gee really?


Laws are fucked up. Hell, wasn't Scott Peterson even charged with the murder of two humans? I mean JESUS CHRIST how fucked can it get...

Yes and do we have to explain why it's different?

Nope. Murder is still murder.

Nope. Murder is still murder.Uhuh. But abortion isn't.

Sorry. What word would be right?A fetus doesn't enter a woman. Half of what it needs to be created does, but the rest needs to be available within the woman. That's why conception is the better term.

Murder is Murder Indeed, abortion is just plain Sick :headbang: , i cannot even deal with it, The only abortion i see somewhat right would be rape, and even then it is still sicking to think a mother would want to Kill her own child, wanted or not, if she cant take care of the child, im sure a family member would love to take care of there neice, nephew, or grandchild, and yet, theres more, there are THOUSANDS of adoption clinics everywhere, The Fire department even allows moms to leave there un-wanted, or child that would otherwise not be taken care of, to them.

A fetus doesn't enter a woman. Half of what it needs to be created does, but the rest needs to be available within the woman. That's why conception is the better term.
I was not talking about the conception. Conception is when the egg becomes fertilized. It lasts only a very short time. I was talking about the presence of another human inside the mother, which is at least one time unit later than conception.

honestly the thought had never occurred to me that a fetus would feel pain or be anesthestitized for an abortion. i find it fairly disturbing. does it change my opinion on the matter? no. I'm pro-choice, i dont believe the government has the right to dictate what an individual does in this situation, but practically i think there are usually better ways of dealing with it. I certainly hope they don't feel any pain, though my gut feeling on the matter is that they probably feel something if it's later along...it wasn't a very decisive study.
I agree. I don't think the government has the right to dictate what an individual does in any situation. If I want to go around killing people, its alright as long as I don't cause them pain.

Murder is Murder Indeed, abortion is just plain Sick :headbang: , i cannot even deal with it, The only abortion i see somewhat right would be rape, and even then it is still sicking to think a mother would want to Kill her own child, wanted or not, if she cant take care of the child, im sure a family member would love to take care of there neice, nephew, or grandchild, and yet, theres more, there are THOUSANDS of adoption clinics everywhere, The Fire department even allows moms to leave there un-wanted, or child that would otherwise not be taken care of, to them.It's so kind of you to let her rethink her decision of giving it away for the 9 months she has to carry it around. But at least you let rape victims decide. What about when the birth would seriously injure or kill the mother?

I was not talking about the conception. Conception is when the egg becomes fertilized. It lasts only a very short time. I was talking about the presence of another human inside the mother, which is at least one time unit later than conception.But that wouldn't be an intrusion either.

But that wouldn't be an intrusion either.
Yes it is. If I am on your property without your permission I am intruding. If I am in your body without your permission that is also an intrusion, because you own your body.

I could of course say trespassing, but I don't see how that has any better connotations. I asked you to come up with a word that I could have used to say the same thing, but that would not be offensive. Is there such a word, or are you just evading the discussion? What/why?

This is stupid, whether or not a fetus is alive is not the question. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on that. The real question here is, whether the government has the right to step in and make abortion illegal. The straight answer is, no. A fetus is a part of a woman's body, in the physical and emotional sense. Because the fetus cannot live without the mother, that makes it a part of the mother. O, I all most forgot, the U.S. supreme court has already ruled on this issue. So if you don't like abortions, than don't have one, and leave the rest of us alone.

Yes it is. If I am on your property without your permission I am intruding. If I am in your body without your permission that is also an intrusion, because you own your body.

I could of course say trespassing, but I don't see how that has any better connotations. I asked you to come up with a word that I could have used to say the same thing, but that would not be offensive. Is there such a word, or are you just evading the discussion? What/why?I'm not trying to evade the discussion. An intrusion is an intended ENTRY into something, which is clearly not the case. I'm saying the word doesn't fit at all to discribe the situation and that it would be best to find something with a better reasoning behind it to defend choice.

<snip>because you own your body.
<snip>
No you don't. Try killing yourself, mutilating yourself or shooting up heroin in a police station.
You own your body only insofar as society deems your actions with it to not be detrimental to the greater good of society.

No you don't. Try killing yourself, mutilating yourself or shooting up heroin in a police station.
You own your body only insofar as society deems your actions with it to not be detrimental to the greater good of society.

Self-mutilation and suicide are legal in most places.

The fact that using drugs is prohibited in most societies doesn't make it right.

You have an inalienable right to ownership of your body and any law that impinges on that is oppressive and morally wrong.

I just find it difficult to believe that a fetus with a nervous system sufficiently developed to hear sounds does not also possess a nervous system sufficiently developed to feel pain, that's all.

And I'm automatically suspicious of any study that has any relevance to the abortion debate. They always seem to confirm the politics of whoever commissioned the study. So I don't automatically accept the conclusions of this study as confirmed fact.

:rolleyes:

Same here. Even though I'm pro-choice, my first thought was 'how convenient'. The mind is complex and hard to study, and must be even harder to study when the person hasn't been born yet! I'm guessing that this is a pretty subjective conclusion.

i just heard this story on the cbs evening news and since it has been discussed here many times i thought y'all would be interested in it.


http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/23/news/fetus.php

does this have any effect on your feeling about abortion?

No, it just makes me realise how stupid some scientists are.

I've seen babies born earlier than that and know full well they can feel pain.

I didnt want to get into religion, yet if your religious and your Pro-Abotion, you should kno that the Bible states that God knows you even before you are in the womb.

I am religious, I belive that abortion is morally wrong (unless there is a serious risk for the mother's life), but I still believe that the government doesn't have the right to interfere with the moral choices of its citizens, so i believe i would qualify as pro-choice.

Helping mothers decide not to resort to abortion, instead, would be a good thing, both from the government and from individuals (by giving economical help to poor mothers, or similar things, not by waving shocking pictures and murder accusations)

I'm still pro choice. Of course the fetuses doesn't feel pain cos its not a sentient being. This is my opinion before any pro life radicals(are there are a few of you out there) freak out completely. I am against late term abortion I think 6 months is a bit late to abort-unless for medical reasons tho.

i just heard this story on the cbs evening news and since it has been discussed here many times i thought y'all would be interested in it.


http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/23/news/fetus.php

does this have any effect on your feeling about abortion?
Well, if fetuses could feel pain then anesthesia should be used during abortions I suppose. But, either way, it doesn't change my support of abortion in general.

I'm still pro choice. Of course the fetuses doesn't feel pain cos its not a sentient being.

Non-sentient beings can often feel pain. Though I suppose it depends on how you define "feel," since they may not experience pain the same way we usually classify it...goddam brains, being so complicated...


This is my opinion before any pro life radicals(are there are a few of you out there) freak out completely. I am against late term abortion I think 6 months is a bit late to abort-unless for medical reasons tho.
Late term abortion is only performed for medical reasons in America. It's been that way for a very very long time. If you read about "late term abortion bans," they aren't seeking to ban elective late term abortions because that's already on the books...they are seeking to block late late term abortion that are performed for medical reasons.

Nope. As far as I am concern abortion is still more humane that rasing a child that you don't want. A child that will never be raised or treated right. A child that will be on wellfare for his life.

thats my thoughts.

No you don't. Try killing yourself, mutilating yourself or shooting up heroin in a police station.
You own your body only insofar as society deems your actions with it to not be detrimental to the greater good of society.

Perfect, thank you for such a wonderful argument for the pro-choice position :-) If a woman has an abortion it is not detrimental to the greater good of society, therefore it is her choice, and should remain perfectly legal.

Anti-abortionists are fighting a losing battle, society is generally forward driven. Abortions were made legal for the greater good of society, it is widely agreed that a government driven by religion is a backward one as it excludes members of the society who are not of that religion and we live in an ever increasing mulit-cultural society. Anyone who argues against abortion for reasons other than religious ones are still looking back to a time where women were controlled by men, when illagally aborted fetuses were found in alleyways next to women bleeding to death with coathangers jammed up inside them.

Stop looking back and look forward with the rest of us to a time where everyone has the education to know to use contraceptives, where contraceptives are 100% effective, where no one ever rapes someone else, where everyone is paid sufficiently to be able to afford to raise healthy children and the help society should give to single parents is readily available so that abortion is never desired and therefore a non-issue. Come people into the future!!! (This may sound sarcastic/ironic etc, but I don't mean it to be. I truely believe it is possible with time and effort.)

Non-sentient beings can often feel pain. Though I suppose it depends on how you define "feel," since they may not experience pain the same way we usually classify it...goddam brains, being so complicated...


Late term abortion is only performed for medical reasons in America. It's been that way for a very very long time. If you read about "late term abortion bans," they aren't seeking to ban elective late term abortions because that's already on the books...they are seeking to block late late term abortion that are performed for medical reasons.

I've heard of plenty of women still getting them when they are late late. To the best of my knowledge they are still available in the UK and some other countries in Western Europe.

I've heard of plenty of women still getting them when they are late late. To the best of my knowledge they are still available in the UK and some other countries in Western Europe.
Be careful about believing what you "hear of." I'd check the laws and the statistics first, if I were you. Women don't just carry a pregnancy for 8 months and then decide they want to get rid of it on a whim...honestly, do people really think women are that nuts?!

ooh another abortion thread. Only this time everyone seems pro choice anyway...

Whoever is having the ongoing argument about the wording of an argument, please move on. Intrusion may not sound good to you but you know what point is being made. That an unwanted fetus living inside a mother is there without permission. In fact intruding sounds fine to me. It wasnt there before, now it is, i dont want it there its an intruder! I dont care if it didnt walk up the path and sneak in the window. Gee. Get over the semantics.

Did i read correctly that rape victims have a moral excuse to have an abortion? Im pro choice but i cant understand how someone who believes abortion to be morally wrong can say that. Explain

Perfect, thank you for such a wonderful argument for the pro-choice position :-)
You think? Bad idea. What if society deems that not enough children are being born (like in Japan)? Then abortion becomes harmful and illegal. (This is assuming the foetus is not a person. If it is, it is a different argument, as it is entitled to the same protections accorded all other citizens.)
Anyway, I dislike logical inconsistency in law, and saying that an abortion is a matter of privacy but euthanasia, suicide, prostitution or personal drug use is not is ridiculous.
If you support abortion as a matter of privacy, then you should support all uses of the body as privacy, unless you can prove that such use is definitely harmful.
If a woman has an abortion it is not detrimental to the greater good of society, therefore it is her choice, and should remain perfectly legal.
Many women report post-abortion experiences akin to emotional trauma. Is emotionally traumatising thousands of women each year definitely of no risk to society?


Anti-abortionists are fighting a losing battle, society is generally forward driven. Abortions were made legal for the greater good of society, it is widely agreed that a government driven by religion is a backward one as it excludes members of the society who are not of that religion and we live in an ever increasing mulit-cultural society. Anyone who argues against abortion for reasons other than religious ones are still looking back to a time where women were controlled by men, when illagally aborted fetuses were found in alleyways next to women bleeding to death with coathangers jammed up inside them.
Most illegal abortions were performed with soapy water.

Stop looking back and look forward with the rest of us to a time where everyone has the education to know to use contraceptives, where contraceptives are 100% effective, where no one ever rapes someone else, where everyone is paid sufficiently to be able to afford to raise healthy children and the help society should give to single parents is readily available so that abortion is never desired and therefore a non-issue. Come people into the future!!! (This may sound sarcastic/ironic etc, but I don't mean it to be. I truely believe it is possible with time and effort.)
A society founded on and adhering to extreme personal discipline? Please detail how you think this can be achived and how it can be enforced.

Be careful about believing what you "hear of." I'd check the laws and the statistics first, if I were you. Women don't just carry a pregnancy for 8 months and then decide they want to get rid of it on a whim...honestly, do people really think women are that nuts?!
What? Women are rational?!* When did this happen? Why didn't I get the memo?

*This is sarcasm.

Some things to consider, from the linked article:

The finding poses a direct challenge to proposed federal and state laws that would compel doctors to tell women having abortions at 20 weeks or later that their fetuses can feel pain and to offer them anesthesia specifically for the fetus.

Bills requiring that women be warned about fetal pain have been introduced in the House and Senate and in 19 states, and recently passed in Georgia, Arkansas and Minnesota.

The bills are supported by many anti-abortion groups. But advocates for abortion rights say the real purpose of the measures is to discourage women from seeking abortions.

So the study arrives in time to invalidate some laws pushed by anti-abortionists groups. I for one applaud the study because the government has no right to force a doctor in what he should discuss with his/her patient.

On the other hand, I find it bizarrely convenient that this study appears when such laws are being passed...

Murder is Murder Indeed, abortion is just plain Sick :headbang: , i cannot even deal with it, The only abortion i see somewhat right would be rape, and even then it is still sicking to think a mother would want to Kill her own child, wanted or not, if she cant take care of the child, im sure a family member would love to take care of there neice, nephew, or grandchild, and yet, theres more, there are THOUSANDS of adoption clinics everywhere, The Fire department even allows moms to leave there un-wanted, or child that would otherwise not be taken care of, to them.

Ahh the adoption arguement.

When you show me the system is empty of children, then I will join your camp.

However, people tend to want only babies. If a child reaches a certain age, there is high probably it will not be adopted.

If a child has deformaties or illnesses, it will probably not be adopted.

Is anyone else bothered by people's reference to fetuses as "parasites?" It may be 'technically' true by some definition - IMO not even, since I think a parasite must be of a different species - but its usage is almost always done for the same reason some people call fetuses "babies" - emotional manipulation. I mean does anyone *really* see someone who is pregnant and goes, "Aha! A human being infected with a parasite!"?

No, "infected" would carry different terms with it. If I see a woman who wants to be pregnant, I say, "Oh look, she was able to get pregnant!" The fact that the fetus is parasitic is known to me, but irrelevant, as the woman chose to have it there. One of these days, God-willing, I will have a fetus living inside me in a parastic manner. And I will be happy about it.

Good, now abortion after 6 months can be made illegal like all abortion should be.

You should have read the whole article before posting that:

"There are medical experts on opposing sides of the issue as well, and the only thing they agree on is that it is virtually impossible to tell for sure what a fetus can feel."

""This is an unknowable question," said Dr. David Grimes, a former head of abortion surveillance at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who now delivers babies and performs abortions in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. "All we can do in medicine is to infer."

Nonetheless, he continued, the new article makes a compelling case for lack of pain perception in fetuses before 29 weeks.

The federal legislation was introduced by Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas.

His bill, offered in 2004 and again this year as the "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act," says there is "substantial evidence" of "substantial pain to an unborn child" during abortions performed after 20 weeks.

The bill includes a script doctors must read to women, offering to deliver anesthesia directly to the fetus and stating, "The Congress of the United States has determined that at this stage of development, an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain."

Brownback said he hoped Congress would act on the bill next year. "It is one of the top priorities of the pro-life movement to address this issue," he said.

But Dr. Mark Rosen, an author of the journal article and chief of obstetric anesthesia at the University of California, San Francisco, said such measures were misguided."

"Dr. K.S. Anand, a pediatrician at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, said: "There is circumstantial evidence to suggest that pain occurs in the fetus." For example, he said, tiny premature babies, as young as 23 or 24 weeks, cry when their heels are stuck for blood tests and quickly become conditioned to cry whenever anyone comes near their feet"

Right, and that's annoying, just as the pro-choicers who refer to it constantly as a parasite is. On one hand we have people going "It's a humaaan beeeeing, don't murder it!" and on the other, people saying "It's a parasite, kill it!" You may not be, but this is a common thing in abortion arguments and its annoying in general.

And what about those who point out that it is a parasite, but also point out that it makes little difference to the conversation whether you use that word or not?

I didnt want to get into religion, yet if your religious and your Pro-Abotion, you should kno that the Bible states that God knows you even before you are in the womb.

The Bible also states that the death of the fetus means less than the death of a human being, making a clear distinction between them.

People in Biblical times did not consider a woman to be pregnant until the time of the quickening - when she could feel the fetus moving (which, incidentally, is after legal elective abortion in nearly ever state).

Good, now abortion after 6 months can be made illegal like all abortion should be.

In the US, at least, abortion after 6 months already is illegal, except in cases where the mother's life or health are in extreme danger, or the fetus is irreparably damaged.

I just find it difficult to believe that a fetus with a nervous system sufficiently developed to hear sounds does not also possess a nervous system sufficiently developed to feel pain, that's all.

And I'm automatically suspicious of any study that has any relevance to the abortion debate. They always seem to confirm the politics of whoever commissioned the study. So I don't automatically accept the conclusions of this study as confirmed fact.

:rolleyes:

Meh.

Read: "I automatically disbelieve studies -- even peer-reviewed studies by a panel of experts published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that are consistent with almost all other research on the subject -- that don't fit conveniently in my worldview."

Good, now abortion after 6 months can be made illegal
like all abortion should be.

Way to prove you know absolutely nothing about the subject. :eek: :headbang:

Under Roe v. Wade, states have always been able to prohibit abortion after six months except when necessary to save the life or health of the mother. :headbang:

Thus, abortion after six months is already illegal in every state except when necessary to save the life or health of the mother (or, in a handful of states, other very extreme circumstances). :headbang:

It's that big? Or were you intending something else? ;)

It's liberal propaganda.
It doesn't jusifity murdering babies.
The liberal media.
Bush said it's bad so this report is untrue![/sarcasm]

Seeing as how I'm already pro choice, more ammo.

Lastly: "Vote Regressive. Against abortion. For killing babies"[/Maddox]

Reminds me of a spoof by Dead Alewives.
"And then one day he said he wanted to move into the city. That's when we decided to have the abortion. The boy fought hard. Shot me three times, before I could preform the abortion. But the way I see it, if they ain't votin, they ain't livin."
I'm Pro choice all the way, and not even finding out that religions are real and hearing sob stories from souls of fetuses themselves about how good they could have been if they lived could really change that. Assuming the aforementioned, that means predestination does not exist (because if it did, the fetus wouldn't have died), and means that at any time they could have died and would never have a predestined time of death, and thusly it is unknowable that that fetus wouldn;t have spontaneously aborted, or been dropped on it's head by a mom who didn;t want to have the kid anyway and doesn;t give a crud about it (case in point: me). Assuming the aforementioned refered to by this statement is untrue, that is to say, that religions don't exist, then yay no harm done anyway. And if it can be found that the aforementioned is true, and that that mentioned thereafter, that being that the death of a fetus that 'could have' had a good life is untrue because predestination is true, how did the fetus get killed anyway if it was going to have a good life? Thusly, if predestination is true, the fetus was destined to be aborted. Or will they argue that one's future is only decided after 6 months but they have souls from conception? The religious arguments are based on the Holy, right? But your not supposed to go with arguments that are holy because of all their holes...
And stop the ban on research, specifically stem cells! We have fetuses, lets bloody well make use of them. The science in this country is going to crap. Be it the research communities, the pharmaceutical corps, or the universities, we need funding and freedom, and they have taken, or are slowly removing, both.

I know more than a few young women who have been pressured in to abortions and I have heard more than enough from people who frankly, feel they have a right to terminate their child at any age, unless perhaps the kid is a better shot than they are.

Whether or not the fetus is a person is the only thing that matters. Life, Choice, are both just euphemisms designed to distort the debate.

The Jewish law, does for legal purposes, distinguish between a born and unborn child; mostly due to the likelihood of the child dying before birth anyway. A factor which was once far higher than it is today. Generally speaking, the fetus was considered a fetus when it could be perceived as one. That is to say, it looked like one, it moved like one. So it was one. If the mother died of course, it did the fetus no good to die along with her, so there was grounds for a medically necessary abortion, after a Rabbi had bee consulted to determine that it was necessary to save the mother’s life. The modern equivalent, would be a doctor but the doctor had better be conservative in their judgments and not some trigger happy hippie who considers “Depression” life threatening.

The law most Christians point to, one of the basis for our law, deals with the comparison to deliberate murder. Committing a fraction of a murder is not OK. Committing a likely murder is not OK. Attempted murder is also not OK. “I tried to murder him but he was already dead” is also not going to get you off the hook.

At some point, that fetus has the qualities which define it as a person. What those qualities are is the only matter of debate. I think anything as trivial as respiration or the ability to fight back should be thrown out of the equation. “Nerve Endings in the Brain” are a good start, but you have to analyze in more detail than that and exactly what level of development is needed to “Perceive Pain” is a matter of debate. The fetus does respond to stimuli far earlier and the nerves do send reactionary signals. Whether these are pain or not, we just have to ask the fetus.

I suggest implanting mothers who require unnecessary abortions with small portholes that the fetus can look out of. When they see their horrible parents, they might just abort themselves.

No, it just makes me realise how stupid some scientists are.

I've seen babies born earlier than that and know full well they can feel pain.

Earlier... then 6 months... what? Talk about a premie...

I've heard of plenty of women still getting them when they are late late. To the best of my knowledge they are still available in the UK and some other countries in Western Europe.

Not true. Feel free to look it up. I tired of spoon-feeding answers to wild-ass swings like this.

I will note that, according to the authoritative and unbiased Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm): In the US, 59% of abortions were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks. From 1992 (when detailed data regarding early abortions were first collected) through 2001, steady increases have occurred in the percentage of abortions performed at <6 weeks' gestation. A limited number of abortions were obtained at >15 weeks' gestation, including 4.3% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks. Only a handful (an estimated 0.08%) are done --due to medical necessity -- at >24 weeks.

...and I have heard more than enough from people who frankly, feel they have a right to terminate their child at any age, unless perhaps the kid is a better shot than they are.


For some reason, that just made me laugh a little, though the idea is oh so wrong.


Personally I'm against abortions, unless of rape or the female's life is in jeapordy by carrying the baby. However, I also strongly feel that the only people that are really qualified to argue this subject are women. Thus, my opinion's are nullified since I won't ever have to go through being pregnant.

Interesting.

I am still pro-choice.

So to cover the upcomming replies.

It's liberal propaganda.
It doesn't jusifity murdering babies.
The liberal media.

And away we go. ;)


lol, what kind of media could get away with not being liberal, surely thats the point of the media.

Not true. Feel free to look it up. I tired of spoon-feeding answers to wild-ass swings like this.

I will note that, according to the authoritative and unbiased Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm): In the US, 59% of abortions were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks. From 1992 (when detailed data regarding early abortions were first collected) through 2001, steady increases have occurred in the percentage of abortions performed at <6 weeks' gestation. A limited number of abortions were obtained at >15 weeks' gestation, including 4.3% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks. Only a handful (an estimated 0.08%) are done --due to medical necessity -- at >24 weeks.
Makes no sense at 24 weeks..its medically viable and they do survive at that age. grrrrr...now if that isnt murder what is? :sniper: Hating babies that much?

And what about those who point out that it is a parasite, but also point out that it makes little difference to the conversation whether you use that word or not?

As usual you seem to hold language of lesser importance in reality than I do. It makes a difference in the same way that using the word "baby" or "unborn child" would. Ask any writer, the word you choose to mean something winds up taking on almost as much and sometimes more importance than the thing you mean in the first place.

Makes no sense at 24 weeks..its medically viable and they do survive at that age. grrrrr...now if that isnt murder what is? :sniper: Hating babies that much?

Um, what part of "for medical necessity" do you not understand?

As usual you seem to hold language of lesser importance in reality than I do.

Actually, I hold language in the utmost importance - in that it should be properly used. It isn't my fault, nor anyone else's, if someone who does not understand the definition of a technical word and only thinks that it must be something bad applies a connotation that was not implied by the user.

It makes a difference in the same way that using the word "baby" or "unborn child" would.

Baby would be technically improper, as the definition does not allow for embryos and early term fetuses. "Unborn child" is also improper, as the definition of child does not allow for it.

Ask any writer, the word you choose to mean something winds up taking on almost as much and sometimes more importance than the thing you mean in the first place.

We aren't talking about literary writing. We are talking about technical terms, and thus about technical writing. You don't concern yourself with the odd connotations people apply in technical writing. If they don't know enough to know what a technical term actually means, instead of applying some moral value to it, then they shouldn't be reading it.

Personally I'm against abortions, unless of rape or the female's life is in jeapordy by carrying the baby. However, I also strongly feel that the only people that are really qualified to argue this subject are women. Thus, my opinion's are nullified since I won't ever have to go through being pregnant.

I ask this of all the people who feel abortion is murder. I dont get this rape excuse argument. If youre prolife youre prolife arent you? You cant say its murder but sometimes murder is ok. Not in this case you cant.
How is it different if the mothers been raped? The prolife argument is based around the fact that a fetus is a human life and it has the right to live like the rest of us. Right? Well fair enough.
So tell me why would this change if the mother didnt choose to have sex? Is it the fault of the foetus that she was raped? Is it any less of a human being? Did it choose? No. So why does its right to life depend on sexual history?
It either has a right to exist or it does not. Whether she decided to have sex or not is irrelevent. Make up your mind.

And please dont start up this whole "im a man so therefore im not allowed to have an opinion on abortion." Since when does an opinion on anything require you to have experienced it? So this means the only people with a right to have an opinion on abortion are women who have experienced pregnancy? Does that have anything to do with it? Im sure it gives you a different perspective but hey thats not just the mothers child baking in the oven you know.
Im quite comfortable having an opinion thankyou very much and im qualified because i am a person with a functioning brain that is able to discuss topics that deal with ethics and morality.

Makes no sense at 24 weeks..its medically viable and they do survive at that age. grrrrr...now if that isnt murder what is? :sniper: Hating babies that much?
MEDICALLY NECESSARY. Do you get what that means? It means late-term abortions are performed ONLY if one of the following is the case:

1) The fetus is so catastrophically deformed that it cannot possibly survive (like cases where the fetus has no head, for example).
2) The fetus is already dead, and the abortion is performed to remove the already-dead material so that the mother won't be forced to carry around her fetus' corpse inside her.
3) The mother's health is in critical danger.

In two of these three cases, the fetus is NOT MEDICALLY VIABLE. In the third, allowing the pregnancy to continue will kill the mother (and in most cases the fetus would die as well).

But I guess you are "hating women that much," huh? They should outlaw the above procedures, so women are forced to walk around with dead babies inside them, leading to infections, infertility, and possibly death. Or the women should just die in childbirth, maybe?

Abortion that is excused by "rape" is still murder. The fetus is not the one raped the woman. Yet while the fetus is killed because of the rape, the man who did commit the rape gets off scott free. Why? Because the fetus was executed instead of him.

Yet while the fetus is killed because of the rape, the man who did commit the rape gets off scott free. Why? Because the fetus was executed instead of him.

What?

Abortion that is excused by "rape" is still murder. The fetus is not the one raped the woman. Yet while the fetus is killed because of the rape, the man who did commit the rape gets off scott free. Why? Because the fetus was executed instead of him.
Well, if the fetus insists upon being inside the woman's body against her will, that sounds a lot like a rapist to me...

But, of course, that's beside the point, because the fetus isn't being "executed" for any crime. It's being denied the right to live off of the body of another human being...a woman has the right to deny any born human the use of her body in that manner, and unless you want to grant a fetus MORE rights than any born human being you are just going to have to accept that the fetus does not have the right to exist inside another human being.

Well, if the fetus insists upon being inside the woman's body against her will, that sounds a lot like a rapist to me...

But, of course, that's beside the point, because the fetus isn't being "executed" for any crime. It's being denied the right to live off of the body of another human being...a woman has the right to deny any born human the use of her body in that manner, and unless you want to grant a fetus MORE rights than any born human being you are just going to have to accept that the fetus does not have the right to exist inside another human being.
Using that logic, you must accept that women have no right to live off men.

This thread makes me want to cry. It's OK to murder an innocent child who's only 'crime' was being conceived, but it's NOT ok to execute a convicted murder with a mile long rapsheet who had the CHOICE? :headbang: :mad:

Some people in this world will remain a mystery until God gets back from his lunch break and starts busting heads......

Using that logic, you must accept that women have no right to live off men.

I am not aware of any situation in which women bodily live off of men. Have you had a woman placed inside you, drawing all of her nourishment from you and excreting her bodily wastes into you?

This thread makes me want to cry. It's OK to murder an innocent child who's only 'crime' was being conceived, but it's NOT ok to execute a convicted murder with a mile long rapsheet who had the CHOICE?

I hate to point out the obvious, but no one here has talked about it being ok to murder any child at all, and I haven't seen any mention of whether or not capital punishment is ok either.

I am not aware of any situation in which women bodily live off of men. Have you had a woman placed inside you, drawing all of her nourishment from you and excreting her bodily wastes into you?



I hate to point out the obvious, but no one here has talked about it being ok to murder any child at all, and I haven't seen any mention of whether or not capital punishment is ok either.
The same people who think abortion is ok, are the same people who oppose punishing rapists and murderers.

If (when) a fetus is a human being with all human rights it still does not have the right to live as a parasite and enslave another human. The fetus is in the mother's body, is feeding off her and is forcing her to adjust her life to it's needs. If the mother does not want to accept this intrusion she has the right to defend herself with whatever means prove neccessary. If an abortion is the only way to free herself from the fetus, then she has the right to make an abortion. That would be no different if a grown up person was killed in the abortion.
and why wouldn't she just skip the whole mess and practice safe sex or better yet abstinence, oh sure why have to practice self control when we can just do what we want to now and kill whatever unpleasant thing comes from it later.
you are going to have to come up with a better argument if you are going to change my mind

It has no effect on my opinion of abortion. I view it as the wrongful ending of human life. However, there is no practical, ethical way to enforce it‘s criminalizing, so the government should stay out of it.

The same people who think abortion is ok, are the same people who oppose punishing rapists and murderers.


Is that so? Please show me where anyone in this thread or anyone in the media has said that they are for abortion but are against punishing rapists and murderers. Please have those demonic voices in your head checked out btw... I think they are clouding your clarity of thought.

This thread makes me want to cry. It's OK to murder an innocent child who's only 'crime' was being conceived, but it's NOT ok to execute a convicted murder with a mile long rapsheet who had the CHOICE? :headbang: :mad:

Some people in this world will remain a mystery until God gets back from his lunch break and starts busting heads......

To compare abortion and capital punishment is insane. They are separate issues. There is no controversy or debate surrounding whether an adult is alive. Abortions arent performed because the people doing it believe its ok to murder. Read the thread. No one is arguing that at all.

As for the bible. Well i knew god couldnt stay out of this thread for long.
Hes on a lunch break is he? Has been for a while apparently. And im sure when he comes back hes gonna be pissed about abortion the most. Lets have a look in the bible...

Hmm abortion and infanticide...

Have a read of Numbers 5:11-21. A woman suspected of being unfaithful is cursed and has a miscarriage. Oh here i'll find it for you...

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=numbers%205:11-21&version=31

or then theres Hosea 9:11-16 in which God seems to have no qualms about murdering children

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Hosea%209:11-16;&version=31;

Moving right along to Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” This surely includes pregnant women.

Hosea 13:16 is quite graphic about murdering pregnant women...

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Hosea%2013:16;&version=31;

The list goes on. Judges 11:30-40 - Jephthah killed his young daughter (his only child) by burning her alive as a burnt sacrifice to the lord for he commanded it...

Psalms 137:8-9

and of course theres Exodus 12:29. Every first child of egypt eh?

and a lovely passage about how god, if his followers find you, will run you through, steal your things kill your children and rape your wife. Lovely

Isaiah 13:15-18
15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through;
all who are caught will fall by the sword.

16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.

17 See, I will stir up against them the Medes,
who do not care for silver
and have no delight in gold.

18 Their bows will strike down the young men;
they will have no mercy on infants
nor will they look with compassion on children.


Yes Im sure god will be quite incensed when he realises what hes missed out on... Wait, isnt he also omniscient and omnipresent....

To compare abortion and capital punishment is insane. They are separate issues. There is no controversy or debate surrounding whether an adult is alive. Abortions arent performed because the people doing it believe its ok to murder. Read the thread. No one is arguing that at all.

As for the bible. Well i knew god couldnt stay out of this thread for long.
Hes on a lunch break is he? Has been for a while apparently. And im sure when he comes back hes gonna be pissed about abortion the most. Lets have a look in the bible...

Hmm abortion and infanticide...

Have a read of Numbers 5:11-21. A woman suspected of being unfaithful is cursed and has a miscarriage. Oh here i'll find it for you...

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=numbers%205:11-21&version=31

or then theres Hosea 9:11-16 in which God seems to have no qualms about murdering children

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Hosea%209:11-16;&version=31;

Moving right along to Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” This surely includes pregnant women.

Hosea 13:16 is quite graphic about murdering pregnant women...

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Hosea%2013:16;&version=31;

The list goes on. Judges 11:30-40 - Jephthah killed his young daughter (his only child) by burning her alive as a burnt sacrifice to the lord for he commanded it...

Psalms 137:8-9

and of course theres Exodus 12:29. Every first child of egypt eh?

and a lovely passage about how god, if his followers find you, will run you through, steal your things kill your children and rape your wife. Lovely

Isaiah 13:15-18
15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through;
all who are caught will fall by the sword.

16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.

17 See, I will stir up against them the Medes,
who do not care for silver
and have no delight in gold.

18 Their bows will strike down the young men;
they will have no mercy on infants
nor will they look with compassion on children.


Yes Im sure god will be quite incensed when he realises what hes missed out on... Wait, isnt he also omniscient and omnipresent....

I like where you're coming from mister

Actually, I hold language in the utmost importance - in that it should be properly used. It isn't my fault, nor anyone else's, if someone who does not understand the definition of a technical word and only thinks that it must be something bad applies a connotation that was not implied by the user.

Key phrase: "that was not implied by the user." Maybe YOU do not imply anything at all negative by referring to fetuses as "parasites." But by God, other people DO, and they LOVE how it pisses the pro-lifers off, and that is why they do it. In addition to disassociating the argument away from the concept of killing something that could become a human child, and more toward killing off something that sounds a bit more like a tapeworm or cancer.

No word is "technical." A word is a word, words have connotations, you can't just demand a word mean only the most "technical" definition, and it doesn't fly when other people use this "technical" word too.

The technical word is "fetus." But "parasite" sounds like something easier to kill. And that's that.


We aren't talking about literary writing. We are talking about technical terms, and thus about technical writing. You don't concern yourself with the odd connotations people apply in technical writing.

This is an abortion argument, not a technical journal. So people do, and you might want to as well, consider the "odd" connotations that come attached with words in emotionally charged subjects.

I'll take the word of scientists and doctors who know what they're talking about, before I'll listen to the word of a bunch of religious fanatics who yell and scream about the Bible, or those who aren't doctors, but who think they know better anyways.

Fetus's can't feel pain. The experts say it. Leave it to them.

Their report, published Tuesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association, is based on a review of several hundred scientific papers, and it says that nerve connections in the brain are unlikely to have developed enough for the fetus to feel pain before 29 weeks
Soooooooo...they don't really know. They're just guessing.

So much for empirical science and arguments based on fact.

Soooooooo...they don't really know. They're just guessing.

So much for empirical science and arguments based on fact.

Oh, the Bible and religious fanatics have done a wonderful job of proving thier theories as well :rolleyes:

(That's sarcasm, in case if you missed it).

Whether or not an unborn child can feel pain is irrelevant. Let me introduce you to a little girl by the name of Ashlyn. She is a beautiful little girl from Georgia (USA) just beginning 1st grade. She laughs, she plays, she cries. She does not, however, feel pain. Due to a rare disease Ashlyn is incapable of feeling pain.

If you were to use the fact that someone cannot feel pain to justify your right to take that person's life, then it logically follows that you approve of the torture and murder of Ashlyn Blocker. So, do you?

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/041101/041101_pain_hmed_6p.hmedium.jpg

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6379795/

Whether or not an unborn child can feel pain is irrelevant. Let me introduce you to a little girl by the name of Ashlyn. She is a beautiful little girl from Georgia (USA) just beginning 1st grade. She laughs, she plays, she cries. She does not, however, feel pain. Due to a rare disease Ashlyn is incapable of feeling pain.

If you were to use the fact that someone cannot feel pain to justify your right to take that person's life, then it logically follows that you approve of the torture and murder of Ashlyn Blocker. So, do you?

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/041101/041101_pain_hmed_6p.hmedium.jpg

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6379795/

Rediculus. Off the subject, and you cannot compare the two because one is already born and healthy, while the other is not, cannot think for itself, can barely breath on it's own, and does not form conscious thought and fear thought.

Rediculus. Off the subject, and you cannot compare the two because one is already born and healthy, while the other is not, cannot think for itself, can barely breath on it's own, and does not form conscious thought and fear thought.

The subject was whether finding out that an unborn child does not feel pain changes your view on abortion. It is most certainly on topic to point out why the ability or inability to feel pain has nothing to do with the question of whether abortion is right or not. The question of whether abortion is right or not has nothing to do with whether an unborn child can feel pain or not, my post illustrated how the inability to feel pain is irrelevant to the question.

Going back to the first post, does it imply that abortion is okay because fetuses don't feel pain?

Great, that means I can dope somebody, make them numb, and then slaughter them! :D

<snip>Thus, my opinion's are nullified since I won't ever have to go through being pregnant.
I've never had my legs hacked off at the knees with a rusty axe, but I am still entitled to think it is a bad thing.

MEDICALLY NECESSARY. Do you get what that means? It means late-term abortions are performed ONLY if one of the following is the case:

1) The fetus is so catastrophically deformed that it cannot possibly survive (like cases where the fetus has no head, for example).
2) The fetus is already dead, and the abortion is performed to remove the already-dead material so that the mother won't be forced to carry around her fetus' corpse inside her.
3) The mother's health is in critical danger.

In two of these three cases, the fetus is NOT MEDICALLY VIABLE. In the third, allowing the pregnancy to continue will kill the mother (and in most cases the fetus would die as well).

But I guess you are "hating women that much," huh? They should outlaw the above procedures, so women are forced to walk around with dead babies inside them, leading to infections, infertility, and possibly death. Or the women should just die in childbirth, maybe?

I am just curious, can you tell me of a condition that a mother would have that would be life threatening, so life threatening that an abortion is needed?
I always ask, nobody answers. I asked my OB when I was pregnant and he said he couldn't really think of any life threatening illness that a mother had that an abortion would fix.

The Bible also states that the death of the fetus means less than the death of a human being, making a clear distinction between them.

People in Biblical times did not consider a woman to be pregnant until the time of the quickening - when she could feel the fetus moving (which, incidentally, is after legal elective abortion in nearly ever state).
do you have verses to back this up?

do you have verses to back this up?
She said biblical TIMES … as such the bible MAY be ONE of her sources but it does not have to be the only one (it may be one of the less reliable ones anyways)

I am just curious, can you tell me of a condition that a mother would have that would be life threatening, so life threatening that an abortion is needed?
I always ask, nobody answers. I asked my OB when I was pregnant and he said he couldn't really think of any life threatening illness that a mother had that an abortion would fix.
A bunch of different conditions from the fetus taking root in a fallopian tube to fetal tumor
Not to mention physical abnormalities of the mother that may cause excessive blood loss

She said biblical TIMES … as such the bible MAY be ONE of her sources but it does not have to be the only one (it may be one of the less reliable ones anyways)
actually she said
Originally Posted by Dempublicents1
The Bible also states that the death of the fetus means less than the death of a human being, making a clear distinction between them.

I am wondering if the Bible says this where did she find it?

It's still the murder of the unborn, the quenching of potential and ultimately an assent to euthanasia and suicide.

It's still the murder of the unborn, the quenching of potential and ultimately an assent to euthanasia and suicide.
Yay someone else that does not know the definition of murder

do you have verses to back this up?

Exodus 21:

22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

In other words: If you cause a woman to misccary, killing her fetus, you get a fine. If you kill or cause actual harm to her, rather than to the fetus, you get an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

As for the comment on the quickening, that comes simply from a study of history. Even up until recent times, the Church and common law in most countries did not consider a fetus to be important until the time of the quickening. English common law did not consider an abortion to be a problem until that point - and English common law was used in the US to regulate abortion until medical procedures were safe, at which point it became outlawed altoghether in many states until Roe v. Wade. The Catholic Church has only recently changed its doctrine from considering a fetus to be a life at the time of the quickening to move it back to considering a zygote a life.


I am just curious, can you tell me of a condition that a mother would have that would be life threatening, so life threatening that an abortion is needed?

It doesn't specifically have to be something that the mother has. The fetus itself can be endangering the mother. Take, for instance, cases of severe hydrocephalus. The fetal head can swell to as large as 50 cm. Note that the vagina can only dilate to about 10. It would be impossible for a woman to deliver naturally. On top of that, there is virtually no chance that the fetus will live outside the mother past a minute or two, do to the underdevelopment of the brain and the pressure upon it. Thus, there is no reason to risk a C-section, unless the woman simply prefers to do so.

Exodus 21:

22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

In other words: If you cause a woman to misccary, killing her fetus, you get a fine. If you kill or cause actual harm to her, rather than to the fetus, you get an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

As for the comment on the quickening, that comes simply from a study of history. Even up until recent times, the Church and common law in most countries did not consider a fetus to be important until the time of the quickening. English common law did not consider an abortion to be a problem until that point - and English common law was used in the US to regulate abortion until medical procedures were safe, at which point it became outlawed altoghether in many states until Roe v. Wade. The Catholic Church has only recently changed its doctrine from considering a fetus to be a life at the time of the quickening to move it back to considering a zygote a life.



It doesn't specifically have to be something that the mother has. The fetus itself can be endangering the mother. Take, for instance, cases of severe hydrocephalus. The fetal head can swell to as large as 50 cm. Note that the vagina can only dilate to about 10. It would be impossible for a woman to deliver naturally. On top of that, there is virtually no chance that the fetus will live outside the mother past a minute or two, do to the underdevelopment of the brain and the pressure upon it. Thus, there is no reason to risk a C-section, unless the woman simply prefers to do so.

Okay
1) you people really can't have it both ways either the people in Biblical times were stupid and backwards and we should disregard the Bible, or they know everything scientific and we should hold to everything they say.
2) The portion of the Bible you read is actually Jewish law, many of these laws are outdated, and killing a baby is still killing a baby.

3) virtually no chance? how could you know unless you tried?
I was pregnant twice and twice was forced into the hospital with complications, people said "you will die unless we deliver that baby early"and that "the baby probibly is too sick to worry about anyway" As you can see I am alive and I have 2 girls that are healthy. What would have happened if I hadn't even given them a chance??

and for the person who mentioned ectopic pregnancy and fetal death, I don't really count those as abortions because the baby has NO chance. ie it is already dead.
oh yeah and I looked up the fetal tumor thing too. if you get prenatal care they can find the tumor before it is full term and either operate on the baby in womb or take the baby by c-section early. If you don't have prenatal care you wouldn't know there was a problem until the delivery and then you wouldn't know what the problem was until the baby was born anyway.

I don't have a problem with taking the baby early to try to save the mom, I do have a problem with killing the baby without giving it a chance

I am getting way too upset to continue here. going to have to let it go....

Going back to the first post, does it imply that abortion is okay because fetuses don't feel pain?

Great, that means I can dope somebody, make them numb, and then slaughter them! :D
no its simply a counter to the emotional argument that abortion is horrid because of the pain invovled.

"they suck the baby out of your uterus and it is dismembered". leaving us to imagine the horrible pain that WE would suffer if we were killed in a similar manner.

the study points out that even past the time where abortion on demand is legal, it is very unlikely that a fetus aborted that way would feel pain (29th week abortions are not vacuum abortions.) the vast majoriy of abortions occur before 20 weeks and a majority occur before 8 weeks. so terrible pain is not inflicted on the embryo/fetus.

most people find the issue of pain to be important in ANY legal means of ending a life. we worry that electrocution of murderers is inhumane, we worry that terry schiavo suffered great hunger before she died, we worry that end stage cancer patients suffer uncontrolled pain after they lapse into a coma. so also do some people worry that abortion is unconscionably cruel to the embryo/fetus. this study shows that for the vast majority of abortions, its not an issue.

1) you people really can't have it both ways either the people in Biblical times were stupid and backwards and we should disregard the Bible, or they know everything scientific and we should hold to everything they say.

"You people"?

I was replying to someone using Scripture to try and put forth the view that an emrbyo/fetus is a human person deserving of all the rights thereof. However, if you truly believe that all of Scripture was divinely inspired, this makes it clear that this is not so.

2) The portion of the Bible you read is actually Jewish law, many of these laws are outdated,

Something like, "Don't eat pork," can get outdated. Something like, "This constitutes murder, while this does not," really can't. The NT does away with some, but not all, of the OT law.

and killing a baby is still killing a baby.

Killing a baby is killing a baby. Killing a fetus is killing a fetus. Removing an embryo is removing an embryo.

The question here is how these things are related.

3) virtually no chance? how could you know unless you tried?

It has been tried. Infants with hydrocephalus that severe do not survive.

I was pregnant twice and twice was forced into the hospital with complications, people said "you will die unless we deliver that baby early"and that "the baby probibly is too sick to worry about anyway" As you can see I am alive and I have 2 girls that are healthy. What would have happened if I hadn't even given them a chance??

Were either of them problems that would kill or at the very least permanantly maim you if you attempted delivery?

Meanwhile, the choice of whether or not to risk the complications was entirely yours. You could have decided that the risk associated with the complications was not worth taking. In that case, you would have survived to try again another day.

and for the person who mentioned ectopic pregnancy and fetal death, I don't really count those as abortions because the baby has NO chance. ie it is already dead.

In fetal death, the fetus is already dead. It is not necessarily already dead in ectopic pregnancy.

oh yeah and I looked up the fetal tumor thing too. if you get prenatal care they can find the tumor before it is full term and either operate on the baby in womb or take the baby by c-section early. If you don't have prenatal care you wouldn't know there was a problem until the delivery and then you wouldn't know what the problem was until the baby was born anyway.

Or you might not get prenatal care until things started going weird, or simply until your pregnancy has progressed quite a bit. in which case you might visit a hospital and find the problem.

I don't have a problem with taking the baby early to try to save the mom, I do have a problem with killing the baby without giving it a chance

Let's take a scenario here. A woman already has three children, whom she loves very much. She becomes pregnant with a fourth and is incredibly happy about her pregnancy. 6 1/2 months in, she finds that her fetus has severe hydrocephalus. Natural delivery would kill her. C-section would run all sorts of risks, including death. And no matter what she does, the fetus is going to die within a minute or two of being removed from her womb. She can either take a huge risk, making it an incredibly large possibility that she leaves her three children motherless, or she can abort and be able to take care of them.

Are you really going to have a problem with a woman who chooses her three children?

In a related report, I shall feel no pain after my 6th martini tonight.

In a related report, I shall feel no pain after my 6th martini tonight.
The real question is, should it be legal to perform a post-birth abortion at that point?

The real question is, should it be legal to perform a post-birth abortion at that point?
Legal or not I don't think my mother would exercise that option.

Nope. But it makes me sleep a bit easier being pro choice. :)

Hear, Hear! :)