NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article331008.ece

What I don't get is how a couple of hours can make the difference between the foetus not being a person and it being permissible to kill it - and it being a citizen with full rights just like you or me.
Whether you're against abortion or not, surely the logic of a person's worth being dictated by their ability to survive alone is fuzzy in the extreme?

There isn't a matter of hours... it's more a matter of weeks.

Unless it's a dire situation, (read: medical emergency where the mother will die or be severely injured) the fetus can't be aborted after 24 weeks.

Yes I totally agree. Abortion should be up to the mother not some old white man in Washington or any other government. It's her body not his. They have no right to impose their beliefs on women when they don't have any clue about pregnancy themselves.

Another reason why I highly dislike Christians. They can either be very good people or very annoying people pushing their agenda on others.

Either way.

Personally, I'm for women's rights and for abortion, but what I never got is why the hell would someone want to stick a coat hanger up their...?!?!?!?

I guess I'll never understand cause I'm a guy...

Personally, I'm for women's rights and for abortion, but what I never got is why the hell would someone want to stick a coat hanger up their...?!?!?!?

I guess I'll never understand cause I'm a guy... The writer of this article is a woman who's all for her rights.

Personally, I'm for women's rights and for abortion, but what I never got is why the hell would someone want to stick a coat hanger up their...?!?!?!?

I guess I'll never understand cause I'm a guy...

They only resort to that when they can't have a safe, legal abortion or have really religous parents.

Personally, I'm for women's rights and for abortion, but what I never got is why the hell would someone want to stick a coat hanger up their...?!?!?!?

I guess I'll never understand cause I'm a guy...
oh its just something kinky we women do. i LOVE it and do it many times a day

*smack* do you feel smarter now?

when a woman is in a position where she feels she CANT have the baby she is carrying and she is disallowed an early easy abortion, she resorts to the extreme measure. she is between a rock and a hard place eh?

It sounds stupid to allow women to have the right to kill babies. People who just hide behind meaningless logic like "people shouldn't impose beliefs on other people" really need to think about what they are saying there. They are killing babies whever they are in the womb or not, abortions dont take place normally till about 4 weeks where a baby has conciousness and emotions. Why should a women have the right to kill a babie and whats wrong with stoping that action taking place.

It sounds stupid to allow women to have the right to kill babies. People who just hide behind meaningless logic like "people shouldn't impose beliefs on other people" really need to think about what they are saying there. They are killing babies whever they are in the womb or not, abortions dont take place normally till about 4 weeks where a baby has conciousness and emotions. Why should a women have the right to kill a babie and whats wrong with stoping that action taking place.

Because it's NOT HUMAN FOR THE FIRST FEW WEEKS. It has a tail. The eyes are specks. It has little fish gills on the side of its head. That's not human. It's evolution's garbage.

Where did you get the idea of fish features, havnt you seen all the documentries. The feotus just looks like a normal baby but smaller, no less devoluped then a normal baby.

Where did you get the idea of fish features, havnt you seen all the documentries. The feotus just looks like a normal baby but smaller, no less devoluped then a normal baby.
Because I saw it on CNN, and the Discovery Channel. Grab some books and look it up. You'll see that there are little fish gills for the first few weeks.

Why do whales have hips, why do snakes have hips? Why are some whales born with legs? Evolution.

http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article331008.ece

What I don't get is how a couple of hours can make the difference between the foetus not being a person and it being permissible to kill it - and it being a citizen with full rights just like you or me.
Whether you're against abortion or not, surely the logic of a person's worth being dictated by their ability to survive alone is fuzzy in the extreme?
What a terrible abortion job. She shouldn't have survived. In fact, what was the mother doing getting an abortion 30 weeks into the pregnancy. What an idiot.

Another reason why I highly dislike Christians. They can either be very good people or very annoying people pushing their agenda on others.
So do you even dislike the good Christians (the majority)?

The writer brings up an interesting point. Abortian doesn't always only affect the mother. I guess the unborn are only human when the mothers say they are. She also brought up some things about how barbaric abortians are. This woman suffered from a botched abortian. When you hear what happens, you begin to think. Is the mother the only one who matters? Are the Christian nutjobs really nutjobs? When is it a baby and not just a lump of flesh? It's funny how when a pregnant woman is murdered, it's double homocide. When she has an abortian, it's just removing a mere lump of flesh. Double standard, people. Hipocracy. The mother should have used the pill. After all, the article didn't say she did. When something goes unquestioned, is it really right? After all, slavery went unquestioned for years. Was that practice right? Spontanious generation and flat-earth both went unquestioned for years. Were those right? If you don't really question things, you are going to be wrong 9 out of 10 times. If Charles Darwin went unquestioned, evolution wouldn't really be where it is today and it would be as valid as creationism. The only reason evolution is valid in science is because scientists took the time to question it. They asked questions. They answered questions. Evolution evolved. My point is: Ask questions. If we didn't, we'd still think the earth was flat and that flies came from meat and not from fly eggs.

Where did you get the idea of fish features, havnt you seen all the documentries. The feotus just looks like a normal baby but smaller, no less devoluped then a normal baby.

Clearly, we have an idiot on our hands.

Oh, and Ashmoria, I didn't mean it in that sick sexual kind of way, I understand why you would want to abort if it was life threatening or you know you couldn't financially support the child, but it seems like many more women are having an abortion because they want to be 'free' or something, which I really don't understand.

Whatever, I guess since I'm not going to come accross that situation myself I won't really understand, as I've said before.

Where did you get the idea of fish features, havnt you seen all the documentries. The feotus just looks like a normal baby but smaller, no less devoluped then a normal baby.

No offence, friend, but at that age, we really do exhibit factors from earlier in our evolution :) Yes, even the tail!

Philosophers, psychologists, and psychiatrists are still unsure as to whether full grown adults like us are 'conscious', whether there are degrees of counsciousness, if we're always conscious even when awake etc. And I should like to hear your evidence for ascribing 'emotions' to people at the age of 4 weeks!!!

What does it matter its still a baby with the potential to be a intelligent being, a baby is as much of a shitting dirty messy dumb peice of body tissues as the "creature" (BABY) inside the womb

What a terrible abortion job. She shouldn't have survived. In fact, what was the mother doing getting an abortion 30 weeks into the pregnancy. What an idiot.


So do you even dislike the good Christians (the majority)?
I don't dislike the good christians. I should have typed that. I just tend to leave them alone. I LOVE to make fun of stupid and incompetent Christians. Like when I know more about their religion than they do, even though I'm an atheist. See the majority of christians are ignorant and know nothing of their religion. It's quite sad really. If you believe in God you should know a little bit more about it. Not just "God created everything so there. I'm right."

What does it matter its still a baby with the potential to be a intelligent being, a baby is as much of a shitting dirty messy dumb peice of body tissues as the "creature" (BABY) inside the womb
You can't refute my claims but you still say that's it's a baby? Why can't you refute me? Because I'm right? Wow. I think I win again.

Look im not completely against abortion or anything but i think people seriously need to be more sensitive about it and dont just abort because they cant aford that holiday or whatever and that people shouldn't hide behind technicalities to try and justify it.

It sounds stupid to allow women to have the right to [an abortion]
I'll just say what I always say in these threads:

I am pro-choice because:

1. I think that the current illegality of abortion in Ireland, where I live, is responsible for the large number of welfare mothers we have. They are forced to have this child who has a crap upbringing because his mother lives on welfare and they stagnate. It's really damaging to society, as well as a waste of state money. If the woman was allowed to abort the child, then she could make something of herself and not be a sponge on welfare.

2. Steven D. Levitt made a convincing argument that abortion significantly reduces future crime rates by aborting future criminals.

http://www.freakonomics.com/ch4.php

Look im not completely against abortion or anything but i think people seriously need to be more sensitive about it and dont just abort because they cant aford that holiday or whatever and that people shouldn't hide behind technicalities to try and justify it.

I beg your pardon?

Its no joke but a lot of the people (in england) who abort their baby just do it because its an inconveniance and that they cant aford certain things because they are spending money on the baby instead.

Its no joke but a lot of the people (in england) who abort their baby just do it because its an inconveniance and that they cant aford certain things because they are spending money on the baby instead.

Who are these 'a lot of the people'? Expressed as a %, how many of them are there of the total no of women who have abortions? How many do you know? How did you find out about them? Your sweeping generalisations sicken me, man.

Im not trying to genralize anything...dont you watch the news? Havn't you ever seen a debate like this before? Im not sayin the majority of women do this but around 30-40% apparently do this.

You know, this article may have changed my views on abortion...
I'm still pro choice, but I think they really need a less painful way to end fetuses life, I mean, burning from the inside out? Wether you're for abortion or not, you have to admit, thats despicupul. It should instantly kill a fetus with minimal suffering, like a lethal injection.

Im not trying to genralize anything...dont you watch the news? Havn't you ever seen a debate like this before? Im not sayin the majority of women do this but around 30-40% apparently do this.
How old are you? Seriously? 14?

15 lol, im just quoting what i saw on tv and in class..

Clearly, we have an idiot on our hands.

Oh, and Ashmoria, I didn't mean it in that sick sexual kind of way, I understand why you would want to abort if it was life threatening or you know you couldn't financially support the child, but it seems like many more women are having an abortion because they want to be 'free' or something, which I really don't understand.

Whatever, I guess since I'm not going to come accross that situation myself I won't really understand, as I've said before.
i suppose there are places in the world where abortion is easier to get than birth control. i cant speak to those situations

in north american and europe the vast majority of aboritons are done because the woman feels she really cant have a baby at this time. for as many reasons as there are women. its not a decision made lightly or thoughtlessly.

and would you really WANT children to be born to women who take abortion so lightly anyway???

most abortions are done before 8 weeks. well before the embryo has thoughts and feelings. well before the embryo looks like a baby (why that would make a difference i dont know) recent scientific studies say that the fetus is incapable of feeling pain before 20 (or was it 24?) weeks.

15 lol, im just quoting what i saw on tv and in class..
It shows, and doesn't say much for your teachers.

It sounds stupid to allow women to have the right to kill babies. People who just hide behind meaningless logic like "people shouldn't impose beliefs on other people" really need to think about what they are saying there. They are killing babies whever they are in the womb or not, abortions dont take place normally till about 4 weeks where a baby has conciousness and emotions. Why should a women have the right to kill a babie and whats wrong with stoping that action taking place.

As the greatest philosopher once said "You cannot kill that which does not live"...

You have to prove that an embryo IS a 'baby'... and that it is a 'life', before you can support an appeal to emotion like "killing babies".

Oh - and I don't know who told you that embryoes have consciousness and emotions at four weeks?

It sounds stupid to allow women to have the right to kill babies. People who just hide behind meaningless logic like "people shouldn't impose beliefs on other people" really need to think about what they are saying there. They are killing babies whever they are in the womb or not, abortions dont take place normally till about 4 weeks where a baby has conciousness and emotions. Why should a women have the right to kill a babie and whats wrong with stoping that action taking place.
At 4 weeks it doesn't have a brain, let alone emotions or consciousness.

In fact, what was the mother doing getting an abortion 30 weeks into the pregnancy. What an idiot.
Yeah... I love how this sort of case is used against abortions in the first trimester as though they're the same thing.

Originally Posted by Hydesland
It sounds stupid to allow women to have the right to kill babies. People who just hide behind meaningless logic like "people shouldn't impose beliefs on other people" really need to think about what they are saying there. They are killing babies whever they are in the womb or not, abortions dont take place normally till about 4 weeks where a baby has conciousness and emotions. Why should a women have the right to kill a babie and whats wrong with stoping that action taking place.
First, it ain't a baby.
Second, the cerebral cortex, the region responsible for conscious thought, only develops around week 20, and most abortions are performed MUCH earlier than that. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Every time I read abortion posts, I makes me wish that we hadn't passed the women's suffrage amendmit. And since when a women legally allowed to drive? Jeez.

You know, this article may have changed my views on abortion...
I'm still pro choice, but I think they really need a less painful way to end fetuses life, I mean, burning from the inside out? Wether you're for abortion or not, you have to admit, thats despicupul. It should instantly kill a fetus with minimal suffering, like a lethal injection.

Oh, please...

1. That abortion took place in 1977. Don't you think methods might have changed since then? Personally, I have never EVER heard of such a method as described in that article.

2. That abortion was done on a 30 week foetus. So far as I'm aware, an abortion at that late stage IS currently illegal in the United States and Australia and god knows where else. I understand that most countries where abortion is legal only cover the first trimester, with extenuating circumstances permitted for second trimester abortions.

Yeah... I love how this sort of case is used against abortions in the first trimester as though they're the same thing.
Your fact and logic can never compete with my.. smoke grenade of escaping!
*poof*
*cough cough*
*pass out*

Every time I read abortion posts, I makes me wish that we hadn't passed the women's suffrage amendmit. And since when a women legally allowed to drive? Jeez.
Since when have women held the majority in the politics in the U.S.

It was men that allowed us the right to say what goes on in our own bodies. I'm glad they gave us a right we should have had to begin with... I guess. In the same way I'm sure black people are happy that white people stoped enslaving them. (i.e., not something we should have had to ask for, but it's nice that they're not making our decisions for us...)

People really should realize that this story is most likely made-up. There isn't a single state in the union in which an abortion at this stage could have been carried out without a serious risk to the health or life of the mother, or a genetic or severe physical deformation of the fetus. In other words, there would be no way that someone would say, "I don't know why....." because the reason would be clearly listed in the records. If this procedure was being legally carried out, it was being carried out because of a serious health risk to the mother.

There is also the fact that, although I don't know about 1977, I know that saline abortions are very rare. They are dangerous to the mother, and an abortion in which the point is to cause delivery would be rather unlikely in the even of a mother being in danger, which, given the rest of the story, is the *only* reason she could have been having an abortion anyways.


2. That abortion was done on a 30 week foetus. So far as I'm aware, an abortion at that late stage IS currently illegal in the United States and Australia and god knows where else. I understand that most countries where abortion is legal only cover the first trimester, with extenuating circumstances permitted for second trimester abortions.

As far as I know, they were illegal then too.

A week four embryo http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/CST13.gif
(photo credit: http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Notes/week4.htm )

There are lots of reasons for abortions, many of them tragic. Could we stop playing poltical football with them?

I know it sounds stupid, but my beliefs are more important than yours, and I feel as though I am entitled to push my interpretation of the bible on everyone else. I am also aware of the fact that the Old Testament states that the penalty for a man who intentionally hits a woman so that she loses her unborn child is a financial penalty, thus calling into question whether or not the bible defines a fetus as a full human life. Yes, I have read that and understood it, but I still believe its wrong and it is my intention to force that belief on a free America, even though a woman that I don't know the circumstances of gets an abortion and it DOESN'T affect my life.

Fixed!

Every time I read abortion posts, I makes me wish that we hadn't passed the women's suffrage amendmit. And since when a women legally allowed to drive? Jeez.

You are joking aren't you?

That doesnt make sence im not a chrisitan, im not completely against abortion but in some circumstances i am... You people always use the same logic as if you were a comunist who hates free speech and when anyone has an opinion you acuse them of forcing it apon them.

That doesnt make sence im not a chrisitan, im not completely against abortion but in some circumstances i am... You people always use the same logic as if you were a comunist who hates free speech and when anyone has an opinion you acuse them of forcing it apon them.

Who said Communists hate free speach?

And you originally said that women sholdn't have the right to 'kill their babies'. That sounds like forcing your views to me.;)

That doesnt make sence im not a chrisitan, im not completely against abortion but in some circumstances i am... You people always use the same logic as if you were a comunist who hates free speech and when anyone has an opinion you acuse them of forcing it apon them.

To be valid opinions worth considering, a viewpoint cannot clearly contradict fact. Anyone who states that a 4-week embryo has consciousness has an opinion based in a complete falsehood. The first synapses in the spinal cord (actually the first part of the CNS to develop) do not even begin to show up until more like the 5th or 6th week of gestation. There is no evidence whatsoever of consciousness until around the 20th week of gestation.

Saying, "It is conscious at 4 weeks and that is my opinion," is exactly like saying, "4+7=32 and that is my opinion!"

And you originally said that women sholdn't have the right to 'kill their babies'. That sounds like forcing your views to me.;)

[QUOTE=Hydesland]It sounds stupid to allow women to have the right to kill babies.]

And here is the quote. I'm afraid Jolt's screwed up my edit function so I can't add it to my original post.

People really should realize that this story is most likely made-up. There isn't a single state in the union in which an abortion at this stage could have been carried out without a serious risk to the health or life of the mother, or a genetic or severe physical deformation of the fetus. In other words, there would be no way that someone would say, "I don't know why....." because the reason would be clearly listed in the records. If this procedure was being legally carried out, it was being carried out because of a serious health risk to the mother.

There is also the fact that, although I don't know about 1977, I know that saline abortions are very rare. They are dangerous to the mother, and an abortion in which the point is to cause delivery would be rather unlikely in the even of a mother being in danger, which, given the rest of the story, is the *only* reason she could have been having an abortion anyways.



As far as I know, they were illegal then too. If it's made up, then I very much doubt she'll be speaking to Parliament as she says she is going to be, and I very much doubt that the Independent would run a false story.

The fact is, abortions ARE legal at 30 weeks - not normally, but for certain reasons they are. And although that is pretty late, it is legal to perform abortions when the foetus has a brain and spinal cord and heart and all of that - which is quite a while before the 24 week mark.

If it's made up, then I very much doubt she'll be speaking to Parliament as she says she is going to be, and I very much doubt that the Independent would run a false story.

Wait? It's parliament now? The first 20 or so times I read this same story (multiple times on this forum), it was the US Congress.

The fact is, abortions ARE legal at 30 weeks - not normally, but for certain reasons they are. And although that is pretty late, it is legal to perform abortions when the foetus has a brain and spinal cord and heart and all of that - which is quite a while before the 24 week mark.

Exactly what I already said. And those reasons are serious risks to the health or life of the mother and serious problems with the fetus. The article suggests that nothing was wrong with the fetus, which would mean that there were dire consequences for the mother if she continued the pregnancy something very few, if any, would blame her for avoiding. And, in such a case, a saline abortion would be far from the method of choice, further casting doubt on the story.

Nature vs nurture. We've all heard it. What it really comes down to is this: nature sets the stage and then reacts to the environment. From the moment of conception everything is there for a human being. Skin color, intelligience, athleticism, eye color. All of the DNA needed for a human life is present at the moment of conception. The only thing left to do is provide an environment for growth and maturity. For a fetus it is safety in the mother's womb. For a child it is a home and food to eat. For a great-grandparent it could be living assistance or just a roof over his or her head. Someone who takes that environment away is called a murderer. This can involve poisoning, shooting, stabbing or aborting. I don't see what is so complicated here.

What is it about a bunch of cells that grow rapidly and contain unique human DNA that makes them so much less a human life than you or I?

Wait? It's parliament now? The first 20 or so times I read this same story (multiple times on this forum), it was the US Congress. "I started speaking out about abortion when I was 14, and on Tuesday I will be speaking to a parliamentary meeting at the House of Commons about it."
Exactly what I already said. And those reasons are serious risks to the health or life of the mother and serious problems with the fetus. The article suggests that nothing was wrong with the fetus, which would mean that there were dire consequences for the mother if she continued the pregnancy something very few, if any, would blame her for avoiding. And, in such a case, a saline abortion would be far from the method of choice, further casting doubt on the story. No, you misunderstood. I said that it is legal to perform abortions before 24 weeks (the cut-off time for most legal abortions) - even when the brain, heart and spinal cord are developed. Why does someone's personhood suddenly enter them between 23 weeks and 24 weeks?

"I started speaking out about abortion when I was 14, and on Tuesday I will be speaking to a parliamentary meeting at the House of Commons about it."

Yeah, and the last time it was that she was going to be speaking at Congress on some day. Or that she had. And yet no one has ever been able to produce any such proceedings. The only places that have any information about this woman at all, whether it is correct or not, seem to be avid anti-choice sites. Until I see something solid, the glaring holes in her story will continue to suggest that it is made-up, or grossly exaggerated.

No, you misunderstood. I said that it is legal to perform abortions before 24 weeks (the cut-off time for most legal abortions) - even when the brain, heart and spinal cord are developed. Why does someone's personhood suddenly enter them between 23 weeks and 24 weeks?

Well, for one thing, the brain is not fully developed. It is around the end of the 2nd trimester that it becomes fully developed enough to start to have a semblence of consciousness and the ability to feel pain. Thus, more protection is afforded to it. In truth, according to most of the law, "personhood" is still not afforded.

Meanwhile, no one has argued that personhood "suddenly" enters at any point, any more than people will actually argue that you are a child at 17 years, 23 hours, and 59 minutes, but are a suddenly a complete adult at 18 years. That maturity is gained over time, and 18 is basically the point at which we can say the average person seems to be mature enough to be granted the rights of adulthood. In the case of a pregnancy, more and more rights are afforded to the embryo/fetus as it develops and gains the qualities of life, and then of those things we might consider aspects of "personhood".


Meanwhile, am I to understand that you are opposed to abortions like this one would have had to be - to save the life/health of the mother? Are you also opposed to self-defense being protected under the law, since it would be essentially the same thing?

http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article331008.ece

What I don't get is how a couple of hours can make the difference between the foetus not being a person and it being permissible to kill it - and it being a citizen with full rights just like you or me.
Whether you're against abortion or not, surely the logic of a person's worth being dictated by their ability to survive alone is fuzzy in the extreme?
Well obviously the problem is law makers and people attempt to draw a definite line, where on one side you can say 'it's human' and on the other you can say it's not. In reality of course, becoming a human is a continuous process. You develop from being unconcious to concious, to having no feelings to having them. It's easy to look at the two extremes of the first cell of life and a fully grown adult and see there's a difference, but it's impossible to say there's a point where you go from being one to the other. However, we feel the need to draw a definite line.

Nature vs nurture. We've all heard it. What it really comes down to is this: nature sets the stage and then reacts to the environment. From the moment of conception everything is there for a human being. Skin color, intelligience, athleticism, eye color. All of the DNA needed for a human life is present at the moment of conception. The only thing left to do is provide an environment for growth and maturity. For a fetus it is safety in the mother's womb. For a child it is a home and food to eat. For a great-grandparent it could be living assistance or just a roof over his or her head. Someone who takes that environment away is called a murderer. This can involve poisoning, shooting, stabbing or aborting. I don't see what is so complicated here.

What is it about a bunch of cells that grow rapidly and contain unique human DNA that makes them so much less a human life than you or I?

It has the potential to become alive and the potential to become a person but it isn't one yet.

We don't give an acorn the same legal status as an oak tree.
We don't give the heir to the throne the same rights as the monarch.
We don't give a fetus the same rights as a person.

It has a higher status than a mere clump of cells due to its potential to become a person but it doesn't have rights as it isn't alive or conscious yet.

It sounds stupid to allow women to have the right to kill babies. People who just hide behind meaningless logic like "people shouldn't impose beliefs on other people" really need to think about what they are saying there. They are killing babies whever they are in the womb or not, abortions dont take place normally till about 4 weeks where a baby has conciousness and emotions. Why should a women have the right to kill a babie and whats wrong with stoping that action taking place.

An embryo at 4 weeks DOES NOT have consciousness and emotions. I challenge you to offer any evidence that it does.

In the US, 90% of abortions are completed in the first 12 weeks -- well before the development of anything even approaching consciousness or emotions.

And, by the way, we kill and eat things everyday that have more consciousness and emotions than an embryo or fetus.

If it's made up, then I very much doubt she'll be speaking to Parliament as she says she is going to be, and I very much doubt that the Independent would run a false story.

The fact is, abortions ARE legal at 30 weeks - not normally, but for certain reasons they are. And although that is pretty late, it is legal to perform abortions when the foetus has a brain and spinal cord and heart and all of that - which is quite a while before the 24 week mark.

Abortions are legal at 30 weeks ONLY if necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

That is what is fishy about this story. Supposedly this botched abortion occurred in Los Angeles. In California, you cannot get an elective abortion that late in a pregnancy. Roe v. Wade specifically allowed states to ban abortion in the third trimester unless it was necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. California has always had such a law.

So the girl's allegations either leave something out or are flatly untrue.

That doesnt make sence im not a chrisitan, im not completely against abortion but in some circumstances i am... You people always use the same logic as if you were a comunist who hates free speech and when anyone has an opinion you acuse them of forcing it apon them.


LOL! You flip flop more than most republicans, did you read your first post?

And communist, good comeback! Except the communist diddn't allow people to disagree with them, kinda like the far right!

The writer brings up an interesting point. Abortian doesn't always only affect the mother. I guess the unborn are only human when the mothers say they are. She also brought up some things about how barbaric abortians are. This woman suffered from a botched abortian. When you hear what happens, you begin to think. Is the mother the only one who matters? Are the Christian nutjobs really nutjobs? When is it a baby and not just a lump of flesh? It's funny how when a pregnant woman is murdered, it's double homocide. When she has an abortian, it's just removing a mere lump of flesh. Double standard, people. Hipocracy. The mother should have used the pill. After all, the article didn't say she did. When something goes unquestioned, is it really right? After all, slavery went unquestioned for years. Was that practice right? Spontanious generation and flat-earth both went unquestioned for years. Were those right? If you don't really question things, you are going to be wrong 9 out of 10 times. If Charles Darwin went unquestioned, evolution wouldn't really be where it is today and it would be as valid as creationism. The only reason evolution is valid in science is because scientists took the time to question it. They asked questions. They answered questions. Evolution evolved. My point is: Ask questions. If we didn't, we'd still think the earth was flat and that flies came from meat and not from fly eggs.

When people are murdered you are responsible for taking away their future lives. A mother's child is considered a murder victim not because it is considered a full human on it's own but because she was choosing to have it since she had not yet aborted it. Everything else is a moot point on that issue, (whether she would wanted to abort or was going to, or if the baby would have died anyways) at that moment she was having the child. Thus the future life is taken into consideration not for the baby's sake necessarily but because the mother chose to have the child and thus it is protected. It is always her choice, if you abort the baby from her without her choice it is murder. If she does it herself within the time period before the baby assumes enough human developement to have the right to its own choice it still falls under her discretion. Not what some old book that contradicts itself over and over says or what some old man in congress says.

As for your point about evolution being science because we question it that is utterly false. Evolution is science because you can question it, not because we do. It is NEVER on the same level as creationism because creationism cannot be tested or disproved in any way ever. God cannot be tested or disproved thus He is not science. If we never questioned or talked about evolution the idea would still be science and not on the same level as creationism.

Further questioning things in general is of course important and good. And believe it or not science does question abortion and study the fetus and the process of human life. This research has set the time period for abortion, where do you think that comes from? Science has shown that a developing fetus below the allotted time for abortion is not human but merely a "lump of flesh" that has the posibility to become human. There is no valid scientific argument otherwise, the fetus is not sitting in there thinking at that point, it can't. The only argument against abortion that has a point invovles religion and a belief in souls or something that gives that fetus value beyond the value the mother has in it. This is religion and you cannot make laws on religion. That is pushing your values on others and is wrong. It is not hurting you if a mother chooses not to let the lump of flesh inside her develope into a human. No one has the right to then turn around and hurt her and the child's future life by forcing her to let that happen if she doesn't want to.

What is it about a bunch of cells that grow rapidly and contain unique human DNA that makes them so much less a human life than you or I?

Hmmm, let me see. They are a bunch of cells that grow rapidly and not a human? What is so hard to understand about that?

As I said in my other post it is the mother's value in the fetus that makes it anything when it is underdeveloped. Beyond that it is nothing, literally. It isn't a grandparent or child or anyone it is a clump of cells as you yourself said. Your arm has DNA in it and is living but we dont' call that human because it can't live on it's own and it has no brain or any conciousness. Oh wait that is exactly what you just described isn't it.

As for the unique DNA should we cork every man's penis to prevent wasted ejaculation and every woman's vagina to prevent her period because the egg and sperm together will form to make the unique DNA of the new baby? Does that sound vulgar and ridiculous? I hope so because it is. Just as much as even thinking about taking away the right of a woman to choose based on your utter lack of understanding in science is ridiculous and vulgar. Or in most cases the misguided faith in an old book that can't keep it's facts straight burdening and ruining real people's lives.

basically I don't regard the foetus as a human being

I think that the cut off point should be where if the "baby" has a resonable chance of survival without artificial respiration and other mechanical life support.

resonable is somthing like 25%+

before that point abortions should be legal
also before that point it should be at the discresion of the doctors whether or not to aid any premature births (though of course if the parents don't want it but the dr does the parents overide them)

What I don't get is how a couple of hours can make the difference between the foetus not being a person and it being permissible to kill it - and it being a citizen with full rights just like you or me.

Aside from the many excellent posts on how the legal system does not view it as "poof - now it is the same as me" but as something which gets more rights gradually - I do wonder where your problem with sudden transitions come from.

I fire a gun at your head. 10 seconds before you were alive. 10 seconds later you are dead.
I flip a switch. The light goes on, while before it was off.
You are 17 years and 364 days old. You are not allowed to buy 18+ stuff. 1 day later you are.

IOW: the concept of transitions is quite deeply ingrained in our society.