Fetal tissue is not a person or a baby. It is the possiblity of life. If you want to make sure to use correct terms you need to call them what they are according to their makeup. An embryo is no more a person than an acorn is a tree.

It amazes me how people who can be so cold about things like the death penalty (with all it's flaws), and war, and hungry homeless children but can profess to care so much about an unformed mass of cells dwelling inside someone elses body.

Again with the junk science.

Instead of merely contrdicting you, I will ask you to explain the term "possibility of life" in scientific terms and why a fetus fits under this category.

I've gone over that. The fact that it cannot survive without a host, it is no body or mind or nueroligical system, is not able to live unless the woman does, it cannot sustain it's own life outside of the womans body...but I've discussed this with you already and you and I go around in circles.

We go around in circles because of statements like the one above.

If it has life to sustain, it is alive not just "potential life."

Clearly, we have a communication problem.

In the case of partial birth abortion it is either the baby or both the women and the baby. Would you rather have a 1 day old baby or a woman who is loved and wants to live? Try to Ask a blastocyst to talk. Go ahead try.



What is Life? Is life the ability to love, feel, think or reason. Sure an embreyo is "alive" but is it a person? That's what I meant.

The non-legal definition person is subjective. I define "person" as a living member of the species Homo sapiens. I would want the government to have more stringent contraints on killing a human being than public opinion over whether he/she is a person. Slaves weren't people for quite a while in this society. Public opinion is often wrong...

Is something that can't feel pain a person? I don't think so. I can understand being against abortion. Still if it is in your womb and can't live outside the womb it should be your right to terminate your pregnancy.

Are we sure the unborn child can't feel pain?

I have read that when a pregnant woman takes a drug like heroin, there is a physical reaction by the baby, it becomes agitated. Whether this reaction is pain, or otherwise, there is a reaction.

Back in Nov, I believe, Tommy Thompson defined a fetus as eligible for federal health care for children. This means that the federal government has defined life at the beginning of conception.

I posted it on one of the other abortion threads at the time.

Madtown

I would think a fetus would have to have the hardware to feel pain. If it has a neuroligical system and a brain then maybe they can feel pain.

I wonder how those embryo's sitting frozen in petri dishes at the fertility clinics would feel if they were suddenly given a voice....of course it's difficult to have a voice without a throat, tongue, vocal cords, brain, lungs, mouth, etc. But still. What would all of those 'babies' say about being left in limbo or worse if they were to be destroyed?

If you want to be a voice for someone be a voice for them. They aren't currently invading anyone's body but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be forced on someone.

Still purely your opinion, you are willing to allow the purposeful ending of a human life based only on your opinion?

Abortion is an excuse. Teens who are planning to have sex will say, oh we don't have to use birth control, if worst comes to worst we can always get an abortion.

CP

Give them birth control and decent parenting and you won't have to worry about abortion.

And how can we ensure that all teens have good parents? Birth control? We're talking about teenagers, they aren't the best at decision making in the world, you are giving them a little too much credit.

CP

More importantly, why would we allow the purposeful taking of an innocent human life?

Abortion is done for a lot more reasons other than teen pregnancy or rape.

Abortion is also done when the gender of the child is not what the parents want.

Abortion is also done when it is determined that the child (and therefore the family) will have medical problems or some disformity.

Abortion is done when it is not a convenient time to have a baby.

Abortion is done when preventative measures - such as a condom - fail.

Abortion is also done when there is something as simple as a change of mind.

As far as I am concerned, all the above are not good enough reasons. I can accept it for rape, especially of a child. It seems to me when Roe V. Wade was first decided there wasn't the expectation that it would be used as a convenience or as a general method of birth control.

I remember it being touted as a method to help a pregnant woman in dire circumstances. Another thing to be considered is the emotional aftermath of the procedure to the mother. I have heard (and read) of women terribly remoseful for having an abortion.

Do you think it's okay if mom and dad don't like the gender of teh child and just say "get rid of it."? I don't.

CP

I thought that was I said. I'm trying but I can't think of a worse reason.

Are you saying that you cannot accept it personally or that you would feel justified in deciding what was acceptable for all women?

Both....I think that abortion should be safe and rare.


I detailed in another thread that I saw it routinely (on a daily basis) abused for several years, and that's when I changed my mind.

Here's a summary of what I posted in that thread (which I can't find at the moment):

I managed the business end of a large in-patient/out-patient psychiatric center for several years (this was before my dance career took off). Most people assume that the phrase "health and health of the mother" means that the woman has some life threatening event take place and bringing the baby to term will threaten her life - some kind of medical emergency or medical contra-indications.

However, all it takes is this...the woman makes a one time appointment with a psychiatrist. During that appt she states to the doctor "if I have this baby I will either injure myself or injure others." The doctor then writes up a report with that statement and so it falls under the heading of "saving the life/health of the mother."

She takes that statement to her local abortion clinic.

In the over five years that I worked at that large psychiatric practice this happened several times every day. In all the time I was there NO ONE was ever refused. It was automatic. You show up - you get your written permission.

In most states (MediCaid) and with most insurance companies will pay for that one psychiatric visit. It didn't have to be a full visit (about 50 minutes), it could be a half visit (about 20 minutes.)

When I realized how "life and health" of the mother was being abused - I changed my mind.

First, I don't understand why they needed any kind of doctor statement to have an abortion. Were these all late term or before Roe vs. Wade?

And what makes you think these women were not telling the truth? Child abuse happens all the time. So does suicide, so do babies being thrown in dumpsters after they're born. Why shouldn't a womans mental health be a consideration? Why doesn't her life matter?

Nevermind...I've had this conversation too many times.

Then, I suppose you are not interested in a reply?

ok - that's fair enough.

If these women were required for whatever reason to supply some sort of "doctor's recommendation" to receive abortions, who's to say that they were making light of abortion, or abusing the medical practice of abortions? You have shown that they were probably "abusing" the jump-through-the-hoop part of the process, but it doesn't necessarily follow that their reasons for obtaining an abortion were therefore suspect.

An abortion is never an easy decision to make. Anti-abortionists often (I do NOT mean you here, Basheva) paint a picture of callous women having abortions as though it were just a lark, like they woke up one day, found out they were pregnant, and thought, "hey, gosh, I'll just go get a quick abortion before lunch!"

It could be that the psychiatrist at that practice was strongly pro-choice, and, knowing the difficulties placed in the womens' path to abortion, had decided at some point to "bend" the strict legality of the issue, perhaps. Doing his or her best (at least in their belief) to facilitate that particular part of the process.

quarkhead: That does not constitute abuse in your opinion?

I didn't say it wasn't abuse, only that it did not necessarily constitute abuse of abortion rights. Aside from ideological beliefs, right now, abortion is a legal right. What a lot of states have done is create hoops for women to jump through in order to obtain an abortion. The story Basheva conveyed was evidence of abusing the hoops, not necessarily the abortions themselves.

The Supreme Court found abortion to be a legal right, or at least that banning it was unconstitutional. I may think owning a gun is immoral, but that doesn't change its legal or constitutional standing. BTW, I don't think that about guns. Just an example.

I have a question. If a 12 year old is raped and impregnated by her father, getting parental consent is sort of out of the question. Should she 1) be forced to bring the baby to term, or 2) might it be ok for her to seek out a way around that rule? I'm not saying that this was Basheva's observation at all. This is a totally separate question.

There should be some alternate method of approval for such situations, so that the parent does not interfere and the girl is removed from that parent's care. A pregnant 12-year old should tip off anyone that there is definitely something wrong with the situation.

That is ignoring the more basic issue that abortion is taking an innocent human life of course...

And...lets not forget unborn child Danya.

Darcaine

First, I agree there should be an alternative.

Second: if abortion is the taking of innocent human life, and wrong for that reason, then shouldn't you logically be against abortion even in case of all rape? Further, one could say that even if the mother's life is endangered, there is no way, over the course of life, that she is MORE innocent than the foetus, and therefore, shouldn't the foetus' right to life supercede that of the mother? On the other hand, if you cede that quality of life can win over supremacy of life, then isn't a pro-choice stance inevitable? After all, the ONLY thing a foetus has is life itself. It can't really be said to have a context for quality of life, therefore, shouldn't the mother's quality of life always supercede that of the foetus?

Just some questions as I was sittin here ponderin...

I think you have good points but, you are talking about the exception abortion and not the rule. Pro-abortion lobbyists bring this up all the time. If was the main cause for all the abortions in this country we need to start sterilizing rapists post haste. The problem, as I see it, is in a point of law. The woman is judge, jury and executioner. Just because you don't have a name or a SS number the LAW says you have to be heard. Now, I am saying second and third trimester here. If this were the case like I mentioned earlier what's to stop a mother of a severely retarded child just executing him. It meets all the requirements of your argument. Inability to reason, and a burden to the mother.

Darcaine

1. Seeing as the fetus is not a rapist, killing him/her because he/she is the child of a rapist would be wrong.

2. I am not advocating comparing degrees of innocence. I included innocence to head off any off topics issue such as war , the death penalty, etc. Not that I suspect you in particular of bringing them up, but because it has happened before.

Now, if the mother life is in danger then (and pretty much only then) killing (because that's what it is) becomes a reasonable option.

Turnea:


So if your 12yo daughter were raped by some cretin, you would have her carry the baby to term? Just wondering. If so, then at least I respect your follow-through on your ideology. I suppose I can't say you're being hypocritical anyway.



Not to seem trite, but why? Why is it reasonable? If her life is threatened, who's to say that after the abortion she will recover? Is her life more important than the life of the unborn child in her womb? Both lives are threatened. What if the mother may die but the fetus can survive? Is the choice still the same?

Understand, I am not asking these questions to be contentious. I am interested in learning your answers. I tend to think that supremacy of life and quality of life are two basically incompatible reasonings. Quality of life will usually come down on the side of choice and the mother, whereas supremacy of life on the side of the fetus. Just curious.

If I had a 12-yr old daughter, provided her health was not in danger, I would not demand an abortion. I would not suggest a vaginal birth however, but that I believe is beside your point. All hypothetical, of course.

As to why danger to the mother's life makes a difference, if there is a good chance that either the fetus or mother is going to die/be severely injured I could understand that the concerns of the mother and fetus are comparable to one another and feel that once the concerns are comparable the decision should be left up to the only one of the two that can make it. Along about the same terms as killing in self-defense.

Why is that? I think the two are woven together like a fine cloth. To cheapen life does that not also destroy the quality of life or value thereof?

Darcaine

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying you would tell her to have the baby but have a c-section?

Pretty much. Since she would not be old enough to make the choice alone, I would have to make the decision. I would choose the option that doesn't results in human death.

I do admit however it is a tough question and pretty much goes against my emotional grain, as I sure it does to most people.

Morally and in the most basic terms, given the choice between a person's life and death I am compelled to choose life.

I agree with you, If someone is raped, and gotten pregnant, ¿Why should that woman be forced to carry a non-desired child?

If a 12 year-old girl is raped and gotten pregnant, what would you tell her?
"Oh, sorry kid, you can't abort, i'ts muder"

I think women should take responsibility for THEIR actions, if the women is willing to have sexual relationships, then she cannot decide over the child's life, It's just not fair, Every action has a consequence, so face it, lady.

Abortion is Legal only if the zygote isn't older than 3 months, and if that zygote was created unwillingly, As far as I can understand.

But you might say "Hey, it's part of a woman's body, why can't she get rid of it?"
How would you have felt if someone called you just a "Part of a woman's body"? Not pretty, huh?

That's my opinion, i'm just a 15-year-old girl with nothing else 2 do... cya...

1. Basic science tells us a sperm is alive too, but nobody is going to arrest me for genocide if I don't deploy the troops for reproductive purposes.

2. A zygote, embryo or fetus could all be said to be human. This does not stop approximately 80% of conceptions from spontaneously terminating -- often without the woman's knowledge. While I'm speaking only from experience in Kentucky, I do not think many women mourn the loss of an unknown zygote or embryo passed along as a late period.

3. For all intents and purposes it hasn't. Of course, just as the case with my distinctly human armada of sperm, the [independently] unviable fetus is no more protected by law than it can be held accountable.

Abortion is not illegal because until a certain stage of development, the human life is only representative of the potential for a person. Just as people will often say a fetus is no less of a human than an adult, it is also no more of a human than the sperm carrying DNA or the zygotes which frequently flicker and die after conception.

Of course, there's also the interpretation that the United States Constitution only grants rights to those who have been born. While I agree in part with this position, I would be more than willing to restrict the ability to abort after the stage of development at which a fetus has surpassed merely being the potential for a person, to possessing all the necessary attributes to survive in ths world independent of the mother (around 24 weeks).

Hi, I'm a new member and I hope no one minds me jumping in feet first, but I have a couple of comments regarding this thread:

1) The "sanctity of life" argument seems specious to me on a couple of levels. First, life pretty self-evidently is not a supremely precious commodity. In theory, yes; in practice, no. As a species, we routinely make pragmatic decisions that result in massive loss of human life. I'm curious how many of the individuals howling about the "sanctity of human life" on this thread would be willing to pay ten percent more in taxes to ensure that every starving homeless person in this country would be sheltered and fed. How many of the pro-lifers support unconditionally forgiving all third-world debt? My guess would be not many. And that is in regard to actual living human beings - not blobs of protein the size of my thumbnail. The world is already overpopulated enough without forcing pregnant fifteen-year-olds working at McDonalds to have kids they have no means of supporting.

2) It's a time-worn cliche but worth repeating, that if men could get pregnant, there wouldn't be much argument going on about Roe v. Wade - it would be holy writ. How many of you out there would want to have a child every time you were drunk and didn't wear a condom, the condom you were wearing broke, etc.? I know I wouldn't.

I reject the claim that life begins at conception, that a gamete or zygote is somehow a viable human being with a soul. A blastula wiht 8 cells is somehow precious.

However, I do take exception with the "choice" issue that is exploited by the womens movement as well. They should be allowed no further choices than a man. We drop our pants, our choice ends. We get no say whether to take the baby to term, whether or not we want to support the child. Even if the woman said "gee, I am on birth control, don't worry"- the fraud she committed means nothing for the next 18 years to the guys pocketbook- he still has no "choice" in the matter.

I think the argument should be when a viable baby is the deal, adn women should have no more choice than a man, period.

Whether or not they mourn is not really the issue, in my opinion, rather I believe it is more important to consider whether or not fetus' should be protected under the law regardless of public opinion.Not exactly... A sperm cell can indeed be classified as human. However, I skipped over an important distinction on my initial post. I attempted to address it later, albeit somewhat clumsily. Let me give it another shot.
Yes, a sperm is human (of human origin) an sperm is not, however, a human. An individual human organism. That is to say that, unlike a sperm cell the fetus is not part of a greater organism. Therefore a fetus is a human. A status which, in my opinion, should afford him/her some basic legal protection. The claim that "life" begins at "conception" a factual scientific concept. You may reject it, but it is no a judgement call. As for a soul, it's pointless to make law based on whether of not you believe something has a "soul" not everyone even believes in the concept of a separate human soul. I call separation of church and state.
First of all, welcome to the site!
Second, what you say is true. Though if that is the excuse, why prosecute murders? We must at least try to uphold the ideal of the sanctity of life. I think that addresses the rest of your points as well.

Sorry for the big edit, an error kept me from seeing a number of these posts.

For in vitro transplants, they create several embryos, choose the best and healthiest and destroy the rest. How does this fit into the picture? Genetic labs must be destroying as many 'lives' as abortionists, why no outcry? Why arent these doctors being murdered and bombed wth similar vengence?

Arent these embryos human also? Are genetic physicians/researchers also mass murderers?

A fetus is still only representative of a potential person, turnea. Until a fetus has reached an advanced stage of development to be a viable organism independent of the mother, nothing is a guarantee. There are late miscarriages and other issues which still threaten the ability of a fetus to continue development into a person, into a legally protected member of society.


Life does not begin at conception, turnea. Life is a continuous process which has proceeded since the dawn of life on this planet. Conception is merely the union of a sperm with an egg to begin development of a potential human person. It isn't the beginning of life, but a process in which the life of a sperm, united with the ovum, undergoes a genetically motivated transformation.

There is some outcry concerning things like stem cell research (a similar area). I agree that the concept of ending a human life is the same with in vitro or abortion.Whether or not that point of legal protection should be changed is exactly what we are debating... I wasn't specific enough it seems. Sorry, about that.
What I meant was: The life of any individual human being(you and I for example) begins at conception.

AAAGH! I try to stay away from this sort of topic, but I can't seem to stop myself.

There is a very clear conflict of interest between the embryo/fetus, and the woman carrying the embryo/fetus at the point of conception. Do the rights of a piece of protoplasm to use that host body to develop into a functional human being usurp the rights of the woman who doesn't want it, and will suffer (a lot) for it being there? IMO, they do not. This isn't something you keep seperately in a bag, there are extreme deleterious effects on the host. As the fetus grows closer to being a functional human (I would end the 'elective' abortion at 12 weeks time) its 'rights' should be increased accordingly.

At some point, its right to life should outweigh only the interests of health or life of the mother. I don't believe that point it crossed at the moment of conception, or for sometime after.

If a female is raped, and gets pregnant from it, she has the option to either have the child or not. With no choice that is it. You have to have it. Choice with abortion should exist but it needs to be heavily regulated.

Abortion is not a black and white issue. People that try to put it there are very biased in opinion. The level of understanding or when a fetus becomes an alive person is foggy and not defined. A scab is a group of human cells, is it the same. This is a very emotional topic for most all concerned. The need to understand it would most likely be the key to making it work for all concerned.

Does it? If so, so what? I keep seeing people say life begins at conception, but don't see where that matters. This is a legal question, and legally, we provide societal right to life at birth, not conception. I don't see this changing and don't think it *SHOULD* change.

Besides, outlawing abortion would be an utterly stupid thing to do. We can't place all of the unwanted children *NOW* and you want to add another million plus to the mix every year? The anti-abortionists never address this problem, I guess they think it'll just magically go away.

It won't.

Just as each sperm and ovum represents a minute potential for becoming a human individual, the union of a sperm and ovum represent only a greater potential for becoming a human individual. Until the point of viability independent of the mother it is still only a potential person who may or may not enter into the world alive and properly functioning.

I can see no reason to grant protection under the law to what may or may not become an individual member of our society. I certainly don't see the reason to consider granting such rights immediately after conception when there is a considerably high possibility that the fertilized egg will spontaneously terminate, taking any proposed rights to a watery grave, unknown to it or the clueless mother.

It isn't as simple as giving "rights" to one party and not to the other. We have tom consider just what "right" is at stake here. Does the mothers less than life-and-death concerns outweigh the fetus' right (not used in the legal sense) to life? In my opinion, they do not.Seeing as this is exactly what we are debating, it might help to give a reason... The implication is that unwanted children are better off dead and don't deserve a right to live. I disagree. Just because a human being may or may not be "functional" on their own doesn't make it's life any less valuable. A fetus cannot maintain life on its own for a long period of time. An infant can maintain a life on its own for longer, but this is still limited. True "development" doesn't end until sexual maturity (at which point the euphemism becomes aging ), until this point a person cannot even perform on of the basic defining functions of life (in the scientific sense): reproduction. does this make pre-adolescent life any less valuable? Finally, there are plenty of people with a considerable chance of not living out the night, does this make their lives less valuable? Using the term "potential person" makes an inherent judgement that until a fetus can be safely removed from the womb its life is not valuable. This is a judgement that one can make only for him/herself

I just think the forcing or a grown person the their death to give birth is dark, and gross from an emotional level. That would be something out of some twisted movie, and on a real level the presence of no freedom at all. It takes two people to make the choice to create a human that is going to die anyways from old age or a myriad of things. Then you are going to force that birth even if it means the death of the birth giver. That does not sound very pro-life. From a biology standpoint fungus is living, so what. Better not kill fungus But then i guess comes some realistic double standard on that argument. I said in an earlier post, just because abortion is an option, that means you can give birth to a brain dead child from rape if you want to, the other option does not allow for that choice to occur in the first place. Regulating abortion is something that I am all for, but I also am very pro-choice for the fact abortion is not a black and white issue.

I'm pro-life and think abortion at the point the fetus can survive outside the womb, even with assistance, is cold-blooded murder. The argument that "If it can't survive outside of the womb on it's own..." seems bogus because perfectly healthy babies carried to term can't survive outside the womb on it's own (I beleive we're the only speicies that can't survive on it's own at birth - but I could be wrong).

Women may treat the unborn fetus as a parasite (a common term earlier in this thread) and feel they have a choice to do as they please to the baby, but when that baby's heart is thumping, it's thinking. It's learning. It's hearing. How is that not human?

Abortions because of rape is extremely rare. Less than 2% of abortions are because of rape, yet it's used as a champion for abortion. I counted 13 times throughout these threads that exact justification and for all intents and purposes, it doesn't happen.

So, abortion is used for birth control over 98% of the time but we go to "righteous" arguments to justify the other 2% (rape, incest, health of the mother, etc). But the fact of the matter is, we kill our kids because it's pretty damn convenient.

But what about adoption? That gets poo-pooed in a hurry because of all things, that isn't convenient either. 63% of all women having abortions are white, 33.3% are black, 3.8 % are other races.

Have any of you tried to adopt a healthy white baby? Stand in line and be prepared to stay there for a while. In fact, my ex-wife and I tried to adopt and after 3 years on the waiting list, gave up (it can go faster if you agree to become a foster parent). We went to another service and for a mere $10,000, they could get us one within a year. And that was about 15 years ago. I'd hate to think how much it costs now.

People are standing in line waiting for babies. Of course, nobody wants the crack babies, so again, it becomes justification to kill all the healthy ones. And why? Because we just don't want them. We've just made ourselves judge, jury, and executioner because we either screwed up or can't be bothered.