First, I would point out that I said "alive and properly functioning" and not simply "functional."

Secondly, the comparison between the fetus' viability independent of the mother is not comparable to an infant sustaining life on its own or "true development" at sexual maturity. When I speak of viability independent of the mother, I am speaking of the body being able to function so as to sustain life. If the lungs or brain are not developed, the fetus is not going to be capable of sustaining life outside the womb no matter what efforts might be made to do so artificially.

Until a fetus has developed to a point at which it can sustain life independent of the mother -- that the vital organs are developed and functioning as necessary -- it is not guaranteed to develop into an individual in our society. Without any certainty on whether the zygote, embryo or fetus is going to be born alive, a fully functional individual, it shouldn't have any rights protected by law.


Again, if the lungs or brain are not developed, the fetus/infant is incapable of sustaining life regardless of the artificial measures medical personnel might take. We are not talking about the ability to feed and change itself but the ability of its organs to sustain necessary biological functions.


I'm not sure what it is, but it isn't human. A beating heart does not in anyway translate into a fetus thinking or learning. You may have a science book which says otherwise, but the brain is the organ which processes information to think and learn. An organism does not need to think or learn to react to stimulus as a fetus does to body movement, music, or gastro-intestinal discomfort.


And most abortions also occur within the first trimester, far before there is any guarantee that it will see a live and healthy birth. Considering that abortion prevents birth, it isn't unexpected that it would be "used for birth control" over 98% of the time.

The personal friend (and ex-boyfriend) of women who have had abortions, it goes beyond a mere matter of convenience. Reproduction is a bodily function of the woman, and it's a process she has to consider the ramifications of. While people may want to champion giving rights to a potential person, a woman is already granted her rights. She must decide the impact of carrying a fetus to term over the span of nine months and facing the numerous health risks that accompany it. As flattering as we might like to perceive pregnancy, it is far from being an easy or safe experience.

In regards to adoption, I don't know what you mean, DaytonRocker, when you say it gets "poo-pooed in a hurry". Women are more than welcome to carry a fetus to term and hand it over for adoption. I don't know any pro-choice supporters who have any particular beef with adoption; we simply feel that the woman should have the choice between both adoption and abortion.

If a woman is willing to carry a fetus to term, but is unwilling to care for it, adoption is clearly the best option for them. If a woman is not willing to endure a pregnancy for the nine months until such a time, she whould be afforded the right to terminate that pregnancy at such a time when the fetus has not developed to a stage at which it is viable independent of the mothers bodily functions.


It would seem you are characterizing all babies who are not white as "crack babies," Dayton. Other than that, there don't seem to be enough people waiting in line for children or else we wouldn't have the situation we have today with children still languishing as wards of the state. I don't know though, maybe they're just unhealthy, black crack babies. This appears to be the insinuation...

Adoption is a fine option for women willing to endure nine months of pregnancy. The fact of the matter is that many women experiencing unexpected pregnancies simply do not wish to do this. Pregnancy is a lengthy and risky venture for a woman of all ages, races and creeds. If a woman makes the choice not to take the risk in order to possibly give birth to a healthy individual, that should be their choice.

Arguing that people are standing in line for babies -- presumably "healthy white" ones -- is not a reason to force female citizens to endure the hardships of a pregnancy, risking their life for the happiness of some family they have likely never met. In addition to a woman choosing whether pregnancy is worth the risk of carrying to term, they are also not to be manipulated into baby factories for the unfortunate couples unable to conceive on their own.

As a man, and one who isn't likely to ever accidentally father a child at that, I've always considered myself pro-choice by default. I have no right to tell someone what to do in a situation I will never find myself in.
Of course abortion is a terrible thing, anti-abortion people are the ones who act like it's no big deal for the mother.

This thread has brought me to ponder the arguments brought up about the 'sanctity' of life and preserving 'life' at all cost. There are many ways that humans do not preserve the sanctity of life, for ideals that we percieve as the greater good. I believe abortion can fall into this category in many instances. I include only arguements about 'innocent human life' to avoid controversy:

For example, we wage wars, for military reasons and rationalize that civilian deaths are simply a part of equasion. Here we easily deny the sanctity of their lives, when it suits our needs. These are innocents also.

When a person is in a coma, brain dead, or terminally dependant on a system outside theirself we often opt to disconnect life support for the benefit of the survivors FINANCES or suffering. The patients body is alive. Is the human being there? Perhaps, perhaps not. We have come to accept that without a brain function or ability to survive without outside help, this person should not be kept alive indeterminately. The person in question has no say of course, we make that choice and it IS legal. We dont sustain life for the mere purpose of it.

Capitol punishment is legal in many states in the US. Due to fallibility or corruption of the legal system we know that we may occasionally put some innocents to death, but we accept this as part of the cumulative decision as a society to impose the death penalty and rid ourselves of dangerous criminals, using the argument of numbers, ie: some mistakes will be made.. Yet again, we rationalize the death of some innocents lives for what we percieve as a greater good.

President Bush recently said that he would permit some stem cell research on embryos, highly regulated, however, these embryos are still 'lives' in the context of this arguement. He made this controversial decision because so much evidence has shown that this research could help millions with debilitating diseases that might benefit from embryonic stem cells. So..need I say, one more rationalization for the already living.

I already mentioned in vitro, where to give a couple ONE healthy baby, 6 or more embryos are destroyed, that is if it works the first time.

On abortion:
When a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy it is most likely because she feels she cannot carry to term, or support a child in the way it should be. Perhaps she is a teen, her health is a problem, perhaps its finances. Our society does not have many recources for women who cannot support themselves when pregnant or both after the birth. If we did, its quite possible we would have less terminations but a greater dependancy on the rest of us for support.
Maybe she has been raped and cannot possibly deal with the mental anguish of looking at the results of that trauma for most of her lifetime. ( I have to hand it to some women who decide to carry through, I cannot imagine the strength it takes) Dayton, Id love some references, since a woman is raped about once a minute in the US.
Sometimes there are substance abuse problems; bringing a child into that is negative for not only herself, the child, but society also. It can be done, and the child end up in the system.

Sometimes the child has a birth defect and the family has no resources to provide. Mongaloidism is usually tested for right about the end of the first trimester, a hard decision at that point because most have already felt the life in her body, but to carry through will be a lifetime of extraordinary expense and hardhship, with some joy no doubt, but ..I cant make decisions if I dont walk in their shoes.

Are these not good reasons to choose whether 'life' in its very most basic form, could be rationalized away for the greater good of the already living, much as the above examples?

Many did not want to debate souls as part of the equasion, but life itself is not really sacrosanct without the involvement of belief in the soul. If humans do not have a soul, then a cluster of cells is certainely not sacrosanct, until there is a heartbeat AND a brain.
If humans do have a soul than all life is sacrosanct, not only for the times it does not suit our particular and highly subjective ideologies.

I do not want to turn this into a religious debate. I just think that this defense of fetuses is somewhat ridiculous given our present collective belief systems. If as a society we would arrive to the idea that ALL life is sacrosanct, ( which I could only hope for) then I think there could be a serious and viable argument, but we have not even arrived even close to that form of thought. If we were, we be concentrating more on all these ridiculous life losing wars, not on embryonic cells.

( My deepest suspicion is that for the most severe anti-abortion arguementors, there is an underlying female control issue, its not about unborn babies at all.
My reasoning? Few are making outcrys against genetic researchers, killing them or blowing up fertility clinics, men are not clamouring to pay child support for the already born, but for the most part, more males are vehemently anti-abortion when pregnancy and the responsability of childbirth is totally foreign to them biologically. Many do not want to spend a penny to save the babies once born, support the mothers or even provide sex education in schools. Well, talk about a corner you couldnt paint yourself out of if you were female, pregnant, with no place to turn, so the clinic tends to be the best option. This is a tragic reality.
The second part is, while religious extremists advocate pro-life for fetal cells, they seem to have little or no objection with sacrificing the mothers life, or the wars that kill off their children.)

So you'd much rather them be abused and mistreated? Unwanted children have a much higher rate of abuse, sexual, physical and emotional, than wanted children. Unwanted children, unless they are white, male, perfect and under 2 years of age, have a very slim chance of ever being adopted. What do you propose to do with all the unwanted children who don't fit into that category (the majority)?

Someone needs to have a plan other than rampant hyper-emotionalism.

Until men can conceive children they shouldn't spend so much time trying to make decisions for the women that do.

There seems to be some kind of mindset that women have abortions for casual and vain reasons. Almost as if women lack the cool and dispassionate ability to make critical decisions or something.

Most women don't choose to have an abortion because they're bored or don't want to screw up their figure for the next nine months. Certainly a woman can decide for herself whether or not she wants to be a breed mare and not because some man thinks she should.

I'm firmly pro-choice because women should control their own bodies and biology.

We should probably kill off all unadopted children, over the age of two, while we are at it. Will need to amend the 14th to except children under that age from equal protection under the law.

I think the best plan is to allow a mother to commit infanticide. This would probably reduce abortions since a mother would know that she had the infanticide option in case motherhood proved too difficult and would also reduce unwanted children which are a burden to society.

I have been thinking over this for quite a while and find infanticide as a possible compromise in the abortion battle. Pro-lifers equate the unborn with the born. Therefore if the net number of infanticides was less than the net number of abortions reduced lives would be saved. Pro-chosers would have their unwanted children problem solved. Women who decided the baby was a bit too too much, and that they should have aborted it, could eliminate their and societies burden.

I think I will write my congressman. I mean if it was your family member, would you not prefer them to be killed instead of abused and mistreated?

Fair enough.

In the case of unwanted pregnancies, the fetus should be removed from the mother and sent to an adoption agency. The same goes for babies, so why should we discriminate?

A fetus cannot survive on it's own for much different reasons than a baby's inability to function without a mother. A baby cannot acquire food for themselves. Once you insert food they can at least eat it.

I imagine a fetus would be unable to process food in a similar fashion. If you stuck food into the "mouth" of a fetus, chances are it wouldn't be a able to process it.

Everyones less than life-and-death physical concerns outweigh another’s right to life. When does the government legislate that the physical wellbeing of any person is secondary to the life of another? Are there mandatory blood or organ donations for which I am unaware? We don't even enforce that type of legislation on cadavers.

The amazing thing is that most every woman actually goes through pregnancy without the government telling them they must! Many (myself included) even do it multiple times with no government enforcement.

Children receive rights at birth, thus it is unethical and illegal to kill them. Perhaps instead of worrying about abortion, so-called Right-to-Lifers should be more concerned about the children we already have, providing them with loving, caring homes, food and education.

Nah, that would never work. Pro-lifers don't give a damn about you once you're born.

Mrs.Pigpen writes:


See, theres this funny thing called A CHOICE. Many people make A CHOICE to have children. Others make A CHOICE not to have children. Just as no one forced you to have children, it's none of your business to tell others that they don't have a choice.

nighttimer writes:


I hear they figured out what caused pregnancy. Most women aren't stupid, they aren't going to be spending $450 for an abortion when a $.50 condom would do the same job. The idea that women are just running off to the clinic because they enjoy morning sickness is the epitome of stupidity.

Besides, even if we are going to assume that these women are complete idiots and can't comprehend birth control, are these the people we really want breeding? Our planet is screwed up enough without a generation of brain-dead imbeciles popping out a unit every 9 months. Maybe we should be encouraging the smart people to breed and the abjectly stupid to stop.

Government should be limited to societal issues, theoretically for the 'good of all' and the efficient functioning of it's society. Emotionally-charged beliefs, regardless of how fervently held, should not automatically be considered as justification for a law that will be imposed on the citizens of a society. If you believe something strongly, than you abide by it; but it gives you no right to try to impose your belief on another. This is the fatal flaw in humans; one person, or a group, is always trying to force others into their perception of what 'should' be.
In a different time and place, pro-lifer's would be the anathema of the society, and forced to abort anything other than their first born. Being pro-choice isn't about the right to have abortions - it's really a human rights issue beyond the 'baby' or 'clump of cells' (choose your term) - it's about extreme pro-lifers trying to criminalize another human being's choice that they disagree with; and asking the government to enforce their beliefs on others who do not share them.

Amend the 14th Amendment and they do not need to receive rights at birth. This way we can get rid of your unwanted children problem.

I think everyone who opposes capital gains cuts, that would create jobs, should be forced to employ someone. I don't think you have a right to take a stand on an issue unless you spend a lot of money, or time, working on some perceived side-effect of the stance you take.

I agree with President Clinton, abortions should be legal, safe and rare Seems to me there are more pro-abortionist arguments going around then pro-choice. The unwanted child argument is a pro-abortion argument. It argues that it is better for the child if it is killed in the womb because it is possible it might suffer abuse later. Yes, I see a lot of family members of domestic victims say "I wish he would kill her so she would be free from abuse".

Abortion is the ultimate act of selfishness. It should be legal, but it needs to be recognized for what it is. I don't see many so-called "pro-choicers" working on making abortion rare. Nor do I see Planned Parenthood as neutral on the issue of choice. Planned Parenthood, which derives a substantial income from abortions, is about the only corporation that the left loves.

Yes, you should have the legal right to have your child chopped up and vaccumed out.

If a fetus is part of a mother, why would a mother want to kill something that is a part of herself? Would that constitute self-hatred? Or is a fetus to be given the same status as a mole that needs to be excised, or a nose job, an inconvenience or an affront to someone's vanity?

If a fetus is a child (and he/she is), why would a woman refuse another human being life? All those of us who are here posting had a mother who, whether she turned out to be a good one or not, did not prevent us from experiencing life. Life itself is a gift, whether the quality of life is good or not, whether the parents are fit to raise a child or not. Everyone should be able to breathe outside the womb, everyone should have a chance to learn and grow, and if not to know love from his/her parents, to have an opportunity to know love and compassion from other sources.

Medical abortions to spare the mother's life should continue to be legal. But the idea of "abortion on demand and without apology" is the epitome of selfishness. It grants a woman freedom from being bothered with a pregnancy while denying a man the experience of fatherhood.

Beyond that, however, is the fact that an abortion is brutality to a living, growing being, whether we see it as an embryo, a fetus or a child. An immature neurological system is a neurological system nevertheless--the being experiences pain. Hugo is right; chopping up a fetus and vacuuming it out is governmentally-sanctioned murder.

Personally speaking, every pro-choicer I know is a staunch advocate of using contraception and better sex education. While I can't say whether it is a minority or majority group, it does seem to me that many in the pro-life arena support administration ideas about abandoning sex education in favor of an abstinence only curriculum. While a noble idea, abandoning sex education would result in less education about the proper use of contraceptives and possibly higher incidence of unwanted pregnancies.

As the cost for abortions is dramatically lower than birthing, Planned Parenthood hardly has anything to gain favoring one position over another. Were it only about profits they could easily abandon the roughly $500 abortion procedure in favor of the several thousand dollar birthing procedure.

Planned Parenthood also seems to shoot themselves in the foot on "substantial income from abortions" by trying to ensure the better use of contraceptives among people of all demographics. The best way to work towards making abortions rare is to increase contraceptive use and sex education, thereby decreasing unwanted pregnancies.


Like the mole, a cancerous tumor is also a part of a person. There is no "self-hatred" in removing it. While an embryo or fetus may represent the potential for a separate individual, it is only that: the potential. Until a stage of viability independent of the mother, the mother has a say in whether that potential will be tested or refused. There are nine months of hardship for a woman to consider, along with the myriad of health effects resulting from carrying a pregnancy to term. It is not merely a matter of convenience, nor is it in anyway comparable to a mole or nose job.


You are saying that a fetus is a child, Paladin Elspeth. That is not the take of every person, certainly not of the entire scientific community, which realizes it is merely the potential. A fetus can still die in the womb and be reintegrated back into the woman's body. A fetus can still die in the womb and be birthed post-mortem. A fetus is a stage in human development, not unlike the zygote, blastula or the individual sperm and ovum. Until it can be birthed and sustain life, it is not an individual/child.

All those posting here may have a mother who didn't prevent us that time. There are many women who go on to birth children who in the past have aborted. Surely nobody is assuming that a woman who aborts never dares to conceive again. Who is to say that the child they have now wasn't merely delayed by the previous abortion? Only by recognizing some concept of the soul could we possibly say that another person was killed while a separate one was born following the second conception.

You may feel that everyone should be able to "breathe outside the womb... a chance to learn and grow... have an opportunity to know love and compassion" but that's not how it works. Not even nature grants this, as I have already mentioned. Nature makes no guarantees and we shouldn't assume otherwise. Just as nature can't guarantee the birth of a living, healthy fetus, it also can not guarantee a healthy, non-fatal pregnancy for the mother. A woman should not be expected or forced to put her life behind what is only a potential person.


Ah, but a woman may not know until it is too late whether her life is in jeopardy from carrying a pregnancy to term. Is she to divine from the moment of conception whether the developing fetus will result in future health problems or possibly bleeding out upon delivery? As I said before, a woman should not be expected or forced to put her life behind what is only a potential person.

In regards to "denying a man the experience of fatherhood", even with a pregnancy a man is not inherently granted this right. The woman may have health complications or the fetus may die independently of the mother. The woman may be involved in an accident triggering such fetal termination. Neither the woman nor the man has any choice in the process of conception. And while nature can have the final say, the woman, by control of her own biology, certainly has more say than the man, whose life is neither at risk or affected by the pregnancy.


Without an individual, there is no case for murder. Should we by similar logic declare all miscarriages suicides?

While an embryo or fetus may be living (just as a sperm or ovum) and growing, that does not make it a being (i.e. individual). And we aren't simply discussing "immature neurological systems" but a completely undeveloped neurological system. A reaction to outside stimulus does not translate into the ability to experience pain.

I wonder how many abortions would take place if parents had to do it themselves. For instance, suppose the doctor only prepared the equipment and made the mom/dad suck the baby's brains out themselves. Would all these "righteous" reasons for killing kids be as strong then? Too bad we'll never know.

Actually, that used to happen a lot, DR. Arguably more than it does now since abortificants were very popular in the precontraceptive world. My mother obtained a similar style abortion in Italy during the 1960s...of course, she didn't do it herself because she was passed out and hemorrhaging and almost died. It was illegal there back then. Her sister-in-law took herbs from a local witch and lost her pregnancy early on as well.

fetal pain

Since pain seems to be an issue for many of the posters here, I thought I would add the above link which offers an in depth study of fetal pain development. Its purpose is primarily for fetal surgery, but suits the purpose for our discussion also.

Pain is only possible with the development of consciousness or awareness of pain. The simple presence of a beating heart (poppyseed sized at 5 weeks) is not an indication that the nervous system is complex enough to be aware of, or respond to, pain.

According to medical research thus far, this requires the cortex, coupled with the thalamus, which acts as a mechanism to channel that consciousness. Pain is not possible until the cortex is connected to the thalamus at approximately 20 weeks gestation.

You forget, DaytonRocker, that there were plenty of women prior to the legalization of abortion who did undertake the procedure themselves. Unfortunately, they were not even provided the proper equipment, much less sterilized stand-ins. I'm surprised you could suddenly forget the significance that a coat hanger can carry when discussing abortion...

I said something about rampant hyper-emotionalism, and I think we have a shining example right here.

Come on back when you have something rational to say, okay?

Abs like Jesus writes:


It's interesting that many of the people who are utterly against abortion are also against birth control, sex education, availability of condoms, etc. In other words, they want to keep women ignorant, barefoot and pregnant.

Paladin Elspeth writes:


Is it self-loathing to have your appendix removed? How about to have cancer treated? A fetus is, for all intents and purposes, a parasite during pregnancy. It takes from the woman, uses her organs without her permission and gives nothing back in the deal. If they grabbed you off the street and hooked you up to some guy in a hospital bed and wanted to use your kidneys for 9 months, you wouldn't like it. Why do you insist that a woman has to be a life support system for something she doesn't want?

One problem, they are not in their business. Planned Parenthood makes money when the individual they "counsel" chooses an abortion.

What about other options? From www.cin.org

PLANNED PARENTHOOD REPORTS 80 ABORTIONS FOR EVERY ADOPTION REFERRAL


NEW YORK, May 10, 02 (LSN.ca/CWNews.com) - The Planned
Parenthood Federation of America performed 79.3 abortions
for every referral it made for adoption in 2000, according
to its latest fact sheet. Over 98 percent of women who
sought Planned Parenthood counsel opted for abortion, PPFA
says, leading to 197,070 abortions. However, adoption
referrals declined for the fourth consecutive year, from
9,200 in 1997 to 2,486 in 2000.

I will admit that, IMO, most of the women who go to PP, in the first place, are probably leaning toward abortion, but 98%? PP is pro-abortion, not pro-choice. There are also Catholic and other Christian "counseling" services. No one argues that they do not "counsel" their clients to avoid abortion. Yet, somehow, people fail to admit that PP is pro-abortion, not pro-choice. There is a big difference between the two.

Having spoken with Planned Parenthood with an ex-girlfriend about the options for our unwanted pregnancy, I can see nothing suggesting that they are "pro-abortion." They told us about every option available for my ex-girlfriend including adoption, abortion and groups which could even help were she to give birth and need assistance raising a child.

They were informative and didn't attempt to persuade either of us one way or the other. They remained objective though, refraining from the common scare tactics employed by those on the side of making abortion illegal. From what I remember, their website operates in precisely the same fashion. They present the facts objectively. Their only "fault" is that they don't attempt to scare women leaning toward abortion.

We also went to one of the Christian counseling services which misrepresented facts and appealed to our emotions. In the end, their representative dealing with us was forced to admit that I had researched the data more thoroughly than she had, that much of the data she presented was misleading, and finally, she tried to accuse me of forcing my ex-girlfriend to do something she didn't really want to do.

Perhaps we see things differently, Hugo, but I don't see anything wrong with objective counseling that avoids appeals to emotion and misleading scare tactics. It's something perhaps all counsels should try to do, regardless of their position on the abortion debate.

The point is, as any one who is not a total moron could see, that saying it is better to be dead than abused is ridiculous. Come back when you have something intelligent to say.

I don't see anything wrong with unbiased counseling either. You don't get unbiased counseling, about the condition of the car you are considering buying, from the used car salesman. 98% of PP's counselees choose abortion over adoption, that is a pretty high figure.

My experience both directly with Planned Parenthood counseling and their website has been that there is no inherent bias. If 98% choose abortion, that says nothing about whether Planned Parenthood is bias or not. If a woman seeks counseling about abortion they are clearly already considering it. With reasonable statistics and facts presented by Planned Parenthood, without any appeals to emotion or scare tactics, what reasons but personal are there for a woman to decide against it?

The percentage of women counseled by Planned Parenthood who go on to choose abortion is not representative of a bias on the part of the counselors.

*Don't forget you can edit your posts, Hugo

I agree that there are too many abortions. Planned parenthood has a conflict of interest, and is probably pro abortion. I agree that Roe v Wade is bad constitutional law (abortion is not a privacy issue).

But abortion (at least during the first trimester) is not synonymous with baby killing. There is no pain or conscious awareness of the child. I am against government enforced childbirth. Show the woman pictures of her fetus at the current stage of development and give her the option to do what she thinks is the best course of action.

The entire scientific community? Are you suggesting there are no pro-life scientists?


At age 40 and at personal risk, I put my life behind the birth of our daughter who is the joy of our lives. We're all only "potential persons" to begin with. But guess what? We are persons each unique and wonderful in our own way.


An unborn child is not a tumor, cancerous or benign. There is a beginning, middle and end to pregnancy. At the end of gestation (ideally), a child, not a tumor or a mole, is born. An unborn child is not a thing. Additionally, there might indeed be some self-hatred in aborting a child if the woman has guilt about the act or the male involved.



Nine months of hardship have been endured by women for centuries in order for there to be a human race. If the pregnancy is causing serious health concerns, it is certainly appropriate to check out the options and make the decision for the welfare of the mother, and the child, if possible. That's the humane thing to do.


That's right.


That's a chance we all take. But with proper prenatal care and education, the chances of something going wrong have been proven to be dramatically reduced. By your reasoning, why should a student start college if he might fail?



Having an abortion deliberately denies the man a chance to be a father. Surely you understand the difference between a deliberate action and something that was unforeseen and unintentional.

I suppose a mother could say to her child, "You are special. The pregnancy was convenient, you were the right gender, and we had enough money. I aborted twice before I had you, but the time was right for you." I hope to heaven a kid doesn't hear that from Mom, however truthful it might be.

This little blurb I found at www.plannedparenthood.org/international/growth.html

Slowing population growth and consumption protects the environment.
Increased population has put a strain on water and farmland availability and endangered wildlife habitats, for both rich and poor countries.

Go to the Planned parenthood site. Do a search under population growth and see what biases you find toward a lower population. Let me seee, you have an organization that 1) Profits from abortions 2) Brags about their role in lowering population, and advocates lower population growth and 3) has 98% of the individuals they "counsel" choose abortion.

I won't even get into the somewhat sordid history of the organization and it's founder.

Anyone who likes can visit the Planned Parenthood website and decide for themselves whether they are "pro-abortion" or not. They don't hide anything about the different procedures, though they do avoid scare tactics (link).

They also don't appear to discourage adoption, displaying any kind of bias toward abortion over adoption.

There are of course other links about both abortion and adoption available form their site, but I see nothing so far to indicate any bias on behalf of Planned Parenthood. I see pro-choice demonstrated by the site as being the choice between abortion, birth and adoption. I have only my personal experience with their counselors to speak of their direct abortion counseling, but it was consistent to their online approach.


If you read what I said again, you'll see that I was saying the entire scientific community is not in agreement either way. There are pro-life and pro-choice scientists. That isn't to say that there's enough science to justify the position of pro-life scientists.


And for centuries there have been women who choose not to endure that hardship. The oldest documented incidents of practiced abortion go back 5,000 years too. Women have had the ability to choose for millennia, and I see no reason for that to change today.


Not all people, Paladin Elspeth. Just as it has been for centuries and millennia before, some women do make the choice not to take the risk of carrying a pregnancy to term. Their reasons may vary, but they have been afforded the choice.


A pregnancy does not grant a man right over the biological functions of the women he impregnated. Her body, her choice. If she chooses to drink, smoke or ride a roller coaster while she's pregnant, he has no say in it. If she goes further in the decision to abort, he again has no say in it. We don't suppress the rights of women just because they become pregnant.

Edited to address Hugo post: Hugo, did it occur to you that population growth could easily be related to Planned Parenthood's position on contraceptives rather than abortion?

Abortions are not the only aspect of a woman's life that Planned Parenthood seeks to address on a regular basis. They are staunch advocates of using contraception and don't, to my knowledge, favor abortion anymore than adoption or birth with biological parenting.

Planned Parenthood has positions on contraceptions, abortions, adoptions and population control. You're attempting to take different data addressing different things (population control and 98% aborting) and relate the two. In short, you are misrepresenting what Planned Parenthood is saying about both.

Almost let this get past me. I would like to point out that child is not exactly a scientific term. I have no evidence that the "scientific community" has even bothered to describe it. The scientific terms closest is "offspring". A fetus is certainly the offspring of it's mother and father (it is a human being made through a "combination" of gametes from the father and mother).

As for child, pick your definition...


It has nothing to do with the certainty that the fetus will enter society.

Come to think of it, neither does the definition of "person"

So much for "potential person"...

Unless a fetus survives development in the womb to be birthed alive, the man and woman don't have an offspring but a miscarraige.


How do you figure?

Just as the variety in defining child ranged from "A person between birth and puberty" and "An unborn infant; fetus" your definition for person also contradicts itself:
As it currently stands in law, legal rights are granted to those who are born. And in regards to characteristics that make up an individual personality, an undeveloped fetus doesn't have a personality or sense of self. Indeed, until the point of viability independent of the mother, it lacks the ability to ever possess a personality or sense of self. That is the downfall of not having a developed and functioning neurological system.

But remember, what we are debating is changing that legal definition. It can't very well justify itself.

The second definition defines person using the word personality. If you check out the definition of the words personality it does the same in reverse. The point? This is a niche definition used in order to make phrases like "the whole person" make sense. Even if you consider it a valid as the first, that still means it is not at all unreasonable to refer to a fetus as a person.

So why is this living human being, this "person" not protected by law?

Abortions reduce the birth rate. Reducing the birth rate seems to be one of the goals of Planned Parenthood. What you have here is motive, both altruistic and non-altruistic. PP both profits materially and takes a step forward toward achieving it's goals when an abortion is performed. Then you have evidence 98% of clients choose abortion after their "counseling". Their site, I see little about the joy ,that only parenthood, can bring on that site. I see little about the joys of being a parent. I guess that would be an appeal to emotion.

As I've said before I agree with Bill Clinton on this issue and I see no so-called pro-choicers counseling pregnant women that birth and adoption are good choices. I see no unbiased counseling service.

Because there is no reason to consider a fetus a person. There are variables which frequently prevent a fetus from being born alive, or which threaten the fetus at an even earlier stage of development. I don't call it a "potential person" simply because it suits me; I call it a potential person because there is no guarantee that the zygote, embryo or fetus will be born alive. There is no guarantee that a zygote, embryo or fetus will become a person, a member of our society or any other society.

Assuming a fetus is considered a person protected by law, on what basis do opponents of abortion decide to grant higher rights to a fetus than to the woman, who is already an established member of society? If a fetus is granted rights, surely we would need to subvert the right of pregnant women to smoke, drink, ride rollercoasters, engage in unsafe sexual practices, etc. After all, if the fetus were protected by law, we couldn't let the choices of the woman interfere with the rights of the fetus, could we?

Besides only representing the potential to become a person, any move to grant a fetus legal rights protected by law would result in subverting the rights of pregnant women. As soon as a fetus is granted rights, a woman loses rights over, of all things, the biological functions of her own body. The rights of one individual should not subvert the rights of another, and certainly the rights of only a potential individual should not do so.


Gosh, Hugo, but why does Planned Parenthood advocate extensive sex education and contraceptive use? If they were so pro-abortion and driven by profit, surely they wouldn't want to reduce unwanted pregnancies. And surely, if they only wanted women to abort unwanted pregnancies, they wouldn't provide favorable information about adoption or the ability of women to raise their own children.

Reducing the birth rate can be done precisely as Planned Parenthood advocates: better sex education and improved use of contraception. Were they interested in lowering the population by means of abortion, they wouldn't have such strong opposition to forced abortions.

Show me where 98% of those who see Planned Parenthood about adoption change their stance to abortion, Hugo. Are they convincing people to choose abortion over adoption? People who seek counseling about abortion are already leaning toward abortion or they wouldn't be seeking counseling about it. It isn't the sign of some Planned Parenthood conspiracy that they don't change the minds of women already considering abortion. They give them the information they need and allow the woman to make a choice.

If a woman goes to them seeking information about adoption or assistance in raising a child themselves, that is precisely what they get. Women get what they ask for when they go to Planned Parenthood. They aren't trying to talk women out of their own decisions but merely giving them the information they request, Hugo.

They are not bias, and you won't make them so by your misrepresentations of how their organization conducts business. When you can show that Planned Parenthood or any other pro-choice organization convinces women seeking to give children up for adoption to abort instead, then you might have an argument for a "pro-abortion" organization. Until then, they can hardly be demonized for counseling women in exactly what they go to discuss.

You won't see PP's bias by going to their website, so please...for all that is good in this world, stop linking their website. Go to one of their "counseling" sessions. I've been to two myself, it will shock you how detached of emotion they are. They speak of abortion as if it was the only way to avoid such a horrible experience...you know like being a mother, oh my god, the horror!! If being a mother is that scary to you, how about.....oh I don't know....avoid getting pregnant?

They never once mentioned adoption, my friend had to bring it up before we left(I was there for support). So, we went to another branch of PP to get a second opinion, same result...."I think abortion is the way to go considering your circumstances" Her circumstances? You mean a healthy, emotionally sound, young girl with a good paying job? Yeah, what a horrible life that baby would have.

I gave the lady the dirtiest look I could muster, and left. That poor girl cried all the way home because she couldn't stand the thought of "killing her baby". There wasn't much I could say other than I would be there if she needed to talk and I told her I knew she would make the best decision whatever that may be. What I really wanted to say was, "Give him up for adoption, there are tons of people that would love to raise your child or keep him and I'll help you any way that I can, I'll even babysit". But, it was her decision to make.

She kept him in case any of you were wondering and she loves the little rascal to death. He'll be attending school next year and he seems pretty excited about that. I can't imagine what would've happened if she would've chosen abortion.

There's no garauntee any of us here will get a year older. But I bet a fair amount are putting away money for retirement.

Our kids may never reach puberty. But we create a college fund for them.

But because there's a chance the baby won't survive, that's justification to kill it?

Personally, I'd rather people just be honest and say it's easier to kill their kids (who, if left unbothered, have a greater chance of reaching puberty in time to be sued by the RIAA) because the kid's too much of a headache to deal with.

Instead, I listen to people absolve themselves of murdering kids by trying to link a righteous cause to it's legality. The bottom line is, people want the right to choose how they will live the next 18 years of their life at the expense of somebody who can't defend themselves.

I have been to Planned Parenthood counseling sessions, in case you missed my mentioning it twice before. Free of emotion does not equate into bias though, Ataal. They are approaching the issue so as to refrain from appeals to emotion or scare tactics. If a person goes to discuss abortion that is precisely what they will discuss. If a person goes to discuss adoption that is precisely what they will discuss.

They are there to answer questions and provide support regardless of what each woman wants to do. Of the women I know, none who went about adoption were spoken to about abortion, nor were they ever encouraged to change their position from adoption to abortion. Of the women I know who went to discuss abortion discussed only abortion. They relay the facts and information that women go seeking. They offer no more, no less.

That is not bias or "pro-abortion" to suit some nefarious plan to reduce the world's population -- as some here have suggested.

Edited for Size

A year older or puberty is different from ever being an individual member of society, DaytonRocker. If I don't live to be a day older, or if my younger sister doesn't reach puberty, they are still a viable member of society. An embryo, zygote or fetus may never enter the world alive, as an individual, a member of society protected by the law.


We aren't discussing the killing of kids, but the termination of pregnancy, DaytonRocker. Using broad terminology to paint a different picture may suit your needs, but I assure you this is not the way all of society perceives the issue. Some of us are able to recognize the difference between a child and the mere potential for a child.

A pregnancy is not simply about the possible life of a new human being. It is about a woman's biology and the reproductive process. A woman should not be expected or forced to carry a pregnancy to term simply because she conceives. As an embryo or fetus is not guaranteed to become an individual or member of society, it should not be given rights at the expense of the woman's rights.

You don't want people to be honest, because I'm being honest in my arguments right now. What you appear to want is for me and others to accept without question your perspective on the issue of abortion. Just as a fetus can't protect itself from abortion, it also cannot protect itself from the daily actions of the woman carrying it. It can't protect itself from risky behavior such as drinking, smoking, unsafe sexual practices, etc.

The bottom line isn't simply that "people want the right to choose how they will live the next 18 years of their life" but they deserve to keep their rights in spite of they physical condition. A woman should not be expected or forced to forgo her rights in favor of giving rights to a developing fetus which may, or may not, be born as a living member of society recognized by our government.

It's no different. You are discounting the likelihood - not simply the possibility - that a baby will grow up and become a productive member of society. If a mother did nothing, the odds are very high the baby would grow up. Those odds are no different than any of us growing a year older. Statistically speaking, the only thing stopping that baby from growing up, is a doctor and the parents. Not mother nature.



Well, duh. No kidding?

Your opinion is that a baby inside the mother's womb, heart beating and hearing the sounds around it, is not a kid. Well, my opinion is different. A baby's heart starts beating between the 18th and 25th day. Brain activity has been detected as soon as 40 days. To me, that is human life regardless of how you justify it to be a parasite.

Your opinion is "potential" of a child. My opinion is the "likelihood" of a child. This isn't painting any type of picture to suit anybody's needs. I'm pointing out why I think it's murder and why it should not be legal. I didn't realize this was the "Let's discuss why abortion should be legal" thread. Maybe you need to point me to the correct thread where opposing views are allowed.



You make it sound like a 50/50 chance of survival to make that argument. That's absurd. A woman could smoke, drink, and eat like crap and the chances are overwhelmingly high the baby would be born perfectly normal.

I believe the only misrepresentations are yours. You went in to PP with a pro-abortion bias. Few people see bias when the bias matches their own. I have already stated that most people going to PP go there for abortions. 98% though is a bit too high. It looks like at least one person's experience with PP differed from yours.

Let me repeat one of PP's principle goals is reducing population growth, they profit from abortions and 98% of the people they "counsel" obtain abortions. Let me add some more, I see nothing about the incomparable joys of parenthood on their site. The site is highly biased in favor of abortion.

Kids are a total pain in the *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***. They are a huge economic and emotional burden. Not many logical reasons to have children, only a parent can understand completely the incomparable joy children bring, a fair, unbiased counseling service would attempt to give their clients a glimpse of this incomparable joy.

If PP is simply a provider of the service their customers come in and demand they should simply be called an abortion provider. There needs to be no grief counseling over killing a parasite. I don't grieve when I kill the fleas on my dog. I don't remember having any counselors when my tonsils were removed either.

What is that Galbraith quote concerning conservatives and selfishness? I think exchanging the words "women who abort their children" for conservative would be much more accurate.

From PP's site:

How can I decide which choice is best for me?
Consider each of your choices carefully. Ask yourself:

Which choice(s) could I live with?

Which choice(s) would be impossible for me?

How would each choice affect my everyday life?

What would each choice mean to the people closest to me?
It may help to take time and ask yourself:

What is going on in my life?

What are my plans for the future?

What are my spiritual and moral beliefs?

What do I believe is best for me in the long run?

What can I afford?

Notice the I, me or my in every question. Never one reference to the zygote or fetus, much less a baby.

Is a "likely", or "potential" child a child? By it's own definition, we definitely know that what we are aborting here is a "fetus" and not a child.

If I "murder" a fertilized chicken egg, does that mean I'm really killing a chicken?
No. Certainly the chicken will never exist, but I didn't smash open a chicken; I smashed open an egg.

So it really all depends on what you mean by "murder" and if the definition extends to a "potential" human. Because no one here is talking about murdering a child.

Just to make that point perfectly clear.

Wheres the proof? Just because you stated it, doesnt mean its true. As anecdotal evidence, I know about four people (and me) who go to Planned Parenthood on a regular basis, and none of us has had an abortion. We've gone there because its cheap pap smears, and cheap birth control (especially for those who dont have health insurance). Im sick of people thinking that Planned Prenthood is all about abortion, because they offer plenty of OTHER services (such as pap smears, STD testing, other women related gyn stuff...)

Ahh, one of my favorite topics of discussion, and one which constantly amuses me. Amused? Why, you ask? Because I am constantly amazed at the follow of discussion generated by this topic which somehow all manages to avoid the real issue. Abortion rights is about one thing--women would like to be able to have sex without such long-term consequences. I just wish they would stand up and admit it--after all, it is probably an argument that has merit (or at least one in which not many men would care to speak out against it). Pro choice? ABSOLUTELY--you have the complete choice over who, when, and how to have sex. Of course, with all choices come responsibilities. So, why dont we just call it the Anti-responsibility movement? Probably wouldn't get much support with that moniker. For those arguing so vehemenantly in favor of choice, I would love to see you continue that fight on the Men's Abortion Rights thread--or is choice somehow a privelege which only women should enjoy?

Approximately 80% of fertilzed eggs spontaenously terminate, DaytonRocker. There is no guarantee that a zygote, embryo or fetus will finish development as a living, birthed individual.


There are electric impulses which can be measured in the brain just as they can be measured in natural elements without any consciousness. There is no large-scale linking of neurons in the brain until about the sixth month of pregnancy. Brain waves necessary for consciousness aren't present until approximately the 30th week of pregnancy, roughly the beginning of the third trimester.
Abortion: Is it possible to be both "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice"?

Of course, I haven't disputed that an embryo or a fetus is a human life, have I? I also haven't characterized it as a parasite. What I have done is drawn the distinction between a human life and a human individual. Without any consciousness or sense of self, coupled with the inability of the organism to survive independent of the mother, the fetus doesn't qualify as an individual or person protected under the extent of the law.

Your opinions are welcome, and I didn't imply that they weren't, Dayton. You insinuated that the opposing argument wasn't being honest if they didn't say abortion was killing children. I can present an honest argument that it isn't killing children. There is nothing I can do but lie to express what you perceive to be honesty.


That's why there are studies linking smoking and drinking to under development, fetal alchohol syndrome and premature delivery, amongst others, right? A pregnant woman is advised not to ride rollercoasters or engage in similarly rough activities because the violent motion could dislodge the embryo or fetus from the uterine wall. Any unsafe sexual practices while pregnant could easily lead to a transfer of disease from the woman to the embryo or fetus.

Any action the woman takes in her life could very easily impact the development and future of that embryo or fetus. To give a fetus rights would require subverting the rights of pregnant women.

Edited to delete text and add: Planned Parenthood is getting too much attention here. I have opened a separate topic to discuss the alleged bias of their organization. You can view and participate HERE

Edited to add:Nobody chooses to conceive, Hobbes. You may recall an elementary statistic that there is no birth control short of abstinence that is 100%. A woman can make the choice to engage in a monogamous relationship with the use of contraception and still conceive. There is no choice in conception or the process from conception to fetus, if there isn't already the occurrence of miscarriage, which also is not a choice. They can't choose whether they conceive or not, but they can choose whether they attempt to carry to term or not.

And as it is only the woman's body and life that is affected or put at risk by pregnancy, only the woman gets a say. As I said before, had you taken time to review the last several posts in this thread, pregnancy does not give a man rights over the woman's body.

I am getting an (ironic) kick out of how this subject is so once again predominately male.

You all certainly have some big opinions about something you know nothing about.

Women have been dealing with sex, birth control , male sex biology and irresponsability toward their young, pregnancy, single motherhood, and even infanticide in tribes, since the beginning of time.
You can try as you might to co-opt the experience, adapt legislation, try to control, assume the worst of women, bring God into the issue, go to the courts, everything to assure that women have unwanted babies that neither she, the males nor society care about. You will never have a female body and will never control this issue from this day forward, nor have you in the past.

At wits end with this, women decide, its a biological right. Legally or illegally, abortions will take place and always have. Legally, less women die from botched abortions.

If we want less abortions, we need sex education, insured birth control and help for those who find themselves pregnant, other alternatives and financing, but noone wants to pay for THAT do we?
You want to save babies? Its an education/money where your mouth is scenario. Other than that, I believe this conversation between you is basically males spewing some sperm spreading, genetic propogation, gotta have our babies no matter what theory. There is a lot of female hating backlash, such as we just want to have sex without the consequences. Aint that calling the kettle black. Well damn right, but we are not afforded that option.
We dont have to have more babies. Inscrupulous baby making is a MALE biological urge, need to propogate with as many females as possible. WOMEN know when to have a baby or not, since she is the one that will carry, birth and care for the child most of its life, sometimes alone.

Since you men here have such big opinions, Id like to know how many of you have adopted or fostered a child? I know Wertz has, but he does not get into this.
Really, Id like to know if any of you have put it on the line for your beliefs. If you are too young, when do you intend to?

Artemise, though I agree with your viewpoint on Abortion, I have to take exception to the women as victim approach of your last argument. \

First off, there is a friend of mine, we are ideological opposites, but friends, he is a chaplain and anti-abortion. He has protested at abortion clinics, but he passes out his personal card and offers to adopt anybaby that they don't abort. He is ready to walk the walk for talking the talk. He warned his congregation not to be hypocrites in the same manner, and anyone that wanted to demonstrate at a clinic had to be prepared to adopt a child. Got admire his follow through!

Your very impassioned reply:

Women have been dealing with sex, birth control , male sex biology and irresponsability toward their young, pregnancy, single motherhood, and even infanticide in tribes, since the beginning of time.

Assumes that thier role in this matter is has been solely thier cross to bear and is pure *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***. Funny thing is, at the turn of the century, most single parents were men, because women died in childbirth very often and divorce was rare. So single fatherhood, many times with four or five children, not a single child or two. You don't hear too much about this though do you from the feminist side? Egads, a man can raise children by themselves and actually have the capacity to love and raise children, GASP.

Men's rights somehow end when a mans pant's hit the floor. He has no choice if he wants to keep the child HE HELPED CREATE, no choice if he wants to pay for the raising of the child, he is a slave from the minute he inseminates, however, a woman get's all the choices for the next 21 years! This is the only part of the abortion debate that drives me crazy. IF YOU DON'T WANT MEN INVOLVED IN THE DEBATE, THEN ABSOLVE THEM OF THE RESPONSIBILITY!!!! You can't say "gee, men get no say, but they should pay and pay if we say so"

My grandfather said it best "women will cease to be seen as sex object the minute they stop seeing men as success objects"

Also, I chose the woman I wanted to have children with and was very careful until I met her. I have no children out of wedlock, I had my first child at 35. I don't have anything against abortion, just women that have not been raped or victims of incest trying to act like they are a victim.

Cruising Ram.

I am not claiming victimhood what-so-ever. I am also not very interested in what happened in the beginning of the century as it pertains to today. I have no doubt men can care for, raise and love their children. I am simply hit by the reality that many men of today are both denying paying for or raising their children and also screaming against abortion. You cannot have it both ways, or women will continue to hit the clinics in droves.

I have always assumed if I had a child I would need to be prepared to raise it alone. This is how women think in this culture. Maybe now they think they can get a man to pay. Its never enough to raise a child no matter what the men think.

CR, there are many more single female parents than males at this point in our society. Women do not get the choices for 21 years, they get the choice in the first trimester, 3 months and most likely she does not know she is pregnant until 6 weeks. After 3 months, its all hers, whether the man skips town, stays for a year, 4 , or forever.

I think it absurd that this is an anti-abortion debate, when half the time the men here are decrying that they shouldnt be responsible for children they never wanted . Then let us get the abortions and go on with our lives, you all cant seem to make up your minds. What is this really?

Please lets get some clarity, do you want the children, or dont you want the children? Or do you just want 'us' to have the children because its 'life' and 'fetuses' and all that crap. Im not buying it until 21st century man decides he wants his children and wants to step up to the plate about them. Thats when we will see the greatest downturn in abortion statistics.

I agree with you, Artemise. There's one thing you left out which is also worth mentioning (in fact I don't remember it being mentioned yet on this thread). A woman might have other children whose well-being takes precedence over the first trimester fetus.

There are a million scenarios I could think of in which a woman's livelihood would be adversely effected by a pregnancy, which would in turn hurt the other children in the household. It's pretty easy for people to point fingers when it will never be their personal problem. Repeated use of the term 'murder babies' is also a method of choice for the finger pointers. It must have some therapeutic value.

Having been both a clinic escort and knowing people who have worked for/with Planned Parenthood in the past, I can assure you that they are, at least in my experience, even-handed and provide all of the options to anyone who comes in the door. They never pushed for an abortion or adoption or anything else, they simply presented the facts in as non-emotional a manner as possible and let the woman decide.

It's certainly better than the lunatics out on the sidewalk throwing blood at people (this was before the widespread advent of AIDS), screaming, cursing and condemning every woman who walked in, no matter what they were there for, to hell. The clinic I was an escort for provided a wide range of women's services, so a whole lot of women who were there for PAP smears are now going to hell.

Hugo writes:


Given a choice between a lifetime of abuse, lack of support, lack of love and all the other things that unwanted children have a much much higher chance of, yes, I'd say dead (or in this case, never existing at all) is a much better choice.

But maybe you're a masochist, I don't know.

Why stop at the unborn who have the same chance of being born healthy as any kid reaching puberty?

Why not make it legal to kill all kids who fit that criteria?

But, as we have already discussed that particular issue has nothing to do with the definition of person. By definition a fetus is a person, "a living human". Therefore the term "potential person" does not apply.


Who's talking about giving a fetus "higher" rights? The mother has a right to live as well... same level.

In exchange for not needlessly endangering another person's life? I'd consider it. you may consider such laws frightening, but then again, legalized killing of innocent human beings with little regulation isn't exactly a rosy picture either...


Could you explain what you mean by this? Most biological functions tend to do their own thing regardless...


I have a right to my own private property. Let's say I saw someone running away from my (empty, of people and animals) home TV in hand. Do I have to right to shoot that person dead? Of course not. They may have been violating my rights, but that doesn't mean that my right to property trumps their right to life.
As for "potential individual" by definition a fetus is an individual as well. Potential does not apply here either.

If you see no difference between drowning a baby or removing a barely-there, non-feeling, non-cognitive fetus, all reason is lost with you.

fe·tus
n. pl. fe·tus·es

1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.


What constitutes a human for you, turnea?What are the prime factors that make a human a human?

Artemis,
Nice try but you can't silence 50% of possible arguments on the basis that people of the opposite sex can't identify with the procedure. It is in fact the responsibility of every human to protect innocent children whether in the womb or out.


Cephus,
I think your argument for abortion is just as poor. By your logic we might as well kill every child born in substandard living conditions because the chances of them growing up in poverty and in abuse are just too high. A child deserves the chance to live his or her life out and try to make it as best as possible. I'm sure some people thought Alexander Hamilton might have been better off dead because of what he was born into.....he seemed to do okay.


MrsP,
A fetus is not an unfeeling mass of tissue. A blastula is, a fetus is not. A fetus has a heart and usually depending on the stage other major organs. He or she also has nerve cells that feel the pain caused by abortionists instruments of death. Often times the babies are aborted after 6 months and the come out of the womb screming in pain and in pieces! It's a horrible ghastly sight to see and I hope people will soon again see abortion for what it is, not a right to choose, a right to murder.