Home - List All Discussions

I'm new/Have questions

by: SomeLexiChick

Hey, I just joined. I'm 15, so I think I might be the youngest here (a little akward, but here I go I feel like I'm kinda in the middle of pro-choice and pro-life. I don't really think it should be against the law to get an abortion. It's the woman's body, and her choice of what to do with it, so just because some people don't like it, people should at least have that choice, "they can get one if they want to, but don't have to" rather than "no matter what you want, it's not allowed." Don't get me wrong, I don't think women should be getting pregnant, and have abortions willy nilly. What do you guys beleive exactly? Women should have to give birth to the baby no matter what? My friend Ashley said her neighbor just had a baby a few weeks ago, and the woman was going to get an abortion, but her family was against it, so she had the baby, but she treats it wrong out of resentment. I know she had the option of puting it up for adoption, and all, but I guess she felt pressured to keep it. That's kind of a sad story. Sorry for this being so long!
~Lexi~

reply from: Shiprahagain

Hi Lexi,
Welcome to the board! I think you are the youngest, but there's another young girl, Ashmarie, and I think I'm second youngest at 19. When I first started posting here under just plain Shiprah, I was just a little older than you, so don't feel awkward about age.
You say: don't really think it should be against the law to get an abortion. It's the woman's body, and her choice of what to do with it, so just because some people don't like it, people should at least have that choice, "they can get one if they want to, but don't have to" rather than "no matter what you want, it's not allowed."
Here's why I think differently: Abortion isn't just about a woman's body, it's about a baby's body, it's also technically about a man's body since half the baby's genes are the man's. It's about the abortionist, usually a man, who commits what many post-abortive women have called technical rape on a woman's body. It's about siblings, grandparents, friends, strangers, and all the people the baby's life would have touched. Suppose I said rape involved a man's body so it was his choice what to do with it, and just because some people didn't like it it was his choice? The thing is, rape involves a woman's body, too, which is why rape is illegal. Because abortion involves not just a woman's body but a baby's body, I feel it, too, should be illegal. Would you tell a man that if he didn't like rape don't do it but if he wanted to he should be able to or that no matter what it's not allowed. I'm sure you'd say the latter because you wouldn't want a man to use his body or have the choice to hurt an innocent women. Well, I don't want a woman to have the choice to hurt an innocent child.
You say you don't think women should have abortions willy-nilly? Why not? If an unborn child isn't human, go ahead and have all the abortions you want. If it is human however, abortion is never okay. You seem to be acknowledging that the baby is human because you don't want women to have casual abortions, but if a baby is human, it deserves full human rights.
I'm sorry to here about your neighbors baby. If she's being abusive, someone should call CPS. But did you know that the legalization of abortion has actually increased child abuse, and that post-abortive women are more likely to abuse their kids than women who had never had an abortion, or that most abused kids were actually wanted during their pregnancies? In other words, wanted planned kids are more likely to be abused than kids whose mom's consider abortion, so by killing "unwanted" kids you kill the kids who are less likely to be victims of abuse? I'm going to give you some research to look over so you can read over the issues of abuse and abortion more in depth http://www.gargaro.com/abortion.html Would you consider killing a battered wife to spare her abuse? Or would you do everything possible to get her help? If someone acts now, your neighbor's child can be saved. If the baby had been aborted, its death would be permanent. Abortion is the worst form of child abuse. You can read about the procedures here http://www.prolife.com/ABORMETH.html But just remember, for no other social injustice is killing of the victim recommended as a remedy. We don't kill the poor to end poverty, we don't kill women to end domestic abuse, we shouldn't kill kids to end child abuse.
I'm glad you joined the forum. We could use some more young people around here

reply from: SomeLexiChick

Well, like I said, I'm kinda on the fence with this. When I said it was a woman's body and choice, the fetus is apart of her body, so it's hand in hand. I don't think they should be getting pregnant and getting abortions willy nilly like it's nothing because you do need to be accountable for your actions, and I don't think it's healthy to think "I can get pregnant and abort the child whenever I feel like it". If you make a mistake, get raped, or whatever your reason, and get an abortion, okay, but I don't think you should use abortion as a quick fix, and get it multiple times. I don't compare abortion to any other situation. It's not just this issue; whatever I'm discussing, I almost never compare it to other thing, because every situation is independent. (and sometimes just don't make sense when compared). And is a fetus technically a "human", or "alive" as soon as the sperm implants itself in the egg? or what stage? If that were the case, it would be illigal, because it "murder". Once again, I'm in the middle, and trying to make sense of all this. Thanks for answering.
~Lexi~

reply from: AshMarie88

If the fetus was part of her body, then obviously the woman would have two hearts, 4 legs, 4 arms, 4 eyes, two dna's, etc.
Yes, the fetus is a human life, and a human. It's been human since before conception. Human sperm meets human egg and, now you have new human life.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Hi Lexi,
Life begins when sperm hits the egg http://www.unbornintheusa.org/pages/P_lifebegins.htm They have quotes here from scientists to prove it. The fact that abortion is illegal doesn't mean the unborn aren't human. I mean, slavery was once not illegal - does that mean blacks weren't human.? The law doesn't always recognize humanity. Like Ash said, the fetus isn't part of the woman's body -- if it did, it'd mean that sometimes the woman had a penis. I feel that abortion is always wrong because the unborn are human and human rights aren't conditional. I don't think abortion is sometimes okay -- you don't "make a mistake" and get pregnant, you choose an action you know could lead to pregnancy that's not a mistake. And I don't feel you can kill a human being to rectify that. Pregnancy is 9 mos. The baby's death is forever.

reply from: SomeLexiChick

Well, I see it as apart of the mother's body because it's actually inside the mother's body and surviving off of her, but I guess I was wrong and the fetus isn't apart of her, somehow. Like I said previously, I won't compare other issues to abortion. If it is alive, and human as soon as sperm hits egg, abortion would be illigal, because it is murder. But it's not illigal, so... what's up with that? And if somebody is in a lab is working with frozen sperm, and egg, if they were to inject the sperm into the egg, wipe it up with tissue, and toss it, that would be murder? Since it's alive as soon as sperm hits egg.
~Lexi~

reply from: Shiprahagain

That would be murder. Embryologists agree that life begins when sperm hits the egg -- society doesn't. But I guess I'm confused why you assume if zygotes were alive they'd have legal rights? Blacks were living humans denied legal rights, women were humans denied voting rights, our gov't has a pretty weak track record of connecting human life to human rights.

reply from: holopaw

Hi Lexi,
Thanks for stopping by. I'm going to give you a different perspective. The core of the difference between the Pro-Life side and the Pro-Choice side is the concept of responsibilty. Disregard rape. Less than 2% of abortions are performed because the woman was raped. In the other 98% of abortions, consensual sex resulted in the conception of a child. We believe both parents have a responsibilty to care for any child they conceive to the best of their ability or allow the child to be adopted.
Many Pro-Choicers will argue if they use contraception and it fails, it is justifiable to abort the child. I realize there was an intent to be responsible and prevent pregnancy. However, responsibility goes beyond that. I drive my car to work everyday. I drive sober, at or below the speed limit, and I don't tailgate. Still, accidents happen. I can do all these things and still cause an accident. Even though I did all I could to be a safe driver, I still caused an accident. I might think the best thing to do is to leave the accident scene. It solves my problem, so I think. I don't want a ticket or to pay for damages. However, that is selfish. I have to look beyond my needs and wants. I have a responsibility to deal with the situation I caused in a mature, adult, and responsible manner.
When I started the car I knew their was a possibility of an accident even if I took precautions. The same goes for sex. Accidents happen, but don't make someone else (the unborn child) pay for your actions.
Don't let anyone tell you that it's a female's issue. It's a human issue and fathers have the same rights and responsibilities as mothers. Not to mention that boys are aborted to. Actually less, but that is a different story.

reply from: SomeLexiChick

Well, once again, I try not to compare, but the examples you listed above were moral issues. You say when sperm hits egg, it's a human. That sounds pretty definite. So, if that's proven, and if that's the case, abortion should be illigal, and it's not. Why? And sorry for being graphic, or offensive when I say this, but shouldn't masterbation be wrong? (if not illegal, at least immoral?) because you are wasting the sperm??
~Lexi~

reply from: Shiprahagain

Masturbation isn't illegal b/c sperm isn't human. Sperm has the male's genetic identity, and it alone will never become human more than a skin or fat cell. A zygote has its own genetic identity that matches no cell in either of its parent's bodies. After that point, a zygote will never get new material, it'll simply grow and change.
Like I said, why do you assume that if someone is human she has human rights. Do you really think that's true of our nation's history?

reply from: SomeLexiChick

So, if she goes to a party, gets drunk and some guy has sex with her, and gets her pregnant, she should be forced to have the baby? Since it's not the baby's fault.

reply from: holopaw

Just because something is legal, does not mean it is right. Slavery and segregation were legal, but few would argue they were right. In SC it was legal to murder slaves under certain circumstances. Humans have a sad history of deciding certain classes of people were not as deserving of the right to life as they were and therefore it was legal to murder them.

reply from: SomeLexiChick

But when you masterbate, your wasting what potentially could be used to make a baby, so it's wrong. you shouldn't waste it.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Lexi there's masturbatin is only disposing of cells. We aren't ethically required to meet every potential for life, only to respect life when human beings are created.

reply from: SomeLexiChick

Concernedparent, I mean before they are born, in the early stages. Well, if you want to make a law that says you cannot termanite a pregnancy (meaning, period, under any circumstances), aren't you in a way forcing her to have a baby? what else would it be called?

reply from: holopaw

The abortion debate is not over the sanctity of potential life. We aren't trying to prevent women from menstrating either. Anti-Abortionists are concerned about preventing the killing of actual human beings. These human beings exist at the moment of conception, not before.

reply from: SomeLexiChick

also, whether or not you become a father, is totally up to the woman. I don't agree with it, but it really is up to her, if she decides to make someone a father or not.

reply from: holopaw

You're a father from the moment the child is conceived until the life of the father or the baby terminates.
I smell troll.

reply from: holopaw

They're a father from the moment the child is conceived until the life of the father or the baby terminates.
I smell troll. I'm hearing experienced Pro-Choice questions. I've heard the same arguments at Pro-Choice talk. Why would a person interested in abortion, so suddenly go to the sperm question. Followed by men don't matter argument.

reply from: Shiprahagain

You're a father from the moment the child is conceived until the life of the father or the baby terminates.
I smell troll.
You never know, Lexi seems earnest to me. Regardless, the questions she raises are shared by many fence sitters and deserve answers.

reply from: SomeLexiChick

what do you mean by "I smell a troll"? Well, I don't count as soon as the sperm hits egg, you're a father. IMO, the fetus has to at least thrive and develop a little, or be born. I have yet to hear someone say "the pregnancy test came back positive, I'm a dad!" they usually say "soon-to-be". if it's proven that it's a human at the point of conception, why won't people accept cold hard evidence and just say, I'm a dad already, or I'm a mom. I still don't know why it's illegal, if it can be/ is proven, then abortion is murder. I still can't beleive that if a sperm is in an egg, on a petri dish, and someone discards it, they are a murderer.

reply from: SomeLexiChick

Uhh, I assure you, I'm not a troll, and I'm not on one side or the other. I'm asking questions. thats what people do when they are fence-sitters, and curious. and if you feel that way, you don't have to respond.
~Lexi~

reply from: holopaw

You're a father from the moment the child is conceived until the life of the father or the baby terminates.
I smell troll.
You never know, Lexi seems earnest to me. Regardless, the questions she raises are shared by many fence sitters and deserve answers.
Maybe you're right. I've always been Pro-Life so maybe fence sitters are different. if she states we only care about born babies than I'll know she is a PCer who needs a hobby.

reply from: SomeLexiChick

And even if I were a "PCer who needs to get a hobby", good ol' fashoined debate is always healthy. but, like I said, I'm just asking cuz im curious. feel free not to respond if you feel that way.
~Lexi~

reply from: SomeLexiChick

Alright, everyone, thanks you for all of your input, and taking time to answer questions. I'm logging off. I have a lot to process. lol. thanks again.
~Lexi~

reply from: Shiprahagain

The thing is Lexi, and I don't mean this rudely, it's not a matter of your opinion that decides when someone becomes human. It's a matter of science, and scientists agree when life begins -- at conception. If the law always protects human rights, how do you explain slavery?
Have a good night and thanks for considering our words.

reply from: holopaw

I apologize if you are not a troll. It appears you are not. But it did seem you wanted to debate more than you wanted to get answers. I stand corrected.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

It's ok, I'm young too Welcome!
We would be for abortions if it was just the woman's body. But the baby is involved too.

This is why we should teach abstinence instead of handing out contraceptives and giving mixed messages like "It's best if you don't have sex, but if you do, use these."
If she's pregnant yes.
This isn't long at all! Why doesn't Ashley report her neighbor for child abuse (if that's what she's doing)?

reply from: cali1981

Lexi, welcome to the forum. There's quite a lot I could say in response to your posts, but everyone has already done a good job of answering them. Here I'd like to point out something that hasn't been addressed yet: what people conventionally say or do with regards to the process of pregnancy and birth is not in any way scientific support for what is actually true. Whether someone says he is a dad upon seeing a positive pregnancy test is irrelevant. Scientifically, he is a dad from that point forward.
The same point applies to the fact that we measure age from one's birthday rather than conception day. Some pro-choicers have actually tried to use this as support for their argument that no one is a human before they are born. We measure age from the birthday rather than conception day because it is easier to do so - birth is a concrete, definable event. Many parents are not sure when a child was conceived. However, this has no bearing on how long the child has actually been in existence - and, therefore, how long the child has been a human.
It's kind of interesting if you think about it - I have a niece who was born a month or so before my son, so in terms of birthdays she is older than he is. However, we discovered a while back that my son was actually conceived before my niece, so in terms of how long each one has been in existence, my son is older. He was born after the full period of gestation while she was born a month and a half or so early. Very interesting. However, since we gestate for such a short period, saying that my niece is a month older is really a negligible deviation from the truth.

reply from: cali1981

Tam has a fantastic analogy that shows how ridiculous it is to say that opposing abortion has anything to do with "forcing" a woman to have a child. I'm sure she'll come forward with it as soo as she sees this thread, so I won't steal her thunder.
I will, however, say this: when a woman is pregnant - no matter how that occurred - she has no choice but to "have the baby." By definition, when a woman is pregnant, she has a baby. The only thing to be decided after that point is whether she will have a live baby or a dead baby. If she chooses an abortion, she will have a dead baby (and that dead baby will most likely be ground up and put down some sink at the abortion clinic, or placed in a dumpster outside, or sold to a medical research team). Parenthood is forever, regardless of what happens to the child.

reply from: Shiprahagain

This is why we should teach abstinence instead of handing out contraceptives and giving mixed messages like "It's best if you don't have sex, but if you do, use these."
I agree with Laurissa completely about abstinence, but many pro-lifers do believe in contraception as long as in isn't abortifacient (kill an embryo by keeping it from implanting).

reply from: Shiprahagain

By the same token, in some Chinese cultures, and other cultures, you do celebrate your conception day and not birthday, and you measure your age from conception. Also, in some societies kids do have legal rights from conception. And do we say that Jehovas' witnesses were never born because they don't celebrate birthdays? Or that someone who doesn't know their birthday doesn't exist?
Lexi, it seems like you're getting societal responses confused with science. Like Cali said, it doesn't matter how a man reacts to the pregnancy test -- it's not a matter of reaction that make us human, but science. If a man didn't recognize his 2 year old daughter or pay child support, would he not be a father? The problem with subjective criteria for humanity is that that's how socieites greatest evil's have occured -- people decide they don't feel that Jews, blacks, Indians, whomever are human b/c they don't meet their personal definition of what a human being is, and that makes possible genocide. People once felt if you had too much melanin, as a black person, you weren't human, so slavery was okay. I'm sure you disagree with that. But it's the same thing when we say someone has too little size or age, as an embryo or fetus, to be human, and then we make legal their abortion. Saying an embryo is too small to to be human is like saying a black is too dark to be human, it's based on appearance and not science. Because if we use subjective standards for humanity we can cancel out each othehr's personhood, it's only fair to use science.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

This Lexi character is a perverse individual. What is the deal with the obscenity in the signature? He or she is profane.

reply from: AshMarie88

"Well, I see it as apart of the mother's body because it's actually inside the mother's body and surviving off of her, but I guess I was wrong and the fetus isn't apart of her, somehow."
Sometimes preemies can't live outside wombs because they're very underdeveloped, so they are put into an incubator, hooked up to it, survives off it, etc. Does that make the preemie a part of the incubator?
"Like I said previously, I won't compare other issues to abortion."
Why not? Why can't you compare killing kids to other death issues?
"If it is alive, and human as soon as sperm hits egg, abortion would be illigal, because it is murder."
The death penalty is legal, it kills human beings, and it's not murder... Does that mean criminals are not alive or aren't human?
Besides, sometimes when pregnant women are killed, the murderer is charged with TWO murders instead of one.
"But it's not illigal, so... what's up with that?"
Slavery was legal once, what was up with that?

reply from: AshMarie88

A man whose wife is pregnant IS a father.
And it's half his child, so technically he should have half the rights to that child if he cares for that child enough to want it.

reply from: AshMarie88

Lexi, you're indeed pro-abortion/choice, you're not on the fence.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Lexi's a teen. She's find herself like I and a bunch of other young people are. She's asking earnest questions and we should answer them respectfully, if not for her, for babies.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I wouldn't label her that yet. She's considering being prolife. After all, it just sounds like someone's fed her some bad info like that an embryo isn't human, so how can she help the current opinions she holds. She owes being presented with correct info so that her opinion can be informed.

reply from: AshMarie88

Lexi, did you know that abortion is legal up until birth?
Here is a 16 week old unborn child/fetus. Does he/she look alive and human to you?:
http://www.paternityangel.com/PicsAndPhotos/FoetalDevelop/16ish-week-SaiedTohamy.jpg

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

Sounds like the irresponsibility train. Why is she getting drunk and having sex with "some guy"? Why is the guy's life not about being responsible and taking care of his child. The woman and the "some guy" are the ones Jesus was talking about when he said the chaff, weeds or dead branches are gathered up and thrown into the fire. The woman and man are useless and will be treated as refuse. They need to repent and change their ways.
Lexi, your mind is perverse. Your thinking shows you are totally whacked out. You suggest the solution for being a worthless drunken irresponsible whore is to murder children. How about being a decent human being.

reply from: cali1981

I agree wholeheartedly with Shiprah. These questions deserve respectful answers; let's come forward with them.

reply from: cali1981

GL2L, I (as well as many other pro-lifers on here, I'm sure) agree with your assessment that the responsible thing to do when you create a child is to take care of him/her, not kill him/her. However, perhaps it would be best to talk about that in terms that everyone can agree with, not necessarily religious ones. (They exist, I know, because I agree with your conclusion and have argued it many times without your premise!) Lexi is asking a lot of questions, and it sounds like she is doing so with an open mind, really wanting to know about both sides of the issue. Let's respect her for doing that, rather than condemning her for an idea that she hasn't yet embraced.

reply from: SomeLexiChick

How isn't the fetus/baby not apart of the mother's body again? It's inside her, and physically attached (via abilicle cord) to the mother's insides. In a way it's actually a parasite..

reply from: AshMarie88

"How isn't the fetus/baby not apart of the mother's body again? It's inside her, and physically attached (via abilicle cord) to the mother's insides."
Actually, the baby is attached to the cord that's attached to the sac... The sac is in no way attached to any of the mother's body parts or anything else, other than the womb.
Does the mom have two dna's, two sets of everything, and in many cases a penis? Of course not. If the baby was a body part of hers, she would have all that.
And like I said before, if a preemie is attached to an incubator and hooked up to it, living off of it, inside it, does that mean the baby is part of the incubator?
"In a way it's actually a parasite.."
I'll bump up that thread in a minute...

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

GL2L, I (as well as many other pro-lifers on here, I'm sure) agree with your assessment that the responsible thing to do when you create a child is to take care of him/her, not kill him/her. However, perhaps it would be best to talk about that in terms that everyone can agree with, not necessarily religious ones. (They exist, I know, because I agree with your conclusion and have argued it many times without your premise!) Lexi is asking a lot of questions, and it sounds like she is doing so with an open mind, really wanting to know about both sides of the issue. Let's respect her for doing that, rather than condemning her for an idea that she hasn't yet embraced.
I've read both yours and Shiprah's remarks. I've been around a half-century and understand how things work. Most people base their behaviors on how they perceive others feel on that issue. Other people's opinions and beliefs matter and influence others. I hold pictures of aborted babies before the public's eyes. I believe they need some cold hard truth. Don't coddle someone like a Lexi. She needs to sense the shock and revulsion at her lifestyle, or her seeming acceptance of abortion as a solution to a promisous irresponsible lifestyle. Don't speak on these matters as if it is a casual conversation. Life and death is on the line. It is very serious. She doesn't understand people's acceptance of abortion, etc. is way over the boundary of decency.
I chuck the ball hard right over the middle of the plate. Jesus did the same. He told one of his brothers in John 7:7, "The world hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil." Jesus, like John the Baptist, told people that they were snakes, murderers and sons of the devil right to their face.
Excuse the profanity, but Lexi's signature says "Have a f*ckin' cupcake." What is wrong with you for even responding to an attitude like that? Bells and whistles go off saying this is among the most vile and obscene of individuals. Is this really a sweet little 15 year old girl searching for the truth? I think not.

reply from: domsmom

Hi Lexi!
the embryo makes its own life-sustaining organ; the placenta, all by its little self. The mother doesnt have much to do with it really, or she could just stop the pregnancy whenever she wanted. The placenta is attatched to the mothers uterus, not the baby. The baby is a completely seperate person from the mother. Has its own blood type,seperate DNA. I doubt anything part of the mother could be of a different sex (a boy)! And deffinately NOT a parasite, since it makes its own organ to sustain itself......

reply from: SomeLexiChick

Well, it's still inside the mother, nontheless, and it's her choice of what she wants to do. (this isn't an opinion, by the way)

reply from: AshMarie88

Hmm, then why are you against women getting pregnant all the time and getting abortions left and right?
And yes that is an opinion. Your opinion is abortion is a choice, our opinions are that it's not.

reply from: SomeLexiChick

I already explained this in a post. That was not an opinion. abortion IS a choice, US law makes it legal up to a certain point in the fetus's development. You have the choice to get an abortion or not. Whether or not it is right or wrong/okay or not okay is an opinion.

reply from: SomeLexiChick

I already explained this in a post, it's on the first page I think. That was not an opinion. abortion IS a choice, US law makes it legal up to a certain point in the fetus's development. You have the choice to get an abortion or not. Whether or not it is right or wrong/okay or not okay is an opinion.

reply from: AshMarie88

Abortion is legal up until birth...
And abortion IS a choice, you are right. But rape, murder, infantcide, slavery, molestation, etc. are all choices too. And slavery was legal once, just like abortion. Did that mean black people were less than white people just because making them slaves was an okay thing back then?

reply from: cali1981

I am always mystified as to what point people are trying to make when they say this. There is nothing intrinsically noble about the concept of "choice." EVERY SINGLE THING that a person might do in life is a "choice," whether legally allowed or not. SO WHAT?

reply from: SomeLexiChick

Why do you all always bring up slavery??? I have said multiple times I don't compare abortion to another issue. It isn't legal until birth, there is a certain stage in the development that you can abort it. not until birth, though.

reply from: cali1981

She wasn't comparing abortion to slavery. In fact, she was making the same point as I was. That point is:
It's a choice. SO WHAT?
ANYTHING we might do is a choice. That can include good things and bad things, legal and illegal things, things that hurt others and things that do not hurt others. (Ash gave a few examples of what "choice" might include.) So, saying that something is "a choice" is meaningless since it applies to EVERYTHING.

reply from: SomeLexiChick

Why do you all always bring up slavery??? I have said multiple times I don't compare abortion to another issue. It isn't legal until birth, there is a certain stage in the development that you can abort it. not until birth, though.

reply from: cali1981

Oh, also, there was another point Ash was making. Namely, the fact that something is legal does not make it right. We happen to have some historical examples of that being the case, meaning that it could definitely be the case in the future (or present) as well.
EDIT: So you can see the point of bringing up historical examples - to support the point that legality does not mean something is right, not to say that the things in the examples are exactly the same as abortion.

reply from: AshMarie88

Of course it's legal until birth. In fact, not long ago, a woman who was about to deliver her baby daughter that day, shot herself in the stomach to cause an early abortion. She was NOT charged, because abortion is legal, and she had the "right" to do that.
And the ground for Roe vs. Wade is that abortion IS indeed legal up til birth. No one can prevent it happening thru all 9 months.
And you don't compare abortion to any other topic, but I do. Abortion is, however, comparable to other topics, just like murder is comparable to genocide and death.

reply from: SomeLexiChick

So your saying if someone is 8 months pregnant, they can legally get an abortion?

reply from: SomeLexiChick

So your saying if someone is 8 months pregnant, they can legally get an abortion? I thought you could only get an abortion up until the 3rd trimester??

reply from: AshMarie88

Yes.
A good example of that is Dr. Tiller. He performs second and third trimester abortions (mostly third). Well, I shouldn't say PERFORMS... One of his last "patients" of his died because of the abortion. She was in the last months of pregnancy (7 or 8 months I think).
I believe there are a few other clinics in the USA that perform them as well.

reply from: AshMarie88

NEWS STORY: Woman shot herself in the stomach the same day her baby was to be delivered:
http://old.abortionno.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=279

reply from: SomeLexiChick

...That's...amazing. IMO, thats too late. the baby is pretty much totally developed.

reply from: AshMarie88

Yep. And that's just ONE example of late term abortions being completely legal.

reply from: cali1981

I'd like to point something out here. A person is not "totally developed" at nine months of gestation. A person is not "totally developed" at one year AFTER BIRTH, or even two. Or five. Or ten. You get the idea. Physical structures in our bodies develop, grow and change for our entire childhoods, even after. Development is a CONTINUOUS PROCESS; at no point even close to birth is it "total" or "complete."

reply from: SomeLexiChick

I know that. I meant developed enough to be born.

reply from: SomeLexiChick

I don't mean to sound blonde or anything but on an episode of law and order, a teen wanted to get an abortion, and the doctor kept re-scheduling her appointment until it was too late to legally get an abortion, meaning you can't get one after certain point in the baby's development. I assume they are right because law and order structures their show around real laws.

reply from: cali1981

Then it's pretty much irrelevant to mention the word "developed," isn't it? What you really mean is that the baby is ready to be born. So, once it's born, it's definitely not okay to kill.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Lexi the baby isn't part of the mom's body. All of a woman's body parts have the same Dna. The baby has different DNA. It's not a parasite either
A FETUS IS NOT A PARASITE
by Dr. Thomas L. Johnson

1.a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an
organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its
nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng,
T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)
b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
2.a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.
b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
3.a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.
b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually
cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not
maintained by the mother.
4.a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).
b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the
mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own
amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
5.a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).
b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
6.a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming
antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body
of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the
parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)
b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
7.a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.
b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.
8.a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).
b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother,
remaining only a number of months in the uterus.
A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).
A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.
[This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary
Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology.
It's important to make sure your assertions are really scientific when a baby's life hangs in the balance.

reply from: SomeLexiChick

A mother on a pro-life/pro-choice forum replyed when asked about the baby being connected to the woman, and apart of her body.
"I don't know how it can't be. The placenta is embedded in the uterus, the cord grows from that to the fetus, thus completing the connection." and she says she still calls her daughter "her little parasite". just adorable.

reply from: SomeLexiChick

Then it's pretty much irrelevant to mention the word "developed," isn't it? What you really mean is that the baby is ready to be born. So, once it's born, it's definitely not okay to kill.
umm, ok, whatever.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Lexi, as I've told you, medically it's not a parasite.

reply from: SomeLexiChick

I said "in a way it's a parasite". and after all, it's just an opinion. and the mother said "I still call her my little parasite", I didn't say that, she did.

reply from: Shiprahagain

The thing is Lexi, it's not your OPINION, if someone's a parasite. It's not your OPINION, when life begins. Those are scientific FACTS. They aren't subjective.

reply from: SomeLexiChick

Well, to me it's my opinion. I'd better go scold the lady that calls her daughter "her little parasite". is anyone gonna comment on what the lady said about the baby and mother being attatched? she would like a reply.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I gave you a very detailed scientific reply. With all due respect, if it's my opinion that you aren't developed enough to have human rights does that make it so?

reply from: SomeLexiChick

would you post that reply again? i didn't catch it.
and to your second question, maybe, who knows? i'm at the very least 15 years physically and mentally developed. im not in the very early weeks of my life. when is the earliest stage you can get an abortion, by the way?

reply from: Shiprahagain

A FETUS IS NOT A PARASITE
by Dr. Thomas L. Johnson
1.a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an
organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its
nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng,
T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)
b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
2.a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.
b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
3.a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.
b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually
cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not
maintained by the mother.
4.a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).
b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the
mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own
amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
5.a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).
b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
6.a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming
antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body
of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the
parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)
b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
7.a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.
b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.
8.a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).
b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother,
remaining only a number of months in the uterus.
A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).
A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.
[This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary
Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology.
It's important to make sure your assertions are really scientific when a baby's life hangs in the balance.
Because abortifacient birth control is legal, you can have abortions chemically from the embryo level.l

reply from: Shiprahagain

Just some "prolife answers to prolife questions" you might be interested in from this webiste.
No one has the right to tell a woman she has to have a child.
The pro-life movement has never suggested that women should be required to have children. However, it is a biological fact that when a woman is pregnant she already has a child. Our argument is that this child should not be butchered.
It's the woman's body. It's her decision.
First, it is nonsense to suggest that the law never tells people what they can or cannot do with their bodies. In fact, there are many things which people are not legally allowed to do with their bodies. To name just a few, they cannot sell them for sex, or sell their organs to people who need transplants, or put certain drugs into their bodies.
Second, statements like this ignore the fact that, by any rational standard, the unborn child is a separate individual from its mother.

In fact, if an unborn child had the ability to commit a crime, it has everything necessary for a forensic expert to identify it in court. Long before the point at which most abortions are done, the unborn child has its own DNA code, its own fingerprints, and its own blood type - none of which match the mother.
The individuality of the unborn was evident in 1999 when a Tennessee surgeon had just completed an operation on an unborn baby and was about to close the incision in the mom's abdomen. Before he could do so, the child punched his arm through the incision and grasped the doctor's finger. A photo of this event ended up on magazine covers and television sets around the world. The question is, who grabbed the doctor's finger?
What gives you the right to tell a woman she can't terminate her pregnancy?
This is more pro-choice double talk. These people know that we are not trying to stop pregnancy terminations. All pregnancies terminate! The only issue is whether they terminate with a live baby or a dead one. Abortion is not about the termination of pregnancy, but the termination of human life.
Now, if the question is, what gives us the right to tell a woman she can't have an abortion, the answer is absolutely nothing. In a society of laws, no one is allowed to decide what activities others may or may not engage in. As individuals, we have no more right to tell a woman she can't hire someone to kill her unborn child than we have to tell her she can't rob convenience stores. However, it is right for there to be laws which say she can't do so. Just as government has the responsibility and the right to prevent armed robbery, it has the responsibility and the right to prevent the killing of innocent human beings, including those waiting to be born.
How can tissue only a quarter of an inch in diameter have constitutional rights?
In the first place, most abortions happen well after the unborn child is that small, and only a moron could see a sonogram image of an unborn child and dismiss it as mere tissue.
Beyond that, if size is the yardstick for constitutional rights, how big does a human being have to get before it starts having these rights? Is weight or height the determining factor? Do these rights come on gradually as size increases and, if so, what is the ratio of size to rights? Should men have more rights than women since they are generally larger? If someone loses weight do they lose rights?
Late-term abortions are not done unless the woman's life is in danger or the baby is already dead or couldn't survive.
In April of 1995, George Tiller - the notorious late-term abortionist from Wichita, Kansas - spoke at the National Abortion Federation's 19th Annual Meeting in New Orleans, where he stated, "We have some experience with late terminations, about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past five years."
Tiller admits that of the 10,000 children he killed between 24 and 36 weeks in a five year period, 8% had fetal anomalies. And we cannot assume that the other 92% were to protect the lives of the mothers, since modern medical technology makes it extremely rare for pregnancy to be life-threatening, and since abortions to protect the lives or health of the mothers are done earlier in the pregnancies.
Tiller's admissions were confirmed at the the National Abortion Federation's Annual Meeting in San Francisco in 1996. Martin Haskell - the Ohio abortionist who invented partial-birth (D&X) abortion - stated, "Two of the criticisms that I've been hearing lately about how our side is structuring its debate is that, one, we seem to be taking a position that-in the case of the D&X-that the fetuses are dead at the beginning of the procedure, which is generally not the case. The second criticism has been that we are really skewing the debate to a very small percentage of women that have fetal anomalies or some other problem that really need the procedure verses the 90% who it's elected, at least through the 20 to 24 week time period, and then as you get on towards 28 weeks it becomes closer to a hundred percent. But these seem to be very uncomfortable issues for people on our side of the debate to deal with."
Haskell is admitting that his pro-choice colleagues have been lying about the babies in late-term abortions being dead before the procedures start, and lying about women having these procedures for health reasons. He even admits that as the pregnancies got further along, the percentage that were elective increased, with 28-week and later abortions being virtually 100% elective.
Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
This is the rhetoric of a coward who knows that abortion is murder but lacks the character and courage to stand up against it. Hardcore pro-choice politicians often resort to this nonsense in an effort to not appear so extreme in front of an American public they know is queasy about abortion.
The fact is, if abortion is the intentional killing of a child there is no defense for it being legal, and if it is not the intentional killing of a child there is no need for it to be rare. Besides, if legalized abortion is such an empowering thing for women, why would we want it to be rare? If abortion is not the intentional killing of a child, why should its use - even in extremely high numbers - be a problem? And if it really is a constitutional right, America should be celebrating it not trying to make it rare. No one says free speech or freedom of religion should be rare. So why apply this irrational standard to abortion?
Don't like abortion? Don't have one.
This sort of arrogance is typical of people who recognize that their pro-choice position cannot be defended on its own merits. Of course, it must be difficult trying to make the practice of turning mothers of live babies into mothers of dead babies seem appealing.
However, this "don't like - don't have" idea has possibilities. In fact, it's a concept the pro-life movement could enthusiastically support. All we ask is that the same offer be extended to the unborn. That only seems fair given that every time a mom has an abortion her baby also has one. Since it seems unlikely that unborn children like abortion, under this "don't like - don't have" philosophy they should be given the option of not having one.
That brings up an interesting question. Would all these people who call themselves pro-choice still be pro-choice if they were the ones being chosen? If it were possible to place them back into their mom's wombs, and then interview them there, would they still have this cynical "don't-like-abortion-then-don't-have-one" attitude? Would they still be making this sort of moronic statement if they were the ones who might be ripped apart alive, ground up in a garbage disposal and flushed down the city sewer system?

reply from: AshMarie88

You are still growing and maturing. You're not completely physically or mentally developed. You'll probably be finished growing and maturing in your adult life.
And the earliest stage you can get an abortion is at conception, I guess.

reply from: holopaw

When you're old enough to get pregnant. You can obtain an abortion at any age.

reply from: holopaw

If she calls her daughter a "lil parasite" as a term of endearment, imagine what she calls her when she's upset with her. So she's telling her child that she gets no benefit from being her mother.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Actually, you can abort children when they are 3/4 born. The abortionist partially delivers the baby in breech birth until just the head is left inside and kills it.

reply from: AshMarie88

Actually, you can abort children when they are 3/4 born. The abortionist partially delivers the baby in breech birth until just the head is left inside and kills it.
Kills it by putting a huge needle thru its head then sucks out its brain, and collapses the skull.
And mind you, the baby is full term, can feel as much pain as you or I, and is compeltely viable.
Yet, many pro-"choicers" seem to have no problem with this.

reply from: 1003

the brain can't feel pain. just a little sting on the back of his neck, and it's all over.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

1003, if some came up to you right not, jabbed scissors into the back of your head, and sucked your brain out, it would hurt, right? In partial-birth abortions, the baby feel the same pain you and I would now.
Exactly how anti-life are you?

reply from: AshMarie88

How would you know? Have you had a needle stuck in your head lately?

reply from: 1003

are children owned? it's not "half his"... it's entirely its own person. and it is entirely reliant on another person. that person has the RIGHT to stop sharing bodily resources (waste management, nutrient delivery). it's her body. her call. the child can just find somewhere else to feed it and house it. or go get a job, the lazy bum.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

are children owned? it's not "half his"... it's entirely its own person. and it is entirely reliant on another person. that person has the RIGHT to stop sharing bodily resources (waste management, nutrient delivery). it's her body. her call. the child can just find somewhere else to feed it and house it. or go get a job, the lazy bum.
She meant it's half his child. If you protest this, then you must conclude that there is no person on Earth who has a child.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

Aren't you the humorous one today? Kick the "lazy bum" out of the womb. You could be a real comedian if the subject matter wasn't so serious. What gets you to the point of callously speaking about ending a little boy or girl's life in such a jovial way?

reply from: 1003

watching idiots and one-trick ponies try to oppose it.

reply from: cali1981

1003, if some came up to you right not, jabbed scissors into the back of your head, and sucked your brain out, it would hurt, right? In partial-birth abortions, the baby feel the same pain you and I would now.
Whether or not the baby feels pain is IRRELEVANT. Anytime you kill someone, he/she is just as dead regardless of whether they felt pain while dying. The taking of the rest of a person's life - NOT the momentary pain - is the horror and the tragedy. Everyone - both pro-life and pro-choice - needs to get this through their heads.

reply from: yoda

Neither total reliance on one person, or the sharing of nutrients in a perfectly natural way during the normal human gestation process can be cited as a moral reason to kill an innocent human being by anyone with a single shred of conscience.
On the other hand, if one's heart is as hard as yours appears to be, then any old excuse at all will do to justify the slaughter of as many babies as can be killed.
So why bother to write that tripe? Why not just say you don't give a damn about babies, and love to support their slaughter?

reply from: Shiprahagain

As for the sharing of resources, Professor Lejeune learned that the fact that the babies of malnourished moms and healthy moms end up weighing about the same isn't due to the baby taking nutrients from the malnourished mom.

reply from: bradensmommy

are children owned? it's not "half his"... it's entirely its own person. and it is entirely reliant on another person. that person has the RIGHT to stop sharing bodily resources (waste management, nutrient delivery). it's her body. her call. the child can just find somewhere else to feed it and house it. or go get a job, the lazy bum.
umm..are my eyes decieving me or did this moron just say ??
Isn't that in the pro-choicers' book on what not to say or believe?
Yeah, my 11 month old should have his own apartment now huh? You are just so smart, when I grow up I want to be just like you!

reply from: AshMarie88

are children owned? it's not "half his"... it's entirely its own person. and it is entirely reliant on another person. that person has the RIGHT to stop sharing bodily resources (waste management, nutrient delivery). it's her body. her call. the child can just find somewhere else to feed it and house it. or go get a job, the lazy bum.
umm..are my eyes decieving me or did this moron just say ??
Isn't that in the pro-choicers' book on what not to say or believe?
Yeah, my 11 month old should have his own apartment now huh? You are just so smart, when I grow up I want to be just like you!
Crista, you ARE grown up! And a lot more mature too.

reply from: Hereforareason

" I think I'm second youngest at 19."
lol, Although I haven't been very active here for awhile, when I started posting I was only a bit older than you are Lexie. And I'm the second youngest as far as I know.
Welcome Lexie!
"also, whether or not you become a father, is totally up to the woman. I don't agree with it, but it really is up to her, if she decides to make someone a father or not."
No Lexie, the man is a father and the woman a mother as soon as conception has taken place. If she is pregnant, it is a baby. If there is a baby there is a father and mother.
Lexie, it is not the woman's body either. How can the woman be part male? The baby depends on the mother's body, but it is a seperate body that enters the world. It's heart is beating by 24 days I believe it is. It reacts to things. it is very much alive. That was you 15 years ago. You are a Death roe surviver. www.deathroesurviver.com Your right to Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness might not have been upheld. But it was.
Amber

reply from: bradensmommy

are children owned? it's not "half his"... it's entirely its own person. and it is entirely reliant on another person. that person has the RIGHT to stop sharing bodily resources (waste management, nutrient delivery). it's her body. her call. the child can just find somewhere else to feed it and house it. or go get a job, the lazy bum.
umm..are my eyes decieving me or did this moron just say ??
Isn't that in the pro-choicers' book on what not to say or believe?
Yeah, my 11 month old should have his own apartment now huh? You are just so smart, when I grow up I want to be just like you!
Crista, you ARE grown up! And a lot more mature too.
Well thank ya! I think I have more common sense than some people who shall remain nameless...I think we all know who those people are....


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics