Re: I M LDS 2 | 2:50 p.m. April 29, 2011 "When does the zygote become
"human"?"As a member of the LDS Church you must
surely understand that the US Supreme Court isn't the final authority on whether
an unborn baby is a "human".That question will be answered
at the judgement bar of the Supreme Judge.
If only Rowe vs Wade had been done now instead of the 70's... things may have
been different. In today's courts identity is ultimately defined by DNA. By
definition, a new person identifiable by unique DNA is created at inception not
birth. The new DNA is a unique configuration made possible by the input of two
individuals and is, by definition, not part of the mother. The mother is not
deciding what to do with her own body, she's deciding to end the life of a
separate defineable human being.
I M LDS 2; A woman needs permission from church leaders to get an abortions for
rape and incest. no baby should be killed just because something could be wrong.
I'm LDS 2.A bacteria is metabolizing but it is not human so killing
a bacteria is not killing another human being. Since when does the
supreme court have the insight to determine when a person becomes a person? The
supreme court also said that segregation is constitutional. Then reversed
itself. Who knows, perhaps someday it will reverse itself on abortion and
recognize that abortion is still killing a human being whatever its age is. Ask
a woman who has a spontaneous abortion if her 23 weeks along baby is or isn't a
human being in spite of what the supreme court might say. A friend
of mine who is pro abortion still recognizes that it is taking a human life. He
just thought it was OK. At least he was being honest with himself and not in a
state of denial.
I M LDS 2: I have a lot of questions...Roe vs. Wade was decided on
January 22, 1973-over 37 years ago. Their decision is widely considered a very
"liberal" interpretation of the scientific information available in
1973, and would most certainly be considered flat out wrong with all the new
information and medical case history since then. If the decision of these judges
in 1973 is your justification for terminating a baby's life at 22 weeks then God
help you.Roe vs. Wade needs to be revisited. 8 weeks? Not viable. 16
weeks? Probably not. 23 weeks? Sorry LDS2, it's a baby.By the way,
47 years ago blacks couldn't drink out of the same drinking fountains as whites
and some courts upheld those laws. Any other questions?
JSB,When does the zygote become "human"?The
Supreme Court decided in Roe vs Wade: 23 weeks.Any other
questions?At the other end of the spectrum of "human
life", at what point can they harvest your organs in order to save the life
of another human being? When you stop breathing on your own? When your heart
stops beating on its own? When meaningful brain activity ceases?"Organ donors" (determined by sophisticated medical and ethical
criteria) can still "metabolize". Bacteria "metabolize".
Cancers "metabolize". Single cell organisms "metabolize".
Therefore, if "metabolization" is your criteria for "life",
you must oppose not only abortion, but antibiotics, cancer treatments, and
countless other "murderous" things.Would you like to try
to explain the logic of that?
Seldom do we have the chance to 'play god' where we determine who lives and who
dies. In our court systems we have appeal after appeal and stay
after stay as we try to find a reason to preserve the life of a convicted
killer. The process takes years. The financial cost runs in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars.We respect the life of a convicted killer.We extend to him every possible avenue towards life.Yet, so
many posters tell us that providing an ultra-sound to a mother to show that her
unborn baby can move is too much a burden to place on society. They tell us
that the cost is unreasonable. They tell us that the possibility of mental
anguish to the mother who just might realize that there is a life growing inside
her is too severe.They play god.The mothers play god.Who speaks for the unborn? Who is his voice? Who tells the world to
please wait, to think, to ponder before sucking his life from him?The action is irreversible. Life cannot be restored. But we're busy. We have
more important things to do.
When does the fertilized egg (zygote) become a human being and killing it not be
considered murder? The zygote is metabolizing so it is alive. So is the
embryo, fetus, neonate, baby, toddler, child, teenager, adult, and elderly
person. At what stage in human development is killing the person not murder?
If a child is born 6 weeks early and then killed by its mother, it is murder.
But if a child is aborted and killed 6 weeks early, it is legal and everyone
should feel fine about it. Could some pro abortion person explain to me the
logic behind this?
Abortion= Legalized murder
snowman,Your view on abortion is not entirely consistent with the
position of the Church. That is something you will have to work out.Based on D&C 134:9, I do not believe it is right to mingle religious
influence with civil government in such a way as to force my beliefs (of the
beliefs of my religious society) onto others.Others do not believe
as I do, and I am free to believe as I with. So I allow all (wo)men the same
privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. This is
why I have no problem with Roe versus Wade.
I find it amazing that so many of you missed one very important line in the
article. "The mother will be offered the opportunity to hear
the babies heartbeat."People.....if there is a heartbeat then
there is a living child that is about to be killed !! Mother
Theresa said it best when she said that there is no hope for a society where a
mother is allowed to kill her young.
I M LDS 2: I am LDS and I believe that all babies have the right to life. They
shouldn't be aborted just because there could be something wrong with them. They
are human beings. The saw a sign once that was talking about abortion but it
said take my hand not my life.
On the other hand, the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate tends to overlook the fact
that the vast majority of women who have abortions do not, in fact, do so
entirely by choice. Circumstances put them in a position where abortion is the
least self-destructive option available to them. So who do you want to destroy?
Protect the embryo, starve the infant. Typical.
I agree with Coug420 that the debate of abortion is so polarized and each side
will always push their own agenda. I understand the pro-life issues and why they
think abortions should never occur, but I rarely see them understanding ALL the
issues surrounding the WHOLE issue or truly being able to argue their side
against choice. I wonder sometimes if it may be difficult for many anti-choicers
to understanding the diversity -- and validity -- of others' moral codes, or the
profundity -- and diversity -- of women's life experiences with regard to
pregnancy and reproduction. Anti-choicers argue, why can't we bring our
religious values into the public debate? But values are not the question.
Pro-choicers value life every last bit as much as anyone else does. The real
question is, when does personhood begin? And that is a matter of religious
doctrine and belief, not a question of values. Yes, bring your values into the
public debate -- but leave your religious doctrine out. And be wise enough to
know the difference. People of a broad range of faiths recognize a moral
prerogative of each woman to choose abortion.
Did some of you not read the article? This what it says, "the bill, which
would require that a physician perform an ultrasound and allow the woman, if she
chooses, a chance to hear the fetal heartbeat, receive a physical copy of the
black and white image and have the image explained to her." It cleary
states, "IF SHE CHOOSES" I didn't see anything where anyone was been
forced to do anything. But then if we go by PAGANs and My2cents' logic we
can abort a baby right up until tht child is born. Because their
"life" hasn't started yet. That is really disgusting. I remember
talking to my children with my mouth by my wife's belly and having them respond
to my voice. Yeah they aren't alive. Come on! Please tell me another story
people. And there are people who use abortion as birth control. I've met
This whole discussion makes me sad. Very sad.
The difference between a fetus and "eggs in the fridge" is that one is
fertilized allowing it to grow and become a living being and one isnt. Eggs we
eat can never become chicks. The female human body naturally gets rid of the
unfertilized eggs and if you need an explanation on that, please refer to a 7th
grade health class. Comparing a tumor and a fetus is equally illogical. Can a
tumor ever become a fully functional human? The best pro-choice arguments arent
fetus comparisons but the evidence of what would happen if abortions werent
allowed. Guilt trips are manipulative and shouldnt be used a form of
persuasion. It is, however, important for potential mothers to have unbiased
facts about abortions. Getting unbiased facts will never happen though because
the debate of abortion is so polarized and each side will always push their own
@LDSUTE and RiflemanI have no problem with a woman viewing a
sonogram voluntarily or by request, but I do have a problem with women being
FORCED to view it. Still....all and all....it is a scare tactic. I'm all for
reducing abortion, but there is no need to invade the privacy with force of law.
Afterall....that is what Roe vs Wade is based on!Let's turn the
abortion issue around for some of you! Of course, it would be hard for a man to
trulu relate unless he perhaps considers being forced to give up a body part!
Would it be okay with you if the government invaded your privacy, your body, and
your right to choose and FORCED you to have an abortion using the same reasons
many women use? You can say...well, it isn't the same thing....but when you get
down to basics....yes, it is the same! If abortion was ever made
illegal....should the government really force a woman to proceed with an
unwanted pregnancy by law or make women risk imprisonment for illegal abortions?
My healthy, vibrant, happy, mother-to-be, sister-in-law was born at 24 weeks
with little of the medical support available to newborns of today--she fit in
palm of her father's hand and turned out just fine. So why don't we reconsider
"viability" of unborn babies based on the medical case history and
then spot them another 6 to 8 weeks because we are considering taking a HUMAN
LIFE? Can we reasonably begin a discussion with the abortion-rights crowd there?
Probably not.I believe the discussion of an abortion should be
between and woman and her physician, not the government, but to argue a baby is
not a human until it actually exits the birthing canal is vile and degrades
humanity. Any mother, or person, who watches a hand or foot of a baby pressing
out against her stomach and does not recognize life is lying to themselves or
heartless. Abortion is sometimes, for some women, a sad but appropriate
alternative, and should remain her business. But the callousness of the
pro-choice leaders is beyond reproach. (I don't agree with making a
woman watch an ultrasound before an abortion.)
MoJules @ 9:26- Good point! One of the greatest oxymorons of which
I am aware is how some extreme liberals would not even blink at the thought of
shredding and destroying a perfectly healthy fetus, and yet are so gravely
offended at the site of the living conditions of a chicken destined for KFC.
You'll hear "Go ahead and extract this fetus, I don't know if it's living
of if its not, but it's the mother's right to decide so it doesn't matter,"
and then almost in the same breath "These cows do not have enough land on
which to graze and roam....this is a gross injustice and is morally
reprehensible!"atl134 @ 9:04 a.m.-You say this is meant
to "guilttrip," but guilt is the mind's response to an action one
believes is wrong. If there is truely nothing wrong with an elective abortion,
as you seem to advocate, why on earth would anyone feel guilty about having one?
Bottom line is science doesn't tell us the precise moment actual
life begins, so I choose to error on the side of life, not death.
we should do all we can to decrease the incidence of unplanned pregnancies
through education, decreasing poverty, increasing the availability of
contraception and also changing societal norms which place the blame/burden of
promiscuity primarily on females while accepting it as
"normal/acceptable" male behavior.This conservative law
unfortunately (like all other conservative laws) does nothing. This law is more
about taking a woman on a guilt trip then saving babies. Their small way of
punishing a woman for doing something they dont like...Im sorry I
know a lot of people arent going to agree with me, but the mother Has *MORE*
rights then the fetus, as well it should be. If we have a society
where the fetus has more rights (AKA: More important) then we create a society
were woman are nothing more than brood mares, or incubators, unimportant. I dont
want to live in that society. A fetus isn't any more a baby then the
eggs you have in your fridge are chickens...
TOO,"Name one thing in nature that grows, yet is not
alive."Well, by your definition, CANCER is "alive",
yet we spend a fortune to "kill" it.Viruses and bacteria
are "alive", but you take antibiotics for a strep infection, don't
you?The most prolific "baby killer" is mother nature
herself. More fetuses are "aborted" by mother nature than all the
medical personnel in history combined and multiplied by thousands!
Even the most dyed-in-the-wool LDS anti-choice activists must admit (or
contradict their Church's position) that there are circumstances when aborting a
fetus is right: rape or incest, when the mother's "life or health is in
jeopardy", or when "the fetus" (the Church's words; not
"child") has "severe defects that will not allow the baby to
survive beyond birth".The difference between most people's
stance on abortion, then, boils down to what they allow as an "exceptional
circumstances". Is a fetus created by rape NOT a life?Roe-vs-Wade established that a fetus may be aborted only in the exceptional
circumstance of "before 23 weeks."Even beyond the 23rd
week, the neurological "quality of life" of an embryo is directly
comparable to that of a person who is "brain dead" and in a vegetative
state - an "organ donor". Close relatives, beginning with one's mother
and father, decide to "pull the plug" and allow organ harvesting.Within reasonable parameters, then, we must respect a mother's legal and
moral right to terminate the "life support" she is providing for an
essentially brain dead human ("fetus") in a vegetative state.
Does this count for Rape, Incest, Life of the Mother?What about
miscarriages? A D&C procedure is considered a medical abortion.I
guess it's true - Conservatives have ZERO compassion.
If the person is going to "pay" for their own abortion, then it would
be much more affordable to "pay" for their ultrasound. If people that
are pro abortion do not believe that the fetus is living, then they should have
no fear of a woman seeing the fetus. I do have to say, it is really ironic,
they want to declare the earth human, but they can't declare a fetus human, go
figure. So if the earth is human, then that will give permission to destroy and
kill all that it produces, since anything that comes from the earth is it's
Why? Why stop abortions?Stopping abortions leads to 1 thing... *more
unwanted children.*Children who are likely to be abused, children
who are likely to be poorly educated, children who are likely to be abandoned,
children who are likely to become criminals or other burdens to society.
First, I agree with the LDS Church stance on abortion and believe we ought to
reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. However, A
report, commissioned by the British government and published this week by the
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, consists of a review of
studies conducted since 1997 on the neuroanatomical and physiological
development of the fetus. It concludes that fetuses at the 24-week stage of
development do not possess the wiring to transmit pain signals from the body to
the brain's cortex. Even after 24 weeks, the fetus likely exists in a state of
"continuous sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation," due to the
presence of chemicals such as adenosine in the surrounding amniotic fluid.
(Newsweek)Fetuses cannot feel pain until at least the 28th week of
gestation because they haven't formed the necessary nerve pathways, says Mark
Rosen, an obstetrical anesthesiologist at the University of California at San
Francisco. He and his colleagues determined that until the third trimester,
"the wiring at the point where you feel pain, such as the skin, doesn't
reach the emotional part where you feel pain, in the brain."
I've known women who have had life-long regrets over having had an abortion.
The procedure is anything but innocuous and is frankly disguised in euphemisms
like "reproductive choice" and "terminating pregnancy." It
isn't a victimless procedure like pulling a tooth(or having a tumor removed).
An individual won't be around a year later that otherwise likely would have. An
ultrasound will provide more consent for this serious decision. Better to have
the seriousness of the decision driven home beforehand rather than after the
As if people don't know what a fetus looks like or what it would become if it
goes to term... this isn't meant to inform, it's meant to guilttrip.
A more reasonable option would be to require the mother to be asked if she would
like to have analgesic applied to the fetus to to eliminate any pain felt by the
fetus during the abortion. Whether or not you believe a fetus to be
"alive" or "human", there is no doubt that an unborn fetus
can feel pain.
correction... I should of said unless you have walked this path not until you
have walked this path. Sorry bout that.
Many times when a woman goes through something like this she is not in the right
frame of mind. The judgements on this board...until you have faced this... don't
judge another. There are those women who go through this procedure with full
understanding...but there are many who go through this by having first made a
poor choice. And when you are young and immature and you wind up having to deal
with this, many times by being forced into it. I know, we have a choice, but so
many stories are that the woman is afraid to even go through this without any
support from anyone. ALso fear that someone will find out. There is a lot more
to many of these women's stories. So be careful what you say. Until you have
walked this path, you don't have any idea what it is like.
This argument is sick in everyway.People just claim that the fetus
is not alive. Someone please explain to me how a fetus is not alive, yet keeps
growing until it is born. Name one thing in nature that grows, yet is not
Bottom line (and this is my last allowed post here).With all other
surgeries and medical treatments, information is made available to the
prospective receipient of the surgery or treatment, but said recipient is not
required to take or read it. Pregnancy termination should be handled the same
way. The ultrasound, and all other information concerning the development of
the fetus, should be made available to the pregnant woman but she should not be
required to see or receive it. (Keep in mind that the pregnant woman is not yet
a mother, and the fetus is not a baby or an infant or a person. That is
something we recognized in the 1970s when I had my children. Women said "I
am GOING TO HAVE a baby" or "I am GOING TO BE a mother" or
"I am pregnant" when they were pregnant. I didn't become a mother,
and the fetus didn't become a baby, until the birth had occurred and a breath
had been taken to show that the newborn was now a living person. It's too bad
that people don't recognize that now, and stop the life-begins-at-conception
Rifleman, you miss the mark: You try to make it sound like someone is imparting
a little bit of information to a woman. I am quite certain, for the most part,
the woman knows what is going to happen and is making a very difficult decision,
again one most likely without the father. If this bill said the woman
"could see the fetus if she asked," that would be imparting knowledge
and a direct request. When the bill "forces" the mother to see the
fetus, it is not imparting knowledge, but, rather, trying to change the mind of
the mother who has already made this difficult decision. And I've read many
posts on here, from seemingly men and women, who still, in this day and age,
believe it's only the woman's fault that she gets pregnant, and therefore the
woman's responsibility for the ensuing fetus/baby. Amazing!
I'm all for education, so mandate a comprehensive program on sexuality, birth
control, contraception, etc. to give the tools people need to make decisions
with full knowledge of what they are doing and how to prevent unwanted
pregnancy. The state of knowledge of the human body is abysmal, including with
adults. Add to this easily accessible birth control tools like condoms and
other means of contraception. You can't be selective in providing education
about the facts of life. It's the only way that a person can fully execute his
or her free agency at all states of the process. To deny that means the
government or some other authority makes the decision, actual or de facto.
Which brings us back around to whether the abortion decision and the control
over ones body is a governmental one or an individual choice. It is ironic, in
fact, that conservatives want freedom of choice and lack of government
intervention in their lives on some issues but not on others. The reality is
that they only want solutions to the terrible thing of abortion only on their
If operations are able to be successfully performed on babies either in utero or
taken out of the womb and then placed back in the womb to continue growing until
birth, what might this show concerning when life begins? If a baby can be born
as early as 22 weeks gestation and with help be able to survive, again when does
life being? By 6 weeks gestation there is a heart beat and brain
activity. If loss of life constitutes a cessation of a heart beat and brain
activity, then shouldn't a baby at 6 weeks having a heart beat and brain
activity be considered to be a living person?
Laws are, in theory, supposed to keep order and protect the citizens bound by
that law. The federal government has ruled abortions as legal and as such we as
citizens can choose for ourselves whether this is a good choice. The question
now becomes who is capable of making an informed decision about their body and
what grows inside of it. This is easy, if you are able to conceive, you are
able to decide what happens next. Medical staff should be required to inform
the patient of any potential complications and be available for questions, not
serve as a moral compass. Counseling should be available after the procedure to
deal with any ill-affects from the choice. The ultrasound requirement is, in my
opinion, attempting to legislate values. The pro-life movement should channel
their efforts into prevent pregnancy by family planning education and access to
birth control instead of legislating what happens as a result of an unintended
I am not in any way pro-abortion, but what about those mothers and fathers who
make the difficult decision to abort for the life of the mother or viability of
the fetus (extreme cases)?? Imagine the unnecessary agony of a loving couple who
must see an image before they go through with an already difficult (the most
difficult) decision.This is a very poor, politically-motivated,
Life is not life until it is born and until then a fetus is not a person and
parents do have the right of choice. Telling people they don't have a personal
right of choice is like forced labor camps to make women get pregnant for
population growth and control. Just as you have a choice to get pregnant, you
have the same choice to get unpregnant.A baby becomes a person when
it is born as an independent life of its own. These laws are ludicrous and
irresponsible and illegal. Then what does it matter about government paying for
abortion? They pay for everything else and it would be discriminatory to
eliminate any one medical procedure. There are many medical procedures causing
more deaths of living people than abortion so why aren't these activist
My understanding is that abortion is the only medical procedure which does not
require informed consent. If that is the case, we are doing a big disservice to
any woman who does not fully understand the situation and possible
complications. Having an ultrasound, or anything which truly gives an honest
clarity to the situation should be required. Medical only, no lectures from a
religious or society prejudice.
When a woman chooses to play Russian Roulette with her own body and have
unprotected sex and gets pregnant from this choice her rights are no longer hers
alone. (Rape and incest are the exception not the rule. How many pregnancies
are truly ended on this factor...very few of the total percentage.) Our court
system; however, sees this differently saying a woman's right means everything
including the life of a fetus. What harm will viewing a living fetus
cause other than a few moments of seeing what will end with a terminated
pregnancy? Some are arguing money issues, such as who will pay for the
ultrasound? However, if a woman wants to pay for this heinous precedure...let
her foot the bill. After all, governement doesn't pay for this right?
I personally think an ultrasound would be a great idea. I bet there are many
women today that wish they would of had this option. I think many women would
walk right out of those offices if she were to see and hear the life which is
inside of her. It is true, there are many who take this path alone. And then
live with the regret for the rest of their lives. The ultrasound should be a
service that comes with this type of visit where a woman feels she needs to go
through this procedure.
Mark,Yes I have taken those classes. Yes I do believe they breathe. A
basic knowledge of physiology states that. It's not hard to be proven. Open a
physiology book and look.
mark @ 7:48 pm-"I'll tell you guys why I am opposed to this type of
legislation: because I don't want the government, I don't want any legislator
sitting in my doctors office with me. Ever."Oh really? So
you're fine doing away with HIPAA? How bout getting rid of all of those pesky
sanitation and cleanliness standards for doctors' offices set by the Dept. of
Health? It seems to me that you oppose doctors being required to
take an additional step in an effort to make sure patients understand what is
happening in their bodies? If there is really nothing wrong with an elective
abortion, why would these types of images offend someone or make one
uncomfortable? As a patient, I want to be informed of anything and everything
going on. The more info the better when it comes to medicine. It didn't seem
that this legislation in MI would restrict anything, just make patients more
I had an ultrasound at 10 weeks and I couldn't believe how active and responsive
to outside stimulus the baby was. If the doctor wanted her to change positions,
she would just tap my tummy and the baby would move. I thought then that anyone
considering an abortion should be required to see this isn't just a piece of
tissue or a parasite, but a living responsive, tiny human.
Too, you have taken all of those courses and yet you think that fetuses breath.
Good heavens. I'll tell you guys why I am opposed to this type of
legislation: because I don't want the government, I don't want any legislator
sitting in my doctors office with me. Ever. If a woman wants to see
an ultrasound of a fetus she can request that. If not, it's none of my business,
and it sure isn't any of yours. As far as tax money going towards
abortion, no tax money goes towards abortion. It is illegal. Does tax money go
towards womens clinics. Absolutely. And it should continue to. Even
if the same facility also performs abortions. Good grief, next thing
you conservatives are going to say is that a woman can not drive on a public
street enroute to an abortion clinic. Let's leave this debate up to
the only people that can ever have an abortion, let's leave if up to the women.
I've said it before, if it were men that got pregnant, there would be no issue,
whatsoever; abortions would be as controversial as a vasectomy.
Re: Joggle | 3:06 p.m. April 26, 2011 "Scare tactics"?You would prefer to leave women blind and without knowledge when it comes to
deciding the life or death of their unborn child?Wouldn't it be
wonderful if just one human life was saved as a result of giving a woman a
little more information to help her make her decision??
Pagan 2:24,I think this is the weakest argument I have ever seen you
come up with. None of us started as a heart or a cancerous mass. We
all started the same way. I know I am glad that I wasn't aborted - even though
no one thought to ask me.
Furry1993 | 2:49 p.m. April 26, 2011 "Not true. The money
coming from the federal government could not be used for abortion services
unless it was to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman, or if the
pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. All funds for abortion services would
have to come from other (private) sources." Just because tax
payer dollars aren't used to fund the actual procedure, doesn't mean they don't
make abortions possible. Lights, staff, rent, office supplies, etc... all
require $$$ and without it abortion clinics could not operate. Tax payer dollars
go to these facilities and therefore support abortions!
@Pagan"until we have a way to effectively communicate with a baby in
gestation"... So using your logic, communication determines life. My
cell phone can communicate does that make it alive? My computer can communicate,
does that make it alive?"I don't mean to be offensive, simply showing
how this same line of thinking can apply to other situations and seem
implausable."Pagan, your logic never holds up.
A fetus is breathing? Really, Too?
Joggle 3:06 p.m.-"most women have already researched, maybe prayed,
and thought deeply about the abortion already."Interesting
point, but how are you in a position to call that a fact? Have you spoken to
every woman who has had an abortion and found that most have acted this way?
The bottom line is that this legislation does nothing more than show the patient
what is going on inside of their body. Why would you or anyone oppose such a
'Having an abortion for convenience is an extremely selfish act.' - Belching Cow
| 2:53 p.m. I can agree. But we're not JUST talking about abortion
for convience, are we? Let me post this again. *'Sharron Angle's
Advice For Rape Victims Considering Abortion: Turn Lemons Into Lemonade' - Sam
Stein - Huffington Post - 07/08/10 Those against abortion do not
stop with abortion for convience, but rather ALL abortion. Even those where the
mother's life is in jepordy, rape, or incest. If we follow the logic
of 'nothing is wrong' with making a woman look at her fetal photo, then why not
have a woman look at a picture of her uterus after rape? Why not
force her to have a conversation with her rapist? I mean, 'nothing is wrong',
right? This opinion is purposfully ignoring the psychological damage
to the woman. Yes, no physical harm is done, but just LOOK at the 'cute,
innocent, harmless little baby you want to kill.' Isn't that like
'How often do you beat your wife?' question? It's a loaded question. There IS no
'right' answer. So too, does it remove choice, when you force an
issue. Good day.
Scare tactics are still alive and well in the world and are used for all sorts
of controlling and manipulative purposes. The manipulation tactics that people
utilize in their belief that the means is worth the end is contradictory to any
kind of just or helpful ends at all and it is certainly in no way supportive of
women. Men should be held accountable for their behaviors, attitudes and actions
and women should support one another and continue to attempt to work toward a
world where people of all sexes can live without the need for domination,
manipulation and scare tactics. This kind of legislation if enacted will have no
impact on the rate of abortion. These politicians (mostly men) think that women
don't know anything about abortions when they come into the doctor's office, and
that's false. They're just continually making hoops that women have to jump
through. If legislators could ban safe and legal abortion tomorrow, they'd do
it, but they can't, so they try all these scare tactics instead. They're
undermining the fact that most women have already researched, maybe prayed, and
thought deeply about the abortion already.
"A cancerous tumor has a mass. It cannot survive outside of the body. It
grows. Therefore, it should also be alive if we applied the same
logic."--PaganA tumor is actually alive. I have taken anatomy,
physiology, pathophysiology and about 5 other biology classes. Cells are the
basic unit of life. A tumor is nothing but a mass of cells. Cells are alive.
Therefore, a tumor is alive. In an attempt to bring down my logic, you actually
supported it.And for the record, a tumor can survive outside the
body. Think about the Hela cells, taken from Henrietta Lacks. She died of
cervical cancer, but those cells from her cancer have been kept and studied and
continue to grow since the 1950's.
Furry. I pulled that directly from the bill. It bypasses the Hyde act. So
you're wrong. Wither it "should" or not doesn't matter. It goes to
fund those clinics and it comes directly from tax payers.
The atrocity of abortion comes from taking something very sacred in nature and
exploiting it like its some kind of casual past time for self gratification.
Having an abortion for convenience is an extremely selfish act. The
consequences are real and they are damaging. Why not let the woman see the
unborn baby she is about to terminate? If nothing is wrong then what are you
To Gunner | 2:23 p.m. April 26, 2011 Not true. The money coming
from the federal government could not be used for abortion services unless it
was to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman, or if the pregnancy
resulted from rape or incest. All funds for abortion services would have to
come from other (private) sources. You're trying to do the equivalent of
equating apples and oranges, and that one doesn't fly.
"Bottom line, until we have a way to effectively communicate with a baby in
gestation, majority of people believe life starts...at birth." - PaganDid you do an informal pole in you office? Thanks for enlightening us
all on what the "majority" believes. 75% of all statistics are totally
'It is. It is breathing. It has a heartbeat.' - TOO | 2:05 p.m.
Following this logic, a heart, is a person. Not the person the heart
is in, the heartbeat the person makes. A pair of lungs, is a person,
they have the capacity to breath, right? A cancerous tumor has a
mass. It cannot survive outside of the body. It grows. Therefore, it should also
be alive if we applied the same logic. I don't mean to be offensive,
simply showing how this same line of thinking can apply to other situations and
seem implausable. Bottom line, until we have a way to effectively
communicate with a baby in gestation, majority of people believe life
starts... at birth. Once the baby is OUTSIDE of the body
of it's mother, it is a seperate, human being. Even Donald Trump cannot
reconcile the 'right to privacy', and the 'right to life', while a baby is
INSIDE of it's mother. How can anything be more invasive that the
'rights' inside a womans uterus? There is a simple way to recognize
this. Do you celebrate the day of your conception... or your
Furry: Again, I stated that many on the left would like to see, or would want
tax funded abortions. But to satisfy you, here you go.According to
Section 10503 of H.R. 3590, $7 billion dollars in taxpayer money is appropriated
over five years for the maintenance of Community Health Centers (also called
Federally Qualified Health Centers, or FQHCs) where abortions are performed.
There are presently over 1,200 such facilities. Because the bill directly
apportions this money, these funds will bypass the annual approval process
through which appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services
typically must pass. Therefore, these funds would not be covered by the Hyde
PaganMay I ask why you keep writing life in quotation marks? Is it
because you don't think it is alive? It is. It is breathing. It has a
heartbeat. It has a developing brain. It is a living being.
And here, all along, I've been told over and over and over by Conservatives that
they support Liberty & Freedom.Well, I'm not surprised in all
honesty. Not in the least.
Pagan, "Should that 'life' then, have a vote before it's born? Tax
protections? What about represnetation?"I think the voting age
will apply to unborn children as well. The life will be taxed
according to income. I guess the "life" would probably get a stimulus
check from Obama if it filed a tax return. Then if the "life" wasn't
born yet, you could kill it and cash the check.I don't have an
answer for legal representation.
'The are many many families who would love to adopt these unborn babies...' -
Rifleman | 12:40 p.m. And yet, we still have children up for
adoption... don't we? The claim that adoption will 'solve'
abortion is false on it's face. As, the second even ONE child has to wait for an
adoption, it is proven to not be a solution. I think America has
more than one child for adoption today, don't we? Also, 40% of
children in America are being raised OUTSIDE the 'ideal' of a mother and father.
Instead, being raised by single parents. Want an example? Bristol
Palin. That's also, from the CDC. Knowledge IS a
punishment... when it is forced. Kind of like trying to
claim a woman has a 'choice' in abortion, and then campainging to force a woman
to have a child. *'Sharron Angle's Advice For Rape Victims
Considering Abortion: Turn Lemons Into Lemonade' - Sam Stein - Huffington Post -
To Gunner | 12:33 p.m. April 26, 2011 South Jordan, UT Furry1993:
Read my post again and see if I stated the left "Wants" or has put it
in bills? Reading comprehension can be tough sometimes I know. ------------------------Okay -- I'll play your silly game. Please
detail specifically the bills/legislation "the left" has filed to
overturn or negate the Hyde Amendment. If, as you claijm, the left
"wants" to fund abortions, the only way it can get its
"wish" is to eliminate the Hyde Amendment. Tell me the specific
legislation they have proposed to do so.
RE: xscribe | 12:08 p.m. April 26, 2011 Letting a mother get the
opportunity to see her baby is a punishment? Knowledge is a punishment?The are many many families who would love to adopt these unborn babies
and they are willing to pay the medical costs associated with the pregnancy.
Win win win for mother, baby and adopting family.
Furry1993: Read my post again and see if I stated the left "Wants" or
has put it in bills? Reading comprehension can be tough sometimes I know.
Yet another way to punish the mother, who is most likely having to make the
difficult decision on her own, as the father is likely to not be found and has
no repercussions. You look at who is introducing these bills, and I'm sure
you'll find that they are males. Until the men - it takes two to conceive - are
made to have some responsibility, these bills will just be a band-aid. Make men
responsible for their action also, and you'll see the abortion rate drop.
To Gunner | 11:47 a.m. April 26, 2011 South Jordan, UT Reasonable
Person: Why not, the left want's us to pay for the abortion! ---------------------Not true. There is nothing, in ANY bill
either proposed or enacted, that allows public money to fund abortions unless
they are necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman, or if
the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. Check out the Hyde Amendment,
and learn something.
Look the victim in the eye, so to speak.
Reasonable Person: Why not, the left want's us to pay for the abortion!
'It might even save a life or two.' - Rifleman | 11:17 a.m. This
would mean that the 'life' is a life, before birth. Should that
'life' then, have a vote before it's born? Tax protections? What about
represnetation? The things that go along with life in this country,
is what many are choosing to ignore. Person brings up a good point
(11:23 a.m.) who will PAY for this? We will. Great way
to 'reduce the debt' there. Since those against abortion have lost
the fight (Roe vs. Wade, 1973) the argument isn't IF a woman should have the
ability to have an abortion, but what they have to DO to HAVE their legally
allowed abortion. Why stop at the viewing? Why not have
anti-abortion volunteers stationed right next to an abortion clinic?
*'Abortion foes' tactics highlight high NYC rate' - By Cristian Salazar - AP -
Published by DSnews - 04/06/11 'Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed a law
last month that mandates all pregnancy centers disclose what services they
offer, including whether they have licensed medical staff and what they do to
protect the privacy of clients. You dont' even need to have a
Re: Reasonable Person | 11:23 a.m. April 26, 2011 The taxpayers pay
for everything else so why not the ultrasounds? What value do we place on a
human life?Are we afraid that a little knowledge will hurt the
Who's going to pay for all of those ultrasounds? The taxpayers?
It sounds reasonable for mothers to see how far their babies have developed
before taking their lives. How can a little knowledge hurt? It might even save
a life or two.