What you are missing is that most of these young girls are opting to keep their babies, as opposed to giving them up for adoption. Adults may be of the age range of 19 plus, which is still pretty young IMO. So again, you are not getting the entire picture.

I love how your stats fit your narrow views. How come you haven't commented on anything but why abortion should be illegal instead of addressing why making them illegal is a bad idea? To clarify, take a look at what will happen if they become illegal. Your personal thoughts aside. Can you do that? Your comments regarding how sick these murderers are says otherwise. Really, until you have walked a mile in someone else's shoes, who are you to judge?

Gotta love the biased religious stance on this. What'd you do, pick the second listing off of Google? if you had looked further you would have found that Post Abortion Syndrome is a term used by pro life advocates. And as Wiki states,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-abortion...ortion_syndrome

To explain further, the clinical depression or anxiety or other problems the woman may be feeling may actually be related more to their "pre-existing social circumstances and emotional health". Furthermore, "Studies have either failed to establish a causal relationship between abortion and negative psychological symptoms experienced by women, or been inconclusive.[8]

Interesting, no?

I do believe in post abortion emotional issues, BUT I also do believe that illegal abortions are worse and probably less easier to treat.

Comparing a life, which begins at conception, to a tumor is something that I find abhorring. I will not say more beyond that other than it is your view and thought that I find abhorring and not you.



What you stated and even ectopic pregnancies could prove harmful to the mother so any abortion would be in self defense. This is not having one as a matter of convenience which is murder.



Where would you infer this from my view? A woman just as a man should have control of their own body but if a man is liable for child support after birth he should also have some responsibility and a say in the life of his child before birth. Goose and gander and it takes two to tango and all that. I say this in all seriousness.



Should we kill others just to make our lifes more comfortable? This is the same as killing someone for an inheritance just so you do not have to be poor.



Wild tangent here about STD's so I will not even comment on them. Did I miss something? If so my answer will be sensible if an STD somehow is going to pose a major threat to the mother or child in which only an abortion can take of.

Studies have shown that rape is the reason for just 1% of all abortions so that too is not a reason for advocating them to be easily available. Never though did I say someone raped should not be able to have one. But the majority of abortions do not need to occur and they are murder, the taking of human life.



Again something that I find abhorring. Equating human life to insects? At least you admit it is killing and the taking of life. Maybe you do not consider it murder since the intent is not there which is fine but I do equate it with murder and do see the intent.



I addressed this before even reading this while reading over your thread and culling parts of it so I could respond to specific paragraphs. It is not wrong in an ectopic pregnancy and I am familiar with the danger they pose.



Another valid point but one that does not justify the many, many abortions that happen for the sake of convenience. All these things you bring up are valid points when considering abortion but they are not the reason the majority get abortions. I find such views that do not even address that abortions happen in many cases just as a matter of convenience very biased and narrow. What about those that have nothing to do with mental health, physical health, or rape? Some do come out and say they simply do not care which is fair but to ignore the point completely seems a bit disengenious if at the same time they only present information that poses danger to the mother or child.



I thank you for not attacking me or my beliefs. I hope that I was able to do the same in return for you but forgive me if my words seemed harsh because abortion is my hot button and I know it should not allow my anger to seep out but this is one issue that stirs me inside so.

I am not for making abortion totally illegal and as you can see from above I see nothing wrong if done in self defense. It is when they are done out of matters of conveninece I get shocked and shooken up. They should not be widely available or pushed onto the populace in the manner they are. It seems almost propagandaish.

How many know that Margaret Sanger, who was the vanguard of modern abortions, also was a proponent of eugenics? When we see that in her twisted view the rise of modern abortions was also part of a plan to cull the worse of society in her opinion to preserve the pure white race. Her racist ideology might not be considered by others when they think abortion but it was a part of her views and anyone can go look them up quite easily if they wish. I do advocate some of the resources that Planned Parenthood offers such as birth control but I do not their message that abortion is not only good but also desirable.

God created you before you became a fetus and by aborting the fetus you are preventing Gods will for that person to live and thus it is a sin. As for the person going into another body, it is not according to the Christian faith that after something dies they go into another body. That is called reincarnation.

Both bombing the doctors and the doctors doing the abortion is Murder, as well as hating the other person for what they did. This is all a sin and is apart from Jesus.

Jesus says to love your enemies and do good to those who hate you.

So what about miscarriages? Did God just decide half-way through that no, you can't have a baby. That's cruel. Why in the world would he let a woman become pregnant only to take away that very life? Talk about emotional trauma. And are babies that are miscarried just as "alive" as other babies that are not? Because then it would be nearly the same thing as abortion. In fact, miscarriages are known as "spontaneous abortions".

Using the word abortion as some kind of political stock? Abortion simply means to stop so naturally a miscarriage will be called one. I do not think using miscarriages is a good idea to validate abortions that are done as a matter of convenience. This is like comparing Sudden Infant Death to all those who shake their babies or beat them to death.

So it's God's will to make a girl go through a horrible experience such as rape? I know you will say we can't understand why God does the things he does. And that is fair, but this is an earthly issue.

Personally, I am not sure if I support the practice of abortion or not, but whatever, if a woman wants to get an abortion that is her own choice, not anybody else.

I love abortion debates, because there is no true neutral stance and either way you can be called a sexist or a baby killer.

o

A tumor is alive, what's the difference? Life began billions of years ago, it doesn't begin at conception. A persons life begins when they finally become somewhat aware of their surroundings and they begin accumulating experiences. If you were killed before that you wouldn't know nor care, you wouldn't be aware that you were even alone, let alone died. Why should someone with no memories, a complete blank slate, be given more rights than a real human being, with at least a few decades of experiences and memories? Life doesn't begin at conception because sperm and eggs are both alive, why do they only count as life to you if they're together? Not all fertilised eggs make it to the womb either, it's completely natural, does that mean mother nature or God is party to countless natural abortions?

We need to get over this idea that human life is some how special and more important than the rest of the life on this planet. We cut down tree's and plants when they get in the way or block our view, we exterminate insects and rodents in our buildings, we burn off warts, all because they annoy us. Why is a fetus more valuable than a tree? Tree's do more in an ecosystem than a lifeform inside a mammals womb. It may seem like a glum mindset, but it's not. I value human life because I am a human, but that doesn't mean it's any more special or important than any of the other species. If I were a tree or a fox I'd likely value my own species over all others too. We could vanish from this planet and the only things the animals would think are "Finally that racket is over" or "They left some nice tall caves behind".

One thing that I think is being overlooked here is the concept of legality. Many people seem to think that abortion should be made illegal but, whether you agree with it or not, women who have unwanted pregnancies will always seek abortions. In the current climate, most women who feel this way are able to seek such operations legally and relatively safely. If abortion is banned, the rate might go down slightly, but the rate of women who seek abortions illegally will soar, along with the complications and deaths associated with the 'backstreet' implication of such operations. Whether we agree with abortion or not, surely this loss of life has to be taken into account?

But aborting an ectopic pregnancy is still murder, so why is it any different? If a mother cannot raise a child on her own, and decides to abort the child for that reason, is it not the same thing? They're both acts of self preservation.

And do you expect a teenage boy to stick with a teenage girl he impregnates? I think not. He'd have to be one special guy if he decided to stay with her. Yes, the two people should be responsible, but the fact is, people won't be. Men won't stay with women who they just use for sex. They just don't, because they're not emotionally attached to the mother or the growing child. So, therefore, if men aren't going to take responisbility and stay with their partner, it should be the woman's choice; otherwise it should be both parent's choice. I thought you meant that it shouldn't be a woman's choice from this post:
But maybe I was jumping to conclusions.

As for STDs, yes, I did go on a bit of a wild rant there, but as abortion is your hot button, rape is my hot button. I can't stand rape. If a movie has rape in it, I won't watch it. But, many, many STDs lead to PIV, or Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, which leads to miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies, and can put the fetus at risk for miscarriage.
PIV: http://www.cdc.gov/std/PID/STDFact-PID.htm
So underneath my big ol' rant there was actually a point, although I didn't make it very clear.

Yes, if people are going to simply be irresponsible then they shouldn't be getting abortions. One student from my middle school got pregnant over the summer between 8th and 9th grade, and she had an abortion. Two words: Simply. Irresponsible. Yes, yes, yes, people should not get miscarriages just because they're running amok having casual sex all the time. BUT, there's an easy way to stop this behavior in it's tracks. 1. The media tells kids that it's perfectly fine to go and have casual sex and that there will be no consequences for doing so. If the media changes it's message, the children and teenagers will change too, because they're an impressionable lot, I must say. But, we can't really do anything about this other than protest, I suppose. 2. EDUCATE teenagers and children about sex. It's time to stop hiding all the info about sex in the closet, because ignoring it isn't going to make a child any less likely to have casual sex. If students were educated about safe-sex practices, STDs, the science behind sex and pleasure, and the consequences of having sex, we would very much be able to reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies that happen each year. Jamie Lynn Spears, while setting a bad example for getting pregnant at 16, is setting a good example for letting her baby be born and raised by her instead of having it aborted like it was no big deal.

Yes, I feel perfectly fine in saying an insect's life is no more important than a humans. It's part of my beliefs. I believe humans are no more important than any other organism on this planet. We're just more "developed"; to the point where we can kill, destroy, rape, maim, burn, and slay for pure pleasure, which is simply abhorrent. For this I feel we're even less important than other animals who only do what they need to in order to survive. Humans are tearing apart our planet, which is so horrid I can barely tell you how much it hurts to see our planet slowly dying because of her own children's mistakes and ego.

I do not consider abortion due to an ectopic pregnancy as murder. It is self defense. The intention is not there to murder but to preserve the life of the mother.



Big respect here from me, like it might even matter to some if I respect them or not, but the honor is still given because you look beyond the usual narrow reasons only given for supporting abortion. Discussing responsibility should always be at the heart of any discussion involving abortion as well as abortions which involve the preservation of the life of the mother and the health of both mother and child.

I agree with your 1 and 2 as well. The media should be more responsible in their presentation of sex but on the other hand that opens up a whole can of worms about censorship. I do think religious ideals should be left out of the question of censorship but a national strategy must be developed that includes both social ills and how much the media influences them from occurring.

Education should be layed out plainly and throughly about sex. Both at home and at school. As far as Jamie Lynn well she is as much a victim as a bad example but I do not think the anger towards her on this issue is justified. No one should be angered at any celebrity because they are bad role models. What is the role model the parents setting not strong and good enough? This goes back to allowing people to letting the media and schools raise their children. I am not naive though and do see how the rise of industrialization and a dual-income family also lends itself to this issue.




Alright I understand now that it is part of your belief system. I do disagree with that view though but can respect it. I disagree because part of equating ourselves with just any life form removes much responsibility that as good stewards of the planet we have a responsibility to take care of it. Instead we are collectively destroying it and not taking that responsibility serious enough especially on a governmental level. I see though that you do take this into account and commend that. We are slowly allowing the planet to die and I do consider the Gaea Theory or hypothesis as valid. The earth is one giant living organism and if something was within us slowly killing us we would do our best to cull it. In this manner I somehow consider the rise of animal attacks (When Animals Attack on Fox lol and elephants attacking at night [I mention this part because of another thread]) humans it is a way of a part of nature striking back at us for being a toxin to the planet.

Would it be safe to say that all of us discussing this issue here are glad that we were not aborted?

I've mentioned it twice but people are so hyped up on pro life they won't read anything else. Ah well, what can ya do?

PS, I agree wholly. We should look to other nations to see what is working and what isn't. I really don't think that anymore sex education is going to help any more than it already is. It isn't just teens facing this issue.

I worked in a doc office many years ago and knew of a married mother of 6 kids, on her 7th abortion. It was really hard not to think badly of her. I remember at the time, I was appalled and disgusted, but then I realized I had no right to judge. How do I know she isn't in a situation she feels she cannot get out of. I don't know what kind of a husband she has. I also don't know if any of her kids was special needs or if they were Catholic. Lots of things I didn't know about this family.

I personally wouldn't be able to do it. I have four kids, having my first whilst not married, and it was a very unexpected pregnancy. But that is just me. I have also stated that I am a product of adoption. But there are people out there who need to have a safe, educated, informed choice. To not do so will merely begin a serious bout of illegal abortions.

Do many of you reading this know that they do second trimester (around the 15th week of pregnancy) fetal screen. (triple marker) THIS really bugs me because it is only a screening. Not a test whereby they can verify if your child has chromosomal problems or what not. This merely tells you your chances of such. Then if your screen is above a certain marker, you go on to have more testing. So, then, if your screening turns into testing and your testing becomes a positive marker for Down's or other, you have the option to abort.

So, here is a new one - who would choose to carry and deliver a baby who (after confirmed testing) may suffer a debilitating illness, with no hope for a normal life, full of pain and suffering? Is abortion right then? Who decides if this is right or wrong?

I can honestly say I was glad I was put up for adoption as my birth mother, much as I love her, did not have much to offer at that time in the way of family. But I have no image of self before birth, so I really don't know if I as a "self" existed before that.

Or maybe we were aborted once but came back again because that was our destiny?

The plot thickens then in that case LadyH and it begins harder and harder to make a judgment call. As far as doing them for convenience's sake I will always be against them. I do see your question still as a matter of convenience to a degree but that is not what I have in mind. I am more for being on the side of aborting in those cases though. Once we get into designer babies though and such through genetic manipulation and on the other side of the coin we are able to check exactly what defects a baby might have then a new line appears which on one extreme some will have abortions if their baby will have the wrong color of eyes or such all the way to the more serious cases of Down's syndrome but there is a vast landscape between the two.

I do think that there are pig-headed people on both sides of the abortion debate who refuse to see common sense IMHO. Those who do not take these instances into account on the Pro-Life side and those do not take responsibility and matters of convenience into account on the other side

LadyH I think it is so sweet you are a product of adoption and I hope your parents were loving. Me and my wife have considered adoption many times and even if a couple can have children naturally they should also consider it since bringing another child into this world is madness to a degree and there are many in need of adoption world wide.

Yeti, most of us are happy to be born but at times suicide can plague many of us and in those cases not everyone wishes that during those moments.

Some believe that Life began a long time ago and is an on going process, & if either the sperm or the egg is dead, then there is no fertilization. I am completely on the side of the mother, she is a human being - complete, free, intelligent and worthy of determining her future. The fetus has human potential, which is great, but does not trump the rights of the mother. I see great loss in abortion, but it cannot be equated with the loss of murdering a human being, because of the difference between potential and being. There are always two-sides to every story & think some of you should listen to what the mother, has to say before you judge her too harshly. However abortion for convenience is is just plain wrong.

Again while I do not totally agree with it it is up to the mother, as always these are my thoughs on the matter.

The bold is key. I think it is natural for us to be in a quandry about such things, the line is easy to blur between potential and being.

While I agree mostly with what you say, I disagree that sex education isn't an issue. Even speaking for myself.. I'm 24, so I was in school less than a decade ago - even then we were taught abstinence over everything else. It's a method of education that doesn't accept the fact that young people will have sex, and as such fails to address it on practical terms.

Sex education has to go beyond abstinence only. Lady O has the right idea. Another thing that should be stamped out is the notion of 'do not have the kid because you are going to ruin your life and it will get in the way of college'. I so abhor that line of reasoning. Be responsible and work harder to accomplish your goals even if bringing a life into this world while doing it. Others have done it.

norwood your view is really great in this area. I do disagree with the part of when life begins. For me it is at conception. The idea behind potential vs being is just a cop out IMHO and allows people to sleep easier at night. When someone is pregnant does anyone ever say 'aww' a baby while touching the mother's belly (if the mother allows this)? Most people consider what is within a baby. Even a couple when knowing the mother is first pregnant instantly go to the belly and think good thoughts about a baby within. No one ever says aww a fetus or aww an embryo. It is life, it is magical, those who cherish it know this from the moment the pregnancy is known to exist.

I also disagree that it should all be about the mother. It is not that case once the child is born. A father should have more input on whether a baby is brought to term or not. This should be legalized IMHO. Maybe it would lead to having less sex if the father had input on whether it should be aborted or not. I would still be against doing so out of convenience but it is a separate issue. Men should have some rights if they are instantly liable for child support once it is born then they should have a say before it is born.

Ah, I agree with you. Humans value human life over all others, but it shouldn't be the case. We take it as our "responsibility" to control the population of other species, but do nothing with ourselves. That's not saying we should all go out and get abortions, but that we need to stop and consider what we will do when we "run out of space" not to mention resources. We've pushed all other species to the edges to make room for our own lack of foresight.

I have to say that saying abortions are convenient "ways out" to people who are just "not taking responsibility" is inaccurate in most cases. Lack of education is a big problem, and I myself had to sit through "abstinance only" sex ed and can say that it teaches nothing. Of course one would have to consider the fact that birth control fails. . .more than most think. . .I've gotten pregnant while using several birth control methods a couple of times. . .both resulted in miscarriage (I'm assuming from getting pregnant on birth control?) and I had to go in to get D & C's. . .which follows the same technique as abortion. . .but is used in miscarriages to make sure all the tissue is out to prevent infection. I have to say that its a painful procedure, and I'm sure no one in their right mind would use it as an "easy way out". Not to mention the expense (anywhere from $375- $500 in most places) and difficulty of getting an abortion in the first place. Most states have laws that make the woman go in for counseling at least 24 hours before the procedure. Most people, especially down south, have to go to other states to have the procedure done. It's not an easy thing to get done, and I'm sure most people don't do it unless they have given it serious thought. There will always be the few that do have it done because its "easier", but most of the women that I've talked to that have gotten it done gave it serious thought.

I've spent alot of my time talking to women that have gotten abortions done and most, after the procedure, did not suffer any post abortion trauma. I have encountered very few women that did, and, in those cases, it was usually deeply religious women that believed abortion was a sin. The fact that I encountered those women in the first place is saying something. They were the ones that were anti-abortion, yet they found themselves in positions to get one. . .in a few cases, rape was involved. Many states are standing at the ready (meaning they have "trigger" bans which go into effect almost immediately), if Roe vs. Wade should ever be overturned, to ban abortion completely (except for when the mothers life is at stake). Some are planning on making exceptions for incest and rape, but others aren't even willing to allow that.

I can't say that I would ever get one. . .but I'd honestly be afraid if abortions were outlawed. Women would turn to getting illegal abortions, which would lead to a high number of women dying from unsafe and unsanitary conditions. Not to mention more women would start turning to herbal methods, which, if someone with poor herbal knowledge were to try, would also more than likely lead to death or severe illness.

*and, in case you're wondering why I've talked to "so many" women that have gotten abortions in the first place, I used to help out as a "student couselor" at one of the clinics down here. . edit: not an abortion clinic, but a women's clinic that did follow up exams as well as other things*

Edit again- I forgot to add the fact that pharmacies are allowed to refuse the filling of birth control due to religious standings. I've had it done to me a couple of times. I had to drive to a pharmacy 45 minutes away to get my birth control. Many view birth control as a form of "abortion" and its a big issue in some places. . .I think some people just like to think women should stay at home and have babies, or never have sex.

The huge difference between an ectopic is that the baby would not survive I have personal experience with this issue and you can't even compare the two!

I'm neutral about it. If I was I wouldn't have cared one iota.

Sweetsalem your post has been one of the most informative and well thought out posts when it comes to the opposite side of the coin as me. I appreciate your input and know most of it is derived from actual knowledge of the situation rather than just a cold political argument that lacks all that you are able to offer on this topic.

sandee yep, ectopic pregnancies cannot be compared.

It's interesting because you can have non religious people who are still fiercely against abortion.

But a seperation of church and state is so desperately needed - especially since we can see how damaging our society is when people use their primitive religious beliefs in forming laws/running a country. (Just look at countries in the Middle East, or even the USA...which is probably the most primitive and violent country of them all!).

Abortion is fine by me. There's a reason why you can't abort after a certain amount of time, because that fetus has already developed a consciousness. When an abortion is performed, it's not killing babies at all because the baby hasn't even formed yet.

Overpopulation is such a problem, but in relation to this, having unwanted children is a problem for society. A child that grows up in disharmony because their very presence is unwanted can only have repercussions on society. This person will only contribute negativity toward society (if they let this disharmony get to them).

-josh

The fact is... government and laws are NOT based on souls, saying "Its alive as soon as its conceived" Is ONLY an opinion and science tends to disagree with anyone who believes this. Much of the anti-abortion propaganda is based around the church... which, strangely enough, shuns birth control. When you get away from the religious aspect.. you have people.. not just women.. who are looking out for themselves. Thats the way humans have been doing it for thousands of years, and it shouldn't change.

Yes, a woman should be allowed to say "Hey, I'm 22 years old, I'm in collage, I want to get a degree and a good job and THEN have a family.. and having this baby with this man I might not marry will destroy not only my life, but the life of the child, and any children I might have." That sounds like a very reasonable decision. It has nothing to do with rape, nothing to do with finances, nothing to do at ALL with religion. Its a woman deciding what is right for herself and her children.. CHILDREN.. not just the one she may abort. Its not just her body.. its her LIFE... her entire existence.. and that brings me to adoption.

If a woman can't handle the trauma of abortion.. how the heck is she going to take the trauma of losing something she has carried for 9 months, felt growing inside her? This is one I don't think any man could EVER understand. Once you make that commitment.. once you decide to bring that life into the world there is no turning back. Its never an easy choice to give up a child.. EVER, but to feel it kicking and knowing you're going to have to go through the pain of birth, that you are willing to suffer for that life.. not just bodily... lose your job, lose your friends, lose your family.. If a woman will make that much of a commitment to a life.. why in the world would she give it up? If people want to whine and moan about adopting children because they can't have their own... why does it HAVE to be a baby? If you are going to take the responsibility.. take it for a 6 year old whos family is dead.. or a teen who needs a family before they fall through the cracks. There are MILLIONS of children who need homes.. and no one will take them because they're not cute and tiny and drooling? Thats BEE ESS.


I thought I would bring this up as well. What good will making abortions illegal do? WHAT will the punishment be.. can you really make a law that will kill thousands of women?

Libertyville Abortion Demonstration

[/rant]

If I had been aborted, I would not have suffered the slightest inconvenience considering that I wasn't alive. If I was dead, then I wouldn't exist so it doesn't really matter. The fact is that I wasn't aborted, that's just what happened and I'm not particularly glad about it either way because if I was aborted then I just wouldn't be alive to care about it.

i agreee with the entirty of my heart

Me too!

And better yet, if the aborted spirit doesn't go into another body, then I would imagine that it would go straight to Heaven. That is, unless this unborn soul's Original Sin damns it to hell. Oh merciful Gawd.

Original sin only means one will always resort to sin when they enter the age of reasoning. Babies do not sin and their conscience will judge them clean according to Romans 2.



Souls and science? When was this introduced into the debate? Life begins at conception has nothing to do with souls in this matter. Pro-life advocates are not only religion based. You do not have to be religious to have morals. No one here has yet announced opposition to birth control including all the Christians of this forum. I do understand some forms of contraception do lead to an abortion of the embryo and such. Your opinion though that life begins after conception is not scientific it is highly political. Science and politics are not the same. This is not a scientific debate but a political and moral debate.

But here is a bit of science. Here are some facts when life begins. Sixteen days after conception gastrulation occurs. Hybrid from different species who conceive do not get past this stage since life is self aborted because their genetics are not compatible (I could be wrong about the exact reasons here). This is the point that nature disallows life to continue between species.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilisation

o

Firstly, why post scriptures then if this is not a religious based stance (being pro-life)?

Next, Kyrus stated "Much of the anti-abortion propaganda is based around the church" which you proved by providing a very slanted bunch of stats from a religious website.

And then to imply that deciding to be pro choice makes one moral-less?

Sorry, don't mean to pick, but there are some very educated, moralistic, intelligent, and sensitive people posting here, that might take offense at this.

I am with you also, as a PERSONAL choice, but where do we draw the line? Who decides what fetus survives into infancy? Would the medical insurance companies say that people can't have a special needs baby because it is too costly? Or would the euthanasia advocates support aborting an unhealthy fetus? Who decides? I guess the person or body with the right to make this decision is the person who ultimately is responsible for the baby's care after it is born. I think the most noble is to give it (a healthy infant) up to a family who wants/needs/deserves a baby. But again, this is my personal feeling. Man this is definitely a difficult subject to keep personal feelings out of. After all is said and done, I cannot tell any other woman what to do with her body. I learned this after not speaking to my best friend for months after learning about the decision she had to make when we were in high school. (Again - personal feelings!)

However - I don't believe a fetus is a baby. I have seen animal sacs at various stages of embryos and while I had to draw the line at the abortion/spaying of an almost full term cat (that was awful watching the sac of kittens die) I have to say there is not much there but a bunch of non formed cells at various points early in the pregnancy. I cannot believe that a lump of cells has feelings. This likely is the only reason I can accept abortion in early trimester.

Oh and yes my parents were and are absolutely loving to this day. Luckier still, am I as that my birth parents, i have been able to meet and they are/were wonderful people despite some issues in their past (hippie love! lol) My birth dad has since died. Thanks for your words. Today, unfortunately, unless you are VERY wealthy, it is difficult to adopt, unless it is privately, and/or abroad. Then there are many many hassles to get through, but many, including me, believe it is worth it.

If you don't believe that a soul enters at the very moment of conception, then when you say that life begins at conception, you are just being ignorant. A clump of cells, not even a fetus, is not life. You have no reason to believe it is unless you believe that clump of cells has a soul.

The only reason I mentioned Romans 2 was because someone implied Christians believed that a baby might go to hell because of original sin. It was in reference to that point alone and not the general debate. Should I stand idly by and let misconceptions, especially such warped ones, go on without at least voicing the truth? Would you have let is slide if someone said pagans were baby murderers in sacrifice or something? I do not think they are but if someone else mentioned that?

When did I post a bunch of slanted stats from a religious website? If you mean that only 6.1% of abortions were because of harm to the mother or child then that was from Minnesota State University Moorehead which is a public university. If it was about the Post Abortion Syndrome then fair call but they were not stats which does not take away from your calling me on it. Did you mean something else I posted?

Again fair call about morals.

Good to hear about your parents and that you also got to met both your birth parents and that they were wonderful to you as well. Adoption is very wonderfulo but as you say it can be expensive and has many requirements. Even overseas adoptions have their challengs. Me and my wife were looking into a Chinese adoption. Their one child policy means many just dump their girls at orphanages and such since raising them would not allow for the more prized son in their culture since a son is more likely to be able to take care of them in their old age. Truly glad that some families are just ignoring the one child policy altogether.

Early stages of life might not have feelings but the sanctity of life should be recognized. Either way glad you draw the line in your mind (or is it heart?) at the second trimester. Where to draw the line in any case is a difficult task and pro-lifers who just draw it broadly across the board need to take into account a few factors. I am not for telling a woman what to do with her body either (I do think men should have some say as well maybe not legally but socially the message should not be a men has no right to even enter in the decision) and most of my approach at stemming abortions comes in the form of society receiving the message through various mediums (entertainment industry especially) that it is ok to not be responsible when it comes to sex and it is doubly OK to just terminate pregnancy just because you want to go to college. There are a whole other set of things that could be done in many areas to make society better. In some ways I do support making abortions illegal if the health of the mother or child are not at stake. Mental health is included in that. I understand it is terrible a few would go for back alley abortions but in the end only a few would try such and most would just be more responsible before either getting pregnant or would think doubly hard about bringing it to full term. There needs to be more education about mental health as well and the risks I think are there when getting pregnant while already depressed before hand. It is a tough issue through and through and ya I will just bow out because it is so emotional for me and I tend to make bad comments like I did about morals. Thank you for being kind about my position and kindly explaining why you disagreed with some of it and also in how you agreed with parts of it to.



That is not true I believe life begins at conception regardless. A clump of cells that has the potential to be birthed as a human in nine months or so to me is not potential of life it is life. Now that you mention souls and want to get religious and such the Bible does not mention exactly when a soul enters a body so anything would be a guess. It does say God knew us before we were formed or is it while we were formed? I forget and not going to look it up since this is not really a religious debate. Either way my view has nothing to do with souls but with the potential of being born which to me is not the potential of life but is the very first stages of life. As I stated before when a couple first realize they are having a child and are planning to bring it to term, they know life has began, they know a human life is in the mother. Anyone saying other wise I want to say they are just rationalizing but I will bow out from this thread in this manner and might post once more not to continue in the debate but simply offer some excerpts from a script of a program that talks about life.

Oh you posted this: http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/Post...on-Syndrome.htm

which is a religious pro life website.

That is the problem. Most of us have differing beliefs, so who is right? Bottom line is that if abortion is made illegal, women/girls will still be looking for that option. And by saying to abstain, well, let's be realistic, how many teens will not be curious, especially with hormones raging through their bodies. Educate them, not hide from the subject. Allow condom machines in school for the 'what if' situation. It is better to be prepared than to do something stupid because the moment got away from you.

He is wrong when he says that a clump of cells if life. He even said himself that it is "potential" life. That's not life. You can barely argue a fetus, but not a clump of cells.

Believe me, I have no sympathy for the fools who get themselves pregnant in high school. They've done it to themselves, but they deserve the right to choose regardless.

Posting again because of this comment though I agree with many of the points others have made. Either way maybe you misread but please do not misquote me. I never said it is potential life. I said it was life.

These posts grow so quickly what i have to say may have been covered already. Being against abortion is not a religious position.It is an ethical position. My view was established ethically, before i became"religious' but the ethics of most religions would also oppose it. First, human life is significant, especially because it incorporates a self aware intelligence, apparently unique in the known universe. Thus any destruction of human life should occur only with very convincing ethical agrument.
Every child, once conceived, which does not have a genetic or other flaw will, under normal circumstances, grow into a full human being. Thus destruction of a baby pre birth is logically and ethically no different to doing so after birth.
One factor which may moderate a baby's right to life, is that of the mothers prior right to life and fréedom from the threat of death or severe physical harm through carrying or delivering a baby. Thus, in those cases, under medical direction a mother may ethically choose to abort a baby(although many will not chose to do so even under those circumstances)

Unfair as it may seem, because of the biology of it, a female is the incubator of new life, for almost every species on earth. Just because human females have the ability to freely choose to abort does not give them the ethical right to do so.
The absolute right of one human to live, ie the child, overides ethically the lesser rights of another human, ie the mother. So economic, social or other considerations are not ethical reasons to allow abortion. Even a child, the product of a rape, has the right to be born.
What may happen after birth should not influence whether a child has a right to life as this right is unconditional on other factors. eg a woman might understandably not want to keep a product of a rape or other circumstance. Nonetheless, this does not overide the childs right to life. After it is born, society needs to establish rules and structures for the nurture'and protection of that child until its maturity.

Abortion is a social cop out, not only for many individual women, but for society as a whole. As a modern western society we are only just starting to establish how much influence the state has over all children, what are universal children's rights, and where parents responsibilities and duties begin, and end. As a society, in allowing abortion, we tend to devalue not only the unborn child, but the young child as well. Children are increasingly viable from a very early age and need to be recognised as separate human entities, with inalienable rights at least from the time they are potential viable with current medical care.

Things like overpopulation, or whether the child is wanted by its parents, are irrelevant, ethically. By 2050 the worlds fertility rate wil have dropped to lower than replacement level and othe world population will begin to decline. Should women then be forced to have more children to ensure the survival of humanity. of course not, and neither can overpopulation be used as a reason not to have children (the highest birthrates remain in countries where people can least afford children, while developed countries have the lowest fertility rates.)







But when a woman is bearing a child it is not JUST her body. Not physically, not intellectually, and not ethically/morally. The child is not simply an organ of her body to dispose of as she wills, as part of her right over her own body. Many people like to think this way because it makes moral choices easier, but it is clearly not accurate.

"A clump of cells that has the potential to be birthed as a human in nine months or so to me is not potential of life it is life."

You called it a clump of cells that has the potential to become a human, then you went on to say that you believed it not to be potential life, but life. I didn't mean to misquote you but you called it potential. Potential life is just not life. It may have the potential to become life, but it is not alive. A formless mass of cells has not even a drip of consciousness and is not life.

Y'know, one of my dearest friends had an abortion about 8 years ago. She is a psychic and had been in conscious contact with the soul that wanted to "come in" through her for years previously--she'd seen the child, a happy curly haired blond girl, in many visions and dreams. I saw the girl once myself. But at the time, it was her decision not to complete the pregnancy. And she had the abortion. She suffered a lot of depression for a while afterward, more than anyone expected. The soul in question came to her in a dream, telling her not to worry, she'd be back later. Now, 2 years ago my friend got pregnant again and she was newly married and very happy and she knew it was time. And now her happy curly haired daughter is two and they're as happy as any family I have ever known.

As a witch and a clairvoyant, myself, I see absolutely nothing "wrong" with a woman deciding that it is not time. That is her right as the gate keeper, so to speak. The incarnating soul is, of course, unharmed. As far as I know, Nature has granted the mother this sovereignty and no one else has any say in the matter. To call abortion murder is nonsense. We prosecute murderers on the premise that if they are allowed to "get away with murder" they may very well kill again when it suits them. Murder is a morally corrosive act. I have known several women in my life who've had abortions and none of them have moved on to a life of crime.

EXACTLY! So true! I get sick of hearing the word fetus for a baby in any unborn stage. I totally think that anyone who kills a woman who is pregnant, should get it for double homicide. And one never knows who they are aborting...it could be the person who would cure a hideous disease or save millions from starvation, poverty....on and on. As for the "church" saying no to condoms, that isn't my church. That is a catholic thing, not a Christian thing. The best bet is to not get pregnant in the first place. Educate and equip, cause it's unfortunately gonna happen that kids won't say no to sex. Sigh

Perhaps I have missed it but I do not think anyone has said anything about a child that is going to born be brain dead or a child that is going to be born out of incest. A childborn of incest could have a serious defect of some sort, which could hender him/her though life. I'm just wonder how fair is it to the child who is going be paralized or worse?


I will say this abortion should NEVER be used as a form of birth control! If you do not want a baby then do not have sex or use some legal form of birth control. IF your going to have sex then your making that choice to you should make the choice to have safe sex! If your not having safe sex then you should not be having it because it makes your personally responsable for what the outcome may be.

Good point norwood. it was inherent in my pov if not explicit that some children will never become human. Normally they would abort spontaneuosly but this is not always the case. Two dillemas here. When is a child so abnormal that it ceases to be human and if society insists that mothers carry severly physically or mentally abnormal children to birth then can society expect individual mothers to look after those children for however long they might live, or does that ethicaly then become the states duty and responsibility.

Actually, statistically, a child born of incest is not necessarily like to suffer ill effects. Studies in communities where this happens have found that most symptoms such as low iq are related to education and social standards and conditions rather than genetic flaws. Although continued inbreeding of a small population over many generations wil tend to cause an increase in genetic abnormalities, one off cases of incest rarely do so. (despite the media speculation about the curent case in Europe)

However, genetic testing and other tests can certainly indicate severe risks for unborn children from many causes, and what should be done about such children poses an interesting ethical question.



Duh! There's enough difference, so that most will happilly eat both an egg, and a grown up chicken, but very few will eat a young child. You cant compare two different value sets.
We kill and eat unborn and born chickens, we should not kill (or eat) unborn or born humans.

But what is abortion if not birth control. That's exactly what it is. Fools who get themselves pregnant due unsafe sex are nothing but fools, and though they are fools, they deserve the right to abort. It isn't fair that they be deprived of their rights for acting irresponsibly. You may discourage it if you like, but it is their right to choose in the end and should remain their right to choose.

I did not call it a clump of cells that has the potential to become a human. Please do not misquote me. 'Potential to be birthed as a human' does not mean it is any less human within the womb. I understand your point but please do not twist mine around. I never said it was not human or had the potential to become human. Even single celled bacteria are 'alive' btw.

Thank you for posting Mr Walker. Your initial post made points about ethics that had not yet been introduced that I know of into this thread.

For others I do take into account the emotions of the mother (and the father) and the many negative feelings one might have that might lead them to abortion. The fear, the depression, the anxiety, the what ifs, and how would life


Here is my final post with excerpts from the transcript from a NOVA episode which aired in 2001. It is about life.



We were all a single cell once.



Any child will have features from both parents. It will look like both the father and mother and begins developing in the womb. They might have the father's eyes or the mother's eyebrows. They might have the mother's smile or even the father's posture when he looks up to you.



The path to fertilization is fascinating so read the main article if you wish. But a woman's body controls whether she will conceive or not.



From the very first stages the life fights to survive and depends on the mother accepting the life inside her.



The mother's immune system might change but one of the miracles of life is even the father can get morning sickness. Showing there is some connection to him and that child. It does not happen all the time but it does happen.



Just about three weeks later a heart begins to beat.



Actually all embryos are girls until a gene called SRY is necessary to make it a boy before chromosomes come into play. But now that I read further past the quote below I see this is explained in this article. Moving on and reading further still.



A little bit of magic. Will it work?