Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
preacherman76

Abortion and medical ethics

259 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beckys_Mom

Im telling you that the people who are involved in medical ethics are now saying its Ok to kill babies And this is what you come out with????????????????????

((HUGS)))... It's ok Preacherman.. Those of us that know you, we know that you love babies and you feel they have the rights to be born and live, to be given that chance

I agree with you.. When some women have late abortions, it seems OK to kill the babies who once were alive and kicking in their tummies.. But if the same women give birth a number of weeks later and killed them themselves, oh then see that's murder... Frankly I see no real difference in that respect

I personally could not arrange to have my baby killed and put to death all because it was a inconvenient to me.. That would make me cold hearted and evil

But in saying that.. some women have had to have abortions because of serious health issues.. This I do understand

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Helen of Annoy

Infanticide and abortion are a Eugenics dream.

No, it's sterilisation, because eugenics nightmares are constantly somehow pregnant so abortion is not efficient method.

Legalising infanticide is so obviously insane and unacceptable idea it's not really worth commenting it, except that putting infanticide in the same article with abortions is pure troll (attempt to equalize killing of a child able to live with removing a pile of cells from someone's uterus, a pile that may or may not become a child one day in relatively distant future).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cassea

No, it's sterilisation, because eugenics nightmares are constantly somehow pregnant so abortion is not efficient method.

Legalising infanticide is so obviously insane and unacceptable idea it's not really worth commenting it, except that putting infanticide in the same article with abortions is pure troll (attempt to equalize killing of a child able to live with removing a pile of cells from someone's uterus, a pile that may or may not become a child one day in relatively distant future).

I find this a bit dishonest. Unless I'm mistaken. If so please correct me. But abortions are done removing a "pile of cells" a pile of cells conveys the idea that it's just this gloop. Basically drool or a clump of blood. But aren't most abortions actually cutting out a fetus? Not just this blob. But an actual already formed baby? I know there are pills that can cause the cells not to attach. But I guess I've always been confused why people try to reduce it to a "pile of cells" as if it is a petri dish content. If you are willing to chop up and hose out a fetus. Shouldn't it be honestly described? I tend not to really get into these conversations. So I'm not very knowledgeable. If I'm wrong please correct me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HerNibs

I find this a bit dishonest. Unless I'm mistaken. If so please correct me. But abortions are done removing a "pile of cells" a pile of cells conveys the idea that it's just this gloop. Basically drool or a clump of blood. But aren't most abortions actually cutting out a fetus? Not just this blob. But an actual already formed baby? I know there are pills that can cause the cells not to attach. But I guess I've always been confused why people try to reduce it to a "pile of cells" as if it is a petri dish content. If you are willing to chop up and hose out a fetus. Shouldn't it be honestly described? I tend not to really get into these conversations. So I'm not very knowledgeable. If I'm wrong please correct me.

Here are some statistics from the CDC. They are a bit old but still very informative.

In contrast to the percentage distribution of abortions and abortion rates, abortion ratios were highest at the extremes of reproductive age, both in 2007 and throughout the entire period of analysis. During 1998--2007 abortion ratios decreased among women in all age groups except for those aged <15 years.

In 2007, most (62.3%) abortions were performed at ≤8 weeks' gestation, and 91.5% were performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation. Few abortions (7.2%) were performed at 14--20 weeks' gestation, and 1.3% were performed at ≥21 weeks' gestation. During 1998--2007, the percentage of abortions performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation remained stable; however, abortions performed at ≥16 weeks' gestation decreased by 13%--14%, and among the abortions performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation, the percentage performed at ≤6 weeks' gestation increased 65%.

In 2007, 78.1% of abortions were performed by curettage at ≤13 weeks' gestation, and 13.1% were performed by early medical abortion (a nonsurgical abortion at ≤8 weeks' gestation); 7.9% of abortions were performed by curettage at >13 weeks' gestation. Among the 62.3% of abortions that were performed at ≤8 weeks' gestation, and thus were eligible for early medical abortion, 20.3% were completed by this method.

Here is a general description of processes.

Nibs

ETA - embryonic stages

Edited by HerNibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FurthurBB

Infanticide and abortion are a Eugenics dream.

No they are not. Eugenics were all about sterilization. Abortion and infanticide have nothing to do with that, especially when they are healthy. I really think this was written by some anti-abortion person who thought they were being bright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FurthurBB

I find this a bit dishonest. Unless I'm mistaken. If so please correct me. But abortions are done removing a "pile of cells" a pile of cells conveys the idea that it's just this gloop. Basically drool or a clump of blood. But aren't most abortions actually cutting out a fetus? Not just this blob. But an actual already formed baby? I know there are pills that can cause the cells not to attach. But I guess I've always been confused why people try to reduce it to a "pile of cells" as if it is a petri dish content. If you are willing to chop up and hose out a fetus. Shouldn't it be honestly described? I tend not to really get into these conversations. So I'm not very knowledgeable. If I'm wrong please correct me.

Most abortions in the US are done in the first 16 weeks by suction. There is no cutting involved. There is also no baby involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cassea

This is a fetus at 16 weeks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthpicturegalleries/6255474/A-Child-is-Born-Photographs-of-the-foetus-developing-in-the-womb-by-Lennart-Nilsson.html?image=3

16 weeks. The foetus uses its hands to explore its own body and its surroundings...

I would not characterize this as a "pile of cells." I would call that fetus a baby.

Edited by Cassea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

No they are not. Eugenics were all about sterilization. Abortion and infanticide have nothing to do with that, especially when they are healthy. I really think this was written by some anti-abortion person who thought they were being bright.

Of course they are. They just couldnt sell the public that undesirables must be sterilized anymore. So they went on to phase 2, abortion. The same exact people who pushed sterilization were suddenly the ones screaming "rights" and "choice". Through it the have been able to eliminate millions. Now they are looking for aproval for stage 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FurthurBB

Nor would I characterize it as a baby, because it is not. Also, if you read correctly, before 16 weeks, not at 16 weeks. And according to the information provided, most are before 8 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

Why was my title changed??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

Most abortions in the US are done in the first 16 weeks by suction. There is no cutting involved. There is also no baby involved.

This looks like a baby to me at 16 weeks --> http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-16-weeks

Week by week the get bigger and more developed.. So yes IMO they are killing an actual baby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HerNibs

Of course they are. They just couldnt sell the public that undesirables must be sterilized anymore. So they went on to phase 2, abortion. The same exact people who pushed sterilization were suddenly the ones screaming "rights" and "choice". Through it the have been able to eliminate millions. Now they are looking for aproval for stage 3.

Just looking for clarification - do you believe that pro-choice individuals would condone the killing of newborns?

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FurthurBB

Of course they are. They just couldnt sell the public that undesirables must be sterilized anymore. So they went on to phase 2, abortion. The same exact people who pushed sterilization were suddenly the ones screaming "rights" and "choice". Through it the have been able to eliminate millions. Now they are looking for aproval for stage 3.

Delude yourself all you want, only the choir will ever believe this nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Helen of Annoy

I find this a bit dishonest. Unless I'm mistaken. If so please correct me. But abortions are done removing a "pile of cells" a pile of cells conveys the idea that it's just this gloop. Basically drool or a clump of blood. But aren't most abortions actually cutting out a fetus? Not just this blob. But an actual already formed baby? I know there are pills that can cause the cells not to attach. But I guess I've always been confused why people try to reduce it to a "pile of cells" as if it is a petri dish content. If you are willing to chop up and hose out a fetus. Shouldn't it be honestly described? I tend not to really get into these conversations. So I'm not very knowledgeable. If I'm wrong please correct me.

It’s a pile of cells. That’s why sane people can approve of abortion in early pregnancy, when there’s no chance that pile can feel anything. What was called “partial birth” in crazy US is not abortion, it’s butchering. No one sane can approve of that, just like no one sane could ever approve of killing living, breathing babies.

Example to clear the pile of cells issue: it’s an old custom not to announce your pregnancy for first two months, because that’s when it becomes serious, after those first two months. When early pregnancy is lost it’s hard too, of course, emotionally, but biologically speaking it’s not as big deal as it is if almost viable baby goes away.

Timing is everything here.

I have never heard of a woman who was happy to have an abortion, but that option must exist, though it has to be last of last choices, the desperate option.

No woman today can say she didn’t know how babies are made, and how to avoid that, but no one knows what life can bring and what kind of insane situation you can find yourself in. That’s why there must be choice. If for no other reason, then because my uterus is my uterus, not preacher’s, pope’s or anyone else’s. Mine. I decide if I’m going to grow someone inside it or not. Period. No pun intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

Nor would I characterize it as a baby, because it is not. Also, if you read correctly, before 16 weeks, not at 16 weeks. And according to the information provided, most are before 8 weeks.

Actually women have had it done at 16 weeks and upwards to 20 weeks... This is a fact... not some opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthpicturegalleries/6255474/A-Child-is-Born-Photographs-of-the-foetus-developing-in-the-womb-by-Lennart-Nilsson.html?image=1

This is 8 weeks. I count 10 fingers and 10 toes. That is a living human. But what ever gets you through the night I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FurthurBB

This looks like a baby to me at 16 weeks --> http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-16-weeks

Week by week the get bigger and more developed.. So yes IMO they are killing an actual baby

Well, it is not a baby, but you have the right to believe whatever you want.

Why was my title changed??

Probably because it was untrue and misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

Well, it is not a baby, but you have the right to believe whatever you want.

Yes it is a baby and it is not just an opinion.. It is a baby in developement Still living, heart beating, kicking baby... I know I hapen to be pregnant at the min and felt it kick around 16 weeks myself.. So YES it is a baby..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cassea

I think it is wishful thinking to say a baby can't feel anything. It's the same justification for eating lobster boiled alive. "it can't feel it." If you are willing to kill it, at least acknowledge the truth. You are killing a baby.

This is the fetus at 8 weeks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthpicturegalleries/6255474/A-Child-is-Born-Photographs-of-the-foetus-developing-in-the-womb-by-Lennart-Nilsson.html?image=1

I would not characterize this as a "pile of cells" I would call it a fetus. By suggesting that it is a "pile of cells" you are dehumanizing it to make it more justifiable. It's not a pile of cells. Not at all. It's a fetus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FurthurBB

Actually women have had it done at 16 weeks and upwards to 20 weeks... This is a fact... not some opinion

Not where I live, because it is illegal. 14 & 1/2 weeks is the latest you can have an abortion in my state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

Delude yourself all you want, only the choir will ever believe this nonsense.

Believe what you want. I didnt say anything that isnt 100% documented fact. But then, Im talking to someone who justifies the shed blood of the most innocent among us. It must take some serious twisted understanding to reach that conclution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HerNibs

I think it is wishful thinking to say a baby can't feel anything. It's the same justification for eating lobster boiled alive. "it can't feel it." If you are willing to kill it, at least acknowledge the truth. You are killing a baby.

This is the fetus at 8 weeks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthpicturegalleries/6255474/A-Child-is-Born-Photographs-of-the-foetus-developing-in-the-womb-by-Lennart-Nilsson.html?image=1

I would not characterize this as a "pile of cells" I would call it a fetus. By suggesting that it is a "pile of cells" you are dehumanizing it to make it more justifiable. It's not a pile of cells. Not at all. It's a fetus.

No, it isn't "killing a baby". It is terminating a non-viable fetus.

NOW - like I said, I am pro-choice but I am even more pro-education.

I would hope that someday abortion isn't even a debatable topic because contraception is so widely used and understood that "abortion" is just something that is considered in life and death situations.

But until that point, I have to go with being pro-choice.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

Not where I live, because it is illegal. 14 & 1/2 weeks is the latest you can have an abortion in my state.

A late-term abortion often refers to an induced abortion procedure that occurs after the 20th week of gestation.<-- sometimes that can be up to 21-22 weeks.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy

A 20 week ultrasound scan is known as the BIG one.. You get to see your baby and it can tell you the gender, and if there is anything wrong with it ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FurthurBB

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthpicturegalleries/6255474/A-Child-is-Born-Photographs-of-the-foetus-developing-in-the-womb-by-Lennart-Nilsson.html?image=1

This is 8 weeks. I count 10 fingers and 10 toes. That is a living human. But what ever gets you through the night I guess.

Whatever makes you feel self righteous, I do not need help getting through the night. I had one sort of abortion at a Catholic hospital and though the whole experience was traumatizing, the end was actually the least traumatic. When I say that to people my husband always says, it wasn't really an abortion and I guess technically he is right. It was more like completing a miscarriage that wouldn't complete on its own and all they gave me was a drug to dilate my cervix. Either way I would not have felt bad about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Helen of Annoy

Sure. Its a full baby as soon as holy sperm dives into not as holy but almost holy egg and it sings hosanna.

Then comes evil eugenic monster and rips that tiny but full person out, because thats what evil people do for fun.

Most such foetuses were Beethovens, and thats why modern music sucks, because of abortion that took all Beethovens away, leaving only Puff Daddys around.

The moral of the story is: use contraception. So I dont have to lead pointless discussions with religious nuts who love to exaggerate when it suits their irrational agendas.

Depopulation or overpopulation, both ideas are insane and invade my ****en privacy.

End of story.

Edited by Helen of Annoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.