There has been rowe v. wade, etc. Is abortion clear cut murder or do you think there are special cases and exceptions?
Is it murder when you take the life of a pregnant women resulting in the childs death? A lot of states file homicide charges x 2!
When do we classify somebody as dead?
When the heart stops beating. That is why somebody can technically die on the table, and tell you about it later. Their heart stopped for a short time, they were technically dead for a moment.
So we decide if someone is alive based on their heartbeat.
If a baby has a heartbeat is it alive? Yes. Does it have all the same potential as a post natal baby? Yes. Is it still developing just like a post natal baby? Yes. Does it depend on its mother like a post natal baby? Yes.
Is killing this prenatal baby any different from killing the post natal baby? No.
They are both babies with the same potential. I often hear the argument that it should be the woman's choice because it is her body. My argument is this. That is not your body that is being pulled apart in pieces. That is not your body being thrown in the incinerator. That is not your body that you just poisoned. That is your child's body. That is your child that you just murdered.
The definition of murder is an unjust killing. Killing a child is not justifiable no matter the circumstances.
Rape, it is a horrible thing. Sick, and traumatizing. Should you murder your child conceived out of this act? Regardless of how the child is put in the womb it is there, it is a child, it is a potential person. Kill your child and you are living with more than just a traumatizing sexual experience, you are living with something that will haunt you if you ever want to have more children.
The child will be born with defect. That is what the doctors are telling you. Better to abort. Better to choose which of your children are worthy of life. If that child was already born and you realized at 5 months that he/she was developing a "defect" would you kill it? No, that would be murder. Doctors are wrong at times. My good friend was supposed to be born with a severe brain defect. His parents considered their choices. He wasn't. He is fine. He is in University.
The child is a risk to your health. Here is a hard choice. You made this baby. This baby is already depending on you. If this baby was out of the womb and you had to choose his/her life or yours what would you do? How would you choose? Save yourself and kill your child. Protect your child and potentially harm yourself. Can you live with the knowledge that you killed your child to protect yourself?
It comes down to this fact. You are not God, you are not all knowing, you are not that smart nor that wise. You are a person with a limited capacity for understanding the implications of your actions. Before going through with this procedure you cannot know what your feelings will be. Before going through with this procedure it is easy to call it a procedure. Afterwards it is a lot easier to call it what it is. Infanticide? Eugenics? Self preservation? Selfishness? Weakness? Immaturity? Murder.
An unjustifiable killing.
Tell me how you can justify killing a child. How you can make the choice that it is a better for a child to be dead. How you can know what that child's potential is, what your future mindset will be, how you can know you won't regret it. You can't know these things.
You cannot justify killing your child. Imagine trying to explain why killing a baby is alright to a young child. Is it doable? Can you justify it to a child? Can you justify it in front of God? Can you justify it to your grandmother, your mother, your daughter. It is my body, it is my choice. It is your child's body. It should never be a choice.
It is an unjustifiable killing. It is the definition of murder.
Fortunately, the law courts around the world do not agree with you.
I would argue unfortunately for those kids. And their parents.
Thank goodness people like you don't make the laws then.
I know... we might have few more kids. Some cleaner consciences and less crap like this.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/491-ba … a-statscan
Oh please. I am not trying to convince anybody of anything Mark. I answered the question that was asked in this forum.
I don't think I can convince anybody it is wrong to kill children. If people have that mindset that it is okay then they are already sick or ignorant, perhaps both. Doesn't mean they cannot be informed of what this sickness leads to. Have you heard about the proposed post natal abortions?
Please stop the propaganda. Thanks.
Proposed post natal abortions? Dear me.
I don't want you to think I am taking this stance because I am Christian. I took this stance as an atheist as well, I take this stance as a human being who thinks it is wrong to pick and choose who gets to live based off of our limited knowledge and powerful emotions. I was supposed to be aborted. I am so grateful that I wasn't. My good friend was almost aborted due to the doctors advice. Sure glad that didn't happen. My best friend had an abortion. She is feeling the pain and torture because of it now. This is not something to lightly take a stance on. It is a very ugly subject that needs to be thought about. It isn't a joke. It is a matter of life and death, quite literally.
Choosing to abort is saying that we have the right to kill our children.That it is okay to kill. As a human being I take offense to that mindset.
As for the post natal abortions, they were proposed to be legalized in some places. They already occur however. People call it a post natal abortion. I think a more apt name is infanticide. Just like when you kill a child inside the womb. I really don't see much of a difference.
As I said - thank goodness people like you do not make the laws. Now you are an ex-atheist?
Please stop lying at me. Your nonsense about post natal abortion being proposed to be legalized is just that - a lie, And - lends no credence to your stance that a cluster of cells is a "child."
Do you tell your "friend," that you think she "murdered her child?"
Nonsense? May I propose that you go do some reading Mark? You obviously have internet access go inform yourself.
You don't know me so do not say that I am lying. I have told you before that I was an atheist. I was raised a flipping atheist. I have been Christian for just about two years now. Still learning.
Your approach with people is infuriating. I have nothing to gain from lying to you. You have nothing to gain from goading me. What is the point? I don't care what your opinion of me is, what I care about is your seemingly apathetic view on killing kids. It is a cluster of cells. True. That is what you were.
That is what you are. You are a meatbag, made up of cells. At your age you have less potential than a baby. At your age you would use more resources than a baby. Should we kill you? Should it be our choice to kill the elderly because they are just made up of cells, have little potential and inconvenience us? Might open up some jobs. But it is not justifiable. It is murder.
I never had to say a word to my friend. She told me herself that she murdered her child. Now because of that she is having difficulty keeping a child. Miscarriages are common after abortions. She is living with it every day. She calls it murder. She feels that guilt.
You are lying that "some places," are considering legalizing post natal abortion.
Sorry you cannot console your "best friend," - as you agree with her that she murdered her child. Glad I am not your best friend. Do you think she should be punished for having murdered a child?
Thank goodness the courts do not agree that a cluster of cells is a "baby."
Well done with the Christian thing by the way - you have got the self righteousness down pat.
I don't believe you were an atheist. Sorry - you have told too many fibs at me already.
That is what you consider to be "considering legalizing in some places," huh?
No wonder your religion causes so many fights.
I am pretty sure that is a spoof.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/journa … lready-le/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … demic.html
http://www.rferl.org/content/In_Russia_ … 52215.html
http://disabilitymatters.blogspot.ca/20 … -with.html
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/03/we-al … -abortion/
These are not.
This garbage is "considering legalizing in some places"?
Dear me. No wonder your religion causes so many wars.
Did you read the article that says it is legal in the Netherlands? This is what worries me about people. So desensitized that they don't even care when babies are being killed. You seriously don't see the issue? We aren't even talking about a fetus anymore. These are babies.
Ah - so this means abortion should be illegal?
I don't see what issue? That you religionists are lying through your back teeth? I see it just fine thanks.
The Dutch thing is nothing to do with abortions - nothing at all. Your self righteous indignation is unwarranted.
He doesn't care.
That's what you have to understand. And if it bothers you that just makes him all the happier. Especially that he knows you were once atheist. Oh you know that is the wrong of it for him.
You made the right decision. Stay in the word.
You have to understand he believes it is more moral to have less people on the planet than to worry about killing a few million.
I know I have had many run ins with Mark...I know he spends a lot of time trolling. It is a pity because he writes some intelligent hubs. I always think perhaps this time he won't waste my time. Oh well.
I don't know why I venture onto these forums, it is quite disturbing to see how many people are okay with picking and choosing who lives and who dies. I wonder how they feel if we ever reach the point of euthanizing the elderly and the young are trying to decide whether or not they should live.
Please stop lying about me. I disagree with you that abortion is "baby murder," and your suggestion here is offensive.
Nope...and neither was the one from Slate or the WashPo.
But the left won't look for these things when they don't really want to see them or have them be seen.
Plus why do anything positive when you can just sit back and make fun of Christians like a fool?
Thanks for stepping up to the Plate. Sorry they are pitching rocks at you! Just keep hitting them out to left field where they belong.
When the sperm gets into the egg, a zygote is formed. This little teensy weensy zygote is the true object of this discussion. It seems to be a human tendency to not put much significance on small little things. (Who wants a small diamond as opposed to a large one?) But when you think about it, the first word when writing anything is the most important one. That small little word, (as in, "when" in your comment) is the most vital.
Your very insightful consciousness-changing forum contribution would not have been produced if an asteroid had hit the power grids... or an earthquake had occurred, or a bomb had been dropped. I think what you wrote was brilliant. I am so glad your first word had not been aborted somehow... like maybe an alien's earth specimen-collecting vacuum sucking you up. Or, more realistically, some Government Censor preventing you from accomplishing your mission of revealing and sharing what you perceive to be true.
Rowe vs Wade didn't say that abortion was murder, and actually established it as a national right. This is why the states haven't been able to fully ban abortion.
It just depends on when you think "life" begins. The law has stated that life begins when the body is able to sustain itself (with limited medical help) outside of the mother. Of course many people disagree.
I think that viability is a good measure. If you decree that life begins before the body is able to live.... that just doesn't make sense to me. It equates "potential" life with actual life, which is a slippery slope.
Many religions, however, do treat potential life and actual life as the same thing. These are the religions which ban condom use and disallow masturbation because, after all, sexual secretions are potential life.
I think this is a problem, because "potential life" is a religous view, and thus shouldn't be put into law.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000-totally concur. The concept that life begins at conception is totally illogical to say the least. The embryo is not viable at all. When the baby is able to exist outside of the womb, then abortion is murder, before then, it is not.
While I am staunchly prochoice, I believe in the responsible use of contraception as all good and intelligent thinking prochoice people are. However, since contraception is not 100% effective, I do not believe that a woman should endure an unwanted pregnancy. I also believe that teenage girls should not be penalized because they have an unplanned pregnancy. I further believe in abortion in cases of rape and incest, that goes unsaid.
This is a great post for discussion. However, there will be some strong prolife respondents who will insist that their metholodogy is the only correct one and that anyone who disagree them is quite amiss to put it mildly.
Life does begin at conception. Look up a medical dictionary to explain what happens if it is not the start of a new life.
The embryo is not necessarily viable, but it could be.
Pro-abortionists have very good arguments. There are cases where a woman/girl should not be forced to carry the fetus inside her.
But let's not muddy the waters by describing the embryo/fetus/baby as anything other than human life, because that is what it is.
Lets not muddy the waters by saying the Fetus is the important aspect of the abortion issue at all. The important thing is that the Pregnant Woman or Couple stay in touch with true volition and sense of purpose. A woman should not be forced to have a child, if she was raped by someone she detests. (Likewise, I do not believe anyone, man or woman, should force themselves to marry someone he/she does not love and try to raise the child in such an environment...like John Lennon did. Poor Julian suffered so much from the treatment of his "father." ((BTW However, things have all worked out in Julian's life, so all turned out O.K.)) It is probably better to raise the child as a single parent or give it up for adoption, in this case.)
Again, there are serious consequences to having an abortion. It is a little like the choice the little mermaid had to make: to become human, (have legs and walk on land) she had to loose her voice, but she was w i l l i n g to make the sacrifice. The important thing is each woman's and (man's) true choice and will regarding the mistake.
Yes, mistakes are made and there is a lot of traffic coming and going to and from heaven. But in the end, doesn't Life involve constantly occurring Death? In the ocean the fish are all eating one another and then we pull up one of them and eat IT. We kill a life by eating the root of a poor orange carrot. How do we know that a leaf of lettuce does not silently scream as we slice it up with a knife? I have not flip-flopped ... But I have suddenly developed a more intense focus of the priority for us people to stay in touch with our volitions, deep purposes and destinies. Here is my final recommendation: To avoid interrupting your life path, stay so in touch with it, that you will not for One Second, (like after a night at the club,) forget about it.
You apparently have never carried a child within your body or birthed one. The child is flesh of your flesh after it is concieved under any circumastances.
You apparently can't imagine that other people experience things differently from you?
Dear G.M. Williams,
My mother actually considered an abortion when she thought she was pregnant for the fifth time. She said she just couldn't handle another pregnancy or child. She had dreams. She was in school and was earning her teaching credentials to teach and eventually taught PE at the Jr. College level. She was in her late forties by then. I was so surprised at the time because she was a great Christian (even taught sunday school at our Methodist church) and a wonderful mother. (Luckily, it was a false alarm.) I do not advocate abortions at all, but in the light of survival, psychological or physical, and If it is of crucial importance to the woman's will and health, surely, God would understand.
Also Gm, I do agree with your point in that hub you wanted to kick me off of: The goldilocks principle should apply. We need to control the size of our households so that they are manageable and psychologically conducive. I was just saying that if you end up with a lot of children, it is O.K. (If it is, and for some it is, but not to the point of poverty, as you have mentioned.)
We DO need to stay in a position of command over our own bodies and lives. We have come a long way. And, of course, we can keep it that way from here on out... here in the land of the free and home of the brave. On an individual level... one must stay stay vigilantly proactive. But that is something we all know anyway. I will stop trying to save the world now. Good night.
Newborn babies are completely helpless and dependent on others.
Much like unborn babies.
Exactly the same, in fact.
There can be no 'cut off' point in fetal maturity.
It either exists, or it doesn't.
So, conception is where it started to exist.
You said that viability should have a playing factor, and I fully agree with you. Even in cases of rape/incest. Usually you know if you have the constitution to go through with it before the unborn becomes sustainable.
I agree with both @gmwilliams and @Tealparadise.
The concept of life at the time of conception is arguable but the point is survival of the foetus outside the womb. The heart beat of the embryo starts by about 6-7 weeks but the development of other parts are yet to begin.
Abortion for the victims of rape, teenage girls' unwanted pregnancy for that matter unwanted pregnancy itself due to failure in the contraceptive measures are justifiable as the whole concept of bringing the child out to the world should be with full happiness. Maternal health both physical and mental with regard to the acceptance of her new born child is very much mandatory for the child's mental and physical development.
Sadly, it is the woman who is torn between the religious belief and her real need. It should be a decision left on her and in case of married/live in couples, their choice matters, after all they are going to provide for the child.
Wow, congratulations on being the hundred zillionth person to bring up this insipid, tired, beat to death topic on the Internet. Maybe this time we'll solve it, eh?
ha ha ha.......yup....i agree....oh for sure this thread will resolve the issue.....and for good!
If this archaic topic or non-issue was the deciding factor for some voters. As long as there are women and babies this will bet a tópic of debates.
I would argue it's more like: As long as there are people trying to impose morality on others, this will be a topic of debate.
But yes, the polemics are kept alive by people who refuse to choose the greater good of society over the pursuit of their personal beliefs, and, therefore, feel they must fight for the right to control other people. So, as a nation, we fight over these same unending "issues" and drive ever larger wedges between ourselves while the crooks and power mongers suck the blood of the nation and rob us all of long-term prosperity.
If you don't like the topic, stop following it. The victim of a rape is being overwhelmed with stress. The abortionists know this and easily talk her into a situation that affects her the rest of her life. It's not affecting the abortionist who is being paid. No victim should have to make that decision under such stress. There are too many families out there waiting for a child no matter how it was concieved.
You don't make any sense. I've escorted many a people to places as a form of support, and the clinics do everything possible to ensure that the people coming in are 150% sure that they understand that once this happens, there's no going back, and to ensure that this is indeed the choice of the woman. You say "abortionists" as if these people are greedy people running their hands together to make the next buck, and it's nothing like that. Are you sure you're playing with a full deck?
Lets not start that thread? There are good doctors and bad ones, they do what they are PAID TO DO and have free speech and are able to choose. But like any other person there are people only interested in the dollar. The really ethical ones WHO DO NO HARM, refuse to take the life of an innocent fetus, and others choose not too. It's a free country everyone has to make thier own decisions. Your insulting remarks are juvenile and not very mature, when you grow up you will understand. Until then, don't spend your typing skills on knocking other people's mental capacities. I don't play cards, Vegas always wins and cardplayers really are the losers in the end.
NO ONE WHO IS GOING THROUGH POST TRAUMATIC STRESS FROM THE VIOLENCE SHOULD BE MAKING SUCH A DECISION UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.
The point is, what constitutes a human being. Are we just the some of our body parts or perhaps a soul. I understand this theory that human beings living outside the womb are more viable and therefore more human. Seems illogical to me.
That's true. I should have included belief in a soul in my post. However, my point still stands as belief in the soul is another religious belief, and thus has no place in law. When does something gain a soul? If I empty a used condom into a vat of eggs, are thousands of souls now contained in that vessel? Or is it some, more "human" trait that gives something a soul? If so, when does that come about? When it has the shape of a body? When its heart beats for the first time? Or when it can feel emotion and understand the human condition?
I tend to believe that the last one, feeling emotion and understanding what it is to be human, is what creates a soul.
I respect your opinion but be careful- you're heading towards the twighlight zone where people are considered body bags (corps) and human beings disposable regardless of age. Was it ok for Casey Anthony to have her very late term abortion? Who determines the worth of another human being? It may seem religious to you, but inevitable it's the truth...it's what makes us human rather than computers.
Disclaimer-if Casey Anthony had a very late term abortion. I think she did but if not mybad.
Just a thought.
Do you know any woman who got pregnant and gave birth to anything other than a human child?
Good question, but it needs to be carried just a little further - the question isn't do I know a woman etc. but has it ever happened whether I know the woman or not?
Can a fertilized chimp egg be implanted into woman and grow to term? Delivered via cesarean if necessary, but alive in any case? I don't know and don't really want to.
A great many animals can produce offspring between species - a hybrid. Can a human and chimp produce a hybrid, living creature? Again, I don't know and really don't want to know, but it is a reasonable question if one defines humanity by where the fetus developed or who the parents were.
I am not talking about any kind of implantation. i am just talking normal day to day sexual relations.
Understood, but the question remains and needs addressed. It will do little good to make a definition that won't hold up for more than a few years or not at all even now.
What about fertilizing an egg outside the womb - does that result in a human that should not be destroyed? If several eggs are fertilized and result in a viable zygotes, can all but one be destroyed or is it murder?
If human clones haven't been grown already, they will be in the near future - are they human? How about test tube babies that have never seen a womb? Again, it will happen soon - are those babies humans or just oddities, "harvestable" for organs, stem cells or whatever else we want?
What about genetically manipulating the fertilized egg to make a zygote into something it wasn't? Still human? If so, just how much can we change the gene structure and still have a human?
@wilderness, some profound thoughts.
There have been hybrids before. Scientists have found human-Neanderthal hybrids.
What is interesting about this is that an alternate interpretation of Genesis yields a timeline compatible with those of science and points to Neanderthal as the reason for the Flood -- Neanderthals and their half-human hybrids.
If the "Flood" ever was some real event, then it supposedly cured humanity of some "crime." But the violence, wickedness and corruption of flesh mentioned in Genesis 6 don't make sense when we use ordinary meanings of such things. Humanity has experienced plenty of such things since then. Only one variety of such things does make sense -- non-human violence, wickedness and a genetic corruption of flesh from these hybrids. Why would such a corruption be seen as evil? If Neanderthals did not have the capacity for creating civilization, then advanced thought would become impossible if Homo sapiens ceased to exist and only the hybrid remained. All manner of spiritual rebirth would become impossible. The fact that God's children were created in His image and likeness, and that God is not Homo sapiens, kind of puts a new spin on things. Perhaps humans are only valuable so long as they allow the children of God a chance to reawaken.
A similar problem might have occurred in Sodom and Gomorrah. Every reason I've heard about why those 2 towns were destroyed makes no sense at all, except one -- bestiality. If repetition and institutionalization found a way to coax nature into a hybrid (half-goat, half-human?), what manner of genetic corruption would've been possible if the habit became more widespread. Perhaps both towns were destroyed because of the same problem -- genetic pollution.
If ever a genetics lab experiments on human cells to create a "super human" or some other "not-quite-human" hybrid, I'd like not to live very close. The weather report may call for heavy meteor showers!
Abortion is a very selfish act... and yes, "murder" -- premeditated ending of a human life for selfish purposes. Having experienced being outside of this temporary, physical body, I appreciate the selfishness (ego) that keeps me locked in it most of the time. Only for a few brief moments in 1971 was I able to see without human eyes and to think (have consciousness) without a human body. We need these things to do away with ego. Murder only makes ego stronger.
wow. Try meditiation and go to the spiritual third eye, lone 77 star. You can do it again: "experience being outside this temporary physical body." Jesus taught a meditation technique. But he mostly gave us Karma Yoga.
In this light, keeping one's child with the determination or intention to exercise Love is spiritual Good Karma. And I guarantee that the guardian angels will help any mother carry out her mission to bring forth a healthy robust human being. After all, the mother cannot do it alone. She needs as much help as she can get.
I don't know why that should be considered at this time. A rape victim has many issues to deal with and she will make her own choice via her religious beliefs or morals. Who wants to talk about zygotes here? Why be strayed to another subject when we are talking about abortions? Genetically manipulation should be in another forum.
Because no matter what, the union of the egg and sperm can only become a human. Unless it is totally tampered with by mad scientists, nothing else can possibly result. Repeating: the union of egg and sperm has the inevitable destiny to become a human being with awareness and free will. ( I have heard that type of genetic engineering was going on in the days of Atlantis and is one reason why it had to be destroyed. Yikes.) Is letting a viable zygote or a clone die, justifiable killing? (as opposed to murder) Yes, if commitment to the mission of completing the creation cannot be executed, due to lack of love. What else? killing was not the intention... just not committing oneself to the completion of the beginning. If I cannot take care of the puppy I brought home because I can not afford to buy food for it, due to a loss of job, and I have to take it to the pound... it is an aborted mission. Some aborted missions end up in loss of life. The one who aborted the mission is probably judged depending on intention and circumstances. If the union of the egg and the sperm were not the result of love, then I guess there has to be a reality check... the mission is aborted and nature's process, which really depends on some sort of outside commitment, must end. Sad, but true. It really depends on one word:
@Kathryn, you make some beautiful points -- full of logic and detail. From an objective and non-human perspective, it all makes a great deal of sense.
But what is love? Is it romance? Or is it unselfish generosity?
Shall we kill all humans no matter what their age if they were conceived without "love," as you describe it?
Is love a convenience of the "self?" Is it a "feel good" feeling that is superior to the needs and desires of others?
Isn't love, instead, the epitome of unselfishness -- a lack of ego?
Life is never a burden when there is love.
Without ego, one can never be a victim.
Love is the most misunderstood word in the dictionary. Love was indeed discussed by Jesus. That is the kind of love I am talking about. I think you have hit the nail on the head. Thank You.
"Then He said to his disciples, 'The harvest is abundant, but the laborers are few.' " Mathew 9:37
Well, is a death sentence by the most respected judge a murder? Abortions and death sentences both take away human lives. Its a murder !
yes abortion is a type of murder and also its a crime in India if the police know that there is an abortion in any hospital they cancel the license of the doctor and punished both the doctor and the patient.
Abortion is not a crime in India. According to Medical termination act est in 1971 (last reviewed in 2003)
The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act of India clearly states the conditions under which a pregnancy can be ended or aborted, the persons who are qualified to conduct the abortion and the place of implementation. Some of these qualifications are as follows:
Women whose physical and/or mental health were endangered by the pregnancy
Women facing the birth of a potentially handicapped or malformed child
Pregnancies in unmarried girls under the age of eighteen with the consent of a guardian
Pregnancies in "lunatics" with the consent of a guardian
Pregnancies that result are a result of failure in sterilization
The length of the pregnancy must not exceed twenty weeks in order to qualify for an abortion.
Lets just say, that as soon as a sperm penetrates an egg, a spark occurs. What is that spark? energy? Lets imagine, that the spark of energy is a soul's Will to Live. This soul has a spiritual blueprint and the genetic codes of the united egg and sperm starts to fuse with the desire body of the incarnating soul. The invisible energy source of the soul unites with its new body... cell by cell, RNA, DNA, a silent mysterious process which is determined by nature.
Is the soul inherently anticipating a new lifetime and another chance to fulfill consciousness on the earth plane? It will love its new parents and family. It will revisit unmet desires and attempt to advance in spiritual awakening by experiencing all the wonderful things there is to experience on the earth plane. Perhaps this soul or that soul has a destiny to help mankind. What if Steve Jobs had been aborted? What if Thomas Edison had been aborted? What if George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, or the Wright brothers had been aborted? What if Mary had decided she was just hallucinating after an angel came to tell her about her child who would save the world from ignorance and evil ... and she went into the woods to find a poisonous mushroom, as soon as she missed a couple of periods?
Save Yourselves, Girls, keep your body and mind to yourself until you wish to bring a child into the world who may have a mission, great or small. You will be the one to give it an amazing opportunity here on earth. Don't start a life just to stop it! How would you feel...
"Yes, I am coming to earth!...
Oh no, I am not...
ooops, not enough love for me..."
( It might hurt the soul. It just might.)
It definitely will hurt you. It WILL hurt you.
Mentally and physically.
SO, Just do not let the sperm get anywhere near the egg.
What do I have to do... write an instruction book?
I have already produced T-shirts that say, "Step away from the eggs!"
I do not sell too many, though...
I wonder why not?
While this is all nice and stuff, you realize you open your argument saying, "let's imagine" and then fill in with lots of what-ifs and stuff.
I'm not even saying I disagree with this post, it's nice and feel-good and that's great. Where it becomes a problem is making laws based on it that force other people to live by what YOU imagine.
That is why this issue needs to just stop being brought up. You are always going to imagine these sweet, loving things. Other people are not going to want to be told what to do with their lives and bodies, no matter how warm and hope-filled your speeches are. So, since you can't prove that what you imagine is true, and I can't prove that it isn't, let's agree to disagree. And nobody gets to FORCE anyone to do anything or DENY them the ability to do what they think they need to do. We can, if we are THINKING people, not just FEELING and imaging people, agree to recognize that societies don't work like perfectly harmonized machines, and that's just how reality is. When in doubt, err on the side of personal liberty rather than dictatorial edict.
I have finally gotten to a point in life where I can be a little bit objective even on this topic. I am pro life, but I understand the presuppositions that Pro choice people have when the approach the subject of abortion. And, of course, I understand the same about pro life. One thing that bothers me about the pro choice thinking is that life begins when the fetus can live outside the womb. I'm not debating, just thinking. That particular point in the development of the fetus is not a precise thing. My wife miscarried at 24 weeks. If the child had been born alive, it could have continued to live. There are cases of births earlier than that I believe. The pro life side is looking for precision on the time life begins. Pro choice people don't seem to be so hung up on precision.
This one of the reason I am moving my own focus from the time of conception and the issue of abortion. I am much more focused on preventing the pregnancy in the first place, by any means possible. That includes contraception of all kinds for minors without parental consent. This just makes much more sense to me. How about you? By the way Shadesbreath, I just noticed I attached this to your post. That was not on purpose.
This question of abortion is one of the most enduring questions of all time. I personally feel that a life is a life as soon as the baby is conceived. It's hard to answer this question because I am a man and men do not as such fall pregnant. If I were a woman perhaps I'd say rather than have an abortion in any case I should perhaps think of staying on the pill rather than falling pregnant and then facing the difficult question of keeping the baby or going for abortion. It is a very difficult question and a difficult time for anyone facing these issues.
"I personally feel that a life is a life as soon as the baby is conceived"
Agreed, but that it not the real question. You actually need to determine when human life begins. Can you define "human" life in a manner that is testable and observable?
The concept of soul is neither testable nor observable, and if you want to use genetics, consider that humans and chimps share something like 98% of their genetic structure while remembering that humans vary widely in appearance and internal structure.
How do you define the human species?
Shades: I am not advocating political policies. I am speaking to individual consciousnesses. I am not talking to politicians. I am answering the question asked by someone (young ,I am assuming) wondering about all this. My ideas are worth considering in the light of protecting oneself from self induced misery. Abortion is always a painful decision - Every time it's tried.
Ms. Hill, this is totally unrealistic or better yet a surrealistic premise. Sex is a part of life. While you are advocating sexual abstinence outside marriage, let us propose responsible sexual behavior. Responsible sexual behavior is when a person knows that he/she is going to be sexually active, be mature and responsible enough to use contraceptive measures.
If people were more responsible regarding the use of contraception, abortion will be almost nil. However, there should be abortion in cases of rape, incest, and/or other instances. No woman should endure an unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancy. Every child should be wanted and loved. Ms. Hill, surely, you as a mature and thinking woman should realize the importance of woman being in charge and proactive regarding her reproductive destiny, instead of being a passive victim.
I am advocating super pro-activeness. That is all. Only the really careless girls get pregnant in this day and age. Gm, are you left over from the "Love the one you're with" generation?
It is bad advice to the Youth.
Dear Youth, Do not be fooled by the stupid advice of baby boomers. They had it wrong. You need the support of a good marriage partner and a nest. If you must have sex just make sure the egg and sperm are far away from each other. Maybe there is a book already written about this. I need to find it. If not, I might have to write it. (Maybe I should create a forum-type website to collect others' inventive practices and ideas. I could call it, www.PreventingTheAgonyOfUnwantedSouls.com. )
I dont think there is an edict anywhere in the U.S. that forces women to do something against their wills. They still have free choice. Unwanted souls are not agonizing, all they are is UNWANTED. So, if you don't want a child give it to someone who does, there is a silver lining for these babies.
Margolyn, many unwanted children are abandoned or are left to lanquish in foster care centers. Many unwanted children, particularly those of color, are seldom adopted. Please live in the real world. Those children do not have a silver lining waiting for them.........they either have purgatory or hell waiting for them. If the mother "keeps" the child, the child is often abused or otherwise ill treated. Unwanted children suffer in this society. It is better for a woman to have an abortion than to endure an unwanted pregnancy and to have an unwanted child that is either abandoned, abused, neglected, or otherwise ill treated. DON'T YOU GET IT YET?!
True. May I also recommend finding adoptive parents if you don't want to keep the child. You don't need to keep the child but someone else cannot have one and would love to adopt that child.
If you feel that way leave your two cents in your pocket.
This topic has been well discussed, if not beaten to death, most times ends in hostile comments toward one another that normally wouldn't be. Like yours to me.
IT is such a sensitive topic that it can result in personal attacks on one in their personal email. When I see, yet again, another hubber start a thread on the issue, when I am trying to use the forums as a tool to help my articles on this platform, I find it bothersome.
You opened a can of worms, so you need to deal with any kind of comments on this thread.
If you don't like the topic, why did you come in? Or, if you came in just to be curious, rather than reading and making such infantile comments, why not click the back button or the big red X in the upper right hand corner?
No one forced you to come in here. If you don't like it, don't look.
It is a subject that will never go away, so get used to it. If you don't like the thread don't read it, you have free choice to not read it. If it's too bothersome, don't read it, and it has not been beaten to death otherwise it wouldn't keep showing up. People are interested in this platform of different ideas on a subject, its called FREE SPEECH. It's sad that some immature people don't know how to control themselves, but it doesn't give them the right to shut the subject down because they are being so vile.
Abortion is not murder when there are specific circumstance why the pregnancy cannot go on. It can be a horrible rape, it can be a disease and so on. I do look upon it as murder when a girl or woman gets pregnant out of her own foolishness and then says oh, my and gets it aborted. They should take responsibility in such cases and then put the child up for adoption. There are so many women who want to get pregnant and can't and they would be more than happy to adopt. That's just the way I look at things.
When an innocent baby's body is being ripped apart by a drill, or its brain is punctured, that is murder under any circumstances. That baby suffers a horrible death at the hands of the abortionists. How can any mother really believe the baby is just a piece of tissue? Fetuses do have feelings.
Abortion is not only murder, in the late gestational ages of these babies (which can be up to 21 weeks) it is simply a VERY cruel way to kill a baby that has a fully developed nervous system and can feel pain. For God's sake these babies can survive outside of the womb at 21 weeks. Abortion is legal and probably will remain so, but the gestational age MUST be lowered. They put a drill into the babies brain in which it feels this until it ultimately dies. There is something definitely wrong with this picture.
Yep, go to 'Silent Scream" on You Tube.
All girls need to do is Be aware of the Consequences of having Sex. It is fire. do not play with it. Take it seriously. It is not something to take lightly which is the problem with today's culture. (Left over from the 'Love the one you're with," generation.)
And guys, if you have to have sex with someone to the point of rape... Get a Grip! (Literally) What is wrong with you that you become so selfish, so self-oriented and so uncaring about someone else that you have to force yourself on them!!!?
I just do net get the urge to rape a victim. The pain caused is so tremendous! These weirdos should just go and do something with their own hand while imagining whatever sex acts they want. There was even a book written about this, called "Sex with One!"
What... do they not have the ability to I m a g i n e? What a problem they create because of such a simple inability. Maybe someone needs to teach them how to imagine! Could this be the problem with those who have the urge to rape? They should go to a clinic which teaches them how to imgine. Is this the problem for those who indulge in actual (as opposed to imagined) raping: The inability to Imagine???? !
(We might as well contemplate this dilemma while we're at it.)
I personally know a girl (31) who got pregnant. Her mother begged her not to get an abortion. So, now she lives at home with her parents in the room she has had since she was young. The guy who got her pregnant did not love her in the least and moved out of state. He did not want the financial responsibility of the baby or her. This young woman's mother did not believe in abortion and promised to help her. Today, both mom and dad are helping to raise the child. The daughter works, and has a pretty good job, but cannot afford to move out. This is a true story with an O.K. ending. For now.
Who knows if they will all get along in the future. I sure hope they will.
Of course abortion is murder. The life that brings forth the baby is destined to be a human being no matter what. It is the ending of a life. Life begins at conception.
The question is: Is murder justified in some cases? I would say so.
But Girls, stop having unwanted sex! It is amazing to consider that peer pressure gets many girls pregnant and the inability to say "NO!" Dads, give your daughters enough love, support and advice so that they do not look for love due to a compulsion to lure any ol' male-type for the sake of attention and "love".
For those who insist on having what they call "a healthy sex life"... only You can prevent Conception by keeping the sperm far away from the eggs. (The use of contraceptives does not keep the sperm and the egg far enough away, as they allow the sexual organs to come in too close proximity. In fact abortion clinics in Texas, gave away condoms for free because they knew the frequency of mishaps. It was a marketing stategy: They had a quota of 20 abortions a day.)
And yes, keeping the egg and sperm far away from each other will take cre8tive thinking and imagin8tive sexual positions.)
( And I am sure there are better people to write that book than me.)
"stop having unwanted sex"
I'm confused. Unwanted sex is rape, so you're saying stop getting raped? Nobody wants to get raped, I'm pretty sure.
Tussin, you have elucidated an intelligent point. In Ms. Hill's estimation, she meant sex outside of marriage. She asserted that people would not have unwanted pregnancies if they waited until marriage to have sex. She contends that marital sex is wanted sex. Go figure Things that make one go hmmmm hmmmm hmmmm hmmmm!
Why do you go astray with the point? I have never advocated sex only inside of marriage! I have advocated having sex in ways that keep the egg and the sperm far away from each other!
this is too close:
I think you two need to:
1. Take reading lessons.
2. Put on some reading glasses.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Ms. Hill, your statement regarding sexual morality reminds me of a 1950s sex education instructional program,LOL! Let's be frank regarding the issue instead of cutesy, the responsible use of contraception prevents unwanted pregnancy. Contraception and birth control are not taboo words.
I wish someone had taught ME that sexual morality. What was wrong with it again????
Ms. Hill, as a feminist, I am totally nonplussed at your synopsis. June Cleaver, Tammy, and Sandra Dee are dead, people must evolve and change or atrophy. Your choice. Good night and bid you well!
Like you have? I am the one in touch with enlightened thinking. The only one disagreeing with me is you. The youngsters get it. My son (32) for one and my daughter (28) for two. Neither are ready to have children and neither have conceived children they are not ready to take care of... especially in this economy, even though they are both happily married with decent jobs. They are both pursuing interesting lives and taking care of themselves and their spouses. They have great lives. When the time is right they will conceive if they so choose, I am sure.
It is not rocket science. Keep the egg and sperm in their separate corners... married or not! It all depends on one's conscious and willing choice. Do not let conception be a mistake. You will regret it and it will mess up your life. You must have freedom. If you have it... keep it. This is not anti-feminist or conservative, etc.
it is realistic.
Oh God, here we go again! I am all for sexual and reproductive freedom. As a feminist, I am prochoice. I also believe in responsible sexual behavior. However, I am more to the point, I do not use 50s phraseology to describe the sexual act. I use modern phraseology-consensual sex is fine but one must be mature and responsible-USE CONTRACEPTION, not the antiquated phrase, keep the sperm away from the eggs-what is this, 1955, c'mon, Ms. Hill. No one talks like this except for Ms. Brooks in the tv series OUR MS. BROOKS.
I am not afraid of being or sounding weird, if it speaks the truth. I gave up trying to be hip and cool back in the 70's. You, I see, are still into that illusionistic trip. Far out man.
Peace and all that.
I thought you went to bed.
Actually speaking of the 70's...I had a friend who did not play it safe. She loved the one she was with and ended up getting pregnant. She used prophylactics. (rubbers) You know as well as anyone else, they slip off. The girl I mentioned before who got pregnant accidentally and now lives with her, ulp, parental units, was taking birth control pills. I know a woman who had been on birth control pills and whose husband had a vasectomy (I think they had sex too soon after the surgery)... and SHE got pregnant, producing her third child! Contraceptives are not a guarantee. Keeping the sperm far away from the egg is.
Who cares how it s o u n d s!
(I guess you are little squeamish. Sorry.)
Firstly a properly tested vasectomy is 100% effective and the pill is itself 99.7% effective (not to mention that actual implantation is quite rare too) which means the odds of both these things somehow failing (if properly used and if they weren't then education is the problem) is so astronomically high that it is pretty much impossible, the further odds of you knowing the people this has happened to are so unlikely I can't even begin to explain it, either one person or both is lying or you are.
Gm is utterly correct in the sense that the language you are using is outdated and the reason it has become outdated is because it mathematically does not work as born out by statistics, encouraging people to be careful and educating them on contraception is several times more effective than abstinence education.
Josak, you and I are living in the REAL world. Ms. Hill, unfortunately, live in a SURREALISTIC, 1950s WORLD where shhh, contraception was surreptitiously mentioned, if ever, and if one had "forbidden" sex, one just got pregnant and bore it! Oh no, if one has sex and gets pregnant, endure and bear it! BETTER TO KEEP LEGS CLOSED, YOUNG LADY! To reiterate, things that make you go hmmmmmm hmmmmmm hmmmmmm-gasp!
I explained that a lot of girls will end up pregnant by having sex against their consciences just to please the guy. It was not really something they truly thought they should be doing. It was a form of Peer Pressure. Some girls get pregnant because they were looking desperately for love. If their fathers had more influence in the lives of their daughters, this compulsion would not be there. In both cases the sex was not really wanted. The love was. This might be too subtle to write about. Sorry.
Girls/women do have sex willingly. The good girl/bad girl premise is outdated and outmoded. Girls/women are no longer passive receptables regarding the sex act. They are also proactive participants. Consensual sex involve two mature and willing partners. If one partner is not ready or willing then he/she should not have sex at all!
There you go being trigger happy!
and I think that we agree on your ending point. But, many girls are not mature enough to have sex. Contraceptives make it easy for them. They think, "Oh well, this contraceptive will probably work, and then I will have a boyfriend!"
I feel like I am about to write a teen novel. Please do not act so ignorant about this simple stuff.
Why is it the girls" responsibility only? Maybe you need to ensure that the boys get taught to respect the girls enough to not want to pressure for the sex, and to wear condoms, because they have the least amount of side effects. The comment about unwanted sex, well, it's not the sex that is unwanted, unless it's rape. It's the consequence of sex that is unwanted. Please learn to articulate what you mean, unless you're ignorant yourself about the simple stuff.
Condoms also help with lubrication, and help the guys last longer, because it takes longer for the gals to be done. Good trade off. Prevent pregnancy, prevent STD, allow both parties to enjoy w/o worries of if it's going to work or not.
LikaMarie: Condoms have the "least amount" of side effects... you mean pregnancy and STDs? This kind of thinking does not provide enough focus on proactive actions that will guarantee the health and freedom of the female on earth and peace for the the soul who is presumably sleeping in the tranquil arms of the angels in heaven. Maybe girls and guys could consider the sleeping soul before having sex...to ponder whether they are in a position to bring forth a human life. To bring forth a human life takes 100% commitment from not only yourself , but your partner that you are currently making love to.
And Mark, how do you know that the soul doesn't feel anything? perhaps a sense of rejection at the very least?
Er, I've never yet met a woman who couldn't provide enough lubrication and as for condoms helping the guy last longer - they don't.
LikaMarie... This post by Mr. Holden demonstrates why our own Safety is, ultimately in our own hands: Guys in general take advantage of OUR leniency. End of story.
Mr. Holden: I surmise that you are clueless as to what the topic of this forum is, judging from your comment.
"Well, it's not too late now, you know, to show you to the door."
(Lyrics from a song I wrote.)
No, I'm not clueless as to the topic of this forum. Somebody raised the points that I disagreed with, if they hadn't then I wouldn't.
Oh, and I've never taken advantage of anybody. My post was nothing to do with that, it was about fallacies.
You are too much! The "points" that you disagreed with are not even relevant to preventing conception in the least! (Thats what I am talking about in this forum) Most are discussing abortion and whether or not it is justifiable killing. Do you think it is?
Q 1.) If one of your happy unrestrained sperms swims freely into a naturally lubricated entrance and then proceeds to squirm its way into an egg thereby zapping it into a zygote, do YOU think it would be o.k. to end the life of that newly formed zygote.... that your exuberant sperm created? (Presuming you are not a happily married man with a good job, house, washer and dryer. If you are, never mind.) the question is this: Is the zygote something we should or should not take jurisdiction over? Once life has started do we have the moral right to vacuum it out? Yes, it is just a zygote, but it has the potential for becoming something really magnificent. Are WE to stop it?
Others are debating that the woman must have the option to abort the mission. That it is her life and her body:
Q 2.) Do You believe that your partner has the right to abort the zygote or fetus that you have prompted?
( No, you do not have to answer. )
Well don't blame me, Likemarie raised them, not me.
And yes, I do believe that my partner has the right, just as I have the right to express my opposition though I hope I would not be as heartless as to do that if the situation arose.
"H o p e?" " I f " t h e s i t u a t i o n a r o s e ? But YOU have control over the situation. Don't you think it would be a good idea to be proactive and determine to NOT let it happen in the first place????? It just takes a determined FOCUS of being p r o a c t i v e . I certainly hope you agree.
Girls, Protect your eggs from this one. He is way too hang loose. He might or might not have enough heart to take care of you and a baby. And it will be your fault if you get pregnant.
( Don't take it personally, Holden, I am just having fun with you.) But do you understand the misery that unprotected sex can cause? It sounds like you don't and that's a little scary to me.
Oh dear! Life lesson coming up. Condoms tear, they come off they are not 100% effective.
And did it not occur to you that I am aware of changes in sensitivity with condoms because I have used them so often?
I'm really at a loss to understand where this impression of a couldn't care less sort of person comes from!
Enough with the insults.
I do not want to be accused of Bullying you! I am So Sorry. I did not mean to insult you. I hope you will forgive me for being such a mean person. I feel that you are just too sensitive to continue conversing any longer. It breaks my heart to have to say good bye, but it is just not going to work out. Thanks for the short time we had to exchange Ideas. It was fun while it lasted. Best of luck for the future. No hard feelings, OK? No regrets. All is good. I know you can carry on without me and it will be better for you this way. Aurevoir...
Your Unknown Commenter,
Kathryn L HIll
Dear John Holden,
I just found out you are not a nineteen year old American Kid! Please excuse my ridiculous responding. I see that you are a very distinguished citizen of the UK. I hope you will accept my apologies. I should have checked out who I was actually adressing. I am not in the habit of checking who I am writing to because I like the anonymity. The letter was a take-off on a Dear John letter. No one finds it the least funny over here. Now I see why. (ooops) By the way, I love your image. Is that a painting or portrait of you? Very British.
PS. The tip off was when you wrote,"Oh dear" (No American nineteen year old kid would say, "Oh dear"... ever.)
PSS I find it so amazing that this is being received all the way across the Globe.
PSSS Glad to hear that you are actually using condoms. Good work. Carry on. It is important to protect unborn british souls as well. We wouldn't want Charles Dickens or Shakespeare to reincarnate with out a proper mother.
This is a question without a definitive answer. It boils down to cultural and individual relativism. No two people feel the same about abortion and asking a question like this is forcing people to believe their answer is "correct".
Baby boomer grandparents are very lenient and will take in a grand child. I do not know if such leniency existed in any other time throughout history! There is a correct answer. Life begins at conception and abortion is murder. Some murders are justified... and I would agree, that Individual Conscience is the deciding factor.
Please live in the modern world, not the 1950s, thank you ever so kindly.
No one is FORCING anything here. It's FREE SPEECH and learning about different perspectives that make you think further on the issue and maybe, just maybe another child can be saved from the blades.
I am firmly against abortion. I can not imagine any circumstance that I would have an abortion - I know that my feelings are extreme - but I would not even consider abortion in the case of rape. And definitely not if my unborn child might be born with a disability. I work with too many wonderful children that have a variety of disabilities to even consider that.
But I am not other women. There are women who could not imagine keeping a child who was conceived from rape or incest. Even the thought of carrying that child and giving it up for adoption is just to hard because of the act that created that child. There are women who feel that they do not have the knowledge to care for children with disabilities and others who feel that allowing a child to be born with disabilities is cruel to the child.
In these cases, I think it is up to the individual woman - and her partner. Only they can make that decision, and while I may not agree with that decision, it is still legal.
What I truly disagree with are women who use abortion as a form of birth control. In today's society there are too many safe methods of birth control to resort to using abortion as one. There are too many convenient ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
I grew up with a friend of my mothers who did this. I know of at least three abortions that she had in a span of about two years. She then gave birth to triplets whom she largely neglected so that she could party and use illicit drugs. She convinced me that birth control is necessary, before pregnancy and not after.
Right now abortion is legal. I may not agree with it at all, but it is still legal. So, according to the law, abortion is not murder. No matter how much it hurts my conscience to say that, at this point, it is true. Legally, there is nothing to debate. Morally is a different discussion.
I was assuming we were talking morality. However, Teach, it is excellent to distinguish between legal and moral implications! I think what you wrote will help brittvan22 more than all MY ramblings! (And apparently gm would agree.)
So, to all I have offended...
Abortion is lawful killing. The law allows us to kill.
Sometimes we have to kill as in defending ones's life against an enemy.
Sorry, but I guess a fetus is an enemy in some circumstances.
So, don't invite the enemy in!
"Keep the sperm away from the eggs!"
When the sperm is forced and not invited the mother's body automatically goes into creation mode of a baby, despite what she feels, her body is the temple of a human being no matter how it is concieved. Yes, keep the eggs separate from the sperm but when it is not consensual, that egg is going to get fertilized whether you like it or not.
Sorry, I am being very truthful! Anyone you talk to will come up with more true stories than I have, about failed contraception You need to get real. Too many fats, Josak, once again...
Ps How come you both think I am talking abstinence???
No imaginations what so ever!
(It is easier and safer to abstain, however.)
Gm and Josak exemplify the thoughts of dinosaurs.
Josak and I exemplify postmodern, enlightened and intelligent thought regarding sexuality and reproductive issues whereas you exempfifies the 1950s in terms of sexual morality and reproductive issues. Live in the 21st century, not the 1950s. Time tunnel, anyone! A comprehensive sex education program is the key to reducing abortion. Abstinence only sex education does not work at all. Anyone who believes that abstinence only sex education works is clearly not living in the real world!
But, gm, abstinence only birth control works every time! It's just the education part that fails a tiny bit. Or at least the application of that education...
But that goes completely against human nature and it fails more often than it works.
*every* time wilderness? I seem to remember one spectacular failure.... ;D or are you trying to take this thread into yet another controversy?
The real world is real in the 50's and now into the new century. Procreation is a subject all centuries have pondered. It's a blessing and a curse at times. Old ideas are still good ideas, abstinance is a safer place to be, but if you cannot control yourself, then protection should be adhered to. It should be safe for both parties against pregnancy and disease. Ideas that have been thought of for centuries.
No woman should have to make a decision that affects her in any way down the road. When a rape happens, like any other crime, post traumatic stress is apparent for months after. Our soldiers come home with PTS and it takes years to help them adjust to thier lives. No woman should allow her body to be violated again by abortion under such psychological stresses. From the time of conception, wanted or not, she is a mother who is carrying a child who is half of her. Her body is in production of a beautiful little person who might be another Einstien if allowed to live with her or without her. Adoption or keeping the child is better than the violation of abortion. She has plenty of assistance no matter what she chooses. No woman should have to make a life threatening decision under such terrible pressure. Statistics show that most concieved children by rape, eventually miscarry.
The mother has been violated once by the rapist and again by the abortionist. The guilty party should be made to make restitution to her. She carries the burden of guilt sometimes the rest of her life, why? Because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time and a baby now the innocent is going to be murdered? Yup, that's what abortion is when a doctor goes in with a sharp instrument or vacuum and destroys the fetus no matter how old it is.
Our country has more abortions than the whole world combined. And we live in a free country. It's not free when someone is taking your life because your an accident of rape. Most of us are accidentally concieved, and if you were you wouldn't be here commenting on it or anything else. I say let the child live and move on. Mothers under any circumstances should not murder her own flesh. She can have a life after the birth, and go on. The rapist goes on too, but the aborted fetus gets the shaft.
It's time we stopped the killing, the mother does have choices and hopefully she will make the right one for herself, but me, wars are enough, why do we have to murder our innocents? It's not their fault. Punish the guilty not the innocent.
The woman makes her choices, the best she feels at the time, and no one is judging her, she will do that herself. She has her rights but under stress she shouldn't make too hasty a choice. The victims are the mother and the child, the criminal lives on.
Um, can you post the link to the research about rape pregnancies ending in miscarriage? Proof or it didn't happen.
The problem with the abortion after rape is the fact that we are focusing too much on whether women should be allowed to have one or not. How about we focus on the rapists being imprisoned for life, and being forced to work for the duration to pay for therapy, and what not? I think that's a good deterrence not to rape.
The pregnant victim is the focus. She needs all the help she can get, a rapist is a rapist and if caught should pay for the baby for the rest of its life and resitituon to the mother. I don't know if it would repress this crime against women but its worth a try. Also consider the diseases that are recieved during a rape, the mother has a life of health issues and psychological issues for the rest of her life.
Yes, the rape victim is the focus, and unfortunately, she doesn't get all the help she should get, because most often, the victim of this sort of crime always gets the blame.
I am an advocate of abuse victims. All of these other things are in consideration about the possibilities of STD's, PTSD, etc. So, that in mind, if she is in no shape to be able to handle the pregnancy, she should be able to make that choice.
In the mean time, the rapist should have to pay, and not have a decision in anything as far as the woman and her pregnancy, and child, should she choose to have the baby.
Seek and ye shall find. It's all over the internet and a part of many libraries are filled with the statistics. I am not here to point you to a certain book or publication, I am speaking from 45 years of experience with women and thier sexuality including rape and abortion. I will not do your homework for you, look it up yourself.
And look, Margolyn, I'm not the one who came in here talking about statistics. The ones I've read are different from what you've read. If you're going to tout something as fact, you need to back it up, or, it's not proof, in my book. So no. This isn't about you doing your homework for me, I'm asking you to back up your so called facts. I can also do my homework to let you know that your statement is wrong.
So you have 45 years experience working with women and their sexuality, including rape and abortion. I've got about 25, doing about the same, with celebrating healthy women's sexuality and advocating a voice to those who think theirs is dirty from being raped. My findings say the opposite of yours. Many are relieved that the rape monster's unborn isn't in them any longer, and stop having nightmares about giving birth to a defect or another monster.
Want to state it as a fact? Please provide the link, or, as I said, it didn't happen. I'll stick to what I know.
I consider any abortion made after 4 weeks as murder. The heart starts beating around this time, although the organs are not yet developed. From 4-9 weeks is the time where alcohol and any other substances can affect the baby.
No matter what age the fetus is the mother is going to be violated again by an abortionist who is getting paid just to kill babies. There can be many health issues that affect the mother down the road after an abortion, she is being taken advantage of during a most stressful time in her life.
The same could be said of an unwanted or health-endangering pregnancy. It's mot like women have abortions recreationally. They are choosing between undesirable options.
Yes, it is murder unless it is done to safe the mother's life, in which case it is justifiable as self-defense. Cases in which it would save the mother's life are extremely rare.
I have met mothers who were cautioned about a pregnancy, many went through with it and were successful. It's a chance they take to have a child. Some win and some lose. Either way a rape baby can have a life with another mother if it is given the chance.
And there are mothers with ectopic pregnancy who are certain to die if they don't abort. The fact that some are lucky doesn't make the issue go away. Sometimes the fetus will kill the mother.
I really think it's a double edged sword. And that the abortion rights need to be practiced with extreme responsibility.
When a pregnant woman is killed, and her unborn baby dies, it should be considered a double homicide. A pregnant woman is beaten to the point she loses her pregnancy, it should be considered homicide or at least infanticide.
On the other hand, in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother, it should be the CHOICE of the mother. Now mind you, I'm not saying automatic abortion. I'm saying the woman in question should be allowed to make the choice to have or not the abortion.
Then there are the issues where a severely mentally retarded gal is pregnant. If she is 25, yet has the mental capacity of a 3 year old, is she capable of making a choice? Did she consent to sex understanding the ramifications? Who should make the decision? Do we allow this person to have the baby, and force her to give the baby up for adoption, because she's not capable of being a mother? Many questions...
On the flip side, if a married couple is in poverty, and doesn't want to have the financial burden of having a child, yet ends up pregnant even while taking birth control, and taking what ever other type of precautions NOT to get pregnant? And if they do, and they have the baby and keep it, will people not judge them into being irresponsible because they couldn't bear with adopting out the baby after being pregnant? Gray area, and it's not my place to judge in these types of circumstances.
Then there are the cases of those who don't practice any precautions, have unprotected sex at will, and all of a sudden, oops... And then use abortion as a method of birth control. First time, maybe forgive, yet then, I think if the men would be held responsible too, and not just knock up the neighborhood, that it's wrong. Abortion is for the last resort. Not as the first choice.
No we cannot judge them, but we can point them into the direction of giving the baby up for adoption and more resources are available now than 30 years ago. It's not the babies fault if the pill didn't work, or the mother was raped or the family can't afford another mouth to feed. The innocents shouldn't have to die.
Can you say that a being not capable of awareness is losing anything when being prevented from attaining it?
IMHO I am not sure there is a non-religious argument that clearly makes the zygote a person and the ovum and sperm (un-united) not a person.
That being the reason why strict Catholicism banned masturbation.
Personally I think there is a grey area where the fetus becomes a person. And people don't like grey areas.
huh? The soul is awareness. It is coming into existence from a state of already having awareness. The awareness is a given. It is a reality, no matter what state of existence, metaphysically or physically, is occurring. At 6, in the human, the awareness has been given, by the process of nature, a physical and psychological basis for operation on the physical plane. Maybe what we are really discussing is this: P e r m i t t i n g nature to create a human being. Logically speaking, is giving nature permission to c o n t i n u e its' process of creating a complete human... (and it does take nine months plus six years...) in Our Jurisdiction or Not ?
Q. Is it a good thing (for the mother, the father, the family and society) to give nature permission to create a body for a soul if there is not enough love to see the process through?
it is hard to understand. sorry. My question was, Should we allow nature to create a child if we cannot stand behind nature. But the answer that has been submitted by lone 77 star is that only selfishness stands in the way of not being 100% behind nature. That is a scary thought. It is perhaps true that we are really not as weak as we think we are. But at the same time, we Are as weak as we think we are. I wish we were as strong as we could be. Too many words at this point. I am done.
That depends on your religious beliefs, morals, values, science, psychology etc. So many factors. I believe in Pro-Life for MYSELF. I couldn't do it and none of my kids are planned. However, I believe in pro-choice as a nation. I don't believe that I can tell someone else what to do or believe. I think girls and women need to do what they can to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies IF they are going to have sex, but I think they should wait until they are older and don't have to worry about procreating. This day and age though, I am a realist and believe that its really important not to bring unwanted babies into this world NOT to condone abortion but instead protecting yourself. Kids should wait to have sex until marriage or in longterm and committed relationships. However, I will not deem it murder.
Finally I should say, I thought about the things you said and reformulated my arguement on the matter
Whenever the new born is in life then abortion is a killing before it to be in life in mother's belly i.e before 4 months of pregnancy it is the possibility to do. any how someone can be the against to it.
*Whenever the new born life is killed (and any time after), it is considered murder.
*Whenever the fetus is killed, it is considered a legal killing.
*Killing a child before four months of pregnancy is impossible to do and how could any one be against it?
Is that what you were trying to say in your stupor?
Maybe your name is really John Smith.
I base it on how far along the fetus is?
also you cannot just bring a baby into the world (force life upon people) if it was a mistake due to a rape, irresponsible adults (drugees, violent behavior, octomoms, welfare moms, abusive) who will never make good parents. And no, there is NOT always another adult(s) who can or will take the child and raise them properly either. Society has not changed for the better but it will with good loving & responsible parents.
This makes sense to me. If there is not enough willingness, love and commitment to the see nature through to the completion of a healthy, robust human being... then it might be better to kill the mistake. But please, as Abby and I are advocating... just don't make the mistake!
It is really up to the female in society.
So, girls...Work on your Intelligence and Common Sense.
It is not enough to be sexy.
When sperm and egg join, is it human? You bet it is. It isn't dog, cat or orangutan.
Is it alive? You bet it is.
And what is "murder?" According to Wikipedia, "Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)." This includes premeditation or planning, which is what happens with abortion.
The fact that some people say that the "fetus" isn't human, doesn't make it so for their convenience. I can only imagine what other murderers would say about their victims to make it "okay" to end their lives.
Just because it's inconvenient to the mother, or that the conception was not a product of love doesn't make the human inside any less human. Justification for murder is just that -- justification -- trying to make it seem "logically" okay. The Germans and the Japanese did that a lot during WWII when they experimented on humans of "lesser stature."
It's not our purpose in life to ignore inconveniences. When we consider any human life an "inconvenience," then we have become the same evil perpetrated by Hitler and his thugs.
And what is "love?" Is it some "feel good" effect we experience, or is it something we create despite what happens to the "self?" Is it love for a spouse to leave when it no longer "feels good?"
"Honey, you've been great to me -- generous, kind and loving, but the 'spark' is gone. Good-bye."
Is that really love, or is it the heart of selfishness?
... you got that exactly right. ( a mon avis.)
'Then He said to his disciples, " The harvest is abundant but, the laborers are few.' " Mattew 9:37 (worth repeating here.)
Luckily In America, I think the "laborers" are the majority. I would assume there are more live births and happy parents than abortions and sad situations. I see a lot of happy babies where I work, at a pool. All year round there are huge classes of parent-Infant swim classes every day! A lot of souls are making it onto earth and I just want to remind everyone that there are a lot of great people working to raise their children with great love in their hearts... Of course!
Not uterus, no opinion.
Of course it's not murder. -_-
"Only if you can explain to me how jerking off or having a period doesn't kill a potential human being. the fact that you aren't having sex right now is preventing a potential human being from being born.
"Could you explain to me why pro-lifers care more about potential humans than existing ones? Why aren't they holding rallies outside army recruiters and prisons that have death penalties? Why they care more about a potential human being than the fully formed human being that is hosting it? I'd really like to know - Jess
Couldn't have put it better myself...
by Grace Marguerite Williams5 years ago
I have read threads regarding the stance of prolifers who assert proudly that a woman who becomes pregnant, should keep and raise her child. They loudly condemn abortion in all cases even rape. ...
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
According to Huffington Post and Reuters, the Kansas House of Representatives passed a bill on Friday, April 5, 2013 on a 90/30 vote declaring that "life" now begins at fertilization. This is after the...
by mrpopo6 years ago
What are your thoughts on abortion, and why?I really haven't formulated much of an opinion on it, but I'm curious to see what you guys think.This is a touchy subject, so let's try to be mindful of others while in...
by J.R. Smith6 years ago
what are your thoughts on this one?
by Matthew Dawson6 years ago
I just read a hub that touched my heart in a massive heart wrenching way the article was talking about abortion and certainly was supportive to Pro-Life. After reading the hub I sat back and thought what my life would...
by emdi7 years ago
I am not able to understand this concept of 'Abortion rights'. The right to kill? The right of parents to kill their children,because they created them? and why is it that if I kill the child when she is in the womb not...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.