jump to last post 1-32 of 32 discussions (287 posts)

Abortion; Government Control vs. Independent Decision.

  1. Phocas Vincent profile image80
    Phocas Vincentposted 22 months ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12181003_f520.jpg
    Do you believe in your opinion that in the topic of abortion, the US Government should regulate the procedure or should it be a left to the discretion of the individuals involved? (Please keep it civil and clean guys.)

    1. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Our tax dollars should not be spent in the killing of innocent babies. The mothers womb is supposed to be the safest environment for a fetus to grow and develop, rather than being a potential death chamber.
      We live in a supply and demand culture. If there were such a high demand for abortion, the industry would not need our tax dollars to support it. If we simply allowed abortion clinics to stand on their own without government aid, the American family would be much stronger, abortion would not be as common place, and people would actually think before they act irresponsibly.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Making a law against abortion won't work; people will only find unsafe underground way of having an abortion..

        What the Bible says about Abortion
        Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.
        Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

        1. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          If by your logic that passage supports abortion then you are implying that the Bible says it's okay to kill a one month old child. It should be pretty obvious that Moses had a different idea in mind. Not so obvious if you are a liberal history revisionist.

          And the Bible says something quite the opposite concerning abortion; "Thou shalt not kill"

    2. survivetoday profile image80
      survivetodayposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      I have yet to see a good reason for abortion. With the exception of severe medical complications, there is simply no need for it. Adoption is available. These women who have abortions are doing so because they don't want to deal with morning sickness, stretch marks etc. that is NOT a reason to kill a child. It is selfish and despicable. No ifs ands or buts about it. Simply immature women who refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Fair enough - no good reason for an abortion. 

        But neither is there a good reason NOT to remove a clearly non-human parasitic collection of cells.  That leaves us with the group of folks demanding that everyone else agree with their opinion and/or religious views.  Selfish, despicable and very much against the foundations of our country.  No ifs ands or buts about it.  Simply immature people who expect their views and prejudices to be shared by all.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          A parasitic collection of cells that was initiated by the union of human sperm and human egg.


          ...its the luck of the draw as far as what is in the genetic compilation.

          Who wouldn't be absolutely curious as to WHAT it will become?

          lol

          1. bBerean profile image61
            bBereanposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            Everyone knows "what" it will become..., exactly what it already is; a person who will likely grow and develop for about 20 years, then live another 60 or so unless interfered with by violence or disease.  So do you mean wondering "who they" will become if nobody takes action against them?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              Or with a genetic malformation severe enough to take it out of the "human" category completely.

              1. bBerean profile image61
                bBereanposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Genetic malformation does not negate the humanity.  What does that have to do with people mutilating the growing person at whatever interval their conscience allows?  If it is going to fail genetically prior to birth, or at 2 or 5 or 50 or 90, that is a totally separate matter.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  Really?  How far will you take that statement?  A thing with no forebrain?  No limbs OR brain?  That never grows beyond a few hundred cells?

                  Do you claim a zygote, from human gametes, is automatically a person?  If so, can you defend that position regardless of what mutations might have taken place in either sperm or egg?

                  1. bBerean profile image61
                    bBereanposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    Seems a bit of a straw man, as you seek to determine at what point of the process to allow destruction of what, (regardless of when you attribute the term human), will likely be a person who will live for approximately 80 years unless attacked.  Was the topic abortion of perfectly normally developing humans, or does your genetic malformation angle have merit here?

                    Isn't the whole point of abortion to stop the progress of a human life that has been initiated, lest they become a further inconvenience?  Isn't choosing a point to call that developing person, a human or person, simply a way of assuaging the guilt that should properly be felt for killing them?    If the biology fails on it's own, nobody has responsibility for that failure, but if someone sets out to destroy that developing human it matters not when they chose to do it, the result is the same. 

                    To me your taking solace in semantics, but I am curious, at what point can you no longer deny acknowledging the humanity of those "growing cells"?

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            It won't become anything if aborted.  If not, the easy road is to assume it will become a person although we know it isn't always true.  Besides, it makes a better argument if we don't admit it may never survive till birth.

      2. gameshub profile image62
        gameshubposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Oh My God you make having an abortion sound like a walk in the park.  For some women this decision may be an easy one to make but for the majority it is a horrendous, painful, stressful, sole-destroying situation to have to go through and one that stays with them for life and changes them in way you will never understand.  A women doesn't choose to kill her baby for fun and no one has the right to judge her decision until they have walked a mile in her shoes.

    3. MonkeyShine75 profile image80
      MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

      I don't like the idea of government deciding everything, but if they left such things up to the discretion of the people, it could become a big mess

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        The Government is a much greater. They should stick to health care, highways, schools and small things. Not running our lives in life or death, we are the big boss, not them. No better person to decides ones body is thou self.

      2. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        The Government is a much greater. They should stick to health care, highways, schools and small things. Not running our lives in life or death, we are the big boss, not them. No better person to decides ones body is thou self.

    4. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      This is a classical chicken vs. the egg discussion. The question has evolved into a reactionary rather than a preventative discussion. Is a fetus a human being? Who knows? Does a fetus evolve into a human being? Absolutely! So the question isn't one of is it but of when is it? So if we decide we don't want the child we abort the fetus? It's kind of choosing when we should care rather than what we should care. The big when we should care is now behind the question rather than prevention which is before the question. When should we care? When we choose to have sex should be the question and preventative action. All the posturing and blaming is not going to change anything. Women who want to have an abortion will find a way to have one. Should we force them in this direction because of what should be? The deciding factor of when is it a fetus or a baby should be on the shoulders of the mother as the difference between a fetus and a baby should be based on her feelings.

  2. speer138 profile image60
    speer138posted 22 months ago

    For me it comes down to 1 question. Is the fetus a human being. If the answer is no, then it seems like there is nothing wrong with abortions. It's a simple medical procedure. If the answer is yes, then you are ending a human life without just cause. That's called murder and should be prevented. I have never heard a rational argument as to how that isn't a growing person.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Fair enough.  I've never heard a rational argument as to how a couple of cells (or a hundred or thousand) is a human being.

      Which would seem to indicate that it is a personal call and definition - that govt. should keep it's nose out of it.

      1. speer138 profile image60
        speer138posted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Most women dont know they are pregnant util the 3rd or 4th week of pregnancy. By then there is measurable brain activity. When women have abortions are they aborting cells? I have never heard of that. Isn't it a fetus? Which seems to clearly be more than just a few cells. Even if aborted cells was the case, what are those growing and developing in to?

  3. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 22 months ago

    Putting aside my own perspective I notice that people want to use the law in an absolute ways against poorer people by cutting off their access to both birth control and abortion.  But those same arguments about life beginning at conception vanish when rich people want in vitro fertilization which comes with the inevitable destruction (one way or another) of many excess embryos.  And in fact if the embryo is a person at conception, implanting them in a woman with borderline fertility is probably negligent homicide.

    What every position society takes should be free of this kind of hypocrisy.

  4. crankalicious profile image88
    crankaliciousposted 22 months ago

    The issue of whether a fetus is a human being is irrelevant to the legality of abortion.

    Abortion needs to be legal so that poor women have the same access to safe medical care that everyone else does. Otherwise, rich and middle class women just go to Canada while poor women go into the back alley. It's really that simple. Anyone who says otherwise isn't informed on the issue.

    1. speer138 profile image60
      speer138posted 22 months ago in reply to this

      actually the fetus being a human is very relevant to the issue. because if the fetus is a human, then ending its life without just cause is murder. if you think its not, how is it not? whats irrelevant , if its human,  is that a women may or may not have an abortion in a back ally.

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        You are assuming a universally accepted natural law, thou shalt not kill any living human tissue. Which seems questionable.

        1. speer138 profile image60
          speer138posted 22 months ago in reply to this

          what do you mean universally accepted natural law?

      2. crankalicious profile image88
        crankaliciousposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        You clearly don't understand the reality of abortion nor are you familiar with the history of it. Creating a law banning abortion will just mean that poor women are forced into unsafe medical procedures and those who can afford it, will travel to get their abortions. If it's murder, then what will the penalties be? Are you willing to prosecute any woman who has an abortion for murder? And should they be given the death penalty?

        1. crankalicious profile image88
          crankaliciousposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          The best way to reduce abortions is free birth control. Any person concerned about abortion should also be an advocate of free birth control.

          1. cathylynn99 profile image79
            cathylynn99posted 22 months ago in reply to this

            what you say has been studied and proven to be true

        2. speer138 profile image60
          speer138posted 22 months ago in reply to this

          if its murder, then i dont know what penalties should be. but they should be prosecuted to some degree. also if its murder, how does any scenerio about women doing it in an ally or not getting it done properly matter? can i just ask, do you think the fetus is a human, and any stage of development. if not, how is it not?

          1. crankalicious profile image88
            crankaliciousposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            You don't know what the penalties should be? You mean you haven't given that any thought? Shouldn't women who have abortions be put to death - given the electric chair? And shouldn't the men who impregnated them and left be prosecuted? And shouldn't whoever performed the abortion be put in jail for a long time.

            I'll answer your question even though you haven't answered mine. A fetus is a living thing. Is it human? Of course. But it's not viable and it's has not consciousness. It doesn't know it's alive. However, that doesn't matter. It's irrelevant because abortions just happen anyway and it's the poor women who end up in the back alleys. Your abortion laws will do nothing to stop middle class and rich women from having them. They'll just go to another country. You act as though human life were sacred. It's not. I think what you mean to say is that innocent life is sacred. It's not. But again, that's all irrelevant. I'm not saying abortions should be done as though they were breast implants. I'm saying the procedure should be available when it's needed.

            1. speer138 profile image60
              speer138posted 22 months ago in reply to this

              I answered your question. I said I dont know. You're right though , I haven't given much thought to what the penalties should be. I think the father should only be punished if he paid for or agree to it. A lot of times they don't even get the choice. I think the doctor should be punished. But that's because I believe life is of value. I find it interesting you don't think life is of value or sacred, but you're still for whatever reason concerned for the health and well being of the mother. Can you explain that? And if life is not sacred, and making murder illegal doesn't prevent everyone from doing it, should we just legalize it?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                The father is the ultimate cause of the murder of human life because he created it, therefore the father is the cause of the abortion. He should have known the woman would kill it.
                Why did he not know?
                He did.


                Also
                If a pre-child is allowed to be murdered, why not a child?
                ...a teen?
                ...an adult?
                Therefore, with this line of reasoning, abortion should be illegal and not left up to personal choice.

                1. Aime F profile image82
                  Aime Fposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  Is this satire? What's happening here?

              2. crankalicious profile image88
                crankaliciousposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                I'm for reality. I'm for free birth control. I'm for doing everything we can to make abortion a very rare option, but when that option is needed, then it's done safely for all women regardless of their income level.

                1. speer138 profile image60
                  speer138posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  crankalicious: im for birth control as well. but that doesn't really answer the questions i asked.

        3. survivetoday profile image80
          survivetodayposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Couldn't the same be said for all types of murder and crime? If we ban murder, people will just be sneaky about it. Therefore, we should simply allow it. If we make rape illegal, people will just do it in back alleys when no one is looking. Therefore, rape should be legal.

  5. Aime F profile image82
    Aime Fposted 22 months ago

    I believe that there should be some intervention (no late term abortions) but that it should be legal for X amount of weeks. Where I live, 20 weeks is the "cut-off" date. Once the baby is viable outside of the womb is when things get uncomfortable for me, personally.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Agree

      And it's their body, not the Government's.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      I tend to agree, but also tiptoe very quietly and carefully around that term "viable".

      "Viable" with massive medical intervention and help?  Because one day not too far off we will see babies that never saw the inside of a womb.

      "Viable" on their own, without help from anyone?  Because that would mean somewhere around 15-20 years of age.

      1. Aime F profile image82
        Aime Fposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Yeah, it's tricky. I guess for me it comes down to... if a baby can survive with the assistance of something/someone other than the mother, it becomes less about the mother's rights as they could be considered two separate, living beings whose rights both need to be considered. I'm having a really hard time putting this into words for some reason, so I don't know if that makes sense. The question of when abortions should be legal is way harder than if abortions should be legal, for sure.

    3. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      What is the difference between a baby that is 19 weeks, six days, and 23 hours old, and one that is 20 weeks old?

      1. Aime F profile image82
        Aime Fposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Not much. But if you're going to draw a line then you have to draw it somewhere. You could make that argument for most things, really.

        1. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Well if you are against late term abortions then I think it is important to figure out exactly where that line is that makes the distinction between a living human, and a non living mass of cells.

          1. Aime F profile image82
            Aime Fposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            Right, and I've already said that for me it's when the fetus reaches viability. Though I know the thoughts on that are quite varied. I'm not sure why 20 weeks was the time chosen here but I'm okay with it. It's slightly before viability (which is generally 24 weeks) but it also gives women 20 weeks to make a decision, knowing that they only have 20 weeks to make a decision, which I think is fair.

            1. Onusonus profile image86
              Onusonusposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              If viability applies to the worth of a human life then where would the inconsistency with killing a one year old child be? Certainly you can not expect babies to maintain themselves alone without outside intervention.

              1. Aime F profile image82
                Aime Fposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Because a one year old child can easily survive without its mother. Another person can take responsibility for the child if need be. A mother is the only person who can support a fetus before ~24 weeks. Without the mother there is no fetus, it cannot survive as a living human being outside of the womb. Certainly not the case for a one year old.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  As technology grows do you see fathers rights as becoming more important?  There will come a time when a 1 week old fetus can live; at that point will fathers rights trump those of the mother wanting a simple abortion?

                  Or are Dads condemned to forever stand by and watch as a woman legally murders their child?

                  1. Aime F profile image82
                    Aime Fposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    I don't know, honestly. I think it would definitely have to be considered. I might have something more interesting to say after I've given it more thought, it's a tough (and interesting) question.

                    I am admittedly only completely clear in my stance that it should be legal, the specifics after that can get a bit muddied for me.

                2. Onusonus profile image86
                  Onusonusposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  Viability is ones ability to maintain its self. A six month old Baby can not do that. It would die without any outside intervention. There are also stories of babies having survived after only 21 weeks of gestation. Are they not viable because of the doctors? And if not then are the elderly not viable either?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    The heart is beating, for gosh sakes.  Once the heart is beating… a human heart…
                    Kill it if you must, but … it is a heartless act.

                    Interesting that heart and love… are synonymous.

                  2. Aime F profile image82
                    Aime Fposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    Yes, you appear to be missing the part where I'm saying that the mother is literally the only person that can sustain a fetus before a certain point. A ten week old fetus can't just be removed from a woman's uterus and put into someone else's, it can't be kept alive on machines, it can't be born and given to another person to be cared for like a six month old baby can.

                    Its existence depends on the mother's body and only the mother's body. It cannot survive even with intervention outside the womb, whether it be from a doctor, a machine, the father, or a stranger.

            2. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              Aime, it's refreshing to see someone with a rational and moderate view on abortion who admits that they don't have all the answers. Stick to your guns.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                You are advocating the choice of legally unpunished Murder.
                - just so you know.

                1. promisem profile image94
                  promisemposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  Wow, quite inflammatory and insulting. The fact is that I oppose all extremists who base their beliefs on mindless ideology. They are the bullies of our society -- both on the left and on the right.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    +1
                    It is a prime example of "My opinion is right, your's is wrong and there is nothing to discuss".

                2. crankalicious profile image88
                  crankaliciousposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  Please tell us, oh wise one, what you believe the criminal punishment should be for having an abortion. We're talking about changing the law. How should we punish those that disobey it?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    By having the father witness the abortion of his child. He should realize that he was a co-conspirator in its murder by allowing it to come into existence in the first place.
                    Now, I ask... what is wrong with this?

                3. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  "Murder" is defined as the killing of a human being.  Killing a dog is not murder.  Killing a cat or a horse is not murder.  Killing a virus or a cancerous growth is neither murder nor any kind of crime at all.

                  As a very young fetus is in the same category as a virus or other non-human parasitic growth the term "murder" is not applicable.

                  1. promisem profile image94
                    promisemposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    If a "very young fetus" is not a human being, are you then suggesting that a mature fetus is a human being? And therefore abortion is murder at a certain stage of development?

                  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    Tell that to the soul already embedded within the aborted fetus on its way out of its mother's womb.

                    Repeating:
                    There is a heart beat after five weeks.

                  3. speer138 profile image60
                    speer138posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    wilderness: in what way is a very young fetus is in the same category as a virus or other non-human parasitic growth?

              2. Aime F profile image82
                Aime Fposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Thank you. I think this is a tricky subject. I'm not sure if anyone who claims to have all the answers has really considered things from every angle.

                1. promisem profile image94
                  promisemposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  I keep hoping that truth and reason will win the day. But sometimes I feel quite alone with that thought.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    Unfortunately, truth and reason seldom triumph over emotional responses.  And virtually never over a religious one.

                    It's why lawyers try so hard to sway a jury with emotion.  It's why our media seldom bothers to report facts, just actions with a high emotional content.  It's why our politicians consistently spin their arguments towards the emotional rather than truth and reason.

                    Sad, but there it is.

            3. cathylynn99 profile image79
              cathylynn99posted 22 months ago in reply to this

              some fatal birth defects can't be discovered until after 20 weeks. should a woman have to carry a  non-viable fetus for 9 months because of an arbitrary law?

              1. Aime F profile image82
                Aime Fposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                There are exceptions for those situations. The cut-off date is for those who don't have any medical reason.

  6. cathylynn99 profile image79
    cathylynn99posted 22 months ago

    laws against abortion don't prevent abortion. such laws prevent safe abortion. about 40,000 women worldwide die each year from unsafe abortions. those women are definitely people. bad laws killed them.

  7. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    Sexual intercourse with no regard for the possibility of conception should be considered murder. The male should be held accountable in every case of abortion. The mother should not be penalized for her choice to abort, (she will suffer enough the rest of her natural life,) but the father should do jail time.
    So facing these consequences...
    yes, it should be Personal Choice/ Independent Decision.

    1. Aime F profile image82
      Aime Fposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      While I agree that it's highly irresponsible to have sex without contraception if you really don't want children...

      Why is the man being held accountable? It's ultimately the woman's choice. Putting someone in jail for someone else's choice is wrong on so many levels. If you want someone to be held accountable, it should be the woman. Women are capable of choosing to not have sex with a man if he doesn't put on a condom.

      Either way, I think throwing anyone in jail for an abortion is insane.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Okay, not jail time.
        The fathers should be required to be present at the clinic during the operation/procedure of the abortion. They should at least witness the murder of their child.
        Actually teens should see these operations on You Tube. They might think twice about getting anywhere near the opposite sex with ulterior motives...
        uh, I mean "love."

        This 20 year old perceived the significance of her child's heartbeat in a profound way causing deep regret.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vkc8Emp7jvQ

    2. crankalicious profile image88
      crankaliciousposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Abortions would mostly disappear if the men responsible for the conception were put in jail. Basically throw men in jail who leave their pregnant partners. Again though, free birth control solves most of these problems and anyone who's against abortion who doesn't support free birth control is a colossal hypocrite.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        The problem is Birth Control encourages U No What!

        A female bird must simply step away from the testosterone until she has a securely built nest with the male bird (with the testosterone) willing to fly out every A.M. and look for worms for her and the baby birds which will eventually hatch, (at that point it is too late for the male bird to step away from the eggs.)

        In the human world, the father has the opportunity to step away from the eggs if he is not willing to fly out every morning to search for bugs and worms…
        uh, I mean dollar bills....

        1. crankalicious profile image88
          crankaliciousposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          It does not encourage anything by itself. I didn't know birth control had a mind of its own. Plus, in freedom-loving America, it's none of your business what people do in the privacy of their own homes. Providing birth control is the responsible thing to do. It's simple, free birth control reduces abortion. You're either for abortions or against them. You must be for them.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            Is that the answer then?  "Give me what I want or I'll kill a baby!" so we give.  But when you pay the Danegeld it will never stop; it will only grow until you can no longer pay the price.

            1. crankalicious profile image88
              crankaliciousposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              Not sure how you're taking what I said. I guess some people believe that if we give out free birth control, people will have sex. I believe that people have sex, so we should give out birth control.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Free birth control is practically guaranteeing incidence of unpunish-able murder!

                What birth control method is 100 per-cent effective, pray tell?

                1. Aime F profile image82
                  Aime Fposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  You know what's definitely not 100% effective at preventing pregnancy? Not using birth control.

                  Or are you one of those who thinks that women shouldn't be allowed to have sex until they're ready to have a baby?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    Exactly.
                    whats wrong with that?
                    ...or are you against enlightenment?

                  2. crankalicious profile image88
                    crankaliciousposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    What method of anything is 100% effective? That is a fundamentally idiotic rationalization. By that logic, we shouldn't immunize our children either. That is such a stupid response to the advocacy of free birth control it's hard to fathom. It's a scientific fact that birth control reduces pregnancy. You seem to be assuming that offering free birth control will somehow result in billions more incidents of sexual intercourse and therefore, more incidents of pregnancy due to the failure of the birth control and therefore, more abortions. You can't argue with lunacy, so I'll stop.

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Going back to the argument that health insurance should include free birth control.  I feel that if you want to play, pay for it yourself instead of making me pay for your pleasure.

                And when you decide to use blackmail to get your free birth control "Give it to me or I'll kill a baby", I'm not interested as paying the Danegeld is a losing proposition every time.

                1. cathylynn99 profile image79
                  cathylynn99posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  it's not paying the danegeld. free birth control is a reasonable, scientific, egalitarian solution to the problem of people (many of them married) having a strong drive for sex even when they don't want kids. the world is overpopulated. anything that ameliorates that is good. not everyone has equal ability to pay. the very people who can't afford birth control can't afford kids.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    It's not Danegeld?  It's about as plain a threat as is possible: as a group, either pay for birth control or we will flood you with unwanted children.  Or have abortions, take your choice.

                    Is there any other way to read such a statement than blackmail?  Having a strong sex drive, having too many people already, having no ability to pay for your pleasure, that birth control works - all have nothing to do with the threat being implied (and carried out) every day.  They all make an excuse to pay the Dane, but in the final analysis that's exactly what it is; caving in to blackmail and paying Danegeld.  Just as paying it in centuries past kept the threatened Viking violence away, this time it keeps the threatened babies away.

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Force two people to marry for life?  Without their willing consent? 

        That hardly seems like a responsible position to take.

    3. speer138 profile image60
      speer138posted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Kathryn : Why should the man be punished but not the women?

    4. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Whoa there!  You're going to penalize someone for the decision/choice of another?  How does that work again?

  8. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    "Or are Dads condemned to forever stand by and watch as a woman legally murders their child?"


    If there is no home in place…
    what is a woman to do?
    It is a given… no home, no marriage, no commitment:
    Murder/abortion will be inevitable.

                                                                A given.


    That the woman is NOT willing to...
    1. Murder a pre-child she knows she will not be able to take care of by herself... 
    2. Become a welfare mother... 
    3. Dump the child on her parents...
    ...is a rare woman indeed.

    And men should realize this before they embark upon a session of loving the random hook-up they're with.

    Listen to Love Line on KROQ

  9. promisem profile image94
    promisemposted 22 months ago

    Do I believe a fetus can be aborted when it is one day old because the parents are poor, hungry or teenagers? Yes.

    Do I believe a fetus can be aborted when it is eight months and 29 days old because the parents changed their minds? No.

    Abortion is not black or white, one side or another. Extremists have distorted a complex issue by claiming it has simple answers.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      The simple answer is to love the woman enough to support a child caused by YOUR sperm.

      I believe that males and females should own up to the facts of science and stop indulging in illusionistic, sentimental nonsense.

      What are the facts again?
      Males: Your sperm will head for the eggs and you shot them there!!!! yikes!!!
      Females: His sperm will head for your eggs and you inspired him to shoot them there!!!! yikes!!!

      Why are there any abortions at all if we are so smart these days?

      Q. Why is this not a non-issue?
      A. The frailties of human nature.

      But really, if we would call it what it is: murder, it would could help us humans evolve in awareness and self mastery. Men should be motivated to step away from the eggs until they are certain murder will not be the result.

      Thank You for this freedom of creative writing and thinking.
      I am finished.

    2. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Right, because poverty is a fate worse than death. Good point.

      1. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Death is not a fate that a one-day-old fetus experiences or even knows that it is possible to experience.

        1. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          The scientific community would disagree. Despite the political motivations backing their concept of what is and is not viable, it is still a proven fact that it is alive, and afterwards it is dead.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            The scientific community agrees that a one day old fetus knows anything at all, let alone self awareness and the ability to experience?

            Come, come Onus - false declarations are hardly conducive to the discussion.

          2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            Especially when you consider that the soul (or souls) enters the zygote (or zygotes) at the instant it (they) unites with a single sperm (or two).
            yikes (yikes yikes)

          3. promisem profile image94
            promisemposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            Onusonus, please note that I used the word "experiences" on purpose. Otherwise, I agree with the second sentence of your followup. That doesn't change the fact that it has no knowledge of death.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              How the heck do you Know???
              I would and others disagree!
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSr3qslZwAk

              1. promisem profile image94
                promisemposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                How do you know that the soul enters the fetus the moment is created? Some beliefs are based on facts and some on opinions. If you know someone who was conscious as a one-day-old fetus, I would love to meet them.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  - oh, its a fact, all right...

                  1. promisem profile image94
                    promisemposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    And your proof is what?

                  2. cathylynn99 profile image79
                    cathylynn99posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    the old testament says that if someone strikes a pregnant woman and causes her to lose  the fetus, the striker will be fined. if the woman dies, the striker will be killed. evidently god doesn't put as high a value on a fetus as an adult.

  10. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    I'll tell you a secret:
    A Young Adult female does not really understand the reality of getting pregnant. She doesn't believe it can happen... until it does.
    She does not really equate sex with getting pregnant.
    She should.
    It is probably the same for the guy.
    He should, as well.
    If we called abortion Murder, (or at least remind them it is killing a life,) it would instill a sense of urgency in the awareness of parents and their YA (young adult) aged offspring.

    Nowadays, parents just hand them contraception. If there is even one percent chance of getting pregnant with the chosen birth control method...
    it is NOT enough.

  11. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    Come on guys! what is the PURPOSE of sperms?
    to poof a baby fully developed into existence?

    No!
    - to start the process of creation.

    That process of creation is


                                                           very mysterious.

    and you want to halt it for whatever reason you so choose…

    oh well.

    but at least call it what it is:

    Killing Human Life

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Simply repeating, time after time, that an unborn fetus is a human being doesn't make it so.  Can you support your claim with factual evidence, evidence that does not depend on your concept of spiritual life?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        The fetus is on a mysterious path toward becoming a human being.
        It is being guided by a mysterious force which we cannot fathom scientifically.
        But common sense and typical outcomes reveal that a human fetus will not become anything besides a human being.
        What is the mysterious force?
        Life Force.
        If you do not respect this mysterious force, you will kill it through aborting the fetus and taking away its ability to proceed on its destined course toward full term and existence outside of its mothers body.
        Even at that point this life-force is exceedingly dependent upon its mother's assistance in order to develop independent existence for many many years.
        Let's just say that once it is born, and you don't particularly like your baby, or you can't afford it or it restricts your social life…. and you want to kill it.
        What is the difference?
        I'll tell you.
        NONE

        1. cathylynn99 profile image79
          cathylynn99posted 22 months ago in reply to this

          what is your evidence for the existence of a "soul".

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            It stands to reason that each one of us is a walking, talking, breathing, laughing, crying, dancing, singing, working, playing, fighting, caring, thinking soul!

            According To What I Have Read: When we die, the life force or soul, departs to the astral plane. Without the body, the soul waits for another lifetime. We come back to earth because we want to.
            Eventually, we will want to merge back into the ocean of spirit from whence we came.…


            Just Being Open to Possibilities

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          I take it that you cannot support your claim, so just make it again in the hopes your unsupported opinions will be accepted as factual.  With the addition of a new make believe force added in as well.

          They aren't.

          1. crankalicious profile image88
            crankaliciousposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            It's like she can't read or form a coherent argument.

      2. lone77star profile image90
        lone77starposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        You're right, wilderness. An unborn human fetus isn't a human being;... it's a dog! Woof!

        But enough silliness.

        A fertilized human egg is a human being. It's human; not any other kind of animal. It is a being; it lives and grows.

        Abortion is murder. The real culprit is self-concern -- ego -- selfishness.

        Your kind of logic is what makes pogroms possible. Genocide of the undesirable and useless eaters of the world. With your kind of logic, solid steel offers zero resistance (as you implied in a 9/11 discussion). Frankly, I'm losing respect for your cognitive abilities (or lack of them).

        1. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Ouch. Although I'm morally opposed to abortion in most cases, I do believe and the legal system agrees that abortion is tolerable in at least some cases. A fully formed fetus is mostly human when it is has viability outside of the womb, but it lacks all characteristics of a human being when it is a one-day-old fetus.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          And what can you produce outside of your own personal opinion that a fetus is a human being?  Biological facts, please, not some esoteric decision from the "spiritual world".  What attributes does it contain that separates it from any animal fetus (or even a tree seed for that matter) and that does not depend on future growth to obtain "human" status?

          While you may have an ego the size of the world, it isn't being translated into thought and reason.  Just an exclamation that you are always right and those that disagree are automatically wrong.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            Exactly. Some sperms might produce an alien. One with pointed ears and an over-amount of logic.
            Due to the strain of Vulcan in the DNA.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              Is that your definition of "human"?  That everyone classified as human must have the exact chromosomal chart as you do?

              I asked you before to define the term, but all you could come up with is that humans have a soul that you can't detect but assume is there.  In other words, a definition based on your personal, individual evaluation of every living organism.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Human sperm have human DNA.
                No?


                " The sperm cell and the egg cell that come together to form the zygote each contain half the normal amount of DNA. There are 46 chromosomes in a typical human cell. The sperm and the egg each contain only 23 - one copy of chromosomes 1 through 22 plus an X or a Y. Egg cells can only contain an X but the sperm can contain an X or a Y."
                https://www.genome.gov/DNADay/q.cfm?aid … ;year=2009

                How could the union of human sperm and human egg begin anything but Human Life?

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  "Human sperm have human DNA"

                  Sorry - you still need to define "human" in order to get an answer.  Example: a fetus has no forebrain and no limbs.  It is not human regardless of how you choose to define the term, yet has human DNA in it.  Such organisms are naturally aborted all the time - if even our own bodies recognize it is not human, how can we define it otherwise?

                  Similarly, a fetus that can see ultraviolet light IS human even though the DNA is not strictly human as no other humans can do that.

                  You're going to have to define, biologically, your terms before you can arbitrarily claim the attribute of "human" and simply claiming that the result of a human sperm and egg is automatically human doesn't cut it.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    < "if even our own bodies recognize it is not human…">
                    How can a "body" recognize it one way or another?

                    …that imaginative reasoning sounds very silly coming from you, wilderness.

                    A body is only looking out for its own health. A fetus is not rejected or accepted by the BODY!
                    The body can either handle the state of being pregnant...
                    or not.

                  2. crankalicious profile image88
                    crankaliciousposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    Wilderness, I admire your patience with this issue. However, in my view, it's pointless. People who don't understand the issue of abortion as it relates to public policy tend to conflate their own, personal moral stance with the reality of public policy. A smart man once said: "you can't legislate morality". That's true here, but fundamentally irrelevant. The only issue is how illegal abortion affects public policy and exists in reality. If it's illegal, abortion simply becomes a back alley practice which only affects a certain class of women. Poor women become subject to unsafe medical procedures while middle class and upper class women aren't affected at all. They simply travel to have their abortions. That's why abortion must be legal. It should be discouraged through education and free birth control. Anyone who doesn't get this doesn't understand the issue. The free birth control doesn't have to be distributed by the government, but it needs to be distributed somehow. The Bible is not an acceptable document for how we should design our public policy. If that were the case, it would be legal to sell our daughters into slavery.

  12. Aime F profile image82
    Aime Fposted 22 months ago

    Are we really suggesting that a woman not have sex until she's 50+ just because she doesn't want children?

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Yes, if she doesn't want to conceive a child. Every form of birth control has a percentage of failure.
      (Of course, if she is creative, she can figure out a way to keep the sperm 
      v e r y  F A R  away from her eggs.)

      Or tie your tubes … there is another good idea.

      Otherwise, you will have a tragedy to contend with.
      Unless you think it is great fun to kill life within you or to give it up for adoption.
      Or perhaps you think it will really be a trip to have your baby and raise it in your room in your parents house.

      My actual advice:
      Just WAIT til you find the man of your dreams who loves you enough to marry you and start a family!
      Sex is like FIRE! You can't play with FIRE!

      1. Aime F profile image82
        Aime Fposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        I highly doubt anyone thinks having an abortion or giving a baby up for adoption is "fun." But let's be real, most women will use birth control without failure. I think it's a bit oppressive to suggest that all women abstain from sex until they're ready to have a baby (which might be never) on the small chance that their birth control fails.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          One can only hope.

          Have you NEVER panicked????
          Oh, how I hated wondering, dreading, testing for pregnancy! Its enough to make one HATE sex!
          Just wait till you have no more eggs. Keep your youth by healthful diet and exercise.
          It really is possible! What's a couple of decades!

          TWISI

          1. cathylynn99 profile image79
            cathylynn99posted 22 months ago in reply to this

            when i was no longer fertile (by the way, your science is off. women don't run out of eggs.), i also no longer had a sex drive, which is not uncommon. so that means, if i had waited, i never would have enjoyed sex. your solution is unrealistic.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              - oh brother!
              Not true about the sex drive at all!

              The ovaries become hard as nuts and unproductive after menopause… eggs or not…

              I never said don't have sex. There is sex with one and very careful creative sex with two where the eggs and sperms do not have the slightest chance of being in the same proximity.

              I am saying do what must be done to proactively avoid murder.
              Birth control methods can fail, so … watch out.

              But, if one does not believe it is murder, than one can follow one's own conscience.
              Or the law which deems when it is officially murder.

              1. cathylynn99 profile image79
                cathylynn99posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                i am an MD, and low sex drive is a common complaint of menopausal women.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  You are a Medical Doctor?

                  You believe in holistic, healthy practices to maintain health and a youthful body?
                  You believe in exercise as medicine?
                  You believe in not over-filling the stomach and not drinking water with meals?
                  You believe in Yoga and maintaining a supple spine?
                  You believe in preventing the aging of the body through diet and exercise.

                  Well, many do and as a result feel physically young and are able to maintain a healthy libido.

                  Thank you for your input.

                  1. cathylynn99 profile image79
                    cathylynn99posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    i follow a healthy diet and exercise program. however, it does nothing to counteract the lack of libido due to hormone loss due to natural aging. you appear to be promoting a fantasy.

  13. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    PS I do not believe this for a moment:
    < "But let's be real, most women will use birth control without failure.">
    I wonder what the true percentage is.
    How can this even be proven?
    It can't.
    It's a myth.
    A Mon Avis

    1. Aime F profile image82
      Aime Fposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      It's not a myth. Most women use birth control without failure. That's a statistical fact. The percentages aren't as high in reality as they are theoretically, but the problem is not enough education regarding birth control methods... not people having sex in general.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        "most" is not good enough. To avoid the heartache of unwanted pregnancy just keep the eggs far away from the sperm… using a condom allows the sperm to get too close to the eggs. I know a woman who was on birth control: the pill. She already had two boys and didn't want another child.
        AND her husband got a vasectomy. 
        Well Bucky came along anyway.
        I guess he really wanted to be born! He somehow bypassed both birth control methods.

        1. Aime F profile image82
          Aime Fposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          So women who don't want children should only be able to have sex until a) they've reached menopause, or b) we find a method of birth control that's 100% effective.

          I already have a child but couldn't handle another one right now (emotionally or financially), so I guess my husband and I would be going on 3 years of no sex! Sounds totally healthy.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            C. Find creative ways to have sex which keep the sperm very far away from the eggs.

            Otherwise, you are risking getting pregnant.
            You know that.
            You are prepared for it if it should happen.
            It could happen.
            It will be a happy family if it does. smile

  14. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    Having no sex life is healthier that having a sex life.
    But, it depends on the people involved. If you really enjoy sex, it 's not a bad thing…
    You just have to be careful to control the situation.

    According to Moi.

  15. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    <"Is a cross between a chimp and a human viable?">
    NO! it will not live!

  16. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    Here is what I have to say about YOUR rebuttal:
    Not close / No cigar.

  17. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    "The question of what line exists between a 'human' being and a 'non-human' being has been a difficult one for many scientists to answer. While animals with something like one percent or less of their cells originally coming from humans may clearly appear to be in the same boat as other animals, no consensus exists on how to think about beings in a genetic middle ground that have something like an even mix. "I don't think anyone knows in terms of crude percentages how to differentiate between humans and nonhumans," U.S. patent office official John Doll has remarked."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parahuman

    Stop having babies everyone!  We don't know what the heck they will be!

    - wilderness wins.
    Here is his virtual reward:
    A pack of condoms to give to the oldest YA in his family line.

    He can say, "Have at it!  But, you might accidentally conceive a human or chimera. 
    Thats okay, you can always abort it, whatever it turns out to be."

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      You begin to understand the problem when all abortions are banned as murder of a human being.  It's not so easy to make a definitive call, is it?

      So it comes down to a philosophical and/or religious decision.  Neither of which can or should be forced on anyone as being "right", yet detractors are more than happy to do so, simply by making a claim of murder.  It's so "obvious" after all, if only we don't actually try to reason our way through the morass.

  18. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    "<You begin to understand the problem when all abortions are banned as murder of a human being.  It's not so easy to make a definitive call, is it?">

    I never said the govt. should have anything to do with the issue of abortion.
    I do believe in freedom of choice as to whether or not to abort.
    I think the real issue is when does it become murder.
    God needs to appear and answer this question:
    Is pre-human life not as valuable as nearly complete and complete human life?

    How the heck are WE supposed to know?
    Are the correction of ooopsies permissible in God's sight?
    Most people do want God's approval.
    Even the law makers, it seems.

  19. Fred Arnold profile image59
    Fred Arnoldposted 22 months ago

    Is human life even valuable? That's our perception, but the big ass universe seems to think otherwise. We are insignificant pin pricks.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      ...except to ourselves and that I think is VALID!

  20. 60
    Jonathan12745posted 22 months ago

    The abortion topic is one of the most critical because there's two sides the yes an the no,we should all just take this into mind when thinking of abortion every time someone practices abortion it's a life of a kid there killing instead of abortion if people don't want there kid they should just give it to adoption instead of killing that child.

  21. Aime F profile image82
    Aime Fposted 22 months ago

    I think that perhaps the point is that most women lose at least some of their sex drive around menopause, and those women would have never had the opportunity to experience a healthy, active sex life if they were expected to wait until then.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      ...well, at least they didn't kill a potential human being.
      Besides, the less sex females have the less they need. If they don't have it all, they don't need it at all.
      May not be true for men. But, I've never heard of a nun molesting anyone.

      1. Aime F profile image82
        Aime Fposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Wow. My head just exploded.

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        At the end of your life, what would you regret more:
        1. Killing your baby.
        2. Not having sex with a partner the typical way... before menopause.

        1. Aime F profile image82
          Aime Fposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Impossible to say, and I'm sure the answer would be different depending on the person. Again, you have to realize that not everyone considers a fetus in its early weeks to be a baby. I have a close friend who had an abortion when she was 19 and while it was a difficult time for her, she doesn't regret it, because she knows it was the right decision for her at the time.

          If a woman wants to choose to wait until she's reached menopause to have sex then that is completely fine. The issue is telling women that an active sex life is wrong... for whatever reason. Women's sexuality has been hugely repressed in the past and your ideas just seem like taking a step back to that.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            I would never want to have an abortion. I would rather die myself.
            But, I'm way intense.
            I absolutely agree. It is a personal choice.

  22. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    In fact, some religions tell you not to have sex unless it is for the purpose of procreation.
    This makes sense to me for many reasons.

  23. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    http://www.elle.com/beauty/news/a15274/ … -with-age/

      Typically in French cinema, sexuality and sex appeal are viewed as an intrinsic quality within women, which evolves with age but doesn't fade.

    "Sex appeal doesn't go away because we don't have such a precise definition of beauty. Quirkiness and charm are more valued than a static idea of perfection. In the United States, beauty is almost mathematical and can only be achieved in your 20s," says Laurence Vely, an editor at Vanity Fair France, who feels a lot of women become more attractive with age. "Once you hit 40, you finally know yourself and what suits you. [You] have real confidence."

    1. cathylynn99 profile image79
      cathylynn99posted 22 months ago in reply to this

      apples and oranges. sex appeal vs. libido. a fashion magazine opinion piece vs. a factual journalisitic piece. you should really be banned from hubpages for trolling.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        -why don't you watch this. I dare you:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUECWLjPeSQ


        - and you should be banned for saying I'm trolling.

        1. cathylynn99 profile image79
          cathylynn99posted 22 months ago in reply to this

          again. apples and oranges. btw, the NYT article wasn't negative. it was factual. if you find reality negative, just ignore it, right?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            Believe me, I know what I'm talking about.
            If you eat well and exercise you will be as a 40 year old after fifty.

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Knowing one's sex appeal is the underlying reason for sexual desire.
        I do not agree its apples and oranges.
        LOL lol
        Finis pour moi.

        (PS One more video:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clk6r8tjlno)

        1. cathylynn99 profile image79
          cathylynn99posted 22 months ago in reply to this

          i have plenty of sex appeal, but no desire.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            Perhaps some (older) women have plenty of desire but no sex appeal.

            The pont is to avoid having to abort ever.

            It is also not good for the woman's body to go through the procedure of removing a Fetus.

            To avoid the need to have an abortion, avoid allowing sperm anywhere near the eggs.
            Since contraceptive methods are not 100 % guaranteed, by using them, one risks pregnancy.

            Its not that hard, but it does take effort, to keep the sperm away from the eggs, (when not using contraceptives). You just have to be aware.
            And determined.
            If you're lazy, wait till after menopause.

            Maybe someday, (as we remain younger/healthier longer and longer,) this concept will be accepted and become the norm…and abortion will be a greatly-reduced or non-issue.
            Until that time, of course it should be personal choice.
            A choice one must be willing to live with.

  24. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    No matter what you want to believe about the conglomeration of cells not being directed by a soul... it is the fact of the matter that the soul is directing the course of the body's development from the absolute moment of conception.

    In other words, the bunch of so-called parasitic cells is DESTINED to become a human being from the MOMENT of CONCEPTION. Karma and the person's personality pre-exist before birth as the blueprint of the SOUL.  Furthermore, the soul evolves lifetime after life-time until true self-realization occurs. You don't have to believe this, but I and many others do. Some know without a doubt and write according to the truth they happen to know, while others do not know the truth and refuse to believe the truth. Some prefer ignorance for whatever strange reason.
    What is the proof?
    EVERY SINGLE unique and special PERSON stomping around on the earth.

    Thank you for this freedom of speech.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      A soul is made of million of parts. Like your country, name, thoughts and so on. A soul is developing abilities where 21 weeks is greatly under develope soul. If the
      mother did not want the child
      in the first place, the child is
      likely not to be loved by the
      Mother.

      The earth is already  50% over populated in an over ego world. Too much suffering for many unloved persons with
      such lack of freedoms to
      start with.

      My sister inlaw came to me
      asking if she should abort her
      child. I made a pro's and
      con's chart for her to decide
      for herself. She found more
      pro's to keep the child and so far they have been working
      out.

  25. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    If ANYONE has knowledge of a non-human creature that came out of a human/female womb, (at ANY stage), please reveal.

  26. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    I need proof that contained within human genetic codes are non-human genetic codes.
    I need proof.
    Where is the proof?
    I have proof of God,
    but I cannot prove it.
    If you have proof of non-human genetic codes, (contained within a human zygote) and cannot prove it, say so.
    Then we can drop it. lol

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Sorry, I cannot prove anything to you unless you have a will to understand and are willing to do the necessary work to find out.

      If you are, check the DNA records of chimpanzees and human beings.  Most of it is identical to a geneticist.  You can either become one yourself or take their word for it.  Or continue to claim that ignorance prevents you from understanding that they are the same and therefore you will not believe it.

  27. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    Could you please elucidate?
      "...because that could mean that human gametes produced a possum…"

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      You have to know that mutations can cause a change in human DNA to something it was not.  This can produce a living organism, but is it still human?  It no longer carries human DNA...

  28. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    Human egg + human sperm = human zygote.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Good.  Except that you are still defining "human" as "human".  Give a definition of "human sperm" that doesn't simply mean "coming from a human" if you are using it to define "human".

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        why?

  29. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    Human egg + human sperm = human zygote.

    It is just the way it works unless you have proof otherwise.

  30. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    The sun is a gaseous ball of hydrogen fusing into helium and other gases.
    I know it is not a camp fire because I have seen the ball through the haze in the sky, (just the other day,) and when visiting Griffith Park Observatory where there are views of the sun in real time. Therefore, I know it really is a ball in the sky.

    A human made sperm comes squirting out of a human apparatus and swims its way toward an available human egg and then wriggles its teeny weeny little way right into the teeny weeny egg. Both the teeny weeny sperm and the teeny weeny egg contain HUMAN MADE chromosomes. These chromosomes are the result of human made sperm and a human made egg.
                                                          HUMAN MADE.
                          There are no animal chromosomes in them whatsoever.

    If there is, I need proof I can see.
    Ask an abortion Doctor.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Still avoiding the questions, then.  Still refusing to acknowledge that mutations occur (some gametes are the product of human DNA coupled with chemicals, X-rays, gamma rays or other things).  Or are you claiming that a DNA strand from a human remains human no matter what might happen to it?  (That opens the claim that if we genetically modify a DNA strand any amount it remains human.  Or that a modified corn DNA is still corn and can be eaten safely no matter what changes were made).

      And still absolutely refusing to give any definition except "human" means "human".  Is there a reason for that refusal?  Maybe because some zygotes aren't human but you don't want to achnowledge it as claims that abortion is murder are thus false?

  31. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    Calling all abortion doctors:
    Did you ever cut up and vacuum out anything other than a human being?

    I'll wait.

  32. crankalicious profile image88
    crankaliciousposted 22 months ago

    You clearly live in some fantasy world, but I'll live in it for a few minutes.

    Again, what's the punishment in this country for murder? Life in jail or death, right? So women who get abortions should either be put in jail for life or given the death penalty, right?

    And since this is a Holocaust of sorts, shouldn't we retroactively punish anyone who has received an abortion? Shouldn't we actively hunt down all women who've had an abortion and put them to death or in jail? This has been a Holocaust after all and we have certainly tried to hunt down those who participated in the Jewish Holocaust. Let's hunt down those who participated in the abortion Holocaust and give them the punishment that they deserve.

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Ditto my friend. hmm

    2. crankalicious profile image88
      crankaliciousposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      The words "Jewish Holocaust" were meant to separate the abortion Holocaust from the other. I should have just written "Holocaust" with a capital "H" and the other with a small "h". The words "Jewish Holocaust" shouldn't be taken as me not understanding the Holocaust's full scope. Apologies.

 
working