An abortion thread

[Johnv]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Im against it but i believe the women, not the men, should have a choice if in a difficult situation.

What about the baby's choice? </font>[/QUOTE]Regardless of the abortion issue, decisions affecting the children are always untimately the responsibility of the parents. In this case, it is ultimately the decision of the mother (even if the mother and father discuss it together) as to what to do. That's not a right/wrong issue, or should/should not issue, it's just the simple truth of the matter, whether we like it to be or not.

Of course, I'm coming from the "no elective abortions permitted" position. The decision of a nonelective abortion is ultimately upon the mother, because ina nonelective situation, it's her life and health that are ultimately affected.

 

[LadyEagle]

decisions affecting the children are always untimately the responsibility of the parents.

Then the woman who threw her three kids off the bridge should not be prosecuted, if that is the case.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />decisions affecting the children are always untimately the responsibility of the parents.

Then the woman who threw her three kids off the bridge should not be prosecuted, if that is the case. </font>[/QUOTE]Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth, or fabricating an issue where there is none.

Of course the woman who threw her kids off the bridge should be prsecuted. The mother made a decision, and that decision comes a criminal penalty.

 

[LadyEagle]

You can't have it both ways, John.

You said that decisions affecting the children are always untimately the responsibility of the parents.

That statement is not correct. In cases of child neglect or abuse, the State steps in, so decisions affecting the children are NOT ultimately the responsibility of the parents, are they?

Is it not abuse to kill your child?

There is no difference between murdering an unborn child and one who has already been born.

 

[LadyEagle]

http://www.abortiontv.com/

Abortion videos for those who want to know the truth rather than the "pro-choice" lie:

http://www.abortiontv.com/Movies/viewliveabortions.htm

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
You can't have it both ways, John.

Did I say you could? No. Stop putting words in my mouth.

You said that decisions affecting the children are always untimately the responsibility of the parents.

Yes. It's true. If the parents make a bad or immoral choice, the parents ultimately pay the price for it.

That statement is not correct. In cases of child neglect or abuse, the State steps in, so decisions affecting the children are NOT ultimately the responsibility of the parents, are they?

Yes they are. When the state steps in, they do so because of a bad choice of the parents. The price/consequence of that choice is the State stepping in.

Is it not abuse to kill your child?

Did I says it was not? No. Don't put words in my mouth. In general, it's murder, and thus illegal.

There is no difference between murdering an unborn child and one who has already been born.

I believe that to be generally true. Never said otherwise. Again, don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Abortion videos for those who want to know the truth rather than the "pro-choice" lie:

The link you provided directs the person to view the film "Silent Scream". This film is a lie.

It claims that a 12-week fetus experiences pain. This is false. A fetus cannot percieve pain until the presence of the cerebral cortex (which occurs after this stage). In fact the National Right to Life organization acknowleges that a 12 week fetus feels no pain.

The films claims that the fetus' "abnormally high" heart rate rose from 140 to 200, and is indicative of being aware of "imminent mortal danger." This is also false. The fetus' heart rate did not change in the film. Also, the mormal rate for a fetus is about 200.

The film also makes use of a model of a fetus, claiming it to be a model of a 12 week fetus. That is also false. It's actually a model of an 18 week fetus.

The film claims that "brain waves have existed for six weeks". While it is true that ther eare electrical impulses, and while these early brain waves are, imo, sufficient cause to forbid elective abortions legally, the fact is that real brain waves do not occur until 24 weeks.

It claims that a 12-week fetus can move at will. The fact is that a fetus at this state has no cognitive ability, including the ablity to move on its own.

It claims that the head of a 12 week fetus requires "crushing instruments" to be extracted. That is false. Aspiration (while, imo, equally gruesome) is the common method.

It claims that a fetus is indistinguishable from fully formed persons. This is also false. A 12 week fetus is, at best, a rudimentary version of a fully formed person. Most organs are in very early stages of development and not recognizable as the organs they will eventually become.

Also of note is that the film was taken in slow motion just before the abortion scene to produce a tranquil effect, then speeded up. This makes it look like the fetus is thrashing around "in pain." The audience is not told about the manipulation of film speed, of course.

Now, I am completely in favor of voicing our moral opposition to abortion. However, when doing so, we must be factual in our information. Getting behind a falsehood like the "Silent Scream" film only damages our Christian witness, and makes us look like buffoons who lack credibility.

 

[James Flagg]

You can't get a topic more polarizing than this one.

I will say that I don't agree that some types of birth control that prevent implantation of the egg into the uterine wall are abortion. I just don't view an 8-celled zygote as being the same as a fetus.

IUDs and Morning-After pills are birth control, not abortion as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Petrel]

New evidence shows that the morning-after pill doesn't affect implantation anyways, but it delays or prevents ovulation.

I think the zygote is qualitatively different than an embryo, but I am uncomfortable with birth control methods such as the IUD that work chiefly by preventing implantation. I prefer to err on the side of caution there.

 

[Bunyon]

"New evidence shows that the morning-after pill doesn't affect implantation anyways, but it delays or prevents ovulation"-------------------------------------------------------------------

Not so! Plan B contains nothing more than the same old ingrediants in your average combo birth control pill. It is just a higher dose. No one can gurantee you it wont cause an abortion.

"I just don't view an 8-celled zygote as being the same as a fetus"-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Regardless of one's views on abortion overall, it cannot be denied that it is a sentient being once brainwaves are present, and an elective abortion from this point on would be unwarranted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johnv, are you trying to play God by deciding when life begins?

Life begins at conception because it can begin nowhere else. Tell me where it begins, James Flag, if not at conception?

 

[James Flagg]

My hamster has brainwaves, but it is not sentient. Simple?

I just think that it is intellectually dishonest to equate a zygote with a human.

 

[Petrel]

Is so! I read a review article summarizing the results of multiple studies. Levonorgestrel at the levels given for emergency contraception does not affect implantation.

 

[Bunyon]

"Is so! I read a review article summarizing the results of multiple studies. Levonorgestrel at the levels given for emergency contraception does not affect implantation."--------------------------------------------------------------------

The levels of levonorgestrel in Plan B is higher than in a pack of birth conrol pills. If it does not effect implantation it is a time issue not a dose issue. I have not seen those studies, but I suspect you are reading some abortion rights propoganda. But could be. We will see.

 

[LadyEagle]

Johnv, are you trying to play God by deciding when life begins?

Really.

The Silent Scream is not a falsehood. That's just your opinion, Johnv, and opinions don't necessarily equate to facts.

The films claims that the fetus' "abnormally high" heart rate rose from 140 to 200, and is indicative of being aware of "imminent mortal danger." This is also false. The fetus' heart rate did not change in the film. Also, the mormal rate for a fetus is about 200.

Sorry, but in your quest to be an authority on this subject, you've merely shown a need to be further educated.

From Web MD: A normal fetal heart rate ranges from 120 to 160 beats per minute.

I do remember previous debates on this board with you, Johnv, on this subject and what your position was at that time, in spite of numerous informational sources posted to refute your views about abortion.

At any rate, you can discredit Silent Scream or anything else you want to discredit. It doesn't change the fact that abortion is murder. Even of the zygote.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LadyEagle:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Im against it but i believe the women, not the men, should have a choice if in a difficult situation.

What about the baby's choice? </font>[/QUOTE]Regardless of the abortion issue, decisions affecting the children are always untimately the responsibility of the parents. </font>[/QUOTE]That is absolutely untrue, and you ought to know better. I do not, as a parent, have any right to murder my child. Neither should these mothers.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LadyEagle:
You can't have it both ways, John.

Did I say you could? No. Stop putting words in my mouth.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes you did. You are using the first argument: that parents always have the final say, to justify the second argument: that the mother has the right to murder her child in the womb, while contradicting the argument by saying that she does not have the right to murder her children outside the womb. You cannot have it both ways. Please choose which argument you would like to go with and stick to it: Should parents have the right to murder their children or not?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Enoch]

Originally posted by hillclimber:
And the fact that the Christian community has not stopped it, and is actually debating it's merits is unconscionable .

I have always found it disturbing when a “Christian” supports abortion. Thankfully the only “Christians” I have come across who support abortion have been online. Now that’s interesting.

 

[Enoch]

"No law can give me the right to do what is wrong." - Abraham Lincoln

 

[TexasSky]

John,

Would the zygote of your hamster grow into a human being if left alone and not destroyed by artifical means? Would the zybote of a human being grow into a human being if left alone and not destroyed by artifical means?

The bible says God knew us before we were ever conceived. Every Christian must acknowledge that conception cannot happen without God's hand. In all the claims Satan has ever made to man, "I can give life," has never been one of them - because He can't. Life comes from God's breath.

You and others are trying to disect the stages of human life to a point where you can deny that one has anything to do with another, but as Scarlet pointed out - life DOES begin when the sperm joins the egg. This USED to be biology 101 - until Planned Parenthood decided it harmed their cause to continue teaching it.

Being a zygote vs an embryo vs a fetus vs a baby vs a crawler vs a toddler vs a pre-teen vs a teen vs an adult is irrelevant to whether or not you deserve life.

A zygote cannot survive on its own.
Neither can a newborn.
(Or most teens for that matter).

Medical science keeps proving over and over that "viable, quality life" can begin with an earlier and earlier premature birth than they originally thought.

If God is giving us life, why would men or women have the right to deny it?

As to all the "quality of life" argument I've ever heard - I point you to Jesus Christ.

An unwed mother living in a society that stoned women for sexual promiscuity who said, "God is the father of my child," engaged to a poor carpentar.

Under todays "thinking" - the Christ child would have been aborted so Mary could have a quality life.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Bunyon:
The levels of levonorgestrel in Plan B is higher than in a pack of birth conrol pills. If it does not effect implantation it is a time issue not a dose issue. I have not seen those studies, but I suspect you are reading some abortion rights propoganda. But could be. We will see.

It really flummoxes me why pro-life people so desperately want it to be true that Plan B is an abortifacient. I think it is good news that it is not.

I was not reading "abortion rights propaganda." I was reading a nursing journal. It was a review article--that is a type of article that compiles and analyzes the results of many other people's research. Now please don't tell me you too think that all of the researchers just made up their findings and published them in a scholarly journal so they could all snicker over how they had pulled one over on those silly pro-lifers.

If so though I can sell you a tin foil hat real cheap!