Abortion: THIS THREAD CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES NOT FOR MINORS

An open area for free-thinkers and believers to slug it out.

Re: THIS IS WHAT PRO-CHOICE LOOKS LIKE

Unread postby IdunnoUU » Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:22 pm

PanFreethinker5 wrote:
MistahTom wrote:This is what a woman who had an abortion looks like

Image


I have to disagree. Some might look like that, but other can't get pregnant again, or others might have Hemorrhage after the abortion.



Although, y'know, that's like, well under 1%.
IdunnoUU
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:30 am
Reputation point: 0

Re: Abortion: THIS THREAD CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES NOT FOR MINORS

Unread postby H3RM3S78 » Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:27 pm

Not taking into account the crying at night, thinking about the lost child, for years to come.
please delete this account
H3RM3S78
 
Posts: 735
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 12:25 am
Reputation point: 760

Re: Abortion: THIS THREAD CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES NOT FOR MINORS

Unread postby IdunnoUU » Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:07 pm

H3RM3S78 wrote:Not taking into account the crying at night, thinking about the lost child, for years to come.


OR you could have the child and listen to it cry, for years to come, while it's ruining your life.
IdunnoUU
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:30 am
Reputation point: 0

Re: Abortion: THIS THREAD CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES NOT FOR MINORS

Unread postby willow » Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:50 pm

Some people regret the action, some people don't.

Some people regret there failure for self actualization and accomplishment because they foolishly had a child early thus limiting themselves in many ways. Loss of educational or job opportunities as well as the fact that your bringing a child into the world when you know full well your less then fully capable of caring for the child etc. In extreme cases it can lead to child abuse as the parent takes its frustrations over these things out on the child as the source of its problems. In others a child can put undue stress on already troubled relationships, more so in couples who foolishly believe that a baby will somehow fix their other problems like magic. Or they place the child up for adoption, handing it over to the state after birth.
Others will consider the child in any form a blessing and source of happyness. Pro lifers however will accept a substandard or "broken" life as superior to no life.

Some people regret having there abortion because they are left wondering or focus on what could have been, like worrying over a misscarried child, or they feel guilty about there action after the fact. That guilt can come from many places though, religion, parents, spouse, or society in general.
Others value there children, had when the parents were ready, all the more becasue of it.

Truth of the matter is, in our society with proper sex education and publicly available contraceptive methods there is no reason for unwanted pregnancy, thus no reason for needless abortions. You can take the view that needing an abortion is a sign of personal irresponsibility if you wish.
dirty work... the right google key words...
-willow 07/22/09
User avatar
willow
Chat Moderator
Chat Moderator
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:59 am
Location: Vancouver Canada
Reputation point: 932

Re: Abortion: THIS THREAD CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES NOT FOR MINORS

Unread postby IdunnoUU » Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:12 pm

willow wrote:Some people regret the action, some people don't.

Some people regret there failure for self actualization and accomplishment because they foolishly had a child early thus limiting themselves in many ways. Loss of educational or job opportunities as well as the fact that your bringing a child into the world when you know full well your less then fully capable of caring for the child etc. In extreme cases it can lead to child abuse as the parent takes its frustrations over these things out on the child as the source of its problems. In others a child can put undue stress on already troubled relationships, more so in couples who foolishly believe that a baby will somehow fix their other problems like magic. Or they place the child up for adoption, handing it over to the state after birth.
Others will consider the child in any form a blessing and source of happyness. Pro lifers however will accept a substandard or "broken" life as superior to no life.

Some people regret having there abortion because they are left wondering or focus on what could have been, like worrying over a misscarried child, or they feel guilty about there action after the fact. That guilt can come from many places though, religion, parents, spouse, or society in general.
Others value there children, had when the parents were ready, all the more becasue of it.

Truth of the matter is, in our society with proper sex education and publicly available contraceptive methods there is no reason for unwanted pregnancy, thus no reason for needless abortions. You can take the view that needing an abortion is a sign of personal irresponsibility if you wish.


I completely agree. The only cases in which I support abortion are those that threaten the life of the mother and/or the baby.
IdunnoUU
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:30 am
Reputation point: 0

Re: Abortion: THIS THREAD CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES NOT FOR MINORS

Unread postby DarthRavanger » Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:44 am

IdunnoUU wrote:
willow wrote:Some people regret the action, some people don't.

Some people regret there failure for self actualization and accomplishment because they foolishly had a child early thus limiting themselves in many ways. Loss of educational or job opportunities as well as the fact that your bringing a child into the world when you know full well your less then fully capable of caring for the child etc. In extreme cases it can lead to child abuse as the parent takes its frustrations over these things out on the child as the source of its problems. In others a child can put undue stress on already troubled relationships, more so in couples who foolishly believe that a baby will somehow fix their other problems like magic. Or they place the child up for adoption, handing it over to the state after birth.
Others will consider the child in any form a blessing and source of happyness. Pro lifers however will accept a substandard or "broken" life as superior to no life.

Some people regret having there abortion because they are left wondering or focus on what could have been, like worrying over a misscarried child, or they feel guilty about there action after the fact. That guilt can come from many places though, religion, parents, spouse, or society in general.
Others value there children, had when the parents were ready, all the more becasue of it.

Truth of the matter is, in our society with proper sex education and publicly available contraceptive methods there is no reason for unwanted pregnancy, thus no reason for needless abortions. You can take the view that needing an abortion is a sign of personal irresponsibility if you wish.


I completely agree. The only cases in which I support abortion are those that threaten the life of the mother and/or the baby.


what about rape victims? just curious.
According to robots, we taste like BACON! http://www.wired.com/table_of_malconten ... identifie/

The Throne of Heaven was built my man to serve as the pedestal for nothing.
User avatar
DarthRavanger
Mod Group Leader
Mod Group Leader
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:47 am
Location: D.C metro Area
Reputation point: 1912

Re: Abortion: THIS THREAD CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES NOT FOR MINORS

Unread postby willow » Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:19 pm

Abortions for rape are fine with me, Im not opposed to abortions with the exception of late term abortions after a point where the fetus becomes viable outside the womb, around 22-26 weeks.
dirty work... the right google key words...
-willow 07/22/09
User avatar
willow
Chat Moderator
Chat Moderator
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:59 am
Location: Vancouver Canada
Reputation point: 932

Re: Abortion: THIS THREAD CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES NOT FOR MINORS

Unread postby IdunnoUU » Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:43 pm

DarthRavanger wrote:
IdunnoUU wrote:
willow wrote:Some people regret the action, some people don't.

Some people regret there failure for self actualization and accomplishment because they foolishly had a child early thus limiting themselves in many ways. Loss of educational or job opportunities as well as the fact that your bringing a child into the world when you know full well your less then fully capable of caring for the child etc. In extreme cases it can lead to child abuse as the parent takes its frustrations over these things out on the child as the source of its problems. In others a child can put undue stress on already troubled relationships, more so in couples who foolishly believe that a baby will somehow fix their other problems like magic. Or they place the child up for adoption, handing it over to the state after birth.
Others will consider the child in any form a blessing and source of happyness. Pro lifers however will accept a substandard or "broken" life as superior to no life.

Some people regret having there abortion because they are left wondering or focus on what could have been, like worrying over a misscarried child, or they feel guilty about there action after the fact. That guilt can come from many places though, religion, parents, spouse, or society in general.
Others value there children, had when the parents were ready, all the more becasue of it.

Truth of the matter is, in our society with proper sex education and publicly available contraceptive methods there is no reason for unwanted pregnancy, thus no reason for needless abortions. You can take the view that needing an abortion is a sign of personal irresponsibility if you wish.


I completely agree. The only cases in which I support abortion are those that threaten the life of the mother and/or the baby.


what about rape victims? just curious.



Ay, well I include rape victims as something that would be a threat to her life, emotionally. So, if a rape victims feels like she has the need to abort the fetus, by all means. I would probably do the same thing.
IdunnoUU
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:30 am
Reputation point: 0

Re: Abortion: THIS THREAD CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES NOT FOR MINORS

Unread postby willow » Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:24 pm

posting the post.... its in response to an abortion thread at catholic.com posting for entertainment value... and a length check - http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.p ... ost5878722

First off, thankyou for the kind welcome.
Secondly, I appologize if my response is somewhat jumbled, there are several posts to reply to and Im doing it as I come to them

SteveGC wrote:The problem is that there is no universal (widely agreed upon) definition of "human being". That's stating the obvious, of course, but it speaks the clearest about why we can't resolve this issue. Being a devout Catholic, admittedly I am not as focused on the scientific data which supports the arguments that a bonafide human being exists at conception, opting rather to rest my belief on when the Church declares life begins. But I do know that the gist of the scientific data points us to a reality which should be understandable by people of all beliefs....that there is nothing in this world that a fertilized ovum (from the instant of conception) will develop into except a human being. It won't be a monkey, a dog, or any sort of lump of unorganized cells. It can only develop into a human being.


I realize that there is no universal standard for what defines a "human being" nor is there a clearly defined transition point between "cell cluster" and a "being". My argument wasnt that the cells wont develop into a human being left to there own devices rather that the cells themselves are NOT as of yet a human being. They are human cells no more no less. They do have a unique DNA code for a unique being they can develop into but my hair, liver, kidney, brain and saliva contain a unique DNA code for a unique being "myself" in this case.

The existance of a unique DNA code does not make a human being though. We can edit DNA sequences or recombine DNA in the lab, the fact that the created strand exists outside of a human cell doesnt negate the fact the strand is code for a unique human being, nor does the fact that the DNA itself is human, but its not a human being, its just human cellular code.

SteveGC wrote:Because if you abort a zygote even a nanosecond after conception, you have terminated the life of a human being


Im curious what you consider to be life? Would the death of one of my stem cells (as capable of forming into a full human being as an ovum under favourable conditions) count as murder as well? or is it just the extinguishment of an entire DNA code?

SteveGC wrote:you have destroyed it's natural, inevitable progression and development into one. I know you've essentially said that a zygote's capacity to develop into a human being is insignificant, but is it really? Think about it for a minute....except for your intervention, this organism will be a person...

she's done this because the fetus was excluded from being labeled a "human being", but the fact remains that she's destroyed the natural, inevitable development of it into one. That reality can be backed up all the way to the very instant of conception. One nanosecond old is no different than 20 weeks old, in terms of the natural course of that life.


So the question is more about the loss of potental for human life, rather then human life itself?

Abortion isnt the only method by which pregnancies are terminated and most often its due to "natural" cause. I realize natural causes are often considered "gods will", but human intervention is not the only reason by which the development of the fetus into a human child is prevented or perverted.

SteveGC wrote:What this essentially is saying is that at 20 weeks or earlier, you can justify abortion because......why?......because the baby can't live on it's own? This is a problem I find with the pro-choice crowd...they argue that a fetus is the "property" of the mother, that despite it being a distinct life of it's own, because it is dependent on the mother's biology to survive and develop, that the mother is somehow able to be responsible in determining if that life should cease, or continue....and if it reaches a stage (such as 21 weeks) wherein the baby could potentially be born and somehow survive, then abortion is wrong.


Im saying that one must draw the line somewhere, most people choose birth and I disagree with that approach. I dont think that birth confers any special status or privilage to the child, its a formality nothing more so far as I am concerned.

Since I dont consider a freshly fertalized egg a human being, and I consider the fetus to become human before birth the transition must occur in the interceding 9 months. Since I have no degree in reproductive science, I am positing a place for that line at the time in which a child can continue to develop outside its mothers body. Would you prefer that I say a medical examination should be done to determine the suitability of the fetus to further develop outside its mother on a case by case bases?

A counter example, why is it okay to drink at 21 but not the day before your 21st birthday? or voting? or marriage? or sexual consent? There is no real or defensable reason to put the definitive line at any specific age and there will always be exceptions to the rule, I know many people more mature and informed in there teens then most adults when it comes to politics but 16 year olds cant vote.

SteveGC wrote:Speaking from personal experience, I would say that there is definitely grieving and a periods of mourning, to various degrees. Some do hold informal funerals, but typically because there is no tangible remains, there is no practical burial.


I'm not doubting the sense of loss involved and I do feel for those who have experienced a miscarrage, especially late in there pregnancy. It is the loss of there potential child and a feeling of empathy for the sorrow of the parents I feel. I do not morn the loss of life, rather what potential life has been lost.

However, I disagree that there is very rarely any remains, albiet not visually pleasent there are remains unless its VERY early in the pregnancy. Perhaps the hospital wont release the remains as in most cases I believe they cremate stillborn fetus' in the hospital incinerator.

CWBetts wrote:Both artificial contraception and abortion are self centered. Sexuality is a gift. In is enjoyable, but that is not the purpose, however tat is exactly what contraception perverts the purpose to. The marital act is an act of deep love drawing two people together with the potential of making a new life. Birth control turns it into an act of self love with the goal of achieving the greatest amount of pleasure


I don't think we are going to agree on the purposes of sex in our species. Its not soley about procreation. If that were the case then even catholic methods of "birth control" or family planning would be immoral as well.

The existance of a catholic model of family planning represents an admission by the catholic church of the need or desire for sex within marrage without procreation. The intent through timing to prevent children is just that an attempt to prevent children. The fact that it is not 100% successful or reliable means that your playing a game of roulette, but does not change your intentions. Saying "well if god wants me to have a child she will get pregnant despite my efforts" is a cop out, much like saying "well if god wants me to have a child the condom will break"

Sex is meant as an expression of intense emotion and a means for connection between two people, married or otherwise and is rarely a self centered activity outside of masterbation. The fact that one chooses to engage in sex with contraception does not reduce the love one feels for there partner, nor does it change the sexual experience.

Caramel wrote:Fertilized ova that fail to attach to the uterine wall are still human beings. Their lives are short. It is not a regular menstruation if a fertilized ovum is flushed from the woman's body. It is a spontaneous abortion.


So god aborts to? (sorry I will try to be polite) In either case "spontaneous abortions" account for about 25%+ of miscarrages, far more then will ever be aborted medically. However there is very little concern for the loss of embryonic life in early pregnancy amoung those who experience them. Most occuring before the mother even knows shes pregnant or experienced a misscarrage.

Most abortions occur within this same period, the first 11-12 weeks before the embryo transitions to a fetus, and prior to the first 14 weeks the development of much of the organs has yet to be completed.

Caramel"I am confused here. You state that it is not a "being" and in the next sentence you say it is a living organism. Are you referring to an embryo? It's difficult for me to understand exactly what you are trying to say here. Each fertilized ovum, from the moment of conception has enough genetic information to guide it through the rest of its life. How can a living organism not be a "being?"[/quote]

Is the H1N1 virus a living being?, or the germs on my toilet seat? are the fleas on the cats in the ally outside beings in the same sense that we are beings? Something can be alive, but not a living being. Sponges are alive.

[quote="caramel wrote:
I don't think that anyone would call a cluster of liver cells a "living organism."


But the cluster of liver cells is alive and grows and reproduces itself, it also contains all the genetic information required to make a full human being, or another liver.

caramel wrote:But at six and a half weeks past conception the embryo has a liver, heart, brain, has all the internal organs that other human beings have. She has a mouth, lips, the beginning of milk teeth. She has had decipherable brain waves present since 40 days
after conception.


http://www.babycenter.com/2_inside-preg ... 0302602.bc a 3d look at the first 1-9 weeks of pregnancy
http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-develop ... es-6-weeks
http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-develop ... es-7-weeks
http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-develop ... es-8-weeks
http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-develop ... es-9-weeks
http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-develop ... s-10-weeks
http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-develop ... s-11-weeks

According to this site on fetal development, by six and a half weeks it doesnt have fully formed or functioning organs. The heart is still outside the body the brain doesnt properly function and the whole thing is smaller then a grape, it does still have a tail though. The zygote doesnt even reach the fetal stage of development until 12 weeks.

Organs and movements you describe dont develop until 10-14 weeks, but still it doesnt have all the internal organs or features of fully developed human being (including a nervous system) until weeks 15-20 and by week 21-25 it becomes viable outside the uterus, and contains all the features of a full human being.

http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm
perhaps this article which explains the origin of the myth that a fetus has a functioning brain at 6.5-8 weeks would interest you? It seems that claim has been floating around for almost 50 years and is quite wrong.

One original source for the claim is Dr. Hannibal Hamlin's "Life or Death by EEG." This is a speech that was read before the Section on Nervous and Mental Diseases at the 113th Annual Convention of the American Medical Association in June 1964, and was printed in the Journal of the American Medical Association, October 12, 1964 (Vol 190, No 2, pages 112-114). Many claims reference it


Another source for the "40 days" claim is John R. Goldenring's "Development of the Fetal Brain," a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1982.


Note that both those sources are routinely cited in various pro life literature, and both are opinion peices rather then research papers which have not been subjected to peer review. In fact both sources are relying on previous research, incorrectly in atleast one case, instead of there own and are just giving a personal opinion on that research. Your claim is incorrect, much like the claims of functional organ development by 6.5 weeks.

Caramel wrote:if you take this baby and leave her on a table she will die


If you leave a newborn on a table it will die, or a premature birth, or a late baby. It may still require an incubator, but it can survive outside the womb. This is not true of fetus' younger then this because of a lack of fetal development in terms of organs etc

gakroeger wrote:I’m sorry, but you are stating personal opinion as scientific fact. If you are going to state opinion please state it is your opinion, if you are going to state something as fact, please attach a reference to support your fact. We have another pro choice person on this thread who also frequently states opinion as fact and refuses to read anything that does not agree with his/her opinion.


I was unaware I claimed it to be a scientific fact instead of an opinion, and I mislike your tone. I'm not trying to troll your boards or anything but dislike the loosely veiled implication that I am mis informed, ignorant or wrong in this reguard.

Perhaps you could provide sources that are not from Christian think tanks? generally papers like this have a predetermined conclusion and try to bend the applicable research to fit there preconceptions. Bad science.

In the case of the Westchester Institute, they start from the premise that the zygote is a human being but fail to defend there position.

Your second link provides only quotations without making a point.

The third link is, like the second, a collection of quotes without making a point (also hard to read sideways). Its simply restating your position that "life" begins at conception.

Neither of the last two links claims that the zygote is a human being though, just that it is a "life" and an identifiably seperate organism from its combining parts. I'm perhaps being obtuse because I never claimed that the cells are not alive, just that they are not a "human being" at that stage in development.

gakroeger wrote:Also, the reason most experts believe the crime rate has reduced in recent years is not because the population has become more aware of morality, but because the incarceration rate has increased. More criminals are in jail


You accuse me of a failure to site sources, and yet you put forth the opinion of "most experts" but fail to site or name a single one. Links to book reviews dont count or do much to support your opinion in this matter. I can find reviews on books that explain why the holocaust was a lie, doesnt make it true.

In response to the increase in incarceration rates in the US, most experts I have heard link this trend to the changes in the draconian US narcotics policy and get tough on crime laws that send first time offenders to prison.

Secondly, I was refering to crime rates in Canada not the US. I am unfamiliar with most US crime statistics. We have not had the giant increase in incarceration rates in the last 30 years but our crime rates for almost all violent crimes has been on a steady decline for about a decade now.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/ ... ml?ref=rss

gakroeger wrote:So, in your opinion, the 40 million abortions in the United States since 1973 had no impact on our population?

You missed my point, I never said the extra 40+ million wouldnt effect the US population. I said that abortion isnt the only reason that the US has a need for immigration or lower birth rate as you seem to contend.

gakroeger wrote:You really need to learn the facts of abortion. Contraceptives are a main cause of abortion. 54% of all abortions are the result of failed contraceptives.


This is what I mean, your calling me uninformed and ignorant because I disagree with you, and yet you fail to site your sources yet again while trying to claim an opinion as fact.

The idea that many abortions are performed due to a failure of contraceptives makes sense, but then people inclined to use contraceptives are more inclined to get an abortion then those who dont. This does not mean that contraceptives increase abortion rates though, your logic is flawed.

... wow really long post...
Last edited by willow on Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
dirty work... the right google key words...
-willow 07/22/09
User avatar
willow
Chat Moderator
Chat Moderator
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:59 am
Location: Vancouver Canada
Reputation point: 932

Re: Abortion: THIS THREAD CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES NOT FOR MINORS

Unread postby UnwantedSunbeam » Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:55 pm

What is the difference between a cheese burger and a poo?

The core message of this whole thread is "What gives people like you, the right to allow women a free choice for their bodies".

Why don't you take the time to explain why you think, your personal beliefs are correct for the whole world and see if you can persuade me ?
One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?" was his response. "I don't know", Alice answered. "Then", said the cat, "It doesn't matter.”
User avatar
UnwantedSunbeam
 
Posts: 812
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:31 pm
Reputation point: 1287

PreviousNext

Return to Rational Thought vs Irrational Beliefs



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
[Valid Atom 1.0]