Stop having so many damn kids; population control, anyone?

[Big girl banded 0]

And what is your facination with conjoined children>>> :)

[gadgetlady 4]

Here's the bottom line. Either the thing growing in the womb is a baby, or it's not. If it is, no one has any right to kill it regardless of any social, political, or economic arguments. If it's not, no one has a right to legislate abortion for any reason up until the birth of that baby. There is no in between argument. All in between arguments are based on personal opinion about quality of life, economic sufficiency, when someone "thinks" life begins, and any number of other factors. I am amazed at how many people say "abortion should be legal, but not late-term abortion", or "it shouldn't be used for birth control", or "a woman who's had eight abortions has had too many", or "there are other factors to consider", or "abortion is a difficult decision". My question is, quite simply, "Why?" If the thing growing in the womb isn't a baby (and you must believe it's not a baby to believe it's OK to kill it), why is abortion difficult? If it's just a blob of tissue, why does anyone care? If it has no value in and of itself, why not use abortion as birth control? If it's not a baby, why do we wince at the woman who's had eight abortions?

Why does it matter when D&X abortions, also known as partial birth abortions, are performed? Why does it matter that the blob of tissue is delivered, feet-first (how a blob of tissue acquires feet is another question), and then that blob is stabbed at the base of the neck and the brains are sucked out, the head is crushed, and then the entire body is removed from the womb?

Why does it matter when saline and prostaglandin abortions are performed and the babies are brutally burned from the inside out? Ask Gianna Jessen, who survived such an abortion, is handicapped because of it, but still loves her life -- ask HER if it matters.

If you care, if you believe abortion is a difficult decision for all involved, if you wince and squirm when the issue is raised, then I believe you subconsciously KNOW that the thing growing in the womb is a baby. Very often, people who have had personal experiences with abortion (had one themselves, taken a friend to have one, been the father of an aborted baby, etc.) won't face the reality of the unborn because that would mean they played the part in another human being's death. That's a difficult thing to handle.

If my mother told me she had an abortion after (or before!) she had me, I would be very upset. Why? Because I would know that I had a brother or a sister who whose life was snuffed out very early on. I would know that, "there but for the grace of God go I". I would know that it could just as easily have been me or one of my brothers that she aborted. Abortion is the willful ending of a developing life. Just as infanticied is the willful ending of a developing life, and just as Andrea Yates willfully ended her childrens' lives. Just because we can't see the aborted baby, we can't hear their cries, we don't have family portraits including them, and we never held them in our arms doesn't make them any less human. It just makes it easier to do. Just like when Hitler shipped the Jews off to the concentration camps. No one saw the horror of what was going on there, and because of that it was much, much easier to accomplish.

She's a child, not a choice. He's a child, not a choice. Choose what you want for dinner. Choose which god you worship. Choose to use birth control so you don’t get pregnant. But don't choose to end someone else's life.

[gadgetlady 4]

I don't need to defend what I believe because I'm not trying to make YOU do anything...except maybe leave other people alone.

Or perhaps because you can't defend your position empirically.

The problem with your position is that in all the other examples you give, there is a PERSON involved...someone who was born a person. Not so with a fetus.

"Someone who was born a person". Again, if they are a person when born, what are they before they pass through the birth canal? If a person, they deserve protection. If not a person, please explain why. Further, in the case of a botched abortion -- the dreaded consequence of the baby not being killed by the abortion -- do they at least THEN deserve protection?

[gadgetlady 4]

And thus we come full circle, back to one of my earlier posts referring to the rhetoric of the logical fallacy that abortion is "bad" because it would remove great people from mankind. It's a safe argument for people to return to, and tries to deliver a powerful punchline, but just lacks in logical integrity. (IMO)

And now you're saying that counseling someone = killing someone (if I interpret that correctly...), or supporting abortion = killing someone.

My apologies. I wrote this post quickly and didn't choose my language carefully enough. The point of the post was that there are situations where even people who consider themselves moderate on the issue of abortion would agree that abortion is acceptable in that case. In the case of Beethoven and his parental and familial background, many people today would say Beethoven's mother should not only have had the choice but would have been well advised to abort. And the world would have never had Beethoven.

I don't believe that someone who counsels a woman to abort is killing the baby. I believe the abortionist is killing the baby. But I also wonder how many Beethovens have been killed?

[GeezerSue 7]

Children aged 2 or younger fly free also......

Their AIRFARE is free; that's an airline policy. However the government charges every PERSON--including those children--the tax.

So, now we have the IRS and the FAA saying that a fetus is not a person. What do you want to bet we can find more branches of our federal government which agree?

[gadgetlady 4]

So, now we have the IRS and the FAA saying that a fetus is not a person. What do you want to bet we can find more branches of our federal government which agree?

And black people used to be, BY LAW, 3/5 of a person. Was the law wrong? OF COURSE IT WAS! What the federal government says about ones humanity isn't the be all and end all of truth. It is simply the way policy has developed.

[Big girl banded 0]

Their AIRFARE is free; that's an airline policy. However the government charges every PERSON--including those children--the tax.

So, now we have the IRS and the FAA saying that a fetus is not a person. What do you want to bet we can find more branches of our federal government which agree?

HOV LANES... majior case in dc a pregnant woman tried to get hov lane status saying she had two people in the car.... she got the fine in the court... they said a fetus doesnt count bc it wasnt old enough to breathe on its own without her blood pumping thru it making it part of her.. not a seperate entity.

[Big girl banded 0]

Why does it matter when D&X abortions, also known as partial birth abortions, are performed? .

Dont you mean D & C ? these are very commonly used when the baby dies inside.

[green 6]

Here's the bottom line. Either the thing growing in the womb is a baby, or it's not. If it is, no one has any right to kill it regardless of any social, political, or economic arguments. If it's not, no one has a right to legislate abortion for any reason up until the birth of that baby. There is no in between argument. All in between arguments are based on personal opinion about quality of life, economic sufficiency, when someone "thinks" life begins, and any number of other factors. I am amazed at how many people say "abortion should be legal, but not late-term abortion", or "it shouldn't be used for birth control", or "a woman who's had eight abortions has had too many", or "there are other factors to consider", or "abortion is a difficult decision". My question is, quite simply, "Why?" If the thing growing in the womb isn't a baby (and you must believe it's not a baby to believe it's OK to kill it), why is abortion difficult? If it's just a blob of tissue, why does anyone care? If it has no value in and of itself, why not use abortion as birth control? If it's not a baby, why do we wince at the woman who's had eight abortions?

Why does it matter when D&X abortions, also known as partial birth abortions, are performed? Why does it matter that the blob of tissue is delivered, feet-first (how a blob of tissue acquires feet is another question), and then that blob is stabbed at the base of the neck and the brains are sucked out, the head is crushed, and then the entire body is removed from the womb?

Why does it matter when saline and prostaglandin abortions are performed and the babies are brutally burned from the inside out? Ask Gianna Jessen, who survived such an abortion, is handicapped because of it, but still loves her life -- ask HER if it matters.

If you care, if you believe abortion is a difficult decision for all involved, if you wince and squirm when the issue is raised, then I believe you subconsciously KNOW that the thing growing in the womb is a baby. Very often, people who have had personal experiences with abortion (had one themselves, taken a friend to have one, been the father of an aborted baby, etc.) won't face the reality of the unborn because that would mean they played the part in another human being's death. That's a difficult thing to handle.

If my mother told me she had an abortion after (or before!) she had me, I would be very upset. Why? Because I would know that I had a brother or a sister who whose life was snuffed out very early on. I would know that, "there but for the grace of God go I". I would know that it could just as easily have been me or one of my brothers that she aborted. Abortion is the willful ending of a developing life. Just as infanticied is the willful ending of a developing life, and just as Andrea Yates willfully ended her childrens' lives. Just because we can't see the aborted baby, we can't hear their cries, we don't have family portraits including them, and we never held them in our arms doesn't make them any less human. It just makes it easier to do. Just like when Hitler shipped the Jews off to the concentration camps. No one saw the horror of what was going on there, and because of that it was much, much easier to accomplish.

She's a child, not a choice. He's a child, not a choice. Choose what you want for dinner. Choose which god you worship. Choose to use birth control so you don’t get pregnant. But don't choose to end someone else's life.

"There, but for the grace of God, go I." But none of us who are able to participate in this debate have to worry about that caveat, do we? None of us are or are looking after individuals who are so dreadfully handicapped that our household pets display more, well, what can you call it but mammalian charm.

I guess the issue of foetal or pre-born rights is a little clearer for those of us who are atheists. We are not only used to examining nature but we think of ourselves as being part of the continuum. This whole biz of how gets to survive and who doesn't is tricky biz indeed. My brother is a doctor and in his first year in med school he learned that - historically speaking - more women died through childbirth and its complications than men did in war. Yep, up until the 20th century childbirth was a perilous experience for oh so many of us. (Try typing in puerpal fever.)

I am an atheist and I had an abortion the moment I found out that I was pregnant. This was between week 6 and 7.

Had I personally been so unorganised and so negligent as to let this state of affairs run to the point where I could have had a live birth I would have done so and I would have given the child up for adoption. This is how I am built. I really didn't want to be a mum. But I had always been meticulous about birth control and I knew pretty early on when everything went bad.

I am an atheist. There is no question that the mother's rights trump that of her unborn baby. When you walk into a wood you will see a lot of saplings. Most of them won't survive. The rights of the full grown parental trees will trump that of the seedlings.

[GeezerSue 7]

Here's the bottom line. Either the thing growing in the womb is a baby, or it's not. ...

NOW we're gettin' somewhere. It's not a baby. It's a fetus. THERE'S your bottom line.

So, now everone can go back to basing their decisions on what THEY should do on what THEY believe is the right thing to do regarding the fetus in THEIR womb and leave everyone else's womb the hell alone.

[gadgetlady 4]

Dont you mean D & C ? these are very commonly used when the baby dies inside.

No. I mean D & X. D & C's are done earlier in the pregnancy. D & X was developed because a high enough percentage of saline and prostaglandin late term abortions ended with a live baby, so they needed to come up with something that ensured death. Stabbing at the base of the neck and sucking out the brains definitely kills the baby, every time.

[GeezerSue 7]

From the AMA:

H-5.982 Late-Term Pregnancy Termination Techniques

(1) The term 'partial birth abortion' is not a medical term. The AMA will use the term "intact dilatation and extraction"(or intact D&X) to refer to a specific procedure comprised of the following elements: deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days; instrumental or manual conversion of the fetus to a footling breech; breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of the fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus. This procedure is distinct from dilatation and evacuation (D&E) procedures more commonly used to induce abortion after the first trimester. Because 'partial birth abortion' is not a medical term it will not be used by the AMA.

(2) According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X. The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. The physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient.

(3) The viability of the fetus and the time when viability is achieved may vary with each pregnancy. In the second-trimester when viability may be in question, it is the physician who should determine the viability of a specific fetus, using the latest available diagnostic technology.

(4) In recognition of the constitutional principles regarding the right to an abortion articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, and in keeping with the science and values of medicine, the AMA recommends that abortions not be performed in the third trimester except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life. Although third-trimester abortions can be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, they are, in fact, generally not necessary for those purposes. Except in extraordinary circumstances, maternal health factors which demand termination of the pregnancy can be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus, and the near certainty of the independent viability of the fetus argues for ending the pregnancy by appropriate delivery.

(5) The AMA urges the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as well as state health department officials to develop expanded, ongoing data surveillance systems of induced abortion. This would include but not be limited to: a more detailed breakdown of the prevalence of abortion by gestational age as well as the type of procedure used to induce abortion at each gestational age, and maternal and fetal indications for the procedure. Abortion-related maternal morbidity and mortality statistics should include reports on the type and severity of both short- and long-term complications, type of procedure, gestational age, maternal age, and type of facility. Data collection procedures should ensure the anonymity of the physician, the facility, and the patient.

(6) The AMA will work with appropriate medical specialty societies, government agencies, private foundations, and other interested groups to educate the public regarding pregnancy prevention strategies, with special attention to at-risk populations, which would minimize or preclude the need for abortions. The demand for abortions, with the exception of those indicated by serious fetal anomalies or conditions which threaten the life or health of the pregnant woman, represent failures in the social environment, education, and contraceptive methods. (BOT Rep. 26, A-97)

Source:

http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-5.982.HTM

[gadgetlady 4]

NOW we're gettin' somewhere. It's not a baby. It's a fetus. THERE'S your bottom line.

So, now everone can go back to basing their decisions on what THEY should do on what THEY believe is the right thing to do regarding the fetus in THEIR womb and leave everyone else's womb the hell alone.

You have yet to define fetus for me. All you say is "it's a fetus, it's a fetus, it's a fetus." But exactly WHAT is a fetus? If I were a fifteen-year-old or a foreigner who had never heard the term and asked you what it meant, how would you define it?

A newborn human being is called an infant. A two-year-old human being is called a toddler. A twelve-year-old is called a pre-teen. They are all, nevertheless, human beings.

I personally don't believe we can own other human beings. I don't own my kids and I never did.

[anonemouse 1]

I am going to be very blunt here about my beliefs, and I am just asking that I not be attacked for it. I want to state that the following is all my opinion and that I am not saying that anything is scientifically accurate.

I struggle with my beliefs because I am anti-smoking and anti-drinking while pregnant. That said, I am 100% pro-choice. I believe that until a fetus (or baby, whatever you want to call it) can live outside a woman's body with no medical assistance (in the majority of cases), it is a part of that woman's body and is subject to her whim. I recognize that, in most cases, a fetus has the potential to become a person. But until that fetus can breathe on its own and support its own life (obviously, I am not talking about feeding itself), it simply isn't a person yet. To me, the rights of an adult will always trump those of a fetus.

And to those of you talking about aborting Beethoven, remember this: A woman may well have aborted the next Beethoven or Einstein. But, on the other hand, she may have aborted the next Ted Bundy, Adolph Hitler, or Charles Manson.

[GeezerSue 7]

You have yet to define fetus for me. All you say is "it's a fetus, it's a fetus, it's a fetus." But exactly WHAT is a fetus? If I were a fifteen-year-old or a foreigner who had never heard the term and asked you what it meant, how would you define it?

...

If you were a fifteen-year-old who had never heard of a fetus, I'd have to assume you were being home-schooled by religious fanatics who keep calling a fetus "a baby." If you were a "foreigner," you'd probably be able to educate me on the topic because in most other countries, science curricula is left to the scientists and not the religious-political fervor of the moment.

I WOULD tell you that a library--and not a church--is your best bet for locating that information and point you in that direction.