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

[Boo Boo Kitty 3]

That is simply not true. If it were, the human race would have perished long ago. Children are born every day in Africa, India, etc to AIDS infected, malnourished mothers who have received no prenatal care whatsoever.

I watched a documentary last night about a pair of co-joined twins. They actually look like a girl with two heads, as they have two arms, two legs, one body - but two heads. Internally, they have separate hearts and stomachs but share a colon and reproductive organs. They are 16 years old and absolutely AMAZING.

My point is that "handicapped" is a subjective term. Sometimes it's the people on the outside looking in who are handicapped.

I am speaking to women who hurt themselves and the unborn by using drugs, smoking, alcohol abuse ect. Not ones that simply eat junk food or not eat properly. Things that cause long term damage to the fetus. Things that are a concious choice that you can control, not malnourishment, or disease to the mother.

[Carlene 12]

I am speaking to women who hurt themselves and the unborn by using drugs, smoking, alcohol abuse ect. Not ones that simply eat junk food or not eat properly. Things that cause long term damage to the fetus. Things that are a concious choice that you can control, not malnourishment, or disease to the mother.

I smoked throughout all my pregnancies. My children weighed between 8 and 9 pounds at birth. None of them have any "long term damage" as a result of my smoking. To sanction abortion because the mother smoked is just crazy.

There is no law in place to "save" crack babies by requiring that they be aborted. Do you think there should be?

[gadgetlady 4]

Here's my point. If you believe that the baby is the woman's body, then you have no right to deny her the ability to have an abortion through the moment of birth. Saying that you believe abortion should be legal or is acceptable but only in some cases -- which many of you have done by saying you think abortion shouldn't be legal late in pregnancy, shouldn't be used as birth control, etc. -- is quite inconsistent. By doing so, you're imposing your beliefs, which are wholly arbitrary, on another.

The only consistent, logical positions are that the baby is not fully human and not deserving of any rights until birth, or that the baby IS a human being and deserving of rights at the moment of conception. Anything else imposes your own arbitrary beliefs about when life begins.

I believe, and I think science supports my belief, that life begins at conception. My religious beliefs are not at issue, nor are yours, nor should they be.

I understand that there are legitimate social issues surrounding abortion. But we do not solve social problems by snuffing out life. Further, the majority of the crack babies, etc. are NOT aborted. The women having abortions are generally middle to upper-middle class and not on drugs. Look at the statistics and you'll see. But in the end, statistics don't matter. We don't kill people because of their lot in life.

Unplanned pregnancies are never easy to handle. But there is a right and a wrong, and we can't ignore that just because it's difficult.

[wavydaby 1]

Ok, again, at what point does it cease being "birth control" and becomes an abortion?

Again, as seeing as the pill (not the "morning after" one, the regular one) and the IUD act as an "clump of cells" abortion aid?

Or would we all like to just ignore that little fact?

[Alexandra 55]

The only consistent, logical positions are that the baby is not fully human and not deserving of any rights until birth, or that the baby IS a human being and deserving of rights at the moment of conception. Anything else imposes your own arbitrary beliefs about when life begins.

I believe, and I think science supports my belief, that life begins at conception. My religious beliefs are not at issue, nor are yours, nor should they be.

You're saying the only logical standard for determining whether abortion is acceptable is whether "life" exists. Sorry, I don't buy it. There are many other standards to be applied. Obviously we as a species believe that lives have relative value, not absolute. Children have fewer rights than adults; incarcerated people fewer rights than free. It's utterly illogical to assign "rights" to a clump of cells that count more than those of its host. No matter what that clump of cells might become someday.

[Carlene 12]

Ok, again, at what point does it cease being "birth control" and becomes an abortion?

Again, as seeing as the pill (not the "morning after" one, the regular one) and the IUD act as an "clump of cells" abortion aid?

Or would we all like to just ignore that little fact?

The pill prevents ovulation. It is not, therefore, contraception via early abortion. An IUD prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. It can be technically described as a very early abortion.

Fertilization (conception) takes place in the Fallopian tube, not in the uterus. The fertilized ovum then travels to the uterus and attached itself to the wall thereof. When the embryo does not leave the Fallopian tube, the pregnancy continues to grow and a very serious, even life-threatening, condition for the mother quickly develops - something commonly known as a "tubal pregnancy".

[gadgetlady 4]

Here's a question for you. A woman is pregnant. The baby's father has syphilis and the mother has tuberculosis. They have had four children. The first child was blind, the

second one died, the third child was deaf and dumb, and the fourth child had tuberculosis. The mother is now pregnant with the fifth child but is willing to have an abortion. What would you counsel her to do?

If you support abortion in this case, congratulations. You just killed Beethoven.

[dotofoz 0]

Are you sure you don't have Andrea Yates confused with Susan Smith, the woman who drowned her two little boys because her boyfriend didn't want an "instant family"? I have never heard one scandalous word about Andrea Yates' behavior pre-tragedy. By all accounts, she was a totally submissive wife who totally devoted herself to raising her children, pleasing her husband, and worshiping God as part of an ultra-conservative religious group.

Andrea Yates was overcome with genuine fear for the souls of her children and truly believed that if they were allowed to live - to grow up and become "worldly" - they would eventually burn in hell. She thought she was saving their immortal souls by killing them.

It makes no sense to assume that she did it "for a man". There was no plot to kill off the kids and live happily eve rafter with a new love because she made no attempt to hide her crime.

Sorry, my bad! Wrong nut case! I hope she fries too!

[dotofoz 0]

That is simply not true. If it were, the human race would have perished long ago. Children are born every day in Africa, India, etc to AIDS infected, malnourished mothers who have received no prenatal care whatsoever.

I watched a documentary last night about a pair of co-joined twins. They actually look like a girl with two heads, as they have two arms, two legs, one body - but two heads. Internally, they have separate hearts and stomachs but share a colon and reproductive organs. They are 16 years old and absolutely AMAZING.

My point is that "handicapped" is a subjective term. Sometimes it's the people on the outside looking in who are handicapped.

Ah, but what QUALITY of life do they have???????? Not one that I'd want to live!

[wavydaby 1]

The pill can also prevent implantation.

Its a secondary, very low precentage, but can happen and is planned to happen that way by the makers of that.

So, do we then ban IUD's and the pill as well?

Its a 'very early abortion'.

When do you stop?

Or is it just convient not to think of that?

The more I think of it, the Pope is right on the whole BC issue.

Not that I am going to agree with him, but he is still right.

[Carlene 12]

Obviously we as a species believe that lives have relative value, not absolute.

We do, indeed...although I'm not sure that's always such a good thing. We value perfect, youthful, intelligent life over the less perfect, elderly, and/or diminished capacity lives.

Is it less offensive to abort a sick or ill-formed person than a perfect one?

Is it less offensive to abort a very early pregnancy, as oppossed to one that has almost reached term?

And what of the aborted babies with a heartbeat? One very experienced abortion doctor places the number at somewhere between 10% and 20%. Are those "living" babies, or not?

Abortion is a very complex issue. Much more so than it would seem on the surface.

[Alexandra 55]

All of those questions are good and valuable questions, Carlene. None of which are answered in any helpful way by sweeping anti-abortion legislation that allows for no discussion.

[Carlene 12]

Ah, but what QUALITY of life do they have???????? Not one that I'd want to live!

The Hensel twins? They have terrific quality of life! They attend public school, they drive, they have tons of friends. They have great parents, as well as siblings, who all treat them as normal teens.

They are normal mentally and require no special equipment, such as wheelchairs, crutches, etc.

[lisah25 3]

OK, so fetus = "unborn young". Therefore I choose to use the term "unborn baby" instead of the Latin, which so few people speak.

Is that the only reason you use that "unborn baby" instead of fetus? Words have a lot of power, as has been pointed out in this thread already.

[lisah25 3]

The point is that when you use a word that's from another language, you should define it. There are many of the above words or phrases that most American people wouldn't understand. When one uses a word that other people don't understand, one is often compelled to supply a definition. The definition of "fetus" is "unborn offspring" or "unborn child" or "unborn baby". Why do people who support abortion bristle when the term "unborn baby" is used? Because they are trying to deny the humanity of the object that's growing in the womb, and that's a heck of a lot easier when you call it by a Latin name.

And this is what I was just posting about. You claim it is easier to "deny the humamity..." by using the term fetus. I think using terms like Pre-born baby and unborn baby is the flip side of that coin.