Pregnant Woman Perfectly Tells Off Anti-Abortion Protestors

a reply to: sdubya

That's fine, but it's not that simple in practice as I pointed out. It is totally possible to be pro-choice, but be anti-abortion personally. That decision allows you to come to terms with your own morals while letting another woman make her own decision there and then live with the results herself.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well, scientifically, they removed the life force from a living thing that contains its own unique DNA code, so I'm pretty sure that constitutes "killing."

Life force? A life force that required the host to survive. Cancer is a life force!

You have made it abundantly clear that you and you wife believe it's unnatural for a pregnant woman to not want her potential child. I say that that's a natural state of mind.

The practice of abortion, the termination of a pregnancy so that it does not result in birth, dates back to ancient times. Pregnancies were terminated through a number of methods, including the administration of abortifacient herbs, the use of sharpened implements, the application of abdominal pressure, and other techniques.

Botanical preparations reputed to be abortifacient were common in classical literature and folk medicine. Such folk remedies, however, varied in effectiveness and were not without the risk of adverse effects. Some of the herbs used at times to terminate pregnancy are poisonous.

A list of plants which cause abortion was provided in De viribus herbarum, an 11th-century herbal written in the form of a poem, the authorship of which is incorrectly attributed to Aemilius Macer. Among them were rue, Italian catnip, savory, sage, soapwort, cyperus, white and black hellebore, and pennyroyal. Physicians in the Islamic world during the medieval period documented the use of abortifacients, commenting on their effectiveness and prevalence.

en.wikipedia.org...

Note that in his writing “On the Nature of the Child”, Hippocrates advised a girl, believed to be in the sixth day of her pregnancy to abort the seed by leaping so that her heels touch her buttocks. He claimed that after her seventh leap, the seed fell down with a noise:
“It was in the following way that I came to see a six-day-old embryo. A kinswomen of mine owned a very valuable danseuse, whom she employed as a prostitute. It was important that this girl should not become pregnant and therefore lose her value. Now this girl had heard the sort of thing women say to each other – that when a woman is going to conceive, the seed remains inside her and does not fall out. She digested this information, and kept a watch. One day she noticed that the seed had not come out again. She told her mistress and the story came to me.

When I heard it, I told her to jump up and down, touching her buttocks with her heels at each leap. After she had done this no more than seven times, there was a noise, the seed fell out on the ground, and the girl looked at it in great surprise…It was round, and red, and within the membrane could be seen thick white fibres, surrounded by a thick red serum; while on the outer surface of the membrane were clots of blood.”

5 In the above, Hippocrates speaks approvingly of abortion, prostitution and his relative using a girl as a prostitute to make money.

LINK

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have a hard time with that, not because I feel the need to be involved in someone else's decision but because I believe that we as a nation are condoning infanticide.

I know we went around a bit but honestly I get where you're coming from.

a reply to: sdubya

I have a hard time with that, not because I feel the need to be involved in someone else's decision but because I believe that we as a nation are condoning infanticide.

While I disagree with your evaluation, what is the alternative? To treat women as breeding fodder and biological slaves?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Other than these two lovely women, no one has confided in me about their decisions and feelings about an elective abortion, and quite honestly, I don't want to hear the tale and I don't seek this information out from people, although I have heard positive and negative discussions about it from women who have had abortions, but I think those are mostly for political posturing, so I don't pay them much attention.
So, yes, abortions have directly affected very close people in my life, and even though it's just two women, the rate is 100% in favor of elective abortion being a mistake--one that drastically affected my sister in a hugely negative way. Is that enough of an answer to your question?

Sorry for your sisters experience, but personally and unlike yourself I think

that that is a minority experience, for I know many more than that who have

been through that experience and although the experience was not good, and

it was never a lightly taken decision, none have regretted the decision that

they had made.

It may surprise you to know that world wide statistics on abortion are that

32 are performed for every 100 live births. (looks like many more women

have them than admit to it?) Very surprising is that Eastern Europe has the

highest rate 93 to every 100 live births! (Those figures were from 2008)

Obviously I'm responding late into the game, and you don't need to feel an obligation to respond, but I felt a need to answer your question about women who have confided in me, because I think you formed an assumption that I'm just some random guy speaking with no direct experience. Hopefully I'm wrong, but if not, hopefully I changed your mind.

In view of the figures above I think you'll agree that knowing only two cases

is miniscule in the bigger picture?

originally posted by: sdubya
a reply to: windword
It used to be legal to terminate pregnancies up to 40 weeks. Was that practice wrong?
If, as I think you said, life being at birth, then abortion should be legal even if the fetus could survive. Am I correct in my understanding of your previous comment?

Also, I feel like everyone has dodged my questions. If birth is the start of life, what about the birth process turns a lump of cells into a full human being?
I'd also like someone on the pro-choice side to address my 1% argument.

When does life begin?.... His birth was the start of life!

He was *alive* but he never *lived* .... Babies with this condition usually don't

live to be born .......

q13fox.com...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
If that is what you mean by killing, what is your definition of being alive? What separate distinction can we make about organic material about whether it is alive or dead? Amino acids are organic material. Are they alive? Can we kill them?

Red herring, much? I said things like "remove the life force," and, "contains its own unique DNA code." I think you need to read up on what amino acids are. They are a building block of DNA, not the other way around. They don't have a "life force," which in this context means consciousness/a soul/whatever the scientifically unknown essence of life is. Amino acids do not have that.

I didn't even use the word "whoring" once, so I don't know where you are coming from here. But, in any case to answer your question, I don't limit morality to something being more or less moral definitively. The way I see morality, is it is a sliding scale. There are times where killing isn't as immoral as we usually think about it and there are times where it is the most heinous thing we can imagine. History is littered with times where killing others is justified. Heck the bible has tons of times where that is the case. So to simply label "killing" as immoral and be done with it, is a simplistic way of looking at things.

Again, I'm discussing a specific instance--aborted human fetuses--so let's not muddy the water. But, in the grand scheme of things, I don't disagree with your point, except that morality is a sliding scale. Morality differs from person to person, but it's not necessarily a "sliding scale" as much as its application depends on specific and unique circumstances to the issue at hand. But that goes for everything in life.

But in any case, I'm going to ask you a question I've asked others in this thread. If abortion were made illegal and those mothers were forced to come to term, would you be willing to take the hit on your taxes as those mothers now have to access more public assistance than ever to feed these children? I hope you aren't pro-life and anti-social programs at the same time, because you are just advocating a slow, tortuous childhood (or death by starvation if you got your way for both issues).

You don't know my stance on abortion--I'm "okay" with it in certain instances (rape, incest, medical necessity to save the life of the mother), but I'm not okay with elective abortions just because (insert excuse to kill fetus here). There are other ways to deal with having a baby if you don't want to keep it.

As for social issues--fix the massive fraud and waste and abuse in the system first, then we'll see. I'm all for public assistance when truly necessary. Much of our tax dollars taken and used for it currently is not a necessity, so fix the system, and then we can discuss this tangent of an issue.

But if this discussion comes up in the future, don't be so emotionally and extreme in your argument:

I hope you aren't pro-life and anti-social programs at the same time, because you are just advocating a slow, tortuous childhood (or death by starvation if you got your way for both issues).

This is just a ridiculous hyperbole of an argument to make, and something tells me you know it.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Red herring, much? I said things like "remove the life force," and, "contains its own unique DNA code." I think you need to read up on what amino acids are. They are a building block of DNA, not the other way around. They don't have a "life force," which in this context means consciousness/a soul/whatever the scientifically unknown essence of life is. Amino acids do not have that.

So your answer would be "no, amino acids aren't alive"? Since you bring up DNA, is DNA alive then? That is organic, and being DNA, it DOES have DNA.

Again, I'm discussing a specific instance--aborted human fetuses--so let's not muddy the water. But, in the grand scheme of things, I don't disagree with your point, except that morality is a sliding scale. Morality differs from person to person, but it's not necessarily a "sliding scale" as much as its application depends on specific and unique circumstances to the issue at hand. But that goes for everything in life.

The point is that the morality behind killing a fetus is different than the morality behind killing a person. Just like the morality behind killing a child or a baby is different than the morality behind killing an adult (harsher sentencing for instance).

You don't know my stance on abortion--I'm "okay" with it in certain instances (rape, incest, medical necessity to save the life of the mother), but I'm not okay with elective abortions just because (insert excuse to kill fetus here). There are other ways to deal with having a baby if you don't want to keep it.

As for social issues--fix the massive fraud and waste and abuse in the system first, then we'll see. I'm all for public assistance when truly necessary. Much of our tax dollars taken and used for it currently is not a necessity, so fix the system, and then we can discuss this tangent of an issue.

Would you outlaw elective abortion before addressing the social program issues though?

This is just a ridiculous hyperbole of an argument to make, and something tells me you know it.

Is it? I see the two linked pretty well. It is easy to decouple them and view them as two separate issues, it makes it simpler that way. But society and life aren't simple. You can't distill things down to simple narratives. There is ALWAYS much more going on behind the scenes, and it creates more problems when you pretend like they are tangential issues so you don't have to discuss them together.

a reply to: eletheia

I will give you one final chance to actually answer the question rather than dance around it:

What about the birth process turns a lump of cells into a full human being?

a reply to: windword

Ideally, make everyone responsible for the children they create. Especially men, who should provide for both mother and child.

Since that's not likely, people against abortion need to start adopting unwanted kids. I'm considering it personally, but it's a pretty big decision and I've got a one year old child of my own.

a reply to: sdubya

What about the birth process turns a lump of cells into a full human being?

I know this was directed to Eletheia, and she can certainly speak for herself, but I'd like to answer that question, as well.

Birth liberates the fetus from the womb. It requires the literal severing the umbilical cord. For the first time, a person is thrust into the world, an environment of air, not water, of breath and the harsh reality of forced autonomy, an experience so shocking it forces an awakening that results in a gasp for first breath and a scream!

A person has arrived!

Since that's not likely, people against abortion need to start adopting unwanted kids. I'm considering it personally, but it's a pretty big decision and I've got a one year old child of my own.

I'm not sure, I'm not really educated in the matter, but as I understand it, healthy newborns aren't that easy to come by. But developmentally disabled children are overlooked by many would be adoptive parents, who can't have kids of their own, looking for a perfect, dream come true. I think the greater problem is the aftermath of irresponsible, selfish parents who neglect and/or abuse their children, who are now in foster care programs.

There are a lot of volunteer programs that are simple as showing up at a hospital and holding the hand of a sick infant to Big Brother and Sister programs. (Not that I've been a shining example of volunteerism, or anything)

originally posted by: sdubya
a reply to: eletheia
I will give you one final chance to actually answer the question rather than dance around it:
What about the birth process turns a lump of cells into a full human being?

The one thing no human being can live without .....AIR

When it takes its FIRST air into its lungs.

Thanks for the FINAL CHANCE

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So your answer would be "no, amino acids aren't alive"? Since you bring up DNA, is DNA alive then? That is organic, and being DNA, it DOES have DNA.

I'm done addressing this red herring...it's a distraction that means nothing to this conversation. It's as if you forgot the whole mention of a "life force."

The point is that the morality behind killing a fetus is different than the morality behind killing a person.

If I didn't know how to read, I'd think you're implying--well, stating--that a fetus is not a person. I have a different foundational belief in this argument, so the premise for each of our points differs. But like I said, I agree with your overall point on this, just not as it pertains to abortion. Why be allowed to kill a fetus--they have done neither anything good NOR bad, and killing someone just because you don't want them around doesn't pass the sanity test for me.

Would you outlaw elective abortion before addressing the social program issues though?

Depends on what my office is. If I were president in this day and age, I would deal with the program issues first, if I had to choose. But, I don't live my life one issue and a time--why couldn't both be tackled at the same time? But, if I had to choose, it'd be the program issues because those affect all Americans, whereas abortion (in its own context) does not directly affect everyone--or, at least, not to the same extreme fiscally.

Is it? I see the two linked pretty well. It is easy to decouple them and view them as two separate issues, it makes it simpler that way. But society and life aren't simple. You can't distill things down to simple narratives. There is ALWAYS much more going on behind the scenes, and it creates more problems when you pretend like they are tangential issues so you don't have to discuss them together.

For the sake of this discussion--yes, what you said is hyperbole. In fact, just on its face value, it's hyperbole. The butterfly effect affects everything...an earthquake can cause a tsunami and volcanic eruptions. I get all of this. But abortion (or lack of) is not the central driver of welfare living, so to state that it is...well, I have no data to prove that your assumption is correct. Do you?

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: sdubya
a reply to: eletheia
I will give you one final chance to actually answer the question rather than dance around it:
What about the birth process turns a lump of cells into a full human being?

The one thing no human being can live without .....AIR

When it takes its FIRST air into its lungs.

Thanks for the FINAL CHANCE

Do you have any scientific or medical evidence to back that up? It sure sounds dangerously like an ill-conceived opinion.

So you're saying viability is what makes a fetus a human being? Murder charges for killing a pregnant woman and her baby say otherwise. How can the court system charge the killer for the murder of two individuals if that fetus is just a lump of cells and not a "full human" yet?

a reply to: windword

Birth liberates the fetus from the womb. It requires the literal severing the umbilical cord. For the first time, a person is thrust into the world, an environment of air, not water, of breath and the harsh reality of forced autonomy, an experience so shocking it forces an awakening that results in a gasp for first breath and a scream!

A person has arrived!

So, if Grandma is on the way for the holidays, but hasn't yet arrived, she doesn't really exist yet--at least not in her human form?

I understand that analogy is ridiculous--it's to point out that your comment is, too.

You do understand that a zygote, let alone a fetus, has its own, unique human DNA, right? Viability does not a human create. Are you saying that dead people aren't humans? Aren't people? Just because they don't have life doesn't make them a non-person or non-human anymore than a fetus, while still in the womb, is not a human being.

This response, while eloquently written, is scientific/medical crap. It's like Niel Degrasse Tyson says, "'The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

The simple truth is that DNA dictates species, including humans. Once a living being has human DNA, it is an individual human being, regardless of its existence being pre- or post-natal. Just because that doesn't fit your narrative doesn't mean you need to continue to regurgitate incorrect information, no matter how poetically you state it.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I'm done addressing this red herring...it's a distraction that means nothing to this conversation. It's as if you forgot the whole mention of a "life force."

I'm just trying to figure out what "life force" is. I'm not aware of any scientific definitions of "life force" so I want to know what you think it is. Are the questions hard for you to answer? Is that why you are deflecting?

If I didn't know how to read, I'd think you're implying--well, stating--that a fetus is not a person. I have a different foundational belief in this argument, so the premise for each of our points differs. But like I said, I agree with your overall point on this, just not as it pertains to abortion. Why be allowed to kill a fetus--they have done neither anything good NOR bad, and killing someone just because you don't want them around doesn't pass the sanity test for me.

Well since a fetus can't think for itself, it cannot decide to desire self-preservation, which is a defining characteristic of life. So why does it matter? Sure, if you let it grow long enough it will develop these characteristics, but until it does you cannot assume that it has a desire to keep living just because it is alive. It has no desires at all in fact.

Depends on what my office is. If I were president in this day and age, I would deal with the program issues first, if I had to choose. But, I don't live my life one issue and a time--why couldn't both be tackled at the same time? But, if I had to choose, it'd be the program issues because those affect all Americans, whereas abortion (in its own context) does not directly affect everyone--or, at least, not to the same extreme fiscally.

I approve of this answer.

For the sake of this discussion--yes, what you said is hyperbole. In fact, just on its face value, it's hyperbole. The butterfly effect affects everything...an earthquake can cause a tsunami and volcanic eruptions. I get all of this. But abortion (or lack of) is not the central driver of welfare living, so to state that it is...well, I have no data to prove that your assumption is correct. Do you?

Tell that to the Republicans talking about welfare queens getting pregnant to get more welfare checks (which is a myth).

As for your evidence, Jonathan Gruber argued this very premise back in 1997.

Our results suggest that the marginal children who were not born as a result of abortion legalization would have systematically been born into worse circumstances had the pregnancies not been terminated: they would have been 70% more likely to live in a single parent household, 40% more likely to live in poverty, 35% more likely to die during the first year of life, and 50% more likely to be in a household collecting welfare.

The last of these finding implies that the selection effects operating through the legalization of abortion saved the government over $14 billion in welfare payments through the year 1994.

a reply to: eletheia


Not quite - a human cannot live without oxygen. And it gets oxygen in utero.


I'm done arguing with you. Maybe we can argue about another topic some other time.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

So, if Grandma is on the way for the holidays, but hasn't yet arrived, she doesn't really exist yet--at least not in her human form?

In a place where grandma is not, she is not there. She may appear on Skype, but she's still not there.

You do understand that a zygote, let alone a fetus, has its own, unique human DNA, right?

DNA is a molecule. At best, DNA is a blue print, a set of instructions that requires ingredients, a certain environment and time to bring the design to fruition. DNA in no way can be claimed to scientifically be an individual person.

Once a living being has human DNA, it is an individual human being, regardless of its existence being pre- or post-natal.

Egg and sperm have DNA. Are they tiny Mini Me people? A fertilized egg with DNA isn't a person. It's a potential person, with a long way to go.

Just because that doesn't fit your narrative doesn't mean you need to continue to regurgitate incorrect information, no matter how poetically you state it.

Back at ya! 100%! Please stop regurgitating incorrect information! Your opinions are not facts.

There's more to becoming a person than possessing human DNA. If you can't understand that, I don't know what else to say.

ETA: Thanks for calling my writing poetic!

At the end of the day all the bleating from the pro life crowd means jack.
Abortion will not be made illegal because it will put womens rights back years and seeing no one has given a decent answer to my questions on page one the pro life crowd pnly care about unborn fetuses and not the lice unwanted children already here.
Otherwise there would ve no unwanted kids around today.

a reply to: windword

DNA absolutely can be seen as a blueprint, but it is the way that DNA is constructed together--called a genome--that indicates the traits of all individuals, to the color of their eyes, to the shape of their nose, to their tongue length, etc. So, your assertion that " DNA in no way can be claimed to scientifically be an individual person," is technically true, but its implication false. It absolutely can be used to determine an individual person's identity--scientifically. Why do you think DNA evidence is so prevalent in court cases? Because...it...identifies...individuals.

I never once said that DNA is a person, I said that a living organism that has its own unique DNA (meaning DNA sequence...genome) IS a unique individual.

The beginnin of this whole discussion between you and I (at least this fork of the discussion) stemmed from the question concering when a fetus becomes a "human," not a "person." (although I'd argue it's the same thing) See here when that happens--it contains multiple sources and quotes in a nice, concise list (and cites each quote) that support the reality that the moment of conception (the creation of the zygote) is when a new life is created. People are created through procreation...things don't "become human"--they either are at the time of creation, or they never are.

I ask you to do one thing: Show me where I'm spouting opinion and not scientific fact concerning what I'm saying. As for sperm and the ovum--they contain the DNA of the human sources of each, but they are not each their own little human. Again, that's an asinine statement that contradicts all facts known to biological science.