How can Abortion be considered the mother's choice, who asks the baby's opinion?

in my view abortion is bad. people would say partial birth is to save a woman's life if the pregnancy is endangering the woman. however we have seen in statistics where women still able to use dis loophole to commit abortion just because they did not want to take care of the child, dont have financial support, embarrassed about having a child because it reminds of them that they are getting old, etc. how would u people felt that yer mother or both yer parents decided to abort u because they didnt feel like taking care of u either for financial reasons or just because they dont want a child. remember all the things u have done in the past that have benefited the society. if u are a doctor or a police officer. imagine the consequences.

Uh, where it says "Breath of Life." It is amazing how few christians have actually read the bible.

You see, you don't get your soul until you take the Breath of Life, according to God, therefor a fetus is not a human. It is Blaspheme to consider it human, the church supported abortion until the late 1800's, because it was Blaspheme to consider a fetus a human.

Human life begins at conception. Not before, not after.

Once a child is conceived a woman HAS reproduced. The baby simply has to come out in nine months.

As far as the rape issue--that child is THERE. Whether a woman choose to kill her unborn child or does the right thing and allows said child to live, the fact remains, the child has had an existence. Abortion will NOT erase the rape. Furthermore, most women who were raped and aborted as a result (over 90% in fact) said they wished they had not aborted! (I'll get the source later.)

What's with this "forcing" a woman to carry to term? That's what her body is DESIGNED for!

Pro-abortion people are anti-personal responsibility. You play, you pay! How hard is this to understand? People need to think of the consequences before they bed-hop. Contraceptives are NEVER 100% effective. It's a game of sexual Russian Roulette.

The only way I can think of that terminating a pregnancy would save a woman's life is in the case of ectopic pregnancy. And even then, it's not a matter of exercising "choice," is it?

When I think of freedom, the "freedom" to kill your own child doesn't come to mind!

You see, you don't get your soul until you take the Breath of Life, according to God, therefor a fetus is not a human. It is Blaspheme to consider it human, the church supported abortion until the late 1800's, because it was Blaspheme to consider a fetus a human

You are sadly mistaken and uninformed on God's word.
"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." (Exodus 21:22-23)
I think that this explains it best. A woman with child, and a life for a life.

No one asks the baqby probably because abortion does not remove babies. It removes growing clusters of cells known as fetuses or embryos. It is not a living, breathing human being until it is born. Before that, its a cluster of cells and tissue with the potential to become human (the first two trimesters).

Thus, the only sentient being involved is the mother. Since it is her body that the cluster of cells is using as a host, and its her resources it is using, thus, her descision, and the only one Im interested in.

What about all the millions of sperm released into a kleenex when guys spank their monkeys? They are potential humans too, have any of you hartless anti abortionists ever bothered to ask your sperm how they feel about being expeled and tossed into the trash?

SKADI,,, you really haven't read any of this thread have you?

Originally posted by deesw
You are sadly mistaken and uninformed on God's word.

- Actually I think you have read this bit of the Bible completely wrong.

It doesn't say what you claim.

"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.

- So if a woman is injured and the only consequence is that she has a miscarriage then the woman's husband may demand a fine (Biblical sexism, who'd a thunk it ) with "the judges" presumably keeping the terms and/or repayment reasonable.

But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life."

(Exodus 21:22-23)

- The "further injury" referred to here is quite plainly and very obviously in respect to the woman involved, not "a child" already "miscarried".




[edit on 21-1-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Sorry you're wrong dude. Just another person perverting the Bible to get what you want out of it.

Originally posted by deesw
Sorry you're wrong dude.

- Well there is where we disagree then.

Just another person perverting the Bible to get what you want out of it.

- Actually I think that is exactly what you (and those who take your view) are up to.

IMO it is (once again) a case of those with a religious axe to grind making the most torturous use of language (doesn't it ever strike you as strange and very funny how your version of 'God' just can't ever seem to speak 'straight' - even on what you believe is such a fundamentally important issue, huh?).

You're the one who put the words up, the meaning is perfectly clear despite whatever twisting you care to engage in.

Its just not my place, or in my opinion any male's place, to decide whether a woman gives birth or not.

Alot of pro-life people always use horrible examples of abortion to justify their side, like pictures of nearly-developed human infants dead. See thats not all abortion.

If done early, its just killing a group of multiplying cells. Yeah, its killing life, but at that point its the same as most other animals at that point, so I don't think it should be considered human life at that early stage.

I think all abortions should be done very early. When its just a mass of cells, I really doubt its concious.



[edit on 21-1-2006 by Kacen]

Originally posted by deesw
James Dobson had a panel of twelve doctors on Focus on the Family last year. They were all OB/GYN doctors and all agreed that there has never been one documented case where aborting a fetus would save the mother's life. There are always alternatives. He had a nurse on the show that was fired from her job because she tried to save a baby that had not made it to full term and the hospital regulations on premature births stated that the baby missed their window of saving by a few hours and thus it should not even be attempted to be saved.

So I guess James Dobson and his pannel of 12 have never heard of an Etopic Pregnancy.

Can I get that list of 12 doctors to make sure my wife never sees them because obviously they don't need to be practicing.

Just out of interest, is that it?

Is that the one and only specific Biblical reference that can be offered up as referring to abortion?

One torturous twisting of a couple of verses of Exodus......from a time when miscarriage must have invariably meant a feotal death, except when you have a fundamentalist 'bent' and a very obvious axe to grind on this?

Like I said, is it not very strange how, on what is claimed to be such a hugely vital issue, God chooses not to talk in anything but the most convoluted riddles, huh?

How can Abortion be considered the mother's choice, who asks the baby's opinion?

Since when do we ask the 'baby's' opinion on anything?

Do we give a baby a choice to touch a hot stove?
Do we ask its opinion on whether or not it should wear a coat?
Do we check with the fetus to see if it even wants to come into this world?
Do we ask the egg if it wants to be fertilized?
Do we ask its opinion on the stinky diaper?

No! We make all the decisions and all the choices for that little bundle of cells from the time it's conceived till sometime far after it comes into this world.

So you're all telling me that the 12 year old girl that lives in a town nearby should carry the baby of the 2 meter junkie that gave her aids and made her piss through a tube the rest of her life?

You people make me sick, my skin crawls from the thought alone.

Sure let the government decide what you eat, watch and listen to and slowly take away your rights one by one.

I'm glad I live in a free country.

Originally posted by deesw
Sorry you're wrong dude. Just another person perverting the Bible to get what you want out of it.

Breathe = life as far as the Bible is concerned. All that conception hocus pocus came much later. You suck at your biblical history apparently.

Neo-Christian?

Originally posted by Amethyst
Human life begins at conception.

Since when? Which Pope is your God?

Originally posted by deesw
You are sadly mistaken and uninformed on God's word.
"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." (Exodus 21:22-23)
I think that this explains it best.

It sure does.

It's property. Might get fined a chicken for causing a miscarriage back in the day.

The further injury is to the women, and a life must be taken for the penalty of life for life to be enacted.

Read your bible quote again.

"so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined"

By talking about the further injury after a miscarriage which can ONLY be to the wife as resulting in a life for a life, then the BIBLE points out in BLACK AND WHITE that causing a miscarriage is NOT in any way equated to taking a life.

NOT even close.

How can Abortion be considered the mother's choice, who asks the baby's opinion?

You mean, who asks for your opinion? That's what you are giving us. Should your opinion influence what this woman does with her life? Are you playing God? Deciding for God instead of letting God.

[edit on 28-2-2006 by Excitable_Boy]

Originally posted by deesw
James Dobson had a panel of twelve doctors on Focus on the Family last year. They were all OB/GYN doctors and all agreed that there has never been one documented case where aborting a fetus would save the mother's life. There are always alternatives.

Originally posted by MrBunny
So I guess James Dobson and his pannel of 12 have never heard of an Etopic Pregnancy.

Can I get that list of 12 doctors to make sure my wife never sees them because obviously they don't need to be practicing.

An etopic pregnancy isn't considered viable as it will never implant in the uterus and grow and become a viable pregnancy. It will grow and rupture the fallopian tube eventually, causing miscarrige and threatening the mother's life....if this is not the condition that brings the etopic condition to light already, then yes, sugery is necessary to save the mother from the pain and danger of the fallopina tube rupturing. However removing what cannot thrive, will not become a baby from the tube, is no different than removing a molar pregnancy or performing a D&C after/during a miscarrige.

Originally posted by Amethyst
Human life begins at conception. Not before, not after.

Wrong. It begins before.

The confusion in this argument is between the phrases "human life" and "human being." There is no question whatsoever that abortion destroys human life, but then, when I cut myself shaving, I destroy human life, too, because my skin cells and blood cells are human and alive.

Nevertheless, when I cut myself shaving that does not constitute suicide. And if I were to punch someone in the nose, and injure him so as to kill some of his cells, I would again be destroying human life, but not committing murder.

Murder, suicide, or manslaughter all involve, not merely the destruction of human life, but the killing of a human being. And what is a human being? Well, that's something that's poorly defined, but among the characteristics we associate with this concept are intelligence, consciousness, a personality, emotions, and sensitivity to pain and pleasure.

An embryo at conception possesses none of these things. At some point prior to birth, I'd say some time in the third trimester of pregnancy, it begins to develop these characteristics. Exactly where in the process this happens is a good question and one that merits further research and discussion.

However, let's be clear on one thing: the discussion of when "life" begins is inherently deceptive. That's not the question. Human life is a continuum. The cells of a mother's body are human and alive (but none of them is a human being). A sperm cell and an ovum are human and alive (but not human beings).

A newborn baby is human and alive -- and a human being. I say this, because it possesses, not merely human genes and life, but also intelligence, consciousness, a personality, emotions, and sensitivity to pleasure and pain.

Those who assert that abortion is murder are also asserting that an embryo at conception is, not merely "human life" (that's not in question nor relevant here), but actually a human being. On what basis is this asserted? What characteristics of a human being does this one-celled organism possess?

In short, it is improper to call abortion "murder" as if that were obvious, objectively demonstrable, or a consensus; you must first provide a convincing argument for this claim. Murder is the deliberate destruction, not merely of human life, but of a human being. On what basis do you believe an embryo at conception a human being?

[edit on 1-3-2006 by Two Steps Forward]