Abortion is morally WRONG

reply to post by destination now


An interesting situation without doubt, and it does invoke some sympathy on my part- better she get an abortion for those reasons than other reasons such as "I don't want to be tied up" or "I like my single life and don't want a kid".

However, again, the unborn child has been cut off from its future life which would have existed without being aborted. If this occurred 20 years, this child could have grown up by now and could possibly be making a difference in others lives, as well as living out their own.

And again, why must the unborn child bear the brunt of the unfortunate circumstance? I can see how you might say that going through with the pregnancy would have made life extremely difficult for your friend, but does that warrant a human life to end?

If everyone in the world was given the option to have an abortion in such a circumstance, then places like India and Africa would see MASSIVE drops in population, and people would literally disapear off the face of the continent, seeing as how the mothers can't even feed themselves, let alone the children.

To even list "gossip" as being a reason to have the abortion is almost laughable- gossip? Really? It's the same kind of reasoning suicidal youth use as catalysts into their own self-destruction! If gossip and having a hard time at school are really important enough abortion reasons in your mind, then I know not what to say.

In terms of practicality, as you requested, I don't know what England has in terms of child support and charity organizations, but I will say what I would suggest if this woman had been living in my community.

First of all, it sounds like she is having a hard-enough time as it is. I know that 475 is a pretty high mortgage payment, but here I would suggest downsizing and even applying for cheaper "habitat for humanity" housing, in which medium density houses with cumulative mortgages are sold to people like your friend who would most definitely qualify.

I don't know what she is going through in terms of luxury and food spending, but I'll tell you my own story. My family moved to our current community when I was about 10 years old, and as our old house failed to sell, my parents had 2 mortgages to pay, as well as 4 kids to raise. My dad was employed, but my mother wasn't, as my three younger sisters needed her full-time attention. I'll tell you one thing- we had basically no Christmas one year, and most of our meals where stew or pasta, as well as my school lunches everyday being a bologna sandwich and tap water.

If your friend would be short on food money, I would suggest the food bank. There is literally not a single family that would go hungry with an application to the food bank. They can provide food for families for as long as they need it- whether it be weeks, months, or years. I know this because I have volunteered there many a few times.

There are also many charitable organizations out there with the goal of helping people like your friend as their main doctrine. They would provide clothing, travel, babysitting, and even Christmas presents.

Again, I don't know what you guys have in England, but this is what we have hear in Canada, and through my own volunteer work, I have come to know the stories of families just as set back as your friends, if not more who have survived with the help of charity.

I know that going to charity is a hard pill to swallow for some, but shouldn't killing a human being be a much bigger one to swallow? Again, here is the heart of my anti-abortion immorality argument- the tools to survive with the child are hear, but the weight can be lifted and people can move on with their lives much easier with an abortion. Its the quick fix to life's problem- the pulling of the weed-stem instead of its roots.

Of course life would be harder, more "embarrassing", and even almost unbearable at some points in your friend's life, but isn't a human life worth all of these emotional hardships?

Would you be ok with someone killing you in order not to go through these hardships?

Can you put a price on a human life... Especially in the circumstance that you know it is possible to pay it?

reply to post by Rustami


Well she did avoid the same situation again like the plague! But she was most grateful to be able to "solve" the situation with minumum fuss and no impact on her 3 children, so I guess that concludes that the morality of her decision is intact!

reply to post by Monts


At least you understand some of the complexity of the situation, but I would still ask why should her existing children suffer? And no, we don't have anything like the resources in the UK that you describe. Social housing has waiting lists of several years, and the majority of this housing is in economically deprived areas with all of the other issues associated with poverty, higher crime rates, drug/alcohol abuse etc and her children had already lost contact with their father and had gone through the trauma of a divorce, why should they be moved away from where they live, to some festering council estate, probably having to change schools and move away from their friends? And you also questioned that her kids being bullied is not a good reason? That is where I feel you singularly miss the whole point. Her existing children should suffer, so that she can give birth to an illigitimate child, who's father she doesn't know and will never be able to trace? That argument is frankly quite ludicrous, and I feel answers my previous question to you - "how many kids do you have?" I would reckon none, if that's how you would treat them...And believe me, once you have had a child, you would realise how you would do anything to prevent your child being hurt. And of course as this "unborn" grew up, they would want to know about their father, the other 3 kids know who their father is, even if he was a useless grunt, but to be told "Ah well I went out to this nightclub and met a guy, went back to his place, had sex and I don't even know is surname" the damage that would cause to the child would be quite significant, believe me...

You also say that this "unborn" could have made something of their lives, well I would beg to differ, if you look at the statistics for fatherless kids brought up in abject poverty in council "sink" estates, the prognosis is not good, with many becoming trapped in the poverty cycle (not saying this applies to all people brought up without a father on a council estate, there are obviously exceptions!) So would it not be better that her 3 existing children get the opportunity, within a stable background to make the most of their lives? Why should their opportunities be discarded so that another child can be born? That seems very unfair.

I agree with you that those who choose abortion as a "lifestyle" choice are selfish, but there are just so many situations not related to rape/medical issues, where abortion really is the only choice, for everyone, including the "unborn"

reply to post by destination now


no you misunderstood I was only referring to after the abortion, adoption would be the better choice if you could'nt find a way to keep the child

Here's another take on the notion of abortion being tantamount to the murder of a human being, regardless of the gestational age of the fetus. What about miscarriages? According to the Mayo Clinic, as many as "15 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage". Couldn't miscarriages be construed as the pregnant mother having murdered the fetus? Should a pregnant woman who miscarries be subjected to interrogation or testing to make sure they were not personally responsible for the miscarriage? What would be the criteria for determining personal responsibility for the miscarriage? Should she feel deep personal guilt for the miscarriage? After all, a miscarriage amounts to the death of a human being, right? Should a miscarriage be prosecutable as manslaughter?

reply to post by Rustami


Adoption was not a choice..you clearly did not read my full post...

Can I ask you as well, how many children have you given birth to? How many pregnancies have you been through?

Originally posted by dalloway
Here's another take on the notion of abortion being tantamount to the murder of a human being, regardless of the gestational age of the fetus. What about miscarriages? According to the Mayo Clinic, as many as "15 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage". Couldn't miscarriages be construed as the pregnant mother having murdered the fetus? Should a pregnant woman who miscarries be subjected to interrogation or testing to make sure they were not personally responsible for the miscarriage? What would be the criteria for determining personal responsibility for the miscarriage? Should she feel deep personal guilt for the miscarriage? After all, a miscarriage amounts to the death of a human being, right? Should a miscarriage be prosecutable as manslaughter?

And that is frankly disgusting. You are clearly a mysogynist if that is your genuine belief, and if it is, then I would not even consider you to be a person I would want to have a discussion with

But if you are pointing out the hypocrisy of the pro-lifers then I apologise

reply to post by destination now


I'm all about calling attention to the hypocrisy!! Gads, I would not want to have a discussion with anyone who believed that way either! I'm calling attention to the problem with the notion that a three week old fetus should have the same rights as a three year old child. If we begin treating early abortion as the murder of a human being, we are going to find ourselves on a very slippery slope indeed. Next thing you know, we'll create the Pregnancy Police division of law enforcement. If you are pregnant and are seen drinking a glass of wine (or wearing unsensible shoes, or not eating the recommended daily allowance of fruits and vegetables, or taking the stairs instead of the elevator, you see what I mean?) you may just find yourself being cuffed and Mirandized for violating Pregnancy Law. Yikes, it's starting to sound like The Handmaid's Tale.

reply to post by dalloway


Phew...thanks for clearing that up and apologies once again! But as you will probably have gathered from reading the thread, there are some seriously deluded people out there, who put the rights of a collection of cells, which may not even become a viable pregnancy and subsequent live birth over the rights and freedoms of everyone else involved.

And you make a very good point, and correctly state that if the pro-lifers had their way, that would just be the start...Imagine it, a woman finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy for whatever reason, and the next thing she is being sedated and restrained in a psychiatric ward to "protect her unborn child" and potentially facing criminal charges if the fetus is not susbsequently birthed to specific standards. Scary stuff indeed.

reply to post by dalloway


Oh and welcome to the forum by the way. Excellent first post with some very interesting points to consider (even if I did misunderstand at first...my fault!) Star for you

reply to post by destination now

Thanks, Destination! I like to sometimes play devil's advocate to highlight the hypocrisy in certain points of view and/or inject some satire into the mix, and it often backfires on me. I suppose it comes from my days in high school on the debate team and in the drama club.

We cannot say for sure exactly why this is happening, but more corporations have been removed from the boycott list between the July 2010 and December 2010 lists than have ever been dropped in the past,” he added.The companies no longer financially supporting the abortion business, which does more than 25 percent of the abortions in the United States annually..Scott credited pro-life advocates with consistently contacting corporate headquarters and officers letting them know of their refusal to patronize their businesses until they end their financial relationships with Planned Parenthood. He said the next boycott list will be made available in the next week. The last one included corporations that are household names for most Americans and, also, internationally. www.lifenews.com...

What are the economic consequences of the slaughter of 38 million innocents? In a normal working life each one would have earned about $28,000 each year, $1,120,000 each child, for a total of 42.5 trillion dollars. This is about 6 times the national debt. This, too, is a debt we have created that will be paid.

When will payment for this debt begin? Soon. Very soon. Now, twenty years after "legalization" of abortion, is the time when the children would have started working. Each year for the next 20 years the payment will increase by 53 billion dollars. If we ourselves do not stop abortion, it will be stopped soon as our culture itself aborts; crushed under this staggering deficit. Our land will become as empty as our hearts as starvation, war, and disease reign unchecked. They will care little for our "rights"! No, not much longer... soon. users.stargate.net...

The Soviet Union was the first nation to legalize abortion in 1921. It is well known that Soviet Communism encouraged abortion as a badge of women's liberation under Marxism-Leninism. www.silentvoices.org...

Nothing melts the heart like a helpless baby. Even a biologist's cold calculations tell us that nurturing an offspring that carries our genes is the whole point of our existence. www.rightgrrl.com...

The map above has 18 states blacked out. The population of these states is equal to the 50,000,000+ reported "legal" surgical abortions since 1973. Perhaps this visual perspective helps one to grasp the number of people that are gone www.cpforlife.org...

Some get angry. Others yawn. Still others react in horror and breathe a silent prayer. Then there are those who recognize an overwhelming tragedy that will decide the future of our nation, the church, and the world.
They are the folks who quickly understand the math. Fifty-three and a half million is more than the population of our America's 71 largest cities -- from New York all the way down to cities the size of Henderson, NV. It's as if we had a major nuclear war and no one survived in all those cities.
What we have had for more than a generation is a declared war against the young driven by population scaremongers committed to exploiting the fears and vulnerability of ordinary women struggling to survive.
www.movementforabetteramerica.org..../

Henry Wade was the state appointed prosecutor. He was a well-known Dallas county elected official, who had taken part in the prosecution of Jack Ruby, who had shot Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin of President John F. Kennedy. Wade was a Texas legend, known as "the chief" around the Dallas courthouse, who never lost a case that he personally prosecuted..The commitment of this man, who could have taken a strong stand against abortion, was evidenced by his lack of direct involvement in what later became the landmark case in judicial history. www.thingsrevealed.net...

reply to post by Rustami

What are the economic consequences of the slaughter of 38 million innocents? In a normal working life each one would have earned about $28,000 each year, $1,120,000 each child, for a total of 42.5 trillion dollars. This is about 6 times the national debt. This, too, is a debt we have created that will be paid.

As opposed of course to the approximately £200,000 (that's UK pounds, not dollars) to bring them up! And of course that is considering that they will in fact earn a living (refering to my previous post about the issues surroundings kids brought up in abject poverty, which many abortees would be, that's why they were aborted in the first place!!) and live til retirement!! At which point of course you have another 38million economically inactive people to pay for until they die!

So yet again, another pointless quote-fest, without the common decency to even answer my one question. You have got to realise that you are not going to change anyone's mind by continuously quoting this, somewhat spurrious, drivel and instead actually have a debate, with your own words...

reply to post by destination now


look I feel for her and whoever has experienced this but there is no debate it is directly bloodshed/death of the most innocent/defenseless and have already explained what I've experienced/heard making this an issue that comes up before the face of God obviously and not just to me but many others as well. why would you say regretful then turn around and claim it a "moral" solution afterwords, is this not a contradiction- forgiveness of what exactly? so.. at least hopefully a future decision maker can see all these facts and will make a better informed moral choice beforehand to avoid these regrets in what appears to be a very real war going on that would seem many are unaware of

America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience.-Mother Teresa (Wall Street Journal, 2/25/94)

In the past 12 American wars, we lost 651,543 American soldiers. Yet, in the past 30 years, we have lost over 41 million Americans to abortions. That means we lost 64 times more Americans through abortion than we have in all of our wars combined (41,704,000 / 651,543 = 64). (Source: Time Almanac 2002)
www.biblehelp.org...

Tina's life today stems from her unplanned pregnancy right after she graduated from high school. She unfortunately decided to end her pregnancy through abortion. She tried to put it behind her and forget it ever happened, but as her relationship with Jesus grew she knew she had made the wrong choice. Today, Tina is director of Franklin Life Pregnancy Resource Center in Carnesville, Georgia www.whispersfromthewomb.com...

I fully support a woman's right to medically safe and legal access to abortions, if she so chooses.
I will not be convinced otherwise.
I have a uterus.
I will do with it what I please and no one is allowed to influence it's activities but me.
I take the health risks for having it.
I pay for the insurance that helps it's wellness.
No one pays me for carrying and maintaining this uterus.
I deal with it's existence monthly (!) with no help from political organization or religious affiliates.
I live with it's monthly hormonal flux and housekeeping.

It is mine to do with as I desire.

No amount of political and emotional terrorism is going to change how I feel about reproductive freedom.
I will do what I please!

reply to post by Rustami


Rustami,

You use the death and "bloodshed" argument to support your conviction of abortion. Well i pledge to you, that religion itself has caused much more bloodshed and death to humanity throughout history than abortion ever has, and on an illogical basis; the belief in the dogma of a supernatural deity. This is illogical death and destruction. Causes illogical tension and suffering worldwide; causes prejuduce because of a distorted absolutist half baked morality, again, derived from their belief in the invisible, the fictitious and quite frankly, non-existant.

This is why your theocracy is no good for stable society like we have in the West by secular means. And let me tell you, democracy and free speech has done more for races, women and homosexuals than your superstitious theocracy has ever done. It's certainly stopped a lot of bloodshed and tension.

We have abortion because as it is a last resort measure we have the privelledge of, and we have the privelledge of choice over here, when contraception has failed, or the birth is going to cause health difficulties for the women. We don't want abortion as a prime means of child prevention, we've already said that. We have to educate our youth.

Again, your pro-life choice is skewed on definition of a fetus as a "human" (aww) due to your interpretation of your own dogmatic belief system.

It's despicable that the leader, no doubt, of the so called "Holy" religion has been recorded as saying "condoms are worse than aids" - I ask you what kind of immoral preaching is this?

DestinationNow i completely understand you and i feel you have made relevant arugments, and i can't believe your patience and tolerance. Unfortunately, their faulty logic travels in circles and never progresses. Now you may see why i am fighting religion and spreading the good word. To stop the non-sensical dogmatic prejuduce that religion causes.

Peace

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Rustami

 

You use the death and "bloodshed" argument to support your conviction of abortion.

the life thereof, which is the blood thereof-Gen9

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.-Matt26

• 18 days from conception, a baby's heart begins to beat, and by 21 days the heart is pumping blood through a closed circulatory system.
www.straight-talk.net...

WARNING graphic bloody video of an abortion from The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform
www.abortionno.org...

Well i pledge to you, that religion itself has caused much more bloodshed and death to humanity throughout history than abortion ever has, and on an illogical basis;

One baby is aborted every 24 seconds
147 babies are aborted every hour
3,542 babies are aborted every day
24,865 babies are aborted every week
107,750 babies are aborted every month
WORLDWIDE-
Number of abortions per year: Approximately 46 Million
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 126,000 www.mswm.org...

Taken all together, we have 401 million deaths over nearly 2000 years of war and barbarism. Just for the sake of argument, let’s add another 10%, or 40 million, to cover margins of error, and other wars. This would bring our total to 441 million deaths over the last 20 centuries.

Now, what about abortion? At the low end of the Guttmacher scale, even if we ignore all abortions done prior to 1980 when accurate numbers are a little more difficult to ascertain, abortion accounts for more than twice the number of deaths by war! In just the last 25 years, the ghastly toll for abortion has totaled over 900 million dead babies. Taking the more probable mean average, the toll rises to well over 1 billion babies; or nearly three times the amount of deaths due to war. www.covenantnews.com...

This is why your theocracy is no good for stable society like we have in the West by secular means. And let me tell you, democracy and free speech has done more for races, women and homosexuals than your superstitious theocracy has ever done.

"The data clearly shows what we have long suspected: that abortion is harmful rather than helpful to women," said Elliot Institute director Dr. David Reardon, one of several researchers working on the study..example, found that women who had abortions were three-and-a-half times more likely to die within the next year as women who carried their pregnancies to term..They also presented studies that found higher rates of depression, mental illness, miscarriages and substance abuse among post-abortive women compared to women who gave birth.."We can't expect an immediate change in attitudes, of course, but I'm confident that we were able to plant some seeds www.afterabortion.org...

A conspiracy of silence seems to surround the well-documented excess of suicide deaths among women with a history of abortion.Dr. Barry Garfinkel, head of the University of Minnesota's Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Department, surveyed teenagers to determine what factors contributed to depression, stress, and thoughts of suicide. The study found that girls who had abortions were four times as likely to attempt suicide as girls who had not aborted.
"Suicide More Likely Among Aborted Teens" National Right to Life News 4 Apr. 2, 1987

Dr. Carl L. Tishler found that post-abortion teenagers are more likely to commit suicide on or near the anniversary of their abortions than at any other time.
Carl L. Tishler, Ph.D., Adolescent Suicide Attempts Following Elective Abortion: A Special Case of Anniversary Reaction Pediatrics 670-671 Nov 1981 realchoice.0catch.com...

(updated April 2010)
A report released by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) shows that the suicide rate among teen girls and young women has tripled in the past 25 years, despite an overall drop in suicide rates across the United States.

NIH reports that suicide is now the third leading cause of death among American young people, and the sixth leading cause of death for children between the ages of 5 and 14 www.physiciansforlife.org...

It is also worth noting the suicide rate among women in China is the highest in the world. Indeed, 56 percent of all female suicides occur in China, mostly among young rural women.(12) It is also the only country where more women die from suicide than men. For women under 45, the suicide rate is twice as high as that of Chinese men. Government officials are reported to be at a loss for an explanation..Given the known link between abortion and suicide, can there be any doubt that maternally-oriented Chinese women who are coerced by their families and communities to participate in these atrocities are more likely to commit suicide? www.abortiontv.com...

While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely.

Who's having abortions (marital status)?
64.4% of all abortions are performed on never-married womenwww.mswm.org...

Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen. All this I promise to do.

Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premisses: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the Altar by the Arch-bishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying these words:

The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.

Then the Queen shall kiss the Book and sign the Oath.

The Queen having thus taken her Oath shall return again to her Chair, and the Bible shall be delivered to the Dean of Westminster. www.royal.gov.uk...

Prager replied "Herbert Hoover had a Bible. …He just didn't swear by it, because I believe he was a Quaker. That's a very different story."[28] On "Hannity and Colmes" Prager stated "The only president who did not have a Bible was Theodore Roosevelt, first term, and it was because [President William] McKinley had just been shot. Every president used a Bible."[29] (Prager also questioned Colmes’ Boston Globe source[30] that said in 1991 Massachusetts Gov. William Weld was sworn in without a Bible.[29]) en.wikipedia.org...'an_oath_controversy_of_the_110th_United_States_Congress

In 1560 the Reform Faith was established as the national religion of Scotland. Forty-three years later in 1603 James VI of Scotland became James I of England. In 1618 the king tried to conform the worship of the Scottish churches to the pattern of the Anglican Church, which policy was pursued by his son Charles I in 1625. The Scottish Presbyterians rejected this royal usurpation by signing the National Covenant in 1638 which declared religious independence from the state church. Again they signed the Solemn League and Covenant in 1643 which pledged themselves in their worship and allegiance only to the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ. Thus they became known as the Scottish Covenanters. They opposed the theory of the Divine Right of Kings and taught that limitless sovereignty pertains to God alone.

On April 18, 1775 John Adams and John Hancock were at the home of Rev. Jonas Clarke, a Lexington pastor and militia leader. That same night Paul Revere arrived to warn them of the approaching Redcoats. The next morning British Major Pitcairn shouted to an assembled regiment of Minutemen; "Disperse, ye villains, lay down your arms in the name of George the Sovereign King of England." The immediate response of Rev. Jonas Clarke or one of his company was:

"We recognize no Sovereign but God and no King but Jesus."
www.truthinhistory.org...

DELAWARE CONSTITUTION:
1776 Article XXII: Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust….shall….make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: "I, ____________, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration. "

MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTION:
1780 Stated, "We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity to form a compact;…. And devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design,…. Establish this Constitution.

The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless at the time of his election…. He shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion."

Chapter VI, Article I, "All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. "I, ____________, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth."

NEW ENGLAND CONFEDERATION CONSTITUTION:
1643, As covenanted together by the colonists of New Plymouth, New Haven, Massachusetts & Connecticut, stated,

Whereas we all came to these parts of America with the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel thereof with purities and peace, and for preserving and propagating the truth and liberties of the gospel."
www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com...

Anno Domini (abbreviated as AD or A.D., sometimes found in the form Anno Domine) and Before Christ (abbreviated as BC or B.C.) are designations used to label years in the Julian and Gregorian calendars. The calendar era to which they refer is based on the traditionally reckoned year of the conception or birth of Jesus of Nazareth, the central figure in Christianity en.wikipedia.org...

Again, your pro-life choice is skewed on definition of a fetus as a "human" (aww) due to your interpretation of your own dogmatic belief system.

Fetus Fe"tus, noun; plural Fetuses. [Latin expression fetus, foetus, bringing forth, brood, offspring, young ones, compare to fetus fruitful, fructified, that is or was filled with young

fetus
late 14c., "the young while in the womb or egg," from L. fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing, bringing forth, or hatching of young," from Latin base *fe- "to generate, bear," also "to suck, suckle" (see fecund). In Latin, fetus sometimes was transferred figuratively to the newborn creature itself, or used in a sense of "offspring, brood" (cf. Horace's "Germania quos horrida parturit Fetus"), but this was not the basic meaning. www.etymonline.com...

Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, said: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Dr. McCarthy de Mere, a medical doctor and law professor at the University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

"The Father of Modern Genetics" Testifies

Dr. Jerome Lejeune, known as "The Father of Modern Genetics," also testified that human life begins at conception before the Louisiana Legislature's House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice on June 7, 1990.

Dr. Lejeune explained that within three to seven days after fertilization we can determine if the new human being is a boy or a girl. "At no time," Dr. Lejeune said, "is the human being a blob of protoplasm. As far as your nature is concerned, I see no difference between the early person that you were at conception and the late person which you are now. You were, and are, a human being." www.prolife.com...

Deaths of pregnant women, he explains, will be blamed on unsafe abortion and the lack of reproductive rights. So abortion activists are trying to wed that with maternal death numbers, which, according to Meaney, "doesn't work scientifically speaking, but it's very useful for propaganda purposes."

He explains that the countries involved are often pro-life, but they face strong economic pressures to bow to abortion forces.

"The major donors for health projects tend to also be very much on the pro-abortion side, and so there's something of an exchange that goes on," the HLI spokesman reports. www.onenewsnow.com...

Maternal Death Rate Lowest in Abortion Free Ireland
by David Schmidt on February 9th, 2010
Where is the maternal death rate lowest? Ireland, where human abortion is a crime against humanity. liveaction.org...

Women considering elective surgery, such as abortion, consider all information about physical or psychological risks to be very relevant to their decisions. Fully 95 percent of patients wished to be informed of all risks statistically associated with a procedure, even if the causal connection between the procedure and risk has not been fully proven. (This finding is especially relevant to abortion providers who assert that, without proof that abortion directly causes problems such as depression or breast cancer, women would prefer not to be given such "worrisome" and "unnecessary" information.)(19) Journal of Medical Ethics, 2006

A number of studies have been done recently that document abortion's harm to women. This is a collection of them. www.clinicquotes.com...

Communist society
Lenin(Bolshevik) tried to make Russian society communist:

Banned religion, destroyed churches and killed priests. A Labour Law gave workers an 8-hour day, unemployment pay and pensions. There was a huge campaign to teach everyone to read. Education: Science was encouraged, and useless subjects like Latin and History were banned. Free love, divorce and abortion were allowed. = different morality and style of life. www.johndclare.net...

For many women, the most common method of birth control remains a Soviet-era holdover: abortion.

"Young women who think that having an abortion is an easy thing are wrong," Latypova tells RFE/RL's Tatar-Bashkir Service. "An abortion is not only an operation. It's a deep psychological trauma for a woman. This is an operation that causes a woman physical and moral pain. I don't think it's the right decision."

Russia was the first country in the world to legalize abortion, in 1920. www.rferl.org...

September 24, 2005
Mother Russia now sees more abortions than babies bornBy her 50th birthday, Russia’s population could have halved, based on current trends.. By Russian standards, she is lucky to have made it even this far: last year, there were 1.6 million registered abortions in Russia and 1.5 million births..“The situation is critical,” said Vladimir Kulakov, deputy head of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences and an adviser to President Putin on the demographic crisis. “The most important thing for every nation is to have confidence in its future.”..Russia’s population has been in decline since 1992 ..Mr Putin raised the issue in April, calling it a “national crisis”, but the Government has yet to respond. Mr Putin is now under pressure to dip into the Stabilisation Fund, designed to save excess oil revenues, to arrest the population decline. www.timesonline.co.uk...

And now Rustami, you're just re-posting the same stuff that you've posted throughout the thread. No point in continuing here, you have not changed my mind, nor have you changed anyone else's who has the same opinion as me. You say there is nothing to debate? In other words you just want to force your one-sided, flawed arguments onto women without being able to consider exactly what is involved for a woman in this situation as I have arrived at the conclusion you are a man.

It's such a shame that neither your or Monts (who started this thread and has disappeared) have the courage of your convictions to answer my very simple questions, but on reflection I think there is probably good reason for that, in that neither of you have any real clue about the real life situations that women find themselves in and as such you are not qualified to answer.

reply to post by stellify


"If you are jumping on the morality bandwagon, how does a human life differ from an animal life?

I believe in abortion. I find it abhorrent, just as I find slaughterhouses abhorrent.

But I still eat meat...and I would have an abortion if I felt I could not continue with the pregnancy.

Think your thread will just turn into a repetition of every other abortion thread.

Good luck and good night. "



Here is a perfect example of what I can't stand with abortion debates. Lets replace words like pregnancy with what it is, my Baby.
REPLAY - I would have an abortion if I felt I could not continue with the Baby.

Those that chose to kill their babies never refer to them as human, children,babies.....

Maybe you would have a miscarriage or the child could die before being born, but if you CHOSE to kill it, it is deffinately dead.

Abortion is the killing of a baby. I don't see how you can rationalize it any other way. If you didn't kill it, it would be talking to you in a couple of years.

Call it choice if you want, and I can chose to go home get my gun and go kill someone, but does that CHOICE not come with a penalty?