Abortion
- Thread starter Danoff
- 2,594 comments
- 121,227 views
- 523
Did you know that an unborn baby can feel pain at about two months?
"When doctors first began invading the sanctuary of the womb, they did not know that the unborn baby would react to pain in the same fashion as a child would. But they soon learned that he would."- Dr. A. Liley, Prof. of Fetology, University of Aukland, New Zealand
"By 13.5 to 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except for the back and the top of the head, are sensitive to pain." -The Development of the Brain by S. Reinis and J. Goldman
". . . the hub of the needle in the woman's belly has jerked. First to one side. Then to the other side. Once more it wiggles, is tugged, like a fishing line nibbled by a sunfish. It is the fetus that worries thus." -R. Selzer, "What I Saw in Abortion," Esquire, pp. 66-67
"When doctors first began invading the sanctuary of the womb, they did not know that the unborn baby would react to pain in the same fashion as a child would. But they soon learned that he would."- Dr. A. Liley, Prof. of Fetology, University of Aukland, New Zealand
"By 13.5 to 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except for the back and the top of the head, are sensitive to pain." -The Development of the Brain by S. Reinis and J. Goldman
". . . the hub of the needle in the woman's belly has jerked. First to one side. Then to the other side. Once more it wiggles, is tugged, like a fishing line nibbled by a sunfish. It is the fetus that worries thus." -R. Selzer, "What I Saw in Abortion," Esquire, pp. 66-67
- 1,819
- MikeyDLuffy
- Never !!
Tacet_BlueYes it is.
It sounds barbaric but China's population is a big problem in terms of over crowding and food. Parents face jail if they have more than one child, and most Fathers in China want a son so that it will carry on the family name.
I'm pro life and pro choiceI have a beautiful daughter, but years ago my ex partner had two abortions. We were too young, it just wouldn't have been fair on the child or ourselves to have brought it into the world. btw they were terminated very early, it makes the decision less painfull.
It is only right that a woman has the choice as to carry out a pregnacy or not, and if it is illegal, then you will have unregulated back street abortions or even worse, young girls risking their lifes trying to do it themselves.
Boy..tough thread..not shy of exploring hard topics here at GTPlanet.
Famillies in China also get rewarded for having one child. More benefits, better standard of living.
- 2,760
Comedian Chris Rock has a little bit to say about this subject:
"Guys, it's up to the girl. It is up to the girl. You don't want to suggest it. If you even say a--, you ****ed up. And you know why you don't want to suggest it? Because if you do suggest she have an abortion, and she decides to keep the kid, in about ten years he's gonna be cussin your a$$ out. You'll be like, 'How ya doin little buddy?' and he'll be like, 'I'm alive, mother****er! You wanted me dead! I should pop a cap in your a$$ right now!
Bottom line, fellas, there are two things you can say when your woman tells you she's pregnant. The first one is, 'Oh baby that is so great, I'm so happy. I'm gonna help you bring this child into the world and we're gonna rais it together.' The only other thing you can say, if you don't want to say the first thing, is, 'Uhh, so what you gonna do now?'"
-Chris Rock, Never Scared (2004)
"Guys, it's up to the girl. It is up to the girl. You don't want to suggest it. If you even say a--, you ****ed up. And you know why you don't want to suggest it? Because if you do suggest she have an abortion, and she decides to keep the kid, in about ten years he's gonna be cussin your a$$ out. You'll be like, 'How ya doin little buddy?' and he'll be like, 'I'm alive, mother****er! You wanted me dead! I should pop a cap in your a$$ right now!
Bottom line, fellas, there are two things you can say when your woman tells you she's pregnant. The first one is, 'Oh baby that is so great, I'm so happy. I'm gonna help you bring this child into the world and we're gonna rais it together.' The only other thing you can say, if you don't want to say the first thing, is, 'Uhh, so what you gonna do now?'"
-Chris Rock, Never Scared (2004)
Danoff
Premium
- 32,999
- Mile High City
Getting pregnant is not always a choice and sometimes even if it was a choice medical complications come up after the fact.
If she chooses to have sex and gets preganant, now all of the sudden pro-lifer's say she has no choice about either carrying and delivering the baby or having the baby surgically removed once it can be kept alive.
No choice... about serious issues invovling her body. That's not right.
- 84,409
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
PhatFat
It's usually 50.02% identical.
You're confusing "DNA" with "genotype". You see at the 8 cell stage, suddenly half of the chromosomes - one of each pair - is inactivated by methylation. It can be either one of any of the 22 autosomes and, in girls, one of the two X chromosomes, rather than "the father's half", or "the mother's half". This is what leads to the different individual on the outside.
As I said earlier, all cancers have, by your definition of different (not 100% identical), different DNA to the host organism, and some particularly nasty malignancies can have as little as 25% in common with the host. Why, in your mind, is it wrong to abort a non-viable foetus, but right to cut out a cancer when both are genetically "different" to the host, and both can cause death of the host if left untreated?
- 84,409
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
PhatFat
Neither will a foetus. DUH!
Both embryos/foetuses and cancers require a blood supply from the host. Both have a biological mechanism to facilitate this and both are parasites - extracting some facet of the host for the pure biological benefit of it and the pure biological detriment of the host. Both are genetically distinct from the host.
Remove either from the host, so that they are "left alone", and they die.
You may find this interesting. Malignant (proliferative, rather than invasive) cancer cells implanted into an embryo at the 8 cell blastular stage cease being malignant cancer cells and become part of the embryo and eventually the foetus. THAT cancer cell, when left alone, develops to become part of a human.
Fascinating, huh?
In case you're interested, I hold a Bachelor's degree in Molecular Biology & Genetics, a Master's degree in Human Disease & Genetics and am a specialist in oncology and cytogenetics. Please don't try to talk down to me, especially on this subject, especially at the age of 17.
They certainly have. What does this have to do with abortion though?
- 523
Famine
If you remove them then you did not leave them alone.
And thousands of babies have been murdered by abortion is what I was saying and you knew it.
P.S. I'll talk down to you all day when you compare babies to cancer even at the age of 17!!!
Aren't you a little old to be looking at video game websites???
- 2,760
Who'd want to be a man when you can be a boy? Men have to take care of business and work hard. Boys can play and act stupid without consequence! I plan on being at least partially a boy until well into my 80s.PhatFat
- 1,153
PhatFat
It depends on your definition of murder. I know there are plenty of religious sites on the web proclaiming emotive statements such as that, but some religions, like the Catholics believe that the use of contraception is murder. As every sperm is a potential life, so the use of a condom is mass murder. And with the spread of infectious diseases such as HIV and AIDs this to me is a crazy stance.
Its nice to hear you have such strong morals, but as you get older you may find yourself in situations where you will have to question them.
- 84,409
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
PhatFat
If you do not then they are both receiving a supply of nutrients from the host organism. This is not being "left alone".
PhatFat
Abortion does not "murder" "babies". A baby is neonatal. Abortion is prenatal. Murder is the legal definition of the killing of an individual - since a prenatal foetus is not legally recognised as an individual then abortion is not murder either.
So you may have been trying to say that, but you'd have been wrong on two counts. Murdering babies is not the same thing as abortion.
PhatFatP.S. I'll talk down to you all day when you compare babies to cancer even at the age of 17!!!
I'll repost this bit for you. You clearly didn't read it.
"You may find this interesting. Malignant (proliferative, rather than invasive) cancer cells implanted into an embryo at the 8 cell blastular stage cease being malignant cancer cells and become part of the embryo and eventually the foetus. THAT cancer cell, when left alone, develops to become part of a human.
Fascinating, huh?"
The problem with people who try to condescend is that they are so often very badly wrong. I have ten years more education and work experience - mostly specifically in this field - than you. On matters of genetics if YOU disagree with me, you are wrong. If I were to disagree with a Ph.D. holder, I'd probably be wrong.
PhatFat
Dunno. Aren't you a little young to believe you know everything about everything, especially over and above an expert in the field?
You can never be too old to play. But you can always be too young to know something. That is ALL your age has to do with it.
Still, best quote ever.
I understand you have strong feelings that women should be forced, by the state, to give control of their bodies to doctors, but there's no need to attack me for stating actual facts, rather than heresay and half-truths you've "researched" (borrowed from a staunchly anti-abortion website).
You didn't answer my earlier question though. Why is it more acceptable to forcibly subject women to a potentially fatal pregnancy, than to allow them to choose that or a potentially harmful abortion?
- 84,409
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
"Pro-life" is only pro- one life - the one which doesn't yet exist ("Pro-choice" is only pro- one life too - the one which does).
"Pro-life" would have ALL women subjected to a potentially fatal full-term pregnancy, rather than allowing them to decide whether they want that or subject themselves to a potentially harmful medical procedure.
I'd like to know why "pro-life" advocates think that the former is a more acceptable state of affairs than the latter.
"Pro-life" would have ALL women subjected to a potentially fatal full-term pregnancy, rather than allowing them to decide whether they want that or subject themselves to a potentially harmful medical procedure.
I'd like to know why "pro-life" advocates think that the former is a more acceptable state of affairs than the latter.
Danoff
Premium
- 32,999
- Mile High City
Swift
It doesn't matter if she can't make a baby without her husband. The only thing that matters is that her husband does not own her body. You say that since they agreed to have sex that the husband gets some say in the outcome... but since when did an agreement to have sex with someone entitle that person to control any aspect of that person's body further down the line.
The agreement to have sex goes no further than just that - sex. Medical decisions about one's body later on are not affected by it.
Young_Warrior
(Banned)
- 2,286
If someones "pro life" then well let them lead a "pro life" but dont force it onto other people as quite frankly Id hate to be a daddy at 17. Just think about that and how it would affect the world.
Danoff
Premium
- 32,999
- Mile High City
Young_Warrior
It's not so easy. Pro-life people believe that abortion is murder. They HAVE to force it onto other people from a sense of morality. They believe that just as murder should be illegal - so should abortion, because it is a form of murder. They see it as protecting the innocent (unborn) from what should be criminal action.
They believe this because they believe that unborn children have souls and so it is wrong to prevent them from having their god given chance to exist here before ascending to heaven. <- Therein lies the conflict. If one relies on the existance of a soul for a belief, then one cannot use that as a justification for a law in a country that has separation of church and state... so they're forced to invent things like "the agreement to have sex is an agreement to have a child" which can be legislated but doesn't have to be.
I could also say "to drink from a blue cup is an agreement to later drink from a green cup". It can be legislated but it doesn't have to be.
Young_Warrior
(Banned)
- 2,286
Well about my sperm. My sperms are a life they are my future babies. Did I needlessy murder them everytime they get used for non baby making? I think unless the baby is about 4 months into pregnancy that it is living.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
danoff
Man, and we were getting along so well.
Anyway, no sorry this is not your standard "medical" decision. This is something that impacts both husband and wife. Yes, the wife has to carry the child, but it still has an impact on the husband.
Also, I think it's very incomplete to say, "I agree to sex but not anything that is a direct result of it." I'm not talking in every case(well, not right here anyway
) I'm talking between a husband and wife. I don't see how a woman could do that without saying anything to her husband. Sex has outcomes or consequences so if you can't agree on them, then why have sex in the first place?Famine
My stance on pro-life is personal repsonibility. If you can't take responsibility for your own actions and the consequences thereof, then don't do said actions. Generally speaking, to get pregnant a woman needs to have sex. Assuming it's not a criminal act she is agreeing to having sex. So that is acknowlodging that there are consequences from having sex. If she then becomes pregnant, why is it the baby's fault that the mother didn't think things through?
Sex is a wonderful gift from God. But just like any other gift, if used improperly can bring about a lot more pain then joy.
To me, pro life is about thinking before acting.
danoff
Seperation of Church and State is not in the constitution.
Danoff
Premium
- 32,999
- Mile High City
SwiftMan, and we were getting along so well.
Anyway, no sorry this is not your standard "medical" decision. This is something that impacts both husband and wife. Yes, the wife has to carry the child, but it still has an impact on the husband.
Every decision that the wife makes impacts the husband. If she gets laser eye surgery, dies her hair, or quits her job it impacts her husband. That doesn't mean that he can force her to do (or not to do) any of those things.
Also, I think it's very incomplete to say, "I agree to sex but not anything that is a direct result of it." I'm not talking in every case(well, not right here anyway
Sex does have outcomes and consequences, but having a child does not have to be one of them... abortion exists. It isn't a consequence just because you say it is.
Who said it is irresponsible to have an abortion? I think it can be the responsible thing to do. Who said that having a child is a consequence of having sex? Abortion is there making that not necessarily the case.
Swift, your argument assumes the outcome... it's circular.
Do I need to justify why we keep the two separated here?
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
danoff
It's irresponsible to have sex without considering the possibilities of outcomes. I mean, if someone had sex and contracted and STD, most people would consider that irresponsible.
If you don't have sex, you can't get unexpectadly pregnant so there's almost no need for abortion. Obvoiously pregnancy isn't always the result of sex. But it is enough that abortion is a major issue isn't it?
Considering that our gov't acknowledges a "creator"...
