Triggering: Abortion is wrong.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Lost_Confused

I agree as well.
Abortion is MURDER.
It may not be outisde your belly, kicking, blinking and making noises at you, but it's still a human, and it is murder.
I saw the way people are treating that guy who did late-term abortions, and I feel sick. He's not a saint, he's a murderer! I'm not suprised someone shot him. I mean, it might not've been the right way to go about it, but I don't blame them.
If you don't care enough to get an abortion, you shouldn't have any trouble giving your baby up for adoption to someone who can't have a baby of their own.
Abortion may be ok if the baby had severe defects, or painful defects, but very, VERY rarely is that an issue.

And that's the way I feel about it, and no matter what people say that's what I believe in.





It's a growing baby. So it is actually a person, it just isn't outside your womb yet.

1. It is not murder because it does not fit the definition of murder which is the illegal killing of a human being. Abortion is not illegal and a fetus is not a human being, human yes but not a human being. Our skin cells are techincally human. So you are wrong there.

2. Like I just said a fetus is not a human, it can become one but it is not one therefore cannot be put into the same category.

3. I find what you said about the doctor who was shot scary. You obviously don't know much about abortion because late-term abortions are only allowed when the mother's health is at risk or the child has been determined to have a serious health problem that it probably won't survive. So he was actually saving lives unfortunately at the expense of some but a woman is allowed to have that choice.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

1. It is not murder because it does not fit the definition of murder which is the illegal killing of a human being. Abortion is not illegal and a fetus is not a human being, human yes but not a human being. Our skin cells are techincally human. So you are wrong there.

2. Like I just said a fetus is not a human, it can become one but it is not one therefore cannot be put into the same category.

3. I find what you said about the doctor who was shot scary. You obviously don't know much about abortion because late-term abortions are only allowed when the mother's health is at risk or the child has been determined to have a serious health problem that it probably won't survive. So he was actually saving lives unfortunately at the expense of some but a woman is allowed to have that choice.

1 and 2. Your definition of a human being is debatable. And don't compare a fetus to skin cells. That's just insulting. After 10 weeks of pregnancy, as I've shown with sources in my previous posts, unborn babies have all of the organs of a human being in place. And after 15 weeks their motor skills are developed enough to move, kick and explore the womb. Their senses are also partially developed (they can see light and hear sound). That is definitely a little human being.

Abortions are only restricted to medical reasons at 24 weeks.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

1 and 2. Your definition of a human being is debatable. And don't compare a fetus to skin cells. That's just insulting. After 10 weeks of pregnancy, as I've shown with sources in my previous posts, unborn babies have all of the organs of a human being in place. And after 15 weeks their motor skills are developed enough to move, kick and explore the womb. Their senses are also partially developed (they can see light and hear sound). That is definitely a little human being.

Abortions are only restricted to medical reasons at 24 weeks.

Of course it's debatable that's the whole problem with this argument. And why not compare a fetus to skin cells under the right circumstances we could make skin cells a viable human being just like under the right conditions a fetus can complete it's process to become a human being. They are just at a different stage.

Let's say we had to choose which being has the most rights, a fertilized egg or a 12 week old fetus, which one gets the priority. Now change it to a 12 week old fetus and a 16 year old girl, who gets the priority.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

Of course it's debatable that's the whole problem with this argument. And why not compare a fetus to skin cells under the right circumstances we could make skin cells a viable human being just like under the right conditions a fetus can complete it's process to become a human being. They are just at a different stage.

Let's say we had to choose which being has the most rights, a fertilized egg or a 12 week old fetus, which one gets the priority. Now change it to a 12 week old fetus and a 16 year old girl, who gets the priority.

I totally agree. However there is a difference. A 16-year-old girl should get priority, but by allowing abortion of a fetus (Not an embryo. A fetus) in normal circumstances, (so excluding the circumstances of rape, and medical risk) you are saying that this fetus has NO rights. And that is what I cannot agree with.

[lvpeyton]

hey, i am a female, and i have to say i agree with almost everything Josh says (the only thing i am iffy on is the rape part- i think that situation would be too hard- a constant reminder of a dark day).

it is true, maybe not a lot of us have to face teenage pregnancies, but we do face responsibilities. the best way to be sure that you are not going to have to deal with a pregnancy is abstinence. while i do not practice abstinence myself, i do respect those that do.

however, i do have sex and i am very careful about how i go about it. but i know that there are ALWAYS risks, whether you use birth control, condoms, or both! but if i became pregnant, that is MY responsibility. i can't just run to a clinic and take care of it. if i didn't want to risk becoming pregnant, i would simply not have sex. and if i did become pregnant, my dreams will be put on hold, because that is just how it is.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by lvpeyton

hey, i am a female, and i have to say i agree with almost everything Josh says (the only thing i am iffy on is the rape part- i think that situation would be too hard- a constant reminder of a dark day).

it is true, maybe not a lot of us have to face teenage pregnancies, but we do face responsibilities. the best way to be sure that you are not going to have to deal with a pregnancy is abstinence. while i do not practice abstinence myself, i do respect those that do.

however, i do have sex and i am very careful about how i go about it. but i know that there are ALWAYS risks, whether you use birth control, condoms, or both! but if i became pregnant, that is MY responsibility. i can't just run to a clinic and take care of it. if i didn't want to risk becoming pregnant, i would simply not have sex. and if i did become pregnant, my dreams will be put on hold, because that is just how it is.

But it doesn't have to be that way. That's what choice is all about. And having an abortion is taking responsibility. It's taking responsibility for yourself and for the child. Rather than trying to raise the child yourself when you are unable to do it properly or throwing it into a system that's more like a lottery they do what they believe to be the responsible thing.

[ThePunkAlien]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

throwing it into a system that's more like a lottery they do what they believe to be the responsible thing.

Life for everyone is a lottery. Unless you mean the chances of getting adopted, then there's more a chance involved. Otherwise it's the same EXACT lottery every nonadoptee plays. Those stats are the same. But I'd say even then adoptees have a better chance of getting the winning lottery tickets than nonadoptees at attaining good, stable homes because to adopt you have to want to be a parent... while for nonadoptees that's evidently, from what I've seen, not always the case.

[Blackwing]

Why should woman allow the Government to dictate what a woman can do with her own body? If she wants a abortion its her choice to either keep the baby or have the abortion..

[ThePunkAlien]

Originally Posted by EDGE

Why should woman allow the Government to dictate what a woman can do with her own body? If she wants a abortion its her choice to either keep the baby or have the abortion..

JW, who said anything about legal or illegal? Or letting the government have a say? So far nothing's been said, from what I can see in terms of legal/illegal - only the moral implications.

[The Dream Dancer]

Abortion is wrong. President Odrama screwed up when he allowed the choice to have an abortion. Its wrong in any circumstance. Closed adoption is the best choice if you have been raped in my opinion.

Watch out for roasted leeks, don't eat earwax and stay away from mad bunnies!

[Jack]

Originally Posted by The Dream Dancer

Abortion is wrong. President Odrama screwed up when he allowed the choice to have an abortion. Its wrong in any circumstance. Closed adoption is the best choice if you have been raped in my opinion.

And making it illegal wouldn't result in dangerous back-alley abortions at all... at worst abortion is a necessary evil. Note the word necessary.

What if there were issues with the pregnancy which would cause both the mother and baby to die? Would it not be right to save one life by allowing the mother to have an abortion?

And Obama didn't screw up anyway, the choice was there long before him.

[ThePunkAlien]

Originally Posted by The Dream Dancer

Abortion is wrong. President Odrama screwed up when he allowed the choice to have an abortion. Its wrong in any circumstance. Closed adoption is the best choice if you have been raped in my opinion.

Watch out for roasted leeks, don't eat earwax and stay away from mad bunnies!

While I'm against abortion, I do believe there are a couple of scenarios where it would be understandable. In some cases a woman can die from giving birth, scary thought - but it does happen; in this scenario, I believe abortion is perfectly acceptable because it does concern risk of death. The second is the possibility of the baby being born with serious birth defects to the degree in - would the baby be better off dead? For example, a kid that's both blind and deaf... how can that kid function in the world? One or the other, alright, but both of them in one? Personally I wouldn't consider that a life, it would be the scariest experience one would have to go. I'd say this would in no doubt be doing what was best for the child.

Thus, there are extreme circumstances where being born would be extremely painful. Either the child isn't given any chance to have a semi-normal life due to birth defects that would hamper with the way one lives. Or the mother has a chance of dying. These things do happen. Although, I'd also say personally these thoughts/risks/dangers didn't fullly enter my mind until I was at least fifteen/sixteen.

[Gingerbread Latte]

Okay I have some questions.
People have mentioned the condom splitting etc. but what if someone got pregnant without having sex (rare I know but it does happen)?
Also what if tests showed the child was going to have HIV or cystic fibrosis?

Sorry if these have actually been answered but some of the posts are so long in this thread I have trouble concentrating on reading them all.

[ThePunkAlien]

Originally Posted by Boo Ghost

Okay I have some questions.
People have mentioned the condom splitting etc. but what if someone got pregnant without having sex (rare I know but it does happen)?
Also what if tests showed the child was going to have HIV or cystic fibrosis?

Sorry if these have actually been answered but some of the posts are so long in this thread I have trouble concentrating on reading them all.

1. Are we talking Mary Magdalene here?

2. I'd say these diseases would really depend on if the mother's able to take care of it. As said, anything that could potentially endanger one's life. I'm uncertain on whether orphanages are fully equipped to help these children and those looking to adopt would probably stay away because of the risks involved with the child's health. Similarly with Progeria (rapid aging). There would be caring adoptive services, but I'd still say they're chances would have significantly been reduced because of it.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Boo Ghost

Okay I have some questions.
People have mentioned the condom splitting etc. but what if someone got pregnant without having sex (rare I know but it does happen)?
Also what if tests showed the child was going to have HIV or cystic fibrosis?

Sorry if these have actually been answered but some of the posts are so long in this thread I have trouble concentrating on reading them all.

That's right I forgot that sometimes pregnancies can occur without sex. In fact that's how JD got Kim pregnant on Scrubs. What do you say to those girls. They didn't have sex, yet they must still deal with the consequences? Also in such a pregnancy I'm sure it is EXTREMELY rare for the father to stick around (especially if they are minors) because they would have a lot of room for deniability of being the father.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

That's right I forgot that sometimes pregnancies can occur without sex. In fact that's how JD got Kim pregnant on Scrubs. What do you say to those girls. They didn't have sex, yet they must still deal with the consequences? Also in such a pregnancy I'm sure it is EXTREMELY rare for the father to stick around (especially if they are minors) because they would have a lot of room for deniability of being the father.

The way the mother got pregnant has nothing to do with the outcome of abortion: death of the fetus. The circumstances of pregnancy can differ (as I've said before if there are special cases where there is risk to the mother's mental or physical health then yes, she has the priority and then I agree with aborting) However, whether or not she used protection, or had sexual intercourse really doesn't make a difference. The fetus deserves the right to live and if she can't take care of it, then give the baby up for adoption.

[Gingerbread Latte]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

The way the mother got pregnant has nothing to do with the outcome of abortion: death of the fetus. The circumstances of pregnancy can differ (as I've said before if there are special cases where there is risk to the mother's mental or physical health then yes, she has the priority and then I agree with aborting) However, whether or not she used protection, or had sexual intercourse really doesn't make a difference. The fetus deserves the right to live and if she can't take care of it, then give the baby up for adoption.

What if they weren't even doing anything sexual? When I was 13 and had my first serious relationship my boyfriend accidently came in his boxers and I was sitting on his knee and it soaked right through to my underwear. What if I had gotten pregnant from that?

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Boo Ghost

What if they weren't even doing anything sexual? When I was 13 and had my first serious relationship my boyfriend accidently came in his boxers and I was sitting on his knee and it soaked right through to my underwear. What if I had gotten pregnant from that?

It doesn't make any difference. I don't consider pregnancy a "consequence for doing the nasty" I consider it a sacrifice of 9 months to give someone the gift of life (which, unless there it poses medical hazards to the mother, is this baby's right)

[Adean]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

So you don't see the potential for human life as important? Because if that fetus were not aborted it would undoubtedly become a person (even if you don't believe that it is a person in the womb, you can't deny that). That's where I find your argument so difficult to understand.

Honestly? No. I don't idealize that the potential human that any aborted fetus could be will make a noticeable impact on the world. Most of us are insignificant and even if the great minds were aborted, then we would be studying some other musical piece or someone else would discover whatever.

Forcing a mother who doesn't want the fetus or doesn't want to continue the pregnancy shouldn't be allowed. You are then degrading the mother's right.

Also, has anyone ever looked at the cost of having a baby? It's a lot more than an abortion and if you're married and have a job, it's still going to affect your family.

In a perfect world, no one would want to have an abortion. Women do want an abortion and they will continue to seek them out.

It's a growing baby. So it is actually a person, it just isn't outside your womb yet.

It might be beyond your ability, but take a few seconds to think about it. Is it a person? A person is more than just having human DNA or having a body. A person is conscious of their own surroundings and not dependent on a sole person for their survival (a baby or someone severely disabled can have care takers to survive).

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Adean

Honestly? No. I don't idealize that the potential human that any aborted fetus could be will make a noticeable impact on the world. Most of us are insignificant and even if the great minds were aborted, then we would be studying some other musical piece or someone else would discover whatever.

Firstly, I think that every single person alive has the ability to help make the world a better place, even if its just their tiny corner of it. If that fetus, after they are born, could make one person happy, or be there at the right time to give someone a hand, or just make someone smile, then I as the unwilling biological mother would know that I made the right choice in carrying that baby to term.

Originally Posted by Adean

Forcing a mother who doesn't want the fetus or doesn't want to continue the pregnancy shouldn't be allowed. You are then degrading the mother's right.

You and a couple others keep talking about the mother's rights, but you don't seem to realize that by allowing abortion in every single situation regardless of whether or not carrying a baby would medically or psychologically damage the mother, you are reducing the fetus' rights to ZERO.

Originally Posted by Adean

Also, has anyone ever looked at the cost of having a baby? It's a lot more than an abortion and if you're married and have a job, it's still going to affect your family.

It literally costs nothing to be pregnant and to carry a baby to term, or to give a baby up for adoption in Canada (where I live). It also costs literally nothing to have an abortion here, so this argument makes no sense to me at all.

Originally Posted by Adean

In a perfect world, no one would want to have an abortion. Women do want an abortion and they will continue to seek them out.

It might be beyond your ability, but take a few seconds to think about it. Is it a person? A person is more than just having human DNA or having a body. A person is conscious of their own surroundings and not dependent on a sole person for their survival (a baby or someone severely disabled can have care takers to survive).

A fetus is conscious of their surroundings and can interact with them. (see my earlier info on fetal development) A fetus may not be able to live outside its mother's womb yet, but many people cannot live without being fed intravenously or breathing with a machine and living in a completely sterile environment (this is exactly what the womb is to an unborn baby)

[darlingllnikki]

Josh-
Like you I was also adopted, as were quite a few people I know. My birthmother was also in her early 20s. I however do not agree with you.
Your lucky that you can think of adoption in the way you do. However, most likely from adoption I have developed severe fears of abandonment. Many people I also know who were adopted feel this way.
I love my parents and my family, but the feeling of abandonment is still a major downfall in my life, and has prevented me from doing many things.

[Grizabella]

You and a couple others keep talking about the mother's rights, but you don't seem to realize that by allowing abortion in every single situation regardless of whether or not carrying a baby would medically or psychologically damage the mother, you are reducing the fetus' rights to ZERO.

We do realize we're reducing the fetus rights - I think you're missing the point that we don't care. To the people that value the rights of the mother over the rights of the fetus, the rights of someone who is already a person automatically take precedence over something that hasn't yet developed. The mother is a person - we can very clearly see that she has feelings, is aware of her surroundings, and that her life can seriously be f*cked up if she goes through with a nine month unwanted pregnancy. The fetus is an underdeveloped pile of cells, which when it's young enough, has none of those properties - it has no feelings, is not aware it exists, and it's life cannot be messed up because it doesn't have one.

[ThePunkAlien]

Originally Posted by darlingllnikki

Josh-
Like you I was also adopted, as were quite a few people I know. My birthmother was also in her early 20s. I however do not agree with you.
Your lucky that you can think of adoption in the way you do. However, most likely from adoption I have developed severe fears of abandonment. Many people I also know who were adopted feel this way.
I love my parents and my family, but the feeling of abandonment is still a major downfall in my life, and has prevented me from doing many things.

I have never stated to the contrary. I have always stated that there ups and downs and went into detail on both. However, as I'm sure you can account for there are other problems that nonadoptees have that adoptees don't have and vica-versa. I'm not stating being an adoptee is better than being a nonadoptee, what I'm stating is that each and every life comes with it's own shares of ups and downs and that adoptees shouldn't be placed any farther than that. Like any other, it's a life.

Plus, it's not that far of a fetch either from other scenarios as I've also stated - run away parents, divorces in the family, etc. These events also bring along several of the same emotional through lines.

Thus, it's not that adoption is easy. It's not. But, I can't see how it's any harder or easier than any other life. Just two sides of the same coin, nonadoptees have their own difficulties and adoptees have their difficulties - separate problems, but problems that even each other out placing nonadoptees and adoptees on the same field.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Grizabella

We do realize we're reducing the fetus rights - I think you're missing the point that we don't care. To the people that value the rights of the mother over the rights of the fetus, the rights of someone who is already a person automatically take precedence over something that hasn't yet developed. The mother is a person - we can very clearly see that she has feelings, is aware of her surroundings, and that her life can seriously be f*cked up if she goes through with a nine month unwanted pregnancy. The fetus is an underdeveloped pile of cells, which when it's young enough, has none of those properties - it has no feelings, is not aware it exists, and it's life cannot be messed up because it doesn't have one.

You're not reducing the fetus' rights. You're saying it doesn't have any. Yes, I value the rights of the mother over the rights of the fetus, but you're saying the fetus has NO RIGHTS. Do you see the distinction?

[Grizabella]

Yes I see the distinction, and I still don't care. To me, the mother has all the rights, and the fetus has none. And that is the reason I'll never see abortion as wrong/immoral and never understand the pro-life stance.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Grizabella

Yes I see the distinction, and I still don't care. To me, the mother has all the rights, and the fetus has none.

Wow. I guess we'll just never understand each other then... I'm sorry about that.

[Double X]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

That's right I forgot that sometimes pregnancies can occur without sex. In fact that's how JD got Kim pregnant on Scrubs. What do you say to those girls. They didn't have sex, yet they must still deal with the consequences? Also in such a pregnancy I'm sure it is EXTREMELY rare for the father to stick around (especially if they are minors) because they would have a lot of room for deniability of being the father.

Hehe...as soon as you said pregnant without sex I immediately thought of scrubs.

I don't really think I can comment on the moral implication of abortion, I am too far removed from it in every way. No experiences, long term girlfriends, etc.

However, people can do whatever they want with their body, they have no obligation to help anyone else.

[lvpeyton]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

But it doesn't have to be that way. That's what choice is all about. And having an abortion is taking responsibility. It's taking responsibility for yourself and for the child. Rather than trying to raise the child yourself when you are unable to do it properly or throwing it into a system that's more like a lottery they do what they believe to be the responsible thing.

but that is where you are wrong, sorry. it is that way. the choice is the initial choice the couple make together, to have sex or not to have sex. these are things that should be planned out before making rash decisions. sex is a big deal! if you don't think so, look at the friggen consequences.

it is sad that we live in a society where it can be considered responsible to abort a child- a fetus- whatever. the responsible part is when a person takes the proper precautions- which is NOT having sex. and the other responsible part is when people own up to their mistakes and wa-la, adoption or raise that kid. abortions are disgusting.

[Gidig]

Originally Posted by lvpeyton

but that is where you are wrong, sorry. it is that way. the choice is the initial choice the couple make together, to have sex or not to have sex. these are things that should be planned out before making rash decisions. sex is a big deal! if you don't think so, look at the friggen consequences.

it is sad that we live in a society where it can be considered responsible to abort a child- a fetus- whatever. the responsible part is when a person takes the proper precautions- which is NOT having sex. and the other responsible part is when people own up to their mistakes and wa-la, adoption or raise that kid. abortions are disgusting.

Why are abortions disgusting? And do you think people are really going to stop having sex because an abortion is not available? They'll end up having street abortions. Not eating, doing things to harm the baby slowly instead. I'm not sure how that is better than having a doctor do it quickly.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Gidig

Why are abortions disgusting?

This is why abortions are disgusting. Please be warned that there are pictures of aborted fetuses on this page, which may be triggering. I definitely found some of them disturbing.

http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/http:...om/abort-pics/

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

This is why abortions are disgusting. Please be warned that there are pictures of aborted fetuses on this page, which may be triggering. I definitely found some of them disturbing.

http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/http:...om/abort-pics/

I'm not even gonna click on that link because I know that those pictures are from late-term abortions and not regular ones. Okay well I tried to click on the link anyway but it didn't work but I'm willing to bet I'm right.

lvpeyton you do realize that you basically called children conqsequences of sex right. And if that is in fact true then you are calling every unplanned child out there a consequence, even if their parents were married at the time. Sex is not just for procreating I don't care what some old book says it's a necessary part of a relationship. I for one have yet to have sex, of course I've yet to be in a relationship, but I do plan to have it at some point before marriage because I would hate to be in a marriage where I'm not sexually compatible with my husband, that would suck and probably lead to cheating on his side cause I would never od that. So you're responsible, you use protection, a freak thing happens and you decide that having an abortion is the responsible thing for you, that sounds perfectly acceptable to me.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

I'm not even gonna click on that link because I know that those pictures are from late-term abortions and not regular ones. Okay well I tried to click on the link anyway but it didn't work but I'm willing to bet I'm right.

Actually you're wrong. I looked for abortion pictures at the 11th week (once the baby is considered a fetus) and that's I found. But thanks for assuming that I was trying to manipulate the debate by using late-term abortion pictures. I couldn't get it to work either. That's weird.

[lvpeyton]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

lvpeyton you do realize that you basically called children conqsequences of sex right. And if that is in fact true then you are calling every unplanned child out there a consequence, even if their parents were married at the time. Sex is not just for procreating I don't care what some old book says it's a necessary part of a relationship. I for one have yet to have sex, of course I've yet to be in a relationship, but I do plan to have it at some point before marriage because I would hate to be in a marriage where I'm not sexually compatible with my husband, that would suck and probably lead to cheating on his side cause I would never od that. So you're responsible, you use protection, a freak thing happens and you decide that having an abortion is the responsible thing for you, that sounds perfectly acceptable to me.

no, see this is where you are mistaken and need to take things in context. babies are not the only consequences of sex, correct me if i am wrong. there are also things like STD's. but, guess what? a consequence is not necesarily a bad thing, here is the definition for CONSEQUENCE from www.dictionary.com:
"the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier"
okay? so pregnancy is the effect or result of sex! just like an STD is. STD = BAD CONSEQUENCE. PREGNANCY = GOOD CONSEQUENCE.

and i do NOT negate sex is not just for procreating. i have sex and i am not doing it to make babies, but guess what? if it happened- then i would have the baby! whether it was to keep or give to a family who doesn't have the luxury to have children of their own.

i guess everyone has their own idea of what responsibility really is. if you think it is responsible to have an abortion, fine. but i don't.

[Adean]

You and a couple others keep talking about the mother's rights, but you don't seem to realize that by allowing abortion in every single situation regardless of whether or not carrying a baby would medically or psychologically damage the mother, you are reducing the fetus' rights to ZERO.

I know, but I don't think it deserves rights. Something that can't survive on it's own and is a parasite doesn't deserve the right to affect someone else's rights. Now, before people throw a hissy fit and refuse to think about it, realize that you can pass a baby off to another caregiver so therefore it is not dependent on one sole person.

It literally costs nothing to be pregnant and to carry a baby to term, or to give a baby up for adoption in Canada (where I live). It also costs literally nothing to have an abortion here, so this argument makes no sense to me at all.

So women don't take time off for being pregnant? They don't gain weight? They won't face social stigma for giving up a baby for adoption? They won't have to deal with the emotional pain of possibly growing attached to the baby and then trying to decide whether or not to give the child up? What about domestic disputes? She might not have been raped but she is in a bad situation? The cost isn't just money.

A fetus is conscious of their surroundings and can interact with them. (see my earlier info on fetal development) A fetus may not be able to live outside its mother's womb yet, but many people cannot live without being fed intravenously or breathing with a machine and living in a completely sterile environment (this is exactly what the womb is to an unborn baby)

Yes, but those people are dependent on machines and not a sole living person 24/7. They may be dependent on caregivers, it's different and don't bother trying to pretend it's the same because it's not.

As for fetal development, reflexes are different from being aware of your surroundings. Brain stem is not evidence of higher level thinking and a cat is more aware of their surroundings yet people show no qualms of putting them down.

By the way, I question every site out there providing pictures of abortions. Want to know the highest reason why stillborn fetuses are stolen from medical schools? Not because students are being sick. By the way, your link is dead anyway because you added it twice. However, those pictures have been passed around a lot with no sources. I think some are from the GAP and they refuse to admit sources (which a judge really should force them to admit it so they can fine any clinics that would be willing to use the "aborted" fetuses without the woman's consent in such a manner). GAP will sue anyone questioning their unnamed sources, but the higher-ups are a bunch of lawyers so what do you expect?

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

Actually you're wrong. I looked for abortion pictures at the 11th week (once the baby is considered a fetus) and that's I found. But thanks for assuming that I was trying to manipulate the debate by using late-term abortion pictures. I couldn't get it to work either. That's weird.

I did not mean to imply that. I just said it because in past debates and pro-life projects I came across in school people have found pictures that were from late-term abortions and either didn't know or didn't care.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

This is why abortions are disgusting. Please be warned that there are pictures of aborted fetuses on this page, which may be triggering. I definitely found some of them disturbing.

http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/http:...om/abort-pics/

But surely "it's disgusting" isn't a valid reason for making something illegal or deeply frowning upon it? I'm pretty sure quite a lot of people would find pictures of surgery disgusting but it's a very necessary practice.

[JoJoWildHorse]

Originally Posted by Jack

But surely "it's disgusting" isn't a valid reason for making something illegal or deeply frowning upon it? I'm pretty sure quite a lot of people would find pictures of surgery disgusting but it's a very necessary practice.

I completely agree.

If some of you could see the stories of the ladies on the PASS (Post Abortion Stress Syndrome) boards that I'm on, you would most likely rethink how you word some of this...

Honestly, it's a choice. No one can control another person's mind. Therefore, only the woman who is pregnant can decide if she wants to get an abortion. A person can influence, but not control the other. It is not illegal. Thus a choice is possible.

You can judge, argue, and debate all you want, but in the end, it is the woman's choice, and no one else's. She is the one who decides.

We live in a world where free-will is slowly dissapearing. The ability to decide.

This has gone from a debate about abortion, to adoption, to what stage of pregnancy is considered life, a baby, etc.

[Adean]

It is necessary to consider when a person is considered a person when debating about the legality of abortion. After all, we don't have the removal of life support banned when a person is brain dead.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Adean

It is necessary to consider when a person is considered a person when debating about the legality of abortion. After all, we don't have the removal of life support banned when a person is brain dead.

In that case, lets discuss it. When do you believe a person is considered a person?

[JoJoWildHorse]

Originally Posted by Adean

It is necessary to consider when a person is considered a person when debating about the legality of abortion. After all, we don't have the removal of life support banned when a person is brain dead.

If a person can not think for themselves, and can not make a decision on their own, it is another's responsibility to make it for them.