I'll be against abortion at the first sign ...

that 17-year old "pro-life" co-eds (and their parents or friends) have stopped going on 'vacations' during the middle of school terms. Mmm-kay?

 

Do they REALLY expect us to believe that Bristol Palin was the ONLY unmarried Republican girl who EVER got pregnant???

 

Uh...... what?

 

i'm with you on this lol....

WTF

 

I will be for abortion at the first sign that the real reasons all these women want to get abortions are for some other reason besides just selfish convenience, money, and "career ambitions".

 

Having control of the number and timing of one's children is not a selfish reason.

 

how about because they want to and it's their right to as per the US constitution backed by the judges in Wade v Roe, or do you consider yourself better qualified to judge?

 

You can dislike my comments as much as you like all it shows is your immaturity and inability to debate properly.

 

Sounds like three very excellent reasons....having a kid could end all three and put the woman on the dole...

 

oh so lets just kill the kid, thats just so much easier.

 

How is it selfish to get an abortion because you don't have the money to care for the child? YOUR selfish reasons are acceptable reasons for her.

 

Did we ever figure out what this thread was about?

It's a selfish reason to kill someone, you bet your ass it is. You can have plenty of control over those things by simply taking a pill, wrapping it up, or keeping your legs closed. So many other options that don't involve murder. Why opt for the most gruesome and evil when you don't have to?

If you don't have the money to care for a child, you probably shouldn't make one. Not that hard to understand. And I'm speaking as somebody who had to learn this the hard way, so any kind of finger wagging here isn't really going to work. When life throws you curveballs, you adapt. You do the right thing. You don't act selfishly. Your put your child's needs ahead of your own. You sure as hell don't murder your kid. That's just sick.

 

This is getting tiresome. To assume there IS a "someone" begs the question, and doesn't advance the argument. Do you have ANYTHING to validate your belief? Do you think it's right to take away women's reproductive rights based on nothing more than your belief?

 

I'm afraid you're off topic. This thread is about abortion not killing kids. For "killing kids" find the War forum or the Gun HoarderNut case shooting 7 year old school children forum.

 

No, what's getting tiresome, Cady, is your pathological dehumanization of your own children. I would love to just be jaded here and say people that have so little respect for life probably shouldn't be reproducing anyway and they are actually doing the world a favor by not making more of themselves, but I just can't do that. Because even a good seed can come from a bad apple. And I refuse to punish the innocent for the evils of the selfish. It's wrong on every level. I'm not taking anything away from anybody. I'm giving human rights to people you are trying to deny them to. People you don't care about. Because they inconvenience you. And you only care about yourself. You can't put anyone else's needs above your own. Not even your own child's.

 

Your belief that a fertilized egg is a person is out of the mainstream. Just to give you an idea how extreme it is, the most pro-life state in the union, Mississippi, soundly rejected a personhood initiative last year, and similar initiatives in other states have been defeated in every case. Giving the unborn personhood rights would take away a woman's right to control her own reproductive health, restrict her freedom of movement, inflict permanent damage to her body and the threaten her health and life, so yes, you would be taking away a woman's rights.

 

LOL! So you got caught and now you want others to pay , too!!! Why didn't YOU simply take a pill, wrap it up, or keep your legs closed???.

 

There is very little debate amongst the scientific community that the offspring of two humans is anything other than a Human, and thus a person. I'd be interested to see you provide credible science that states otherwise.

 

Nobody says that the offspring of two humans is not human, you seem to be getting confused in the issue which is, is a fertilized egg, a zygote or fetus a person .. perhaps you would like to put forward the scientific evidence to show that it is?

 

The definition of a Person is simply a Human being. Refer to any legal dictionary.

 

per·son
/ˈpərsən/
Noun
A human being regarded as an individual.
Used in legal or formal contexts to refer to an unspecified individual.
Synonyms
man - individual - personage - character - figure

A fetus is hardly an individual and therefore not a person. Individual human beings are able to sustain their own lives without requiring a physical hookup to another human body.

 

Sorry, but every cell in an unborn's body has a different genetic code than every cell in the mothers body, and thus the unborn is an individual. Being dependent upon someone does not take away your legal status as a person, or take away your rights.

M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597 "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55. "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed"

Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 199, 2-18.The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. "[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote marks the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

 

The scientific community does not speculate about when one becomes a human being or person. That has been a matter of debate throughout history without consensus.

 

E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii. "Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597 "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983."Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE 16–17 (1977) "Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else."

Carlson, Bruce M. Patten, Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3); "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, as an individual member of that species."

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

"Not only is it a life, but, by its intrinsic biological nature, it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else.”
E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE,]16–17

" A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.(Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 199, 2-18.

This is a small list of the countless medical textbooks that explicitly state that unborns are individual human beings from the moment of conception. Feel free to provide any evidence that they are not.

 

Here is one we can eliminate right off the bat:

M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597 "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597 "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

There is no "moment of conception;" it is a process that occurs over a period of hours.