A woman had an abortion at 6 weeks and took photos on her camera phone, and put them on a website. She did it to dispel the myth that her 'baby' had visible hands and feet, like the pro lifers like to think. All you see are four jars, they are empty before the abortion, and full of blood afterwards. This is what an abortion looks like. No baby to be seen, no little hands or feet, nothing to see at all... http://www.thisismyabortion.com/ Could the lifers stop claiming that a six week or embryo (which is about a quarter of an inch in length - smaller than a grain of rice) which is aborted has arms and legs etc because at six weeks, it doesn't have arms or legs, or fingers or toes. Be interested to see if the pro choicers agree with this woman's decision - I sure do. I think women need to know they should disbelieve the protesters because those signs they hold up are either fake, or magnified about a million times.
Interesting and making me a bit squeamish. Blood makes me feel icky sometimes. I think this is one of those times. Eeeyyyyuuuuggghhh...
If there were arms and legs and eyes it would really change much. Lifers bring up these details to illicit emotional responses - not to argue rationally.
Forgive my ignorance but the descriptions of abortions I've heard compare the process to a small vacuum cleaner pulling the baby apart. It seems to me that would not leave many recognizable features even if the baby were almost ready for birth.
wtf kind of question is that? You have to have sex to have an opinion on abortion? Seriously? You seriously suck at this debating stuff mate.
You are right - the embryo is liquified if aborted this early. No arms and legs or fingers to be seen at all - doesn't stop lifers from claiming there is.
why would someone that never plans to have an abortion care if someone else doesn't take their pregnancy to term
What difference do appendages make or the age of the fetus? It is a living, developing human being. Read the entire article at: http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm
Your pro-life source lies. There is no "tremendous consensus in the scientific community about when life begins." A very prominent scientist said, "Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago."--Carl Sagan The ability to clone an individual proves life doesn't begin at conception. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8865-abortion-science-politics-and-morality-collide.html
I say good for the woman who had it. I think she should carry that with her perhaps to the playground where she can share it with other mothers as the kids play on the swings. Oh, and please identify the major parts of this pilot's head and brain. basically what I see from this post is how horrific abortion is yet liberal people want to use it to justify doing this to babies.............sick and perverted indeed
The same reason I'd care if my neighbor was molesting his daughter, even if I never had any plans to have a kid.
So wait a second. Your, once again, championing killing a baby by admitting that they "liquify" the baby? So in other words, the woman who did this, whom I might say is seriously demented, didn't explain that they first "liquified" her baby before sucking it out into a jar?....lol. So basically you just owned yourself in your own thread am I reading that right?....lmao! Go back to the OP where you claim us pro-lifers are lying about abortion, then put it up next to your above comment where you admit they liquify the baby beforehand. How come they have to liquify a "blob of cells" in the 1st place? Strange isn't it? Liquefying something you claim doesn't exist.
Nobody has claimed that the fetus itself doesn't exist. That would be a little absurd you know, since without the fetus, there is no pregnancy and no need for an abortion. The physical object is there. The entire debate rests upon two things. What that physical object "is" and whether the mother has rights of control over it. I believe it is, to put it in stark terms, her possession. Even women who choose to keep their pregnancies will usually refer to it as theirs. It is a fully connected, fully dependent part of her body. It is not an independent entity. An independent entity does not require one unique specific person to survive and exist. It has the potential to become one, but something is not something before it is something. Once you've been born, no matter when that actually is, you are now an independent entity because now you do not require that one specific unique person in order to exist. You're still going to require someone, but that is not the same thing.
It is a person at their earliest stages of development, first fetus, then baby, then child then teenager,etc, etc. What else do you think it is?. It is not a dog at the earliest stages, or an elephant, it is a human being. Tell me then do you think a baby at any age that is still within the womb the mother still has the right to abort that baby?. Do you think then the right top life depends on where you are geographically, your age, and your productivity?. Why do you believe the fetus is not a person?. Something is not something before it is something this does not even remotely make sense.
I agree, it is a human. I also believe it is not a person. Our mental abilities are what make us people, it's what seperates us from the rest of nature. If those abilities are not present, then you are not a sentient life form, regardless of whether you will become one in the future. This isn't a case where they had it, and then lost it due to injury. They've never had it. They've never once been sentient. I would agree, yes. The bulk of late term abortions are for complications or the discovery of birth defects and I would not want a women stuck in any situation like that to be without the option to abort. Nope. Once you're born, you're here, you're a person, and you have rights(though rights I suppose DO depend on where you live). This is answered above. Then you're not thinking about it correctly. A tree is not a tree before it is a tree. If it is a seed, and will one day become a tree, it is still a seed, not a tree. Something cannot BE something before it has BECOME that something.
A person is a person regardless of what stage of development. A 2 year old is not aware of many things an 8 year old is, this however does not mean their life is of less value. Also going by your logic a baby on the outside of the womb that is a week old should also be able to be terminated. The abilities you speak of are not there even after birth, yet you state after they are born they should be given the same rights. So basically you are determining the right to life on age, location, and productivity. Where as I believe everyone has the right to life regardless of age, location, and productivity. I do apologise about what I stated before what you stated does make sense. However a person is a person at the moment of conception, they are not one before that point, which is basically the same thing you are saying. A seed is a seed, an egg, an egg, and when they meet it is a person.
A person is a person regardless of what stage of development. A 2 year old is not aware of many things an 8 year old is, this however does not mean their life is of less value. Also going by your logic a baby on the outside of the womb that is a week old should also be able to be terminated. The abilities you speak of are not there even after birth, yet you state after they are born they should be given the same rights. So basically you are determining the right to life on age, location, and productivity. Where as I believe everyone has the right to life regardless of age, location, and productivity. I do apologise about what I stated before what you stated does make sense. However a person is a person at the moment of conception, they are not one before that point, which is basically the same thing you are saying. A seed is a seed, an egg, an egg, and when they meet it is a person.
That is your opinion, not a fact. Many scientists disagree with you: "Neither a sperm and egg separately, nor a fertilized egg, is more than a potential baby or a potential adult."--Carl Sagan http://www.2think.org/sagan_abortion.shtml "I know that you all think about it perpetually that you come from one single cell of a fertilized egg. I dont want to get involved in religion but that is not a human being."--Lewis Wolpert, world renowned embryologist "The point at which life or personhood begins is not something biology can settle, says David Magnus, co-director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, California... Magnus quotes the example of identical twins who are one entity at the point of fertilisation; not until a few days later do they become separate. They clearly develop into two individuals who have different personalities and patterns of behaviour, even though they share the same DNA. Magnus's assertion raises the question of whether a "soul" assigned at fertilisation would later have to be split." http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8865-abortion-science-politics-and-morality-collide.html
