Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)
Options
Comments
-
Most abortion advocates ignore / dismiss facts which they deem to be inconvenient to their logic / reasoning.
Abortion is about the destruction of a human being, IVF is about the creation of a human being.
May I ask you ..... when do you believe a human is a human?
That's what you're supposed to do.
That's what logic and reasoning is for.
Besides which, Delirium wasn't ignoring or dismissing a "fact" but questioning the veracity of what you claim to be a "fact".0 -
Most abortion advocates ignore / dismiss facts which they deem to be inconvenient to their logic / reasoning.
Please link to a scientific paper that states a human being exists at fertilisation.
Not all IVF embryos are implanted and carried to term successfully, so that means they're created a human being (according to you) only for it to die.Abortion is about the destruction of a human being, IVF is about the creation of a human being.
Not all embryos are used, some are frozen or destroyed.May I ask you ..... when do you believe a human is a human?
Can a human being exist without a brain? IMHO, no.
AFAIK, it's about 10 weeks before the brain would be regarded as functioning.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Most abortion advocates ignore / dismiss facts which they deem to be inconvenient to their logic / reasoning.
Ah yes, like having to use pro choice groups for any "studies" while doubting all other studies that have been published in the past 20 years.
Wait a second, that wasn't them...0 -
If the natural purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction of the species.
At the most basic level yes but as far as this planet's species go we're pretty far along in evolutionary development: the purposes of sex have been broadly expanded. Nobody would argue that people only have sex when they wish to reproduce. Sexual intercourse is also in many ways about establishing and maintaining close intimate bonds. What we yet lack as I have said is the fundamental ability to choose when and how we procreate vs. how we engage in sexual activity. Though that said its a philosophical debate: would we really derive much pleasure from sex if it wasn't satiating our primal instincts for procreation?0 -
Please link to a scientific paper that states a human being exists at fertilisation.
Not all IVF embryos are implanted and carried to term successfully, so that means they're created a human being (according to you) only for it to die.
Not all embryos are used, some are frozen or destroyed.
Can a human being exist without a brain? IMHO, no.
AFAIK, it's about 10 weeks before the brain would be regarded as functioning.
So can we take it that you would regard the fetus as non human at less than 10 weeks, and human after 10 weeks? Is that correct?
I agree with your points about IVF, not all fertilised eggs are allowed to become fully human, some are discarded, some are put into deep storage. I think we can both agree that IVF is an attempt to get at least one successful fertilised egg to grow into a baby.
I do believe a fertilised human egg is human for the following reasons..
1) That is how every human being comes about into existance. I don't think I require to provide a link to some scientific paper to state this.
2) At fertilisation... all the genetic material is present to create a human being. I don't think I require to provide a external link for this either.
3) Provided the environmental conditions are not unnaturally disturbed the fertilised egg will grow into a human being.
4) If a disturbance is introduced, i.e. abortion at any gestational stage then the fetus which is 100% genetically human is destroyed / killed off.
Because abortion interferes with the development of a human being at a very early stage and ultimately is to prevent a human being coming into existance as a baby which is capable of surviving outside the womb.0 -
Advertisement
-
No. I'd say it's a potential human being for some of the pregnancy and then it develops into a human being in the womb.So can we take it that you would regard the fetus as non human at less than 10 weeks, and human after 10 weeks? Is that correct?
Agreed. Ultimate goal of IVF is to make babies.I agree with your points about IVF, not all fertilised eggs are allowed to become fully human, some are discarded, some are put into deep storage. I think we can both agree that IVF is an attempt to get at least one successful fertilised egg to grow into a baby.
I asked for a link to prove the statement that a human being exists from fertilisation.I do believe a fertilised human egg is human for the following reasons..
1) That is how every human being comes about into existance. I don't think I require to provide a link to some scientific paper to state this.
so, now it's not a fact that a human being exists at fertilisation?2) At fertilisation... all the genetic material is present to create a human being. I don't think I require to provide a external link for this either.
Nope. Not all embryos will develop into a human being. Fatal Feotal Abnormalities is one example.3) Provided the environmental conditions are not unnaturally disturbed the fertilised egg will grow into a human being.
Which doesn't mean that a human being is destroyed/killed as it may not have developed that far when the abortion was carried out.4) If a disturbance is introduced, i.e. abortion at any gestational stage then the fetus which is 100% genetically human is destroyed / killed off.
Or, abortion stops a human being coming into existence by stopping development at the early stages (over 90% happen <12 weeks in countries that have easier access to abortion)Because abortion interferes with the development of a human being at a very early stage and ultimately is to prevent a human being coming into existance as a baby which is capable of surviving outside the womb.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
2) At fertilisation... all the genetic material is present to create a human being.
So if I put eggs, flour and water in a bowl...........do I have a pancake or just the ingredients for a pancake? When does it become a pancake? I have all the material to make a pancake but I can't call it a pancake can I?
So by your logic above what you have after fertilisation is the ingredients for a human but its not a human as it has yet to be created...you said so yourself!!
Glad we are able to finally agree on this!0 -
The end result is one and the same. Prevent a human being from existing outside its mothers womb.
Humans do not magically appear with a functioning brain, with two arms and legs. These organs have to be developed, grow into existance.
Human beings from the moment of fertilisation continue to grow develop up to the moment of death. Changes are taking place all the time.
A fertilised human egg, is 100% genetically human. Its purpose is to develop into a viable person outside its mothers womb. It is a human being which is in its most vulnerable state.
Abortion prevents a human being from continuing to develop outside its mothers womb.
Pro choice / abortion advocates want it both ways, they want to prevent a human being developing into a baby, while at the same time saying they have not killed a human being at its most delicate and vulnerable stage of growth.0 -
At fertilisation... all the genetic material is present to create a human being. I don't think I require to provide a external link for this either.A fertilised human egg, is 100% genetically human. Its purpose is to develop into a viable person outside its mothers womb. It is a human being which is in its most vulnerable state.
So which is it? At fertilisation are they human or not? You have said that at fertilisation there is enough genetic material to create a human(so from that we can assume they are not human yet) as they have not been created however you then say a fertilised egg is 100% genetically human?
So which is it?0 -
Only if one accepts the premise that a human being exists from fertilisation.The end result is one and the same. Prevent a human being from existing outside its mothers womb.
Yet a human being magically exists without any organs or brain existing?Humans do not magically appear with a functioning brain, with two arms and legs. These organs have to be developed, grow into existance.Human beings from the moment of fertilisation continue to grow develop up to the moment of death. Changes are taking place all the time.
Nope.Two-thirds of all human embryos fail to develop successfully. Now, in a new study, researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine have shown that they can predict with 93 percent certainty which fertilized eggs will make it to a critical developmental milestone and which will stall and die.
Source
Agree with all except the claim that a human being exists from fertilisation.A fertilised human egg, is 100% genetically human. Its purpose is to develop into a viable person outside its mothers womb. It is a human being which is in its most vulnerable state.
Or, stops a human being coming into existence.Abortion prevents a human being from continuing to develop outside its mothers womb.
Answered above.Pro choice / abortion advocates want it both ways, they want to prevent a human being developing into a baby, while at the same time saying they have not killed a human being at its most delicate and vulnerable stage of growth.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Advertisement
-
ABC do you scramble an egg or scramble a chicken?0
-
-
There is a very subtle distinction here, which I am not sure if you are ignoring, or are simply unaware of.So can we take it that you would regard the fetus as non human at less than 10 weeks, and human after 10 weeks? Is that correct?
Human and human being are two different things. I would consider a foetus to be human, what else would it be, but I would not consider it to be a human being.
When we watch the news we hear of 1000 year old "human" remains being dug of, they don't talk about a 1000 year old human being. Something can be human, like the remain, or nail clipping, or a foetus without having those qualities that make it a human being.
MrP0 -
A fertilized chicken egg is still a chicken egg.0
-
-
On a genetic level, one has 100% of its genetic material, the other only has 50%.
One has the ability to become a whole chicken, the other has no potential.
But if you wish to think of them both as one and the same......
in a police line-up, is a fertillised egg more likely to be mistaken for an unfertilised egg or a chicken?If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
There is a very subtle distinction here, which I am not sure if you are ignoring, or are simply unaware of.
Human and human being are two different things. I would consider a foetus to be human, what else would it be, but I would not consider it to be a human being.
When we watch the news we hear of 1000 year old "human" remains being dug of, they don't talk about a 1000 year old human being. Something can be human, like the remain, or nail clipping, or a foetus without having those qualities that make it a human being.
MrP
Indeed there is a difference as you point out.....Interesting explanation here of which you may be aware of....
Main Difference – Human Being vs Being Human
At first glance, the two terms, human being and being human, appear to be similar, yet there is a difference between human being and being human when it comes to their meanings. If you look at these two words carefully, you can see that it is the position of the word “being” that makes all the difference in the meaning. In ‘human being’, ‘being’ is used as a noun and indicates a living thing and in ‘being human’, ‘being’ acts as a verb, thereby making ‘being human’ a verbal phrase, meaning displaying human qualities. The main difference between human being and being human is that ‘human being’ is generally defined as being a member of Homo sapiens race, while ‘being human’ means displaying characteristics that are unique to human beings. Let’s analyze these two words further by understanding the meaning of these words.
http://pediaa.com/difference-between-human-being-and-being-human/
As a fetus is living thing and a member of the Homo Sapien race..... I would consider it a human being...
At 4 weeks the fetus is developing a neural tube (brain, spinal cord, backbone and nerves etc), heart and lungs are starting to develop as well as intestines and urinary system
http://www.babycentre.co.uk/4-weeks-pregnant0 -
-
-
At 4 weeks the fetus is developing a neural tube (brain, spinal cord, backbone and nerves etc), heart and lungs are starting to develop as well as intestines and urinary system
http://www.babycentre.co.uk/4-weeks-pregnant
Not quite, note the word later
'The ball of cells – now called an embryo – growing inside your uterus (womb) is the size of a poppy seed. It's dividing into three layers that will later form organs and tissues.'0 -
Advertisement
-
Not quite, note the word later
'The ball of cells – now called an embryo – growing inside your uterus (womb) is the size of a poppy seed. It's dividing into three layers that will later form organs and tissues.'
You are correct inocybe, however development is rapid, so rapid that babies born prematurely can survive outside the womb with medical assistance. I think around 25 weeks (open to correction).
I wish to raise another point which you quoted.
Many pro choice advocates / pro abortionists are able to justify abortion in that they see the foetus as "just a ball of cells". They don't see it as human, or a human being, they see it as just a ball of cells.
Describing a fetus as just a ball of cells is very crude description.
In fact all living things could be described as "just a ball of cells". From a plant, to a ant to a blue whale to a 24 year old adult.
Yet justifying the destruction of a living human adult because they are in fact a ball of cells is not acceptable or legal.
But to pro choice / abortion advocates it is acceptable to use the description "a ball of cells" to terminate the unborn.
It's hypocritical....it's double standards.
If living organisms both born and unborn can be crudely described as balls of cells, and it is argued because the unborn are balls of cells then these organisms can be terminated, then so too can those who are already born.
Look at you hand, do you see a ball of cells? Or do you see much much more?
If you just see you hand as a ball of cells, go to a hospital and ask for it be amputated.
Try living with only one hand, try shopping, driving a car, dressing yourself , typing comments on boards with only one hand.
Let us know how you get on 12 months later. And when you comment that it is very hard going being just one handed, the rest of us can dismiss your complaint...because your hand was only a "ball of cells" and sure what are you complaining about. Get over it!
That's one of the differences between a person who is pro life and a pro choice / abortion advocate.
People who are pro life see the value in living organisms, both born and those yet to be born.
People who are pro choice only see value when it suits.0 -
You are correct inocybe, however development is rapid, so rapid that babies born prematurely can survive outside the womb with medical assistance. I think around 25 weeks (open to correction).
I think that the earliest on record is 21 weeks, but it is extremely rare to live from that point. That's why in the UK they generally do not count anything younger than 24 weeks as being a birth and would rarely try to save the foetus. It is a miscarriage.I wish to raise another point which you quoted.
Many pro choice advocates / pro abortionists are able to justify abortion in that they see the foetus as "just a ball of cells". They don't see it as human, or a human being, they see it as just a ball of cells.
Describing a fetus as just a ball of cells is very crude description.
In fact all living things could be described as "just a ball of cells". From a plant, to a ant to a blue whale to a 24 year old adult.
Yet justifying the destruction of a living human adult because they are in fact a ball of cells is not acceptable or legal.
But to pro choice / abortion advocates it is acceptable to use the description "a ball of cells" to terminate the unborn.
It's hypocritical....it's double standards.
If living organisms both born and unborn can be crudely described as balls of cells, and it is argued because the unborn are balls of cells then these organisms can be terminated, then so too can those who are already born.
Look at you hand, do you see a ball of cells? Or do you see much much more?
If you just see you hand as a ball of cells, go to a hospital and ask for it be amputated.
Try living with only one hand, try shopping, driving a car, dressing yourself , typing comments on boards with only one hand.
Let us know how you get on 12 months later. And when you comment that it is very hard going being just one handed, the rest of us can dismiss your complaint...because your hand was only a "ball of cells" and sure what are you complaining about. Get over it!
That's one of the differences between a person who is pro life and a pro choice / abortion advocate.
People who are pro life see the value in living organisms, both born and those yet to be born.
People who are pro choice only see value when it suits.
I've never really been a fan of the "ball/clump of cells" argument, it's not very accurate for most stages of development. But it is used by doctors to help women through the sometimes traumatic experience of having an abortion.
You say that one of the differences between pro-life and pro-choice people is that pro-life people see the value in living organisms, but that's not true. There is a higher value to a born human's life that is almost universally recognised. When a foetus puts a woman's life at risk all those with sense will do what it takes to keep the woman safe, even if it means ending the pregnancy.
The difference between pro-life and pro-choice people is that pro-choice people recognise this truth and openly acknowledge it, even though pro-life people still follow this same reasoning but hide between the nonsensical argument that ending the pregnancy has the unfortunate, indirect side effect of killing the foetus. It's like saying that hitting the power button on your remote has the unfortunate, indirect side effect of turning off your tv.
Pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion, nobody wants abortions to be needed but there are situations where it is the correct course of action. Both sides see this when the woman's life is at risk, but the pro-choice side see this right extend to the physical and mental health of the woman and the right to bodily integrity of the woman.
You may be pro-life, but I am pro-quality-of-life.0 -
I think that the earliest on record is 21 weeks, but it is extremely rare to live from that point. That's why in the UK they generally do not count anything younger than 24 weeks as being a birth and would rarely try to save the foetus. It is a miscarriage.
I've never really been a fan of the "ball/clump of cells" argument, it's not very accurate for most stages of development. But it is used by doctors to help women through the sometimes traumatic experience of having an abortion.
You say that one of the differences between pro-life and pro-choice people is that pro-life people see the value in living organisms, but that's not true. There is a higher value to a born human's life that is almost universally recognised. When a foetus puts a woman's life at risk all those with sense will do what it takes to keep the woman safe, even if it means ending the pregnancy.
The difference between pro-life and pro-choice people is that pro-choice people recognise this truth and openly acknowledge it, even though pro-life people still follow this same reasoning but hide between the nonsensical argument that ending the pregnancy has the unfortunate, indirect side effect of killing the foetus. It's like saying that hitting the power button on your remote has the unfortunate, indirect side effect of turning off your tv.
Pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion, nobody wants abortions to be needed but there are situations where it is the correct course of action. Both sides see this when the woman's life is at risk, but the pro-choice side see this right extend to the physical and mental health of the woman and the right to bodily integrity of the woman.
You may be pro-life, but I am pro-quality-of-life.
You are most probably correct with your point about 21 weeks. However with advances in medical science ... it may be possible to lower this stage of development. But that is for the future.... not today.
I'm glad you are not a fan of the "ball of cells" argument. As you may well have guessed....neither am I. So we can both agree there.
But certain people use that phrase to justify a more liberal abortion regime. In fact there are you tube videos of interviews of doctors who performed abortions.... some as many as 40,000 or even 60,000 abortions. They have since changed their perspective..and no longer believe that aborting a fetus is just removing a clump of cells.
There was a video made a while back.... called the "silent scream". Apparently one method is to use a suction device, and effectively suck the fetus body out of the womb.
It was mentioned that via ultra sound imaging, it appeared that when the suction pipe started gripping the body of the fetus the mouth could be seen to be opening.... as if the fetus is screaming.
The abortionist Kermit Gosnell has also admitted seeing this occurrence many times.
You mention the scenario where a fetus puts a woman's life at risk. This is very rare... and is a very small statistic in the overall number of pregnancies.
Link....http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Feb/20/what-about-woman-whose-life-threatened-pregnancy-o/
1. It is an extremely rare case when abortion is required to save the mother’s life.
While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother. He said the use of this argument to justify abortion in general was a “smoke screen.”
Due to significant medical advances, the danger of pregnancy to the mother has declined considerably since 1967. Yet even at that time Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood acknowledged, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.” Dr. Landrum Shettles says that less than 1 percent of all abortions are performed to save the mother’s life.
But in the event of extremely rare cases where the mothers life is at risk i.e. womb cancer, ectopic etc.... doctors in Ireland have always intervened to save the life of the mother.
Everybody knows that saving one life is better than having two lost.
But this does not suit the pro choice lobby.... who want convenience abortion.... the ultimate contraceptive, when all other contraceptives have failed.
Your point about...Pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion, nobody wants abortions to be needed but there are situations where it is the correct course of action.
Does not tally with the facts.... why is it less than 1% of all abortions performed are to save the life of the mother. http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/8
Your point...
but the pro-choice side see this right extend to the physical and mental health of the woman and the right to bodily integrity of the woman.
Is a cop out.... how can the bodily integrity of a woman be degraded... if a woman's body is designed to carry a baby?
If a woman's body is naturally designed to have babies.... and she becomes pregnant... how can a pregnancy be seen as unnatural or wrong?
If abortion was just a case of person A saying .... I believe its right.... and person B saying.... I believe its wrong.....then there would be no issue or debate.
But when one sides belief extends to implemented "Genocide" on another group (unborn baby humans) then it is incumbent on others to stand up and object.
To quote Edmund Burke.... All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
I believe personally believe the time will come (via medical science + technology) that peoples understanding of abortion will be enhanced more... and abortion will be fully outlawed. It will be seen as a dark shameful episode in the history of mankind.
But it is going to take some years yet!0 -
Gosnell is no more representative of the medical community than the pro-life terrorists that attack abortion providers are of the pro-life movement.
I thought the Silent Scream video had been roundly dismissed as pro-life propaganda by the medical community?
Just because a woman can have babies, doesn't mean she should be compelled to have one against her will.
And the use of "genocide" and the quote of Mr.Burke don't really help create an environment conducive to a civil discussion.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
There was a video made a while back.... called the "silent scream". Apparently one method is to use a suction device, and effectively suck the fetus body out of the womb.
It was mentioned that via ultra sound imaging, it appeared that when the suction pipe started gripping the body of the fetus the mouth could be seen to be opening.... as if the fetus is screaming.
The abortionist Kermit Gosnell has also admitted seeing this occurrence many times.
The Silent Scream has been long dismissed as dishonest propagnda and Kermit Gosnell is a dangerous criminal psychopath who should not be cited as an example of anything but that.0 -
You are most probably correct with your point about 21 weeks. However with advances in medical science ... it may be possible to lower this stage of development. But that is for the future.... not today.
James Elgin Gill is the earliest surviving premature baby on record and was delivered at 21 weeks and 5 days. But we cannot judge things by the extremes, most babies born at 21-24 weeks do not / cannot survive. This is where the argument of viability comes in and as you said medical science may progress this point of viability further and further back, but to end the need for abortions would require a lot more than that.I'm glad you are not a fan of the "ball of cells" argument. As you may well have guessed....neither am I. So we can both agree there.
I do agree that it is a bad argument for most stages of development, but not all. There are early stages where it is accurate.But certain people use that phrase to justify a more liberal abortion regime. In fact there are you tube videos of interviews of doctors who performed abortions.... some as many as 40,000 or even 60,000 abortions. They have since changed their perspective..and no longer believe that aborting a fetus is just removing a clump of cells.
People change their mind, it has no effect on reality.There was a video made a while back.... called the "silent scream". Apparently one method is to use a suction device, and effectively suck the fetus body out of the womb.
It was mentioned that via ultra sound imaging, it appeared that when the suction pipe started gripping the body of the fetus the mouth could be seen to be opening.... as if the fetus is screaming.
The abortionist Kermit Gosnell has also admitted seeing this occurrence many times.
The silent scream is not a real thing.You mention the scenario where a fetus puts a woman's life at risk. This is very rare... and is a very small statistic in the overall number of pregnancies.
Link....http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Feb/20/what-about-woman-whose-life-threatened-pregnancy-o/
1. It is an extremely rare case when abortion is required to save the mother’s life.
While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother. He said the use of this argument to justify abortion in general was a “smoke screen.”
Due to significant medical advances, the danger of pregnancy to the mother has declined considerably since 1967. Yet even at that time Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood acknowledged, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.” Dr. Landrum Shettles says that less than 1 percent of all abortions are performed to save the mother’s life.
But in the event of extremely rare cases where the mothers life is at risk i.e. womb cancer, ectopic etc.... doctors in Ireland have always intervened to save the life of the mother.
Everybody knows that saving one life is better than having two lost.
I did not try to convey that this scenario is a majority of cases or even extremely common, simply that it is a point in which both pro-life and pro-choice people agree that an abortion (the termination of a pregnancy) is the correct course of action.But this does not suit the pro choice lobby.... who want convenience abortion.... the ultimate contraceptive, when all other contraceptives have failed.
At no point has anyone here said that abortion is the "ultimate contraceptive". It's a misrepresentation of the pro-choice view and of what contraception is. By definition, an abortion occurs because all forms of contraception failed.Your point about...Pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion, nobody wants abortions to be needed but there are situations where it is the correct course of action.
Does not tally with the facts.... why is it less than 1% of all abortions performed are to save the life of the mother. http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/8
Because, as we discuss in the next bit, the pro-choice side does not consider saving the woman's life as the only time that an abortion is the correct course of action.Your point...
but the pro-choice side see this right extend to the physical and mental health of the woman and the right to bodily integrity of the woman.
Is a cop out.... how can the bodily integrity of a woman be degraded... if a woman's body is designed to carry a baby?
If a woman's body is naturally designed to have babies.... and she becomes pregnant... how can a pregnancy be seen as unnatural or wrong?
The right to bodily integrity is not simply allowing natural things to happen to one's own body, it is the right to control what happen's to one's own body. It is this right that stop's anyone from forcing you to donate an organ against your will even though not doing so will lead to the death of another person, and is why a woman should not be forced to maintain a pregnancy against her will.If abortion was just a case of person A saying .... I believe its right.... and person B saying.... I believe its wrong.....then there would be no issue or debate.
But when one sides belief extends to implemented "Genocide" on another group (unborn baby humans) then it is incumbent on others to stand up and object.
To quote Edmund Burke.... All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
Luckily it is more than just people stating whether it is right or wrong, it is a human right (as interpreted by U.N. expert bodies) that women have a right to decide independently in all matters related to reproduction, including the issue of abortion.I believe personally believe the time will come (via medical science + technology) that peoples understanding of abortion will be enhanced more... and abortion will be fully outlawed. It will be seen as a dark shameful episode in the history of mankind.
But it is going to take some years yet!
I also hope that medical science and technology will some day remove the need for abortions, by giving us the ability to save mothers and babies from dangers during pregnancy and preventing the pregnancies that are unwanted.0 -
The Silent Scream has been long dismissed as dishonest propagnda and Kermit Gosnell is a dangerous criminal psychopath who should not be cited as an example of anything but that.
You can describe Kermit Gosnell any way you want.... but.... he is not the only person performing abortions. There are a great many others.
One Serbian abortionist... in the process of dismembering arms and legs of a unborn baby noticed that sometimes the limbs still twitched.
Dr Stojan Adasevichttp://www.lifenews.com/2015/04/27/abortionist-who-did-over-40000-abortions-becomes-a-pro-life-activist/
There are many many links to Strojan on the www, if you don't like the one I have presented, feel free to pick another.
People in laboratories.... who experiment with human tissue.... on receiving a fetus which has been aborted.... can become very very upset... as they see a tiny brain, kidneys, spinal cord etc in the dish.
You can dismiss Kermit Gosnell if you want.... but can we dismiss the experience of others?0 -
Gosnell is no more representative of the medical community than the pro-life terrorists that attack abortion providers are of the pro-life movement.
I thought the Silent Scream video had been roundly dismissed as pro-life propaganda by the medical community?
Just because a woman can have babies, doesn't mean she should be compelled to have one against her will.
And the use of "genocide" and the quote of Mr.Burke don't really help create an environment conducive to a civil discussion.
Could you post up a list of words which can / are not to be used so as not to mar a civil discussion?
I'm not aware that there is such a list, or that the word "genocide" or mentioning Mr Burke is on it.0 -
You can describe Kermit Gosnell any way you want.... but.... he is not the only person performing abortions. There are a great many others.
Yes, many people perform abortions. Your point?One Serbian abortionist... in the process of dismembering arms and legs of a unborn baby noticed that sometimes the limbs still twitched.
Dr Stojan Adasevichttp://www.lifenews.com/2015/04/27/abortionist-who-did-over-40000-abortions-becomes-a-pro-life-activist/
There are many many links to Strojan on the www, if you don't like the one I have presented, feel free to pick another.
And... ?People in laboratories.... who experiment with human tissue.... on receiving a fetus which has been aborted.... can become very very upset... as they see a tiny brain, kidneys, spinal cord etc in the dish.
You can dismiss Kermit Gosnell if you want.... but can we dismiss the experience of others?
But that's all that they are, experiences. Of course people can become upset at the sight of an aborted foetus, people get upset at the site of dead bodies in general. I have friends who gag when they touch raw chicken.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes, many people perform abortions. Your point?
And... ?
But that's all that they are, experiences. Of course people can become upset at the sight of an aborted foetus, people get upset at the site of dead bodies in general. I have friends who gag when they touch raw chicken.
Sorry to hear about your friends and the raw chicken.
However it's not just about experiences...these abortion experiences have very serious real life consequences.
Chief of which is the appalling injustice that some humans who have committed no crime, undergo appalling destruction in an abortion.
For example a car crash, if every car crash outcome was just a fright for the driver / passenger, then you could describe a car crash as a bad experience. Unfortunately many car crashes also involve serious and grave consequences, death, paralysis, disfigurement, months of rehabilation etc.
Abortion is a deathly experience for a unborn baby human. My perspective is that it is a appalling injustice against a innocent baby human who has done nothing wrong, not even said a bad word.0
Advertisement