El-Duderino posts #14

 Abortion is an intrinsic evil and is never necessary in the case of rape or incest. The murder of the innocent to relieve the suffering of another is never justified.

Murder by abortion is the solution to the problem...Is it? Since when do two wrongs make a right? 

It makes sense to punish the guilty rapist, but none at all to give the death penalty to the innocent being in the womb. Why should the innnocent child be punished for the crime of the father?

Leauki posts:

With all due respect, your response is emotion which doesn't  always lead to the right conclusions. Distinctions must be made and there is a big one between the morally vile act and the product of the act, an innocent baby in the womb. While the act is horrible, no matter which way you cut it, the baby is not.  

What's more is that now we studies based upon testimonies of those who went through these hard cases and the results are in. There is good evidence that abortion adds emotional, psychological and even physical distress.  They tend to aggravate and complicate the woman's problem and not solve it at all. A woman's body her hormones, etc. changes tremendously during the pregnancy. Abortion cuts that short and health problems result not to mention a higher chance of breast cancer. So, in short , the indignity  of the rape is not helped by adding the guilt and harmful medical consequences of an abortion.

it's not a matter of argueing.  From your stated position you are personally pro-life which means that you would never want to get an abortion for yourself, but you accept the realism that abortion is going to happen so it is better to have it be safe and legal in particular when a woman's health is concerned, that is socially pro-choice.  The two are not mutually exclusive.

10 years ago it was 26 weeks.  10 years from now?  It has not been proven.  The only thing that has been proven is that we dont know squat yet.  And in the words of Ronald Reagan, would it not be better to err on the side of preserving life?

But the challenge, and the answer was not about ALL children living outside the womb, but ANY as the statement went:

Abortion is legal, up to and in some cases including post partum.  My task was simple as the challenge was "unable to live" but there was no qualifier as to how early in the pregnancy that was, nor do the abortionist differentiate. Clearly, as you stated, many that are aborted are clearly capable of living outside the womb.

As for self aware, the human brain is fully formed when a child becomes post partum.  Medically speaking, I am sure the doctors think they know when they have reached that stage (we can google it, but I dont think it is germaine to the issue at this point).  Is a down's syndrome child not a human being because it never progresses past the mental age of 6 months?

I am not asking these questions for definitive answers.  I am asking them because I have yet to find any definitive answers.

Try telling that to someone who has been raped.  Try telling them that you are forcing them to carry around a reminder of a horrific event for 9 months.  Sure that might be somewhat emotional, but it doesn't make it invalid.  A rape is traumatic enough but adding to that with a pregnancy and labor is torture.  Are you against Emergency Contraception?  That at least would prevent the need for an abortion but many pro-lifers are against it labeling it falsely as the abortion pill which it is not.  The problem with EC is that there is a 72 hour window, if you miss it then EC not work at all.

But does it make sense to punish the victim of the rape for 9 months?  That is what the potential pregnancy afterwards can be seen as by the victim.  The victim should have control over what she does after the rape.

While I don't deny that there are consequences to the abortion both medical and emotional, which goes back to my stance early on that making the decision is NOT an easy one, I would be interested to see these studies that you mention as I have never heard of them.  I obviously can't argue against them without having read them myself.

Elduderino posts: #14

LEAUKI POSTS:

El-Duderino,

The  woman's "health" is a ruse.

The Supreme Court ruled in Roe vs. Wade that abortion may not be restricted at all in the 1st trimester; in the 2nd trimester, abortion may be regulated only for the mother's health. After viability, abortion may be prohibited except where necessary to preserve the mother's health. Roe's companion case, Doe vs. Bolton, defined maternal "health" as: "all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age--relevant to the well-being of the patient." Thus, abortion is legal and cannot be prohibited through all the 9 months if any of those reasons is invoked. 

Bottom line: Under Roe and Bolton's definition of "health", there are no significant legal barriers of any kind whatsoever that exist today in the United States for a woman to obtain an abortion for any reason during any stage of her pregnancy." Thus the "health" exception is "abortion on demand".

Abortion isn't having the woman's best interest at heart. Again, it's just the reverse...It's been proven that women who abort suffer serious, not only physical damage, but life long psychological damage.

And don't forget that men too carry scars of abortions.  

It has been proven as I said based on todays technology.  With todays technology a fetus with less than 22 weeks gestation has no chance for survival.  And as I have said numerous times when I am talking about abortion for the most part I am talking about the first trimester abortions which are done between weeks 0 and 12 and until we come up with a way to simulate the womb there is no way those fetuses will be able to survive outside the womb.  I am not now nor have I ever advocated FOR partial-birth abortions unless the woman's life is at stake, and even in those situations I feel that the fetus should be delivered and put on life support and not aborted if at all possible.

I never said that.  Most abortions are performed during the first trimester which is done by vaccum asperation, there is absolutely no way that a fetus at 0-12 weeks can survive outside of the womb.  If that were the case then there would be no need for surrogate mothers for infertile couples.

I don't believe that is true anymore.  There was recently legislation (I believe late winter or early spring of this year) that outlawed partial-birth abortions.

It hasn't been proven that an abortion causes women to have life long physical and psychological damage.  If so show me the studies that have done so.  There may be studies, commisioned by pro-lifers, that show a correlation to it but do NOT prove it.  How do I know?  Because my wife has had an abortion and she suffers neither physical nor psychological damage from the abortion.  She had major physical health problems that lead to the need for the abortion, but nothing physical or psychological due to the abortion.

And I'm not going to get into the whole "men have scars too".

Lula posts:

I haven't checked recently but I'm sure  there are tons of world medical literature available on the net.  Check out medical studies on abortion risks. Check out the deVeber Institute for one at  http://deveber.org/publications2.html#launch  You can also read Ian Gentles book, "Women's Health After Abortion: The Medical and Psychological Evidence." I've been active in the pro-life movement for about 15 years and it seems that it was around 2000 when it became most apparent that abortion complications were seriously under reported and women who undergo abortions went largely unaware of the range of physical and psychilogical risks they face.

One comprehensive study back then was from the Canadian Bioethics Institute.   Some of the key abortion risks they reported are suicide, infertitlity, perforated uterus, subsequent premature births and higher risk factor, and the lastest is breast cancer.  Carrying a pregnancy to full term gives protection against breast cancer while abortion causes a sudden drop in estrogen levels that in some women may make breast cells more open to cancer. The Journal of the National Cancer Institute found "AMong women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women."

The "clearly as you stated" was in reference to your statement on the viability. Not the frequency or the stage of pregnancy when abortion is done.  However we can argue numbers then sematics, but the "clearly" was in reference to the fact that viable babies are being aborted every day.  Note that I used the subjective "many" not a more objective "most".

As for a baby 0-12 weeks?  Well, that we already have proved.  In-vitro fertilization is the baby (or fetus if you will) surviving outside the womb before implantation.

Not in this country. Only federally funded ones are really in contention at the national level, not the procedure itself.  Some states are trying to ban it, but that is only one procedure.  All other procedures - less gruesome and graphic - are still legal and performed in all states.

If you want personal testimony of the devestation to mothers, fathers  and families of aborted children, check out www.SilentNoMoreAwareness.org/testimonies .

[/quote]

DRGUY POSTS: [quote]Not in this country. Only federally funded ones are really in contention at the national level, not the procedure itself. Some states are trying to ban it, but that is only one procedure. All other procedures - less gruesome and graphic - are still legal and performed in all states.

Hmmmm.....very interesting indeed....I didn't know this...but it makes sense.  

I thought that President Bush did sign into law a ban on late term abortions, only to have an immediate law suit filed by pro-abortion groups challenging the law. Until it's settled, the killing by abortion goes on. Is this what you mean by only federally funded ones are really in contention?

CB, that's called a consequence for an action.  They make this choice.  No one forces them into this.  This would be a deliberate choice.  In order to do this she would have to REJECT abstinence,  REJECT adoption, or REJECT raising the child she's responsible for.  So there are other choices.  It's not like she doesn't have a choice.  It's that she's made a choice and that choice leads to murdering her own unborn child.  Even animals don't do this. 

Funny the one thing the pro-choice side ridicules is the choice for abstinence.  I think it's the ONLY sexual choice they don't like. 

There are MANY lies about this whole abortion issue coming from the abortion supporters.  Here's a quote to think about from a feminist who is now  telling the truth.  There are many more now coming forward with stories like this. 

Here's another news quote that very strangly went unnoticed by the media lately.  How many heard this news?  Nathanson at one time was the darling of the pro-abortion side and could do no wrong.  He changed his tune and now is considered an enemy.

Someone killed this forum.  It is broken and funky looking.

KFC:  In this case I agree wholeheartedly with you.

I abhor abortion, but if a person gets one thinking it's an easy way out or something, then realizes it's a mistake, they have to pay for it the rest of their life.  So yes, I pity them.  Call me sentimental, but it's true.

Okay, I'm done arguing this one, too.

EL-Duderino posts:

When you were in the fetus stage of development, were you alive or just potential life?

The truth is you and I and everyone of us living human beings were in these very same stages of life....we started our life as in our smallest size, our embryonic stage, then grew into a fetus and grew and grew. So size, development and consciousness do not determine  life or our humaness.

So you're saying that since a fetus can't survive on it's own, abortion is OKay. Sadly, this is valueing  what the fetus can do instead of who he is.  Children already born are not viable. If we leave a two year old alone, he will die.  Is a two year old who cannot live by himself less human or less alive than a mature adult?

 The unborn are genetically 100% human from their conception regardless of their stage of development or state of viability. Viablility is an arbitrary measure of what someone can do, not what someone is.

What this argument is all about is that it is psychologically easier to kill something that does not resemble the human beings we see everyday.  That's why in abortion clinics, women and girls are told, it's just a blob of tissue.