Pregnant Woman Perfectly Tells Off Anti-Abortion Protestors

a reply to: SlapMonkey

From you link: "Life Begins at Fertilization". That is a scientific fallacy right there. The ovum and sperm were alive before they met and mixed their genetic information. The ovum becomes transformed, but doesn't turn into something that it intrinsically is not, which is a cell designed for procreation.

DNA absolutely can be seen as a blueprint, but it is the way that DNA is constructed together--called a genome--that indicates the traits of all individuals, to the color of their eyes, to the shape of their nose, to their tongue length, etc. So, your assertion that " DNA in no way can be claimed to scientifically be an individual person," is technically true, but its implication false. It absolutely can be used to determine an individual person's identity--scientifically.

So can fingerprints. DNA is not unique. All human DNA contains the same number of chromosome, they're just never jumbled the same way twice, ex except in certain kinds of twins and clones.

The beginnin of this whole discussion between you and I (at least this fork of the discussion) stemmed from the question concering when a fetus becomes a "human," not a "person."

No. That's just nonsense. A human ovum and human sperm can only produce a human zygote. Its a closed system.

What happens when egg and sperm meet is nothing more than a chemical reaction. Not some sacred beginning of life pronounced by some magical "Life Fairy" who bestows a soul on human eggs at the moment of conception, unless that's what you want to believe. In that case, fine, but don't insist that your belief must be taken as truth, forced on others or legislated into law.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Do you have any scientific or medical evidence to back that up? It sure sounds dangerously like an ill-conceived opinion.

Yes, You can even try out the science yourself - Try putting a polythene

bag over your head and face and see how long you can last! then come

back and tell us we don't need AIR for life.

So you're saying viability is what makes a fetus a human being? Murder charges for killing a pregnant woman and her baby say otherwise. How can the court system charge the killer for the murder of two individuals if that fetus is just a lump of cells and not a "full human" yet?

All states in the US have differences in laws and 'terminology' so you

may find what you want to find somewhere in there. The most common

terminology I have come across is >>

"The unborn victims of violence act passed in 2004 defines a foetus as a

'child in uterur ' some laws define the foetus as being a person solely

for the purpose of the criminal prosecution of the offender

In some states a bill called SB353 =The Unborn Victims of Violence Act

is being considered for legislation that would create a separate criminal

offence for the death of a foetus when the mother is murdered.

In recent years laws have focused on the harm done to pregnant

women and the subsequent loss of her pregnancy but not the

rights of the foetus.

Legislation *mostly* refers to #Foetal Rights #Foetal Homicide

and #Pre Born Victim. No mention of *human beings* there.

originally posted by: sdubya
a reply to: eletheia


Not quite - a human cannot live without oxygen. And it gets oxygen in utero.

It gets its oxygen (air) whilst in the womb via the mother/incubator/host.

It doesn't actually use its LUNGS until AFTER delivery.

Is IVF also murder? Unwanted embryos are detsroyed.

Are some forms of emergency contraceptive murder? Some inhibit implantation therefor the embryo dies.

Is the copper coil murder? Inhibits implantation

Is turning off someone life support murder? It's ending a human life.

Conscious living begins AT BIRTH. When the fetal circulation changes from Surviving off its mothers circulation to using its own body to survive. That is when we are BORN.

And to clear up some of the ludicrous comments I've read along the way.

Abortions DO occur in hospitals. After 12 weeks or any co morbidities the mother may have will be done in a hospital.

The fetuses are at no time 'blended'. This is how the prolifers try to appeal to our emotions , visions of body parts on a cold steel table. The majority are done around 8 weeks , you get some pills which induce miscarriage. You have a heavy period and pass clots. There are no tiny arms and legs they have not formed yet. People miscarry at this stage and never even know it.

Fetuses DO NOT 'laugh , cry or play in he womb' .
And I would say that a termination has NEVER been performed on a late stage fetus for any other reason than the mother will surely die. Again I will just make it clear that those late stage fetuses that you prolifers imagine ( laughing etc) are at no time BLENDED. The mother gives birth to it and it is cared for like any still birth. Remember the reason would only be death to mother, if the fetus is unlikely to survive but the mothers health is ok she will deliver the baby and give it a chance, which I sometimes disagree with but that's a different thread.

To the person who wants to know what we think of the lady who threw the puppies in the river. Firstly i did not watch. I too don't see the comparison but I'll bite. I think she is a malicious human being who has no empathy for animals. I abhor people like her. I will be precise and add that the animal is a live conscious autonamous mammal.

I can't and won't watch animals abuse videos and want nothing to do with people like that and to be honest the world would be better off without them. On the other hand I can and do hold the hands of these vilified women whilst the termination takes place.
These women range from very young and would be considered statutory rape to the very old (45+) .Very very few of them ( which I see in hospital, where the late stage ones take place) are the 'loose whores' you speak of. I do see the ones where it's not their first time there, unfortunately there will be people like her but it's the minority ,we can only do our best to avoid it in future. By that we do heavily encourage an IUD, but we can't force that either , perhaps that could be a future solution.

I don't necessarily agree the the father should have a final say in it. Yes ideally the father should know , but he can't force her to carry it for him. The females carry the fetus until birth or viability so females get the final say. If men want to whine they can blame it on Mother Nature or God. The choice factor comes in here nicely for men, if you chose to stick it in a female before knowing her views on children and abortion , you are taking a known risk that she might just get pregnant and do it.

I don't understand how prolifers can condone reasons of rape and incest, can anyone explain that to me?

I don't agree with having a disabled child knowing you're going to give it away. How is this better?? That child was WANTED , just not that one, someone else can care for that one.
I don't understand why you're called prolifers. You only truly value the birth part.

Perhaps you need to try to feel what its like to be an UNWANTED child , how emotionally devastating that is, or worse yet a disabled unwanted child that was once wanted but now lives in a state home. In both cases it's often these children who grow up, find love in the opposite sex and fall pregnant at 15 or find themselves pregnant by the state home employee who sneaks in and rapes them. It's those kids who you vilify here now.

I know I would rather have never known existence than to live that life.

a reply to: LoopyLou

"Fetuses DO NOT 'laugh , cry or play in he womb' ."

Source?

Really , that's all you have to say?

a reply to: sdubya

originally posted by: sdubya
a reply to: windword

Ideally, make everyone responsible for the children they create. Especially men, who should provide for both mother and child.

so a potential father(till birth) or a father(post birth) is responsible for taking care of the mother too?
i take issue with that..

so mommy should just live off the dole? for how long? why does she get that luxury? cause she is mommy?

i figured i would chime in.
pro choice all the way.

we know mom gets the final say...if a lady becomes pregnant and the dad wants her to abort, and she dont want to, then it does not happen.
if she wants to abort and the dad does not, it happens.

a reply to: eletheia

Right, but I don't see how your figures support the fact that all of the women having abortions don't regret it later. I know that's an extremely difficult number to obtain accurately, so I won't even pretend that I would know that answer, but logic would dictate that it's not even close to 100%, and I question your 93:100 ration of abortions to births, but then again, Eastern Europe is definitely a different culture than our own. Would you mind providing the links to where you got this information, just so I can expand my knowledge?

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue. Apparently our experiences with women who have had abortions appear to be a driving factor in our view, which makes sense. I just can't get over the personal roadblock that I have high regard for all human life (and all life in general), and elective abortions are a head-on collision with that view.

Best Regards, eletheia, but I think it's time that we let this conversation peter out. Take care.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey


Right, but I don't see how your figures support the fact that all of the women having abortions don't regret it later..

so someone is saying that no women regret it?
yeah, ok....
what a bunch of BS that is

a reply to: LoopyLou

In the event of sounding like the resident thread jackass, here's an absolutely non-PC point I'd like to make:

You discuss a child not wanting to live life that way, and I would argue that many a teenage suicide may be because of the very things that you mentioned. But guess what--at least they were given a choice. At least they were allowed to live long enough to decide if they wanted to live that way.

Suicide is sad--I can't imagine a livelihood that is so terrible that someone sees self-induced death as the only way out, and my heart breaks every time I hear about it. BUT, my heart breaks even more when I read the numbers of children who are not even given a chance at all because of the decision of the mother. Those children, who never did one negative thing in their life--who only started life because of the decision of the mother to have sex (which is innocent enough)--will never have a chance to do anything good with their life.

I know you didn't mention suicide at all, but you did mention horrific childhoods and whatnot, and I know for a sad fact that suicide can be a relatively common result of that. But there are also success stories, and five of them live across the street from me being fostered by their loving guardians, two of whom were actually adopted this year out of love. Some of these children have had terrible beginnings to life, to include any form of abuse you can think of, but they are turning into outstanding young people--good people who would not exist if their mother decided just to kill them before they had a chance.

Two doors down from them, a grandmother is raising her two grandchildren because their mother--her daughter--is a deadbeat who can't get her life under control. But you know what? Those kids are also awesome human beings, all because a family member was willing to take on the challenge of raising them with love and proper care.

I don't buy this garbage argument that I keep seeing on here that it's either choice A--abortion--or choice B--a terrible life for the unwanted kids. There are myriad other possibilities for these human beings that are leaps and bounds more appropriate than just having an abortion doctor off your baby because it's an inconvenience to you.

This world needs to reach back and find the memory that holds the truth that human life is a precious thing. I think that there is a sect of humanity that is forgetting that--often times the same people who will throw fake blood on your for wearing fir, or fight tooth and nail to have you thrown in jail for kicking a chihuaha (which I don't condone, BTW), but will turn around and scream at the top of their lungs that it's the woman's right to kill her baby. Some of humanities priorities just seem so dislodged from reality that I'm questioning if the life of an innocent, unborn child will ever regain its position in society where it is something that should be protected since it cannot protect itself. It's a disheartening reality.

And just for the record, I understand the possible need for and desire to have an abortion for rape/unwanted incest/medical reasons--I'm strictly talking about elective abortions for no other reason than the mother doesn't want the child. Also, I'm done with the dialogue on this thread, I just had to say my response to you--some of your points are well taken, but some don't make sense. If you respond and I don't, it's nothing personal, I just know I'm not going to change any minds so set in how they see the issue, and I've already gone in circles with three others on this thread. It's time for a break.

Best Regards.

a reply to: Grovit

To be fair, I don't think that's her claim, but she did claim that every woman who had an abortion that has discussed it with her has show no regret. I do find that hard to believe, but it's possible, considering the only women who have confided in me about thier abortions absolutely regretted it. So each of us have a 100% rate going in our personal experiences.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Two doors down from them, a grandmother is raising her two grandchildren because their mother--her daughter--is a deadbeat who can't get her life under control. .

and two doors down from them a mother is about to drown her already abused and malnourished kid that she didnt want but was forced to have.

edit

im sure grandma loves her grand kids but i bet thats not how grandma wanted to spend her golden years and sucks she was put in that situation.

a reply to: windword

I sincerely cannot discuss this with you anymore because your "scientific" rebuttals to my points are dumbing down the rest of the poeple who read them. I'm not going to be a party to that.

DNA is not unique. DNA is not unique. All human DNA contains the same number of chromosome, they're just never jumbled the same way twice...

Idiocy--blatant idiocy. With that logic, I could make the fallacious argument that fingerprints are not unique--they're just a bunch of skin ridges, just never jumbled the same way twice. There are also no uniquely shaped clouds, too, since they're all just ice particles, just never jumbled together in exactly the same way twice. IF SOMETHING OCCURS ONLY ONCE, THEN IT. IS. UNIQUE!

That there is enough to make me realize that I'd be better off discussing this with a wall, because, at the very least, it will not try to negate facts with crap.

Best Regards...this merry-go-round between us is done.

Did I say anything like that? No not after birth. Go easy? And you say I advocate murdering a child! BTW I have three children. The first when I was 18. My youngest when I was 38 and at risk because of my age so you can see what my choice is but know full well that they were my choices.

reply to: intrptr

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: sdubya
a reply to: eletheia
Not quite - a human cannot live without oxygen. And it gets oxygen in utero.

It gets its oxygen (air) whilst in the womb via the mother/incubator/host.

It doesn't actually use its LUNGS until AFTER delivery.

I know I said I was done commenting, but you do realize that air is not what makes someone a person or a human, right?

And the fact that you see it fit to call a mother an "incubator" is kind of creepy. Look up the definition of the word--a human womb is not one of them. Let's not distort word meanings in an attempt to dehumanize the gestation period.

The people of that time did do just that. That's not my prospective because I live now not in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Had I lived then I'm sure my point of view would have been shaped by my community and family much the way it is now. Your question is not a fair one.reply to: jjkenobi

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

I think the point is about respect for human life. Slavery lost all respect for the human lives taken into slavery, actually dehumanizing them and calling them "property." Abortion advocates, in a similar fashion (at least the loudest in the group), are attempting to dehumanize a fetus, pretend it's just "property" consisting of a lump of organic matter, and that it can just be discarded like a piece of property that is an inconvenience.

The parallel is an appropriate one to make, and the commentary it makes on the society that condones the practice is not a good one, IM(not-always-humble)O.

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

And you say I advocate murdering a child!

Sorry you got that impression, I didn't accuse you of anything.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Do you think women owe their fertilized eggs to society? Is it a woman's duty to reproduce, in your opinion?

Does a woman's uterus, fallopian tubes and ovaries belong to her? If the answer is yes, then her eggs also belong to her. A fertilized egg doesn't suddenly become NOT PART of a woman's body.

The idea of forcing women, under any circumstance, to carry a pregnancy to term, like breeding chattel, living incubators, is dehumanizing and is, in fact bestial and no different than slavery.

I find your view that some women should be spared from the personal horror of forced birth, not to mention the physical pain, health risks and discomfort, based on their personal innocence, while women whose birth control failed, or were caught unaware, should be punished by being forced to carry that pregnancy to term, despicable and hypocritical!