Abortion, Genocide, what’s THE difference?!?!?!?!?.... do you condone murder???

page: 82
40
<< 79  80  81    83 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dizzylizzy
Back to the OP if men put something on there would be less unwanted pregnancies.

Why should a woman have to bring up a child after a one night stand.



What the HELL?!?!?!

This must be a joke.




posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Fetuses which cannot survive out side the womb are not people...
Genocide is about destroying whole races of people....
thus...two different things.....next obvious question?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Any abortion pass the first 8 to 12 weeks is murder and the OP is right . at 13 weeks the baby is a tiny fully formed human being with feelings and everything .

which gets me to the idea of when the soul enters the body. obviously its from the time of conception or else if it wasnt then there would be no fetal movement til after birth.

to prove my point ill add a video



id like to point out that til i saw these videos i was pro choice.

not any more



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by alysha.angel
 




Any abortion pass the first 8 to 12 weeks is murder and the OP is right . at 13 weeks the baby is a tiny fully formed human being with feelings and everything .


Feelings, as any other cognitive ability, require functioning brain (brain waves). Those does not appear before 20 weeks.



which gets me to the idea of when the soul enters the body. obviously its from the time of conception or else if it wasnt then there would be no fetal movement til after birth.


Huh? Soul enters the body when brain waves appear - 20-22 weeks. There is no fetal movement except for basic vegetative reflexes before that.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


oh really? i take your a guy whos never going to be able to feel life growing inside your ...

explain fetal movement at 16 weeks or sometimes before that . iv been pregnant three times and have given birth to 4 girls i speak from personal experience. and then see the vids that i posted.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by alysha.angel
 


Regarding the Silent Scream:
my.opera.com...

The narrative is full of halftruths and outright lies. Propaganda.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by alysha.angel
 


Spinal reflexes and vegetative neuromuscular movements (like for example cut off leg is performing). There is no neural connection between higher brain and brain stem before 24 weeks (thalamocortical connections), and before 22 weeks, there is not even a functioning higher brain.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by alysha.angel
 


Spinal reflexes and vegetative neuromuscular movements (like for example cut off leg is performing). There is no neural connection between higher brain and brain stem before 24 weeks (thalamocortical connections), and before 22 weeks, there is not even a functioning higher brain.


how do you know ? just because technology hasnt gotten to the point of where doctors can tell via ultra sound before then how do you know?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by alysha.angel
 


Fetal EEG measurements, histology analysis of the fetal brain in various stages of development (before neorons are connected, you cannot have any BW), maybe NMR or CT.. Ultrasound wont show you such details, but there are other methods.

Fetal Brain Development: Myths and Disinformation


"Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns...First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks."



all authorities accept that the end of an individual's life is measured by the ending of his brain function (as measured by brain waves on the EEG), would it not be logical for them to at least agree that individual's life began with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument?


Even if I consider the basis for protection the presence of brain waves, the legislative limit for abortion should be sooner than the measured appearance, just to be sure. Allowing abortion only in the first trimester is enough.

edit on 18/3/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


explain to me the fetal heartbeat at 8 weeks of gestation? which by the way can be detected before then.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by alysha.angel
 


Heartbeat is a vegetative function, it does not require functioning higher brain to be present during development. There is no sentience in 8 weeks.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by alysha.angel
 


Just to add, a person can be legally dead even with functioning heartbeat, in fact it often happens. Death is determined by condition of the brain, not heart. The same should apply for the beginning of human person.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is death.


Abortion Contributes to Increased Suicide Rates Among Young Women

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — A disturbing new report from the National Institute of Health (NIH) finds that not only are girls and young women more likely to think about committing suicide, they’re much more likely to follow through. One reason for the increase appears to be abortion.

The NIH report revealed that suicide is now the third leading cause of death among America’s young people. In fact, for teen girls and young women, the suicide rate has tripled over the past 25 years. At the same time, suicide rates for Americans in general are dropping across the country. www.lifenews.com...



There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individual’s life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his father’s sperm and his mother’s ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation." This is so be-cause this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing.

If there is one absolutely essential function of a nation or state, it is to protect the lives of those who live within its boundaries. In order to carry out this solemn duty it must first ask and answer when the life of its people begins. www.abortionfacts.com...



Mr. President:
As physicians, we, the undersigned, are pleased to associate ourselves with you in drawing the attention of people across the nation to the humanity and sensitivity of the human unborn
That the unborn, the prematurely born, and the newborn of the human species is a highly complex, sentient, functioning, individual organism is established scientific fact. That the human unborn and newly born do respond to stimuli is also established beyond any reasonable doubt.
The ability to feel pain and respond to it is clearly not a phenomenon that develops de novo at birth. Indeed, much of enlightened modern obstetrical practice and procedure seeks to minimize sensory deprivation of, and sensory insult to, the fetus during, at, and after birth. Over the last 18 years, real time ultrasonography, fetoscopy, study of the fetal EKG (electrocardiogram) and fetal EEG (electroencephalogram) have demonstrated the remarkable responsiveness of the human fetus to pain, touch, and sound. That the fetus responds to changes in light intensity within the womb, to heat, to cold, and to taste (by altering the chemical nature of the fluid swallowed by the fetus) has been exquisitely documented in the pioneering work of the late Sir William Liley -- the father of fetology. www.mpomerle.com...



Whose testimony is more reliable, those who have a financial interest in the availability of abortion or those who don't? Ethically speaking, who is going to be less likely to lie, those who believe dismembering living human beings is a legitimate medical practice or those who don't?

Sir Albert Lilley, widely considered the "Father of Fetology", and unabashedly pro-life (as anyone with his vast knowledge of fetal development should be) makes some remarkable statements about fetal pain in an interview he conducted for the book The Tiniest Humans www.abort73.com...



"The Father of Modern Genetics" Testifies

Dr. Jerome Lejeune, known as "The Father of Modern Genetics," also testified that human life begins at conception before the Louisiana Legislature's House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice on June 7, 1990.

Dr. Lejeune explained that within three to seven days after fertilization we can determine if the new human being is a boy or a girl. "At no time," Dr. Lejeune said, "is the human being a blob of protoplasm. As far as your nature is concerned, I see no difference between the early person that you were at conception and the late person which you are now. You were, and are, a human being."

Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, said: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Dr. McCarthy de Mere, a medical doctor and law professor at the University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
www.prolife.com

When considered alongside the law of biogenesis – that every species reproduces after its own kind – we can draw only one conclusion in regard to abortion. No matter what the circumstances of conception, no matter how far along in the pregnancy, abortion always ends the life of an individual human being.


If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
edit on 18-3-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Well I just wanted to post my opnion on the matter.
Heres how I see it, abortion is wrong in MOST cases. I hear how people scream that the mother has the choice to do whatever she wants with her body.
1 she isn't allowed to kill herself.
2 it's not her body she's putting down.

And then consider this, she already had a choice, she chose to have sex.
She chose to use the reproductive system, you shouldn't use the reproductive system if you don't want to reproduce. Every animal on the planet has sex to reproduce. If a female doesn't come into the season, the males will not touch her, even if they are reproductively active, they will become edgy and angry, but they will not mate with the female.

Now if the women is raped, then she did not choose to have sex, and therefor she cannot be forced to deal with the consequences forced upon her by the rapist(s). If the baby is a threat to the mothers life, then it should be allowed to be aborted, for the simple fact that the baby is THE physical threat to the mothers life.

But under normal circumstances the child cannot be blamed for the mothers actions. My father was adopted, he was unwanted even before he was born, I would not be alive, nor my 5 brothers and 1 sister if my father hadn't been given the chance to live. You don't think he is grateful he wasn't thrown out because he was inconvenient?



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


All I can say is do not judge a person until you have walked a mile in their shoes. What about somebody who is mentally ill and gets psychotic while pregnant ? Should they forced to carry a baby and give birth to a baby while completely psychotic?



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
now for a piece of the other side of the equation....

Mom Denied Abortion Even As Uterus Crushed Her Fetus
Posted by Jeanne Sager
on March 15, 2011 at 12:55 PM

thestir.cafemom.com...

it seems like somewhere in our legal system, there should be room for common sense??



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 




Do you know that in the UK in 2008 22% of all pregnancies ended in abortion


Cite your sources, otherwise everything you say must be considered pure conjecture.

If you have no citation, but just "heard" this somewhere and are passing it along then you'll be completely ignored from now on.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
There's obviously a great deal of discord on this subject.

That said, I think that the civilized thing to do would just be to give the children the benefit of the doubt and , you know, not kill them.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I will start off by saying that , I do not like nor love the fact that anyone has an abortion , I think everyone, including pro -choice advocates, to see world where unwanted pregnancies are prevented and abortions never happened . However I stand by our current law and would just like to point out a few things.
I have a problem with the consideration of " person hood from conception" , because this leads to some severely dangerous concepts. First off, every women who uses birth control could be considered a murderer following this train of thought , because the way many birth controls work is by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting properly. Furthermore, many women could be considered ignorant murderers just by having a period , because many times a fertilized egg fails to implant naturally and is passed in the menstrual system with the women unaware. Person hood cannot be defined by conception (at least in a legal sense), because this would lead to draconian and barbaric outlawing of contraceptives, including the morning after pill which does not stop an already implanted fertilized egg.
If there is one thing that is lacking , it's consistency . If the fetus has an equal right to life , and the mother has an equal right to life , then how can one put exceptions into that ? Why should the fetus's right to life be taken away , just to save the mother? If the fetus's right to life overrides the mothers right to autonomy , then women should be forced into any medical procedure regardless of the dangers to her health (not mortality) and well being if it could go to save the fetus. If it's okay to kill the fetus to save the mother , than why would it NOT be okay to kill the mother to save the fetus ; after-all both have an equal right to life , and many are setting the premise that it is okay to choose who gets to live or die in a scenario where you can only save one. Also, under the contention that a fetus's right to life outweighs the mothers autonomy , then all women who follow any lifestyle choice , such as drinking too much caffeine , taking important meds for a preexisting health condition that may increase risk of miscarriage should be fined and imprisoned accordingly correct?All miscarriages should be investigated and imprisoned accordingly even to the extent of putting the death penalty or life in prison on the table .After all, if the fetus has an equal right to life , the pregnant women who murders the fetus shouldn't be granted any special exceptions to the law right?
Let's face it , a fetus does NOT have an absolute equal right to life , nor does their right to life outweigh the right to a woman's autonomy ,otherwise the pandoras box of ridiculously unfair and cruel treatment of pregnant women could be justified 100% by the premise.
Here is a short passage from an infamous article that addresses why abortion may not be always be moral , but is justifiable . Please read full article spot.colorado.edu... Judith Jarvis Thomas wrote:
"So my own view is that even though you ought to let the violinist use your kidneys for the one hour he needs, we should not conclude that he has a right to do so--we should say that if you refuse, you are, like the boy who owns all the chocolates and will give none away, self-centered and callous, indecent in fact, but not unjust. And similarly, that even supposing a case in which a woman pregnant due to rape ought to allow the unborn person to use her body for the hour he needs, we should not conclude that he has a right to do so; we should say that she is self-centered, callous, indecent, but not unjust, if she refuses. The complaints are no less grave; they are just different. However, there is no need to insist on this point. If anyone does wish to deduce "he has a right" from "you ought," then all the same he must surely grant that there are cases in which it is not morally required of you that you allow that violinist to use your kidneys, and in which he does not have a right to use them, and in which you do not do him an injustice if you refuse. And so also for mother and unborn child. Except in such cases as the unborn person has a right to demand it--and we were leaving open the possibility that there may be such cases--nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments, for nine years, or even for nine months, in order to keep another person alive."



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 



Strong opinions there.

I only have this to say to you- open your mind, the way you live your life is your choice and the way other people choose to live their lives is their choice. Pro choice here. Live your life and let others live theirs.





new topics
top topics
 
40
<< 79  80  81    83 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum