Texas Lawmakers Pass Controversial Anti-Abortion Bill

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by Rustami

 

So again, I ask, is there any context around this besides numbers from Judeo-Christian sites? I am not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. I am just trying to see why I, or my elected representatives, should care about what someone else does with their body...

Besides, based on your numbers, if abortion was illegal and (by some strange miracle) people didn't get illegal abortions, it would seem to me that we would be dealing with a worldwide population > 10 billion now.. Not sure how that is a good thing.

it all does seem to be about honest communication/information/knowledge/denying ignorance not made up assumptions.. predictions should be left to prophecy

and sorry just a quick breeze through some abortion threads here will show many brilliant statements by non-professing believers- more so than professing believers I think, though all in all seems not as many total on this site one way or the other altogether

how do you know the truth regarding life will not balance the unbridled lack of restraint that we see now from one extreme to another everywhere and near always associated to money in some way? personally I think there is a conspiracy and if you look at Bolshevik history when first "legalized" in 1920 (that they themselves attempted to turn back in regret a few years later) plus the effects Russia is still dealing with as well as China leading in female suicide- it does give that impression

here are a few non (I guess) as requested-
In her testimony before a Senate subcommittee in 2004, Dr. Elizabeth Shadigan testified that “abortion increases rates of breast cancer, placenta previa, pre-term births, and maternal suicide.... Statistically, all types of deaths are higher with women who have had induced abortions.”

“Abortion has completely failed as a social policy designed to aid women,” writes Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life. “It is a reflection that we have failed women.”

"The Father of Modern Genetics"
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."

fetus-late 14c., "the young while in the womb or egg," from L. fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing, bringing forth, or hatching of young," from Latin base *fe- "to generate, bear," also "to suck, suckle" (see fecund). In Latin, fetus sometimes was transferred figuratively to the newborn creature itself, or used in a sense of "offspring, brood" (cf. Horace's "Germania quos horrida parturit Fetus"), but this was not the basic meaning. www.etymonline.com

(updated April 2010)
A report released by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) shows that the suicide rate among teen girls and young women has tripled in the past 25 years, despite an overall drop in suicide rates across the United States.

NIH reports that suicide is now the third leading cause of death among American young people, and the sixth leading cause of death for children between the ages of 5 and 14 www.physiciansforlife.org...

A conspiracy of silence seems to surround the well-documented excess of suicide deaths among women with a history of abortion.Dr. Barry Garfinkel, head of the University of Minnesota's Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Department, surveyed teenagers "Suicide More Likely Among Aborted Teens" National Right to Life News 4 Apr. 2, 1987

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...

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...

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 www.abort73.com

just a little regarding Christ/ian-

For the life of a creature is in the blood-

And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.-1Corinthians12

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation-James1

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam(Mankind), in the day when they were created.-Genesis5

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of One blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth-Acts17

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
1Cor15

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.-Galatinas3

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.(born again?)-2Corinthians5
www.biblegateway.com

The cause of the problemAt least one-fifth of white children and two-thirds of black children are born to single mothers.1 At least 50% of all children born in the United States will live in a single parent household before they become adults.2 Fathers are abdicating their parental responsibilities and are causing women to choose abortion over motherhood.www.godandscience.org...

One third of abortions are performed on teenagers without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

over 80 percent say they would have carried to term under better circumstances or with the support of loved ones , over 60 percent report having felt "forced" to have the abortion by others or circumstances, and approximately 40 percent were still hoping to discover some alternative to abortion when going for counseling at the abortion clinic.

Perhaps one reason for the strong abortion/suicide link exists in the fact that in many ways abortion is like suicide. A person who threatens suicide is actually crying out for help. So are women who contemplate abortion. Both are in a state of despair. Both are lonely. Both feel faced by insurmountable odds.

Like the suicide clinics described above, abortion clinics also exploit desperate people. They promise to release clients from the darkness of their despair. They appeal to our consumer society's demand for instant solutions to all our problems. They pose as places of compassion, but they are actually reaping huge profits through the harvest of the lonely, frightened, and confused people who are "unwanted" by society. In place of life, they offer the "compassion" of death.

Granting the wish for suicide or abortion is not an aid to desperate people. It is abandonment. It is a false compassion that protects us from getting entangled in the "personal problems" of others. It is "cheap love." www.abortionfacts.com

It is also worth noting the suicide rate among women in China is the highest in the world. Indeed, 56 percent of all female suicides occur in China, mostly among young rural women. It is also the only country where more women die from suicide than men..Given the known link between abortion and suicide, can there be any doubt that maternally-oriented Chinese women who are coerced by their families and communities to participate in these atrocities are more likely to commit suicide? www.abortiontv.com...

"The data clearly shows what we have long suspected: that abortion is harmful rather than helpful to women," said Elliot Institute director Dr. David Reardon, one of several researchers working on the study www.afterabortion.org...

Aftershocks of Male Post-abortion Trauma: Suicidal ideation: We do now know how common this is, but it does occur especially in the fathers who wanted the child. When men identify the issue that is troubling them after an abortion experience, it is named as the loss of fatherhood. www.menandabortion.info...

Abortion has many victims, and one of them is the father of the child.. The laws of the United States do not acknowledge the right a father to stop the abortion of his own child, but rather place that act solely within the decision of the mother.. This raises a multitude of problems..On the one hand, the father who wants to defend the life of his child is often accused of meddling in something that is not his business. On the other hand, the father who wants to leave the (mistaken) decision of abortion in the hands of the mother alone is often accused of being uncaring and distant.
www.priestsforlife.org...

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.

reply to post by Rustami


So you cherry pick a bunch of quotes, give excerpts from religious organizations that assert "the facts" state that "life begins at conception". So in essence you are subscribing to this notion that one idea, based largely on religious belief is superior to another and thus justified authoritarian nanny state government intrusion into people's medical decisions.

I wonder if much of the Christian community that advocate for these anti-abortion laws (all usually based on this idea that "life starts at conception") realize that the vatican itself, and Christianity in general, had no major problem with abortion through most of it's history...and that, historically, Christians believed that there was a moment during the development of the fetus that the "soul" entered the body, thus the concept of "life" for Christians was based on this idea of "ensoulment" not, as you say, the joining of sperm and egg. It was this idea of "ensoulment" that the church based it's policy of abortion on, thus, historically, the Catholic Church considered abortion acceptable through the vast majority of it's history (back then women often took herbs and other medicinal remedies to induce abortion). Only from 2nd century to 4th century did the church issue an order that abortion was unacceptable. Throughout the rest of history, the official position of the church was that abortion was okay up until "quickening" (i.e. when the baby "drops") which is when it was believed the soul entered the body. Abortion only became mostly illegal under church law again in 1869, where it was still okay in order to save a woman's life, however in 1884 is was changed to reflect a no tolerance, no exception policy...interesting note, that this happens to be right around the same time that women were starting to demand more rights under law (women's suffrage movement).

Furthermore, people have mentioned that abortion debate is often framed from Judeo-Christian perspective. I would argue that it's framed purely on a Christian perspective (giving even more urgency to this idea that religion should not be used to write policy) For example, in the Jewish faith (which generally believes in access to abortion for women, except for in some orthodox communities, has some major differences from Christianity in terms of abortion, including this idea of "when life begins":

Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' " 5 In the case of a "feet-first" delivery, it happens when most of the fetal body is outside the mother's body.

for example

A passage from the Mishna quotes a Jewish legal text from the second century CE. It describes the situation in which a woman's life is endangered during childbirth. A D&X procedure (often called Partial Birth Abortion in recent years) might be used under these conditions today. However, this technique was unknown in ancient times. The legal text states that the fetus must be dismembered and removed limb by limb. However, if "the greater part" of the fetus had already been delivered, then the fetus could not be killed. This is based on the belief that the fetus only becomes a person after most of its body emerges from the birth canal.

Source
These points are important, because it is this idea that "life starts at conception" that anti-abortion activists use to justify highly intrusive laws and the government nanny state. True, when anti-abortion activists state that "life starts at conception" they are making a religious argument, however, as we have just seen, not all religions, and even traditionally in Christianity, actually believe that "life starts at conception", thus any law using this as it's justification would completely be trampling over the beliefs of other religions as well as non-religious people. Government policy should be based on sound scientific and factual data, and again, the idea that "life starts at conception" is largely a modern religious (Christian) belief, it's important to distinguish that it's also an idea that has no scientific or medical backing, as some would like to claim.

Thus my main point, which I made in my previous post, and has since not been addressed, is that making something illegal, or difficult to obtain (either through taxes and other legal requirements) will not make that thing magically go away. Even your example of Ireland, I pointed out that you were conflating correlation with causation, and that each year thousands of Irish women go overseas to obtain abortions. Laws like these don't actually attempt to help anyone, nor have they been even the slightest bit effective in preventing abortions, they only push the problem under the rug, and often, into the black market. Just look what has happened with the war on drugs. We are even starting to see this happen with cigarettes as government tried to tax them out of existence, there is now a huge profitable black market for tobacco products. Rather than make these religious arguments that, historically, have had no real relevance to the issue, how can you argue for increased regulation into personal medical decisions and authoritarian nanny state policies that seek to legislate the relationship between doctors and patients? Again, precedent tells me that these types of policies do not work. No where in this country, except for abortion, do we have government trying to legislate what procedures doctors must force patients to have. Nowhere in this country, except for abortion, does the state require doctors to read a pre-approved government script to the patient. So again, aside from your argument that government should make laws based on one particular favored religious group's belief, how do you justify intrusive laws that seek to legislate doctor-patient relationships, and what evidence do you have that authoritarian nanny state laws are actually beneficial to our society. Are you, in general, willing to trade the freedoms of others so you can have your own personal beliefs foisted upon society?

Again, see my previous post for this argument which I originally made: Here

I find it strange how the 'start of human life' is one of the few areas where the left doesn't believe in science. Their beliefs are a lot closer to ancient Jewish law instead. And yet the left likes to consider themselves the 'learned ones'.

reply to post by Rustami


Sorry, I don't buy the "abortion is bad because it can cause health problems" reason for creating terrible laws such as the one we are discussing in this thread. Sunbathing apparently causes skin cancer, but it is still legal. Lots of human activities are dangerous in both the near and long term, but the government doesn't intervene because it is none of their business.

Yes, I have seen some very intelligent arguments from non Judeo-Christians. Generally with them it comes down to the assumption that human life is somehow more important or significant than any other life on this planet and the definition of "life". I have yet to see anyone give a non-artbitrary explaination of what "life" is.

In any case, the crux of the matter is not, in my opinion, whether abortion is "right" or "wrong". It is about whether the Federal, State, or local governments should have any legal role in the matter. I feel that it is beyond their jurisdiction because they should have no authority over the way a person wishes to treat their body or the various organs and cells inside.

I do not feel that humans are in any way more or less important than any other life form on this planet and I find it insanely hypocritcal that we "kill" life to eat and we do it often in the way we feel comfortable with and our culture balks at the idea of the government trying to tell us what we can and cannot eat. Yet, we try to tell women what they can and cannot do with or to their own bodies out of some absurd "respect" for life?

This bill is just another case of political shenanigans in a time when they are definately not wanted or needed. We have real and current issues that are affecting EVERYONE not just hypothetical humans that have not yet been born, yet the Texas legislature goes out of their way to subject women who are already making a difficult choice to psychological torment in an attempt to sway them.

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
I find it strange how the 'start of human life' is one of the few areas where the left doesn't believe in science. Their beliefs are a lot closer to ancient Jewish law instead. And yet the left likes to consider themselves the 'learned ones'.

Well, I am not left, but I hear this bit a lot, so I am curious... do you mean life as defined as:

1) growth through metabolism
2) reproduction
3) ability to adapt to changes in the environment


That's the "definition of life" as I learned it in college. It is also critically flawed because that means any sterile creature or hybrid is by definition not alive.

I refuse to travel to through or have any dealings with Texas until after the rapture - I am firm about this.

Originally posted by meeneecat
reply to post by Rustami

 

So you cherry pick a bunch of quotes, give excerpts from religious organizations that assert "the facts" state that "life begins at conception". So in essence you are subscribing to this notion that one idea, based largely on religious belief is superior to another and thus justified authoritarian nanny state government intrusion into people's medical decisions.

by no means all "religious" in your understanding of "it" and are relevant

and you string together a bunch of english letters that make words that say or sound like something? I could'nt post entire stories even if I wanted to, you may have noticed just how long quotes (that have links that lead to full story if desired so people can make up their own minds) can get? besides whats my "legal" quote limit here, two quote post- hypocrite?

I wonder if much of the Christian community that advocate for these anti-abortion laws (all usually based on this idea that "life starts at conception") realize that the vatican itself, and Christianity in general, had no major problem with abortion through most of it's history...and that, historically, Christians believed that there was a moment during the development of the fetus that the "soul" entered the body, thus the concept of "life" for Christians was based on this idea of "ensoulment" not, as you say, the joining of sperm and egg. It was this idea of "ensoulment" that the church based it's policy of abortion on, thus, historically, the Catholic Church considered abortion acceptable through the vast majority of it's history (back then women often took herbs and other medicinal remedies to induce abortion). Only from 2nd century to 4th century did the church issue an order that abortion was unacceptable. Throughout the rest of history, the official position of the church was that abortion was okay up until "quickening" (i.e. when the baby "drops") which is when it was believed the soul entered the body. Abortion only became mostly illegal under church law again in 1869, where it was still okay in order to save a woman's life, however in 1884 is was changed to reflect a no tolerance, no exception policy...interesting note, that this happens to be right around the same time that women were starting to demand more rights under law (women's suffrage movement).

and that has to do with what? what exactly are you attempting to portray and what is the relevance to the truth shown you Today? the voice did'nt say "I am vatican Catholic 1883""used to be 2nd 4th Christian such and so bla bla bla" got quotes and links just for "YOUR" so many claims and words sake?

Furthermore, people have mentioned that abortion debate is often framed from Judeo-Christian perspective. I would argue that it's framed purely on a Christian perspective (giving even more urgency to this idea that religion should not be used to write policy) For example, in the Jewish faith (which generally believes in access to abortion for women, except for in some orthodox communities, has some major differences from Christianity in terms of abortion, including this idea of "when life begins":

another with reading and comprehension skills I see promoting the stereotypical propaganda, I won't be playing long winded waste the time after this post with you

Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' " 5 In the case of a "feet-first" delivery, it happens when most of the fetal body is outside the mother's body.

for example

A passage from the Mishna quotes a Jewish legal text from the second century CE. It describes the situation in which a woman's life is endangered during childbirth. A D&X procedure (often called Partial Birth Abortion in recent years) might be used under these conditions today. However, this technique was unknown in ancient times. The legal text states that the fetus must be dismembered and removed limb by limb. However, if "the greater part" of the fetus had already been delivered, then the fetus could not be killed. This is based on the belief that the fetus only becomes a person after most of its body emerges from the birth canal.

Source
These points are important,

yes yes quotes can be important see? and thanks for those, here's a few more-

Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.-Titus1

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.-John1

Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.-Galatians3

Even that question came up only because of some so-called Christians there—false ones, really —who were secretly brought in. They sneaked in to spy on us and take away the freedom we have in Christ Jesus. They wanted to enslave us and force us to follow their Jewish regulations.-2.4 NLT

again already posted notice life AND breath?

Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath-Acts17 www.biblegateway

because it is this idea that "life starts at conception" that anti-abortion activists use to justify highly intrusive laws and the government nanny state.

"Father of Modern Bio""Father of Fetology""Doctor""Physician""Doctor""President""they feel forced""unsupported""only one text book""after three to seven days""indeed human""all know starts at conception""reacts to pain"??

if considered instrusive by the likes of your ideaology-amen!

True, when anti-abortion activists state that "life starts at conception" they are making a religious argument

they are making a human life fetus/offspring/suckling/son/daughter/neighbor/yourself argument which if you want to call a religion I see no problem, since it is at the heart of Christ Jesus/God/Creator (in the image?)

A woman, when she gives birth to a child, has grief (anguish, agony) because her time has come. But when she has delivered the child, she no longer remembers her pain (trouble, anguish) because she is so glad that a man (a child, a human being) has been born into the world.-John16 AB

And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men-Revelation21

And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.-12

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.-1Timothy

The rich and poor meet together: the LORD is the maker of them all.

The head of every man is Christ-Corinthians

Onoure ye alle men, loue ye brithirhod, drede ye God, onoure ye the king..-1Peter2

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.-1Corinthians15

however, as we have just seen, not all religions, and even traditionally in Christianity, actually believe that "life starts at conception", thus any law using this as it's justification would completely be trampling over the beliefs of other religions as well as non-religious people. Government policy should be based on sound scientific and factual data, and again, the idea that "life starts at conception" is largely a modern religious (Christian) belief, it's important to distinguish that it's also an idea that has no scientific or medical backing, as some would like to claim.

again with the reading problem and made up bologne-why is that? if your "religion" is loving lies death destruction and desiring harm to others?- it deserves trampling

Thus my main point, which I made in my previous post, and has since not been addressed, is that making something illegal, or difficult to obtain (either through taxes and other legal requirements) will not make that thing magically go away Even your example of Ireland, I pointed out that you were conflating correlation with causation, and that each year thousands of Irish women go overseas to obtain abortions. Laws like these don't actually attempt to help anyone, nor have they been even the slightest bit effective in preventing abortions, they only push the problem under the rug, and often, into the black market.

your not understanding maternal and of course when death does'nt happen death is not recordable wherever "laws like these"-showing the truth that I think most any human that does'nt love lies would desire? so you support "best not tell the truth" and the ones profiting from it- you know the thing that has lead to more bloodshed and the ending of human life in the last 40 years than all wars combined over the last 2000? and is directly harming young impressionable females.. and males, even associated with suicide?

Just look what has happened with the war on drugs. We are even starting to see this happen with cigarettes as government tried to tax them out of existence, there is now a huge profitable black market for tobacco products. Rather than make these religious arguments that, historically, have had no real relevance to the issue, how can you argue for increased regulation into personal medical decisions and authoritarian nanny state policies that seek to legislate the relationship between doctors and patients? Again, precedent tells me that these types of policies do not work. No where in this country, except for abortion, do we have government trying to legislate what procedures doctors must force patients to have. Nowhere in this country, except for abortion, does the state require doctors to read a pre-approved government script to the patient. So again, aside from your argument that government should make laws based on one particular favored religious group's belief, how do you justify intrusive laws that seek to legislate doctor-patient relationships, and what evidence do you have that authoritarian nanny state laws are actually beneficial to our society. Are you, in general, willing to trade the freedoms of others so you can have your own personal beliefs foisted upon society?

do you understand "if for no other reason than to wake people up to the harm it causes"? you know make intelligent decisions themselves not based on long winded self-contradicting propaganda from those who profit from body parts from the poor and their supporters

reply to post by spyder550


appears you did'nt read much either, may want to look into this before travelling

Texas will join the ranks of states

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


I find it interesting how you use the imaginary left/right divide to make your point. But when it comes right down to it, you are advocating bigger government and intrusive government and you are condemning freedom and privacy for the individual. Now, I don't know where you think that fits in the left/right divide you seem to depend on, but I wouldn't brag about wanting the government to move further INTO our lives, if I were you... It makes you sound like a fascist...

Just saying...

Originally posted by Rustami

and you string together a bunch of english letters that make words that say or sound like something?

Did you even read my post? Because I talk about historic precedent, laws issued by the Vatican itself that have to do specifically with abortion, as well as Jewish law that specifically talks about when a person can be considered a full life. You quote passages from the bible that either, make an emotional appeal to this ambiguous idea of "life" and have nothing to do with abortion specifically:

Originally posted by RustamiFor the life of a creature is in the blood-

Originally posted by RustamiGod that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of One blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth-Acts17

Originally posted by RustamiPure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation-James1

I'm not going to post all of them, but if, given all these quotes that you mention, are supposedly evidence of your claim, that "life starts at conception" than why was Christianity's policy on abortion, throughout the vast majority of history, based on the idea of "ensoulement" and NOT at you say, the "joining of sperm and egg". Again, what I am referring to is a historical fact. As much as you want to dismiss it as a "bunch of words strung together". There IS a difference between the irrelevant biblical quotes you list, the medical lies that you source, vs. the historical precedent that I refer to; the HISTORICAL FACT that throughout history Christians believed in the idea of "ensoulement" as a means of establishing when life starts. The random quotes you refer to in the bible, does not in any way support your claim that life begins with the joining of sperm and egg, nor do they have any relevance to the discussion on abortion...ESPECIALLY given that, as I already stated, Christians, and Christianity (supported by Vatican law itself) considered abortion perfectly acceptable for the VAST majority of history based on this idea of "ensoulment" as the start of life. But, I don't know, maybe that point was lost on you.

Secondly, the other bit that I didn't mention in my last comment was that fact that you also refer to an article that talks about all sorts of unfounded, and unscientifically supported ideas. These are common assertions made by the anti-choice, pro-nanny state advocates, however they have NEVER BEEN PROVEN TO BE FACTUALLY TRUE. Thus, these people, yourself included, are knowingly peddling lies, like high suicide rates among women who get abortion, the idea that abortion leads to negative physical health consequences (breast cancer is a common one sited by the anti-choice/anti-freedom movement), and this idea of "post male abortion trauma". I'd like to see the impartially funded/unbiased scientific study, peer reviewed with a medical/science community consensus, that shows these things to be true. I won't hold my breath though.

And you still haven't answered the question in my original comment about why you believe banning something will magically make it go away. Are you not aware of, again, the precedent with these types of policies? War on Drugs? Alcohol prohibition? I already pointed out, in the country that you held up as your standard (when you conflated correlation with causation re: maternal death rates), that thousands of women travel out of the country for abortions each year...in addition to others who have been caught selling abortion inducing drugs on the black market (the fact that there even exists a black market for this kind of thing, due entirely to the ban). Do you support black markets? Do you support big authoritarian intrusive government? Do you believe that the government "knows best" over doctors, medical professionals and patients, when it comes to medical care? Are you willing to take away millions of other people's freedom so you can push your personal vision of society on everyone else?

I probably already know the answer to most of those questions, but I'd like to hear your answers before assuming anything one way or another.

reply to post by meeneecat


I'm just assuming you can read at this point, but do you know or understand what "Father of Modern Genetics" "Father of Fetology" "Physician""Doctor""Scientist""medical board""witness testimony""one textbook" means?

this is not in particular for you

“Government’s responsibility for the political community begins with the protection of (a) the lives of its citizens and (b) the life-generating, life-sustaining institutions of marriage and family.” This includes protecting women, whether from pregnancy or from back-alley abortions. However, it is a mistake to pit the unborn (or partially born) child against the pregnant mother’s right of autonomy. Life-generation and human community together form the foundation of human life. Absolute autonomy of any man or woman is a false and unobtainable ideal.

While many pregnancies occur in circumstances that are less than optimum for the future well-being of an unborn child, we must recognize that “the generation of new human life belongs, by the Creator’s design, to married couples, who bear primary responsibility for the care and upbringing of their children.” In other words, government’s responsibility to protect life entails protecting and promoting marriage and family life.www.capitalcommentary.org...

September 24, 2005
Mother Russia now sees more abortions than babies bornBy her 50th birthday, Russia’s population could have halved, based on current trends.. By Russian standards, she is lucky to have made it even this far: last year, there were 1.6 million registered abortions in Russia and 1.5 million births..“The situation is critical,” said Vladimir Kulakov, deputy head of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences and an adviser to President Putin on the demographic crisis. “The most important thing for every nation is to have confidence in its future.”..Russia’s population has been in decline since 1992 ..Mr Putin raised the issue in April, calling it a “national crisis”, but the Government has yet to respond. Mr Putin is now under pressure to dip into the Stabilisation Fund, designed to save excess oil revenues, to arrest the population decline. www.timesonline.co.uk...

Righteousness lifts up a nation-Prov14

reply to post by Rustami


I would appreciate it if you addressed the points I mentioned. Do you have a point you want to make? Then please state it. Or are you just being childish by trying to ask me if I know the definitions of some words.

I see, now you went back and edited your comment to add onto it, when before all you had stated was this:

I'm just assuming you can read at this point, but do you know or understand what "Father of Modern Genetics" "Father of Fetology" "Physician""Doctor""Scientist""medical board""witness testimony""one textbook" means?

Now, you have added a comment a reference to a blog, with someone else's opinion, as if that has any scientific or factual relevance to the discussion

And the second part you added on was a quote from an article talking about population decline, of course from the part that you quoted, it seems you want people to assume that this decline is due to abortion, however, of course you don't quote this part of the article (further down)

Russia’s population has been in decline since 1992 due to poor medical care, one of the world’s least healthy diets, and a national weakness for vodka...

Life expectancy for Russian men has dropped to 58.8, which is 20 years below the average in Iceland. The main killer is heart disease but death by unnatural causes — industrial accidents, car crashes, military conflict — comes second, killing 200,000 people every year.

Russia’s birth rate, meanwhile, has risen slightly as baby-boomers from the 1980s reach reproductive age. But it is still way below the levels needed to keep the population stable.

Source

Now I'm starting to wonder why you are avoiding answering some of the questions I had...your replies to me have had no relevance to the issues I mentioned previously...why are you avoiding my questions?

Originally posted by Rustami
Righteousness lifts up a nation-Prov14

Still quoting scripture. Hmmm.

Just in response to some of the assertions made throughout this thread, either implied, stated, or sourced from another article/site:

Abortion, Miscarriage, and Breast Cancer Risk

In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. A summary of their findings, titled Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop, can be found at www.cancer.gov...

Abortion Does Not Cause Mental Illness, Panel Says

Abortion does not increase risk of mental health problems study says

Study disputes link between abortion and mental health problems

In a 1990 review, the American Psychological Association (APA) found that "severe negative reactions [after abortion] are rare and are in line with those following other normal life stresses."[6] The APA revised and updated its findings in August 2008 to account for the accumulation of new evidence, and again concluded that termination of a first, unplanned pregnancy did not lead to an increased risk of mental health problems. The data for multiple abortions were more equivocal, as the same factors that predispose a woman to multiple unwanted pregnancies may also predispose her to mental health difficulties.[11][12] As of August 2008, the United Kingdom Royal College of Psychiatrists is also performing a systematic review of the medical literature to update their position statement on the subject.[3]

Some proposed negative psychological effects of abortion have been referred to by pro-life advocates as a separate condition called "post-abortion syndrome." However, the existence of "post-abortion syndrome" is not recognized by any medical or psychological organization,[13] and some physicians and pro-choice advocates have argued that the effort to popularize the idea of a "post-abortion syndrome" is a tactic used by pro-life advocates for political purposes.[1][14][15][16] In response to such activism, some U.S. state legislatures have mandated that patients be told that abortion increases their risk of depression and suicide, despite the fact that such risks are not supported by the scientific literature.

While some studies have shown a correlation between abortion and clinical depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors, or adverse effects on women's sexual functions for a small number of women, these correlations may be explained by pre-existing social circumstances and emotional health.[23] According to the American Psychological Association, various factors, such as emotional attachment to the pregnancy, lack of support, and conservative views on abortion, may increase the likelihood of experiencing negative reactions. Studies have either failed to establish a causal relationship between abortion and negative psychological symptoms experienced by women, or been inconclusive

Wiki

I will go through the thread, and update with anymore relevant information that I find, regarding some of the unfounded assertions that have been made.

Originally posted by meeneecat
reply to post by Rustami

remember that part about not playing/wasting time with your long winded propaganda pick and choose while ignoring the crucials? nor reading/comprehending the majority of what is presented while attempting (lieng) to peg everything into your antiChrist/ian made up bologne box worldview? I have experience and testimony dummy -I need no links or any thing else from anybody convincing me of the truth which is IDENTICAL to the majority of the women/men studied who have experienced this as well!- they are for you, well whoever anyway.. also remember "two quote hypocrite?"-stating "links" does'nt cut it either, there is a link to almost any and everything (including some of your delusions), even this thread! do you know what common sense, one thing leads to another or connecting the dots means? AND I near always edit to add or better word so don't flatter yourself- also i only have two hands, other stuff may be going on even on another thread, so...

address these (and all the others already presented) if sincere in getting to the truth of the matter-

DR. JEROME LEJEUNE, “The Father of Modern Genetics,” said: “Each of us has a very precise starting moment, which is the time at which the whole necessary and sufficient genetic information is gathered inside one cell, the fertilized egg, and this is the moment of fertilization. There is not the slightest doubt about that, and we know that this information is written on a kind of ribbon we call the DNA.” The late Dr. Jerome Lejeune discovered the genetic cause of Down Syndrome. He received the Kennedy Prize for the discovery, as well as the Memorial Allen Award Medal, the world’s highest award for work in the field of genetics.

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29.

Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of the largest abortion provider in the world – Planned Parenthood – I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.“Speaking Frankly,” Ms., May / June 1997, Volume VII, Number 6, 67.

In 1981, a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee received the following testimony from a collection of medical experts (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981):

"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School
www.abort73.com...

Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. www.biblegateway.com...

reply to post by lewman


Trying to suggest criminalized abortion would cause an increase in crime is laughable to say the least. Crime rates were much lower in the past before abortion was legalized. You're also forgetting that criminals don't obey the law. Legalized abortion encourages the idea of killing someone simply because they are an inconvinience to you.

It should not be considered anyone's "right" to determine when another person's life will end. Abortion is barbaric and doesn't belong in any civilized society. Legalized abortion is only a way for men to have control over women. If a woman gets pregnant by her pro-abortion boyfriend or husband and doesn't want to get an abortion, he can threaten to leave her is she doesn't have an abortion. So, ladies, if you are "pro-choice", you don't have a right to complain if a man abandons you or any other pro-choice woman when an unplanned pregnancy occurs. If you make the choice to keep the child, then the man has no obligation to take any responsibility.

I find it offensive as a female for anyone to suggest "it's a woman's right to do what she wants with her body" in defense of abortion, as if she had no control in the pregnancy occurring in the first place. So, feminists, act like helpless children all you want. I, on the other hand wish to be treated like an adult who actually understands the consequences of all my actions.

double post

Originally posted by spyder550
I refuse to travel to through or have any dealings with Texas until after the rapture - I am firm about this.

I'm sure you won't be missed.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I find it interesting how you use the imaginary left/right divide to make your point.

Realistically, the majority of pro-lifers are right-wing.

But when it comes right down to it, you are advocating bigger government and intrusive government and you are condemning freedom and privacy for the individual.

You are condemning the right to life for the unborn. If you want to be "free" from pregnancy,YOU have the means to do so. There's no excuse for having an abortion as a result of consensual sex.

If you have a pro-choice mother, it's safe to say that you are a survivor of abortion...because she could have legally had you killed if she chose to do so.

It makes you sound like a fascist...

As if thinking you have the right to dictate when an innocent person's life will end all because they're a burden to you isn't fascist.

Originally posted by Rustami
remember that part about not playing long winded propaganda pick and choose while ignoring the crucials? I have experience and testimony dummy -I need no links or any thing else, they are for you/whoevers, also remember "two quote hypocrite?"-stating "links" does'nt cut it either, there is a link to damn near any and everything (including yours), even this thread!

Sorry: FAIL:
There is a HUGE difference to between referencing, SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEWED REPRODUCIBLE studies as well as HISTORICAL FACTS, and siting sources like a blog and editorials with some guy's opinion and biblical scripture (which isn't "proof" of anything). I am not a hypocrite because I never asserted that I had any problem with FACTS or SCIENTIFIC TRUTH. I do however have a problem with people citing highly biased sources, religious propaganda and other people's opinions as their "proof" of something. Again, you have never made any references to any scientific peer reviewed study or any medically established facts in this entire thread. It's all been conjecture, quotes of scripture, other people's opinions, misrepresentation, and propaganda.

Originally posted by Rustami DR. JEROME LEJEUNE, “The Father of Modern Genetics,” said: “Each of us has a very precise starting moment, which is the time at which the whole necessary and sufficient genetic information is gathered inside one cell, the fertilized egg, and this is the moment of fertilization. There is not the slightest doubt about that, and we know that this information is written on a kind of ribbon we call the DNA.” The late Dr. Jerome Lejeune discovered the genetic cause of Down Syndrome. He received the Kennedy Prize for the discovery, as well as the Memorial Allen Award Medal, the world’s highest award for work in the field of genetics.

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29.

Yes, there are many of these types of quotes that anti-abortion sites like to reference as "proof" of their argument. However, to most people, other people's opinion proves nothing. So, I do not see how this quote "proves" your theory of life starting at conception, other than the personal opinion of this man happens to agree with yours. Saying that "unique genetic information exists inside a fertilized egg" or that "a genetically distinct organism starts to form" is in no way "proof" that a sperm+egg = human being. Every single cell in the human body has a copy of DNA, however we do not consider a "flaked of skin cell" to be a human being. Furthermore, this person is a well known anti-abortion Christian activist that went around giving speeches on the subject...again, what I said about using biased religious sources. His opinion that "life begins at conception" is just that, his opinion, you can find many other scientists and medical professionals that would disagree with him. The fact is, that there is no medically agreed upon set of scientific facts that support the idea that "life starts at conception" largely for the reason that this is a philosophical issue that depends on how one defines life, is it biological? is it genetic? is it philosophical/religious?. This is a subject that religion itself has differed on throughout history. As I've already pointed out, which you have yet to address, historically Christians have believed life starts at a moment called "ensoulment" and Jews have believed that a person becomes a full human when the head exits the birth canal, both of which contradict your opinion that "life begins at conception"...yet despite these widely differing opinions and definitions of life you seem to think that the debate has been settled (that your opinion is correct) and thus you justify authoritarian government intrusion into people's lives based on this unfounded idea. Furthermore, regarding the quote that you have mentioned above, just a short search on the internet seems to find information that contradicts what your quote said.

It is no longer possible to claim that the biological characteristics of the future adult are already determined at conception. After all, a zygote may develop into a hydatidiform mole rather than into a human being. The development of an individual human person is determined by genetically and non-genetically coded molecules within the embryo, together with the influence of the maternal environment. Consequently, it is an error to regard the zygote's chromosomal (and other) DNA as sufficient to determine the uniqueness of the future individual.

Source
Again, supporting my statement that there is no agreed upon scientific conclusion to this...there is no agreed upon set of scientific facts, it is INCONCLUSIVE, and as of now, mostly just a bunch of people's differing opinions on the subject...and as we know, opinions are like...well, lets just say, everyone has one and they all stink.

Originally posted by RustamiFaye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of the largest abortion provider in the world – Planned Parenthood – I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.“Speaking Frankly,” Ms., May / June 1997, Volume VII, Number 6, 67.

Again, how is someone else's opinion even relevant here? Technically you "kill" a human skin cell every time you scratch yourself. So how does this prove anything? There's also no way to know what the intent of the quote was without the context...this is cherry picking. she also goes on to say "But it's very clear to me that it's killing a potential life."...so she is also talking about "life" in it's "potential" not actually referring to a zygote or fetus as a "human being" but as a "potential human being"...and again, someone's opinion is still irrelevant here. This doesn't prove anything.

Originally posted by RustamiIn 1981, a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee received the following testimony from a collection of medical experts (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981):

"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School
www.abort73.com...

Your link here does not direct to any Congressional Testamony. It directs to an editorial on abortion at an anti abortion website (abort73.com) But even still this is just another person's opinion. From your own link, there is this quote:

The judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to... resolve the difficult question of when life begins... since those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus.5

Of course the editorial states an argument that amounts to "this is ridiculous because we all know life starts at conception is a biological fact"...Um, NO. It's not "fact", and this is what the court found...and the point I've been trying to make this whole time...it's INCONCLUSIVE. From the wiki:

Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i. e., living organisms) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.[3][4] Biology is the science concerned with the study of life.

Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. More complex living organisms can communicate through various means.[1][5] A diverse array of living organisms (life forms) can be found in the biosphere on Earth, and the properties common to these organisms—plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria—are a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information.

In philosophy and religion, the conception of life and its nature varies. Both offer interpretations as to how life relates to existence and consciousness, and both touch on many related issues, including life stance, purpose, conception of a god or gods, a soul or an afterlife.

Source
Again, I can find you many people that are of the opinion that life does not start at conception due to the fact that the cells are not self-sustaining and cannot live outside the womb, but again, all these opinions are based on what definitions one uses. They are not conclusive evidence of "when life begins". As I have asserted before, and will say again, the scientific and medical consensus is INCONCLUSIVE on this.

Originally posted by RustamiThus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. www.biblegateway.com...

You keep quoting scripture as if it has some relevance here. You do realize that not everyone in this world is a Christian and believes the same thing that you do...and as I already pointed out, the historical Christian believe on this subject is that "life" begins at "ensoulment" and again throughout history Christians found abortion to be acceptable up until "quickening". So again, you still have not answered any of my questions...why do you support the government making laws based on your religious beliefs that would essentially force everyone else to subscribe to the religious policies and beliefs that you subscribe to. Do you support taking away the freedoms of other so you can push your vision of society down the throats of others who happen to not agree with you? I have asked again and again, how does any of what you have mentioned justify intrusive nanny state laws? Do you believe that the government knows best, over doctors, medical professionals and patients? Do you actually think banning something will "poof" magically make it go away? Are you now aware of the situation with alcohol prohibition, the drug war, and more recently the underground market for tobacco products due to high taxes?

edit on 10-5-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)

So basicly, This bill aims to guilt trip women into keeping there babies? Wow, Thats what the abortion debate has turned into? Amazing.

You might aswell make it compulsive for the doctor to say "In a few minuets i will abort this baby and you should know, that in doing this, Your killing an innocent child and your going to burn in hell for it, I hope you can live with that"

Friggin religious nutters.