Now what a story this is! ..what a doctor said infront of an abortion

page: 2
58
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 





Faulty logic. Do you remember the day you were born? When you were 2 months old? When you had your 1st birthday? If you do not, then by your logic, you were an ant, and not even worth the chance of living.


Faulty logic. Memory and consciousness are different things. There are plenty of people with amnesia, that does not mean they were not conscious. They just dont remember.




posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by heineken
 


What would this doctor have done if the woman called his bluff?
After all the kid was crying and or vocally fussing 95% of it's waking life and there was that messy diaper thingand a full nights sleep was sounding pretty good right about now to the mother...

Just a thought to add to your story.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by swoopaloop

Originally posted by Lionhearte

Originally posted by swoopaloop
an unborn fetus. It's alive, but is it conscious and aware that its alive? If I had to say so I would guess that it's consciousness is similar to that of an ant. Have you killed an ant before? Yes. You're a hypocrite.

Faulty logic. Do you remember the day you were born? When you were 2 months old? When you had your 1st birthday? If you do not, then by your logic, you were an ant, and not even worth the chance of living.



You're just looking for a fault in this logic and not doing a very good job. first of all i'm not talking about memories, i'm talking about consciousness. Second of all, we're talking about life before being born. Nice try but you've failed. Run along now.

And what you're doing, is called an Ad Hominem.

Awareness means that you have cognizance; conscious knowledge. You call them "memories", but tell me, where you conscious yesterday? Of course you were, and it's in the past. That's a memory. You remember being 'aware'.

Secondly, I'm also talking about life being born. In my earlier posts, I made a simple analogy using flowers, and because I feel a green thumb today, I will do so again; is a flower considered a living organism? Why, yes they are, but do they have consciousness? No more so than ants, or 'unborn fetuses', but they still live, and the difference is, that plant is never going to grow up and be able to study at a university, so that he can become a biologist, and examine the life around himself.

Also, your defensive attitude is rather adorable, but please keep it professional.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Wow... i'm tired of this "its my body" or "its my choice what to do" STFU, once you are pregnant(cells started dividing), its no longer your body alone. Its your choice to not let a man in you(rape cases aside) like a retard and talk about you can do whatever you want.'

If you want to satisfy your urges, practice safe sex, not get pregnant and kill a kid who may find cure for cancer in the future

Abortion is acceptable in certain circumstances(rape,abuse,mutation) but not for being stupid.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Natame
 



a womans body is hers and hers alone.


Does that go for the woman inside the woman as well? Who is fighting for her? What about her choice?

Also, why is it a crime for a woman to drink or do drugs and endanger a fetus, but it isn't a crime to intentionally harm a fetus at a clinic? Why is it ok for a woman to end a pregnancy, but if a man does it they are incarcerated? Why does society frown upon a young girl finding out she is pregnant and then going out drinking and acting irrationally hoping the pregnancy will end itself, but they endorse her right to pay someone to kill and remove the baby?

What about child support? If a mother doesn't want a baby, she can end the pregnancy, but if a father doesn want the baby, he has no choice, and he is liable for at least 18 years of support for the baby that he never wanted? Doesn't a father have some rights to either save a baby's life, or opt out of a baby's life without financial repercussions?

And, I don't think anybody is denying a woman the right to an abortion to save her own life. The obvious exceptions that almost everybody endorses are Mother's Life, Rape, and Incest. So, yes, it is a woman's body, and she has the right and choice to protect it, but if the pregnancy doesn't pose any health problems, then what is she protecting?

AND, a fetus can be removed via C-section at 24 weeks with a lot of success and survival. At 24 weeks a woman is barely starting to show her pregnancy. Why abort when you could just wait a month or two and then give the baby a chance to live?

Sorry, but this is not a woman's choice alone, and if it were my child inside there, it would be much more dangerous for the woman to kill the baby than it would for her to give birth to the baby!



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Whoa whoa whoa... people here are saying things like it's your choice not to get pregnant. But safe sex is only 99.9% effective. Condoms split for example.

Deal with it.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by jrmcleod
Abortion is the most selfish act anyone could ever commit.


I disagree.
Having children is more selfish than not.
Do you realise the enviromental impact that a single child creates?
To start with those diposable diapers that don't break down? a kid will go through between 2000 and 5000 of them before they are housebroken.
Clothes, food, education, entertainment, housing, cars
Add up the use of all of those for 80 years and tell me how one of those genetic experiments is a virtue to the world?



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by VforVendettea
 


So, does that mean you will be exiting the world soon?

Without children, the human race ends. And you're right, once the human race is out of the way, the world will likely be much better off. So, I agree with you, lets kill all the babies, and all the people wasting resources. You go first.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I agree, i wonder who started the "its my choice" shyt, the man who is responsible for the 50% of the baby gets 0% say but tied down due to whatever the outcome.
-------

I'm not exactly sure what the rule is, in order to abort, do you only need the women's permission? i never looked at this side of the rule book.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


Yes, you only need the woman's permission, and the "woman" can be a minor without parental consent in many cases! So, you can have 16 year old girls making this choice without any guidance whatsoever. Some states require a counselor or a parent, but many don't require a thing.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by heineken
 


And thus there is the contradiction for anyone supporting the "abortion" right.
It is ok to kill an unborn child, but not one that has already been born.
And most of these people are against the death penalty as well.
Again, ok to kill the unborn, but not ok to kill a murderer.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 





Also, why is it a crime for a woman to drink or do drugs and endanger a fetus, but it isn't a crime to intentionally harm a fetus at a clinic?


Because that is not a victimless crime, contrary to abortion. Drugs during pregnancy do not harm just a foetus, they have lifetime negative consequences for human being that the foetus will develop into. And it is this actual (not potential) future human being that is protected by these laws, not the undeveloped foetus.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
To the OPs post: what a propaganda story. The doctor does not realize that there is more difference between fetus and a child, besides one being in the womb and one being born (just like all prolifers). One such difference is presence of mind, or sentience. The child, and probably fetus in the third trimester has it, the earlier fetus does not.

Now it depends whether you think presence of sentience (mind) should be necessary prerequisite for any life to have any rights, such a right to live. I think it should. But I dont force anyone who think otherwise to kill their unsentient life. But prolifers want to force those who think otherwise to protect their unsentient life.

And potential is irrelevant, otherwise contraception is also murder (you stop a potential which would otherwise result in conscious human - the same as abortion). And even refusing sex would be murder, if you dont want to suffer from omission bias.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



Because that is not a victimless crime, contrary to abortion. Drugs during pregnancy do not harm just a foetus, they have lifetime negative consequences for human being that the foetus will develop into.




Seriously? Read that again slowly a few times. Go ahead, we'll wait.

I thinking being dead is a pretty negative lifetime consequence as well. You are basically saying it is better to be dead than retarded. OK, so why don't we just kill all the retarded folks? Are you also a fan of Euthanasia?

Killing someone is "victimless," but the mere possibility of maiming them is a crime? Interesting way to look at things. I sped a little bit on my way to work today. I could have hit someone and maimed them, so I probably deserved my speeding ticket, but if I had been more proactive, I could have just killed everyone before I got there, and then nobody would have been in danger of being maimed, LOL!!



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte

Originally posted by Mimir
What a retard of a doctor.

Statments like "i'm prolife" or "life is sacred" almost turns the inside out on me when it is used in the abortiondiscussion.
There is no need to have such feelings, friend, nor have such hostility towards a story..

When people call me a murdere or ignorant when they are actually hypocrites themself yes then theres a reason to defend my self.
Absolutly not attacking the story or the person who posted it, he deserve a flag or star for sharing the story.



If your so prolife why dont you fight for the survival of HIV, Ebola or plague?
And why dont you fight for the survival of insects like mosquitos and flies?

There are people today who DO fight for cures, prevention, awareness, and survival of those diseases.. the difference is, you don't see many people fighting for the spread of such diseases, do you?

Insects, as well, serve their purpose in this world, but I am not aware of anyone committing unnecessary genocide amongst insects, unless the sole purpose was the survival of other species, such as the extermination of mosquitoes that contain the West Nile Virus.


Not trying to suggest we should spread such diseases, I'm just pointing out why the "pro-life-people" are hypocrites on this issue.



Offcause it is the pregnant womans decission and noone else. In places where abortion is illigal, you have all sorts of obscure and barbaric methods to stop the pregnancies.

Why is it ok for you to force a woman to get her baby?, do you know how the economics or lifestyle of this "random" woman?....what if she's a junkie...admitting that she cant protect an infant, do you still want to force this upon the woman and potentially creating a "looser-child" who risk getting send from fosterhome to fosterhome.

The idea that it is the "woman's choice" is ignorant. More than one life is involved, and that is the child's life. No person can pass the judgment of life or death onto an innocent individual.


Nothing not even a child can be defined as a individual before it developed a consciousness, which doesn't happen in the first weeks of pregnancy. I would agree the unborn chield reach a certain age (weeks not months), abortions should be illigal, unless offcause you find serious complications that might kill the mother or child at birth.
In that case why are some life-forms more "sacred" than others? I mentioned the Diseases and Insects, could have picked other life...like cattle instead, why is it ok to murder that kind of life if your prolife?



The 'economics' or lifestyle of said woman is something they should have considered before engaging in unprotected sex. Rape victims, while unfortunate, and rare - after an attack, medical professionals take all the necessary steps to 'clean' the woman - those who do get pregnant with child still have many options available to them, including foster homes, which you apparently seem to think raise little Hitlers.

I fully agree they should have tought of that before engaging in unprotected sex, but thats not always the case.
And no not all fosterchilds are scoundrels, far from it. But Fosterchildren got higher rate of crime compared to children who grew up with their parents (atleast in Denmark).



If you use "prolife" in a religious context your even further out on a wrong track. Isen't THE ONLY CERTAINTY FROM God, that one day you should die?....are you in reality working against your God on this issue?
Funny, I actually believe in God too, but you're the first to bring Him up.

No, the promise of God is that you would receive life, should you believe in Him. Forced miscarriage was indeed a sin and against the law, as seen in the Old Testament, punishable by death.

I brought God into the discussion, because many people always use God as their reason.



...I cant answer that question since i never been religious.

You really shouldn't bring up "religious" talks if you don't know what you're talking about, then.

Why not, I asked a legit question, I didn't tell it as facts? You corrected my assumption, teaching me something i didn't know and maybe also killed a myth about christianity.
It would explain why many christians is against abortion, but to me it just show that the western world still is full of fanatics, who take every word from "the holy books" as fact.

reply to post by jrmcleod
 


Yes i know and I'm sorry if anyone felt hurt about that statment. I hope the above answer in this post makes "you" feel better again.

reply to post by macman
 


Realy???
And you dont think theres a díffrence in the minds development and conciousness if you compare a 6 weeks fetus with a 1 year old child?

Thats another "common mistake" from the prolifers. They always come with the ridicolous argument that it could be legal today but murder tomorrow, totally ignoring that late abortions isn't the issue here or anywhere. In countries where abortion is legal it is only legal in the start of the pregnancy (weeks not multiple months).
You only have late abortions (exceptions) in case of complications.

Did a quicksearch and it seams like you can get an abortion some places after 26th week, in my objective thats far to late.
In Denmark the abortionwindow is the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, after that the unborn child is "too developed", I guess conciousness starts to form around that age?
edit on 9-11-2011 by Mimir because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 




I thinking being dead is a pretty negative lifetime consequence as well.


You are confusing person being dead (existing, and then being terminated), with person never existing. One is bad, the other is neutral.



You are basically saying it is better to be dead than retarded.


It is better to never exist than being retarded. Neutral vs. bad.



Are you also a fan of Euthanasia?


Only voluntary euthanasia.



Killing someone is "victimless," but the mere possibility of maiming them is a crime? Interesting way to look at things. I sped a little bit on my way to work today. I could have hit someone and maimed them, so I probably deserved my speeding ticket, but if I had been more proactive, I could have just killed everyone before I got there, and then nobody would have been in danger of being maimed, LOL!!


You are thinking in terms of protection of life.

Try to think in terms of protection of mind (or sentience), and you realise what I have said is not paradoxical at all, but logical.

Only harming mind is bad, not life. That means causing it to suffer, or terminating it when it already exists.

- Abortion does not cause mind to suffer or terminate it (it terminates potential of mind at best). Therefore it is not wrong.
- Murder terminates already existing mind. Therefore it is wrong.
- Drugs during pregnancy cause suffering to future existing mind. Therefore they are wrong.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Awesome story!



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I have a cousin that Doctors wanted to pull the plug on 10 years ago. They claim he has no "mind" as you refer to it. His mother couldn't bear to let go, and she brought him home. He didn't die. She cared for him, and he slowly became able to blink, and laugh, and cry, which the doctors called involuntary movements, but now it is too late to Euthanize. He continually got better at his laughs, cries, smiles, and head movements. He now responds to some stimulus, he has favorite TV shoes, he laughs often, and on cue, so he is obviously aware of his surroundings.

My point is this. How do we know that infant is unaware?

I have the 4-d ultrasounds from my two sons. In the womb, they layed in a similar manner to how they sleep now. One was all sprawled out, and that is how he sleeps now, the other one was curled up with one hand under his head, and at 5 years old, he still sleeps that way. My youngest son had to be taken by emergency C-section at 26 weeks, and he looked like a little alien when he came out, but he was capable of cuddling, and he felt pain, and he cried, but we had the option to abort. He is now 4 years old, and he is wonderful.

I can guarantee with 100% certainty that if we had chosen abortion when he started to struggle, he would have felt it, and he would have suffered. I saw him come out of the womb, and he was aware, and he did feel pain, and he did long for the comfort of his mother. It is not "victimless."



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mimir
When people call me a murdere or ignorant when they are actually hypocrites themself yes then theres a reason to defend my self.
Absolutly not attacking the story or the person who posted it, he deserve a flag or star for sharing the story.
No one called you a murderer or ignorant, if there is something personal that happened that makes you feel like you can relate to the topic at hand, bring it up. There's no reason to immediately start opening fire if none of us know why you're defensive in the first place.


Nothing not even a child can be defined as a individual before it developed a consciousness, which doesn't happen in the first weeks of pregnancy. I would agree the unborn chield reach a certain age (weeks not months), abortions should be illigal, unless offcause you find serious complications that might kill the mother or child at birth.
In that case why are some life-forms more "sacred" than others? I mentioned the Diseases and Insects, could have picked other life...like cattle instead, why is it ok to murder that kind of life if your prolife?

But what defines the individual? If solely consciousness, then tell me if you were conscious when you were 2 months old, when you were 3 years old, or even yesterday? When did YOU become "aware"? Personally I can't recollect anything prior to 5 years of age, does that mean before then I wasn't considered a living being? No, I believe you've had consciousness since conception.. but the amount, or "level" of consciousness varies.

Regarding the insects.. I believe that all animals, creatures, etc have a 'soul', it's the 'life-essence' if you will, but I do not believe they have a 'spirit', in fact, I believe Humans are the only ones who have this. That said, "more precious" isn't really the right word for it. However, if I got into that, it would become a 'religious' debate.


Why not, I asked a legit question, I didn't tell it as facts? You corrected my assumption, teaching me something i didn't know and maybe also killed a myth about christianity.
It would explain why many christians is against abortion,

It's because you asked the question as if you were trying to attack, or call out Christians, on being hypocrites, without any knowledge on what the actual word says.

I tell you the truth, Christians are as much as hypocrites as the next guy. We're only human, we've done more than our fair share of sins, and it's made worse by the fact that we should know better.


but to me it just show that the western world still is full of fanatics, who take every word from "the holy books" as fact.

Although I could be considered a 'fanatic' myself, I won't discuss my opinions on that, as it's a bit too off-topic.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Yes, determining exactly when mind appears (disappears) can be tricky. According to current science, it happens in cca 5th month of fetal development, +- one month. So I surely dont agree with allowing third trimester abortions. Second trimester before 5th month is a grey area, and if you want to be sure you dont kill a mind, I see no reason to not ban abortion even then (here, only first trimester abortion is legal, and I have never heard about women having problems because of that).
But there is no reason to not allow abortions in the first trimester, when you base your right to protection on presence of mind, since we are 100% sure no mind can exist inside then. And also thats where overwhelming majority of abortions happen anyway, as well as things like embronic stem cell therapy and therapeutic cloning.





new topics
top topics
 
58
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join