Diary of an Unborn Child

“I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”

― Ronald Reagan


Kinda gets right down to it.

a reply to: Shoujikina

Say you're moronic w put saying it

🤣🤣🤦‍♂️🤡

It really isn’t so much about pro or anti, as it is people not taking responsibility for their actions! Abortion was not meant to be birth control. There are so many forms of birth control available today, but people don’t use it! I can remember, when if you weren’t married, you couldn’t even get birth control pills!

If Jerry Springer & Maury aren’t staged, then civilization is doomed! People are acting like rutting dogs. No offense to dogs! People have no shame or morals anymore!

And those paternity judge shows! How many baby daddies they sometimes have to test before they find the actual one!
I think the most that I have seen was eight! Considering that an egg is only viable for 24 hours & healthy sperm up to a week, that’s a lot of indiscriminate humping going on! All with unprotected sex! Seriously?! And let’s go on TV & show everybody. One girl had twins that had two different fathers! And I know women with multiple kids to multiple fathers. It’s not just on TV. But those at least were in relationships!

I feel sorry for all these kids who don’t know who their fathers are! They are going to be even more messed up than their mothers! There is an underlying bigger problem, even now when abortion is still legal!
WOQ

originally posted by: Hecate666
...rape victims...

Interestingly, studies show that pregnancy from rape is extremely rare. One survey of 3,500 consecutive victims of rape in Minneapolis, U.S.A., yielded not a single case of pregnancy. Of 86,000 abortions in the former Czechoslovakia, only 22 were for rape. Thus, only a tiny portion of those seeking abortions do so for these reasons.

What of those frightening predictions of terribly deformed babies with irreversible birth defects? At the first sign of trouble, some doctors are quick to urge abortion. Can they be absolutely sure of the diagnosis? Many parents can attest that such dire prophecies may be unfounded, and they have happy, healthy children to prove it. Others with children considered handicapped are just as happy to be parents. Indeed, a mere 1 percent of those seeking abortion in the United States do so because they are told of some possible defect in the fetus.

originally posted by: Hecate666
...health problems...

What if a doctor informs a pregnant woman that carrying her child full term may put her life in danger? Dr. Alan Guttmacher stated: “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save life.” The Encyclopedia Americana states: “Since most women can be brought safely through pregnancy even with serious medical problems, few abortions need to be performed to protect the mother’s health. Most abortions are sought to avoid having a child.” So such situations are quite rare. However, if it does occur at the time of delivery, then the parents must make a choice between the life of the mother and that of the child. It is their decision.

Every year, untold millions of unborn babies are aborted, many of them because their conception was the result of casual sex or because their birth would interfere with the life-style of their parents. Thus, these children become sacrifices to the gods of sexual freedom and materialism.

Why would any woman want to terminate the life of a human that is developing within herself? The answer may not please those who favor abortion. But the fact remains that selfishness is often at the root of the problem. It is usually an evasion of responsibility.

Andrew Hacker, writing in Harper’s magazine, made this point: “In fact, abortion conceals a basic social conflict, but one we are not prepared to discuss. The subject is sexual intercourse.”

Many people are addicted to the pursuit of pleasure. Their respect for life is overshadowed by their selfish pursuit of sexual pleasure.

originally posted by: Hecate666
As long as you can save some cells who have not even developed any sentience.

The claim is often made that the pregnant woman should have control of her own body, but the fetus is not her body. It is not an appendage or part such as the appendix or gallbladder the removal of which has been likened to the removal of the fetus from the mother’s body. Dr. A. W. Liley, world-renowned research professor of fetal physiology, said: “Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the foetus is a mere appendage of the mother. Genetically, mother and baby are separate individuals from conception.” He continues with a description of the activities of the fetus, as follows:

“We know that he moves with a delightful easy grace in his buoyant world, that foetal comfort determines foetal position. He is responsive to pain and touch and cold and sound and light. He drinks his amniotic fluid, more if it is artificially sweetened, less if it is given an unpleasant taste. He gets hiccups and sucks his thumb. He wakes and sleeps. He gets bored with repetitive signals but can be taught to be alerted by a first signal for a second different one. And finally he determines his birthday, for unquestionably the onset of labour is a unilateral decision of the foetus. . . . This is also the foetus whose existence and identity must be so callously ignored or energetically denied by advocates of abortion.”

After reviewing such amazing abilities of the fetus in the womb, Dr. Liley says: “You would think this knowledge would bring a new respect for the unborn. Instead some now are hellbent on his destruction​—just when he had achieved some physical and emotional identity.” Why has the abortion movement made such headway in spite of the obvious humanness of the baby? Dr. Liley’s answer: “The unborn is small, naked, nameless and voiceless. It is his defenselessness that makes him such a convenient victim. He has not yet reached the age of social significance and he cannot strike back for himself.”

Many doctors refuse to do abortions. One doctor said: “If there are a few doctors who seem to do more, it’s because some of us are still struggling with our Hippocratic (oath).” Concerning abortion the oath states: “I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked nor suggest any such counsel, and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.”

Dramatic changes have taken place on the legal front over abortions. English common law considered abortion a crime​—a lesser crime in the first half of pregnancy because the baby had not yet stirred, hence was not considered alive. But with the mother’s “feeling life” during the second half, the baby was alive and abortion thereafter was a felony, murder. These laws were applied throughout the early United States until after the Civil War.

Conception, the union of sperm and ovum, was first accurately described by a German scientist in 1827. Thereafter it was appreciated that life began at conception rather than at “quickening,” as previously believed. After the Civil War the new American Medical Association sent its scientists to testify before committees and state legislatures, informing them that life began at the time of the egg’s fertilization. In response to this new information, every state in the union during the 1870’s and early 1880’s passed new laws making abortion a felony from the time of conception. AMA testimony: “We were dealing with nothing less than human life.”

Times have changed. These so-called “archaic anti-abortion laws of the 19th century” have been wiped from the legal slate in the United States. In 1967 Colorado passed a permissive abortion law. In the next four years 15 other states followed suit. During the next three years 33 states rejected the permissive laws. But the struggle of the pro-life forces was defeated with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 1973 to allow abortion-on-demand during the first three months of pregnancy, during the next three months with certain restrictions for the care of the mother, and anytime before birth for the mother’s health.

Health? The Court’s decision in Doe v. Bolton defined it: “all factors, physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age, relevant to the well being of the patient.” Another of the Court’s cases, Roe v. Wade, enlarged upon the definition: “Maternity or additional offspring may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be eminent, mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. When there is distress for all concerned associated with the unwanted child, and when there is a problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically or otherwise, to care for it.”

A concurring opinion added to these “health” reasons the discomforts of pregnancy, the pain, loss of income, abandoning educational plans, forgoing a career. In short, any reason the mother might advance could end the pregnancy at any time before birth.

This changed thinking is illustrated by International Planned Parenthood. Founded by Margaret Sanger, who strongly opposed abortion, it was meant to promote the use of contraceptives and thereby prevent the need for abortions. In 1964 Planned Parenthood stated: “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones the beginning of life.”

In a dramatic about-face, today Planned Parenthood promotes abortion as a means of population control. It also sponsored the case that resulted in the Supreme Court’s decision permitting a minor to abort without her parents’ consent. Its former statement, “An abortion kills the life of a baby,” no longer appears in its literature. However, that truth does appear in an editorial in the September 1970 California Medical Journal:

“The reverence of each and every human life has been the keystone of western medicine, and is the ethic which has caused physicians to try to preserve, protect, repair, prolong, and enhance every human life. Since the old ethic has not been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been the curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone knows, that human life begins at conception, and is continuous, whether intra- or extra-uterine, until death.”

Another problem that abortion was supposed to alleviate is that of battered children. The theory was that unwanted children were abused, and preventing their birth would end the abuse. Facts disprove the theory. Child battering has greatly increased, as the following press report discloses: “Looser abortion laws do not result in fewer battered children​—a five-year study by Dr. Edward Lenoski, professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California found that following the passage of ‘abortion on demand’, cruel infanticide and child battering increased three-fold​—a logical result of the concept that ‘life is cheap.’” Instead of remedying the battering of children, abortion has added to this the battering of millions of babies in the womb.

The verbal gymnastics of the courts in their abortion decisions make them fall on their faces in certain criminal trials. Two gunmen fired shots at a car carrying a pregnant woman. One bullet killed the fetus. The woman was not fatally hurt, but the men received sentences up to life for the death of the fetus. In another case, Winfield Anderson shot a woman pregnant with twin sons. By cesarean the twins were removed. One, struck by a bullet, died after three-and-a-half hours; the other died in 15 hours. The mother survived. The defense attorney said the fetuses were “nonpersons,” but Judge Wingate, Jr., ruled that fetuses wounded by a blow on the mother were, if they later died, murder victims. The jury convicted Anderson on two counts of murder.

A paradox develops. If a mother orders the killing of her viable fetus, it’s humanitarian. If the fetus is killed during a crime, it’s murder. If a mother ends the life of her baby a few days before its birth because she’s distressed that it will be a burden, it’s legal. If she does it a day after its birth because it’s a burden, it’s murder. [continued in next comment]

a reply to: Hecate666

Abortion—Not a Trouble-Free Solution (Awake!—2009)

...

Consider the Consequences

A 2004 research study of 331 Russian and 217 American women who had an induced abortion revealed that about half of both groups felt bad after the abortion. Nearly 50 percent of the Russians and almost 80 percent of the Americans felt “guilt” over the procedure. More than 60 percent of the American women were ‘unable to forgive themselves.’ Since guilt is such a pervasive problem​—even among those who do not consider themselves religious—​why do so many young women still have abortions?

They often come under intense pressure to have an abortion. Parents, a mate, or well-meaning friends may encourage abortion as a lesser of two evils. This can lead to a hasty, ill-informed decision. “However, after the stressfulness of the decision and the procedure have ended,” explained Dr. Priscilla Coleman, an expert on the mental-health risks of abortion, “women’s cognitive abilities return to normal, often ushering in feelings of pronounced guilt, sadness, and regret.”

This regret often centers on the question: Did the abortion terminate a life that already existed? A report by the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion concluded that many pregnant women considering an abortion “were misled into thinking that nothing but ‘tissue’ was being removed, and relate that they would not have had an abortion if they were told the truth.”

After an evaluation of the “stunning and heart-wrenching testimony” of 1,940 women who had abortions, the study concluded: “Many of these women are angered by grief at the loss of a child they were told never existed.” It also stated that “the psychological harm of knowing she killed her child is often devastating.”

But what is the truth? Does an abortion merely remove some tissue from a pregnant woman’s body? Is an unborn child actually a living person while in the womb?

...

When Does a Human Life Begin? (Awake!—2009)

...

“The human being is fully programmed for human growth and development for his or her entire life at the one cell age,” reported Dr. David Fu-Chi Mark, a celebrated molecular biologist. He concluded: “There can no longer be any doubt that each human being is totally unique from the very beginning of his or her life at fertilization.”

...

Bernard Nathanson, M.D., once head of New York’s now defunct first and busiest abortion clinic, did a dramatic turnabout as he said: “I became convinced that as director of the clinic I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.” He added: “To vehemently deny that life begins when conception begins is absurd!”

Dr. Howard Diamond, of Beth Israel Medical Center, disagrees: “If I feel anything, I feel gratified. Abortion is much more important than the life of a child that doesn’t exist. . . . A fetus is nothing!”

Doctors’ reactions to performing abortions vary widely. At one extreme there is guilt and despair. The doctors admitted to heavy drinking and nightmares from performing great numbers of assembly-line abortions. At the other extreme there are doctors who claim to derive satisfaction from the operations because they feel they are saving women’s lives, both emotionally and physically.

Some doctors have mixed feelings. Dr. William Rashbaum, of Beth Israel Medical Center, once had nightmares about a tiny fetus resisting abortion by hanging on to the walls of the uterus. He learned to live with that, no longer has that fantasy, but said: “I’m a person. I’m entitled to my feelings. And my feelings are who gave me or anybody the right to terminate a pregnancy? I’m entitled to that feeling, but I also have no right to communicate it to the patient who desperately needs that abortion. I don’t get paid for my feelings, I get paid for my skills. . . . I began to do abortions in larger numbers at the time of my divorce when I needed money. But I also believe in the woman’s right to control her biological destiny.”

John Szenes, M.D., believes in the woman’s right to abortion and that is his primary consideration. However, he does admit the saline abortion takes some getting used to: “All of a sudden one noticed that at the time of the saline infusion there was a lot of activity in the uterus. That’s not fluid currents. That’s obviously the fetus being distressed by swallowing the concentrated salt solution and kicking violently and that’s, to all intents and purposes, the death trauma.” And he then adds: “So I can imagine, if I had started doing 24-weekers right off the bat, I would have had much greater conflict in my own mind whether this is tantamount to murder.”

At the Beth Israel Hospital, in Denver, Colorado, a doctor did an abortion by injecting birth hormones to induce premature birth. Hours later the baby was delivered live, cried, and some time later died. The doctor ordered no life-sustaining measures. Nurses were upset, one resigned. Concerning a similar situation, one Denver obstetrician said: “Trying to save the fetus when you’re performing an abortion is like sending an ambulance to a firing squad. The whole intent of an abortion​—on the part of both the woman and the doctor—​is to see that the fetus doesn’t survive.”

Many nurses have had traumatic experiences, especially with saline abortions. One investigator reported on the testimony of a head nurse in a gynecological ward where large numbers of such abortions were performed. “She recounted many horrifying situations,” he said, “which included babies born alive, for whom they had no facilities whatsoever in the hospital. She personally witnessed one physician who happened to be present at the birth of a live born baby, who subsequently drowned the baby in a bucket of formalin.” Another report tells of babies aborted at eight months, and says aborted babies able to live at six months “are killed by doctors through injections or suffocating them in vinyl bags.” The babies are viable, but they are killed.

For centuries physicians have embraced the values expressed in the venerated Hippocratic oath, which says in part: “To none will I give a deadly drug, even if solicited, nor offer counsel to such an end, and no woman will I give a destructive suppository [to produce abortion], but guiltless and hallowed will I keep my art.”

What ethical wrestlings confront doctors who terminate life in the womb? Dr. George Flesh describes it this way: “My first abortions, as an intern and resident, caused me no emotional distress. . . . My discontent began after many hundreds of abortions. . . . Why did I change? Early in my practice, a married couple came to me and requested an abortion. Because the patient’s cervix was rigid, I was unable to dilate it to perform the procedure. I asked her to return in a week, when the cervix would be softer. The couple returned and told me that they had changed their minds. I delivered their baby seven months later.

“Years later, I played with little Jeffrey in the pool at the tennis club where his parents and I were members. He was happy and beautiful. I was horrified to think that only a technical obstacle had prevented me from terminating Jeffrey’s potential life. . . . I believe that tearing a developed fetus apart, limb from limb, simply at the mother’s request, is an act of depravity that society should not permit.”

A nurse who stopped assisting with abortions told about her job in an abortion clinic: “One of our jobs was to count the parts. . . . If the girl goes home with pieces of the baby still in her uterus, there can be serious problems. I’d take the parts and go through them to make sure there were two arms, two legs, a torso, a head. . . . I have four children. . . . There was a huge conflict between my professional life and my personal life that I couldn’t reconcile. . . . Abortion is a hard business.”

At the opening of the abortion era in Britain, the Daily Mail reported Professor Ian Morris as saying: “If I were just beginning my career knowing what I know now about abortions, I would never choose gynaecology.” He added: “I detest the operation. It is a complete reversal of all my medical training. The whole aim is to save life, not perform this particular form of homicide.” Strong words, indeed, and not every doctor will agree with them. But they do convey some idea of the revulsion to the practice some doctors instinctively feel.

A Conflict of Loyalties?

The Declaration of Geneva was adopted by the General Assembly of the World Medical Association at Geneva, Switzerland, in September 1948. It is based on the ancient Hippocratic oath. The following is an extract from this Declaration:

“At the Time of Being Admitted as Member of the Medical Profession: I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity. . . . I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity. . . . I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.”

How do doctors interpret such an oath? Here are two conflicting views. Which do you share?

DOCTOR I. M.

“I can never look at the tissues I have removed during the termination of a pregnancy without revulsion. It may be a jelly, but it is, after all, human life that I am destroying.”

DOCTOR V. A.

“I don’t think abortion is ever wrong. As long as an individual is completely dependent upon the mother, it’s not a person.”

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Hecate666
...
Some doctors have mixed feelings. Dr. William Rashbaum, of Beth Israel Medical Center, once had nightmares about a tiny fetus resisting abortion by hanging on to the walls of the uterus. He learned to live with that, no longer has that fantasy, but said: “I’m a person. I’m entitled to my feelings. And my feelings are who gave me or anybody the right to terminate a pregnancy? I’m entitled to that feeling, but I also have no right to communicate it to the patient who desperately needs that abortion. I don’t get paid for my feelings, I get paid for my skills. . . . I began to do abortions in larger numbers at the time of my divorce when I needed money. But I also believe in the woman’s right to control her biological destiny.”

Coming back to the bolded part, it is a profitable business after all. The numbers below are from the 80's, it's even more profitable now:

...

The Business of Abortion

...

Nevertheless, abortions are still being performed in increasing numbers. And one reason is perhaps not too difficult to find. It is a profitable business.

In Paris, France, for example, parents paid the equivalent of £1,000 ($1,400) for their teenage daughter to have a private abortion, according to a report in the medical magazine Pulse. Some London clinics, says the same report, charge up to £2,000 ($2,800) for every abortion they perform.

In 1982, two of Britain’s largest abortion agencies had a combined income of £4.5 million ($6.3 million). Reporting this figure, Human Concern comments: “Abortion is a lucrative business.” In Japan the government refuses to legalize the birth-control pill. “The ban,” reported The Sunday Times of London, “is due to lobbying by doctors, who make a fortune from abortion.” Wherever you look in the world of abortion, money surfaces.

This is hardly surprising. When faced with a sudden traumatic situation, like that of an unmarried, pregnant teenager, many parents will consider any price a reasonable one to resolve the situation, especially if an abortion can be done safely, speedily, and in strict confidence.

...

Source: Abortion—At What Price? (Awake!—1987)

On another note (but also related to materialism and abortion)...

Particularly in some Asian countries, some mothers abort their unborn daughters because they prefer sons to daughters. In certain places the preference for sons has made genetic testing for sex selection a booming business. One gender-detection clinic advertised its services by suggesting that it was better to spend $38 now on terminating a female fetus than to spend $3,800 later on paying for her dowry. Such advertisements work. A study conducted in one large Asian hospital found that 95.5 percent of the fetuses identified as female were aborted. Son preference is present in other parts of the world as well. When a former U.S. boxing champion was asked how many children he had fathered, he answered: “One boy and seven mistakes.” The UN publication Women and Violence notes that “changing people’s attitude and mentality towards women will take a long time—at least a generation, many believe, and perhaps longer.”

Coming back to:

originally posted by: Hecate666
As long as you can save some cells who have not even developed any sentience.

The more man learns about how the fetus develops, the more he is confronted by evidence showing that, from early on, it is a gradually unfolding life with feeling, hearing, sight, movement, and other functions. He continues to be startled by discoveries showing that it is more than a mere collection of cells and tissue. In Chatelaine, a Canadian women’s magazine, Anne Beirne sets out what is now known. Moving: Though the mother may not feel it, the fetus starts to move its muscles as early as eight weeks​—and its heart is already beating! “By 28 weeks, a normally developing fetus moves at least ten times every 12 hours.” Feeling: At 16 weeks, it reacts to pain, even kicking if stuck by the needle used in amniocentesis. Hearing: It can hear its mother’s heartbeat at 24 weeks and responds to loud sounds, music, and voices. “It can even bounce in rhythm to its mother’s voice.” Seeing: “By 16 weeks, its eyes have developed to the point where they can move around; by 24 weeks, . . . the fetus is able to detect light through the uterine wall.”

When the male sperm unites its 23 chromosomes with a like number in the female ovum, a new human life is conceived. From this time of conception, the sex and other personal details are immutably established. The only change will be in growth during the nine-month term of pregnancy. “It is a statement of biologic fact to say that you once were a single cell,” writes Dr. John C. Willke.

Those who truly respect life and its Source will not ignore these facts, acting as if an abortion were only the removal of nothing more than a cluster of cells.

So does life begin at the moment of conception? Many simply answer yes. For those who think this way, abortion at any time is tantamount to murder. With that in mind, here's something else to think about:

Each year, several times more babies are aborted than all the people murdered in 12 years of Nazi rule.

Coming back to:

originally posted by: Hecate666
...health problems...

Watching the World (Awake!—1993 | April 22)

Abortions Kill Mothers Too

It is estimated that “every minute a woman dies as a consequence of pregnancy and childbirth,” reports the magazine Choices. ... The causes for pregnancy-related deaths include “abortion, which alone is responsible for more than 200,000 of the 500,000 maternal deaths that occur worldwide each year,” noted Choices.

Watching the World (Awake!—1993 | December 8)

“Daily, at least four women die in Brazil because of abortion complications​—1,460 every year,” reports the Brazilian newspaper Folha de S. Paulo. The paper acknowledges that this estimate is “optimistic” and that the actual figure may be three times higher. It adds: “The average in Latin America is more dramatic. The UN estimates that 50 percent of all maternal deaths result from abortions, which means 15 thousand women annually​—an average of 41 Latin-American women killed every day.”

Abortion’s Tragic Toll (Awake!—1993)

...

Immediate complications from abortion include hemorrhage, damage or tears to the cervix, puncture of the uterus, blood clots, anesthesia reaction, convulsions, fever, chills, and vomiting. Danger of infection is especially high if parts of the infant or placenta remain in the womb. Incomplete abortion is commonplace, and surgery may then be necessary to remove decaying tissue left behind or even the uterus itself. Government studies in the United States, Britain, and the former Czechoslovakia suggest that abortion greatly increases the later chances of infertility, tubal pregnancy, miscarriages, premature birth, and birth defects.

Former U.S. surgeon general C. Everett Koop observed that no one had done “a study on the emotional reaction or the guilt of the woman who has had an abortion and now desperately wants a baby that she cannot have.”

...

a reply to: whereislogic

When the male sperm unites its 23 chromosomes with a like number in the female ovum, a new human life is conceived. From this time of conception, the sex and other personal details are immutably established. The only change will be in growth during the nine-month term of pregnancy. “It is a statement of biologic fact to say that you once were a single cell,” writes Dr. John C. Willke.

wol.jw.org...

THE more man learns about how the fetus develops, the more he is confronted by evidence showing that, from early on, it is a gradually unfolding life with feeling, hearing, sight, movement, and other functions. He continues to be startled by discoveries showing that it is more than a mere collection of cells and tissue. In Chatelaine, a Canadian women’s magazine, Anne Beirne sets out what is now known. Moving: Though the mother may not feel it, the fetus starts to move its muscles as early as eight weeks​—and its heart is already beating! “By 28 weeks, a normally developing fetus moves at least ten times every 12 hours.” Feeling: At 16 weeks, it reacts to pain, even kicking if stuck by the needle used in amniocentesis. Hearing: It can hear its mother’s heartbeat at 24 weeks and responds to loud sounds, music, and voices. “It can even bounce in rhythm to its mother’s voice.” Seeing: “By 16 weeks, its eyes have developed to the point where they can move around; by 24 weeks, . . . the fetus is able to detect light through the uterine wall.”

Those who truly respect life and its Source will not ignore these facts, acting as if an abortion were only the removal of nothing more than a cluster of cells.

wol.jw.org...=2
I have supplied some links for those that want to read more from where it was sourced.

originally posted by: chiefsmom
...
Does anyone realize that it has been going on, throughout human history?

Yes. I had the feeling it was fairly common knowledge.

Abortion—The Answer to Overpopulation? (Awake!—1988 | April 8)

...

Popular Ancient Practice

In ancient Athens, abortion was used to regulate population growth. “The voluntary limitation of the family was the order of the day, whether by contraception, by abortion, or by infanticide,” according to historian Will Durant in The Story of Civilization.

Abortion was also popular in the Roman empire. For what reasons? Durant continues: “Women wished to be sexually rather than maternally beautiful; in general the desire for individual freedom seemed to be running counter to the needs of the race. . . . Of those who married, a majority seemed to have limited their families by abortion, infanticide, coitus interruptus, and contraception.” Is not the increase in abortions in our time for similar reasons?

...

Going a little further back in time...

Abortion—A World Divided (Awake!—1987)

...

The Basic Issues

Population control in ancient times was not a problem. Tribes and nations welcomed numerical increase, and women seldom had reason to limit the size of their families. Any abortions were usually illegal and a consequence of adultery or fornication.

In contrast, today a policy of abortion may be government sponsored. By this means the birthrate can be kept in check in countries where there is danger of a population explosion.

Although such a danger does not exist in many Western nations, the number of abortions is still rising. Why? “If we believe in women’s freedom,” stresses a spokeswoman of the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights in New York City, “we have to believe that women have the right to make their own moral choices.”

But once a woman has conceived, does she have an incontestable right to choose to reject the role of mother, to abort her baby? Is such a course acceptable? This is the focal point of today’s debate for and against abortion. What is the answer?

So much hinges on definitions. What is life? When does it begin? Does an unborn child have any legal rights?

When Does Life Begin?

...

Abortion is one of the most explosive issues of the decade, igniting raging debates in political, social, medical, and theological fields. In the United States, pro-lifers march for the rights of the unborn. The pro-choice camp stands on the grounds of freedom and a woman’s right to decide. Crusaders battle freedom fighters in elections, in courtrooms, in churches, even in the streets.

Millions are caught in a tug-of-war, torn by the impassioned arguments of each side. The very terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life” were carefully chosen to woo the undecided. In this age where freedom is idolized, who wouldn’t favor choice? But then again, who wouldn’t be for life? Pro-choice groups brandish coat hangers to dramatize the deaths of oppressed women who undergo unsafe illegal abortions. Pro-life advocates wield jars of aborted fetuses as a grim reminder of millions of unborn dead.

This whole death-dealing tragedy is aptly described in Laurence H. Tribe’s book Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes. “Many who can readily envision the concrete humanity of a fetus, who hold its picture high and weep, barely see the woman who carries it and her human plight. . . . Many others, who can readily envision the woman and her body, who cry out for her right to control her destiny, barely envision the fetus within that woman and do not imagine as real the life it might have been allowed to lead.”

Abortion has a long history. In ancient Greece and Rome, abortion was a common practice. In Europe during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, it was considered allowable until quickening, that is, when the mother would feel life in the womb.

Many volleys fired in this conflict deal with the question of when life begins. Few will argue the point that the fertilized egg cell is living. The question is, living as what? Mere tissue? Or is it human? Is an acorn an oak tree? Then, is a fetus a person? Does it have civil rights? The wrangling over words is endless. How ironic that in one and the same hospital, doctors may work valiantly to save the life of a premature baby and yet end the life of a fetus of the same age! The law may allow them to kill a baby inside the womb, but it’s murder if the baby is outside the womb.

The loudest demands for legal abortion come from “liberated” moderns who have unlimited access to contraception methods to prevent pregnancy in the first place. They vehemently lay claim to something called reproductive rights, when in actuality they’ve already exercised their capacity to conceive and reproduce. What they really want is the right to undo that reproduction. The justification? “It’s my body!” But is it really?

Abortion—A Citizens’ Guide to the Issues states that in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, “the tiny amount of tissue in a gelatinous state is very easy to remove.” Can abortion rightly be regarded as “removing a blob of tissue” or “terminating the product of conception”? Or are these sugarcoated terms designed to make the bitter truth palatable and put troubled consciences to rest?

That unwanted piece of tissue is a growing, thriving life, complete with its own set of chromosomes. Like a prophetic autobiography, it tells the detailed story of a unique individual in the making. Renowned research professor of fetology A. W. Liley explains (as quoted before): “Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the foetus is a mere appendage of the mother. Genetically, mother and baby are separate individuals from conception.”

a reply to: whereislogic
Do you ever author anything in the posts you post?

The whole of the unboxed text in your post, is sourced here:
wol.jw.org...

a reply to: mblahnikluver

Thank you for your honesty. It was not my intention to upset you. Nor do I lobby for or against abortion rights. And I do not engage in politics (or try to influence politicians to endorse legislation against abortion).

I do share what I find intriguing to share. As does everybody on ATS. In my subsequent commentary, many points made are indeed in line with my views, as you have shared yours. In some of that commentary, the arguments and points made by those who label themselves “pro-choice” are also discussed.

Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!—2000)

...

THERE is a difference—a big difference—between education and propaganda. Education shows you how to think. Propaganda tells you what to think. Good educators present all sides of an issue and encourage discussion. Propagandists relentlessly force you to hear their view and discourage discussion. Often their real motives are not apparent. They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

...

originally posted by: whereislogic
In ancient Athens, abortion was used to regulate population growth. “The voluntary limitation of the family was the order of the day, whether by contraception, by abortion, or by infanticide,” according to historian Will Durant in The Story of Civilization.

Where in The Story of Civilization writes Will Durant that "abortion was used to regulate population growth"?

a reply to: Shoujikina

See the response to Hecate666 after the quote: "As long as you can save some cells who have not even developed any sentience." And the subsequent commentary concerning the question "When Does a Human Life Begin?"

In particular this part:

... In 1964 Planned Parenthood stated: “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. ...”

In a dramatic about-face, today Planned Parenthood promotes abortion as a means of population control. ... Its former statement, “An abortion kills the life of a baby,” no longer appears in its literature. However, that truth does appear in an editorial in the September 1970 California Medical Journal:

“The reverence of each and every human life has been the keystone of western medicine, and is the ethic which has caused physicians to try to preserve, protect, repair, prolong, and enhance every human life. Since the old ethic has not been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been the curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone knows, that human life begins at conception, and is continuous, whether intra- or extra-uterine, until death.”

Or this quote:

Bernard Nathanson, M.D., once head of New York’s now defunct first and busiest abortion clinic, did a dramatic turnabout as he said: “I became convinced that as director of the clinic I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.” He added: “To vehemently deny that life begins when conception begins is absurd!”

Or this part in the 3rd response:

The more man learns about how the fetus develops, the more he is confronted by evidence showing that, from early on, it is a gradually unfolding life with feeling, hearing, sight, movement, and other functions. He continues to be startled by discoveries showing that it is more than a mere collection of cells and tissue. In Chatelaine, a Canadian women’s magazine, Anne Beirne sets out what is now known. Moving: Though the mother may not feel it, the fetus starts to move its muscles as early as eight weeks​—and its heart is already beating! “By 28 weeks, a normally developing fetus moves at least ten times every 12 hours.” Feeling: At 16 weeks, it reacts to pain, even kicking if stuck by the needle used in amniocentesis. Hearing: It can hear its mother’s heartbeat at 24 weeks and responds to loud sounds, music, and voices. “It can even bounce in rhythm to its mother’s voice.” Seeing: “By 16 weeks, its eyes have developed to the point where they can move around; by 24 weeks, . . . the fetus is able to detect light through the uterine wall.”

When the male sperm unites its 23 chromosomes with a like number in the female ovum, a new human life is conceived. From this time of conception, the sex and other personal details are immutably established. The only change will be in growth during the nine-month term of pregnancy. “It is a statement of biologic fact to say that you once were a single cell,” writes Dr. John C. Willke.

The first part quoted above reminds me of other people who like to re-define words, terms or concepts to make their case (especially in light of what you said about "nonsense terminology" and being "manipulative and transparent"):

a reply to: whereislogic
So women should not be using an IUD either then, in your opinion?

a reply to: igloo

It is interesting that the pro abortion people used appeals to people's emotions with graphic pictures of the suffering women who tried to kill their baby, yet pro life people are bashed for wanting people to see the truth of what is actually going on in the womb. The truth is, if one can see the tiny human in the womb and still decide to kill it, then that is one cold hearted person. They don't want to know, they prefer to see it as nothing, an extension of her. I'm not talking about health issues necessitating abortion, only the women who do it electively. Let's not kid ourselves, most women do not NEED to have an abortion.

It is not difficult to get one. It's been made too easy. I do not have sympathy for a woman who is injured or dies from a botched self induced abortion. Which brings me to my next point. There IS help for women faced with an unexpected pregnancy. It took me all of 2 minutes to find help online. americanpregnancy.org... www1.nyc.gov... www.health.ny.gov...
There is no reason to kill an unborn baby.

When I was a teenager in the 80s I had no issue getting help back then. I was going to put my baby up for adoption because I didn't think I'd be able to do it on my own. I was wrong. When I found out all that was available to me, I decided to keep my baby. I didn't even have to search for help myself. As soon as I went to the doctor, they hooked me up with all the resources. It really wasn't difficult. I got my rent paid for, I got free insurance through Medicaid, I got WIC, I got foodstamps, and extra spending money. I had a job, but still received all this help. I even got help learning how to take care of myself and the baby. After he was born, I had home visits from a social worker to make sure we were ok.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Abortion—The Answer to Overpopulation? (Awake!—1988 | April 8)

Popular Ancient Practice
[whereislogic: note that this is the main point discussed in the subsequent paragraphs, that it was a popular ancient practice]

In ancient Athens, abortion was used to regulate population growth. “The voluntary limitation of the family was the order of the day, whether by contraception, by abortion, or by infanticide,” according to historian Will Durant in The Story of Civilization.

...

originally posted by: MissVocalcord
Where in The Story of Civilization writes Will Durant that "abortion was used to regulate population growth"?

Is your question some kind of challenge? Cause the article doesn't suggest he wrote that word-for-word the way you did (using quotation marks for the part quoted from the article rather than Will Durant's The Story of Civilization). As the article says and quotes correctly, he writes: “The voluntary limitation of the family was the order of the day, whether by contraception, by abortion, or by infanticide.” In chapter XIX (19), you can google it to get the exact page (although google books doesn't show the pagenumber, but it will link you there; it's just after reference 31).

I hope you weren't looking for something to nit-pick. Cause the following from the article is a well known fact:

WHETHER national policy or individual choice, abortion has been a common means of population control both past and present.

That is after all part of the main topic of that particular article. As to some of the topics in Will Durant's The Story of Civilization:

Families in Crisis, Societies in Decay (Awake!—1978)

...

The Family in History

In Part II of Will Durant’s The Story of Civilization, it is shown how, in ancient Greece, moral decay destroyed the family. Prostitution, homosexuality, dances of naked women​—everything was acceptable. Athenian life was portrayed in plays as a round of triviality, seduction and adultery​—reminiscent of today’s television “soap operas.” As women became emancipated, they revolted against wholesale maternity. Families were limited by abortion, which was punishable only if practiced without the husband’s consent, or at the instigation of the woman’s seducer. After relating these conditions, Durant continues: “We have tried to show that the essential cause of the Roman conquest of Greece was the disintegration of Greek civilization from within. No great nation is ever conquered until it has destroyed itself.”​—Pp. 567, 568, 659.

In Part III of Durant’s history, he tells of the strength of the family in Roman times, how it hardened the Roman character and made the empire strong and enabled it to conquer the world. But as centuries passed family life weakened and the Empire’s strength waned. Page 364 says of the family erosion: “Contraception was practiced in both its mechanical and chemical forms. If these methods failed there were many ways of procuring abortion. Philosophers and the law condemned it, but the finest families practiced it. ‘Poor women,’ says Juvenal, ‘endure the perils of childbirth, . . . but how often does a gilded bed harbor a pregnant woman? So great is the skill, so powerful the drugs, of the abortionist!’ Nevertheless, he tells the husband, ‘rejoice; give her the potion . . . for were she to bear the child you might find yourself the father of an Ethiopian.’”

However, in the deteriorating Roman world, “the family life of the Jews was exemplary, and the little Christian communities were troubling the pleasure-mad pagan world with their piety and their decency.” (P. 366) ...

Why is there never any middle ground in these discussions?

originally posted by: whereislogic
OCTOBER 5:

Today my life began. My parents do not know it yet, but it is I already. And I am to be a girl. I shall have blond hair and blue eyes. Just about everything is settled though, even the fact that I shall love flowers.

OCTOBER 19:

Some say that I am not a real person yet, that only my mother exists. But I am a real person, just as a small crumb of bread is yet truly bread. My mother is. And I am.

.

How can a being that possesses no brain be a "person"?

Brainwave activity starts the 21st week. It's unlikely that a device as complicated as the human brain is processing personality-level information until it begins operating the way it was designed to operate.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Every year, untold millions of unborn babies are aborted, many of them because their conception was the result of casual sex or because their birth would interfere with the life-style of their parents. Thus, these children become sacrifices to the gods of sexual freedom and materialism.

Why would any woman want to terminate the life of a human that is developing within herself? The answer may not please those who favor abortion. But the fact remains that selfishness is often at the root of the problem. It is usually an evasion of responsibility.

It's also a question of whether you can, even at great effort, provide a decent life for the kid.

Same decision process a smart family planner would make prior to having sex.

After reviewing such amazing abilities of the fetus in the womb, Dr. Liley says: “You would think this knowledge would bring a new respect for the unborn. Instead some now are hellbent on his destruction​—just when he had achieved some physical and emotional identity.” Why has the abortion movement made such headway in spite of the obvious humanness of the baby? Dr. Liley’s answer: “The unborn is small, naked, nameless and voiceless. It is his defenselessness that makes him such a convenient victim. He has not yet reached the age of social significance and he cannot strike back for himself.”

After the 21st week they have basically the same cognitive abilities they are going to have when they are born.

They are fully people at that point.

Many doctors refuse to do abortions. One doctor said: “If there are a few doctors who seem to do more, it’s because some of us are still struggling with our Hippocratic (oath).” Concerning abortion the oath states: “I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked nor suggest any such counsel, and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.”

They have the right to their religious and/or superstitious beliefs.

But the science doesn't give favorable data for cognition prior to the 21st week.

A paradox develops. If a mother orders the killing of her viable fetus, it’s humanitarian. If the fetus is killed during a crime, it’s murder. If a mother ends the life of her baby a few days before its birth because she’s distressed that it will be a burden, it’s legal. If she does it a day after its birth because it’s a burden, it’s murder. [continued in next comment]

I agree. It's totally a paradox. A 21+ week fetus is as much a person as you and I are.

It's like if you ever watch the movie "ET". Do you come away feeling that "ET" was a person? Not human, but definitely a person.

If "ET" had no brain whatsoever, would "ET" still be a person?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: chiefsmom

I think 3 months sounds about right as well.

All this nonsense will serve to achieve is to once again drive abortions underground, make them dangerous, and introduce another black market revenue stream to the economy.

Woman will do as they please anyroad stupid draconian nonsensical law or otherwise same as they have throughout recorded history where abortion is concerned.

Well, if the woman is smart then she'll avoid what makes you pregnant then, eh? Rape victims and women in danger of losing their lives should be an exception though.

a reply to: LSU2018

Well, if the woman is smart then she'll avoid what makes you pregnant then, eh?

Really? Because the better part of recorded history would seem to suggest otherwise.

Smart people get pregnant to you know, sometimes down to simple mistake or poor timing.

After all to err is human.

Rape victims and women in danger of losing their lives should be an exception though.

At least on that note we seem to agree.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: chiefsmom

I think 3 months sounds about right as well.

All this nonsense will serve to achieve is to once again drive abortions underground, make them dangerous, and introduce another black market revenue stream to the economy.

Woman will do as they please anyroad stupid draconian nonsensical law or otherwise same as they have throughout recorded history where abortion is concerned.

Well, if the woman is smart then she'll avoid what makes you pregnant then, eh?

Especially since pregnancy just kinda magically happens all by itself.