I said education OVERALL. & now I am concerned just because you don't
know how to read a sentence correctly. I'm saying you're OBVIOUSLY
uneducated on the subject or else you wouldn't consider it as a human.

I don't believe in murdering children. I believe in terminating a pregnancy.

I read your sentence very clearly and understood exactly what you meant,
as per a previous post I wrote.

You can say that I'm uneducated on this subject all you want and it won't
change the facts. 24 weeks is an arbitrary time frame that was created to
make law or for letting someone justify murdering a child. Medical, science
and legal definitions don't take away the fact that it's a human being. If it
was something else then it would become something else like a tomato or a
fire hydrant. Human beings propagate human beings.

I said education OVERALL. & now I am concerned just because you don't know how to read a sentence correctly. I'm saying you're OBVIOUSLY uneducated on the subject or else you wouldn't consider it as a human.

I don't believe in murdering children. I believe in terminating a pregnancy.

Oh my! What a statement! Where is your scientific evidence or are you just trying to rationalize your support of abortion? I mean really. You can still support abortion but accept that an unborn baby is a human. Are you trying to say an unborn human is really a goat or a marmot or a flea or a peanut? I guess if you were wanting an abortion you would have no problem being required to see the ultrasound of the "non-human" baby before you terminate it's life?

Anti abortion means you're against murdering the child under any
circumstances.

I'm without a doubt anti abortion. There is no reason for an abortion. And
that includes Tom Coburn's decision to murder those children.

Pity on me? I think not.

Then since you feel so dearly with your heart and soul for the precious, innocent little babies in a woman's womb, and want the killing of them to be put to a stop, then why aren't you all for a law that would essentially mean forced birth for women? Once a woman is pregnant there can be no going back, whatsoever.

Then since you feel so dearly with your heart and soul for the precious, innocent little babies in a woman's womb, and want the killing of them to be put to a stop, then why aren't you all for a law that would essentially mean forced birth for women? Once a woman is pregnant there can be no going back, whatsoever.

Likewise, since you dont care about any life other than the woman's why are you not for a law that allows women to kill their toddlers when they decide they are sick of caring for them? What is the difference?

Pro-Choice ISN'T Pro-Abortion.
It's simply believing in many options wether it may be giving birth,
adoption, or abortion.
It's not a way to make it sound appealing.
It's a way to give people in different situations an option & choosing the
responsible one.
Au contraire. Pro choice is pro abortion. It allows for the option of
murdering the child. It's only a little different than Pro Life in that
murdering the child is a viable option for any reason one can justify
whereas some Pro Life advocates believe murdering the child should take
place only in the most extreme self justified cases. Nevertheless the child
gets murdered.

I certainly understand why someone doesn't want to be thought of as
being pro abortion. It's a hideous and gruesome thing. Pro choice and Pro
Life sound so much better.

Then since you feel so dearly with your heart and soul for the precious,
innocent little babies in a woman's womb, and want the killing of them to be
put to a stop, then why aren't you all for a law that would essentially mean
forced birth for women? Once a woman is pregnant there can be no going
back, whatsoever.
I am for such a law. Just like I'm for the laws that forced slave owners to free
their slaves. Just like I'm for the laws that forces people to go to jail if they
commit a crime deserving of incarceration. Just like I'm for the laws that force
people to pay fines for parking in a no parking zone. Is see no reason to
murder the child. Anti abortion means no abortions. Period.

Thank you for helping us clarify this point.

FOXNews.com - Colorado mom accused of killing 6-month-old son because she thought he showed signs of autism (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/08/colorado-mom-accused-killing-month-old-son-thought-showed-signs-autism/)

Well Bunty, what is the difference between this and an abortion?

Because the 6 month old baby had already taken its first breath 6 months ago. Huge difference there. Thanks for a very easy question.

Likewise, since you dont care about any life other than the woman's why are you not for a law that allows women to kill their toddlers when they decide they are sick of caring for them? What is the difference?

Why don't you just simply tell the people of this forum why you don't see any difference, whatsoever, between a baby in a womb and a 1 month old baby?

Because the 6 month old baby had already taken its first breath 6 months
ago. Huge difference there. Thanks for a very easy question.
Easy question yes. Not a totally correct answer.
The baby is breathing via the mother's circulatory system.

Because the 6 month old baby had already taken its first breath 6 months ago. Huge difference there. Thanks for a very easy question.

Then why did you say abortions during the 9th month are not acceptable?

]Because the 6 month old baby had already taken its first breath 6 months ago. Huge difference there. Thanks for a very easy question.

And what does that have to do with it?

Why do you care so dearly about the answers to such questions? I notice women don't ask me questions. They don't need to. They wisely know in this supposedly free country that abortion and whether or not to get one is their personal business to decide to, or not. And I certainly won't try to make it an issue however they decide.

Tiff, it will help if you understand that some people on here believe that fetuses (or is it Feti?) have little souls and if they haven't had a chance to "accept christ as their saviour" the little souls will go to hell. They also belive that god will punish them personally for not having saved the little buggers' souls. I know... it is sick and convoluted, but it is what drives some of them here. It's a strange, strange world we live in.

I'm pro life but that isn't part of my reasoning. Your argument has been touted to women since abortion became legal - to make it sound like anyone opposed to it is opposed on religious grounds and, further, that they are a little unhinged. Plenty of non Christians like myself are pro life because that is where the science points. I don't know if life begins at conception but nothing in science remotely suggests otherwise and it would be odd if human life began at some different time. No question that a fetus is at a different stage of life than a toddler or a teenaged girl or a menopausal woman but I don't see what is significantly different in that stage than any of the others other than a fetus has no power to protect itself and many don't have someone else willing to protect them. Moreover, the protections we give to a frail old person who has little to contribute to society due to illness and age are still greater than those we give to a strong, healthy fetus who has many decades of life expectancy in front of it. I don't see how someone can abort a child in the absence of proof that they aren't aborting a human. To me, if you don't know for sure, that is no different than shooting off a gun in the dark without making sure there isn't someone out there who could get hit.

Not even going to dig into this debate except one question - do you consider the "morning after pill" abortion?

Why do you care so dearly about the answers to such questions? I notice women don't ask me questions. They don't need to. They wisely know in this supposedly free country that abortion and whether or not to get one is their personal business to decide to, or not.

You do like to duck and dodge.

So far, you guys have been unable to come up with any reasonable answer as to when life begins or any reasonable explanation as to how you came to your conclusions when you do attempt to answer it.

Bunty has declared that only a pregnant woman can determine when life begins. Then she states she knows without a doubt that life begins when the first breath is taken (contradiction of previous statement, and not supported by any evidence). Then Bunty contradicts THAT statement by claiming abortions during the 9th month are NOTacceptable.... then contradicts it yet again by claiming partial birth abortions ARE acceptable. What a clusterf*ck of irrational guessing.

Bandnerd is confident that ANY fetus is not a life based purely on a feeling in his heart. Then concedes that an abortion (of a lifeless fetus) during the 9th month is obviously unacceptable. Why the contradiction?

Then our 18 yr old newcomer xoxotifanynicolebritneycourtney seems to indicate that 24 weeks is an obviously the point in which life begins (which ruins Bunty and Bandnerds arguements) yet she of course offers nothing to back this up, other than it is "obvious" and you are uneducated if you dont know.

Why don't you guys get your sh*t together and figure how you came to your conclusions so you can simply explain it when someone asks you?

I'm curious about something--for those of you who are pro-life, are you pro-birth control?

I know some people aren't, was just wondering. And before you ask, yes, I am pro-birth control. For any woman (or man, for that matter, since it does involve two people) who is of childbearing age.

Not even going to dig into this debate except one question - do you consider the "morning after pill" abortion?

As I understand it, the morning after pill does not abort anything as it takes a little while for the sperm to fertilize the egg, the egg to attach, and so forth. Really, it just prevents any eggs from attaching to the uterine lining and blocks the release of any eggs from the ovaries. Not abortion--birth control.

Not meant to be taken every time birth control, but a whoops, the condom broke kind of birth control.

I'm pro life but that isn't part of my reasoning. Your argument has been touted to women since abortion became legal - to make it sound like anyone opposed to it is opposed on religious grounds and, further, that they are a little unhinged. Plenty of non Christians like myself are pro life because that is where the science points. I don't know if life begins at conception but nothing in science remotely suggests otherwise and it would be odd if human life began at some different time. No question that a fetus is at a different stage of life than a toddler or a teenaged girl or a menopausal woman but I don't see what is significantly different in that stage than any of the others other than a fetus has no power to protect itself and many don't have someone else willing to protect them. Moreover, the protections we give to a frail old person who has little to contribute to society due to illness and age are still greater than those we give to a strong, healthy fetus who has many decades of life expectancy in front of it. I don't see how someone can abort a child in the absence of proof that they aren't aborting a human. To me, if you don't know for sure, that is no different than shooting off a gun in the dark without making sure there isn't someone out there who could get hit.

It is the same tactic used by the Left when debating any other issue. The only way someone can disagree with them is if they are racists, bigots, homophobes, religious wackos, etc.. Gen60 is a recovering Leftist. He backslid on this one and reverted to this old, tired, transparent, and frankly juvenile tactic out of habit. I doubt it will happen again.

Who here who is against abortion rights has ever adopted?

If you haven't sought out as many pregnant would-be aborters as possible and offered to foot the bill for their medical bills, then adopt their unwanted babies, you really shouldn't be advocating that the government should step in and take control of their body and then force them to live with the consequences of gestation, birth and motherhood.

Funny how many conservatives are against government intervention except for in these sorts of circumstances--all for property rights unless it happens to be a woman's own body.

Funny how many conservatives are against government intervention except
for in these sorts of circumstances--all for property rights unless it happens
to be a woman's own body.
Laws against murdering innocent children should trump laws in favor of
murdering innocent children regardless of who's body it is.

Who here who is against abortion rights has ever adopted?

If you haven't sought out as many pregnant would-be aborters as possible and offered to foot the bill for their medical bills, then adopt their unwanted babies, you really shouldn't be advocating that the government should step in and take control of their body and then force them to live with the consequences of gestation, birth and motherhood.

Funny how many conservatives are against government intervention except for in these sorts of circumstances--all for property rights unless it happens to be a woman's own body.

Nonsense.

Your basic premise to makes those statements is that a fetus is simply an expensive, worthless parasite in a woman's body. Even then, you reach too far to the point of absurdity.

The people opposed to abortion see the fetus not as a parasite but as a human. It is not about property, it is about basic human rights which the pro choice group (many of whom are liberal) are prefectly willing to deny to a fetus for reasons that nearly always come down to personal convenience (i.e., not about health or life and death). Pro lifers refuse to accept the premise that a fetus is not worthy of protection from being killed or tortured. Once you understand that they view the fetus as human, an analogous argument to the one you just floated would be that unless someone is willing to adopt any child from any abusive homes, they should shut up about child abuse.

Bunty has declared that only a pregnant woman can determine when life begins. Then she states she knows without a doubt that life begins when the first breath is taken (contradiction of previous statement, and not supported by any evidence). Then Bunty contradicts THAT statement by claiming abortions during the 9th month are NOTacceptable.... then contradicts it yet again by claiming partial birth abortions ARE acceptable. What a clusterf*ck of irrational guessing.
you?

Now PQ, can you at last possibly grasp why abortion should be a woman's issue? After all, it's the woman who usually decides, if there's going to be a sex act to start things off. If you believe abortion is profoundly wrong and immoral before God Almighty, or not, then don't spread your legs. It's as simple as that. If you want a baby, then do.

Nonsense.
The people opposed to abortion see the fetus not as a parasite but as a human. It is not about property, it is about basic human rights which the pro choice group (many of whom are liberal) are prefectly willing to deny to a fetus for reasons that nearly always come down to personal convenience (i.e., not about health or life and death). Pro lifers refuse to accept the premise that a fetus is not worthy of protection from being killed or tortured. Once you understand that they view the fetus as human, an analogous argument to the one you just floated would be that unless someone is willing to adopt any child from any abusive homes, they should shut up about child abuse.

And so, I strongly gather that you, like Prunepicker, passionately believe in forced birth for women. Once pregnant, there's no turning back from it. And, no, I don't want to hear from you that women who got raped and pregnant should be allowed to get an abortion because that precious, innocent little fetus couldn't pick out its father before conception was made. Same with pregnancy from the result of incest.

Laws against murdering innocent children should trump laws in favor of
murdering innocent children regardless of who's body it is.

One would have to accept that there is a life before one could accept the premise of murder. Not everyone shares your view.

For those who do not share your view, you are attempting to tell them what to do with their body without yourself having to suffer any of the consequences. Adopt a child and I'll probably not listen to you... open up an adoption agency next to an abortion clinic and you'll have my ear.

Nonsense.

Your basic premise to makes those statements is that a fetus is simply an expensive, worthless parasite in a woman's body. Even then, you reach too far to the point of absurdity.

Absurdity? Nonsense, as you put it. That is precisely what it is, at least up to a point. That, is of course a matter of philosophy rather than science, but I have mine and you have yours and never the twain shall meet, as they say.

To view your own body as your sovereign realm, however, shouldn't be an alien or difficult concept for anyone though.

As far as the philosophical differences go, I think O'Connor did an artful job in the Casey opinion of trying to get the aforementioned twain to meet, but still, never shall they meet.

The laws exist for everyone, not just for your ideology. The law as it stands has a bit of give and take for both sides which neither side is happy with. That's about the best that can and should be done.

One would have to accept that there is a life before one could accept the premise of murder. Not everyone shares your view.

For those who do not share your view, you are attempting to tell them what to do with their body without yourself having to suffer any of the consequences. Adopt a child and I'll probably not listen to you... open up an adoption agency next to an abortion clinic and you'll have my ear.

Well, put. Doing that would be a much better thing to do with one's time than demonstrate against abortion in front of an abortion clinic.

For those who do not share your view, you are attempting to tell them what
to do with their body without yourself having to suffer any of the consequences.
From which of my posts have you derived this conclusion?

Well, put. Doing that would be a much better thing to do with one's time than
demonstrate against abortion in front of an abortion clinic.
That's something I've never done, if anybody is interested.

Easy question yes. Not a totally correct answer.
The baby is breathing via the mother's circulatory system.

It doesn’t. A baby’s first breath usually happens at birth when he begins to cry. While in the womb, his lungs are filled with fluid and are not involved in supplying oxygen to his body. Baby gets his oxygen from the mother, via the umbilical cord. He also gets his nutrients from mother the same way. This is why it is important that a pregnant mother eats healthy food, and breathes healthy air (i.e. don’t smoke).

You do like to duck and dodge.

So far, you guys have been unable to come up with any reasonable answer as to when life begins or any reasonable explanation as to how you came to your conclusions when you do attempt to answer it.

Bunty has declared that only a pregnant woman can determine when life begins. Then she states she knows without a doubt that life begins when the first breath is taken (contradiction of previous statement, and not supported by any evidence). Then Bunty contradicts THAT statement by claiming abortions during the 9th month are NOTacceptable.... then contradicts it yet again by claiming partial birth abortions ARE acceptable. What a clusterf*ck of irrational guessing.

Bandnerd is confident that ANY fetus is not a life based purely on a feeling in his heart. Then concedes that an abortion (of a lifeless fetus) during the 9th month is obviously unacceptable. Why the contradiction?

Then our 18 yr old newcomer xoxotifanynicolebritneycourtney seems to indicate that 24 weeks is an obviously the point in which life begins (which ruins Bunty and Bandnerds arguements) yet she of course offers nothing to back this up, other than it is "obvious" and you are uneducated if you dont know.

Why don't you guys get your sh*t together and figure how you came to your conclusions so you can simply explain it when someone asks you?

I never said life begins at 24wks. so don't twist my words.
Nobody can determine when life begins & to say you can is false.
It has NEVER been proven for sure, which is why abortion exists.
I don't know when life begins & I'm not going to act like I do because it's just ignorant.
All I'm saying is that there's 24wks. because of the development in the womb.

Oh my! What a statement! Where is your scientific evidence or are you just trying to rationalize your support of abortion? I mean really. You can still support abortion but accept that an unborn baby is a human. Are you trying to say an unborn human is really a goat or a marmot or a flea or a peanut? I guess if you were wanting an abortion you would have no problem being required to see the ultrasound of the "non-human" baby before you terminate it's life?

I'm not going to accept an "unborn baby" is a "human" because it's not in my eyes. In your eyes, fine. But the fact that I see it differently won't change. I was required to see the ultrasound & didn't change the way I thought, never will.

From which of my posts have you derived this conclusion?

Any of your posts in this thread would probably do just fine.

Au contraire. Pro choice is pro abortion. It allows for the option of
murdering the child. It's only a little different than Pro Life in that
murdering the child is a viable option for any reason one can justify
whereas some Pro Life advocates believe murdering the child should take
place only in the most extreme self justified cases. Nevertheless the child
gets murdered.

I certainly understand why someone doesn't want to be thought of as
being pro abortion. It's a hideous and gruesome thing. Pro choice and Pro
Life sound so much better.

Okay, we'll just go ahead & say Pro-Choice is Pro-Abortion since it supports abortion. That I can agree with.
So what's the point in terminating a pregnancy with complications & terminating one by choice? What makes THAT okay?

Now PQ, can you at last possibly grasp why abortion should be a woman's issue? After all, it's the woman who usually decides, if there's going to be a sex act to start things off. If you believe abortion is profoundly wrong and immoral before God Almighty, or not, then don't spread your legs. It's as simple as that. If you want a baby, then do.

Bunty, by the same logic, a mother would have the right to kill any of her children.

The rest of the comment about god was sorta weird and I've stated multiple times that it isn't about god, for me.

But to respond to your crude comment about, let's call it abstinance, you know what? IMO, any woman who is sexually active and capable of conceiving needs to face the fact that accidents have happened since the beginning of time and it might happen to her. Ever since reliable birth control came about, many women seem to have abandoned any responsibility for the consequences of their actions. They pretend that accidents are something that next to never happen and the fact is, they happen all the time.

When you are sexually active and you are capable of conceiving, you are playing russian roulette. I am not saying that people should be chaste of abstinate but I am saying that if they are big enough to be sexually active, they ought to put on their big girl panties, live in the real world and not act like it is some great big surprise if they end up pregnant. If you can't take care of a child, IMO, you are being irresponsible to risk pregnancy. And the type of birthcontrol you use factors into just how responsible you need to be. If you are single and simply can't afford a child or can't care for one, for god's sake, go sterilize yourself or abstain. You might have the right to rut like an animal but the kids deserve better and becoming a burden to your family or the rest of us is just wrong.

If you can afford one but aren't really ready, use a responsible kind of birthcontrol and face the fact that you might be one of those people who "accidently" gets pregnant. Sex and babies have had a mysterious connection from the beginning of time. Many women seem to not make the connection. Even the pro lifers.

And if you didn't use birth control, you didn't have an accident.

Um, Caboose--I'm not a man. Just so you know. I thought people around here knew that...

If we're trying to get our sh!t together, and all.

And the 9 month thing for me, is because starting in the 8th month, a fetus is preparing for life outside the womb and if the fetus is delivered, it will most likely live. The last couple of months is usually spent gaining weight, but the organ systems are go. If the fetus is viable outside the womb, and at this time it is, then there is no reason, in my mind, to abort.

Not even going to dig into this debate except one question - do you consider the "morning after pill" abortion?

Of course, assuming the egg is fertilized. Why would that be any different? Look, pro choicers are all about convenience. I know that would make them yank out their hair at the thought. I mean this is as close to "out of sight out of mind" as it gets. No fuss, no muss, no concerns, just don't think about it.

The pro lifers are all about its HUMAN at an early stage of life.

Some folks seem to think it turns human once it can do advanced calculus in its head or some equally arbitrary standard they typically just made up without having a clue about the science but that honestly doesn't make any sense when you think it though.

Of course, assuming the egg is fertilized. Why would that be any different? Look, pro choicers are all about convenience. I know that would make them yank out their hair at the thought. I mean this is as close to "out of sight out of mind" as it gets. No fuss, no muss, no concerns, just don't think about it.

The pro lifers are all about its HUMAN at an early stage of life.

Some folks seem to think it turns human once it can do advanced calculus in its head or some equally arbitrary standard they typically just made up without having a clue about the science but that honestly doesn't make any sense when you think it though.

Pro-Choicers are about convenience, there's no debate in that. I know I was.
If I thought that it was a baby then I would have never did I what I did.
But I believe that life begins when you take your first breathe, which is outside of the womb.

I'm curious about something--for those of you who are pro-life, are you pro-birth control?



Absolutely. It is the only reliable way to avoid conceiving children you don't want or can't afford or care for. Other than a religious reason, why would anyone be against birth control?

Now, not all BC is created equal and there are some types that I don't think constitute a contraceptive so much as a ending a pregnancy once it begins.

It doesn’t. A baby’s first breath usually happens at birth when he begins to
cry. While in the womb, his lungs are filled with fluid and are not involved in
supplying oxygen to his body. Baby gets his oxygen from the mother, via the
umbilical cord. He also gets his nutrients from mother the same way. This is
why it is important that a pregnant mother eats healthy food, and breathes
healthy air (i.e. don’t smoke).
Usually? What are the exceptions?

Did you not read my post? You agreed with me in the rest of your post but
didn't know it. I clearly stated that the baby receives oxygen via the mothers
circulatory system. Maybe you don't what the circulatory system is. It's
breathing but not from the lungs. Do you know what the umbilical cord
contains?

The laws exist for everyone, not just for your ideology. The law as it stands has a bit of give and take for both sides which neither side is happy with. That's about the best that can and should be done.

This was more about fact than law. Laws change, facts don't. We argue about the facts of abortion but whatever the truth is, it won't change. I am of a mind that I don't know all of it but that means a tie goes to the fetus.

Usually? What are the exceptions?

Did you not read my post? You agreed with me in the rest of your post but
didn't know it. I clearly stated that the baby receives oxygen via the mothers
circulatory system. Maybe you don't what the circulatory system is. It's
breathing but not from the lungs. Do you know what the umbilical cord
contains?

The exceptions would be if it dies within. Don't read into it or twist anything again. ;)
The "baby" ISN'T breathing while within the womb.
And if you want to argue that it does then is is not the woman's breath who's supplying it?
It's her breath, then shouldn't she choose if she wants to end that particular breath?

As I understand it, the morning after pill does not abort anything as it takes a little while for the sperm to fertilize the egg, the egg to attach, and so forth. Really, it just prevents any eggs from attaching to the uterine lining and blocks the release of any eggs from the ovaries. Not abortion--birth control.

Not meant to be taken every time birth control, but a whoops, the condom broke kind of birth control.

Attaching to the uterine wall is not what creates an embryo. Fertilization does that. However, I am not sure about the lag in time on fertilization and until you said that, I didn't think about it in those terms. I should look that up to pin down the answer.

I never said life begins at 24wks. so don't twist my words.
Nobody can determine when life begins & to say you can is false.
It has NEVER been proven for sure, which is why abortion exists.
I don't know when life begins & I'm not going to act like I do because it's just ignorant.
All I'm saying is that there's 24wks. because of the development in the womb.

Well, Bunty here you go... here is a woman who was pregnant and had an abortion and she concedes she does not know when life begins. So much for your logic.

Well, Bunty here you go... here is a woman who was pregnant and had an abortion and she concedes she does not know when life begins. So much for your logic.

Nobody knows when it begins, period.
I'm not going to say I do.
That would be ignorant.

Nobody knows when it begins, period.
I'm not going to say I do.
That would be ignorant.

There you have it Bunty, you are ignorant according to the very source you are citing as the expert.

There you have it Bunty, you are ignorant according to the very source you are citing as the expert.

He's not ignorant because that's HIS opinions & thoughts on the subject.

The traditional time that people believed a child was alive (and human) was at "quickening," the time it could be felt which, in a first baby is generally in the fourth of fifth month. Earlier in subsequent pregnancies. I don't know of any religion - which hystorically governed most decisions on the matter - that thought birth was the time a child became human. It was not until we started getting into more modern times (last fifty years or less) that it was widespread for people to sometimes think in terms of anything but "if I can feel it, it must be alive." And even in the 70's this belief was pretty widespread. And no one thought in terms of it being anything but human once they thought it was alive. The notion of it being an "it" or a parasite (once it was deemed alive) is quite new.

He's not ignorant because that's HIS opinions & thoughts on the subject.

Bunty: I know without a doubt that life begins when the baby takes it's first breath.

xoxotiffanynicole: Nobody knows when it begins, period.
I'm not going to say I do.
That would be ignorant.

Nobody knows when it begins, period.
I'm not going to say I do.
That would be ignorant.

So how did you determine at what point an abortion becomes unacceptable if you can't determine at what point life begins?

Nobody knows when it begins, period.
I'm not going to say I do.
That would be ignorant.

It would also be dishonest and I appreciate your honesty. For what it is worth, I am passionately pro life but I believe most women who abort do so because there has been a great deal of effort since the time we were girls to convince us that it is okay. To buck that sort of brainwashing when you are in crisis and time is of the essense is a lot to expect. I am sorry the whole thing happened for you. You sound like a nice person.

Bunty: I know without a doubt that life begins when the baby takes it's first breath.

xoxotiffanynicole: Nobody knows when it begins, period.
I'm not going to say I do.
That would be ignorant.

I'm going to categorize my own opinoins on things as ignorant, but when it comes to other peoples' I'm not going to because I respect what that person believes in.
To me, it's ignorant.
To you, it may be ignorant.
To him, it's not.

So how did you determine at what point an abortion becomes unacceptable if you can't determine at what point life begins?

Because it's a matter of opinion.
I can't determine when it begins, neither can you.
My opinion & beliefs tell me it begins at actual birth.
It may not be true down the road, but it's what I BELIEVE in as of now.

I'm going to categorize my own opinoins on things as ignorant, but when it comes to other peoples' I'm not going to because I respect what that person believes in.
To me, it's ignorant.
To you, it may be ignorant.
To him, it's not.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

In YOUR opinion.

Tiff, it will help if you understand that some people on here believe that fetuses (or is it Feti?) have little souls and if they haven't had a chance to "accept christ as their saviour" the little souls will go to hell. They also belive that god will punish them personally for not having saved the little buggers' souls. I know... it is sick and convoluted, but it is what drives some of them here. It's a strange, strange world we live in.

USG, there are people in the world who may think that way but they are few and far between. The overriding difference of opinion is that there are many, many millions of people who believe that life begins at conception and that if you abort, you are murdering a living human. To most of those people, its not even a religious issue - its moral because it is murder.

I also believe that life begins at conception but I can accept that up to the point of a few weeks old, abortion should be allowed. That is purely my opinion. What irks me is people who try to rationalize their pro-abortion stance by saying that a fetus is not a human until some arbitrary point in time - some place it earlier or later than others. Its not scientific and its not rational. Its a rationalization and a way to help themselves feel relief from potential guilt.

For those who are of the opinion that a fetus still eligible to be aborted is not a living human, I find it ironic that they are so outraged by the states' requirement to view an ultrasound before the abortion. If these folks believe the fetus is still a peanut, then it's a peanut and they should be fine viewing the ultrasound. Ultrasound cost is just another excuse.

IMO, if you are pro-choice then fine, be pro-choice but accept that abortion is the end of a human life and accept responsibility for what you are doing. The same goes for the father who may be supporting the abortion.

USG, there are people in the world who may think that way but they are few and far between. The overriding difference of opinion is that there are many, many millions of people who believe that life begins at conception and that if you abort, you are murdering a living human. To most of those people, its not even a religious issue - its moral because it is murder.

I also believe that life begins at conception but I can accept that up to the point of a few weeks old, abortion should be allowed. That is purely my opinion. What irks me is people who try to rationalize their pro-abortion stance by saying that a fetus is not a human until some arbitrary point in time - some place it earlier or later than others. Its not scientific and its not rational. Its a rationalization and a way to help themselves feel relief from potential guilt.

For those who are of the opinion that a fetus still eligible to be aborted is not a living human, I find it ironic that they are so outraged by the states' requirement to view an ultrasound before the abortion. If these folks believe the fetus is still a peanut, then it's a peanut and they should be fine viewing the ultrasound. Ultrasound cost is just another excuse.

IMO, if you are pro-choice then fine, be pro-choice but accept that abortion is the end of a human life and accept responsibility for what you are doing. The same goes for the father who may be supporting the abortion.

Where have you found that it's scientifically proven that it's a human before actual birth? Because I've been researching this topic for years & have yet to find ANYTHING to be proven.

If it's murder then why in your opinion is it okay to have an abortion after a few weeks? It makes no sense what you're saying.

I had no problem viewing the ultrasound so not ALL of us are outraged by it. And why wouldn't the cost of it be a viable reason for not wanting it? Mine costed $150. Before I wouldn't have had to have it & I wouldn't have had to dish out an extra $150.

It's her breath, then shouldn't she choose if she wants to end that particular
breath?
No. Murdering an innocent child should never be an option.

Also, I didn't read into anything.

No. Murdering an innocent child should never be an option.

Also, I didn't read into anything.

I still don't see how you view it as a child, but okay.
You did read into it.

You aren't going to find anything that tells you that a fetus is human because it isn't even a scientific question. What makes a human? DNA tells us what species we are and a fetus' DNA says human. It sure isn't going to turn into a turnip. The argument is really not whether a fetus is human, by most (although they might call it a potential human). Instead, some people choose arbitrary characteristics of a human at a different stage of development such as ability to think or remember. The latest standard has been the ability to feel pain and that has caused all kinds of problems because it comes so early in development. Regardless, that is arbitrary because people in comas or unconscious or the like might be the same way and they don't cease to be human. Very few people, even those faced with a loved one who is a vegetable, are willing to believe that they are no longer a human. They may be "dead" but they don't think they cease to be a human being. They are just a dead human.

If someone wants to say humanity doesn't come until some sort of subjective thing happens (they are nice people or something like that) then some never become people and people in a coma (even temporarily) are no longer human.

What is it about birth and a first breath that would fundamentally change a being into a human? That sounds more religious than scientific.