Selective abortion.

[Hermes]

Oh I'm sorry Hermes.... but I actually ignored a major portion of your post after you first mentioned the definition of parasite from dictionary.com - I just ended it there. What you say past it is invalid. In this kind of debate and context - you need to refer to medical dictionary.

Since I do not have access to academic database... I referred to webmd.com which is almost close enough to medical scholarly grade.

Definition of Parasite from webmd.com:
1. An organism that lives on or in another and draws its nourishment therefrom.
2. In the case of a fetal inclusion or conjoined twins, the usually incomplete twin that derives its support from the more nearly normal autosite.

Definition of Parasite from dictionary.com:
1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

a pretty f**kin' HUGE difference, huh?

If you didnt read it Jiro, you dont have much to say. Because you are now telling me you ignored all other facts and only focused on one definition. If you want to follow that path you also can bring the definition of fetus and see if it says parasite for fetus. Do you want me to provide you the information:

One entry found for fetus.
Main Entry: fe·tus
Variant(s): or chiefly British foe·tus /ft-s/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural fe·tus·es or chiefly British foe·tus·es or foe·ti /ft-/
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth --

Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: par--st
Function: noun
: an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

Main Entry: par·a·sit·ism
Pronunciation: par--s-tiz-m, -st-iz-
Function: noun
1 : an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures
2 : PARASITOSIS

MedlinePlus: Medical Dictionary
(National library of medicine, just type fetus, parasite and parasitism there)

You love government stuff, so if you would like to ignore bringing scientific evidence, lets look at dictionary definitions provided from a goverment website, National Library of Medicine.

1. Look at first entry, do you see parasite in definition of Fetus?
2. Look at parasite, what does it say? An organism living in parasitism.
3. Look at parasitism, it says two or more kinds, benefits from host while it usually injures.

Neither fetus lives in parasitism, nor it says parasite when you look at the definition of fetus, nor fetus is a different kind of species. Why are you so insisting on declaring fetus a parasite while no source says it is Jiro? Why do you want fetus to be a parasite?

I dont think you do want fetus to be a parasite, I think you just want to defend your position in the argument.

-

 

[Hermes]

Thus the parasite does harm the host in terms of ejecting itself from the main host.

Why do you think women usually tear when giving birth?

That's bodily harm. Fits the definition buddy.

Yep. You don't need to be told to step outside the box.

You would say and do anything for being right, isnt that true Jillio?. When did you say your kid last time "You were a parasite to mommy sweetheart, you made mommy in tears " And then you say "but honey, think out of the box"

 

[Liebling:-)))]

No you are trying to win the argument with some fallacious statements and morbid moral issues. You ignored the Roe v. Wade case. You ignored Supreme Court's decision. You ignored medical and scientific community's stance and findings on this. All you have is your emotional and moral appeal on your side.

Ever wonder why Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roe?

*nodding agreement*

 

[Hermes]

For a minute I'd have sworn you were targeting at us, haha but no, really, I know you were not targeting at us.

Anyway, Actually - It is not defined to the democracy itself. It is all about how to do it legally and safely for the mother. Don't get me wrong, I, in some way am against abortion but on the other hand, I am for abortion within reasons. If one is to abort just for no reason, then that would be different. I am for abortion only if it is life-threatening or if the disabled fetus is known to be grossly unsurvivable; and or within knowing that the disability is severe enough to complicate it's life down the road.

Nobody said abortion was ever easy and it isn't for women who goes through the abortion process. When a woman goes through it, she will always think about it for the rest of her life. With the suppression, it is sought to do it as safe as possible rather than living in fear knowing that if it was not legal, she could be very well rejected, looked down, to be stoned and her creditability would only be invalid.

I dont say push abortion to illegal clinics either Jolie. What I am saying is a lot of people are trying ignore a lot of things about the reality of it , because they are scared they might give other side credit and lose some of their ground of argument. For the sake of winning an argument we forget what really matters and only defend a political point while sacrfiying a lot more.

Would you allow me to make a conclusion so what I say becomes clear. I dont believe making it illegal is the best way. Like you said it only supports illegal clinics. As long as there is a need for abortion , there will be people who goes through it and some doctors will operate. I believe in creating a society that doesnt need abortion as much as its today. I believe first step to it is facing the problem and reality of abortion . Only a person who says "ok I dont want to make it illegal, but abortion is a horrible thing , specially after a certain point. So there is a problem, what can I do about it" can become ready to go a step beyond.

I dont see pro choice lobby does this either. They are so busy fighting with pro life lobby, they also turn their heads and look another way when it comes to facing with reality. Some people for example are aware of such an experience can be horrific but they want to put it a side silently because saying it outloud is only giving stronger hand to pro life lobby. One becomes a politician when acts like this. Ignoring the reality in order to protect its position against the other side. If the need for abortions can be reduced both sides will be happy. People will have freedom but wont need to exercise it, also life will be valued more and number of abortions will drop dramaticly.

So much energy is being spend on arguments and so little is return in coming from them. I believe the change will start from individuals. It will not be a collective change . People will realize killing is still a killing and instead of rationalizing it, they will only use it as a last resort, an exception. Self awareness will bring self education. People who realize its real effects will educate themselves in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Everybody will take their own responsibility and forcing a rule on them wont be neccesery. Because they are aware of their actions and its outcomes , they will not use abortion as a method of escape but only take that measure when there is a real need of it. Human life will be valued more, freedom will remain, but people will have an awareness of responsibility while they are excersing their freedom. Freedom wont become a mask to hide behind, nor this self conscious person will need regulations to make the right decision.

Its a dream. Its not about being the winning side of political , academical arguments, its about dreaming a different world. But everything starts with one person and then another and then a lot more. Thats why I needed to point out one needs to face with it and become aware beforehand.

Cheers
Hermes

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Originally Posted by KarissaMann05
Actually no. Today, there are very a few babies COULD survive outside of the womb at the second term.

Yes, that's right it's rare after 24 weeks. I would love to see the link if you claim that it's under 24 weeks, not after 24 weeks.

Angel provide a link before about it, and that's been ignored by pro-choicers. Go figures.

Yes, I do not forget that Angel provided the link at abortion thread few months ago. Please don't assume that we ignored Angel's link. I was there to make post toward her post with link.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Also I never said anything about first stage, right? I said embryo is not the baby itself yet. But this is selective abortion thread which is also talking about going through abortion at later stages.

-

Just a simple question...

How many weeks embryo before turn into a fetus?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

It's as fallacious as a person saying "Don't want a baby? don't spread your legs."

I have been seen some pro-lifers use those word in abortion debate threads in the past... :roll:

That's up to them. Should a mother be able to abort her fetus because she will never be able to provide her child with a good life? Some people don't have any faith in system (foster, adoption, orphan house, etc.) and are terrified for their well-beings being at hands of strangers who could end up abusing or selling them.

Exactly!!! Fetus removal up to 12 weeks is safer than abuse/neglect child or see child suffer at poverty....if the women decides to not want to raise a child then do that instead of wait until after 12 weeks.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

For a minute I'd have sworn you were targeting at us, haha but no, really, I know you were not targeting at us.

Anyway, Actually - It is not defined to the democracy itself. It is all about how to do it legally and safely for the mother. Don't get me wrong, I, in some way am against abortion but on the other hand, I am for abortion within reasons. If one is to abort just for no reason, then that would be different. I am for abortion only if it is life-threatening or if the disabled fetus is known to be grossly unsurvivable; and or within knowing that the disability is severe enough to complicate it's life down the road.

Nobody said abortion was ever easy and it isn't for women who goes through the abortion process. When a woman goes through it, she will always think about it for the rest of her life. With the suppression, it is sought to do it as safe as possible rather than living in fear knowing that if it was not legal, she could be very well rejected, looked down, to be stoned and her creditability would only be invalid.

Understandably, when a normal fetus is at 30 weeks gestation, it would have been a different story because it is not life threatening and doesn't cause any complications but however, with a disabled fetus at 30 weeks gestation to be recognized to know beyond it cannot live - then it would be like saying, the disabled fetus would be going through a lot of series of surgeries, pains, therapies, resources, so and on. I just don't find it fair when a disabled baby that is born to live through this when they very well can be trying to live a normal life if they were to be normal.

I find it's unfair and cruel to see severe disabled baby suffer when I know they would stay survive within few years... or try so hard to live normal life if they survive longer than few years.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Originally Posted by Oceanbreeze


I am ethically opposed to abortion as birth control. However, I also believe that abortion must remain legal and regardless of what I think, it's not my business to tell someone they can't have an abortion.

This country made a grave mistake when they started legislating what I believe is a medical decision. This is not a black and white issue. There are many reasons a woman will choose an abortion, and it's simply that she has the legal right to do so; even if her reasoning is ethically reprehensible to some (even me).

Thank You. I'm the same way too.

I do believe that it should remain legal as well, regardless of how the procedures are when it comes to a mother to abort it for no reason or whatsoever. Even though, there will always be a loophole to get by that if it was only for a medical stance rather than saying it is for other reasons.

That is why I pointed out that if it is life-threatening then it'd be understandable but for other reasons, I don't see why it would be necessary. If the woman chose to have an abortion, that's their choice and they will have to live with that.

Exactly!!!

I respect women's choice/decision if they decide to not keep a child and raise a child with responsiblity then do that before 12 weeks. After 12 weeks with severe reasons (life threatening, severe disabled/defect....).

 

[Hermes]

Just a simple question...

How many weeks embryo before turn into a fetus?

I am not a doctor, and I didnt sit down for watching its development with my own eyes. So I can only repeat you whats being said at medical sources: it takes two months to complete embryo stage .

-

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I am not a doctor, and I didnt sit down for watching its development with my own eyes. So I can only repeat you whats being said at medical sources: it takes two months to complete embryo stage .

-

I posted the definition at my thread yesterday. http://www.alldeaf.com/1095109-post711.html

I answered your post at my thread few minutes ago.

 

[Byrdie714]

Yay, Byrdie! A true friend to women every where.

jillio. Although it's unfortunate that the female pro-lifers on this forum don't see it that way. My female friend list shrunk considerably.

But if they want to be told by the man what to do, what to wear and be barefoot and pregnant all the time-- that's their perogative.

Guess they don't believe in empowerment eh?

To that, I very sincerely reply, "Yes, you are. Thank God!"

Back at you too!

 

[netrox]

I would never consider a fetus a parasite although it does suck away women's resources during pregnancy and some women hated being pregnant.

It is really hard for me to find a reason why a healthy baby in his 9th month should be aborted because I cannot think of a logical reason for it and if she doesn't want the fetus anymore, fine, we'll take it out of her womb and give it up for adoption. If the argument is about saving a woman's life, that's baloney. The baby would HAVE to be removed anyway, what's the point of killing a baby that's already well developed and can start developing normally without depending nutrients from the womb?

But again, I think it's intellectually wrong to keep a fetus alive that's born premature, the earlier, the more wrong it is because the fetus will likely face a lifetime of health problems and I don't want that happen to a human life.

 

[jillio]

I would never consider a fetus a parasite although it does suck away women's resources during pregnancy and some women hated being pregnant.

It is really hard for me to find a reason why a healthy baby in his 9th month should be aborted because I cannot think of a logical reason for it and if she doesn't want the fetus anymore, fine, we'll take it out of her womb and give it up for adoption. If the argument is about saving a woman's life, that's baloney. The baby would HAVE to be removed anyway, what's the point of killing a baby that's already well developed and can start developing normally without depending nutrients from the womb?

But again, I think it's intellectually wrong to keep a fetus alive that's born premature, the earlier, the more wrong it is because the fetus will likely face a lifetime of health problems and I don't want that happen to a human life.

Fetuses are not aborted in the 9th month. That is induced or sugical delivery. Sometimes it results in a live birth, sometimes it results in a still birth. But it is still not considered to be an abortion.

 

[netrox]

Fetuses are not aborted in the 9th month. That is induced or sugical delivery. Sometimes it results in a live birth, sometimes it results in a still birth. But it is still not considered to be an abortion.

Um, isn't that what "partial birth abortion" is about? The reason why they can take the legs out and then suck the head while it's still inside is purely legal. The courts have said that as long as the fetus is INSIDE the womb, abortion's fine. That's purely legal but to me, it makes no sense intellectually. If the fetus in his nine months can survive, what's the point of killing a fetus because that healthy baby would definitely be adopted. The demand for a healthy baby is VERY HIGH.

 

[jillio]

Um, isn't that what "partial birth abortion" is about? The reason why they can take the legs out and then suck the head while it's still inside is purely legal. The courts have said that as long as the fetus is INSIDE the womb, abortion's fine. That's purely legal but to me, it makes no sense intellectually. If the fetus in his nine months can survive, what's the point of killing a fetus because that healthy baby would definitely be adopted. The demand for a healthy baby is VERY HIGH.

A partial birth abortion does not dismember the fetus. And partial birth abortions are not legal. The procedure you are referring to is a D & X. I posted earlier on the differences between the two procedures.

A D & X, is not performed in the 9th month of gestation. Nor are abortions past the 1st trimester performed unless the fetal or maternal health is in danger. So, the fetus would not be a "healthy" fetus, nor would it be born as a "healthy" baby.

 

[dreama]

So, you're saying that if they'd have the resources available (i.e., better testing), you'd support?

No I definately would NOT support any abortion. Especially on grounds of selective abortion. It was you who think that only severely disabled fetuses got aborted so I want to point out to you that this is not the case.

 

[jillio]

No I definately would NOT support any abortion. Especially on grounds of selective abortion. It was you who think that only severely disabled fetuses got aborted so I want to point out to you that this is not the case.

You are making no sense. That is not what Woka said at all.

But given your statement, another question arises. So, you feel it is preferable for a fetus that has disabilities so severe so as to be incompatible with life be carried to term, born, and suffer excrutiating pain and discomfort for a couple of years, and then die a horrible painful death? Who exactly does that benefit?

 

[dreama]

I just don't find it fair when a disabled baby that is born to live through this when they very well can be trying to live a normal life if they were to be normal.

I think all babies diserve a chance to live. If your child had cancer you wouldn't just give up and kill it. Even if the doctor said it may die. Because doctor's can be wrong. Same with fetus.

By the way I wouldn't even WANT to be normal. I think normal people must lead very dull lives without any extra challanges in them.

I think that disabled people can have better lives then ordinary people. I've known some very severely disabled kids and they are happy because it takes so little to please them. What I have to achieve with effort of possitive thought. They seem to achieve it naturally. They are blessed. But people just look at their profound disabilities and say they would be better off dead.

 

[dreama]

Hi Hermes,
Welcome to this debate and the best of luck because you'll need it to convince this lot of anything except the stuff they are brainwashed with.

We will disagree about legalizing abortions though. Some people will always want to murder their kids but some how the idea of facing life in prison deters a lot of people from doing so which is a good thing. If they could only get illigal abortion that would be a deterant as well and in my mind a good thing too because they'd have to actually have to think that they might suffer as a result of their selfish actions.

Apart from that. I agree with everything you've been saying.