Do you support abortion as

[jillio]

No, fetus in a womb is a human development, not human being until 9 months then get out of womb as a human being. A living child is a human being.

Exactly. If it were an independent life, it would not be connected to the woman with an umbilical cord.

 

[Cheri]

You can believe anything you want to. The problem is, you can't substantiate it with evidence. You can believe that the sky is green if you want to, but until you can offer evidence to support it, it is no more than your belief..

You cannot listed someone as a non-human just because they change or become deformed. It's like saying a person on a life support by a machine is listed as someone non-human. When I say that a fetus is a human being, because it was conceived by human beings.

When a baby is born in the world, a baby cannot survive on its own once it is born, the mother does the providing. It's the same as when a baby is in a womb the mother provide food from her body. I don't see how you can't even see that.

 

[Jiro]

You cannot listed someone as a non-human just because they change or become deformed. It's like saying a person on a life support by a machine is listed as someone non-human. When I say that a fetus is a human being, because it was conceived by human beings.

When a baby is born in the world, a baby cannot survive on its own once it is born, the mother does the providing. It's the same as when a baby is in a womb the mother provide food from her body. I don't see how you can't even see that.

it's not us. it's agreed by medical and scientific community... and apparently Supreme Court

 

[jillio]

You cannot listed someone as a non-human just because they change or become deformed. It's like saying a person on a life support by a machine is listed as someone non-human. When I say that a fetus is a human being, because it was conceived by human beings.

When a baby is born in the world, a baby cannot survive on its own once it is born, the mother does the providing. It's the same as when a baby is in a womb the mother provide food from her body. I don't see how you can't even see that.

Who said anyone listed anyone as non-human just because they change or become deformed? That statement was never made.

A baby depends on a parent to provide nutrition. An embryo, or a fetus that has not reached the point of viability, cannot breath on its own, its circulatory system cannot function on its own, its heart cannot beat on its own, it cannot receive nutrition except through the umbilical cord which attaches it to the female's body, it cannot sustain independent life in any way, shape, or form. No one else can sustain the life but the female to which it is attached. A baby can be fed by a father, a sister, a brother, a grandparent, or a baby sitter. To be dependent upon another in this way is completely different than an embryo that must be physically attached to a host.

 

[jillio]

it's not us. it's agreed by medical and scientific community... and apparently Supreme Court

Exactly.

 

[Cheri]

it's not us. it's agreed by medical and scientific community... and apparently Supreme Court

And you and Jillio stand by medical and science. if you didn't believe it, then you would say so.

Who said anyone listed anyone as non-human just because they change or become deformed? That statement was never made.

You are the one who said a fetus is not a human being....duh~. You can't remember what you said? Go figures.

 

[jillio]

And you and Jillio stand by medical and science. if you didn't believe it, then you would say so.



You are the one who said a fetus is not a human being....duh~. You can't remember what you said? Go figures.

I said a fetus is not a baby, because it is not viable. Please get your facts straight. Likewise, I never mentioned anything becoming non-human because it changed or became deformed. Those are your words. Perhaps you should go back and re-read, and perhaps your errors will become more clear to you. Evidently, misinterpretation and disotrtion is your forte.

Medical science has come up with a definition that can be quantitatively measured, and the Supreme Court has accepted that quatitative measurement. What exactly, have you come up with that can be meansured or supported in any way?

The fact of the matter is, abortion is legal. Whether you agree with it or not. The only choice you have in the matter is not to choose to have one. But the law says that you have no right to unflict your beliefs on someone else. When you and the other anti-abortion crowd can come up with something that can refute what is already supported through medical science, you might have a valid argument. Until then, you don't have a leg to stand on. The law requires proof. You have none.

 

[Cheri]

I said a fetus is not a baby, because it is not viable. Please get your facts straight. Likewise, I never mentioned anything becoming non-human because it changed or became deformed. Those are your words. Perhaps you should go back and re-read, and perhaps your errors will become more clear to you. Evidently, misinterpretation and disotrtion is your forte.

I did not say that you said that, I said that you're are trying to say a baby isn't a human being-- it's like saying it's non-human, I was giving an example, because in the womb the fetus changes.. developed for life. It has a complete set of human DNA. End of the discussion. If you can't understand me, then ask.. don't assume.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Jillio - I wonder...

If you think a unborn person is not a conscience and/or viability, then what makes a person is not just "conscience and viability"? How about those fully grown adults who in a coma? You see - there are countless adults, who are in a coma, do need a life-supporting machine to keep them alive (just like unborn children need a umbilical cord to depend on a mother's). So, are they not really alive too, just because they cannot live without a machine until they wake up?
I know some pro-choicers don't believe in a conscience and viability of a fetus until at birth. I guess they only skimmed through the artiecle (sp)... An infant cannot survive on it's own outside the host for days, right? It can't get food on it's own, it needs its mother, of course. Fetuses have also been known to live outside the womb, such as abortion survivors. If you really want proof of personhood, then go to google.com and look into the eyes of a person who survived an abortion. If they were not a person when they was aborted, what was they? Since, they didn't come back from the dead, in the note, they was living. And since they was a living human, doesn't that make them a person like you and me? So, pro-abortists do not want it happen so they make sure those aborted survivors are dead at any clinic, completely dead. It is not matter if it is a seven months, eight weeks, or three weeks fetus. They have to die, period. Correct?

I guess a fetus must come out of womb so you can see a fetus, a fetus can have a conscience and viability when it come out of her womb. Even if a fetus is aborted yet alive, is still it have a conscience and viability do you think so? I found a good picture from deviantART.

Again, if you think a unborn person is not a conscience and/or viability, then what makes a person is not just "conscience and viability"?

What do you think? I'm just curious as I wonder. Sure, my post may not satisfied you but I think I got some good points...

 

[Jiro]

OK - here's a big problem. Many people (pro-lifers) confuse abortion or intend to confuse others by using a fully-developed baby (3rd trimester) as the case. They parade it as a sympathy tool. That is not an issue in here. The issue is the first (and perhaps second) trimester fetus. Third Trimester Fetus can survive in incubator but not at earlier stage. If it's earlier - they will most likely develop mental and/or physical problems that can be cruel and painful to live with - a short life who will die with no dignity. That is not a humane way to live.

The major focus of this abortion debate is the first trimester term - not a fully-developed baby. The fetus at this early stage is not fully-developed and is no different from parasite who relies on mother (a host) via umbilical cord for vital functions in order to live and develop. It does not have a conscious mind nor soul. It is simply bunch of cells coming together and developing. Its brain has a very very minimal operation - it is no different from bacteria's function. The fetus will die if severed from the mother. No incubator or modern medical technology can save that fetus at that early stage. Fetus cannot feel any pain until 3rd trimester. To say fetus at early stage has conscious and soul is like saying my blood cell and sperm have conscious minds and souls. To say a fetus has conscious - that would mean he/she can express his/her emotions and communicate. Ridiculous.

A man in coma is irrelevant. That is a result of unfortunate accident and the family member has a choice to continue the life support or not. That is a medical intervention. But the fetus does not have a choice. It is 100% dependent on the host - the mother to live until 3rd trimester. No life support machine or medical intervention can keep that baby alive (except for 3rd trimester). It is impossible.

Since you brought up a person in coma... look at Terry Schiavo. She was clinically brain dead with no hope of recovery - a vegetable. I don't know about you but there was no conscious or soul in that body. It was long gone. This pisses me off about pro-lifers because it's all about appeasing to their belief just so they can feel good that nobody has to die even though that person was clinically brain dead while her body was decaying. I find this morbidly disturbing and disgusting. SHAME ON THEM. I fail to understand why would a pro-lifer let a loved one suffer with agonizing pain until he/she dies on his/her own term? Such a horrible inhumanity...

 

[Jiro]

another thing that puzzles me... when it comes to deciding on abortion - did a fetus tell you that he/she wants to live? ever consider that he/she does not want to live with incapacitating disability? You automatically assume all fetus have rights and want to live so you listen to their "request".... but when the fetus becomes a young child - you ignore his/her rights and requests because you are in charge and you get to dictate everything for him/her.

Strange.... I am deeply mystified at such reasoning...

 

[KarissaMann05]

Whoa whoa I never said souls or spirits... I didn't bring it up religions... Now I am kinda of afraid to speak my mind when someone thought I said something...

OK - here's a big problem. Many people (pro-lifers) confuse abortion or intend to confuse others by using a fully-developed baby (3rd trimester) as the case. They parade it as a sympathy tool. That is not an issue in here. The issue is the first (and perhaps second) trimester fetus. Third Trimester Fetus can survive in incubator but not at earlier stage. If it's earlier - they will most likely develop mental and/or physical problems that can be cruel and painful to live with - a short life who will die with no dignity. That is not a humane way to live.

No, I was talked fetus who is eight weeks to at birth with no conscience and viability. I do understand your point, I kept seeing people said fetus can't have it unless it come out of womb...

The major focus of this abortion debate is the first trimester term - not a fully-developed baby. The fetus at this early stage is not fully-developed and is no different from parasite who relies on mother (a host) via umbilical cord for vital functions in order to live and develop. It does not have a conscious mind nor soul. It is simply bunch of cells coming together and developing. Its brain has a very very minimal operation - it is no different from bacteria's function. The fetus will die if severed from the mother. No incubator or modern medical technology can save that fetus at that early stage. Fetus cannot feel any pain until 3rd trimester. To say fetus at early stage has conscious and soul is like saying my blood cell and sperm have conscious minds and souls. To say a fetus has conscious - that would mean he/she can express his/her emotions and communicate. Ridiculous.

You entitled on your opinion.

Also, I respectfully disagreed that fetus don't any pain until the third term. A fetus do feel a pain at second term, when the first term is not.

A man in coma is irrelevant. That is a result of unfortunate accident and the family member has a choice to continue the life support or not. That is a medical intervention. But the fetus does not have a choice. It is 100% dependent on the host - the mother to live until 3rd trimester. No life support machine or medical intervention can keep that baby alive (except for 3rd trimester). It is impossible.

Er, no. You don't get it. So never mind.

Since you brought up a person in coma... look at Terry Schiavo. She was clinically brain dead with no hope of recovery - a vegetable. I don't know about you but there was no conscious or soul in that body. It was long gone. This pisses me off about pro-lifers because it's all about appeasing to their belief just so they can feel good that nobody has to die even though that person was clinically brain dead while her body was decaying. I find this morbidly disturbing and disgusting. SHAME ON THEM. I fail to understand why would a pro-lifer let a loved one suffer with agonizing pain until he/she dies on his/her own term? Such a horrible inhumanity...

No comment.


















I think pro-life friends of mine are right. It must be harder to defend pro-life belief... oh, well...

 

[KarissaMann05]

another thing that puzzles me... when it comes to deciding on abortion - did a fetus tell you that he/she wants to live? ever consider that he/she does not want to live with incapacitating disability? You automatically assume all fetus have rights and want to live so you listen to their "request".... but when the fetus becomes a young child - you ignore his/her rights and requests because you are in charge and you get to dictate everything for him/her.

Strange.... I am deeply mystified at such reasoning...

Excuse me... Don't assume too much as a such thing you thought so. :|

 

[Jiro]

Whoa whoa I never said souls or spirits... I didn't bring it up religions... Now I am kinda of afraid to speak my mind when someone thought I said something...

I think pro-life friends of mine are right. It must be harder to defend pro-life belief... oh, well...

Excuse me... Don't assume too much as a such thing you thought so. :|

My post is not specifically targeted toward you I'm responding to all anti-abortionists here because they have same/similar general concept of abortion.

 

[shel90]

Pro-lifers have the right to be against abortion, believe that the fetus has a soul or spirit, that it can feel pain, and choose not to get an abortion for themselves. Only thing pro-lifers cant do is to impose their beliefs about this issue on everyone else. Simple as that.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Pro-lifers have the right to be against abortion, believe that the fetus has a soul or spirit, that it can feel pain, and choose not to get an abortion for themselves. Only thing pro-lifers cant do is to impose their beliefs about this issue on everyone else. Simple as that.

 

[Foxrac]

Pro-lifers have the right to be against abortion, believe that the fetus has a soul or spirit, that it can feel pain, and choose not to get an abortion for themselves. Only thing pro-lifers cant do is to impose their beliefs about this issue on everyone else. Simple as that.

Yup, that right...

 

[Cheri]

Whoa whoa I never said souls or spirits... I didn't bring it up religions...

Right, I never said that either and I don't know why some people intend to make things up. All I have said was a fetus is a human being... where the heck did I say soul or spirit? When I meant what I mean is, a human being formed by a fertilization of a human egg and sperm that everything to become a human being. Just because a fetus isn't fully development it doesn't make it less a human being.

We were all babies once, we were all toddlers once, we were all teens once, we are now an adult. That's the stage of the human life cycle, we change, it's the same as a fetus--The human life cycle begins at fertilization.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Right, I never said that either and I don't know why some people intend to make things up. All I have said was a fetus is a human being... where the heck did I say soul or spirit? When I meant what I mean is, a human being formed by a fertilization of a human egg and sperm that everything to become a human being. Just because a fetus isn't fully development it doesn't make it less a human being.

We were all babies once, we were all toddlers once, we were all teens once, we are now an adult. That's the stage of the human life cycle, we change, it's the same as a fetus--The human life cycle begins at fertilization.

Definitely agreed! I just like I said, a stage of human development has labels for growth, from fertilization to the death of human being at old age.

 

[Cheri]

another thing that puzzles me... when it comes to deciding on abortion - did a fetus tell you that he/she wants to live?

If you are going to ask a stupid question, you'll as well will get a stupid question too, Does a living baby tell you that he/she wants to live when a baby is being abuse?