Leslie...thank you so much for all of your support with my situation...you and Biggs..I love you both...and to everyone else...Thank you!! LOVE,,,,,,,Q
Pro-Life or Pro-Choice--HELP
by Quincy 123 Replies latest social relationships
-
-
Mimilly
Sex is for procreation. NO birth control is 100% effective. If one doesn't want a baby in their life or can't handle one at the time - they shouldn't have sex, plain and bloody simple. Abortions should be for people in danger of losing their life.
I was 16 when I found out I was pregnant. Lots of people tried to get me to abort. Nope. I was deemed a 'risk' pregnancy but delivered a 10lb baby girl who was the biggest and healthiest in the nursery. I've never regretted my decision.
My 19yr old daughter was 7 weeks pregnant and wanted the baby. Of course there are doubts and questions in the beginning. Unfortuneatly the fetus was in her fallopian tube, and she nearly bled to death. THAT's a reason to abort. There are also pregnancies caused by rapes.
I get incredibly annoyed at people who deem themselves responsible to have sex, but abort babies because it will interfere with their life. Lack of responsibility and selfishness.
Abortion is not contraception. There are too many people walking around who do not understand the consequences of their actions. And to the poster who said that pregnancy is a 'side affect' of having sex - get real. Sex is fun and fulfilling - but copulation by nature is intended to make babies.
Mimilly
-
Matty
Spot on as usual Mim!
-
willy_think
Willy:
If you ask any cop what is absolute proof of a persons identity they will tell you a DNA test. Test the fetus (not to be confused with the old person, the middle-aged person, adult person young person, child, toddler, baby, infant, preemie) and you find that it's not the mother at all. DNA tests will not show age but they will show who the parents of the person being tested are without doubt. Cancer cells don't do that, cancer has no individually unique makeup and parentage, only a person does at every level of development.
Xander:
This is a stupid argument, and I think you know it is. Go ahead - TEST a cancer cell. Does it have the same DNA as the human host? Well, actually - NO! Or it wouldn't be cancerous, now would it? How about a cell infected with, say, the HIV virus. Is the DNA in the cell the exact same as the human host? Again - NO!
there are not stupid arguments only stupid people.
A Cancerous cell DNA is not the "exact same" as a healthy cell on the same person. But i NEVER said it was.
what I said is cancerous cells will not test positive as a unique person with a traceable lineage.Test a human cancer and you will find a mutation of a persons healthy DNA.
Test a fetus and you will find a healthy persons DNA not the mother's not the dad's and not a mutation.Would the person who is not a group of cells please stand up? No, no people like that here.
I mean, when talking about the woman here, we are talking about ONE single sentient human being, no?
killing a pregnant woman in MA is 2 life sentences. Why?Why does the fact that a fetus - MIGHT - be born and become a human being (there really isn't any guarantee) - make it deserve special consideration?
It is a human being before it is born, even doctors can't kill them after a certain arbitrary age.
-
Delite2k
Quincy,
First of all, I am talking from experience. I actually had an abortion. Let's make one thing clear, me and the guy did use a condom, but it broke and I got pregnant. He was my first, so I didn't sleep around and I wasn't trying to be irresponsible. Now I have to say, telling her that your not going to help pay for the procedure, is in a way not fair. Its like your giving her no options at all, like your forcing her to choose what you want her to. Its either do it your way or else. Now its not that she's not considering your feelings, i'm sure she is, but remember, it does take two to tango. Both of you are in this together. You let her know that your there for her WHATEVER she decides to do, even if its not what you want. Hey what you want may not really be what she wants. It is good that your sister and brother have your back and is willing to adopt, but my opinion, i'm not gonna go through 9 months of pregnancy and then no telling how many hours of labor, just to give away my baby and give up my parental rights. In a way i'm ok with my decision, because I stay with my mama in a studio apt., barely making ends meet, I haven't gone to college yet and i'm just now starting to get myself together. I don't have anyroom for a child, but at the same time, to be honest, when I see someone else with their baby, I get sad. I do have regrets. But i also would've had regrets if I would have givin my baby up for adoption. See for some people its a no-win situation, whatever decision they make. But you be by her side 100%. Don't back her in a corner like that. I wish that guy was there for me and he wanted me to have the procedure, not me. I considered his feelings more than mine and look what happened. I hope i'm making sense, because i'm just typing what i'm feeling.
-
funkyderek
Willy, do you think it's OK to kill someone who has an identical twin, or is unique DNA not the only criteria for what makes a human being?
-
willy_think
Willy, do you think it's OK to kill someone who has an identical twin, or is unique DNA not the only criteria for what makes a human being?
No it's not OK to kill someone who has an identical twin. unique DNA is not the ONLY criteria. human DNA is the only criteria that makes someone a person and is used to tell one person from another. reason, hands, legs, heart or lungs, a human without any or all of these is a person and an animal with any or all of these it's not a man without the DNA of a human.If you are to make the clam that the feuds (a collection of cells) is part of the mothers body (a collection of cells) then the feuds must be a collection of the MOTHERS cell, they are not.
The feuds is not the mother, DNA tests will not tell us who it's OK to kill they will tell us if the tested animal is a person and who his/her mother and farther is.
If the outcome of the test tells us the person tested is not the person claiming to be him/her, should we honor the false claims of that person?
NO of course not. In fact in the USA the ONLY time that claim is honored is in the case of abortion.my only points are:
Tests show the feuds is NOT the mother.
Tests show the feuds is alive.
Tests show the feuds is human. -
Xander
It is a human being before it is born
....
Tests show the feuds is alive.
Tests show the feuds is human.Let me point out some information you might not know:
For example, lots of sperm are defective, missing essential chromosomes; should they fertilize an ovum, development will fail at some point, usually so early that pregnancy isn't noticed. For this and other reasons, over 80 percent of human conceptions fail, most in the first six weeks (this spontaneous abortion rate is far more significant than even the highest rates of induced abortions).
Hey, how about that. 80% of fertilized eggs (that meet your definition of 'alive' and 'human') die within the first six weeks of pregnancy.
Wow - that's a lot of murders committed by 'god', huh?
even doctors can't kill them after a certain arbitrary age
Myself, I agree with this. At some point (before birth) it DOES get a 'soul', if you will - when brain activity starts is probably the best spot to identify this event. This appears to occur (at the absolute soonest) around the 24th week. Maybe later.
(EDIT: In fact, just dug this up:
Taking issue with misleading pro-life terminology, Grobstein says, "by brain waves, one usually means the kinds of regular electrical patterns that can be observed in adults. These do not exist in the early fetus. Until roughly thirty weeks you don't see the kind of regular patterns that are characteristic of EEGs in adults." 13
Then we have the period from twenty to thirty weeks, which Grobstein describes as "uncertain." "Once past the twenty-week mark, the brain is maturing and there are some connections between neurons in the cortex. We can be doubtful but we can't be sure there's no inner experience. That's where we need lots more information." Grobstein therefore suggests setting the "boundary of sentience" at twenty-six weeks to provide a safety margin, adding that on the evidence now available, "the dawn of sentience is far more likely to be later than ... earlier." 13)
Edited by - Xander on 12 August 2002 13:57:25
-
amac
Hey, how about that. 80% of fertilized eggs (that meet your definition of 'alive' and 'human') die within the first six weeks of pregnancy.
Is that supposed to justify aborting some of the 20% that survive? Why hell, since we all die eventually, murder should be OK then too.
I don't care when the brain waves start, or how you came to the conclusion that it is also the same time they get their "soul." A fetus is part of the reproductive cycle. It is life. It is the result of an act for reproduction (sex.) If it has reached the fetus level, then chances are this life will grow into a full grown human being. To abort this process simply for the sake of convenience, or because you just wanted to have sex, shows a complete disregard for the sanctity of life.
Using scientific arguments to justify the level of "living" in a fetus and whether or not it is "OK" to abort is ridiculous. The same argument can be extended to any age at which point it is obvious how ridiculous it is. Anyone who is balls enough to have an abortion should also have the gonads to acknowledge that it is ending life. And not hide behind an argument of it being a clump of cells with no brain waves.
-
willy_think
Hey, how about that. 80% of fertilized eggs (that meet your definition of 'alive' and 'human') die within the first six weeks of pregnancy. Wow - that's a lot of murders committed by 'god', huh?
100% of humans die, we can find charts to show the percentage rates of death at every age from conception on.
I don't know what God you have in mind, but I don't need to, to know life when I see it.
So it's your God who kills the sick, I knew there was someone to pin it on.Myself, I agree with this. At some point (before birth) it DOES get a 'soul,' if you will -- when brain activity starts is probably the best spot to identify this event. This appears to occur (at the absolute soonest) around the 24th week. Maybe later.
It's not point of agreement it's the protection of law. I have no idea what a sole has to do with it, I have seen no evidence of a sole, there for a require no proof of a sole from a person before I consider him/her alive.I don't believe brain waves are needed to be a person, brain damaged people are people all the same.
It's not about a God that may or may not be or a sole that may or may not be it's about life and death that are.
Edited by - willy_think on 12 August 2002 15:10:26