Abortion on Good Morning America

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sorbetto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sorbetto

Guest
This morning on Good Morning America, there was a report about how new studies in abortion suggest that a fetus’s brain is not developed enough until late in the pregnancy to feel pain, etc.

Whether or not this is true, is a skirt around the real issue, which is, no matter whether or not it can feel pain or if we can ever know that, it is still murder. If we slipped a lethal dosage of drugs or poison into someone’s food over time to kill them slowly, it might not be painless, but it sure wouldn’t pass unnoticed as not being murder.

I was a little disgusted that this was on Good Morning America.
 
Yes, I heard this hogwash on the evening news yesterday. It proves nothing. The pro-death camps will stop at nothing to pull the wool over people’s eyes…how frightening!!

Just another diversion tactic in the culture of death mentality to justify the murder of the unborn.

God please help these people to grow in compassion for the most innocent in life!!:gopray2:
 
All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. If brainwaves are not present in the fetus I don’t really see a moral issue with aborting it.
 
40.png
Loser:
All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. If brainwaves are not present in the fetus I don’t really see a moral issue with aborting it.
Click to expand...
how about reading something truthful?
www.lifenews.com/nat1558.html

It’s a baby even if it didn’t have feeling yet, which it does. What if you were paralyzed and couldn’t feel a thing, should someone be able to decide that your life no longer has value and just murder you instead? It is really ridiclous the things that people are coming up with to try to justify murdering an innocent baby in it’s mother’s womb. It is living, no matter how tiny, we all were once so small and delicate.
 
40.png
Loser:
All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. If brainwaves are not present in the fetus I don’t really see a moral issue with aborting it.
Click to expand...
There are many people who report phenomena during Near Death Experiences (NDE). These experiences occur even when the person does not have any brainwaves. Murder is murder.
 
40.png
Maranatha:
There are many people who report phenomena during Near Death Experiences (NDE). These experiences occur even when the person does not have any brainwaves. Murder is murder.
Click to expand...
Murder = murder, good job. Killing does not necessarily equate to murder. Your objection fails to take into account that a fetus has never been a person and that a woman can do what she wants with her body. Most biologists would agree that a fetus’ state is strictly parasitic.
 
40.png
Loser:
Murder = murder, good job. Killing does not necessarily equate to murder. Your objection fails to take into account that a fetus has never been a person and that a woman can do what she wants with her body. Most biologists would agree that a fetus’ state is strictly parasitic.
Click to expand...
At what point does the fetus become a person in your opinion? At birth? And why? It is still helpless and needs others in order to survive. In your opinion, what makes a person, a person? I believe a person is given a soul at the moment of conception and that’s what makes us “people.”

You said a woman should be able to do what she wants with her body? What if what she wants to do is drink large quantities of alcohol throughout her pregnancy and she delivers a baby with fetal alcohol syndrom & all the problems that entails… should she get in trouble for that? And if so, why… she’s only doing what SHE wants.

I doubt most Christian Biologists would agree that a fetus is a parasite. Do you feel that way also? I hope your Mother didn’t feel that way about you. It’s a very sad statement.
 
40.png
Loser:
Murder = murder, good job. Killing does not necessarily equate to murder. Your objection fails to take into account that a fetus has never been a person and that a woman can do what she wants with her body. Most biologists would agree that a fetus’ state is strictly parasitic.
Click to expand...
If you truly think a woman can do what she wants to with her body, you’re very mistaken. Well, I guess I can do whatever I want but I can get into trouble for some of it. Heaven forbid I want to drive around without my seatbelt or take drugs the gov’t has deemed illegal.

Also, I very much disagree with your statment that “a fetus has never been a person”. A fetus is a person - it’s a human being. Not a **potential **human, but an actual human.

I’m curious, too, as to when a fetus becomes a person in your estimation.
 
40.png
Loser:
Murder = murder, good job. Killing does not necessarily equate to murder. Your objection fails to take into account that a fetus has never been a person and that a woman can do what she wants with her body. Most biologists would agree that a fetus’ state is strictly parasitic.
Click to expand...
Really? That’s news to me. A woman can do whatever she wants with her body? She can put illegal drugs into it? Can she put large amounts of alcohol into it and direct it to drive a car? Can she use it to pick up a gun, aim the gun at another woman and direct her finger to pull the trigger? Of course a woman is physically capable of all these activities and if that is what you mean by can than I would agree with you. Legally and morally however women CANNOT use their bodies to do such things. As for the parasitic argument. If a child can make no claim over its mother during pregnancy, why can the child make a claim after birth? For example a mother is not allowed to leave her child in a hot car, is obligated to feed the child or find others who will etc. Such are impostions we as society put on womens’ bodies. Addittionaly, the right to life is the paramount right upon which all others stand. If you have no right to exist, than how can you possibly claim other rights? Something that has no right to exist in the first place cannot make claims to have other rights, including a “right to choose” When you deny the right to life, the entire moral edifice upon which our society is founded comes crashing down like a house of cards. The idea that a child suddenly possesses rights when outside of the womb is ridiculous. Cognitavely new borns are less able than dogs, monkeys, dolphins, parakeets, and possibly even rats. Furthermore many premature newborns are less cognitavely developed than children who are aborted late term, by your logic the late term aborted children should have possessed greater rights than the premature newborns since they were more developed. Aside from being murder legalized abortion has the little unfortuante side effect of undermining our entire system of values, rights and logic. Please pray about this issue and God will be faithful to reveal his truth.

God Bless.
 
By the way Loser, did you know that the word fetus is taken from the latin word meaning Child?
 
Did you guys ever watch animal documentaries on PBS? Look at how small a baby kangaroo is? That’s how small we are when we are in the fetal stage. I am pretty sure that baby kangaroos feel pain, thirst, hungry, etc. So, do we at 26 weeks.
 
Here are a few thoughts I have on the study:
  1. It does not emperically prove anything, but instead infers through logic that something is the case. (This is present, this is present, this isn’t, so we believe because of those things this is the case.) With regard to another thread about evolution in which the belief that God could have been the root cause of such, the use of logic and inference is thrown out the door as unscientific. In other words, the scientists throw logic out the door when it throws God out as well, but they welcome its usage if it has the potential of throwing God out in another context.
  2. As much as the pro-life side is against the findings (because the implied message is that a child can be killed up until that point in time in the third trimester), the pro-death side is also quite upset. You see, they don’t want it to look like the child is a child (ie, has a heart beat, brain waves, can feel pain, etc) at any point in time in utero. Afterall, the baby is just a “parasite” isn’t it? Or a “clump of cells, just like a cancerous tumor”? They don’t want the public to identify the fetus as human at any point in time.
  3. My thought, from a pro-life stance, is that the babies will best be served if we embrace this as “a groundbreaking new study which opens the door to scientific proof that a fetus has the characteristics of humanity from the very start.” We can then later argue that we wouldn’t knock off our grandmas just because their nerves weren’t sending pain signals to the brain, nor should we knock off a second trimester baby (or first).
  4. The study in no way implies that we allow murder until that point in time, and it is actually we pro-life people who have defensively attributed that to it. I suggest that we stop talking about any impact on abortion and start praising the possible impact on recognizing the humanity of the fetus. Then, if challenged, we can fall back on the same rhetoric the other side is, mainly that this is a groundbreaking study but, by its nature and use of logic, it is not emperical and does leave many questions unanswered.
 
40.png
Loser:
Your objection fails to take into account that a fetus has never been a person and that a woman can do what she wants with her body.
Click to expand...
Medical textbooks recognize fertilisation, when a sperm fuses with an ovum, as the start of a new life. Any standard textbook on embryology indicates that embryos are human beings. This single cell is a whole human being. Furthermore, the Equal Moral Status principle states that “all human beings are equal, and ought not to be harmed or considered to be less than human on the basis of age or size of stage of development or condition of dependency.” Humans deserve full respect by virtue of this kind of entity they are. So using the Equal Moral Status principle, you should not treat the embryo as something less just because “it” is not fully-developed.

“A person’s a person, no matter how small!”
-Dr. Seuss
 
An embryo is not a potential human being, it is a human being with potential
 
40.png
Loser:
Murder = murder, good job. Killing does not necessarily equate to murder. Your objection fails to take into account that a fetus has never been a person and that a woman can do what she wants with her body. Most biologists would agree that a fetus’ state is strictly parasitic.
Click to expand...
Loser I am not sure were you are getting your information. I know that by the time you are hopefully reading this letter you have alread been suspended and so you can not respond. But let me tell you as a mother who has been pregnate three times. With two of my children I was lucky enough to see them when they were only ten and eleven week. I can tell you that they were very much human at this short time my daughter the oldest, got so angry when the doctor pushed on my stomach to see her move. Her arms and legs went frailing. She was angry it took her awhile to calm down. We all laughed to see this, and she is the same way today, she does not liked to be surprised. My son on the other hand didn’t really mind being disturbed he moved his arms and legs and calmed down rather fast. He is the same way today really calm. On a side note when I was pregnate with him the only time he would kick was when my daughter would come into the room talking. They are very close. Now I said I was pregnate three times, once between both of my children I carried that child up to about twelve weeks. From the second I got pregnate I knew I was pregnate and with this child I knew the second I lost that child, I can’t really explain it but his presents was just gone one day and all I could was cry. The doctors confrimed that I had lost the child when I told him about my feeling. So you see yes murder is murder, when ever someone kills a living being. And no a mother does not have the choice to kill her child wither that child is visible or not. IT IS MURDER! plain and simple.
 
Latest news concerning the study: two (of 5) authors failed to report their pro-abortion activities to the journal’s editor before publication.

“One author, Susan J. Lee, a medical student, is also a lawyer who for eight months from 1999 to 2000 worked in the legal department at Naral, an abortion rights group. Another author, Dr. Eleanor A. Drey, performs abortions and is medical director of an abortion clinic.”

What is most interesting to me is this: Congress is considering passing a bill that requires doctors to tell the mom that her baby might feel pain if she is 20 weeks along or longer. The doctor would have to offer pain medication to the mother for the baby before killing the baby. The study’s goal was to prove that a 20 week baby cannot feel pain, so Congress should not pass this bill. Instead, the study suggests it is in the 24-29 week time frame that they believe pain can be felt.

So let me get this straight:

Congress is recognizing the humanity of the child and simultaneously the “right” of a mother to kill the child.

Abortionists don’t like that Congress is recognizing the humanity of the child, so they argue that the child doesn’t have human characteristics for 4 weeks more. So abortionists are recognizing the humanity of the child in order to ask Congress to recognize the “right” of mothers to kill their babies.

And pro-life people are sitting here going, “Hellllooooo!” We’ve been saying this is a baby all along and it is murder to kill the child. This study (as flawed as it was, using people adamently pro-death, and using logic to infer a conclusion) still proves the pro-life side right and puts kinks in any other theory.

Which seems like the most logical argument?
 
…and we will keep them both in our prayers. Plus all those who think like them. How sad and heart-breaking some people are. It makes me literally ill that a mother’s womb has become a child’s tomb.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top