Just one question…
How do you know?
Is it because some scientist proclaimed that it cannot be so?
Is it an article of faith on your part?
Did God tell you this?
How do you know?
- Status
How do you know?
Is it because some scientist proclaimed that it cannot be so?
Is it an article of faith on your part?
Did God tell you this?
How do you know?
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Unfortunately, this is not true. Late term abortion is still legal, just one type of abortion is not legal, partial birth abortion. I live in a state where abortion can occur for whatever reason up until 24 weeks. A 24 week baby, does not look like a “lump of cells”. They are “viable” with medical intervention. Looking through the yellow pages one can see “clinics” advertising abortion up until 24 weeks.
Actually, an 8 week baby doesn’t look like a lump of cells. An 8 week embryo (is actually about 6 weeks old, pregnancy is dated usually from the date of the last menstrual period) has recognizable body parts (head, arm buds) a heart beat. Not anything at all like a lump of cells.
In my own experience, the woman’s body changes and adapts to protect the life within her. Subtle changes, like the suppression of the immune system and even changes in the sense of smell, happen to protect the small human within. These changes don’t happen when a person has a tumor,
The idea that a person is not required to take care of another makes no sense. A woman and her own unborn child, are not just a casual relationship. They are mother and child. A mom cannot decide to abandon her newborn, or decide to stop feeding it.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
My daughter, who had great difficulty getting pregnant, had an ultrasound every month – and would email us the pictures. At 12 to 13 weeks, she sent us one where we could clearly see our grand daughter sucking her thumb.
How could any mother see that and choose to kill her child?
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
You want a nanny state. Who would you choose to be the nanny? Someone like Hitler? Or someone like Speaker Pelosi? Or maybe the Holy Father? Bush? Is your nanny state one that would care for you from birth to death? If so at birth, five minutes after birth so the state can see if the baby should live? At death, natural or when the state no longer desires to continue supporting you?
Does personal responsibility come into play at any time?
A nanny state that is not God controlled is not a place I would want to live.
H
HannahLisa
Guest
As the Facebook group says, “Being a former fetus…I am naturally pro-life!” That is my basic reason. We were all fetuses at some point, we are all people now. You can’t kill a baby once it’s born, why can you kill it before it’s born?
I also have seven (soon to be eight) younger siblings, so this viewpoint is reinforced. Also, one of my favorite people in this world was born when her mother was 17. I know what I thankfully did not have to miss out on.
I also have seven (soon to be eight) younger siblings, so this viewpoint is reinforced. Also, one of my favorite people in this world was born when her mother was 17. I know what I thankfully did not have to miss out on.
L
leftistdestroye
Guest
Then I will. The Big Ticket Items, are not what you listed.
74% concerned about how having baby would change her life
73% can’t afford baby now
48% has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood
Additionally:
38% would interfere with education plans
38% would interfere with career plans
38% has all the children she wanted or all children are grown
32% unready
32% would interfere with care of children or dependents
Rape: 1%
Health: 12%
So, the Big Ticket Items, are all selfish ones, and ones that have been dealt with by the overwhelming majority of people prior to WW2.
The 4th & 5th spots, are directly attributed to feminism.
So go ahead, kill your own. End the gene pool.
hp://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html#2
N
neat62
Guest
Then they are committing mortal sin…as it has been stated time and time again that you cannot support intrinsic evil.
N
neat62
Guest
You need to go back and read the Cathechism of the Church…I can’t actually believe that people believe that the denying of life…the TAKING of life…is acceptable…this sickens me!
You know…its really a simple thing…you don’t want a baby…BE RESPONSIBLE and DON’T COMMIT THE ACT that MAY cause PREGNANCY!
Of course, expecting that women actually THINK BEFORE they “pleasure themselves” is TOO MUCH to ask right???
N
neat62
Guest
Well…you use “you”…I prefer to use “MORON!”
N
neat62
Guest
Its both money…as well as selfishness…those who have no problem with the murder of the most weakest and needy among us…have no sympathy, no heart and no concern for anyone but themselves!
As Blessed Mother Teresa says:
“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”
N
neat62
Guest
But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? - Blessed Mother Teresa
S
Spirithound
Guest
What does this mean? What exactly do you mean by “not sentient”? What physiology is absent that inhibits suffering?
M
mlchance
Guest
Hmm. Sentient:
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings> 2 : aware 3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling
For aware:
1archaic : watchful, wary 2**:** having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge
So, sticking with definition 1 of sentient, yes, an embyro exhibits signs of sentience in that the embryo can and does respond to changes in its environment. Regarding definition 2, which takes us to definition 2 of aware, it would seem as if an embryo is not sentient. Then again, using that definition, neither is my cat, so I guess that means I can torture Puddy with impunity since she can’t suffer. Definition 3 of sentient also seems to rule out embyros, but also would seem to rule out (again) my cat as well possibly infants. So now we’re suddenly okay with killing infants because they can’t suffer either.
Or, perhaps, the argument that it’s okay to kill a human because that human isn’t sentient really doesn’t amount to much of an argument.
– Mark L. Chance.
M
mapleoak
Guest
Compelled due to pride, because there appears to be no legitimate reason that can stand up to be adequately rationalized. Once the rational argument runs out, there is nothing left but to wallow in ones own self deceit.
N
Nom_the_Wise
Guest
Forgive me, but I posted this very story on another thread, but it fits in here as well:
I think I can offer a somewhat unique perspective. Quite serendipitously, I came to an ironic discovery about the abortion issue, having been a writing teacher.
I taught college level writing courses for six years, mostly freshman composition classes, at public colleges where proselytizing for any religion is illegal. For argument essays, students wanted to tackle “hot button” topics like capital punishment, gun control, stem-cell research, abortion, topics so overplayed in the media that for a writing teacher they have become clichés; as well, they’re highly prone to plagiarism as pirated essays of this kind abound on the Internet. The status quo arguments have little power to persuade anymore; many students were numb, or merely parroting back what they’d heard without reasoning it out for themselves. Despite the fact that these are important issues, I took the position of “outlawing” them, my excuse being that students rarely bring anything “new” to the table, which predictably caused rebellion. I’d say, “Let’s take abortion for example.” I began by reviewing **connotation **(the emotional associations we have with words) and **denotation **(their dictionary definitions). I asked students to call out words with “negative” connotations about children: rug-rat, ankle-biter, condom mishap (not making that one up), snot-nosed brat, etc. Then I asked for overall “positive” connotations about children: *child, infant, toddler, baby *(which are really *neutral *terms, but in light of the preceding negative ones, they *seem *positive), bundle-of-joy, mamma’s little angel, etc. I gave the typical spiel about how overly positive or negative terminology betrays a non-objective attitude, a bias. Then, I asked for medical terminology: *zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus *(for the record, few said blastocyst, except nursing students).
Then, with these words in three neat little columns on the board behind me, I told the tragic tale of a student who wrote about abortion for her 10 page research essay, spending **six pages **detailing the different abortion procedures, just to waste space
, without any reasoning of her own. She discussed in graphic detail (I asked for vivid details of course) how the head of the fetus is crushed with forceps, its limbs dismembered, vacuumed up, etc. going into more detail than even many abortion websites do. I remember feeling a bit nauseous as I read (despite already knowing the facts), but thinking “What a strong pro-life essay.” Then, it turned out her thesis was Pro-Choice. I was floored. “This student’s laziness caused her downfall,” I warned my students, “for it was then that *I came to my great ironic discovery that you really cannot argue **for **abortion by **describing *abortions.” 
Strictly speaking, as an argumentative strategy, it just doesn’t make sense. When arguing for abortions, you’re shooting yourself in the foot if you cast any bright light whatsoever on the very thing you’re advocating. A Pro-Life essay uses words with **connotations **most suited to their cause: child, infant, baby, murder, whereas a Pro-Choice essay must rely on zygote, fetus, medical procedure, vacuum aspiration, and no matter how you spin it, in the end, there is no way to disguise the dismemberment of a human body. Once they recognized that irony, my pro-choice students usually became perturbed and yet the fact is that describing abortions in detail is gruesome; when disguised by terms with “neutral” connotations and non-emotionally charged language, they’re almost spooky. It didn’t always change minds but it threw much light on how arguments can be constructed specifically to deceive, and some arguments must deceive in order to succeed.
On the other thread, I ended it differently, but to gear it to this thread, I will say that Pro-Choice is essentially in keeping with the church’s doctrine of free will. The church teaches us what sin is, and Jesus reconciles us to God through the sacraments. My point in re-telling this story is to demonstrate the very real self-deception involved with abortion. I would not want to be the woman who had an abortion and one day grasps the full gravity of what she has done. That’s what the sacrament of reconciliation is for. But sometimes, in the moment of sin, we close our eyes too tightly.
No one will read this post, of course; it’s too long
S
Spirithound
Guest
I read itNo one will read this post, of course; it’s too long
To kind of echo you, I attended a debate on this issue several years ago, and the rules of the debate allowed pictures. So, the pro-life rep brought in pictures, and on cross-examination, the pro-choice rep informed us that visual aides are not normally allowed in regular debate-club events because they provoke emotion.
Some time later, regrettably way too late to pose this question to the debater myself, well, not really a question, but I believe that if you can’t look at something, the process or the result, and say “I’m glad I did this”, then you shouldn’t be doing it. As you correctly noted, pro-choicers shroud abortion however they can because I think many of them can’t even stomach it.
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
I read it. Thank you for your LONG post. It brings home what many of us have said about abortion and the “choice” to sin.Forgive me, but I posted this very story on another thread, but it fits in here as well:
I think I can offer a somewhat unique perspective. Quite serendipitously, I came to an ironic discovery about the abortion issue, having been a writing teacher.
I taught college level writing courses for six years, mostly freshman composition classes, at public colleges where proselytizing for any religion is illegal. For argument essays, students wanted to tackle “hot button” topics like capital punishment, gun control, stem-cell research, abortion, topics so overplayed in the media that for a writing teacher they have become clichés; as well, they’re highly prone to plagiarism as pirated essays of this kind abound on the Internet. The status quo arguments have little power to persuade anymore; many students were numb, or merely parroting back what they’d heard without reasoning it out for themselves. Despite the fact that these are important issues, I took the position of “outlawing” them, my excuse being that students rarely bring anything “new” to the table, which predictably caused rebellion. I’d say, “Let’s take abortion for example.” I began by reviewing **connotation **(the emotional associations we have with words) and **denotation **(their dictionary definitions). I asked students to call out words with “negative” connotations about children: rug-rat, ankle-biter, condom mishap (not making that one up), snot-nosed brat, etc. Then I asked for overall “positive” connotations about children: *child, infant, toddler, baby *(which are really *neutral *terms, but in light of the preceding negative ones, they *seem *positive), bundle-of-joy, mamma’s little angel, etc. I gave the typical spiel about how overly positive or negative terminology betrays a non-objective attitude, a bias. Then, I asked for medical terminology: *zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus *(for the record, few said blastocyst, except nursing students).
Then, with these words in three neat little columns on the board behind me, I told the tragic tale of a student who wrote about abortion for her 10 page research essay, spending **six pages **detailing the different abortion procedures, just to waste space
Strictly speaking, as an argumentative strategy, it just doesn’t make sense. When arguing for abortions, you’re shooting yourself in the foot if you cast any bright light whatsoever on the very thing you’re advocating. A Pro-Life essay uses words with **connotations **most suited to their cause: child, infant, baby, murder, whereas a Pro-Choice essay must rely on zygote, fetus, medical procedure, vacuum aspiration, and no matter how you spin it, in the end, there is no way to disguise the dismemberment of a human body. Once they recognized that irony, my pro-choice students usually became perturbed and yet the fact is that describing abortions in detail is gruesome; when disguised by terms with “neutral” connotations and non-emotionally charged language, they’re almost spooky. It didn’t always change minds but it threw much light on how arguments can be constructed specifically to deceive, and some arguments must deceive in order to succeed.
On the other thread, I ended it differently, but to gear it to this thread, I will say that Pro-Choice is essentially in keeping with the church’s doctrine of free will. The church teaches us what sin is, and Jesus reconciles us to God through the sacraments. My point in re-telling this story is to demonstrate the very real self-deception involved with abortion. I would not want to be the woman who had an abortion and one day grasps the full gravity of what she has done. That’s what the sacrament of reconciliation is for. But sometimes, in the moment of sin, we close our eyes too tightly.
No one will read this post, of course; it’s too long
Read it, loved it. Thanks.No one will read this post, of course; it’s too long
It backs up an argument I have used before in other debates…
Words mean things, but word choice means something as well.
N
neat62
Guest
Actually, I read it as well.Forgive me, but I posted this very story on another thread, but it fits in here as well:
I think I can offer a somewhat unique perspective. Quite serendipitously, I came to an ironic discovery about the abortion issue, having been a writing teacher.
I taught college level writing courses for six years, mostly freshman composition classes, at public colleges where proselytizing for any religion is illegal. For argument essays, students wanted to tackle “hot button” topics like capital punishment, gun control, stem-cell research, abortion, topics so overplayed in the media that for a writing teacher they have become clichés; as well, they’re highly prone to plagiarism as pirated essays of this kind abound on the Internet. The status quo arguments have little power to persuade anymore; many students were numb, or merely parroting back what they’d heard without reasoning it out for themselves. Despite the fact that these are important issues, I took the position of “outlawing” them, my excuse being that students rarely bring anything “new” to the table, which predictably caused rebellion. I’d say, “Let’s take abortion for example.” I began by reviewing **connotation **(the emotional associations we have with words) and **denotation **(their dictionary definitions). I asked students to call out words with “negative” connotations about children: rug-rat, ankle-biter, condom mishap (not making that one up), snot-nosed brat, etc. Then I asked for overall “positive” connotations about children: *child, infant, toddler, baby *(which are really *neutral *terms, but in light of the preceding negative ones, they *seem *positive), bundle-of-joy, mamma’s little angel, etc. I gave the typical spiel about how overly positive or negative terminology betrays a non-objective attitude, a bias. Then, I asked for medical terminology: *zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus *(for the record, few said blastocyst, except nursing students).
Then, with these words in three neat little columns on the board behind me, I told the tragic tale of a student who wrote about abortion for her 10 page research essay, spending **six pages **detailing the different abortion procedures, just to waste space
Strictly speaking, as an argumentative strategy, it just doesn’t make sense. When arguing for abortions, you’re shooting yourself in the foot if you cast any bright light whatsoever on the very thing you’re advocating. A Pro-Life essay uses words with **connotations **most suited to their cause: child, infant, baby, murder, whereas a Pro-Choice essay must rely on zygote, fetus, medical procedure, vacuum aspiration, and no matter how you spin it, in the end, there is no way to disguise the dismemberment of a human body. Once they recognized that irony, my pro-choice students usually became perturbed and yet the fact is that describing abortions in detail is gruesome; when disguised by terms with “neutral” connotations and non-emotionally charged language, they’re almost spooky. It didn’t always change minds but it threw much light on how arguments can be constructed specifically to deceive, and some arguments must deceive in order to succeed.
On the other thread, I ended it differently, but to gear it to this thread, I will say that Pro-Choice is essentially in keeping with the church’s doctrine of free will. The church teaches us what sin is, and Jesus reconciles us to God through the sacraments. My point in re-telling this story is to demonstrate the very real self-deception involved with abortion. I would not want to be the woman who had an abortion and one day grasps the full gravity of what she has done. That’s what the sacrament of reconciliation is for. But sometimes, in the moment of sin, we close our eyes too tightly.
No one will read this post, of course; it’s too long
This is why there are a few of us on here who are willing to speak up directly and loudly…I for one, do not want to worry about semantics, when the life of another and the souls of several are at stake.
When one attempts to stop a woman from aborting, you are not only trying to save the child, you are trying to save the women from the very grevious sin…in addition, the souls of the abortionist and all who assist and support the procedure.
Hence, why I am all in favor of speaking up and not “mincing” words…I prefer to speak the Truth because it is only with the Truth that others may wake up and see the light.
- Status