5 Facts About Abortion

[talloulou]

I watched it. I could fake a better video with my hands tied behind my back.

Okay let's see.

 

[steen]

I did not read too much here, including your posts; but let me make sure that I understand you correctly: you are participating in the discussion about abortions and you - I see - have been about pregnancy --- and your posts are not related to "child" and you nowhere had talked about a "child"?

Correct. Talloulou is the one who brought up the term "child" and claimed I had said anything about it. THAT was the dishonest claim.

 

[jfuh]

Let me make it clear for myself. You state that life (X) begins with fertilization. After the moment fertilization life (X) exists.

Actually, life already exists before fertilization.

So, when you abort, you abort life (X), you make life (X) do not exist ( )?

And your argument is?

 

[jfuh]

Well the fact of the matter is you would never let anyone get away with using a prolife site as a source so clearly you must not lower yourself to using prochoice action sites as a source.

Furthermore any and every dr. who speaks out against abortion is labeled prolife and thus looses credibility so anotherwards you will only ever listen to or consider people who are going to say what it is you are willing to hear.

Also I said I'm sure some pics are doctored or mislabled but I doubt that is the case 100% of the time or across the board and I doubt it's the case MOST of the time.

And, if it were possible to photograph the results of abortion in a less horrifying light the prochoice networks would have done so. But all anyone has to do is look in some medical textbooks or pathology books and you can find credible abortion pics from a ligit source with correct labels. Trust me they'll turn your stomach just the same as all the other crap out there.

Unless you're like one of those statues.....see no evil.....hear no evil......

There's only two sides of the debate, pro choice, or anti choice.
If there were no religious ideologues going on, there would be no issue whatsoever.
Why? Because women have the constitutional right to thier own bodies. A fetus/zygote is not viable, no individuality, and not a person. Alright sure, you feel strongly about the form that looks like a little baby. I get that, I also get it's the reason why you are anti-choice because you feel that abortion kills that little baby.
However, fact is that's not the case. Fact is most abortions occur when the zygote resembles nothig human and is no more than as you so put it, a clump of cells. Which is exactly what it is. Sure give it time it would develope. However the potential to be something and what it actually is are two different things.
Just like in the movie Minority report. You may know something will happen, so then do you accuse the person of the crime before they commit it? What's the point if you prevented the crime at all?
Should a girl that is impregnanted from an incestuous rape have to go through with physically altering her body because some one else has an agenda to push forth? No, she should have the right to do what she chooses to do for her own body. Here you're going to argue that this is only a minority, well it's the same case for late term abortions, they are a rarity, but does that stop the anti choice side from making a big deal out of it? No.

Here's a simple question that you need to think about. Would you rather make the decisions on what to do to your own body or have someone else dictate what you can and can not do?

 

[tecoyah]

Here's a simple question that you need to think about. Would you rather make the decisions on what to do to your own body or have someone else dictate what you can and can not do?

......And, There it is.......................

 

[jimmyjack]

Here's a simple question that you need to think about. Would you rather make the decisions on what to do to your own body or have someone else dictate what you can and can not do?

That is an interesting angle to look at it all from, but your question condemns you, since the body of the foetus is being dictated too by those that are destroying it.

We may dictate what you do for 9 months, but you dictate whether someone lives or dies and that is a far greater level of dictatorship.

 

[tecoyah]

That is an interesting angle to look at it all from, but your question condemns you, since the body of the foetus is being dictated too by those that are destroying it.

We may dictate what you do for 9 months, but you dictate whether someone lives or dies and that is a far greater level of dictatorship.

Who may I ask.......Is "WE"

 

[talloulou]

There's only two sides of the debate, pro choice, or anti choice

hmmmm like prolife or prodeath? How annoying.

If there were no religious ideologues going on, there would be no issue whatsoever.

Total BS and shows you to be very simpleminded. I'm not religious. You don't need to be religious to think killing a child in utero is worng.

Why? Because women have the constitutional right to thier own bodies.

Up to a certain gestational age and then we have no problem taking that right away......must not be a a very "solid" right.

A fetus/zygote is not viable, no individuality, and not a person.

An embryo is by definition an individual organism. A human embryo is a brand new homosapien. Please educate yourself.

Alright sure, you feel strongly about the form that looks like a little baby. I get that, I also get it's the reason why you are anti-choice because you feel that abortion kills that little baby.

Pretty easy to grasp, huh?

However, fact is that's not the case.

Lie.

Fact is most abortions occur when the zygote resembles nothig human

A human zygote looks exactly like every other homosapien looks at that stage in development. How uneducated are you?

and is no more than as you so put it, a clump of cells.

It's actually a specific clump of cells in that its a clump of cells that make up the brand new living homosapien organism which left unkilled has the same lifespan possibilities as you or I.

Sure give it time it would develope.

It is developing and has been since conception....it doesn't need time and then it will start developing....what grade are you in?

However the potential to be something and what it actually is are two different things.

Sperm has potential. An egg has potential.

An embryo is a living homosapien organism. It's potential is now the same as yours or mine. If left alone it has the possibility to live an entire human life span.

Just like in the movie Minority report.

No....not like the Minority report. Is that where your education comes from?

Also I'm tired of all the rape talk. Why don't you tell me statistically what percentage of abortions are due to rape and then I'll see if its worth discussing anymore. As far as I'm concerned a women who is raped can get treatment and avoid pregnancy for the most part so its a nonissue.

Here's a simple question that you need to think about. Would you rather make the decisions on what to do to your own body or have someone else dictate what you can and can not do?

I would not create a child in my uterus and then decide to kill it. And no I don't believe I should have the right to do so.

 

[jimmyjack]

Who may I ask.......Is "WE"

Whoever you care to class as the pro-life, obviously.

 

[ngdawg]

hmmmm like prolife or prodeath? How annoying.

Total BS and shows you to be very simpleminded. I'm not religious. You don't need to be religious to think killing a child in utero is worng.



Up to a certain gestational age and then we have no problem taking that right away......must not be a a very "solid" right.

This from the same person who said: "Like I have said before if abortions were regulated after 10 wks I'd be willing to shut up a bit."

An embryo is by definition an individual organism. A human embryo is a brand new homosapien. Please educate yourself.



Pretty easy to grasp, huh?



Lie.



A human zygote looks exactly like every other homosapien looks at that stage in development. How uneducated are you?

Huh??? Actually, if you were shown a monkey zygote and a human zygote, you would not be able to tell the difference. A zygote is the resultant cell after the fertilization process and before cleavage begins. It is a fertilized CELL

It's actually a specific clump of cells in that its a clump of cells that make up the brand new living homosapien organism which left unkilled has the same lifespan possibilities as you or I.

Which means it has a 40% chance of reaching full gestational age then birth.

It is developing and has been since conception....it doesn't need time and then it will start developing....what grade are you in?

Obviously a grade or two higher than you. Doesn't need time???? Uh, it needs 40 weeks....:roll:

Sperm has potential. An egg has potential.

An embryo is a living homosapien organism. It's potential is now the same as yours or mine. If left alone it has the possibility to live an entire human life span.

Ah, NOW you use the word 'possibility'. You're learning....

No....not like the Minority report. Is that where your education comes from?

Also I'm tired of all the rape talk. Why don't you tell me statistically what percentage of abortions are due to rape and then I'll see if its worth discussing anymore. As far as I'm concerned a women who is raped can get treatment and avoid pregnancy for the most part so its a nonissue.

As far as you are concerned is not a factual response, nor is it relevant.

I would not create a child in my uterus and then decide to kill it. And no I don't believe I should have the right to do so.

Again, this from the person who said maybe before 10 weeks along, abortion is ok. Which makes most of your arguments, whether opinion or fact, kind of wobbly at best. You admonish those of us who support choice, yet quantify your own answers with exceptions. But we're fence-sitters? At least some of us don't waiver.....

 

[talloulou]

This from the same person who said: "Like I have said before if abortions were regulated after 10 wks I'd be willing to shut up a bit."

Yes well I am not so self righteous that I wouldn't compromise in order to get some regulation and some attempt to lower the abortion numbers. Ideally no abortion would be great but anything is better than abortion on demand.

Huh??? Actually, if you were shown a monkey zygote and a human zygote, you would not be able to tell the difference. A zygote is the resultant cell after the fertilization process and before cleavage begins. It is a fertilized CELL

No I personally couldn't. But that means nothing. I can't rewire the electricity in my house either.....these are my limitations. However a scientist or dr. trained to do so could and easily. Quite easily.

And it is a living organism and yes they would know which species it belonged to as well as the sex. So it is a living homosapien organism. That's fact. Homosapiens are humans are they not?

Which means it has a 40% chance of reaching full gestational age then birth.

Where is this information coming from? Are you saying 60% of pregnancies end in miscarriage? I think thats a false claim. Now if you are talking about invitro fertilization yes those embryos produced outside the uterus have less a chance to survive than an already implanted embryo. However that has much to do with the women accepting the embryo or not. A pregnant women has already accepted the embryo.

Obviously a grade or two higher than you. Doesn't need time???? Uh, it needs 40 weeks....:roll:

This suggests that develompment is done after 40 wks in humans. This is BS and nonsense. Development continues until death. A 1, 10, 16, 21,32, 45, and 98 year old are all at varying stages of human development.

Furthmore you took my statement out of context as in "doesn't need time" which could mean alot of things. The entire statement said it doesnt need time to start developing. Start...being the key word. From conception on it is developing...this is fact. There is no waiting for it's development to start...Learn to read. Comprehend. Or is quoting out of context just a rude tactic you employ? If you do it again I'll start doing it to you.

 

[justone]

Actually, life already exists before fertilization.

And your argument is?

first you said that life begins with fertilization, but now you are saying that actually, life already exists before fertilization....
There can be no argument, jfuh.

 

[Donkey1499]

That word "pro-life" comes up in all these abortion threads and it is quite annoying when those debating act like there are only two sides, "pro-life" and "pro-choice". What about people like me who are against abortion, but approve of war, capitol punishment, and mercy killings (like Shiavo)? Where do we fit in?

 

[ngdawg]

Yes well I am not so self righteous that I wouldn't compromise in order to get some regulation and some attempt to lower the abortion numbers. Ideally no abortion would be great but anything is better than abortion on demand.

Then you should admit to teetering instead of acting with the self-righteousness you claim to NOT have in stating all abortion is bad, then back pedalling to say you would acquiesce to terms.

No I personally couldn't. But that means nothing. I can't rewire the electricity in my house either.....these are my limitations. However a scientist or dr. trained to do so could and easily. Quite easily.

Not by looking at a single cell he/she could not. Only chromosomal testing would determine if it's a monkey or a human.

And it is a living organism and yes they would know which species it belonged to as well as the sex. So it is a living homosapien organism. That's fact. Homosapiens are humans are they not?

Since the subject was 'zygote', they would only know by testing as a zygote is a fertilized single cell organism. Please don't ask obvious questions-waste of time...

Where is this information coming from? Are you saying 60% of pregnancies end in miscarriage? I think thats a false claim. Now if you are talking about invitro fertilization yes those embryos produced outside the uterus have less a chance to survive than an already implanted embryo. However that has much to do with the women accepting the embryo or not. A pregnant women has already accepted the embryo.

To clarify, you would mean to say that her uterus has accepted it. The stats for successful full-term come from several sources, none of which are in complete agreement, but damned close: (Oops, got it backwards, it's 40% chance of losing, not carrying. My bad)
http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/miscarriage-statistics.htm
Miscarriage Statistics - A Look at the Figures and Definitions
Miscarriage statistics can be dramatic. Miscarriage reportedly occurs in 20 percent of all pregnancies. However, according to some sources, this may be an inaccurate number. Many women, before realizing a life has begun forming within them, may miscarry without knowing it-assuming their miscarriage is merely a heavier period. Therefore, the miscarriage rate may be closer to 40 or 50 percent. Of the number of women who miscarry, 20 percent will suffer recurring miscarriages.
http://www.health-science-report.com/miscarriage/miscarriage-hpv/causes-of-miscarriages.html
Early after implantation, pregnancy loss rate is about 30 percent. It is possible that as many as 50 percent of pregnancies miscarry before implantation in the womb occurs.

This suggests that develompment is done after 40 wks in humans. This is BS and nonsense. Development continues until death. A 1, 10, 16, 21,32, 45, and 98 year old are all at varying stages of human development.

Furthmore you took my statement out of context as in "doesn't need time" which could mean alot of things. The entire statement said it doesnt need time to start developing. Start...being the key word. From conception on it is developing...this is fact. There is no waiting for it's development to start...Learn to read. Comprehend. Or is quoting out of context just a rude tactic you employ? If you do it again I'll start doing it to you.

Then you really need to not 'speak' in half sentences. I didn't take that out of context, it was taken as written in direct response to jfuh's 'sure give it time'. See? Quote:
Sure give it time it would develope.(sic)

You said:
It is developing and has been since conception....it doesn't need time and then it will start developing....what grade are you in?Made no sense.
And it DOES need time to start developing....nothing is instantaneous, so again, that statement makes no sense. We don't 'develop' til death. We develop until adulthood, with the onset of puberty. Then we just grow older to death, if we're lucky.

You also used the 'pro-life/pro-death' phrase at least once, declare yourself to be 'pro-life', even stating how much you abhor the act of aborting, but' well, if certain laws(provisions, etc.) were in place....
Yet you question those of us who call ourselves 'prochoice' but don't like abortion? There is either great hypocrisy there or you just don't really know what you're about in regards to this matter as quoted above. If nothing else, at least those who have called themselves 'prolife' here are so adamant about it across the board, their self-righteousness is genuine. You only have some, it would seem, when it suits you.
You can read this as rude, insulting, I don't really care. I state what I see, question what doesn't make sense and call anyone on their inconsistencies. If I cared what you think or wanted to get a rise out of you, trust me, I could do it at any time.
Yea, I AM that good:lamo

 

[talloulou]

Not by looking at a single cell he/she could not. Only chromosomal testing would determine if it's a monkey or a human.

So using technology that enables them to tell or determine the species of an embryo doesn't count? Geez thats lame.

As far as spontaneous miscarriages...so what. Clearly when the dr. is required to come in and kill the in utero homosapien that is different from a natural spontaneous abortion.

Then you really need to not 'speak' in half sentences. I didn't take that out of context, it was taken as written in direct response to jfuh's 'sure give it time'. See? Quote:
Sure give it time it would develope.(sic)

You said:
It is developing and has been since conception....it doesn't need time and then it will start developing....what grade are you in?

Made perfect sense and it still does to me anyway.

And it DOES need time to start developing

No it may need to continue developing in utero to the point of viability to exist on its own outside its mother but it does not need time to start developing. That began at conception. Or started at conception and continues to death. Also I won't argue this ridiculous point with you any further since you're having trouble grasping words and context.

We don't 'develop' til death. We develop until adulthood, with the onset of puberty. Then we just grow older to death, if we're lucky.

Well I guess that depends on how you view development. I view it as transforming from one stage to another. Our bodies continue to transform throughout our entire lives.

You also used the 'pro-life/pro-death' phrase at least once

Yes it was when I was presented with the prochoice/anti-choice crap. Tit for tat the way I see it. Generally I avoid the whole prodeath label unless I'm dealing with people using derogatory labels towards me.

Yet you question those of us who call ourselves 'prochoice' but don't like abortion? There is either great hypocrisy there or you just don't really know what you're about in regards to this matter as quoted above. If nothing else, at least those who have called themselves 'prolife' here are so adamant about it across the board, their self-righteousness is genuine. You only have some, it would seem, when it suits you.

No what I question is whether you can be prochoice and prolife in regards to abortion. There is, in my opinion, a big difference between those who believe the homosapien organism in the womb deserves some consideration and those who believe it deserves none. If you say you support a womens right to choose and simultaneously argue that you have no regard for the homosapien in utero then clearly you can't be prolife and prochoice. If you do have consideration for the homosapien organism developing in the womb and you weigh that consideration against other factors like the womens health or rape then that's different. But if you are arguing clearly that you don't think the child in utero is human and you are arguing clearly that you don't think the child in utero is valuable enough to deserve life and you are arguing clearly that the only only thing you consider is whether or not the women wants to be pregnant or not then you are not prochoice and prolife at the same time.

 

[jfuh]

hmmmm like prolife or prodeath? How annoying.

No such thing as pro-death that's another deception by your pro-life side. Pro-life is just a masking of the truth of what it means to be pro-life being the supression of a woman's right and merely seeing a woman as an incubation vessle.

Total BS and shows you to be very simpleminded. I'm not religious. You don't need to be religious to think killing a child in utero is worng.

There then lies the proof of fundementalist brain washing. A fertilized egg is not a child. Life yes, so was the sprem that was swimming up the vagina and the egg before that, they were all "human life". lame argument.

Up to a certain gestational age and then we have no problem taking that right away......must not be a a very "solid" right.

Firstly, who's we? Care to see what happens to the S. Dakota total ban?

An embryo is by definition an individual organism. A human embryo is a brand new homosapien. Please educate yourself.

I have two degrees in this field, you're hardly on par with me on this matter. If you were, you'd be siding with me.

A human zygote looks exactly like every other homosapien looks at that stage in development. How uneducated are you?

Hahahaha, a total utter lie. GO ahead and look it up yourself of what a zygote of 3 weeks looks like. Then come back to me when you're better educated. The fertility clinic would be a good start.

It's actually a specific clump of cells in that its a clump of cells that make up the brand new living homosapien organism which left unkilled has the same lifespan possibilities as you or I.

I see you can not escape the delusional use of words specifically meant for the sole purpose of enciting an emotional response. Unfortunately that's all you've got against science, emotional distress.

Sperm has potential. An egg has potential.

Even a fertilized egg has only potential. Until the fetus reaches maturity, that's all it has, potential. In fact if you really want to be this way with your word play, even you merely have potential to live to be a centurian.

An embryo is a living homosapien organism. It's potential is now the same as yours or mine. If left alone it has the possibility to live an entire human life span.

That's again pro-life dilusion. An embryo does not have the same potential as you nor I. Which is exactly why successful birth rates were so low before modern medicine came around. Back then, 1 in 3 births was a still birth or the child died of disease and mal nutrition. No, an embryo does not have the same potential as you nor I.

No....not like the Minority report. Is that where your education comes from?

So where'd you get your education, perhaps you'd care to compare?

Also I'm tired of all the rape talk. Why don't you tell me statistically what percentage of abortions are due to rape and then I'll see if its worth discussing anymore. As far as I'm concerned a women who is raped can get treatment and avoid pregnancy for the most part so its a nonissue.

Since we're going to talk about majorities then. Alright, I'll make you a deal then. I'll stop with any mention of incest or rape if you stop any mention of abortions after the 8th week of gestation. How about it?

I would not create a child in my uterus and then decide to kill it. And no I don't believe I should have the right to do so.

That's not what I asked is it? I don't understand why you can not give a straight answer to the question. I'll ask you again:
Would you rather make the decisions on what to do to your own body or have someone else dictate what you can and can not do?

 

[jfuh]

Huh??? Actually, if you were shown a monkey zygote and a human zygote, you would not be able to tell the difference. A zygote is the resultant cell after the fertilization process and before cleavage begins. It is a fertilized CELL

I just have to point this out. Actually even after cleavage of the cell it's still a zygote. Prior to the 3rd month actually, it can even then still be referred to as a zygote.

 

[talloulou]

I just have to point this out. Actually even after cleavage of the cell it's still a zygote. Prior to the 3rd month actually, it can even then still be referred to as a zygote.

Well no matter how you name it a homosapien is a homosapien. Sure there are varying stages of development but an no stage is a homosapien not a homosapien.

 

[talloulou]

I have two degrees in this field, you're hardly on par with me on this matter. If you were, you'd be siding with me.

A human zygote looks exactly like every other homosapien looks at that stage in development. How uneducated are you?

Hahahaha, a total utter lie. GO ahead and look it up yourself of what a zygote of 3 weeks looks like. Then come back to me when you're better educated. The fertility clinic would be a good start.

A total utter lie? Care to elaborate? I find this a fascinating display of your ignorance.

 

[jfuh]

Well no matter how you name it a homosapien is a homosapien. Sure there are varying stages of development but an no stage is a homosapien not a homosapien.

Interesting how you continue to change your premise over and over. Why is that?

 

[jfuh]

A total utter lie? Care to elaborate? I find this a fascinating display of your ignorance.

Playing the dumb game now? Why can't you answer the question I've asked for two posts now? Here it is again.
Would you rather make the decisions on what to do to your own body or have someone else dictate what you can and can not do?

 

[talloulou]

Playing the dumb game now? Why can't you answer the question I've asked for two posts now? Here it is again.

Hey you're the one who said "That's an utter lie." Defend your ridiculous claim or apologize for your error.

Would you rather make the decisions on what to do to your own body or have someone else dictate what you can and can not do?

This is a generalilzed questioin. When it comes to abortion a women is deciding what to do, not only with her body, but with the body of an individual homosapien organism. She is killing another human. I'd have no problem with the law dictating that I could not kill a homosapien in my womb.

 

[talloulou]

Interesting how you continue to change your premise over and over. Why is that?

Because prochoicers have turned abortion into a language war. I am trying to state facts in a way that can't be turned upside down with semantics games. I'm trying to show the sheep still only has four legs even if someone else calls the tail a fifth.

 

[jfuh]

Hey you're the one who said "That's an utter lie." Defend your ridiculous claim or apologize for your error.

I already have many times over as well. If you have difficulty reading the thread and do not understand any of the former posts, then it's your problem not mine. So yes, utter lies from you playing with your word games.

This is a generalilzed questioin. When it comes to abortion a women is deciding what to do, not only with her body, but with the body of an individual homosapien organism. She is killing another human. I'd have no problem with the law dictating that I could not kill a homosapien in my womb.

No it's not general at all, it's very specific and I don't understand why you can't give a simple anwer to the question. All I see is your inability to answer the question without :spin:

 

[jfuh]

Because prochoicers have turned abortion into a language war. I am trying to state facts in a way that can't be turned upside down with semantics games. I'm trying to show the sheep still only has four legs even if someone else calls the tail a fifth.

Hahaha, another dishonest and misguided statment. Prochoicers have not played with the words, that's why the laws of this nation are pro-chioce and not anti-choice.