lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:59 am

I say some cuz I do not think all of you should have to answer these questions:


  • How many of you that are pro-life are so because of some sort of religious implication?


  • Of those that do side with religious implication, what are the chance that you may believe that those who claim 'pro-choice' are non-religious or are actually 'pro-death'?


  • Where does the need tell someone else what they are doing is so wrong, per your beliefs or the like, come from when it is already NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS?


  • Answer this question as either yes or no, can your government make laws to limit your life all while being hypocritical at times?



  • Realizing the potential flames from this matter, I say go for it. As long as you can eventually answer the questions and remain on topic in the end, I do not care.  Big thumbs up
    The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
     
    lehpron
    Posts: 6846
    Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Wed Jun 02, 2004 12:07 pm

    Let me make one thing clear before this thread ends up coming after me, This is one of those cases where there are more than two sides to this story. The fact is that the pro-life camps usually do not address the issue of the carrier (women's life) and the prp-choice folks do not view abortion as the killing of the human fetus. There are actually four issues here at the very least and I hope some of you can recognize that.

    My stance on the matter...pro-choice until the fetus develops intelligence, about 6 weeks into the pregnancy, after that I'm pro-life. It's disgusting to do it after that, being scared to do it before is not an excuse. Just give it up for adoption, at least the lady is prepared for when she wants a kid, ya know?

    The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
     
    MD-90
    Posts: 7835
    Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Wed Jun 02, 2004 12:09 pm

    1. No, religion doesn't really have anything to do with it, other than the fact that it encourages the belief in the dignity and value of human life.

    2. It's a fact that most of the ardent pro-choice people are not members of mainline religions. They're actually pro-sex, and they want that emergency fallback in case their lifestyle has an unfortunate result.

    3. When Joe Blow murders or rapes Jane Doe, just because I'm not affected by it doesn't mean it's not wrong. Same thing with abortion.

    4. Government is usually extremely hypocritical (mainly the federal gov't here). But they still merrily make their laws. I can't choose to not pay taxes to the IRS without being persecuted for it, but the government can spend all it wants?
     
    MD-90
    Posts: 7835
    Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Wed Jun 02, 2004 12:18 pm

    You have a sensible position for someone who is pro-choice, Lehpron. After six weeks, surely you could make up your mind.

    Partial birth abortion is an absolutely digusting, abominable practice.

    But if a woman's life really is in danger, then I would consider abortion to be okay. Not in danger just because of mental issues, but if there were genuine physiological problems, then it's a different story.
     
    SSTjumbo
    Posts: 2579
    Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 3:29 am

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Wed Jun 02, 2004 12:18 pm

    1) Me, though some cases I have to let slide, mostly medical cases though I can be convinced elsewhere.

    2) I'm not that prejudgemental. A doesn't always equal B and B doesn't always equal C

    3) Why'd you ask this question when it's none of your business? I'd say freedom of speech, works in all directions.

    4) I tend to be a moral conservative, but I can't figure out how you can be pro life and pro death penalty at the same time and vice versa. I'm pro-life in almost all cases, but I'm also anti death penalty in all cases, though sometimes the evil side of me wants to bludgeon some people. Anyways, I guess that's a quirky stance these days  Insane.
    I don't know, so this is my signature.
     
    Guest

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Wed Jun 02, 2004 12:39 pm

    "How many of you that are pro-life are so because of some sort of religious implication?"

    My church is definitely pro-life, but that's not why I choose to be. I was adopted. Sure, I've had some rough times in my life, but it sure beats the heck out of being sucked into a sink. To be pro-choice would make me a walking oxymoron.

    "...what are the chance that you may believe that those who claim 'pro-choice' are non-religious or are actually pro-death."

    Well, I'd say that they are definitely not "pro-death," but most likely irreligious. I don't quite understand how the radical left can be for environmental causes, i.e. life, yet unwilling to take measures to preserve humanity. Whenever the value of some endangered animal or plant is placed above that of a human child, there's a big problem with that value system. (Incidentally, I am pro-enviroment as well as pro-life, lest walking oxymoron status apply. Also, I tend to believe in God as well as evolution--and you guys all thought it was one or the other! But I digress.)

    "Where does the need tell someone else what they are doing is so wrong, per your beliefs or the like, come from when it is already NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS?"

    Oh come on. The world is full of people from each side of every issue not minding their own business. That's life. Deal.

    "Answer this question as either yes or no, can your government make laws to limit your life all while being hypocritical at times?"

    Absolutely. Happens every day.

    Anyway, I think I could be considered pro-choice in a way. But I think that the choice should be made well in advance, such as the choice to use contraception, or the choice not to be promiscuous. If an unwanted pregnancy occurs, the baby should be placed for adoption; no human should be sacrificed at the altar of societal whims.

    'Speed
     
    DeltaGuy
    Posts: 3965
    Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:25 am

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Wed Jun 02, 2004 12:54 pm

    I'll have to agree with 'Speed and MD90 on this one....

    My Christian beliefs do not TELL me I HAVE to believe in pro life. It just makes me realize how precious life really is, and how much life is to be valued. Some couples try their very hardest, and cannot produce children...while 15 yr old sluts can do it weekly. If you'd like to know my religious views on this, the Bible says that we were made in God's own image...so if you believe that, then you should also believe that abortion is killing one of God's miracles.

    The fact is that people view abortion as their last ditch method of birth control. If you're going to do it dumbasses, do it right...or get steralized. I don't think we'll ever see full first trimester abortion banned, but I CERTAINLY agree with 2nd and 3rd.....3-9 months into a pregnancy is a friggin bad time to figgure out that you don't want a kid. In question of mother's immediate health, well it's either lose the woman you love, or stop it early enough to save her..that I do agree with.

    Going back to the Lacy Peterson mess, do you think that her unborn child was considered a human being, and Scott should face double homicide charges? I certainly do. If it's got a heart, it's living....you may count an unborn animal with a beating heart as living..so why do so many people miss the boat? And the fact that we can't let our cars make too much smog, or can't pollute the plants, or kill certain animals...yet kill the one thing that's most precious on this earth, still baffles me.

    I know this thread is going to get ugly, but there's my .02 on that one. Speed, loved the walking oxymoron analogy. And -90, good job getting here first.  Big grin

    DeltaGuy
    "The cockpit, what is it?" "It's the little room in the front of the plane where the pilot sits, but that's not importan
     
    lehpron
    Posts: 6846
    Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Wed Jun 02, 2004 12:55 pm

    Not minding your own business is different than passing a law that literally make your life everyone's business to the point where you can't live like everyone else. It's like a scarlet letter. It that kind of branding, life?
    The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
     
    sccutler
    Posts: 5567
    Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Wed Jun 02, 2004 12:57 pm

    Lehpron: Excellent commentary!

    +++

    SSTJumbo:

    I also have noted the interesting conundrum you reference (death penalty advocates tend to be the same folks who are abortion opponents); one supposes the justification would be that the felon convicted of a capital crime is destined to die early as a direct consequence of his or her own illegal actions, whereas the unborn fetus has never had the opportunity to make any decisions at all.

    No easy answers, are there?
    ...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
     
    IMissPiedmont
    Posts: 6200
    Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:58 pm

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Wed Jun 02, 2004 1:04 pm

    I've always wondered this, why do the anti-abortionists always include the phrase "except instances of rape or incest?" Yet thay also use the term "innocent child."

    Something makes no sense here.

    BTW, I am so anti abortion that I scare myself. The woman needs only keep her knees together.
    The day you stop learning is the day you should die.
     
    DC10GUY
    Posts: 2590
    Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 5:52 am

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Wed Jun 02, 2004 1:12 pm

    Also, How many pro-lifers are for the death penalty too ???
    Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
     
    N6376M
    Posts: 2310
    Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 12:54 am

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Wed Jun 02, 2004 10:55 pm

    Lehpron,

    I am pro-life and can base my opposition to Roe v. Wade on purely constitutional grounds.

    First of all any attempt to define life and the state's interest in life by reference to viability is fundamentally flawed. As we can all agree, advances in medical technology have drastically pushed up when viability occurs. Pre-term babies regularly survive being born at 30 weeks of age, a figure that was unheard of 30 years ago.

    I have no doubt that within the next 50 years, that number will be pushed down to 20 weeks and at some point 10 weeks and at some point medical technology will allow the fertilization and incubation of a fetus completely outside the womb. Therefore, to say that something is not alive in 2004 but would be considered alive in 2040 is a flawed standard because life is binary condition, it either is one or the other.

    Second, the argument that the mother's life should be respected is also valid. However, why should the fetus/baby's life carry with it any less rights than those afforded to the mother? Before anyone makes the argument that the fetus is part of the mother, answer this?

    If a woman announced that at 12 noon she was going to cut off her hand on the courthouse steps, would the state not have a compelling legal interest in stopping her from doing it? There is no question that her hand (1) is part of her body (2) has no potential for life in and of itself {in fact, it can't survive without the human it is attached to and (3) there is no argument that the hand should have rights independent of the human.

    This being the case, why shouldn't the state have a compelling legal interest in protecting the rights of a fetus that though part of the mother will grow into a separate human being. Why shouldn't the state seek to protect the rights of its citizens - all of them? Particularly those which are most defenseless.

    IMO the right has done a piss poor job at overturn Roe v. Wade precisely because they focus on the morality or the religion of it. We are a country of law and this battle needs to be fought on constitutional principles.

    The Supreme Court itself couldn't point to any specific right that a pregnant woman had in the Constitution. Instead they created this idea of a penumbra of rights acknowledging that no single provision encompassed what they wanted to do.

     
    goingboeing
    Posts: 4727
    Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 1:58 am

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:27 pm

    Yes, my religion plays a role. But I think that there is no clear cut "for or against" answer. I do not believe in abortion as a birth control method. You can get free condoms at planned parenthood or your local health department, women can get free depo shots or birth control pills, or failing any of those, then either the man or woman should satisfy themselves with oral sex and forgo the "big nasty" until such time as they have some sort of birth control. to simply screw without protection and then go "oops, I'm preggers" and off to the abortion clinic...no, ain't right.

    On the other hand there are cases where I feel it CAN be justified...it happened to me and my wife. We go to into the OB-GYN office for the sonogram. The happy chirpy sonogram operator is just so chipper...then suddenly quiets down. She won't say anything except that she needs to get the doctor. The doctor comes in and informs us that our baby does not have a brain. Now...do you let the mother carry a baby that will live maybe 2 minutes after it is born, having a constant reminder every passing day that the baby in her belly is for all intents and purposes already dead? Knowing that the only thing keeping that baby "alive" is the mothers own body? Is the mental anguish the mother has to go thru worth saving an "innocent life"...even though that "life" will end at birth? Is it right that a mother should pray to God that the baby dies inside her rather than getting an abortion? Sorry...that is a case where abortion is warranted.
     
    ussherd
    Posts: 322
    Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 8:01 am

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Thu Jun 03, 2004 12:37 am

    Second, the argument that the mother's life should be respected is also valid. However, why should the fetus/baby's life carry with it any less rights than those afforded to the mother? Before anyone makes the argument that the fetus is part of the mother, answer this?

    This being the case, why shouldn't the state have a compelling legal interest in protecting the rights of a fetus that though part of the mother will grow into a separate human being. Why shouldn't the state seek to protect the rights of its citizens - all of them? Particularly those which are most defenseless


    If the fetus puts the mother's life in jeopardy, you could argue that the principle of self defense applies. I believe that "justifiable homicide" is a legally accepted defense.
    Cada loco con su tema...
     
    GC
    Posts: 348
    Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 6:03 am

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Her

    Thu Jun 03, 2004 12:59 am

    I'm a Christian, but I've been pro life longer. I've understood why abortions have been medically necessary, but they are a small percentage. I don't think that a baby should have to pay for our "lifestyle choices" with it's life. You have sex you need to be prepared for the consequences, even if you use contraception. Maybe God was onto something when he tried to empasise how special it is for two people to make love, even though our society cheapens and trivialises it.

     
    GC
    Posts: 348
    Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 6:03 am

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Her

    Thu Jun 03, 2004 1:01 am

    Oh, and I'm against the death penalty too.
     
    N6376M
    Posts: 2310
    Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 12:54 am

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Thu Jun 03, 2004 1:05 am

    The argument of allowing abortion when the mother's life is in danger is a red herring. I believe that of all abortions performed in the US, less than 1% are medically necessary to protect the life of the mother. I'll try to find that citation and post it later. But to use the exception to defend the rule is a crazy logic for arguing.

    In that situation I do believe that a constitutional analysis should weigh the respective rights.
     
    ushermittwoch
    Posts: 2530
    Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:18 pm

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Thu Jun 03, 2004 1:15 am

    I am totally pro-CHOICE (who would have guessed). But only to a certain extent. It should be illegal to kill the fetus if it can live outside the womb without major assistance. Thus it should be outlawed after about 4,5 months of pregnancy, unless there is a serious threat to the mother's life or the child is severely disabled.

    It is sickening to see mostly MEN make decisions on what is right for a woman to do. But that is another topic.

    What would interest me though is to see how many percent of the men are pro-life and how many percent of the women. I have a feeling that the result will not surprise me.
    Where have all the tri-jets gone...
     
    goingboeing
    Posts: 4727
    Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 1:58 am

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Thu Jun 03, 2004 1:16 am

    The argument of allowing abortion when the mother's life is in danger is a red herring. I believe that of all abortions performed in the US, less than 1% are medically necessary to protect the life of the mother. I'll try to find that citation and post it later. But to use the exception to defend the rule is a crazy logic for arguing.

    What about the mental health of a mother who knows that her body is the only thing keeping that baby alive? I'm not talking about a yuppie couple who has an amnio done and finds that the baby has downs syndrome...kids with Down syndrome might be difficult, but they CAN function in society. I'm talking about a couple who find that they baby that they WANTED is, for all intents and purposes DEAD. The only thing keeping that baby "alive" is the mothers body. It is usually considered a "miracle" if babies like that live 5 minutes after birth. Is it right to punish the mother by telling her that aborting it is wrong, and that she should live the next 6 to 7 months with the constant reminder of the baby that has zero chance of living?
     
    ConcordeBoy
    Posts: 16852
    Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Thu Jun 03, 2004 3:49 am

    Also, How many pro-lifers are for the death penalty too ???

    The inverse works quite well too.  Insane







    As for me... I'm personally pro-life.
    But if push-came to shove, I'd vote pro-female-chosen-murder.

    Sad, but I don't see a realistic alternative at this point.
    Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    FlySAA
    Posts: 94
    Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:50 pm

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Thu Jun 03, 2004 4:14 am

    A bumper sticker I saw the other day: "Who said abortion was okay? It sure was'nt God"
     
    N6376M
    Posts: 2310
    Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 12:54 am

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Thu Jun 03, 2004 4:49 am

    Goingboeing,

    Let's explore your line of thought. It seems to me that your argument concedes the notion that the fetus is alive? Am I correct? If so, why shouldn't it have rights?

    If it does, then the issue about abortion is an issue about competing rights. The rights of the baby versus the rights of the mother.

    If it is not alive - and therefore doesn't have rights - doesn't the cutting off the hand example apply? The hand has no rights.

    As for the dead baby inside the mother, then there is no real issue of competing rights. A baby with certain forms of hydrocephallus for example is certain never to be able live. Therefore, with a very high degree of medical certainty, we can say that the baby is not alive and an abortion is permissible because the competing rights need not be reconciled. But what about the 99% of other cases where the fetus is healthy and poses no health risk to the mother?
     
    Greg
    Posts: 5539
    Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:11 am

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Thu Jun 03, 2004 5:21 am

    I'm fairly fervent that abortion is soley a woman's issue. And it's their choice what should/could/can be done to their body.

    I've listened to a lot of pleas by men, but they come across as ludicrous since they are not the major party affected by the decisions....

    Clearly, if men had the ability to get pregnant, they'd demand the right to have abortion as an option...
     
    goingboeing
    Posts: 4727
    Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 1:58 am

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Thu Jun 03, 2004 5:23 am

    Let's explore your line of thought. It seems to me that your argument concedes the notion that the fetus is alive? Am I correct? If so, why shouldn't it have rights?

    In the case of an anacephalic baby, I use the term "alive" very loosely. It is only "alive" because the mothers body is feeding it and "helping" it to stay alive. Once it is "born", it immediately dies. Does that mean that the mother should be subjected to several months of mental anguish? Is praying for the fetus to "die" inside any better than aborting it?

    As for the dead baby inside the mother, then there is no real issue of competing rights. A baby with certain forms of hydrocephallus for example is certain never to be able live. Therefore, with a very high degree of medical certainty, we can say that the baby is not alive and an abortion is permissible because the competing rights need not be reconciled. But what about the 99% of other cases where the fetus is healthy and poses no health risk to the mother?

    Which is exactly what I was saying...in an anacephalic baby, the brain does not form. Period. If you read my original post closer, I do not believe that abortion should be used as a birth control tool. There is depo, there is the pill, there are condoms, there is vasectomy and tubal ligation...all of which can greatly reduce or eliminate the risk of pregnancy. F*ck all night if you want. But if a couple f*ck's all night long without taking any kind of protection against becoming pregnant, and she wakes up pregnant, a trip to the abortion clinic is not right, IMHO.

    I also indicated that if a couple uses amnio to find out if the fetus is Down syndrome, it shouldn't be aborted. My wife's cousin has a down syndrome child - we would have welcomed a Down syndrome child. But you can dismiss the "mother's life at risk" argument - If it is as small as you say...but if one bans abortion in ALL cases (which is what many pro-lifers want), then cases like mine would have made my wife and I criminals.
     
    Guest

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Thu Jun 03, 2004 5:28 am

    Against abortion, and my religion is, to an extent, pro-choice (Judaism). I am also against the death penalty.

    "Where does the need tell someone else what they are doing is so wrong, per your beliefs or the like, come from when it is already NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS?"

    Ridiculous... When people say it's murder they're not just being polemic... they're saying that abortion is the deliberate ending of a life. When is a "life" a life? Only God knows, which is why I find it difficult to grapple with this issue, but I don't see how we can say its ok to go in and make sure it doesn't happen.
     
    goingboeing
    Posts: 4727
    Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 1:58 am

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Thu Jun 03, 2004 5:36 am

    Clearly, if men had the ability to get pregnant, they'd demand the right to have abortion as an option...

    Sorry, but with all the birth control alternatives out there (free, I might add), using abortion as a birth control device is just plain wrong. If the guy won't at least wear a condom, then the woman also has the "right" to say "How about just a blowjob tonight". If that won't satisfy the man, then she also has the right to say, "I guess it's nothing then". If she gets so horny that she can't keep her legs together, and she's too lazy to go get a depo shot once a month or too forgetful to take a birth control pill once a day, then she can get her tubes tied and screw like a wild rabbit without worry.
     
    L.1011
    Posts: 2163
    Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:46 am

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Thu Jun 03, 2004 5:58 am

    First of all, I still can't see how anyone could want to see a human baby vaporized and claim that that's "American" and watch with pained eyes as a child-killed is gassed. I can see being anti-abortion and anti-death penalty, or anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, or pro-both, but being pro-abortion and anti-death penalty's sense escapes me.

    And now my pro-life case:

    I'm a practising lesbian, but I sometimes go with my swingin' female buddies to the Abraham Lincoln Abortion Emporium in Encino and chuckle as those kiddies are liquidised on a screen before our very eyes. The doctors let us watch and sometimes, just for fun, they let us zap the f****** little brats ourselves.

    This is an actual e-mail sent to a conservative website from a pro-choice feminist. This is what the pro-choice movement is like.

    http://www.radical-conservative.org/surgery.jpg

    Text from http://www.radical-conservative.org/samuel.html

    Take a good look at this picture.
    It's one of the most remarkable photographs ever taken. The tiny hand of a
    unborn baby reaches out from a mother's womb to clasp a
    surgeon's healing finger. It is, by the way, 21 weeks old,
    an age at which it could still be legally aborted. The tiny
    hand in the picture above belongs to a baby which is
    due to be born on December 28. It was taken during an
    operation in America recently. Paul Harris reports on a
    medical development in the control of the effects of
    spina bifida ... and on a picture which will reverberate
    through the on-going abortion debate here


    Your first instinct is to recoil in horror. It looks like a
    close-up of some terrible accident. And then you
    notice, in the centre of the photograph, the tiny hand clutching a surgeon's finger.


    The baby is literally hanging on for life. For this is one
    of the most remarkable photographs taken in medicine
    and a record of one of the world's most extraordinary
    operations. It shows a 21-week-old unborn baby in its mother's womb,
    about to undergo a spine operation designed to save it from serious brain damage.

    The surgery was carried out entirely through the tiny
    slit visible in the wall of the womb and the `patient' is
    believed to be the youngest to undergo it.

    At that age the mother could have chosen to have the
    baby aborted. Her decision not to, however, led to an
    astonishing test not just of medical technology, but of faith.

    Samuel Armas has spina bifida, which left part of his
    spinal cord exposed after the backbone failed to develop.


    The operation was designed to close the gap and
    protect the cord, the body's motorway for nerve signals to the brain.

    So, on an unborn patient no bigger than a guinea-pig,
    the operation was performed without removing the
    foetus from the womb

    The instruments had to be specially designed to work in miniature.
    The sutures used to close the incisions were less than the thickness of a human hair.

    An ER-style crash-cart team was on constant standby in an adjoining room

    When it was completed, however, Samuel's battle for
    survival was only just beginning. Nor would the
    emotional battle his parents had already endured finish quite yet.

    Julie and Alex Armas had been trying desperately for a
    baby. Julie, a 27-year-old nurse, had suffered two miscarriages
    before she became pregnant with the child
    they intended to call Samuel Alexander if it was a boy.

    Then, at 14 weeks, she started to suffer terrible cramp.
    An ultrasound scan was carried out to show the shape
    of the developing foetus and its position in the womb.

    When the picture emerged, it was the moment that
    every parent-to-be dreads. Their unborn son's brain
    was mis-shapen and his spinal cord was sticking out
    from a deformed backbone. He had spina bifida. They
    were devastated and ``torn apart'' said Alex, a
    28-year-old jet aircraft engineer.


    At that stage, and even weeks later, the couple could
    have decided to have the pregnancy terminated. In their
    home town of Georgia in the US as in Britain abortion is
    routinely offered. Although accurate figures are not
    available, many parents accept. For Julie and Alex, who
    are deeply religious, it was not an option


    That didn't mean, of course, that they were not racked
    by pain at the thought that the child they had longed for was
    imperfect.


    It also riddled them with guilt over whether they had
    effectively taken the decision to inflict their son with
    years of handicap, pain and suffering.

    So, this being the United States, they turned to the
    internet for help.

    Julie's mother found a website giving details of
    pioneering surgery being carried out by a team at
    Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee.
    Although the results have not yet been endorsed in
    medical journals, they looked encouraging to Mr. And Mrs. Armas

    Their doctor put them in touch with Dr. Joseph Bruner
    (it is his finger in the photograph). A race against time
    had begun.


    Because it affects the spinal cord, spina bifida can lead
    to a condition that causes brain damage. Mr and Mrs.
    Armas were told that if they were to avoid the
    condition, which was not then present in Samuel, they had to act fast.

    ``I wasn't concerned about a child who couldn't walk,''
    said Julie, ``but I want a child who knows me.''

    The theory behind the surgery is that attention to he
    spine disorder before the baby is born prevents or limits
    brain damage, and gives a better chance of healing. It
    does not cure spina bifida, but it is said to provide a
    strong chance of limiting the damage through early intervention.

    The risks, however, are enormous.
    Controversy surrounds the use of such surgery because it goes
    against the general medical rule that the risk should not outweigh the benefit.

    Mr and Mrs Armas were fully aware that if anything
    went wrong, no attempt would be made to deliver
    Samuel by Caesarean section.

    Medical science does not yet have the capability to
    keep a 21-week-old foetus alive outside the womb.
    The crash-cart was on standby for Julie, not Samuel

    ``If he dies, that's horrible for me and for us,'' said Julie
    before she went into theatre. Wiping tears she added:
    ``But not for him. The worst thing might be if we don't
    do this, and this is standard treatment when he's 21, and
    he says: ``Why didn't you know about that?'' And we
    say: ``We did, but we didn't do it for you.

    The other major dangers were turning him in the womb
    to get his back in line with an inch-long cut in the wall,
    through which Dr Bruner would operate, and that the
    surgery might involve releasing the fluid around Samuel.

    The movement posed the risk of sending Julie into
    labour contractions, which would have been fatal for Samuel.

    Thus, one morning at the beginning of last month, Dr Bruner
    could be heard urging his team to keep quiet.
    ``Shh!'' he said. ``You'll wake the baby"

    Robert Davis, who reported on the operation for USA
    Today newspaper, said the lesion that exposed
    Samuel's spine was found low on his backbone,
    decreasing the chance of nerve damage.

    Although Samuel is believed to have been the
    youngest patient for such an operation, it was
    apparently routine enough for Dr Bruner and paediatric
    neurosurgeon Noel Tullpant to talk about the weather
    during the operation.

    An hour later, the womb is gently eased back into place.
    ``Beautiful,'' said one of the technicians and relief swept the room.

    Julie was allowed home with Alex within days.
    The baby is due on December 28.

    He has not yet felt the touch of his mother's skin
    against his own and he knows nothing of life outside
    her womb. But perhaps Samuel Alexander Armas will be
    able to shake Dr Bruner's hand again.



    The actual shape and size of a ten week old unborn baby's feet. Blob of cells gentlemen?

    How many of you that are pro-life are so because of some sort of religious implication?

    Not me. I'm not very religious at all.

    Of those that do side with religious implication, what are the chance that you may believe that those who claim 'pro-choice' are non-religious or are actually 'pro-death'?

    They are pro-death of a living human being, yes.

    Where does the need tell someone else what they are doing is so wrong, per your beliefs or the like, come from when it is already NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS?

    Because it is our business. Even if it doesn't directly effect us, it effects our great nation. Thusly, it is our business. Ask yourself this: What if your mother had exercised her right to "choose"? What if Einstein's, Bethoven's, Edison's, Gordo's, et cetera had excercised her "right to choose"? There'd be no theory of relativity, no 9th Symphony, no electricity, no Continental Airlines today, 40,000 Continental employees jobless. Abortion had a bigger effect then you think.

    Answer this question as either yes or no, can your government make laws to limit your life all while being hypocritical at times?

    No. Your rights end where mine begin. That's what laws are supposed to do. Prevent people from enroaching on the rights of others. If you put up a huge sign in your front yard saying GEORGE W. BUSH IS A NAZI you're infringing on his right to not have slander committed against him. You have free speech as long as it isn't inciting violence.
     
    goingboeing
    Posts: 4727
    Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 1:58 am

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Thu Jun 03, 2004 6:19 am

    Damn...you lost me in that huge cut and paste.

    No. Your rights end where mine begin. That's what laws are supposed to do. Prevent people from enroaching on the rights of others.

    Hmmm, people still have a right to get one. Does that mean that when you talk about the touching photo of a 21 week old fetus's hand, aren't you supporting the government's right to encroach upon the rights of those who belive that abortion should be kept legal? Who's rights carry more weight...yours or mine?

     
    MD-90
    Posts: 7835
    Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Thu Jun 03, 2004 6:20 am

    L.1011, that is a very interesting picture. It's amazing how the womb can actually be removed and then replaced.
     
    IMissPiedmont
    Posts: 6200
    Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:58 pm

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Thu Jun 03, 2004 1:26 pm

    And not a single "pro-life" person has chimed in as to why it's OK to kill a baby in cases of rape or incest.

    I find that telling. The baby is still innocent so why is acceptable then?

    I have yet to hear anyone do anything but stammer and stutter when faced with this question. Perhaps someone will enlighten me?
    The day you stop learning is the day you should die.
     
    Guest

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Thu Jun 03, 2004 1:59 pm

    "I have yet to hear anyone do anything but stammer and stutter when faced with this question."

    Ok, abortion should be only allowed if the mother's life is in danger. That type of ruling would be fine with me, but somehow I don't think that's what you had in mind.

    'Speed
     
    User avatar
    yyz717
    Posts: 15689
    Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Thu Jun 03, 2004 3:08 pm

    It is supremely ironic that the Western world's most fervent anti-abortion stances are found in the US. Yet, that same overwhelming concern for "life" does not apply to gun laws -- the US has by far the highest murder rate by guns of any Western nation. Hence, it seems that a major segment of the US population is more concerned about fetuses (which may or may not be alive, depending on your view) than actual shooting victims (who definitely are real live people).

    I'm fairly fervent that abortion is soley a woman's issue. And it's their choice what should/could/can be done to their body.

    I agree. In a secular society, we must allow abortion as a form of birth control. It is simply the only civilized approach. Abortions are going to happen -- legally or illegally. Legal abortion is much safer and cleaner.

    I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
     
    lehpron
    Posts: 6846
    Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Thu Jun 03, 2004 3:54 pm

    NOTE: when I talk about a fetus, I am only referring to the creature within the host carrier (mother) that is less than 6 weeks old. As stated before, I am pro-choice up until that mark, pro-life afterwards. It is more than enough time for a woman to make a choice.


    I must admit, I do not know exactly what the current law for abortion allows to occur, I guess I assume people have some sort of common sense, but after reading that lesbian email L.1011 provided...that shit just made me sick...however I certainly would not assume as he did that all people of the such are like that really bad example.

    I have always believed that how people are depends solely on upbringing and some genetics, the majority of the blame for that particular individual should go to whoever/whatever gave her the impression that it was okay to 'bully', that is what she is doing. Besides, she's stated she was a swinger, she's likely really young and doesn't want kids now -- she has a bias. I hope none of you play into that, she was obviously sticking it so someone for a laugh when it may only be a laughing matter to her at that particular time. She may feel differently say 20 years from now. All people get conservative when they age.  Laugh out loud


    >> "The baby is still innocent so why is acceptable then? " <<

    Dude it isn't a baby yet, it's called a fetus for a reason, it's a friggin PARASITE. By definition, it has to live off of another creature to survive before it must exit to live independent of the host carrier, being the mother. The fact is, to a certain point, the fetus CANNOT survive outside without direct assistance, and if it could then call it anything you want. People are born, I do not know anyone that counts there time inside their mothers or in a sterile test tube as part of their life. Being in there is incubation; it is not part of the newborn's life, it’s just part of the parent’(s) life.


    That being said, like I stated before, there is a point where the fetus develops intuition about 6 weeks into the pregnancy, it is the clearest sign of intelligence. IMO, it is the transition from a useless parasite to an undeveloped potential, a human but not a baby or an 'unborn child'. Babies are way different than fetuses. A baby can breathe, eat and live on its own provided that a parent/guardian is willing to assist the baby (feeding, bathing, etc.) A fetus needs direct host carrier for support on just about everything, the parent has no choice, without the carrier, the fetus would die. Just like surgically removing a tumor.

    If say decades from now, it is possible to incubate the “unborn” long enough so the mother won't be needed, I think the issue of abortion will be seen silly. But I also think the accusation of free-sex will be more than rampant, but at least the unborn can get born.



    Again, this entire post reply is with respect to the fetus being less than 6 weeks old (it's the size of a roach by then and if you can kill a roach...)

    However I certainly would be appalled if some lady decided to wait until the last day to abort but she better not wait any longer, there is absolutely no reason to wait. Either have it or not.

    The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
     
    N6376M
    Posts: 2310
    Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 12:54 am

    RE: Question For Some Of The Pro-life Folks In Here.

    Thu Jun 03, 2004 10:23 pm

    IMissPiedmont - I'll answer that question after you cite for me what percentage of abortions are undertaken for cases of rape or incest.

    -76M

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Aesma, Google [Bot] and 12 guests