life begins long before birth.

the dna that goes to make you you - or mephisto or miz - that is, the dna that
determines the color of your eyes and skin, and maybe whether you're gay or
straight, that unique combination of dna was created at the moment of conception -
that is when your life began.

substantially unchanged, your dna is the same today as the moment you were conceived.

to everybody reading these words: because your mother did not have an abortion,
you can read this. if your mother had had an abortion, you would be dead --
you would not have been born and would not have grown into the person you are today.

but no one has the right to say you can't be born, not even your own mother.

i know there are hard cases.

suppose the mother of a family of 14 is pregnant again. further suppose her
husband has a history of alcohol abuse and mental disorders which frequently
causes him to abuse his other children. let's say the mother herself is already
worn out from trying to care single-handedly for her large family and doesn't
feel she can care for another child at this point. on top of all this, two of the
kids are alcoholics, one of them is in a mental institution, and none of the
children have steady, dependable jobs.

abortion or not?

well, if you choose abortion, you've just killed beethoven.



anywho, here's author/poet Wendell Berry's response to an inquiry re: the
consequences of treating a fetus as a human being

Quote:

When my wife saw your topic, "The consequences of treating the fetus as a human
being," she said, "What else would it be? A pig, or a sheep?" And that is the way
I would approach your problem. A human fetus is a human being because a human
being is what it is.

The first mistake may have been in calling it a "fetus." In the tongue of our
real experience we don't say "fetus." We say "child" or "baby." When we talk,
like clinicians, about "aborting a fetus," we are implicitly acknowledging that
it is wrong to kill a child. "Let us destroy this fetus," we are saying, "before
we have imagined its human face and suffered its human claims."

And this is what we mean when we speak of our warheads destroying an "enemy
city": "Let us kill them abstractedly and far away, before we have seen them
clearly enough even to hate them." Suppose our government should begin to say to
us, "Let us be ready to kill all the Russian men, women, and children." It would
be different. The greatest difference would be made by the thought of the
children. Humanity has always understood that it is a horrible thing to make an
enemy of a child.

What if we did treat our "fetuses" and our "foreign enemies" as human beings? It
would be fearful indeed, no one can doubt it.

For then we would have to take up living in reality.

And reality always instructs us, when we become bold enough to venture into it,
that we do not know enough to kill a human being. We are not eligible to accept
that responsibility. Reality informs us that we live in mystery. A child may be a
great burden or a great privilege. An enemy may become a friend, a friend an
enemy. The value of a human life can only be determined by experience. That is
our problem, and we have plenty of reasons to regret it. But the problem is only
made worse by the assumption that there are simple technological remedies.

What is most disturbing about the acceptance of abortion as a normal solution is
its association with "sexual liberation." One of our prominent characteristics as
a nation now is the wish to free sexual love of its consequences--which is to say
that we have become a nation of fantasists. In reality, sexual love has
consequences. It has consequences even if it does not result in babies. But until
recently, babies were understood to be among its expectable consequences. Sexual
love, that is, was understood to be connected to fertility. And this connection
gave sex the power of an endlessly ramifying wonder and joy: It renewed our kind
and therefore our hope. (It involved us also, of course, in the history of the
failure of hope; not all babies, by any means, have been a joy to their parents
or a credit to humankind, though these failures do not license the destruction of
babies.) But with us, sex no longer has a place either in human nature or in
human culture. We have made it a specialty, degraded and industrialized, an
energy mined and merchandised for quick consumption, exhausted in use.

Surely it is too much to expect that the "freedom" and "naturalness" of
technological sex should prepare us to become proper nurturers of children. In
general, it seems likely that we will care for our children neither more nor less
than we care for one another as adults. And the true caring of adults for one
another always involves respect, devotion, fidelity, restraint--all the cultural
means of preserving the natural life.

I don't mean to underrate the danger of the "population explosion" or to rule
out "birth control" as a consideration. I do think that the belief that "there
are too many people" is potent with violence toward some people--"fetuses" or any
other unpowerful group or class or race. And I think that the now almost
universal insinuation that sexual love may properly go free of sexual discipline
is as gross a danger to humanity as any other that we face.

--Wendell Berry, Port Royal, KY

End of quote.


Source: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/consistent/whole-earth.html

Source: http://www.amazon.com/Mortal-Lessons-Notes-Art-Surgery/dp/0156004003

Source: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/offers.html?url=%2Flatimes%2Faccess%2F61482511.html%3Fdids%3D61482511%3A61482511%26FMT%3DFT%26FMTS%3DABS%3AFT%26type%3Dcurrent%26date%3DSep%2B12%252C%2B1991%26author%3DGEORGE%2BFLESH%26pub%3DLos%2BAngeles%2BTimes%2B(pre-1997%2BFulltext)%26edition%3D%26startpage%3D7%26desc%3DPERSPECTIVE%2BON%2BHUMAN%2BLIFE%2BWhy%2BI%2BNo%2BLonger%2BDo%2BAbortions%2BTearing%2Ba%2Bsecond-%2Btrimester%2Bfetus%2Bapart%2Bsimply%2Bat%2Ba%2Bmother%2527s%2Brequest%2Bis%2Bdepravity%2Bthat%2Bshould%2Bnot%2Bbe%2Bpermitted.

Discuss.

;]

bread makes me poop

is it too late to abort this thread?

Talking about parasitic twins would have been more entertaining.




-
Attachments:

;] Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> life begins long before birth.
>
> the dna that goes to make you you - or mephisto or
> miz - that is, the dna that
> determines the color of your eyes and skin, and
> maybe whether you're gay or
> straight, that unique combination of dna was
> created at the moment of conception -
> that is when your life began.
>
> substantially unchanged, your dna is the same
> today as the moment you were conceived.
>
> to everybody reading these words: because your
> mother did not have an abortion,
> you can read this. if your mother had had an
> abortion, you would be dead --
> you would not have been born and would not have
> grown into the person you are today.
>
> but no one has the right to say you can't be born,
> not even your own mother.
>
> i know there are hard cases.
>
> suppose the mother of a family of 14 is pregnant
> again. further suppose her
> husband has a history of alcohol abuse and mental
> disorders which frequently
> causes him to abuse his other children. let's say
> the mother herself is already
> worn out from trying to care single-handedly for
> her large family and doesn't
> feel she can care for another child at this point.
> on top of all this, two of the
> kids are alcoholics, one of them is in a mental
> institution, and none of the
> children have steady, dependable jobs.
>
> abortion or not?
>
> well, if you choose abortion, you've just killed
> beethoven.
>
>
>
> anywho, here's author/poet Wendell Berry's
> response to an inquiry re: the
> consequences of treating a fetus as a human being
>
> Quote:
>
> When my wife saw your topic, "The consequences of
> treating the fetus as a human
> being," she said, "What else would it be? A pig,
> or a sheep?" And that is the way
> I would approach your problem. A human fetus is a
> human being because a human
> being is what it is.
>
> The first mistake may have been in calling it a
> "fetus." In the tongue of our
> real experience we don't say "fetus." We say
> "child" or "baby." When we talk,
> like clinicians, about "aborting a fetus," we are
> implicitly acknowledging that
> it is wrong to kill a child. "Let us destroy this
> fetus," we are saying, "before
> we have imagined its human face and suffered its
> human claims."
>
> And this is what we mean when we speak of our
> warheads destroying an "enemy
> city": "Let us kill them abstractedly and far
> away, before we have seen them
> clearly enough even to hate them." Suppose our
> government should begin to say to
> us, "Let us be ready to kill all the Russian men,
> women, and children." It would
> be different. The greatest difference would be
> made by the thought of the
> children. Humanity has always understood that it
> is a horrible thing to make an
> enemy of a child.
>
> What if we did treat our "fetuses" and our
> "foreign enemies" as human beings? It
> would be fearful indeed, no one can doubt it.
>
> For then we would have to take up living in
> reality.
>
> And reality always instructs us, when we become
> bold enough to venture into it,
> that we do not know enough to kill a human being.
> We are not eligible to accept
> that responsibility. Reality informs us that we
> live in mystery. A child may be a
> great burden or a great privilege. An enemy may
> become a friend, a friend an
> enemy. The value of a human life can only be
> determined by experience. That is
> our problem, and we have plenty of reasons to
> regret it. But the problem is only
> made worse by the assumption that there are simple
> technological remedies.
>
> What is most disturbing about the acceptance of
> abortion as a normal solution is
> its association with "sexual liberation." One of
> our prominent characteristics as
> a nation now is the wish to free sexual love of
> its consequences--which is to say
> that we have become a nation of fantasists. In
> reality, sexual love has
> consequences. It has consequences even if it does
> not result in babies. But until
> recently, babies were understood to be among its
> expectable consequences. Sexual
> love, that is, was understood to be connected to
> fertility. And this connection
> gave sex the power of an endlessly ramifying
> wonder and joy: It renewed our kind
> and therefore our hope. (It involved us also, of
> course, in the history of the
> failure of hope; not all babies, by any means,
> have been a joy to their parents
> or a credit to humankind, though these failures do
> not license the destruction of
> babies.) But with us, sex no longer has a place
> either in human nature or in
> human culture. We have made it a specialty,
> degraded and industrialized, an
> energy mined and merchandised for quick
> consumption, exhausted in use.
>
> Surely it is too much to expect that the "freedom"
> and "naturalness" of
> technological sex should prepare us to become
> proper nurturers of children. In
> general, it seems likely that we will care for our
> children neither more nor less
> than we care for one another as adults. And the
> true caring of adults for one
> another always involves respect, devotion,
> fidelity, restraint--all the cultural
> means of preserving the natural life.
>
> I don't mean to underrate the danger of the
> "population explosion" or to rule
> out "birth control" as a consideration. I do think
> that the belief that "there
> are too many people" is potent with violence
> toward some people--"fetuses" or any
> other unpowerful group or class or race. And I
> think that the now almost
> universal insinuation that sexual love may
> properly go free of sexual discipline
> is as gross a danger to humanity as any other that
> we face.
>
> --Wendell Berry, Port Royal, KY
>
> End of quote.
>
>
> Source:
> http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/co
> nsistent/whole-earth.html

;] Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I Saw at the Abortion
> by Richard Selzer, M.D.
>
> Published in Esquire, Jan. 1976; reprinted in
> Selzer, Mortal Lessons: Notes in
> the Art of Surgery (Simon and Schuster: New York,
> 1976).
>
> I am a surgeon. I do not shrink from the
> particularities of sick flesh. Escaping
> blood, all the outpourings of disease -- phlegm,
> pus, vomitus, even those occult
> meaty tumors that terrify -- I see as blood,
> disease, phlegm, and so on. I touch
> them to destroy them. But I do not make symbols of
> them. I have seen, and I am
> used to seeing. Yet there are paths within the
> body that I have not taken,
> penetralia where I do not go. Nor is it lack of
> technique, limitation of
> knowledge that forbids me these ways.
>
> It is the western wing of the fourth floor of a
> great university hospital. An
> abortion is about to take place. I am present
> because I asked to be present. I
> wanted to see what I had never seen.
>
> The patient is Jamaican. She lies on the table
> submissively, and now and then she
> smiles at one of the nurses as though
> acknowledging a secret.
>
> A nurse draws down the sheet, lays bare the
> abdomen. The belly mounds gently in
> the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy. The chief
> surgeon paints it with a sponge
> soaked in red antiseptic. He does this three
> times, each time a fresh sponge. He
> covers the area with a sterile sheet, an aperture
> in its center. He is a kindly
> man who teaches as he works, who pauses to
> reassure the woman.
>
> He begins.
>
> A little pinprick, he says to the woman.
>
> He inserts the point of a tiny needle at the
> midline of the lower portion of her
> abdomen, on the downslope. He infiltrates local
> anesthetic into the skin, where
> it forms a small white bubble.
>
> The woman grimaces.
>
> That is all you will feel, the doctor says. Except
> for a little pressure. But no
> more pain.
>
> She smiles again. She seems to relax. She settles
> comfortably on the table. The
> worst is over.
>
> The doctor selects a three-and-one-half-inch
> needle bearing a central stylet. He
> places the point at each site of the previous
> injection. He aims it straight up
> and down, perpendicular. Next he takes hold of her
> abdomen with his left hand,
> palming the womb, steadying it. He thrusts with
> his right hand. The needle sinks
> into the abdominal wall.
>
> Oh, says the woman quietly.
>
> But I guess it is not pain that she feels. It is
> more a recognition that the deed
> is being done.
>
> Another thrust and he has spread the uterus.
>
> We are in, he says.
>
> He has felt the muscular wall of the organ
> gripping the shaft of his needle. A
> further slight pressure on the needle advances it
> a bit more. He takes his left
> hand from the woman's abdomen. He retracts the
> filament of the stylet from the
> barrel of the needle. A small geyser of pale
> yellow fluid erupts.
>
> We are in the right place, says the doctor. Are
> you feeling any pain? he asks.
>
> She smiles, shakes her head. She gazes at the
> ceiling.
>
> In the room we are six: two physicians, two
> nurses, the patient, and me. The
> participants are busy, very attentive. I am not at
> all busy -- but I am no less
> attentive. I want to see.
>
> I see something! It is unexpected, utterly
> unexpected, like a disturbance in the
> earth, a tumultuous jarring. I see a movement -- a
> small one. But I have seen it.
>
> And then I see it again. And now I see that it is
> the hub of the needle in the
> woman's belly that has jerked. First to one side.
> Then to the other side. Once
> more it wobbles, is tugged, like a fishing line
> nibbled by a sunfish.
>
> Again! And I know!
>
> It is that the fetus that worries thus. It is the
> fetus struggling against the
> needle. Struggling? How can that be? I think: that
> cannot be. I think: the fetus
> feels no pain, cannot feel fear, has no
> motivation. It is merely reflex.
>
> I point to the needle.
>
> It is a reflex, says the doctor.
>
> By the end of the fifth month, the fetus weighs
> about one pound, is about twelve
> inches long. Hair is on the head. There are
> eyebrows, eyelashes. Pale pink
> nipples show on the chest. Nails are present, at
> the fingertips, at the toes.
>
> At the beginning of the sixth month, the fetus can
> cry, can suck, can make a
> fist. He kicks, he punches. The mother can feel
> this, can SEE this. His eyelids,
> until now closed, can open. He may look up, down,
> sideways. His grip is very
> strong. He could support his weight by holding
> with one hand.
>
> A reflex, the doctor says.
>
> I hear him. But I saw something in that mass of
> cells UNDERSTAND that it must bob
> and butt. And I see it again! I have an impulse to
> shove to the table -- it is
> just a step -- seize that needle, pull it out.
>
> We are not six, I think. We are seven.
>
> Something strangles there. An effort, its effort,
> bind me to it.
>
> I do not shove to the table. I take no little
> step. It would be... well, madness.
> Everyone here wants the needle where it is. Six
> do. No, five do.
>
> I close my eyes. I see the inside of the uterus.
> It is bathed in ruby gloom. I
> see the creature curled upon itself. Its knees are
> flexed. Its head is bent upon
> its chest. It is in fluid and gently rocks to the
> rhythm of the distant heartbeat.
>
> It resembles... a sleeping infant.
>
> Its place is entered by something. It is sudden. A
> point coming. A needle!
>
> A spike of daylight pierces the chamber. Now the
> light is extinguished. The
> needle comes closer in the pool. The point grazes
> the thigh, and I stir. Perhaps
> I wake from dozing. The light is there again. I
> twist and straighten. My arms and
> legs push. My hand finds the shaft -- grabs! I
> grab. I bend the needle this way
> and that. The point probes, touches on my belly.
> My mouth opens. Could I cry out?
> All is a commotion and a churning. There is a
> presence in the pool. An activity!
> The pool colors, reddens, darkens.
>
> I open my eyes to see the doctor feeding a small
> plastic tube through the barrel
> of the needle into the uterus. Drops of pink fluid
> overrun the rim and spill onto
> the sheet. He withdraws the needle from around the
> plastic tubing. Now only the
> little tube protrudes from the woman's body. A
> nurse hands the physician a
> syringe loaded with a colorless liquid. He
> attaches it to the end of the tubing
> and injects it.
>
> Prostaglandin, he says.
>
> Ah well, prostaglandin -- a substance found
> normally in the body. When given in
> concentrated dosage, it throws the uterus into
> vigorous contraction. In eight to
> twelve hours, the woman will expel the fetus.
>
> The doctor detaches the syringe but does not
> remove the tubing.
>
> In case we must do it over, he says.
>
> He takes away the sheet. He places gauze pads over
> the tubing. Over all this he
> applies adhesive tape.
>
> I know. We cannot feed the great numbers. There is
> no more room. I know, I know.
> It is a woman's right to refuse the risk, to
> decline the pain of childbirth. And
> an unwanted child is a very great burden. An
> unwanted child is a burden to
> himself. I know.
>
> And yet... there is the flick of that needle. I
> SAW it. I saw -- I felt -- in
> that room, a pace away, life prodded, life fending
> off. I saw life avulsed --
> swept by flood, blackening -- then out.
>
> There, says the doctor. It's all over. It wasn't
> too bad, was it? he says to the
> woman.
>
> She smiles. It is all over. Oh, yes.
>
> And who would care to imagine that from a moist
> and dark commencement six months
> before there would ripen the cluster and globule,
> the sprout and pouch of man?
>
> And who would care to imagine that trapped within
> the laked pearl and a dowry of
> yoke would lie the earliest stuff of dream and
> memory?
>
> It is a persona carried here as well as a person,
> I think. I think it is a signed
> piece, engraved with the hieroglyph of human
> genes.
>
> I did not think this until I saw. The flick. The
> fending off.
>
> Later, in the corridor, the doctor explains that
> the law does not permit abortion
> beyond the twenty-fourth week. That is when the
> fetus may be viable, he says. We
> stand together for a moment, and he tells of an
> abortion in which the fetus cried
> after it was passed.
>
> What did you do? I ask him.
>
> There was nothing to do but let it live, he says.
> It did very well, he says. A
> case of mistaken dates.
>
>
> Source:
> http://www.amazon.com/Mortal-Lessons-Notes-Art-Sur
> gery/dp/0156004003

;] Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why I No Longer Do Abortions
> by George Flesh, M.D.
>
> Published in Los Angeles Times, September 12,
> 1991: B7.
>
>
> Last Yom Kippur, I decided to stop doing
> abortions.
>
> My first abortions, as an intern and resident,
> caused me no emotional distress. I
> felt that I was helping a patient solve a serious
> problem. The fetus was no more
> than unwanted tissue. Although doing
> second-trimester abortions sometimes
> disturbed me, my qualms were easily overcome by
> ideas of women's rights and free
> choice. Among most people I respected, the
> practice of abortion might as well
> have been part of the Bill of Rights.
>
> My discontent began after many hundreds of
> abortions.
>
> I decided to do no more second-trimester abortions
> when I started my private
> practice. Extracting a fetus, piece by piece, was
> bad for my sleep. But as a
> gynecologic consultant at a university health
> center, I saw many early abortion
> referrals, since unwanted pregnancy is, by far,
> the most common surgical problem
> in young women. I felt great sympathy for these
> women, often abandoned by
> boyfriends or afraid to tell them about their
> pregnancy. I took good care of
> these patients. Their gratitude gave me much
> satisfaction.
>
> But, insidiously, the satisfaction diminished.
> Depression clouded my office day
> when I had an abortion scheduled. My pulse raced
> after giving the local
> anesthetic. Although I still felt sorry for the
> unmarried 20-year-old college
> junior, I felt increasing anger toward the married
> couples who requested
> abortions because a law-firm partnership was
> imminent, or a house remodeling was
> incomplete, or even because summer travel tickets
> were paid for.
>
> Anxiety attacks, complete with nausea,
> palpitations and dizziness, began to
> strike me in some social situations. In public, I
> felt I was on trial, or perhaps
> should have been. I no longer was proud to be a
> physician. Arriving home from
> work to the gleeful embrace of my kids, I felt
> undeserving that God had blessed
> me with their smiling faces. The morning shaving
> ritual became an ordeal, as I
> stared at the sad face in the mirror and wondered
> how all those awards and
> diplomas had produced an angel of death.
>
> Why did I change?
>
> Early in my practice, a married couple came to me
> and requested an abortion.
> Because the patient's cervix was rigid, I was
> unable to dilate it to perform the
> procedure. I asked her to return in a week, when
> the cervix would be softer.
>
> The couple returned and told me that they had
> changed their minds and wanted
> to "keep the baby." I delivered the baby seven
> months later.
>
> Years later, I played with little Jeffrey in the
> pool at the tennis club where
> his parents and I were members. He was happy and
> beautiful. I was horrified to
> think that only a technical obstacle had prevented
> me from terminating Jeffrey's
> potential life.
>
> The connection between a 6-week-old human embryo
> and a laughing child stopped
> being an abstraction for me. While hugging my sons
> each morning, I started to
> think of the vacuum aspirator that I would use two
> hours later. This was an
> emotional tension I could not tolerate.
>
> Nor could I live with the conflict between Jewish
> law and my medical practice.
> Judaism has became the lens through which I see
> the world. The Mitzvot-God's
> commandments-guided my behavior. But as a
> religious Jew, my desire to fulfill
> Torah was absurd as long as I performed elective
> abortions-a clear transgression.
>
> My ritual observances-from Shabbat kiddash to
> lulav and etrog on Sukkot-seemed
> hollow and hypocritical. I yearned to sing prayers
> passionately. I could not draw
> closer to God. Wrapping myself in tallit and
> tefillin meant nothing. The
> contradiction was too great. My spiritual
> aspirations were shattering. My
> intellectual integrity was disintegrating. I had
> to stop doing abortions.
>
> Perhaps you might expect to hear me speaking at
> the next anti-abortion rally. You
> will not. There are some abortions I would do even
> now-pregnancies that threaten
> the mother's life, pregnancies resulting from rape
> or incest, pregnancies
> involving extreme birth defects.
>
> Second, I am unable to impose my personal beliefs
> on a woman who feels her
> pregnancy will ruin her life. My conscience would
> not tolerate the terrible
> complications that illegal abortions would
> inevitably produce.
>
> Finally, I do not believe that all immoral actions
> must be illegal. Perhaps in my
> ideal society of chastity until marriage, of
> poverty eradicated, of universal
> respect for human life, abortion would be illegal.
> Alas, the Messiah (whether it
> be for a first or second time) has not arrived.
>
> But I am revolted when I see how casually some
> couples choose an abortion-for the
> convenience of having a baby in June instead of
> February, for example. I do not
> believe that a civilized society should encourage
> this.
>
> The reality of "choice" has profound moral and
> spiritual costs. The idea
> of "moral and spiritual costs" may seem irrelevant
> or chimerical to some. It is
> as hard as rock to me. As for elective
> second-trimester abortions, I believe that
> they should be illegal. I understand that for some
> women this would be a terrible
> burden. Some would bear deeply unwanted
> pregnancies; others would have illegal
> abortions; those who could afford it would go out
> of the country.
>
> But I believe that tearing a developed fetus
> apart, limb by limb, simply at the
> mother's request is an act of depravity that
> society should not permit. We cannot
> afford such a devaluation of human life, nor the
> desensitization of medical
> personnel that it requires. This is not based on
> what the fetus might feel, but
> on what we should feel in watching an exquisite,
> partly formed human being being
> dismembered, whether one believes that man is
> created in God's image or not. I
> wish everybody could witness a second-trimester
> abortion before developing an
> opinion about it.
>
> Since I stopped doing abortions, my life has
> blossomed. I love my practice. Years
> of struggle and guilt have ended. A certain calm
> and inner peace have returned. I
> feel closer to God. Our third child, Hanna, was
> born, bringing my wife and me
> immeasurable joy. She is named after my two
> grandmothers, one who survived
> Auschwitz and the other who was murdered there.
>
> Yom Kippur is approaching again. Last week I went
> to a sofer to check my
> tefillin. I had to buy new ones. My old tefillin
> were not kosher.
>
>
> Source:
> http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/offers.html?ur
> l=%2Flatimes%2Faccess%2F61482511.html%3Fdids%3D614
> 82511%3A61482511%26FMT%3DFT%26FMTS%3DABS%3AFT%26ty
> pe%3Dcurrent%26date%3DSep%2B12%252C%2B1991%26autho
> r%3DGEORGE%2BFLESH%26pub%3DLos%2BAngeles%2BTimes%2
> B(pre-1997%2BFulltext)%26edition%3D%26startpage%3D
> 7%26desc%3DPERSPECTIVE%2BON%2BHUMAN%2BLIFE%2BWhy%2
> BI%2BNo%2BLonger%2BDo%2BAbortions%2BTearing%2Ba%2B
> second-%2Btrimester%2Bfetus%2Bapart%2Bsimply%2Bat%
> 2Ba%2Bmother%2527s%2Brequest%2Bis%2Bdepravity%2Bth
> at%2Bshould%2Bnot%2Bbe%2Bpermitted.

tl;dr

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

none so blind as those who will not see.

;]

I thought the large font was a nice touch.

In other news, did you read that Valerie Jarrett was at a dinner with 479 generals and mistook one of them (high ranked general - no name!) for a glass of wine!?

Ain't that precious!?

Well this person probably thought he knew about the consequences of treating a fetus as a human being, but he wasn't going to let it happen. He should be a big hero for the pro abortion folks to include Obama who will pardon him if he is ever convicted for killing some lousy fetus and unknow number of women.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachments:

Don't let a fetus defeat us.

;] Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> suppose the mother of a family of 14 is pregnant
> again. further suppose her
> husband has a history of alcohol abuse and mental
> disorders which frequently
> causes him to abuse his other children. let's say
> the mother herself is already
> worn out from trying to care single-handedly for
> her large family and doesn't
> feel she can care for another child at this point.
> on top of all this, two of the
> kids are alcoholics, one of them is in a mental
> institution, and none of the
> children have steady, dependable jobs.
>
> abortion or not?
>
> well, if you choose abortion, you've just killed
> beethoven.

I didn't read the entire thread - TL:DR

I did notice this and I think these types of 'examples' are so lame. First, I'm not even sure it's true, but let's suppose it is.

One could make the argument that abortion has prevented a monster greater then Hitler. Shit, the book freakanomics makes the argument that abortions have been a factor in the decreasing crime rates starting in the 90's.

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.


This is a vacuous bumper sticker argument, analogous to:

If you don't like child abuse, don't abuse your child.

Nor does the Freakonomics theory withstand scrutiny. http://www.isteve.com/abortion.htm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2011 11:06PM by ;].

Firstly, this source from Esquire Magazine is too outdated (1970s?!) to be relevant what with new technology and rules regarding abortions.

Secondly, because it happens to be a DOCTOR'S opinion, I'm sure tons of idiots will believe every word of it regardless if the source is credible or not.

This article vilified the woman having the abortion with such quotes as "She lies on the table submissively, and now and then she smiles at one of the nurses as though acknowledging a secret."

and

"She smiles again. She seems to relax. She settles comfortably on the table. The
worst is over." According to Selzer, the woman was apparently smiling the whole time. RIGHT -- as if an abortion is something to be emotionally and physically "comfortable" about.

I could literally respond with an 8-page essay on why abortions should be and remain legal.

Ps.) A question to those opposed to abortions: Why try to stop legal abortions? It won't prevent "back-alley abortions." Just because something is illegal does not mean it will be eradicated.

Dear ;],
So you believe it is your right to deny others their rights?
I suppose it is a lost cause trying to explain all the legitimate reasons for an abortion to close-minded people because they always have some lame excuse or another.

Furthermore, the "bumper sticker" holds truth: If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. Simple as that. Nobody has the right to dictate what other people choose to do.

its a womans right to choose, of course! a woman and her precious body may choose to vacuum a baby out of her stomach.. because its her body damn it.

but let me be clear, this doesnt mean you pot heads and your stupid lungs have a right to smoke a plant.

this message brought to you by the social engineers that would have you believe they give a fuck about a persons right to their own body.

i say population control is a reasonable warrant for these engineers to promote abortion, but lets just cut the bullshit and call it what it is.

Megan Wrote:

> Ps.) A question to those opposed to abortions: Why
> try to stop legal abortions? It won't prevent
> "back-alley abortions." Just because something is
> illegal does not mean it will be eradicated.

Murder is illegal and it still happens. Does that mean we should make it legal since we've tried for so long to eradicate it without success?

I think not.

I take a utilitarian argument here. I think an unborn child is a unique biological entity. It is an organism that is biologically distinct from the mother, and that it should be treated as having rights unique to all humans. Therefore I think that abortion is unjustified However, I don't believe prohibition is the way to solve a problem. If we were to ban the practice, it would still be performed for people who really want one, but it wouldn't be done by trained professionals in sterile environments. If we accept that all people are equal in worth then both the life of the mother and the life of the child are equal. So we have one situation where we have two people and one will die, or we have a situation where we have two people and both may die. I prefer the one death situation and there prefer keeping it legal because it reduces risk.

The true problem with abortion is that we have created a series of incentives to encourage it. Banning the practice won't address these underlying incentives. Having children in this country has become a luxury good. It is very expensive to have children. This didn't used to be the case. It used to be that having children was a good way to get wealthy. Children after the age of four have the unique property that they can produce more than they consume. Having lots of kids meant having lots of laborers who could help supply income for the family. In a time before interest bearing bank accounts, and social safety mechanisms, children were also how you provided for retirement. Let's say you have one child, when you and your spouse get too old to work and had to rely of your child, that cuts their income down by two thirds. But if you have more children it spreads the costs out. This is one of the reasons why people in less developed countries still have lots of children, it is in their rational self interest. If we really want to bring rates of abortion down, re-legalize child labor. Oh, but that's horrible! Yes, if you are weighing having working children vs. having non-working children. But it isn't very bad if you are weighing having working children vs. having lots of dead children. But I don’t see that happening.

Here is my crazy solution. If we accept that a unborn child is still a person none the less, this doesn't mean we can't kill it. We can kill adults and they are people. Under the law, we don't necessarily have the right to life, we have the right to not be deprived of life without due process. So if we want to kill an adult we can do it, but we have to follow some procedures. First the State is the only institution that can deprive someone of their life, and we have decided that the state can do so in a limited number of ways.

These processes vary but generally we first have to accuse whoever we want to kill of an action that they were fore-warned was not allowed. This "action" usually has to be pretty egregious. Throughout history the type of actions that merited murder as punishment was generally usurping the powers of the state. Take the act of murder for instance, only the government is allowed to murder someone, so if you murder somebody not only did you intrude on their right but the state's right/prerogative. Next, a member of the government has to establish that the action you claimed happened actually did, usually a sheriff or police. Then you have to convince a panel of experts that the person accused likely committed the act. Then we can charge this person with the crime, but before we can murder them, we still have to convince a random group of twelve people in the community that this person was the person most likely to have done the act, after instructing them to assume this person didn't from the beginning, and they all have to unanimously agree. This accused person has to have a chance to convince these twelve people that they didn't and they also get to have a person who is familiar with the states process of killing people help them prove they didn't do whatever they are accused of doing. Then this twelve person group and a member of the government with experience in this type of thing have to decide if murdering this person is the correct action to take. If they do decide murder is warranted we still can't kill them yet. This convicted person still gets a chance to convince other members of the government who are experienced with the process that the first group of government officials didn’t follow the process correctly, and if they don’t agree with the convicted, the accused can try to convince yet another group. Lastly, if they think that the trial violated a promise the Federation their government is part of made, they can try to convince a group of the Federal Government’s officials that the weren’t treated correctly by any of the other panels. If all of this goes right and no one agrees with the convicted then we can kill them, unless the person who was picked to run the enforcement of the laws thinks they weren’t treated correctly and intervenes, this varies by state.

Or they can be murdered by a cop who was uncomfortable, at poker games or traffic stops for instance. Since those cops weren’t tried for murder, or at least violating due process, it seems the state has acquiesced to this other procedure. Those seem to be the two main ways that members of the state can murder you. Fuck you FCPD.

So it would appear that the mother is usurping a key power of the state. We can have abortions, but only if the mother can prove to a government panel that one is necessary. We can let that panel determine what is “necessary”. This should bring the procedure in line with the rest of our system of justice/murder.

Or, we can change how we kill adults to a less complicated method.

Or we can let cops do it.

The supression of women's rights begins with taking away reproductive rights. Ending legal and safe abortions only does that, ends legal and safe abortions, it doesnt end abortions. Once made illegal the hunt for the "criminals" will begin. Women and Doctors jailed to preserve your value system. Will the battle end when abortions are made illegal? Im afraid not, next on the agenda will be forms of birth control some people perceive as "abortions". Will the battle be over when fetus flushing birth control methods are made illegal? Im afraid not, the battle will be to outlaw all forms of birht control. Why? Because power corrupts and absolute poweer corrupts absolutely. And controlling a womens womb is the absolute form of power.

The consequences of treating a fetus as a human being is...

They turn into being democrats.

Sadly you are probably correct. We probably went from a center left country to a center right country because all the leftists offed their kids. And yet they are the one's who claim to understand Darwin.

There, this thread was no longer a waste of my time

Megan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Furthermore, the "bumper sticker" holds truth: If
> you don't want an abortion, don't have one. Simple
> as that. Nobody has the right to dictate what
> other people choose to do.


Yeah, with a huge caveat - 'unless it infringes upon the rights of others'. Which is what abortion always boils down to. If you view a fetus as a living being with the right to life, subject to nature but not to a human choice of termination, then your argument above is totally invalid. It bounces off pro-life people as absurd, and is viewed along the lines as the above rebuttal about child abuse.

And thus the two sides will continue to argue past each other.

Mmmm. Hamburger Helper makes a great meal.

Life begins at birth. End of story. Abortions should be free, legal, and plentiful. Especially for the welfare babies and illegals.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2046298/Kim-Kardashians-15-year-old-sister-Kendall-Jenner-models-daring-swimsuit-new-campaign.html

The most unfortunate aspect of the abortion debate is that the religious right have become so associated with the pro-life movement that lots of pro-lifers are afraid to say so. Only because everyone will mistakenly think they are religious nuts.

More abortions Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Life begins at birth. End of story. Abortions
> should be free, legal, and plentiful. Especially
> for the welfare babies and illegals.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

A fet us is still humanoid othus you are still killing a sentient life form
That even when that young already has feeling and emotions no matter how under developed it is.

By not calling a baby human you reduce its humanity to make yourself feel less guilty when in fact it came fro a human and the lifeform must be human unless you fucked a gorilla or dog.

Awwww trying to excue yourself fsrom guilt from murder?

Yep thats what it is...pure plain and simple.

But of course myself i would only abort if baby was retarded or was a hunch back or something weird like weird strange birth as if giving birth to an alien.

So rape incest and malformed grotesque are best reason to abort

But abortion just because you feel like it or you feel vindictive then the mother should be killed

Truthspeakersz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A fet us is still humanoid othus you are still
> killing a sentient life form
> That even when that young already has feeling and
> emotions no matter how under developed it is.
>
> By not calling a baby human you reduce its
> humanity to make yourself feel less guilty when in
> fact it came fro a human and the lifeform must be
> human unless you fucked a gorilla or dog.
>
> Awwww trying to excue yourself fsrom guilt from
> murder?
>
> Yep thats what it is...pure plain and simple.
>
> But of course myself i would only abort if baby
> was retarded or was a hunch back or something
> weird like weird strange birth as if giving birth
> to an alien.
>
> So rape incest and malformed grotesque are best
> reason to abort
>
> But abortion just because you feel like it or you
> feel vindictive then the mother should be killed


Well then, by your definitions murderof a fetus is okay at times. And who is to decide when it is okay to murder your fetus? You or the Government?