gadgetlady

It once was, and it may be again. Why is your opinion any more valid than theirs? And, again, one of them is a Nobel Laureate. They're not commonly what's considered "insane" or "crackpots". What is the difference between a baby 1 day before he is born and 1 day after? The baby 1 day after is (currently) protected by the law. The baby 1 day before is not. Why do you think partial-birth abortion involves stabbing the baby at the base of the neck and sucking out the brains? Because they never want the complication of having a live birth, like they have in prostaglandin and saline abortions. This is not hyperbole. Abortion is legal up until the moment of birth.

They were wrong. Your claim was that the Bible condones and advocates slavery, not that the Bible was USED to condone and advocate slavery. How do you know I've never faced an unplanned pregnancy? How do you know I've never dealt with it with a best friend? In fact, I have. Just a few pages ago someone challenged me, saying "how many unwanted babies have you offered to take?" (or something along those lines). Now, because I have, I'm equally bad. It is either a baby or it is not. What someone else thinks about it doesn't change it from baby to foreign object and back to baby again if she changes her mind. It is what it is. Mom's opinion of it doesn't affect what it is. YOU were the one who said it wasn't right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A baby isn't an abnormality! It is not a cancer! It is a human being! It is the same in many ways. It is contingent on how we define our fellow human beings. I'm sorry if it offends you. Abortion is ugly. That's a load of crap and you know it. They are given to anyone who wants them.

Yeah, but what if SHE doesn't think that. Did you read my post from yesterday about all the people who think parents should have the right to kill their children up until (depending on the "expert" involved) 3 days after birth, 7 days after birth, 1 month after birth, etc.?

They actually have a remarkably good outcome. I could quote you statistics but I'm running short on time. If you'd like them, I can try to find you a link to something -- let me know.

I'm still looking this up and will have it for you later. I do have: Marcus Richardson, 19 weeks, 6 days, 780 grams, January 1972 University Hospital, Cincinnati. There were many very young preemies born pre-internet era and so you might not find them there. :-( I'm sorry Go to Pregnancy.org > First Trimester Fetal Development - week 1 through week 14 and scroll down to 9 and 10 weeks (I wish I could post the photos here but I can't get it to work). That doesn't look like a butter bean to me, and the arms and legs are well defined. After all, at 11 weeks, the baby is getting FINGERNAILS -- he couldn't do that without FINGERS. Maybe by the time you miscarried there was degradation? I'm sorry for that, too. No one should be subjected to further pain especially immediately after a miscarriage or an abortion. It is generally not a crime that has along with it a desire to procreate. But the intent isn't important here -- it is a vile, disgusting crime and I feel for the women who have had to endure it. I have several friends who have been raped. Again, a horrible and extremely sad situation. Remember, though, that these diagnoses are not always correct. Further, if someone told me my 7YO had cancer and 1 month to live, I certainly wouldn't take her out into the backyard and shoot her. I'd do everything in my power to get her the medical attention to ensure her survival. That's not true. Many of them are 1st trimester abortions. And with 4000 babies being aborted every day in the US, a "tiny percentage" is still a lot. Since the mother gets to "decide" when her "child" is a "child" (as many others have proposed in this thread), I think you might find a lot of disagreement herein.

What if your mother decides NOW that you're not a human being?

I do not think it was ok to force pregnancies on slave women; however, once one is pregnant, I do not think it's ok to take the life of the second human being in existence. The government's job is to protect one person's rights from infringing on another's. That's an astounding statement. Your decision determines when another person is a human being? What if you decide it's not a child when it's 3 months old? What if I decide you're not a human being right now and it's ok to enslave or kill you?

I agree. It is not a Biblical argument or a religious issue. It is a human rights issue and a scientific issue. It's down to 18 weeks (gestational age -- 16 weeks fetal age). This is 2nd trimester. Abortion is easily attained in the 2nd trimester (and also attainable in the 3rd trimester). How do you arrive at the limit of 8 weeks?

Profitable? PROFITABLE? How the heck can you think anything pro-lifers do to save mothers and babies is PROFITABLE? We care about mother and baby, regardless of circumstances. And yes, because the baby has no voice of his own, we try to be that voice. You are absolutely right about one thing here -- the pregnant woman IS a mother. And the child is a child. The only choice she has once she's pregnant is whether to have a dead baby or a live one.

There is actually a shortage of newborns available for adoption, so this is a non-issue. Why do you think people are going abroad to adopt babies? Even if it were an issue, however, killing people is not the solution to social problems. If it was, we'd be "euthanizing" homeless and poor people every day. Slavery in the Bible is not comparable to slavery as we think of it in America. It was not based on heritage or nationality or color; very often, people sold themselves into slavery to pay off debts. Their "term" of slavery was for a time, not for life. People chose to be slaves so that they would be taken care of. You have to look at it in the historical context of the time to understand it. The Bible does not condone racism, race-based slavery, or any of the horrible atrocities that we commonly associate with modern slavery. Yes, I have. I've been involved with women in crisis pregnancies for over 20 years. I've talked to them, counseled them, loved them, cried with them, given them options, and helped them through post-abortive pain when they've choosen to abort. I've offered on many occasions to adopt their babies. Don't assume that I only have book knowledge on this subject. The point I was trying to make was not that she had a unique perspective on abortion, but rather that we have disregarded the facts about the development of the unborn in the whole abortion discussion. No one speaks to a pregnant mother about "products of conception" or "a blob of tissue" unless she is planning to abort. If she is carrying the baby to term, all of a sudden it's a baby, with body parts and everything. But otherwise, the baby is just a piece of trash. Why is abortion not right? The baby is not her body. Ya think? It's awfully easy to advocate or participate in the destruction of human life when you don't have an emotional attachment. That's what happened in Hitler's Germany -- how else could they have carried out all of those horrendous exterminations? They didn't identify the victims as human, and they didn't form emotional attachments to them. That's really sad. Dismembering people and identifying their body parts isn't shocking? And those are early-term abortions!!! What about prostaglandin or saline abortions, or partial-birth abortions, where the often viable baby is delivered, feet-first, and then stabbed at the base of the skull and the brains suctioned out? Does that not bother you either? Those are equally horrible. I believe that the prevalence and acceptance of abortion leads to more cases of child abuse. Those in favor of abortion claim that if abortion is illegal, more unwanted babies will be born and abused. But if abortion is the cure for child abuse, why is there still child abuse -- and, in fact, why is it on the rise? I have answered this previously but I will again lest you think I am avoiding it. Killing the baby who is the product of a crime is inflicting the death penalty on someone other than the criminal. Very often, women who have been raped and carry their babies to term report that this is the only positive thing that came out of the rape. I have a tremendous amount of compassion for women who are the victims of rape; I don't want them victimized again. I have a very good friend who has been a foster parent to a crack baby for the past 8 months. She is the sweetest thing in the world. She certainly doesn't deserve to be put down like an animal. There are people to take care of these babies. I am a big believer in prevention. The baby is not her body. If it were, women would have the unique ability to have 4 arms, 4 legs, 2 brains, 2 hearts, and in about 50% of the cases, male genitalia.

The presence (or absence) of government organizations does not make something right or wrong. You should know that precisely from the lesson that slavery taught us: sometimes the government has unjust laws. What the heck are you talking about? I don't have a "vendetta", I have compassion -- for both the baby and the mother. And show me where abortion is in the constitution, please. You are putting words in my mouth. I don't believe in the death penalty. I don't believe in discrimination. And the Bible doesn't say it's ok and just to own slaves. I'm not repeating any old adages to you. And as I've said before, I don't think abortion is a religious issue. As I've said before, unplanned pregnancies are painful and difficult and scary for the mothers involved. I know that and I understand that. I have very, very close friends who have been there. I've also seen what happens when scared mothers are offered a "choice" that seems like it will solve all of their problems, and all that "choice" does is compound the problem because they feel like they can never forgive themselves. Or perhaps they're left infertile due to the procedure and when they want to plan a pregnancy, can't get pregnant -- leaving them with the knowledge that they aborted the only child they ever had. I spent about an hour on the phone tonight with a friend who just suffered a miscarriage. She was 3 months along. She said she didn't understand how women could choose, through abortion, what she had just gone through; I told her they were convinced, or convinced themselves, that it wasn't a baby. She was livid -- she said, "I SAW my baby. I saw his head, his hands, his heartbeat! How could anyone say that wasn't a human life?" It always amazes me how we honor the development of the unborn when the baby is wanted -- with little ticker factory tickers in signatures showing what's going on with the baby this week, with photos in books and on calendars telling about how this week the eyelashes are being formed, or that week the baby is sucking his thumb -- but when it's an unplanned pregnancy, the baby is just a "blob of tissue" or a "product of conception". Don't you see the irony in that? Do you have any idea how abortions are performed? That in a suction aspiration or D&C abortion (the most common types), the baby is pulled apart limb from limb? That often the abortionist will look in the little bag that holds the contents of the womb to check and make sure there are 2 arms, 2 legs, a torso, and a head -- so he doesn't leave anything behind? Now everyone's going to jump up and down and say I'm being gruesome. Well it's not me. It's the procedure. No one complains when someone describes the banding process -- it's a medical procedure. What makes abortion gruesome is the thing that's happening. You can try to make it pretty by talking about women's rights and the women having control of their bodies and their destiny, but you will always fail. It is an ugly, ugly thing. That's why those in favor of abortion are practically rabid when they see pro-lifers pictures of aborted babies. All those pictures show is reality. Go ahead and attack me for daring to bring up all of this ugliness. All I'm doing is describing the very practice you're defending.

You're such a charmer, marjon.

Both slavery and abortion should make people uncomfortable. They are both based on the same precept: that one person owns another and can do with them what they wish. No, that's not what I said at all. I said the numbers would be cut down dramatically, not squelched entirely. Illegal activities will never stop, whether they be murder, thievery, or any form of human oppression. And no, I don't believe everyone should have a voluminous number of children. I believe people should decide if they want to control their family sizes before they have already added to that family through the creation of a new human being.

I thought you didn't believe in hell I do have a serious question, though, green. If abortion had been illegal in France when you found yourself facing an unplanned pregnancy, what would you have done?

The point is you are deciding for another person. Ever heard of Gianna Jenssen? Google her. Her mother "chose" to have a saline abortion in 1977. Gianna survived it. No surprise, she's a huge pro-life activist. At the time of the abortion, no one asked her how she felt about her mother's (or, I guess you'd call it her "owner's) "choice". That "choice" almost killed her. It is more often successful -- 1/2 of the people going into an abortion clinic don't come out alive.

If you don't believe in slavery, don't own a slave. You would have been great 150 years ago -- those are the exact arguments slaveowners used!

Why, pray tell? I believe science should determine when human life begins, and allowing people to decide willy-nilly based on their own personal conscience leads to things like infanticide, euthanasia, and slavery.

Making abortion illegal would not eliminate it (just as making other forms of murder illegal doesn't eliminate them), but it would certainly take a big chunk out. The whole "if it's illegal people will still do it anyway" argument has never flown with me. It's illogical. People always break the law; we don't therefore abandon laws. That's called anarchy.

I gather from your sarcasm that you DO doubt my sources. Go look it up for yourself. They're very well documented. Or just bury your head in the sand if you'd prefer. It doesn't negate the facts that this is reality. This is the road we end up on when we believe one person has the right to define when another person's life begins.

Southern California, hands down. I've travelled all over the world and keep looking for another place that I could live in (I don't much care for the politics and traffic here), but nothing matches up to the weather. Temperate all year round, perfect humidity, and if you're smart enough to avoid the areas with fires and mudslides, no real issue with cylical natural disasters Out of the US, the only places I've found that were a possibility are Gibraltar and Naples (Italy).

I was banded by Dr. Quebbemann in Newport Beach. Love him.

What if the mother decides that she's not capable when the baby's been born for a week? Again, some very learned people have proposed that that should be acceptable. One of them is a Nobel Laureate. There are many websites that document this. I have cut and pasted from one: For some time now, many in the medical profession, along with the intellectual elite, have advocated infanticide and euthanasia. In his book, The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law, Dr. Glanville Williams advocates "humanitarian infanticide" and "euthanasia for handicapped children." Dr. Robert H. Williams, a professor of endocrinology, has said that "planning to prevent overpopulation of the earth must also include euthanasia, either negative or positive" (Northwest Medicine, July 1970). According to Dr. Joseph Fletcher, the well-known professor of medical ethics and proponent of situation ethics, "It is ridiculous to give ethical approval to positive ending of subhuman life in utero, as we do now in therapeutic abortions for reasons of mercy and compassion, but refuse to approve of positively ending a subhuman life in extremis" ("Ethics and Euthanasia," in To Love and to Die: When, Why, and How, by Robert H. Williams). James D. Watson, the Nobel laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA, has said: "If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have" (Time, May 28, 1973, page 104). Francis Crick, also a Nobel laureate, has said, "No newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests it forfeits the right to live" (American Medical Association, Prism, May 1973). Millard S. Everett, who was professor of philosophy and humanities at Oklahoma A & M, wrote: "My personal feeling...is that eventually, when public opinion is prepared for it, no child should be admitted into society of the living who would be certain to suffer any social handicap—for example, any physical or mental defect that would prevent marriage or would make others tolerate his company only from a sense of mercy" (Ideals of Life: An Introduction to Ethics and Humanities, 1954). [emphasis added] So infants are "subhuman", parents should have the right to "euthanize" their children if there is a social handicap present, and newborn infants shouldn't be declared human until they pass certain tests. Who the hell is this man to have the presumption to "declare" someone human! It's not his right to "declare". Either someone is human or they're not. His mind-boggling opinion doesn't make one iota of difference to biological and scientific reality. I'm not making this stuff up. Advocating that a woman OWNS her child in utero leads directly to this line of thinking. I don't OWN my children. Never have. Never will. They are not mine to do with what I wish. They weren't my property when they were kicking me in the ribs while in my womb, they weren't my property the millisecond before or after they were removed from my abdomen, and they aren't my property now.

Perfect! When does biology tell us a person comes into existence? When is the entity that is identifiable by DNA separate from the mother in existence?

Sunchickie, where are you? The people we're staying with in Nashville don't have cable so all my news has been from the internet and family. News reports are saying 1,000,000 people evacuated thus far. It's mind boggling. Are you doing OK?

You sound like you shouldn't be on LBT for lack of time I hated graduate school -- not enough free time. Best of luck to you! LMK if you ever do get to the Creation Museum. I'd love to discuss it with you. If you do decide to go, go on a weekday and not in the summer. We went on a Friday and it was so crowded it was like a gauntlet to get through the rooms. They are getting waaaayyyy more people than they expected. There are some things about it that you won't like because of the Biblical references, but the scientific aspects would be of interest to you.