Forgive me if it's been posted before, but are there any on here that anyone disagrees with?
Thanks for posting that link. Wow! As a pro-lifer, I have honestly never heard of some of those myths, such as abortions cause breast cancer. How could anyone explain that? If we were to study every breast cancer case and were allowed to have access to the patient records of every one of those females, you know that not all of them have had an abortion. That's just a fear tactic. How sad...
The myth about "This is what an abortion looks like" brought back a scary memory for me. When I was young (11 or 12 I guess) my youth group at church was shown a video of an abortion. Looking back now, I can't believe they showed us that. It was awful. Being that young, my mother hadn't even had "The Talk" with me yet. So when I saw that, I was mortified! I don't even think my mom knew that we were watching that (she was in the adult Bible study group in another room). It's amazing to me what people view as age appropriate material. But that's another debate...
I do disagree with the explaination (for lack of a better term) for the myth about first-trimester fetuses feeling pain. I'm not so sure that they can't feel pain. I'm not a doctor or medical researcher but having been pregnant, I often worried that my baby was in distress when my blood pressure was so high (had toxemia with both pregnancies). So who's to say that they don't feel pain when they are in distress. I would like to do some research on this and also find out about that commission from the British House of Lords. Might be some interesting findings there.
I guess it's the same with all myths- think for yourself and research to find the answers. Thanks again for the link
mommy to angels Sarah, Chloe, and Isabella
mommy to furbabies Chewy and Lola
Hi, desp_happy_housewife -
Interesting link. The last point caught my eye:
"Human life begins at conception."
False. Human life actually begins prior to conception, because each sperm and egg cell is a living thing. It is more relevant to discuss when sentience, or self-awareness, begins. In 2000, the British House of Lords established a Commission of Inquiry into Fetal Sentience, which estimated that higher-level brain development begins to commence at about 23 weeks.
'Though I disagree with the conclusion above (more on this in a minute), this is an excellent springboard for dialogue because the central point of the debate is whether or not the unborn are fully human persons. If not, then I have no problem with it; its like any other elective surgery. I walk away from the debate if someone can persuade me of that. But if so -- if those within the womb are people like you and me, bearers of rights who deserve our protection -- then abortion causes the death of an innocent human being and should not be permitted.
The question and answer equivocate on the meaning of "human", for one thing, as sex cells are not human in the same way that an embryo is or a newborn is; they are human in origin, and are necessary (at least naturally) for the creation of new human life, but utterly lack the potentiality for realizing human qualities, such as sentience.
Now, the crucial question is whether it is the manifestation of qualities like sentience, or the capacity to have such qualities, that is morally relevant for the question of basic human rights. If the former, then abortion would be immoral (under most conditions) at 23 weeks (at least according to the above citation). If the latter, then the line moves back significantly to conception, once egg and sperm have fused and a new organism has come into being.
A basic question we have to ask ourselves is this: Are our rights are grounded in (A) the kind of being we are (human), or are they grounded in (B) our performance or functioning? For my part, I believe that it seems a better fit to conclude that they are grounded in the former, in virtue of what we are, and not due to what we are currently capable of. Capabilities differ significantly between persons, and functioning waxes and wanes, but basic rights are attributable nonetheless.
'Kind of goes back to the whole "all men are created equal" thing: despite our differences of race, color, sex, and ability, we all have the same basic rights. What do you think?
All living beings have the same basic rights. Those of us who are living and breathing and can sustain that activity without relying on a host body. Until there is a way for a woman to pass the z/e/f off onto another person/machine so she doesn't have to provide that support if she chooses not to then there's no equality. Born trumps unborn every time.
Hi, mootoad -
I am glad for the opportunity to dialog with you.
<< All living beings have the same basic rights. Interesting statement. Can you clarify? I ask because you could mean something that most people would agree with, or you could mean that human beings and animals are essentially the same with regards to their value, and therefore equally deserving of protection>>
Sorry, for the purpose of this debate I was referring to humans.
Actually, I don't really like the idea of an abortions. I also know that my situation will never be the same as the person next to me so I have no right to legislate my opinions.
As for dismemberment, thank GWB for that one. When he made intact dilation and evacuation abortion illegal(intact d&e)he forced the other option as the only way to remove the fetus. On the saline subject I was unable to find any recent stats as to the percentage performed. My understanding is that saline is rarely/never? used in the UK during abortions. IDK about the US.
<< In the vast majority of cases, pregnancy occurs due to the choice of the woman to engage in sex, and it seems incredibly heartless to put another human being (the unborn) into a position of vulnerability and dependence, and then to turn around and use that same position of vulnerability as an excuse for killing them. >>
See, that feels like a blame the woman option. Pregnancy always occurs when two people either have sex or use AR. A woman can't get pregnant without the introduction of sperm. I don't feel that a couple using BC intend pregnancy at all so they aren't trying to put anyone into a vulnerable position. Pregnancy can happen when contraception fails. Clearly then the intent was not to become pregnant.
And if you're actively preventing pregnancy because you aren't equipped to parent? I don't feel that being the host as part of a parasitic relationship is an obligation that should be forced upon any person. If you want to be obligated and run the associated risks I don't feel that anyone has the right to not allow you to do that. Just as I don't feel anyone has the right to force you to gestate.
I have 4 kids. I chose to gestate the little parasites ;-) Seriously, it *is* a parasitic relationship. The host is drained of calcium and iron(first things that popped into my head), the heart has an extra strain placed upon it due to extra blood flow needed, the immune system is weakened to help prevent rejection of the fetus, the host is open to serious pregnancy complications such as Pre eclampsia, there's always the chance of maternal death in childbirth, Post partum hemmorhage isn't uncommon either.
This is an "off the top of my head" list. I'[m sure there are plenty more examples. If a woman wants to assume that risk then that's fine. If not, then what gives me the right to dictate to her with possible life altering/ending consequences.
Thank you :-)
Yes. This. And this is the most important fact.
Hi Publius- I hope you don't mind me butting in to address one of your points.
It is the presence of *risk*, - both short and long term, inherent to either continued gestation and childbirth, or to abortion, that constitutes the basis for a woman's right to choose her which option she assumes, IMO.
<<<<(1) In the vast majority of cases, pregnancy occurs due to the choice of the woman to engage in sex, and it seems incredibly
Re: the breast cancer "link", as an aside it's been