Skip to main content

L. Cranston posted:
Stanky posted:
Dr. John posted:
Stanky posted:
Dr. John posted:
Stanky posted:
Dr. John posted:
Stanky posted:
Naio posted:

So what's wrong with the way the law is now? Then, ask yourself why people are trying so hard to overturn it?

What's so wrong now is the fact that brain wave activity begins in the child at 5-6 weeks and the heart starts beating about 5 weeks. Brown v Education Board replaced 'separate but equal' of Plessey v Ferguson because of new facts that were introduced to the Supreme Court. I believe states are taking a new crack at the old ruling using biological facts.

If brain wave activity is the chief indicator of life, can we now turn off some ventilators on comatose adults? Some of them do wake up against all odds, but you seem to be saying it's okay to kill them.

I'm glad you now agree that life begins at conception.

There's no "now" to it. You seem to want to pick arguments where there are none. I've never said it didn't. What I'm saying is that using false and dubious arguments don't help anyone's case.

The difference between an 8 month old fetus and an 8 month old baby is 9 months. Not difficult to understand is it?

According to some states, after the second trimester that fetus is a person as allowed by Roe v Wade. At that point the only difference is which side of the womb the baby is on. Deciding when life occurs is a rather delicate issue, we all were once zygotes so to some, life starts there. 

I believe it was you who started the deflection with the comatose adult story. You get what you give.

YOU are the one who first mentioned brain wave activity as indicative of life. The point is, without using, or even when using, the Bible, no one can say when life begins. That's unless you or others want to say you know as much as God.

Pardon me, the whole point of the abortion issue is when is a person a human and what standard do we use to determine the starting point. At some point between the zygote stage and the rotting flesh stage we are human beings and politicians are given the job of filling in for God and determining the start and end of it all. The problem is do we use an arbitrary date pulled out of a politician's rectum or a biological stage.

That depends on if Republicans intend to govern by religion or science, doesn't it?

Actually conception would be the zygote stage, so that would be biological. Heart beat and brain waves are biological points.

Jack Hammer posted:
The date of birth doesn't bring to life the baby, the moment of
 conception is the life of all humans. If you can't see that then all you
see are guesses and opinions, politics and convenience.
 
The egg and sperm are both living, if not there's no life, so a baby
is alive even before conception.

Then you want the IUD and Plan B outlawed as well?

There's no doubt that many are passionate on both sides of the abortion issue and to a greater degree on just how to determine life or when it is to be considered a life.  Some believe from the moment of conception it is a person and a special being apart from say an insect, rape etc.  At some point, from a religious perspective, religious people believe God places a spirit/soul within the fetus/child making it human (as opposed to say an insect or animal) and regardless of whether there is brain activity or a beating heart beat , to me, that point is where the distinction of human is at.  Sadly though science, nor anyone else, can determine when that point is and then if you are not a religious person then I suppose you don't believe that a person/human has a special, eternal, spirit or soul and we are back to brain activity or heartbeat.  

The issue will not be decided on this forum nor in courts to the satisfaction of all parties involved however there should be some uniform measure or law with respect to a declaration of life itself.  I favor erring on the conservative side and point of view that life begins early, maybe not at conception, but surely before where lots of states and people are defining it.  When you have brain activity and a heart beat there shouldn't be a discussion about life but there is and will be.  Apart from the life discussion what bothers me is that some are considering abortion (where there is brain activity and heart beat aside) as a method of birth control.  That should (my own opinion) never be the case.  There is plenty of availability of birth control devices and methods that can be exercised by the male and/or the female and abortion should not be a choice of birth control.  With regards to incest, rape, mother's health, or babies health (death in the womb)  those are valid (in my mind) reasons to make such a hard and harsh decision.  

The fact is that different states are going to rule differently on the subject which is why it is logical and reasonable for the Supreme Court to set some standard and judge on this issue rather than have it be so divisive and varying from state to state, region to region.  The problem with having the Supreme Court rule and have Roe challenged is that the ultimate ruling, when/if it comes down is not going to satisfy everyone and certainly will not solve the issue totally.  More is known today about how to determine activity in the womb and more technology is available today to save children born at very early stages than ever before so there should be a better determination of a standard for actual definition of life.  

As a professing Christian I'm not comfortable saying when God places a spirit/soul into an embryo or a child and I'm not able, myself, to determine when, apart from religious significance, that embryo is a sustainable life but I do believe, as stated before, that abortion is not a birth control method or choice and shouldn't ever be considered as such.  CHOICE, with respect to birth control is something that can be made by an intelligent person prior to reaching a point where a heart beat is heard or brain activity is detected.  I can't imagine how a person, let alone a doctor, could reach into a womb and decapitate a moving baby stopping a beating heart whether or not that child is only supported by the umbilical cord attached to the mother.

If a decision can be made about whether or not that beating heart within the mother's stomach is viable then it's not a far stretch to determine if an elderly person is viable any longer, as far as contributing to society.  Yes it's a totally different topic but whereas the baby, in the mother's stomach is reliant totally upon the mother for support at some point in society many of us will reach an age where we are mostly, if not totally, dependent upon others for our own survival and livlihood and when you cross some lines it isn't too difficult to see that a person that can sever (kill) a moving, heart beating baby could make a decision to administer a pill to an elderly person and end a life that one considered no longer giving to society but rather taking from it whether that individual wants to live or not.    I'm not talking about assisted suicide either but when another person makes that decision for you regardless of your own wishes.

One thing, though, that confuses me and I find so ironic and that is some of the very people that have no problem ripping a moving baby from the mother's stomach, or defending someone that does,  are the very same ones that would imprison a person and be for destroying a person for say destroying eggs in an eagle's nest.  It doesn't only have to be an eagle but I used it for making a point.  

One thing, though, that confuses me and I find so ironic and that is some of the very people that have no problem ripping a moving baby from the mother's stomach, or defending someone that does,  are the very same ones that would imprison a person and be for destroying a person for say destroying eggs in an eagle's nest.  It doesn't only have to be an eagle but I used it for making a point. 

------------------------------

They do a lot of irrational things. With the pre-born they get upset if you show a young woman or man what they do when they opt for abortion. They don't want you to humanize the baby. They allow children to change sexes or label themselves one way or the other (gay) before the child's mind and body has matured. They start sex education way too early...and some may laugh but I have see kids that were scared and worried by "the talk". They were just too young. I heard a common sense story about how a father handled his daughter when she "came out" at 12. She's 22 now and isn't gay....never was...no interventions needed...just common sense parenting. These days the left thinks it's fashionable to have gay or transgendered children and I think in way too many cases push them in that direction...and then they raise a bunch of confused, mixed up, angry kids and release them on society to deal with.

Last edited by Jutu

Are abortions used as birth control?

So are abortions being used as birth control? It seems that the answer is yes. But this is a simplistic way of looking at the issue. Here are some resources that provide further food for thought:

 
With roughly 1.3 million abortions a year in the United States, many people wonder: Are women just using abortion as a method of birth control?

There are different school of thought on this question. Some prolife hardliners hold that unless the pregnancy is the result of non-consensual sex, or some health problem in mother or fetus is discovered during pregnancy, it's "abortion for birth control." 

According to a study published in Family Planning Perspectives: 3% of women abort because of concerns that there is something wrong with the fetus; 3% of women abort because of concerns for their own health, and 1% abort because they are pregnant through rape or incest. That totals 7%, leaving 93% of abortions being done for birth control, by this rather loose concept.

Let's look at the rate of repeat abortions. Since Roe v. Wade, the percent of abortions done on women who have already had at least one abortion has climbed steadily. This chart was compiled from data in CDC Abortion Surviellance Summaries:

Year Previous Abortions Total Repeats
0 1 2 3+
1974 75.2% 9.8% 1.3% 0.4% 11.5%
1976 70.9% 14.8% 2.4% 0.8% 18.0% 
1978 66.9% 20.9% 5.0% 1.7% 27.6%
1980 64.4% 22.4% 6.3% 2.2% 30.9%
1982 56.2% 19.7% 13.5% 5.0% 38.2%
1984 57.8% 24.5% 9.0% 4.1% 37.6%
1986 55.4% 24.7% 8.9% 4.8% 38.4%
1988 56.4% 26.2% 10.2% 4.8% 41.2%
1990 56.2% 26.4% 10.0% 5.8% 42.2%
1992 54.2% 26.9% 10.8% 6.4% 44.1%
1994 53.7% 26.6% 10.9% 6.8% 44.3%
1996 53.2% 26.4% 11.0% 7.1% 44.5%
1998 52.6% 26.4% 11.2% 7.6% 45.2%
2000 53.2% 25.7% 10.9% 7.4% 44.0%

The repeat abortion rate has recently leveled off at roughly 45% -- meaning that nearly half of women undergoing abortions have had at least one prior abortion. And there are roughly as many women having 4th, 5th, 6th and subsequent abortions as are having abortions for rape, incest, fetal indications, and maternal health combined.

At the opposite end of the spectrum are those who believe that you can only count a woman using abortion as birth control if she was not using birth control when she concieved, and she had no intention of becoming pregnant. 

The former About.com Pro-Choice Guide wrote that 42% of abortions are obtained by women who were not using contraception.

The hard-liners, defining "abortion as birth control" as any abortion chosen because the woman doesn't want to have the baby, put the "abortions as birth control" rate at 95%. The middle ground, judging by repeat abortions, puts "abortions as birth control" at 45%. And the most conservative count, just counting abortions on women who weren't using contraception, put "abortions as birth control" at 42%. Even the low end, the conservative estimate of 42%, is still, by anybody's reckoning, a lot of abortions.

So are abortions being used as birth control? It seems that the answer is yes. But this is a simplistic way of looking at the issue. Here are some resources that provide further food for thought:
 

 

https://realchoice.blogspot.co...s-birth-control.html

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×