Abortion

[This_person]

Oh wait, you did.


Show me a fetus that can survive that without the life of their mother (or similar holding cell) and I will agree it is a living breathing seperate thing. Because seperation kinda assumes that it is a -seperate- life than the mother.

So, you would support abortion up to and including the moment before the cord is cut?

Can the baby survive (ie, feed itself, etc.) without SOMEONE supporting it? No, so I guess that the baby is not a separate life either? Since it can't survive on it's own?

 

[puggymom]

We all know my opinion on abortion here but LEGALLY speaking a fetus is not granted person hood and all the rights with that until it is born.

 

[Gwydion]

Wow... sorry that happened to your brother. It's a sad thing to happen to children but it does happen, I'm sure your brother's step kid will eventually get over it, kids are resilient for the most part.

As a single parent you just don't go into a relationship blindly, you're more guarded and you think things out much more than if you didn't have kids at all. In my situation, BF and I are working on something much larger.

Glad to hear it. I really wasn't trying to be as rude as that came out. I just think its rather dis-heartening to hear abuot children becoming attached to a father/mother figure then have them ripped away because the mom/dad stops dating them.

 

[puggymom]

So, you would support abortion up to and including the moment before the cord is cut?

Can the baby survive (ie, feed itself, etc.) without SOMEONE supporting it? No, so I guess that the baby is not a separate life either? Since it can't survive on it's own?

A baby is different than a fetus because the fetus needs ONE specific person for its survival whereas a baby could rely on anyone.

 

[Gwydion]

So, you would support abortion up to and including the moment before the cord is cut?

I don't support abortion, fyi. I support sterilization of anybody deemed unfit to have children.

Can the baby survive (ie, feed itself, etc.) without SOMEONE supporting it? No, so I guess that the baby is not a separate life either? Since it can't survive on it's own?

There is a major difference between supporting and sharing.

 

[puggymom]

I don't support abortion, fyi. I support sterilization of anybody deemed unfit to have children.


There is a major difference between supporting and sharing.

Just because someone chooses an abortion does not mean they are unfit to have children. Some actually are married with kids and feel as though their family cannot support another child.

 

[Xaquin44]

Just ask TP about In Vitro Fertilization and watch him flounder.

Unless I'm thinking of someone else, his answers will make little to no logical sense.

 

[This_person]

Yup. It is not a "life" until it is outside of her. Until then, it is not a seperate thing.

With your black and white view, and deep medical knowledge, it's a good thing you don't make the laws.....

Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation. This view is endorsed by a host of contemporary scientists such as Renfree (1982), Grobstein (1988) and McLaren. This view of when life begins has also been adopted as the official position of the British government.​

It is the single most logical, scientifically backed up view of when life begins.

 

[This_person]

A baby is different than a fetus because the fetus needs ONE specific person for its survival whereas a baby could rely on anyone.

So, THAT'S the definition of when life begins? When you can rely on anyone instead of one person?

 

[Gwydion]

Just because someone chooses an abortion does not mean they are unfit to have children. Some actually are married with kids and feel as though their family cannot support another child.

I never said that. I feel that if you are unable to provide for a child in a loving, nurturing, safe and secure environment then you should be unable to have children.

Which includes the second sentence of your post.

 

[puggymom]

So, THAT'S the definition of when life begins? When you can rely on anyone instead of one person?

Legally speaking yes.

Otherwise it depends on point of view. For my pregnancies they were my babies from the moment I got that positive test. That is just my POV and I do not believe the laws of this country should be based on one person's POV.

 

[This_person]

Just ask TP about In Vitro Fertilization and watch him flounder.

Unless I'm thinking of someone else, his answers will make little to no logical sense.

Yeah, I flounder bad

I suggest that trying to create life is far, far different than trying to take life. That's quite an assinine position if you're all for killing ANY baby.

 

[Gwydion]

With your black and white view, and deep medical knowledge, it's a good thing you don't make the laws.....

Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation. This view is endorsed by a host of contemporary scientists such as Renfree (1982), Grobstein (1988) and McLaren. This view of when life begins has also been adopted as the official position of the British government.​

It is the single most logical, scientifically backed up view of when life begins.

You are right. It is a good thing I don't make laws. Still doesn't change my idea of when life "begins". Because, in my book, its not your own life until somebody else can be killed and you can survive.

 

[This_person]

Legally speaking yes.

Now, which "legally" are we speaking of? The abortion laws, or the ones that can charge someone with murder for the killing of an unborn child (a la Scott Peterson)?

Otherwise it depends on point of view. For my pregnancies they were my babies from the moment I got that positive test. That is just my POV and I do not believe the laws of this country should be based on one person's POV.

With this I agree. Religious views should not be the standard, because we are not a theocracy. The standard should be based on some scientific knowledge, concurrence - with a healthy and strong respect for human life.

 

[puggymom]

I never said that. I feel that if you are unable to provide for a child in a loving, nurturing, safe and secure environment then you should be unable to have children.

Which includes the second sentence of your post.

So does that include the 18 year old who chooses to abort and finish college in order to provide a better life for future possible children? She should be sterilized even though she may be a great parent at some later point in her life?

**This in no way means I advocate abortion for teens or young adults. I just view it as a very personal decision that it up to the woman primarily and other family if applicable.**

 

[This_person]

You are right. It is a good thing I don't make laws. Still doesn't change my idea of when life "begins". Because, in my book, its not your own life until somebody else can be killed and you can survive.

Your "idea" is not backed up legally, scientifically, logically, etc.

That's my only point.

 

[puggymom]

Now, which "legally" are we speaking of? The abortion laws, or the ones that can charge someone with murder for the killing of an unborn child (a la Scott Peterson)?With this I agree. Religious views should not be the standard, because we are not a theocracy. The standard should be based on some scientific knowledge, concurrence - with a healthy and strong respect for human life.

It is about the woman's choice to either have an abortion or carry a pregnancy to term. Someone else cannot take that choice away from her whether that be to have an abortion or to have a baby.

 

[Gwydion]

So does that include the 18 year old who chooses to abort and finish college in order to provide a better life for future possible children? She should be sterilized even though she may be a great parent at some later point in her life?

**This in no way means I advocate abortion for teens or young adults. I just view it as a very personal decision that it up to the woman primarily and other family if applicable.**

Why did the 18 year old get into a circumstance that could allow herself to get pregnant?

 

[This_person]

It is about the woman's choice to either have an abortion or carry a pregnancy to term. Someone else cannot take that choice away from her whether that be to have an abortion or to have a baby.

Didn't she make that choice when she chose to take an action by which she could become pregnant?

No BC is 100%. None, except abstinence. By not practicing abstinence, isn't she making her choice to potentially become pregnant? After all, that's the argument used for men - they played, so they have to accept the responsibility of their actions. Why aren't women held to the same standard?

 

[Xaquin44]

Why did the 18 year old get into a circumstance that could allow herself to get pregnant?

accidents happen

heck it's possible to be using two forms of birth control properly and still have a kid.

Unless you advocate recreation only for procreation then stuff happens.