First, they are not "babies" until they become viable and are born. and you would prefer children born into loveless environments just so they can be born? Remember what women went through before legalized abortion? Back alley abortionists in some hell hole in New York?
They are babies at conception. Women shouldn't get pregnant if they don't want babies. And they shouldn't have (especially unprotected) sex if they don't want to risk/become pregnant. Women know there is a risk of pregnancy everytime they have sex. Personal responsibility is better than killing babies.
Sandy so much of what you've said is obvious crap that others have pointed out and you've ignored. I have no idea where to begin let alone if I should bother - Emotive arguements steming from trying to put a face on and attach humanity and human traits to an unborn parasite. Ignoring the point that a lot of things are alive that you have no problem killing. Even the adoption thing is crap, you're trying to tell us there are no unadopted children in america? You encourage increasing the numbers of unwanted children just because it suits you? How many people like you do that whilst NEVER adopting themselves. You have no consideration for other people's views that may differ from your own religion and believe everyone must agree with you, don't want an abortion? Don't have one. Want kids up for adoption? Go adopt a few yourself first. ...
"1. Posters are requested to attack the content of the post rather than the members. Continued baiting/trolling/flaming will result in an infraction or a temporary ban. 2. Any posts irrelevant to the topic or posts intended for baiting, flaming and trolling with the intent of attacking a member will be deleted and a warning given." Where are the modsPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sorry, Unnecessary personal remarks have been deleted. As long as Sandy or anyone else is a member of sciforums, personal attacks are against the rules. I can excuse occasions where both sides are commenting on each other, but in this case, Sandy objects to it. Please respect the rules posted at the top of this sub-forum. Thanks, -SG
This is unproven, here is research published from the JAMA which directly contradicts your statement: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/8/947 "Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks. " I have no problem with anyones belief, I just do not think that the U.S. government should be involved in any informed medical decision that I choose to make. While I respect your decisions in regards to this matter, I can not allow false statements and misrepresentation of facts based on personal and/or religious beliefs. The U.S. government is too involved and unfortunately has provided misinformed consent to countless patients which is reckless and harmful. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/4/gpr090406.html I actively support organizations which foster education and informed consent when dealing with medical care and public health issues. Most Federal spending has been on abstinence until marriage programs which have been proven ineffective and wasteful in terms of monetary expenditures. http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations.pdf
Those who support killing babies will taint the facts with their "facts." Those who oppose killing babies will stick to the real facts.
And, seemingly, my posts too. Hey, it's not me proudly proclaiming my views in the light of my "Oh so righteous" beliefs: Hell, I wouldn't even be bothered if you just said you didn't like abortion. However, to use your religious beliefs as some sort of justification for such a stance, is moronic. Especially when your religion doesn't even condemn the abortion of pre-three week old embryos, and you do. ...
I'm not anti-abortion, but I'm also not pro-abortion either. The only important thing to remember is that it shouldn't be used as a form of contraceptive. There are sitations where abortion could be considered though, but that would depend only on the parents. For instance, if the pregnancy is dangerous for the mother (specially if she already has children). Or if the parents know the baby has a genetic defect which would make life for the baby and the parents very hard. Why put someone in this world to suffer? As I said, in those kinds of situations, it's better to leave the decision to the parents, as they are the ones who will have to take care of the baby or preserve themselves and they are the only ones that know whether they could handle it or not. Oh... and if someone gets pregnant from being raped, I think it is best to let the child be born and then let someone adopt the child. But in this case it should still be a choice of the mother.
I am only supplying medical evidence based on available medical literature which has nothing to do with my religious/emotional/personal beliefs. I am offering educated documentation disputing your original statement which had no reasonable medical basis.
BTW, I completely object to the editing of my previous post. The reason for editing should read: "Witty unnecessary personal remarks."
You cannot. 12. Complaining about moderation These sub-forum are dedicated to discussions about current events and politics in the world, if your troubled by the way things are moderated, pleased do not post in the World Subforums. Contact a moderator directly, , if that doesn't resolve the issue contact one of the super mods or Porfiry directly
The former, but I post the rule just for future reference. Oh crap, I initially hit edit instead of quote, so I accidently deleted the end of your post (the blushing part). Sorry about that.
:roflmao: See? That's just the sort of abuse of power I'm talking about! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! EDIT= BTW, on a slight aside, the grammar in that particular clause is incorrect. It should read, "...if you're troubled..." not, "...if your troubled...".
I notice you didn't bother backing that up with any evidence. Another emotive arguement to make yourself feel superior that holds no basis in reality. I also notice the continuing trend to ignore all previous posts that actually provided proof or any arguement against you. So despite all of what I've just said being a fact, you don't feel you're trolling? Because I think if you read the forum rules you're so eager to quote you'd find emotive arguements designed to provoke an angry response constitutes trolling, are you naive enough to believe your constantly repeated, biased comments with no basis in fact won't provoke such a response?
YES THEY SHOULD BUT DON'T and that is why some women choose to abort " fetuses" not babies. Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.
