I would do anything to stop a friend if she is considering an abortion and change her mind if I could.it aint your desicion to make so you should give advice for or against, I mean what experiense do you as a 14 year old have to offer about having a child. Give it a rest JM you are way out of your league, you may be aginst abortion, but as young as you are you should NEVER give advice nor try to stop a friend who happens to be pregnant wanting an abortion.
Maybe you don't know that because you do not know what kind of friend I am.A good one.Also I was talking about my friends not some adult that I don't know.you dont know how it is to be pregnant which again leads to you dont know what you are talking about when it comes to that subject.
Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
I would do anything to stop a friend if she is considering an abortion and change her mind if I could.
Yes! But you cant live her life for her! Do you have any idea on how hard it is to bring u a baby! when your only a child yourself!
Like i said think before you open your trap!
It should be the mother's decision wheather or not she wants the child... and no one has the rite to tell her what to do with HER child..... you can give ur advice but support her in her decision...and although you may not agree with her decision it's not ur place to pressure her into doing what you want her to do.....
Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
I did not presure her at all I just changed her mind.I mean supporting or not supporting why should a baby be killed in a horrible thing like abortion?JM
how exactly did you change her mind?
if she had chosen to go through with that abortion, she wouldn't have killed a baby. she'd have had an abortion. and you'd have supported your step sister, not a embryo with no feelings.
THe baby doesn't have a choice in the matter...... and trying to change her mind is pressuring her if she doesn't want to do it or has doubts.... and depending on how far along she is determines if she should have an abortion...if shes like 5 months then i disagree with abortion... and in not in any case a baby half developed should be killed.....
Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
It has feelings.I just told her alittle about abortion and showed her pictures that I found on the internet.She then said that she did not want to kill her baby so she gave birth to a beautiful son who is cute.
and is glad that I changed her mind.JM No force was used.BTW!
it hasn't.
just told her a little about abortions? I've seen your posts on abortions. hopefully you were more neutral and open to her than you appear to be in those? and how did you imagine showing her pictures would help her? an abortion doesn't look nice, but that doesn't have anything at all to do with whether it's needed or not.
Originally posted by Line
it hasn't.
just told her a little about abortions? I've seen your posts on abortions. hopefully you were more neutral and open to her than you appear to be in those? and how did you imagine showing her pictures would help her? an abortion doesn't look nice, but that doesn't have anything at all to do with whether it's needed or not.
but that doesn't have anything at all to do with whether it's needed or not..... a very good point...
Shaber> Yes, it is POSSIBLE. It’s also possible to give birth an commit infanticide if you want to. But late-term pregnancies are not allowed in most countries that do allow abortion, unless there’s a serious health-risk to the woman’s life.
Afro_Cheese> The thing is… In exo-biology, the field trying to figure out where life could exist also deals with WHAT is life in the first place. To us it seems obvious, it’s all around us.
And, sorry, no. I don’t have time to browse through this thread to find Evy_O’s old post. If you don’t believe me… (shrugs). The point is LIFE is autonomous. You breathe the oxygen you need, your own body deals with waste, you put food in your mouth, sweat etc. You’re an autonomous life-form. An embryo is not. It depends on the woman’s body to survive. Take an embryo out of the womb and see how long it’ll survive.
Candy Kisses> Why do you think abortion is wrong?
I think you can agree with me, that if some hapless teenager gets pregnant because the contraception fails, or an adult woman who already has three kids and don’t want more, it’s okay to terminate the pregnancy in the first few weeks, yes?
As Finti says, no pro-lifer here favours using abortion as a contraception, but as a choice to prevent unwanted kids.
But what about places where the sex-ed is so lousy, teenagers hardly know HOW they get pregnant?
JM claims she’s changed a friends of hers mind about an abortion??? Ok, I don’t believe that. Jackie is what… 13-14? Her friends are probably the same age – anyone trying to press motherhood on girl at that age is a horrible human being.
OK...fair enough..I can see the difference between me living and an embryo being alive. I can see why it's different to kill an autonomous organism than a fetus dependent on the mother for life. But that doesn't make the fetus dead. The fact of the matter is, everything is either living or dead. A human fetus is not dead. It has no awareness and doesn't even know it exists, but it still grows and contains the characteristics of life. I'm not saying you shouldn't be allow to have abortions because the fetus is alive, I'm just saying that before you decide whether you are for/against abortions, you need to accept what abortion is. Not saying you personally Omega, just people in general who argue that abortion isn't killing because the fetus isn't alive. Abortion is killing the embryo, which is alive but not yet capable of independent life. Abortion after the end of the 8th week IS killing a baby no matter how much any of you say it's not. And life starts at fertilization. I have yet to find any scientific website or book that argues against that point.
That would not be acting like a good friend then if I let her kill a human being which is infact a baby.And there is no way I would butt out.I am her friend and I am going to help her in anyway she needsthe only way you can be a good friend is to butt out and in no way try to influence her decision, and that is the way you can help her too by support her decision whatever way it would have swung.
kill v. To terminate life.
mur·der n. The unjust or unwarranted termination life.
Killing is not wrong. In fact, it is often essential to terminate the lives of some things in order to sustain the lives of others. This is true of harvesting crops, butchering livestock, and even terminating a pregnancy when it threatens the health of the mother.
No one is arguing that a fetus is non-living. However, just because cellular life is present, it does not follow from that a fetus is a life. See my previous post on the matter:
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
To determine when life begins, let us consider when life ends. Clinical death is the complete and irreversible cessation of hearbeat and brain activity but it is not the end of the life cycle. Long after clinical death occurs, cells divide and hair and nails continue to grow. Eventhough cellular life is present, the person is clearly not living. This standard is also used to determine when life begins. For if life exists when cellular life is present, then the clinically dead would also be considered alive.
Furthermore, no one is arguing that a fetus is not human. Anything containing human DNA is human. This includes everything from fetuses to fingernail clippings.
Regarding the issue of choice, is it morally incumbent on a woman to accede to a forced pregnancy? Should the government be involved in forcing women to remain pregnant? I refer you to the argument I presented earlier that every pro-life person in this thread has failed to address:
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.
To summarize, a fetus is both living and human but to terminate its life is killing, not murder. The government has no more right to enforce reproduction than it is morally incumbent of a woman to accede to pregnancy against her will.
Hold on... first your post said that nobody is arguing a fetus is non-living, and then your previous post suggest that the fetus is not living. Which is it? You can't not be non-living and not be living, there is no in between, everything is either living or dead. Correct me if I misunderstood. And the cells that make up your nails and hair are dead cells. When people die they don't continue to grow, but their hair and nails do. Embryos are made up of living cells, they need to eat, breath, and their body is constantly growing and developing. They are in fact living matter, and they are not a part of the mother. They are sometimes a different gender than the mother, they have their own set of DNA, so they are not the same organism. So since they are living matter and not part of the mother, they must be a living organism.
Also, I never claimed abortion to be murder nor did I say it was "wrong", but several people have claimed that embryos aren't humans yet, abortion isn't killing, fetuses aren't babies yet, etc. I was simply correcting them.
Also... murder only applies to humans. You can't murder a tree, you can't murder a bear, you can only murder a human. I could go outside a chop a tree down for no reason whatsoever, that is an unwarranted killing. You can bet I won't be charged with murder. If I killed a bear or any other animal for no reason, I might be charged with animal cruelty, but definitely not murder.