If it bothers you, don't read'em....I have a job AND a life...
Posted By: sam on 2008-08-25
In Reply to: Don't you have anything better to do? - Enough Already
thank you very much. I also have things that are important to me, and the next President of the US and abortion are two of them.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
WARNNG...ANOTHER ABORTION POST....DON'T READ IF IT BOTHERS YOU.
Introductory Notes on Terminology: |
One of the major battlegrounds for this issue concerns the use of language. In keeping with our Standards of Credibility, the verbiage used here is explanatory and precise. This means expressions such as 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' are replaced by words that articulate specific positions. This makes certain sentences cumbersome and repetitive, but for the sake of accuracy, sacrifices in eloquence were made.
Perhaps the largest point of contention regarding terminology is the label applied to what or who is being aborted. Those who think abortion should be generally illegal often use the terms 'unborn child' and 'unborn baby'. According to Webster's College Dictionary and the International Dictionary of Medicine and Biology, the word child can apply prior to birth, but both of these sources employ the word baby only from the point of birth onwards.[1] Those who think abortion should be generally legal often use the word 'fetus', a clinical term derived from a Latin word meaning 'offspring' or 'newly delivered'.[2] Many who use this term in the media and general public are misinformed as to what it means. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary defines a fetus as:
"the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, after major structures have been outlined, in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth." [3] |
In other words, when referring to humans, the word fetus is only applicable from nine weeks after conception until birth. Yet, numerous major news organizations have misapplied it to both before and after this period. [4] [5] Furthermore, the press rarely uses clinical terminology when referring to a pregnant woman ('gravida') or a newborn child ('neonate'). [6] [7]
The term chosen by Just Facts to describe the object of an abortion is 'preborn human'. This phrase is medically accurate, distinguishes between humans and other mammals, and conveys reality in plain language. For those who might object to the use of the word 'human', a few medical references are in order. The medical textbook, Before We Are Born - Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects, states:
"The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms." [8] |
Likewise, a clinical embryology textbook bears the title Human Life Before Birth, and phrases such as "human in utero" and "human females... in utero" appear in creditable medical textbooks. [9] Moreover, it would be scientifically inconsistent to assert that a child born at 24 weeks after fertilization is a human, while one in womb at 37 weeks is not.
* The average length of a full-term pregnancy is 266 days or 38 weeks. Obstetricians normally use a figure of 40 weeks, but this is actually the time between the first day of the last menstrual period and childbirth. On average, the first day of the last menstrual period occurs 2 weeks before fertilization.[10] [11]
* Following are facts about human development. They are organized according to the number of weeks since fertilization. Weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period (LMP) are shown in parentheses.
Fertilization (2 weeks after LMP)
Fertilization normally takes place within one day of intercourse. At fertilization, the genetic composition of a preborn human is formed. This genetic information determines gender, eye color, hair color, facial features, and influences characteristics such as intelligence and personality.[219] [220] [221]
Genetically speaking, with the exception of identical twins, once a woman conceives a preborn human, the odds against her conceiving the same one again are greater than 10600 to one. (10600 is ShortHand for the number 1 with 600 zeros after it. For comparison, there are roughly 1080 atoms in the known universe.) [222] [223] [224] [225]
3 Weeks after Fertilization (5 weeks after LMP)
The eyes and spinal cord are visible and the developing brain has two lobes.[12] [13]
At this stage, according to the Supreme Court rulings in "Roe vs. Wade" and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort at will. (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)
4 Weeks after Fertilization (6 weeks after LMP)
The heart is beating. The portion of the brain associated with consciousness (the cerebrum) and internal organs such as the lungs are beginning to develop and can be identified.[14] [15]
7 Weeks after Fertilization (9 weeks after LMP)
Muscles and nerves begin working together. When the upper lip is tickled, the arms move backwards.[16] The portion of the brain associated with consciousness (the cerebrum) has divided into hemispheres.[17]
![abortion7weeks.gif](http://www.justfacts.com/images/abortion7weeks.gif") [18]
9 Weeks after Fertilization (11 weeks after LMP)
More than 90% of the body structures found in a full-grown human are present. The medical classification changes from an embryo to a fetus. This dividing line was chosen by embryologists because from this point forward, most development involves growth in existing body structures instead of the formation of new ones.[19] [20]The preborn human moves body parts without any outside stimulation.[21]
10 Weeks after Fertilization (12 weeks after LMP)
All parts of the brain and spinal cord are formed. The heart pumps blood to every part of the body.[22] The whole body is sensitive to touch except for portions of the head. The preborn human makes facial expressions.[23]
At this stage, according to the Supreme Court rulings in "Roe vs. Wade" and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort at will. (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)
11 Weeks after Fertilization (13 weeks after LMP):
![](http://www.justfacts.com/images/abortion11weeks.gif") [24]
12 Weeks after Fertilization (14 weeks after LMP)
Electrical signals from the nervous system are measurable. After an abortion, efforts to suckle will sometimes be observed.[25]
13 Weeks after Fertilization (15 weeks after LMP):
Ultrasound Video [26] Windows Media Player Real Player
14 Weeks after Fertilization (16 weeks after LMP)
The preborn human makes coordinated movements of the arms and legs.[27]
16 Weeks after Fertilization (18 weeks after LMP)
![](http://www.justfacts.com/images/abortion16weeks.gif") [28]
18 Weeks after Fertilization (20 weeks after LMP)
Ultrasound Video [29] Windows Media Player Real Player
The portion of the brain responsible for functions such as reasoning and memory (the cerebral cortex) has the same number of nerve cells as a full-grown adult.[30] [31]
At this stage, according to the Supreme Court rulings in "Roe vs. Wade" and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort at will. (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)
20 Weeks after Fertilization (22 weeks after LMP):
The preborn human sleeps, awakes and can hear sounds.[32]
![](http://www.justfacts.com/images/abortion20weeks.gif")
Ultrasound Video (Heart) [33] Windows Media Player Real Player
24 Weeks after Fertilization (26 weeks after LMP)
Taste buds are functional. The preborn human will swallow more amniotic fluid if a sweetener is added to it.[34] The grip is strong enough to hold onto an object that is moving up and down.[35] If born and given specialized care, the survival rate is more than 80%.[36]
At this stage, according to the Supreme Court's rulings in "Roe vs. Wade," "Doe vs. Bolton," and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort to preserve her "health." One example from Roe vs. Wade of what may be considered harmful to a mother's health is the "stigma of unwed motherhood." (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)
28 Weeks after Fertilization (30 weeks after LMP)
If born and given specialized care, the survival rate is more than 95%.[37]
Premature infants born at this time are more sensitive to pain than infants who are born at 38 weeks, and infants who are born at 38 weeks are more sensitive to pain than older infants (3 -12 months old.) [38] [39]
32 Weeks after Fertilization (34 weeks after LMP)
![](http://www.justfacts.com/images/abortion32weeks.gif")
(Premature infant – 3 days after birth)
38 Weeks after Fertilization (40 weeks after LMP)
Average point in time when humans are born. At birth, the medical classification changes from a fetus to a neonate.[40] [41] At any point prior to birth, according to the Supreme Court's rulings in "Roe vs. Wade," "Doe vs. Bolton," and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort to preserve her "health." One example from Roe vs. Wade of what may be considered harmful to a mother's health is the work of caring for a child. (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)
* In March of 1970, a pregnant woman by the name of Norma McCorvey sued the state of Texas to challenge the constitutionality of a state law that prohibited abortion except to save the life of the mother.[42] McCorvey wanted to keep her identity secret and assumed the fictitious name Jane Roe.[43] The name of the Dallas County district attorney responsible for enforcing the law was Henry Wade. Thus, the case was entitled "Roe vs. Wade."
* Before the United States Supreme Court, the attorney for Roe argued that the Texas law was unconstitutional because it violated the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.[44] The Ninth Amendment reads:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." [45] |
The clause of the Fourteenth Amendment relevant to the argument reads:
"No State shall… deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" [46] |
* In support of this view, the attorney for Roe stated that "liberty to these women would mean liberty from being forced to continue the unwanted pregnancy." [47]
* During oral arguments, one of the judges asked the attorney for Roe if her case was dependent on the assertion that pre-born humans have no Constitutional rights. After some back and forth, the attorney for Roe responded:
"Even if the Court at some point determined the fetus to be entitled to constitutional protection, you would still get back into the weighing of one life against another." |
After more back and forth, another judge said to Roe's attorney:
"[To take this position], you'd have to say that this would be the equivalent after the child was born if the mother thought it bothered her health any having the child around, she could have it killed. Isn't that correct?" |
The attorney for Roe responded:
"That's correct. That..." |
At this point, the Chief Justice cut her off and started to ask another question. He then interrupted himself and asked:
"Did you want to respond further to Justice Stewart? Did you want to respond further to him?" |
The attorney for Roe stated:
* The attorney for the State of Texas argued that preborn humans are protected under the Fifth Amendment.[49] The portion relevant to the argument states:
"No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" [50] |
* During oral arguments, one of the judges contested this viewpoint by asserting that the Fourteenth Amendment defined what the term "person" meant, and that it did not include preborn humans.[51] The relevant clause reads:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."[52] |
* After some back and forth, the judge retreated from this position and said:
"[I suppose] that's not the definition of a person but that's the definition of a citizen." [53] |
* The attorney for the State of Texas responded that the only way to understand what the Constitution means by the word "person" was to go to "the teachings at the time the Constitution was framed." He then quoted from William Blackstone, who is described in Simon & Shuster's New Millennium Encyclopedia as a "British jurist and legal scholar, whose work Commentaries on the Laws of England was used for more than a century as the foundation of all legal education in Great Britain and the U.S." In this work, Blackstone wrote that life is a "right" that
"is inherent by nature in every individual, and exists even before the child is born." [54] [55] |
* To further support his position, the attorney for the state of Texas appealed to the Declaration of Independence and started to quote the following sentence from it, but was cut off by one of justices: [56]
"WE hold these [cut off] Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." [57] |
* On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court released its ruling. Seven of the judges ruled in favor of Roe and two of the judges opposed the ruling. The ruling overturned the laws of 30 states that prohibited abortion except to save the life of the mother.[58]
* The majority ruled these laws unconstitutional on the basis that they violated the Fourteenth Amendment, stating that it protects "the right to privacy," and that this includes "a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy." [59] The relevant portion of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:
"No State shall… deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" [60] |
* The Fourteenth Amendment does not contain the word "privacy" or any synonym for it.[61] [62] It was adopted in 1868 to address a number of issues relevant to the Civil War, such as ensuring constitutional rights for black people.[63]
* The majority wrote that they were "not in a position to speculate" as to "when life begins" and criticized the State of Texas for "adopting one theory of life," namely, that life begins at conception.[64]
* They also:
- Used the term "potentiality of human life" in reference to preborn humans who are capable of living outside the mother's womb.[65]
- Ruled that preborn humans have no Constitutional rights.[66]
* The majority created rules regarding the types of abortion legislation that states could enact based upon the three trimesters of a typical pregnancy:
1) First trimester: States cannot prohibit abortions. They can require that abortions be done by licensed physicians, but other than this, they cannot regulate the manner in which they are performed.[67]
2) Second trimester: States cannot prohibit abortions. They can regulate the manner in which they are performed for the purpose of protecting the mother's health. The ruling cites examples of the types of regulations that are permissible. These include establishing "qualifications [for] the person who is to perform the abortion" and setting rules regarding "the facility in which the procedure is to be performed." [68]
3) Third trimester: States can prohibit abortions after "viability" (meaning the point where a preborn human is capable of living outside their mother's womb), but cannot prohibit abortions "where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." [69] The ruling cites specific examples of what may be considered harmful to a mother's health. They include the "stigma of unwed motherhood," the work of caring for a child, and the "distress" "associated with [an] unwanted child." [70] [71]
After listing these examples and others, the majority wrote that this portion of their ruling does not permit abortions "at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason" a woman chooses.[72] They repeated this assertion four times using varying words, but listed no example of a circumstance where abortion could be prohibited.[73]
* On the same day that the Supreme Court released Roe vs. Wade, it issued another ruling in a case entitled "Doe vs. Bolton." The same seven judges who ruled in favor of Roe also ruled in favor of Doe, and the same two judges opposed the ruling. [75] The majority wrote that this ruling and Roe v Wade "are to be read together." [76]
* In this case, the State of Georgia had a law prohibiting abortions unless the pregnancy would "seriously and permanently" injure the health of the mother.[77] A lower court struck down this law and the majority of the Supreme Court agreed. The ruling stated that abortion laws with exceptions for the health of the mother must allow for factors such as emotional health, psychological health, familial concerns, and the woman's age.[78]
* The Georgia law also required that the doctor who would perform the abortion, two other doctors, and a committee of the medical staff at the hospital where the abortion was to be done needed to agree that the abortion was necessary to preserve the health of the mother.[79] The lower court upheld this law and the Supreme Court struck it down.[80] The majority ruled that only the doctor who would perform the abortion needs to determine that the abortion was necessary to preserve the health of the mother. The abortion provider could make this decision based solely on their "best clinical judgment." [81]
* In 1992, the Supreme Court decided a case entitled "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey." In this case, the majority reaffirmed the central element of Roe vs. Wade, but did away with the "rigid trimester framework." [82]
* As in Roe vs. Wade, the majority ruled that states cannot prohibit abortions prior to viability, and laws that prohibit abortion after viability must include an exception for the "health of the mother." [83]
* Contrary to Roe vs. Wade, the majority ruled that states could enact laws that regulated abortion throughout pregnancy; as long as they did not create a substantial obstacle to obtaining an abortion. An example of what would be acceptable is a law requiring that doctors provide women with certain information before they perform abortions.[84]
Politics & Taxpayer Funding |
* The Democratic Party is in favor of abortion being generally legal. It supports the Supreme Court ruling in Roe vs. Wade. It supports the use of taxpayer funding to perform abortions.[85]
* The Republican Party is in favor of abortion being generally illegal. It supports a Constitutional Amendment that would guarantee preborn humans the right to life. Since 1995, Republicans have proposed at least 12 amendments of this nature, all of them containing an exception to save the life of the mother.[86] [87]
* The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) supports the use of taxpayer funding to perform abortions. On their website, the ACLU poses the following rhetorical question:
"What about those who are morally or religiously opposed to abortion?" |
And answers:
"Our tax dollars fund many programs that individual people oppose." [88] |
* The ACLU opposes school vouchers. One of the reasons they give for this stance is:
"School voucher schemes would force all taxpayers to support religious beliefs and practices with which they may strongly disagree." [89] |
I read plenty thanks! You can blame loss of life
nm
What bothers me is ....
that nobody can explain exactly how the woman was COVERT? Everybody and his 3rd cousin knew where she worked, and all she did was push paper at a desk. To me this is much adieu about nothing.
you do not need to tell me what bothers me
rather, you seem to have little tolerance for those different than you.
I'm sorry it bothers you so much to
know there is someone you cannot intimidate. I am by far healthy, wealthy and wise beyond your expectations and it really bothers you, too bad. I wish you could know a fraction of the happiness and love that I have in my life. I wish that for all of your personalities that you post as here. You must really be one miserable person and I hope you have something to thrive on after this election is over.
Thanks, Em! It really bothers me when
years.* Dead giveaway that President Bush was not given a chance from day one. I have mentioned this before on here. Yet we hear repeatedly *give O a chance, he isn't even in the office yet.* Just more of the double standard the liberals have.
I agree, it is CRAZY here! I can't spend as much time here as I would like; I have to work harder than ever these days, MTing doesn't pay very well any more! Besides, there is one poster who monopolizes the board, albeit with many different little catch phrase names. Can't figure out why she spends so much time trying to keep arguments going here; she has told us repeatedly how intelligent and industrious she is. With all her community involvement, world traveling and all the research she does, just can't figure where she ever found the time to be a lowly MT! If you will notice closely, she even argues with herself at times.
Oh well, Thank you again for your post, and do come back and post again!
It bothers me because
people fail to see that there is corruption in both parties. Our country switches back and forth between pub control and crat control. When one party screws up and the people get p!ssed, the other party gets more control. That is the natural way of this. So for someone to come on here and brag that the pubs are losing people and how do you like those apples....I just think it is childish and that person needs a wake up call. There are plenty of crats who have screwed us over as well and no one in the crat party is willing to admit it. All they want to talk about is how the pubs suck and it goes both ways.....the pubs just want to fling poo at crats and not look into the corruption of their own party. I'm tired of it from both sides. If people would wake up and actually listen to what is going in our country, they might get a clue that both parties suck and that maybe we should elect people who aren't puppets to the people who donated to their campaigns. Our government as a whole is corrupt. It is obvious that both pubs and dems have no problem spending our money but now that the crats are in control and the people are seriously ticked off.....all of a sudden the pubs have taken up the cause to stop government spending.
What bothers me about abortion is...
the enormous numbers that need to be performed. In an age where birth control is so readily available and so reliably effective, that there are still SO MANY women seeking abortions, tells me one thing.....
People are careless, that is all. What other conclusion could you draw? If you only had true accidental pregnancies resulting from the small percentage failure rate of most contraceptives, the incest, the rapes, and the abortions to save a woman's life, it still wouldn't add up to a tiny fraction of the abortions we have now.
Every time I hear someone say that that it's a woman's right to choose, or to control her own body, I can't help but hear a little voice saying... THEN CHOOSE NOT TO GET PREGNANT, BE RESPONSIBLE, DON'T HOOK UP WITH SOME LOSER IN A BACK SEAT WHILE YOU'RE LOADED UP ON BOOZE, AND CONTROL YOUR BODY.
Why does choicie and control of one's body only begin after conception takes place?
What bothers you about the facts?
Does it scare you or do you just refuse to see the facts? This country has been borrowing from foreign countries (communist China big time)and the federal reserve to the tune of billions long before and after any republican and long before and after any democrat.
We have not had a surplus since the banking administration was developed a very long time ago.
What really bothers you? The post or that someone
??
About as much as it bothers you that poster boy
x
Yes! It's not the rich & special treatment that bothers me.
He made tougher laws for drug crimes. The rich will alwys get better treatment. Paris Hilton's special treatment doesn't scare me. She isn't putting people in jail for her same offense.
Thoughtful post. What bothers me is that religious
nm
You want 'em, you can have 'em,
nm
name 'em
x
Set 'em up, Joe....
...and it's about time. Joe the Plumber has filed a federal lawsuit against the (now former) head of OJFS (Ohio Job and Family Services) and two assistants. They illegally investigated him after he offended dems and the liberal media by asking Obama a question, then *somehow* the information was leaked to the press. Gonna love following this one.
I am not in your life....I am in the life of the baby...
and will continue to speak for the baby. Again, my right.
Keep 'em coming.
I’m going to take a page out of your book again and simply jump over this latest denial/dodge of yours...just like you did with the context post. Blame game bluster scores no points here. The ignorance seems to be unending, but at least you could try to know your own party platform. Think you can handle that?
Bottom line. This is so simple, even you can get it. Dems would impose the R-words (regulatiions and restrictions) on the transnationals....back in the day, we called it monopoly busting. Pubs give them the keys to the candy store, the greed of the wealthy being what it is and all. Gotta keep those CEOs perks coming.
We can all see how well that has worked for us. One does not have to look too far to see just how inept the party has been over the past 8 years in all things economic. Huge surplus transformed to deepest deficit of all times, virtually overnight, gas/food, bank foreclosures, housing crisis, rising unemployment, wage stagnation, inflation/recession. Bush’s latest brilliant explanation for all this is that “Wall Street got drunk. It has a hangover. Don’t know how long it will take them to sober up.” This would be the extent of his experience? Scarey. Maybe he has been reading McCain's joke book. The candidate tells us that the economy “is not his strong suit.” Disarmingly honest, but none to comforting. Speaks for itself.
Touched on this in the economics paragraph in the context post, but you chose to ignore that...or, in your own words, maybe that was the one you were not paying attention to, I forget. In fact, no response from you, Sam, speaks volumes and sheds a whole lot more light on the subject than anything you might actually come out and try to say. Go figure.
If ya can't feed 'em
don't breed 'em
That's the problem with 'em all - they just CAN'T
They're bullies. Both in and out of office.
Ya calls 'em the same way I do.
Most of 'em believe in heaven and he!!, too.
n/msg
McCain sure knows how to vet 'em.
nm
you tell 'em martha
x
Let 'em marry if they want to
then they can have the same privilege straight couples have of paying thousands to divorce lawyers to get rid of what they were so sure was gonna last a lifetime. Straight or gay, that marriage license changes people. I seriously doubt that "gay" marriages are going to last any better than straight marriages. Yeah and they want to adopt kids. What are the 2 biggest problem areas in straight marriages? You got it. Money and kids. So let 'em have at it. Make the divorce lawyers richer. As It happens I don't believe in marriage between 2 people of the same sex and I believe homosexuality is a choice but then I'll leave the sorting out to God. Same as being an alcoholic is a choice. One can choose to fight the temptation or they can embrace it. JMO.
New York is welcome to 'em!! n/m
x
Nothing racist about 'em -
I do not find anything racist about your posts; but I do find the aspirin post racist.
So where d'ya plan to put 'em all?
10%. No deductions. Wouldn't need 'em if
.
Tell 'em what they wanna hear.
they are transporting children to vote.... not quite old enough to realize fairy tales are just that....
ride 'em cowboy!
xx
'outlaw' something that so many of 'em got rich
sheesh
Yes, there WERE WMD. The intel was correct....SH got rid of 'em...
.
There are different flavors - Fox "news" is one of 'em.
nm
They're ALL innocent...ask 'em!
x
Looks more like Germany wouldn't give 'em up to the US. nm
just plain rude - keep 'em coming
xx
Rush Limbaugh taught 'em how!
 Desperate to say something bad, even if they have to fake the film to do it! Because they know their loyal viewers are such sheep they'll believe anything they see on their show as gospel - even if it is debunked later!
Unfortunately the good weather attracts 'em.
I'm a pagan - I guess that'll really freak 'em out, huh?
Talking with the people you describe is like going back to the Dark Ages.
I would think if they bring them here, when they "let them loose", they would send 'em home
x
This looks interesting. A long read, so will read it when I get home from work. nm
nm
Obviously u didnt read, I said NONE of them are moral. Read the post before spouting off.
I read on CNN (yes, I do read liberal stuff too..hehe)...sm
...that Karl Rove was actually very disappointed in the McCain campaign for airing negative type ads against Obama.
So I would say that Rove is definitely not in the hip pocket of the McCain campaign.
Good research sam - but a lot to read right now so gotta read it later
I've been goofing off too much from work. I appreciate what you wrote and will read when I'm done with work here.
get a life
You post once again shows you are a vile and nasty person who surmises too much about people on chat boards. You know nothing about me and you attribute too much to me. I have no control of liberal posters. I enjoy reading their posts and respond when I want to. My advice to you is get a life and stop taking postings on a tiny bulletin board so seriously. You are sounding irrational.
Life?
Well, as a practicing Jew, I believe life begins at the first breath, but I know everyone does not agree with me.
Life...
How can something that moves, has a heartbeat and brain waves not be alive? Please to explain that to me.
Life...
I never said I did not give a hoot about what you believe and I am somewhat taken aback that you accuse me when you do not even know me. I do not agree with you, no; but you are entitled to believe as you wish, and just hope that you afford me the same courtesy. So, you are saying that you are on board with abortion? It is okay because the child is not alive according to your religion...that the child has no soul until it takes its first breath? So basically taking away its chance to take that first breath by invasive surgery is not murder, because you believe the child has no soul until it breathes? I am not finding fault, I am trying to understand a different view.
life
I am not on board with abortion. Since I believe (and many Jews do too, but not all) that life begins with breath, I believe it is up to each woman to make the decision that is right for her. It is not my place to judge or condemn her choice. My family has 2 children what were very much wanted and are very much loved. I feel fortunate that I never was in a position to have to make a choice regarding my pregnancies. But, just because I didn't chose to terminate a pregnancy (for whatever reason), I certainly don't want to take that choice away from another.
Basically, (and I am not referring to you personally here) if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one, but don't push your beliefs on me or anyone else.
Nat'l Right To Life, etc.
Check some of these places if you still don't want to believe me. Plenty are out there. One search for the above (nrl.org) brought up plenty.
|
