• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Abortion: My personal experience

Bob Blaylock said:
I am not the one who has deliberately killed another human being. Who made the OP and his wife judges and executioners?
Click to expand...

Nobody has killed another human being. The OP and his wife(especially his wife) are able to decide whether to allow an early pregnancy to progress to another human being.
 
Hi FHA.

If I could ask you a question which you may have already answered (sorry, I haven't read the thread in its' entirety):

In your post you said,

We sat down in the kitchen and I said 'We've talked about this before, and whatever you decide is what we are going to do.' She said that she had a great conflict inside between what her emotional feelings and her rational feelings were. She said it would be best to end the pregnancy.
Click to expand...

My fiance and I have had similar discussions, and we came to the opposite conclusion; that being adoption is the preferable choice.

Your wife obviously struggled with the abortion. I must admit I don't know much about you or your living arrangements, but I want to ask why adoption was not an alternative if you, or both of you, had some sort of mental reservations about abortion? What made abortion the rational thing to do?

*ETA

Thanks for sharing this experience with us, by the way.
 
Last edited:
Tatyana said:
It annoys me that people don't think that carrying a child to pregnancy isn't a serious medical situation.
Click to expand...

Thank you for saying this. I am 27 weeks and while I don't resent my little proto-human, this pregnancy has NOT just been life as usual with a little extra weight, which is how too many people view it.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I am not the one who has deliberately killed another human being. Who made the OP and his wife judges and executioners?
Click to expand...
I shall remember you when my kidneys fail. Who are you to kill me by not donating both your kidneys to me?

Or maybe, just maybe, your right to your body trumps my desire for life, no matter how sad that is for me.

Do not be confused though - if you have not already donated one of your kidneys, you have killed somebody (by your use of the term, apparently).
 
Last edited:
AmandaM said:
Thank you for saying this. I am 27 weeks and while I don't resent my little proto-human, this pregnancy has NOT just been life as usual with a little extra weight, which is how too many people view it.
Click to expand...

My wife will be on medication for the rest of her life due to damage suffered during her pregnancy. She has no regrets, but it is certainly not a walk in the park. Never has been, never will be.
 
RandFan said:
That it CAN be a child doesn't make it a child.
Click to expand...
This "it ain't human" argument has gotten stale and it was never a good argument for abortion in the first place.

The point at which the living being that a woman is carrying becomes considered a living human being is a legal question - not a scientific or moral question. As such, it is probably best left to the consciences of the parents when it comes to dealing with the life the woman is carrying.
 
psionl0 said:
This "it ain't human" argument has gotten stale and it was never a good argument for abortion in the first place.
Click to expand...

No it has not become stale. And it never was an argument 'for abortion'. The only argument 'for abortion' is that the woman does not want to be pregnant.
 
I find it funny that anyone would invoke a god to support their position in this forum.
 
psionl0 said:
This "it ain't human" argument has gotten stale and it was never a good argument for abortion in the first place.

The point at which the living being that a woman is carrying becomes considered a living human being is a legal question - not a scientific or moral question. As such, it is probably best left to the consciences of the parents when it comes to dealing with the life the woman is carrying.
Click to expand...

The laws seen to be based on both scientific and moral data, with a bunch of religious nonsense tossed in.
 
kerikiwi said:
No it has not become stale. And it never was an argument 'for abortion'. The only argument 'for abortion' is that the woman does not want to be pregnant.
Click to expand...
"It ain't a child" NOT "it ain't human".

The warts on Limbaugh's ass were human. That doesn't mean he committed abortion when he had them removed.

Human cells are, wait for it.... HUMAN. Sperm is human. Sperm ISN'T a child.
 
psionl0 said:
This "it ain't human" argument has gotten stale and it was never a good argument for abortion in the first place.

The point at which the living being that a woman is carrying becomes considered a living human being is a legal question - not a scientific or moral question. As such, it is probably best left to the consciences of the parents when it comes to dealing with the life the woman is carrying.
Click to expand...

It is the only argument that matters. If the fetus is a human, it deserves some rights, if it is not it deserves nothing.

It IS a legal question but it is also a scientific and moral one. How is it not?
 
kerikiwi said:
True , but 'it ain't human' does seem to be shorthand for 'it ain't a human being', which is close enough to synonymous with 'it ain't a child'.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I understand that but this is one instance, IMO, when we should be clear.

"Life begins at conception" is an equivocation. You can't remove a blastocyst from the mother, change it's diapers and give it a bottle and soothe it when it cries. You can't even see it. Obviously a blastocyst ISN'T a human being. So why call it "human" or "life" unless you are trying to equivocate?

I understand but I'm going to continue to point out the distinction. IMO it's important.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Yeah, I understand that but this is one instance, IMO, when we should be clear.

"Life begins at conception" is an equivication. You can't remove a blastocyst from the motehr, change it's diapers and give it a bottle and soothe it when it cries. You can't even see it. Obviously a blastocyst ISN'T a human being. So why call it "human" or "life" unless you are trying to equivocate?

I understand but I'm going to continue to point out the distinction. IMO it's important.
Click to expand...

You've just shown that the debate is in part a scientific one.
 
Leumas said:
Anyway....even god does not consider a FETUS a human being.....consider this LAW....

Exodus 21:22-25
If a man strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her,] and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine. ] And if [any] mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.​

I am sure you will interpret this anyway to bolster your hateful nature....but I interpret it to mean that a baby is not a human until it is actually born.

Notice the verse means that if the woman aborts due to violence then the perpetrator will pay a fine.....not be killed.

But if the woman dies then he will be killed.

So this shows that an aborted fetus DOES NOT have the same status as a living being......even by your god's opinion.
Click to expand...
Not that I place any stock in what that book of fairy tales says, but other translations say if the kids come out but there is no fatality, a fine is to be paid. I understand that to mean premature birth.:confused:

ETA: Clearly various translations contradict each other on this matter.
 
Last edited:
Leumas said:
....Exodus 21:22-25
If a man strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her,] and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine. ] And if [any] mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.....​
Click to expand...

This suggests to me that God does not consider abortion let alone causing a woman to have a miscarriage due to violence, to be murder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom