Thread: This Is My Abortion

Originally Posted by Jason Bourne

What difference do appendages make or the age of the fetus? It is a living, developing human being.

Read the entire article at: http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm

Your pro-life source lies. There is no "tremendous consensus in the scientific community about when life begins." A very prominent scientist said,

"Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago."--Carl Sagan

The ability to clone an individual proves life doesn't begin at conception.

The point at which life or personhood begins is not something biology can settle, says David Magnus, co-director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, California.

Magnus quotes the example of identical twins who are one entity at the point of fertilisation; not until a few days later do they become separate. They clearly develop into two individuals who have different personalities and patterns of behaviour, even though they share the same DNA. Magnus's assertion raises the question of whether a "soul" assigned at fertilisation would later have to be split.

"Wherever you want to draw the line about where life begins, biology seems to suggest conception is a bad place to do it," Magnus says. If biology tells us anything, it is that nature does not hold the fertilised embryo in particularly high regard. The vast majority of fertilised eggs are discarded naturally, through miscarriage.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...y-collide.html

I say good for the woman who had it. I think she should carry that with her perhaps to the playground where she can share it with other mothers as the kids play on the swings. Oh, and please identify the major parts of this pilot's head and brain. basically what I see from this post is how horrific abortion is yet liberal people want to use it to justify doing this to babies.............sick and perverted indeed



remains-pilot-died-plane-crash-01.jpg

Originally Posted by Makedde

A woman had an abortion at 6 weeks and took photos on her camera phone, and put them on a website. She did it to dispel the myth that her 'baby' had visible hands and feet, like the pro lifers like to think. All you see are four jars, they are empty before the abortion, and full of blood afterwards. This is what an abortion looks like. No baby to be seen, no little hands or feet, nothing to see at all...

http://www.thisismyabortion.com/

Could the lifers stop claiming that a six week or embryo (which is about a quarter of an inch in length - smaller than a grain of rice) which is aborted has arms and legs etc because at six weeks, it doesn't have arms or legs, or fingers or toes.

Be interested to see if the pro choicers agree with this woman's decision - I sure do. I think women need to know they should disbelieve the protesters because those signs they hold up are either fake, or magnified about a million times.

You are expecting the uber pro-lifers to be intellectually honest.

Yeah.

Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Cady

Your pro-life source lies. There is no "tremendous consensus in the scientific community about when life begins." A very prominent scientist said,

"Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago."--Carl Sagan

The ability to clone an individual proves life doesn't begin at conception.

Magnus quotes the example of identical twins who are one entity at the point of fertilisation; not until a few days later do they become separate. They clearly develop into two individuals who have different personalities and patterns of behaviour, even though they share the same DNA. Magnus's assertion raises the question of whether a "soul" assigned at fertilisation would later have to be split.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...y-collide.html

had never thought of the twin argument, very good argument as there is no way to dispute that

Originally Posted by FreshAir

why would someone that never plans to have an abortion care if someone else doesn't take their pregnancy to term

The same reason I'd care if my neighbor was molesting his daughter, even if I never had any plans to have a kid.

Originally Posted by Makedde

A woman had an abortion at 6 weeks and took photos on her camera phone, and put them on a website. She did it to dispel the myth that her 'baby' had visible hands and feet, like the pro lifers like to think. All you see are four jars, they are empty before the abortion, and full of blood afterwards. This is what an abortion looks like. No baby to be seen, no little hands or feet, nothing to see at all...

http://www.thisismyabortion.com/

Could the lifers stop claiming that a six week or embryo (which is about a quarter of an inch in length - smaller than a grain of rice) which is aborted has arms and legs etc because at six weeks, it doesn't have arms or legs, or fingers or toes.

Be interested to see if the pro choicers agree with this woman's decision - I sure do. I think women need to know they should disbelieve the protesters because those signs they hold up are either fake, or magnified about a million times.

It's no surprise that she purposely chose to leave out the more gruesome photos from that website.

^there weren't any other pictures to post.

Originally Posted by Makedde

You are right - the embryo is liquified if aborted this early. No arms and legs or fingers to be seen at all - doesn't stop lifers from claiming there is.

So wait a second. Your, once again, championing killing a baby by admitting that they "liquify" the baby?

So in other words, the woman who did this, whom I might say is seriously demented, didn't explain that they first "liquified" her baby before sucking it out into a jar?....lol.

So basically you just owned yourself in your own thread am I reading that right?....lmao! Go back to the OP where you claim us pro-lifers are lying about abortion, then put it up next to your above comment where you admit they liquify the baby beforehand.

How come they have to liquify a "blob of cells" in the 1st place? Strange isn't it? Liquefying something you claim doesn't exist.

Gross, posting pictures of your abortion is just not very classy or respectful.

Originally Posted by TheHat

How come they have to liquify a "blob of cells" in the 1st place? Strange isn't it? Liquefying something you claim doesn't exist.

Nobody has claimed that the fetus itself doesn't exist. That would be a little absurd you know, since without the fetus, there is no pregnancy and no need for an abortion. The physical object is there. The entire debate rests upon two things. What that physical object "is" and whether the mother has rights of control over it. I believe it is, to put it in stark terms, her possession. Even women who choose to keep their pregnancies will usually refer to it as theirs. It is a fully connected, fully dependent part of her body. It is not an independent entity. An independent entity does not require one unique specific person to survive and exist. It has the potential to become one, but something is not something before it is something. Once you've been born, no matter when that actually is, you are now an independent entity because now you do not require that one specific unique person in order to exist. You're still going to require someone, but that is not the same thing.