"the lungs haven't fully developed yet so it's okay to kill"

One of the worst arguments I hear from abortion supporters is that supposedly it's okay to get an abortion because the fetus can't survive outside the mother.

By the eleventh week, all the organs have already formed. Everything is there.
The organs will just continue to grow and further develop.
The only big reason the fetus can't survive outside the mother before "viability" is because the lungs have not finished developing.
The fetus can breathe at 21 weeks, it is just the weak little lungs can't supply enough oxygen. Premature babies are born all the time, most the ones under 24 weeks will die. The nurses can see the little ones gasping for breath. Then, after a few minutes, they lose consciousness and stop moving.

The lungs are one of the last organs to finish fully developing. This makes sense because while the fetus is in the womb it does not need to breathe. Oxygen diffuses through the placenta and is pumped by the fetus's little heart through the umbilical cord. The lungs do not fully develop until shortly before the baby is ready to be born. It's not really that uncommon for a baby who is mature to have difficulty breathing too. Sometimes they have to use artificial respiration or supply oxygen into the incubator.

Are pro-choicers really going to try to tell us that human beings who have trouble breathing on their own are not really people?
It's the worst the argument ever.

 

Makes no difference to the argument I use, makes no difference if a fetus were to be deemed a person or A human(noun) being tomorrow .. in fact it that would add further weight to keeping abortion legal AND the state having to pay for it .. be carefull what you wish for.

 

At least countries in the Middle East are moral enough to make elective abortion illegal. They are backwards and third world (*)(*)(*)(*)holes and have opressive rules about how women dress, but at least they have the morality to make abortion illegal.

 

Well done you have created an argument no one uses,

Are pro-choicers really going to try to tell us that human beings who have trouble breathing on their own are not really people?
No they're not going to tell you, know why?
because,
it is the worst argument ever.

We done you have just had an argument with yourself and lost!

 

OMG! You do not see the irony in that statement at all, do you.....


"abortion illegal", ""backwards and third world"".....

 

republicans think it's ok to kill if you can't afford the medical bill

Bush and Texas
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151448,00.html

 

Sam endorses Talibanism.....no real surprise.

- - - Updated - - -

BTW, this is, of course, another disengenuous post from the OP....

since he opposes the right to abortion all the way back to conception....before there are even ANY organ development, even lungs.

A fertilized ovum at 2 weeks, for example, doesn't have "lungs"....does that mean Anders would allow a woman to have an abortion at 2 weeks gestation???

 

That's not true. I think the Taliban are disgusting and horrible people.

 

Except when they're doing things you LIKE....right? Like outlawing abortion?

You know Germany banned abortion in the early 1940s too....so I guess you say "At least countries like Nazi Germany were moral enough to make elective abortion illegal"....right?

 

Why do you think forcing a woman to wear a burqa is oppressive, but forcing her to gestate, give birth, and sustain damage to her body against her will is not???

 

1-A woman walking around with an uncovered head and dressing how she likes to dress, is not harming anybody.
2-A woman having an abortion is harming an innocent baby.

ARE YOU SERIOUSLY COMPARING THE TWO THINGS???

 

But they BELIEVE she is.

And you BELIEVE she is. A religious or personal BELIEF is not sufficient reason to control and oppress women. Forcing motherhood is barbaric.

 

As usual nothing you say has any bearing on the topic.

 

But a woman obviously isnt harming anyone if she shows face and/or hair.

Its not my belief-its a fact. Abortion harms the fetus.

 

Originally you said,

That is not a fact, it's a lie.

 

Define "harm."

 

It's the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater. It's harmful to the community it disrupts and to the well being and piety of the men who it distracts, entices, and inflames. It harms their souls. (... according to the beliefs and laws of many people.)




​

 

Abortion harms the fetus because it takes away the fetus's life.

 

Oh, ho ho ho, it's MUCH more than that.




Look, you can see the face... (or rather still see the face, to be more exact)
Oh no, Mommy !!!

 

Pregnancy and childbirth harm women. They do not have to accept that harm.


It's good to at least see some progress . You now refer to it correctly as a fetus and not an "innocent baby".

 

The fetus doesn't have a life of its own. It only has the life the woman gives it. Since it cannot sustain a life on its own, it is the woman's choice as to whether she sustains that life in addition to her own....or not.

 

Those stone age instruments, whatever they were actually used for, would rip a woman's uterus and cause hemorrhage and death. The top one pictured, a vacuum aspiration syringe, is the only one of these used in modern safe abortions up to 14 weeks. Live Action News is a disreputable source.

 

Isn't it funny that Anti-Choicers can never use the TRUTH in their arguments?

 

Actually you are wrong, I run into the viability (or some variation) arguement all the time from abortionists.

 

So how about all the people who cannot survive on their own, are dependent upon someone to sustain life, and require the "sustainer" to sacrifice time and energy? A 1 month old baby, a 5 year old child, a paraplegic, people with brain damage due to injury or accident, an 80 year old invalid, a person in a moderate or late stage of dementia, soldiers severely disabled in combat, I guess you wont mind "aborting" them if the caregiver decides they are too bothersome?