Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:30 am
I guess the hardest part for me on the thought of abortion is how could any mother want to destroy her child? Whether you call it a fetus, etc., it is still a child. It is thought of as a child. I have seen pregnant women. I have seen them lay their hands across their swelling stomach to keep it safe from a perceived danger.

Isn't it an inherent instinct to protect that child? It is beyond my level of comprehension I guess, because I can't conceive of a mother killing her child.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:31 am
Momma Angel wrote:


Isn't it an inherent instinct to protect that child? It is beyond my level of comprehension I guess, because I can't conceive of a mother killing her child.


No, I don't belive that it is always inherent. If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, the baby isn't a baby born out of love. It is a symbol and a memory of something horrible.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:35 am
That is very true, but it is still part of her. And, why should the child suffer because of something someone else did?
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:38 am
Exactly. Why should the child suffer in life because the mother secretly resents him/her or hates him.her. Or the child that grows up in a household with drug addicts for parents. Or is born into a life of resentment and neglect?
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:39 am
Personally, I don't think I could ever do it but again, I can't really speak 100% because I've never been in any situation that would require me to make a decision so life altering.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:39 am
In Europe, abortion foes gain support, and funds


Quote:

WARSAW For most of July, pedestrians in the Polish city of Lodz found themselves face-to-face with 14 grisly billboards pairing images of aborted fetuses with photographs of blood-spattered corpses - victims of genocide in Srebrenica or Rwanda, toddlers killed in the Oklahoma City bombing attack.
Placed by a Polish anti-abortion group, the traveling exhibition, which has moved on to Lublin, personifies an aggressive, well-financed and growing conservative movement across Europe that opposes not only abortion but also contraception, sex education, artificial insemination and gay rights.
Encouraged by the Roman Catholic Church, enabled by the election of conservative governments in many countries and financed in part by anti-abortion groups in the United States, the movement has made powerful inroads in countries where a full array of women's health services were once taken for granted.
These include Poland, Italy, Slovakia, Lithuania and even the Netherlands, where the new Christian Democratic secretary of health has suggested a review of that country's liberal abortion law.
"It's gotten worse in many places over the last two to three years, as more Christian Democrat and conservative governments have come to power," said Rebecca Gomperts, founder of the Dutch abortion rights group Women on Waves.
Anna Zaborska of Slovakia, for example, the new chairwoman of the European Parliament Committee for Women's Rights and Gender Equality, opposes abortion.
"Anti-abortion groups have become much more active and successful at influencing public opinion, and they have money and the mobilizing power of the church behind them," Gomperts said.
The consequences are varied but perhaps nowhere more dramatic than in Poland, where abortion was free - and freely accessible - under Communism.
Today, a relatively restrictive abortion law (which refers to the fetus as a "conceived child"), coupled with strong social stigma and an anti-abortion stance among doctors' groups, has led to a situation in which only 174 legal abortions were performed nationwide in 2004 - and tens of thousands of illegal abortions were carried out.
In Poland, the battle is so intense that the country's leading gynecology journal recently refused to publish the World Health Organization's guidelines on "Safe Practices in Abortion," calling them "reprehensible."
"Abortion is not safe, because a patient who undergoes such treatment always dies," wrote Andrzej Barcz, editor of Practical Medicine-Obstetrics and Gynecology.
International anti-abortion groups point out that their influence in Europe, where abortion has popular support and is generally available, is still much weaker than in the United States or Latin America. But they are thrilled with the new activity.
"There are now a lot of pro-life groups working in Europe, but they are fairly young - formed in the last five or 10 years," said Joseph Meaney, international director of Human Life International, a powerful Catholic anti-abortion group based in Virginia.
In countries like France and Italy, youth groups are now lecturing in schools and organizing marches, promoting abstinence and an anti-abortion message. Meaney said this was due, in part, to the "John Paul II effect," noting that the charismatic late pope, who held appeal for youth, had strongly opposed abortion and contraception.
In Europe, only Ireland, Portugal, Malta and Poland have strict legal limits on abortion. But many countries that permit abortion are considering new limits on the practice or are restricting national health plans' payment for both abortion and contraception. As in the United States, access to the procedure is also increasingly limited by taboos, costs for patients and the objections or fears of doctors.
In Poland, the law permits abortion if a woman's health is in danger or if genetic defects have been detected in the fetus. But, said Wanda Nowicka, head of the Federation for Women and Family Planning in Warsaw, "there is now almost no condition that would allow you to get an abortion here." Her group is currently bringing a lawsuit on behalf of a woman who is nearly blind because doctors refused to allow her to abort when she fell ill during pregnancy.
According to Nowicka, 80,000 to 200,000 illegal abortions are performed in Poland every year.
"This country is not conservative, but reproductive health has become highly politicized and stigmatized in the last few years," Nowicka said.
The same trend is apparent in many European countries, with only a few bucking the trend, among them Spain, a Catholic country with a Socialist government.
The Catholic Church has been particularly influential in former East Bloc countries, where it made rapid gains after Communism collapsed more than a decade ago. Croatia and Slovakia, for example, signed treaties with the Vatican that give the church influence over school curriculums, including sex education. In Slovakia, where abortion is technically legal, Christian anti-abortion supporters mark March 25 the "Day of the Conceived Child."
But many also cite global political trends, like the Bush administration's decision to promote abstinence as the preferred form of birth control.
"Those who oppose woman's choice have become stronger and louder because the international atmosphere supports them," said Esmeralda Kuliesyte of Lithuania, who leads the Vilnius-based Family Planning and Sexual Health Association.
"They are strong because of the Bush administration's policies," Kuliesyte said. "They've become rich. They have magazines and Web pages. It's very hard to fight back."
Anti-abortion groups in the United States are increasingly traveling to Europe to help train local activists. "They bring money, leaflets and little plastic embryos," said Olga Pietruchova, director of Prochoice Slovakia.
Human Life International, the Virginia-based anti-abortion group, has an office for Eastern Europe in Gdansk, Poland, and has sent missions to more than a dozen European countries in the past five years, providing funding and seminars on how to promote anti-abortion positions.
In 2003, the European Union warned member states about the aggressive European activities of U.S.-based anti-abortion groups, whose ultimate goal is "no contraception at all, and sex within marriage only," in the words of Poul Nielsen, who was then the European Commissioner for Overseas Development.
Such groups have taught their pupils well: When reports of the Lodz billboards were posted on religious Web sites, readers responded with comments like, "If only we could do that in the U.S."
But there is much homegrown activity as well. In Croatia, where 86 percent of the population is Catholic, the national bishops' conference has joined with other church groups to demand that Parliament ban abortion. The procedure, which was free 10 years ago, now costs up to $600, more than the average monthly salary.
Croatian schools now use a sex education program called Teen Star that promotes abstinence and teaches that the contraceptive pill is dangerous and that condoms do not protect against disease.
When liberal politicians proposed a measure supporting assisted fertility, the bishops blocked it, saying - despite worldwide evidence to the contrary - such technology "brings to life children who are things and not human beings, usually severely damaged," said Sanja Cesar, head of the Center for Education, Counseling and Research in Bratislava.
Women's groups say that strong anti-abortion positions have been promoted by otherwise mainstream politicians with debts to pay. In Poland, the Solidarity movement, which overthrew decades of Communist rule in 1989, received financial and moral support from the Catholic Church when it was still illegal under Communism.
As a result, "when Communism fell, it seems that the only thing politicians cared about was abortion," Nowicka said. The law limiting abortion was passed in 1993 and has held firm despite challenges ever since.
In Italy, the Catholic Church has used its weight to support conservative politicians as they passed an extremely restrictive fertility law, which bans, for example, egg donations for stem cell research.
When Spain recently passes a law permitting gay marriage, Marcello Pera, speaker of Italy's Senate, condemned the decision, saying: "It is a triumph of secularism that seeks to transfer desires and occasional whims into human rights."
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:40 am
There is always the option of abortion. I just feel there is always an option preferable to death.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:40 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
Derevon wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
A fetus becomes a child when it is born.


Let's not get into semantics over the definition of 'fetus'. When exactly does a fetus/child cease being on the level of a cancerous tumour and becomes a human being in your opinion? Surely you're not suggesting that the fetus is on the level of a cancerous tumour two seconds before he/she is born?


Frank Apisa wrote:
Quote:
A fetus is a fetus. A child is a child. Try to understand the distinction.


So, just so I understand this. If a fetus becomes a child when it is born it would be a fetus 5 seconds before birth and it would be ok to kill the "fetus" at that point. Even an athiest like yourself should have more compassion than that.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:41 am
Ms. Dea,

The ideal time is, of course, at the blastocyst stage. The stem cells we can extract would be of great use. This is only an ideal, however, and I'm sure that it is quite difficult to get an abortion at the appropriate week in time.

As early as possible, would be my recommendation. If possible, sometime before week 5, but given current evidence, I guess before week 7 (week 10 is far too late).

The main problem, of course, is men. As a man, I find this hard to admit, but let's face it, who is the one that gets them pregnant in the first place? In African countries, who is it that forces themselves on to the women and refuse to wear condoms? Who is it that is running the media corporations that churn out these horrible sex-filled reality TV shows and who exactly are these shows appealing to?

What gender are all the rapists in our world?

I wouldn't have been surprised if the Bible had been corrupted by men to read that Eve was the one that offered the apple, when it was really Adam.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:44 am
pragmatic wrote:
Lash wrote:
It is illogical and unsupportable to say that one man who has taken the life of an unborn child is a murderer, while across the street in a clinic, a man taking the life of an unborn baby is merely a doctor.


But wouldn't the issue of consent of the woman holding the baby come into play? If the mother consented to the doctor taking the life of the fetus, it is not murder (and according to Frank, there is no murder if there is no baby, but only a fetus.) If the "man" had killed the fetus in the hope of not having to raise a child (this has occurred in Australia - the male used a karate kick on his partner's child and this was actually held: no murder nor even mansalughter because the unborn was not a baby - argument to Frank's side but this case was in the 50s I think) then it could be regarded as murder - this will depend upon the law of each different country and jurisdiction in the world.

Hope I interepreted your post correctly Lash.

Hi Pragmatic.

You did interpret correctly.

There are at least two issues, I think: Legality of the charge is the one you addressed. The other one, to me, is how someone can, with any credibility, refer to a viable unborn baby as a "growth" and kill it, if it's more convenient to do so--while an identically aged and developed unborn child is considered "murdered"--such as in the case of Laci Peterson's unborn child--and many others not as developed.

There have been several pregnant women, who have been attacked--lost their baby--and the attacker was charged with murder.

The issue of abortion teeters on the precipice of rationality. If the unborn baby's death can result in a murder charge sometimes---it is clearly murder all the time.

We are now facing the fact that the murder is OK if the mother chooses it.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:45 am
That's where I get all tied up on this issue. I can't condone irresponsiblewomen getting abortions for birth control. But what about those who, like you said, have no control? 7 weeks is barely pregnant and saying 10 weeks is too long, leaves many abortions out. I believe that you can abort until 20 weeks. (if I am wrong please correct me) That puts the baby at 10 weeks past your ok time. Do you propose legal abortion until 10 weeks only?
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:47 am
Oh wait, now I see something about 24 weeks. How far along can you be to legally abort?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:47 am
First, I mean there is always the option of adoption! Mistyped there.

And yes Intrepid, I asked Frank the same question. Though he never really answered it.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:51 am
I am not sure, but I thought it had to be in the first trimester?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:51 am
Momma Angel wrote:
First, I mean there is always the option of adoption! Mistyped there.

And yes Intrepid, I asked Frank the same question. Though he never really answered it.


Maybe he will answer it when he gets back from the beach today. Frank?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:55 am
I am against all abortion after the first month.

A morning after pill would negate the need for all abortion.

Since people are stupid, lazy and irresponsible, however, I think it prudent to extend abortion on demand to the end of the first trimester.

In addition, I think we should SATURATE our children with sex education classes from an early age, provide on site counselling at schools Abstinence, Be Choosy (OK, I forgot the B) and Condoms--and provide forms of birth control.

But, I am tired of the pretense that abortion doesn't kill a baby.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:55 am
Laughing

Don't ya' just love him?

Except, I did give him a different timeframe. I asked him about two seconds before birth. You should go back and see what he posted.

He's after us Christians again. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:57 am
Bella Dea wrote:
That's where I get all tied up on this issue. I can't condone irresponsiblewomen getting abortions for birth control. But what about those who, like you said, have no control? 7 weeks is barely pregnant and saying 10 weeks is too long, leaves many abortions out. I believe that you can abort until 20 weeks. (if I am wrong please correct me) That puts the baby at 10 weeks past your ok time. Do you propose legal abortion until 10 weeks only?


Well, you see, legally, it is 24 weeks. It used to be 28 weeks, but then medically things got better and babies after 24 weeks can survive better in the hospital.

My notion of before 7 weeks (not 10) is that the brain and nerves aren't developed enough for the fetus (not baby) to experience pain. It is all good and well making sure the baby isn't born into a life that gives it no hope of survival, but must it suffer pain before it is even born?

88% of abortions in the US occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy, according to http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm. This means most abortions either fall within or slightly without what I believe to be the ideal timepoint.

However, the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform puts it at:
"52% of all abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy, 25% happen between the 9th & 10th week, 12% happen between the 11th and 12th week, 6% happen between the 13th & 15th week, 4% happen between the 16th & 20th week, and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy."
Source: http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

So you see, my proposal isn't really that hard to enforce anyway. Just reduce waiting times a little bit more and we can meet the target. I suspect the problem isn't stupid lazy people but waiting times. Of course, I'm being generous in assuming that.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 09:02 am
So almost half of the abortions in this country (48%) are done after the fetus can feel pain. That is truly sad.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 09:04 am
If I'm not mistaken, a very small percentage of the population gets a huge percentage of the abortions.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » ABORTION.......
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 12/24/2024 at 08:12:30