2
   

Is abortion really wrong?

 
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Sep, 2006 05:43 pm
I'm using my 5000th post to agree with Brandon.

Brandon, I hope you will have an appropriate sensation of the honor. :wink:
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Sep, 2006 05:59 pm
Solid thinking there folks. OK, I won't inflict my views on the criminal justice system on either of you. You don't have to look to me for approval, you need to get the Criminal Justice System to accept your ideas on which laws you get to ignore. So be safe in your beds knowing I will do nothing to impede the ways in which you choose to use your bodies. Now stick a fork in it, no one is going to change their minds here, it's done.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Sep, 2006 06:00 pm
blacksmithn wrote:
real life wrote:
blacksmithn wrote:
real life wrote:
blacksmithn wrote:
real life wrote:
blacksmithn wrote:
The question of viability is really a MEDICAL one, more so than a legal or legislative one, it seems to me.

That's medical, as in between a woman and her doctor. Not as in between you, me, or anybody else. The choice for a woman is agonizing enough without getting politicians or Religious Yahoo Know-Nothings involved.

Not claiming to be a doctor, nor some hyped up pseudo-religious zealot either, I'm content to leave that decision where it can best be determined.


OK, so if the gestational period from conception to birth is 38 weeks, are you comfortable with abortion at 37 weeks and 6 days if a woman can find a 'medical professional' to rid her of the inconvenience, even though you seem to admit that a human life has begun by then?

Oh, please. Couldn't you find a more extreme and unreasonable example?

At 37 weeks, 6 days it would seem to me, albeit I'm no doctor, that the fetus is viable by almost any definition. Conversely, at 6 days the embryo is almost certainly NOT viable. So what?

That being said and given the current parameters of the law, I'm content to leave the choice up to the mother and the doctor. It's not my decision as it's not my body. Nor is it yours.


It would be an unreasonable example, if babies of 37 weeks gestation were not aborted. But they are.

Sure, in less than 1% of all abortions. And, some 36 states have laws against such late-term procedures. To repeat, GIVEN THE CURRENT PARAMETERS OF THE LAW I'm content to leave the choice up to the mother and the doctor. What part of that is so difficult for you to grasp?

So if abortion is legal up to the point of birth, (and it was in the entire USA for years with the blessing of the liberals of the political left, AND it still is legal in some places,) you are content to let 'the current parameters of the law' stand, thus denying protection to viable human beings?

YES.

You don't seem to be able to decide whether the medical facts of life should determine the legal availability of abortion.

"Medical facts of life?" I'm not sure what you mean by this phrase. Since medical professionals apparently have trouble defining at what point an abortion becomes "late term", which is the procedure it seems that you're all wrought up about, I'm certainly in no position to state definitively that this procedure is right but that is wrong.

Even if the unborn at a given point is clearly a living human by any reasonable medical standard, you still seem to back away from agreeing that elective abortion should not be a legal option at that point.

To repeat yet again, GIVEN THE CURRENT PARAMETERS OF THE LAW I'm content to leave the choice up to the mother and the doctor.

Is there any point in the pregnancy at which you will state without equivocation that abortion should be illegal (I am assuming an exception in those few rare cases to save the life of the mother)?


Since, as I have repeatedly stated, I'm no doctor, I'm in no position to judge. Once again, given the current parameters of the law, that is a decision best left to the mother and the doctor.


Your contradictory positions on this are indications of a political bias, not a rational position.

Perhaps you should turn off the TV and think about this for a while.

How can you morally justify exterminating those that you acknowledge are living human beings? Just because they are only '1%' of the abortions performed?

Do you know how many deaths that is?

Need I say that 1 is too many?


Okay, thanks. Although I'm not a medical doctor, you're clearly a deranged lunatic. Good luck with the pogrom.


No, you're not a doctor.

But surely you can count.

How many abortions are done after the point at which you consider the unborn to be a 'viable' human being?

What moral justification is there for supporting the continued legalization of the killing of viable human beings?
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Sep, 2006 06:17 pm
If you were to miscarry when your fetus was 4 weeks old, why are we not holding funerals and issuing birth and death certificates. These fetus's don't even get a name.

When I lost my baby at 8 weeks, the hospital administrators listed it as "spontaneous abortion", it's the word they use when a miscarriage occurs. The genius's at the Insurance Company told me they didn't pay for abortions. Can you believe that!!!! I didn't choose to end the potential of that fetus. You guys are worried about what women do their bodies, yet when nature expels your fetus against your will, nobody refers to it any longer as a baby. Strictly hands off, no big deal, no funeral, no birth certificate, no death certificate, kind of like it never happened. So again, go get yourself your own uterus, carry life and come back and tell me all about it. Want to guess who cares about that child? Just me and my husband and my family.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Sep, 2006 06:55 pm
Sorry about your baby, glitter. When one of our friends had a miscarriage, she grieved and my wife and I were there to comfort her and her family. Surely, there were no birth or death certificates; those are civic considerations. But her family's grief and our support are as real to her as your family's feelings are to you.

So, absent a uterus, I will just have to imagine my wife's empathy, I suppose.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Sep, 2006 07:04 pm
glitterbag wrote:
If you were to miscarry when your fetus was 4 weeks old, why are we not holding funerals and issuing birth and death certificates. These fetus's don't even get a name.

When I lost my baby at 8 weeks, the hospital administrators listed it as "spontaneous abortion", it's the word they use when a miscarriage occurs. The genius's at the Insurance Company told me they didn't pay for abortions. Can you believe that!!!! I didn't choose to end the potential of that fetus. You guys are worried about what women do their bodies, yet when nature expels your fetus against your will, nobody refers to it any longer as a baby. Strictly hands off, no big deal, no funeral, no birth certificate, no death certificate, kind of like it never happened. So again, go get yourself your own uterus, carry life and come back and tell me all about it. Want to guess who cares about that child? Just me and my husband and my family.


A woman that we know well did miscarry recently and they did have a memorial service and buried their child. They named her Esther Abigail, and it is on the grave marker. It's up to the individual, I suppose, how they handle this.

(I don't know if the law allows or mandates birth or death certificates in such an instance, but what of it?)

I'm very sorry to hear of your baby's early passing. It must be terribly difficult, even now.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Sep, 2006 07:08 pm
That's the point, the law doesn't consider these lost babies even worth a document that indicates they were ever alive or ever died, and it's probably because these beings are unable to survive outside the womb. I don't know of any religious organization that advocates for funerals to mark the fact these fetus lost their battle. I can't in good conscience tell other women how many children they must birth, who gets to impregnate them, must they carry a child from a rapist or their creepy uncle????? If you want to define life as the time the sperm hits the egg, then all of the above would make it mandatory to bring that child to term. I'm not going to jump on that bandwagon, doesn't matter how far or not far our society has evolved, women still have control over their own bodies.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Sep, 2006 08:02 pm
glitterbag wrote:
That's the point, the law doesn't consider these lost babies even worth a document that indicates they were ever alive or ever died, and it's probably because these beings are unable to survive outside the womb. I don't know of any religious organization that advocates for funerals to mark the fact these fetus lost their battle. I can't in good conscience tell other women how many children they must birth, who gets to impregnate them, must they carry a child from a rapist or their creepy uncle????? If you want to define life as the time the sperm hits the egg, then all of the above would make it mandatory to bring that child to term. I'm not going to jump on that bandwagon, doesn't matter how far or not far our society has evolved, women still have control over their own bodies.


At one time, the law didn't consider blacks human beings either. So the current law regarding the unborn does not negate the fact that they are living human beings.

The unborn child is not part of the woman's body.

The unborn has a distinct DNA pattern, not his/her mother's. Genetically, it is NOT part of the mother's body. (It is attached and dependent on the mother, but the unborn has a body of his/her own.)

The unborn has a heartbeat and brainwaves at a very early stage. Medically there is no reason not to consider the unborn a separate person, and in fact the American Academy of Family Physicians is on record as considering the unborn to be a separate patient.

Quote:


Fetal medicine: treating the unborn patient

American Family Physician, Oct, 1995 by Pamela Camosy


The past 10 years have seen dramatic improvements in the understanding of fetal anatomy and physiology, as well as in the technology required to visualize the hidden world of the fetus. With advances in fetal medicine, the unborn patient is the focus more than ever before, with specialists from the fields of obstetrics, neonatology, surgery and even medical ethics and social services joining together. When a family physician is the primary physician, a working knowledge of the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to the unborn patient will enhance the physician's role as advocate for the parents and their baby.

Guiding Principles of Prenatal Diagnosis and Treatment

The maternal-fetal relationship is unique in that it involves two inter-related patients. Physicians rarely visualize or touch the unborn patient directly. Instead they must rely on indirect means of diagnosis, always keeping in mind that the mother's safety and health are paramount and that fetal maneuvers may be undertaken only if they do not place her at inordinate risk.

The development of specific methods of prenatal therapy has stemmed, in large part, from frustration over the failure of neonatal treatment of some conditions. While treatment just after birth is effective for the majority of congenital abnormalities, for many conditions, such as erythroblastosis fetalis, neonatal therapy may be too little, too late. This frustration fortuitously coincided with exponential improvements in fetal ultrasound technology. Real-time ultrasonography provides a dynamic view of the fetus, and improved ultrasound resolution allows more detailed diagnosis. In addition, real-time sonography can be used to guide intricate treatment procedures.

While in the past prenatal therapy has been mostly empiric, experience and ethical considerations have yielded a logical and stepwise approach, which is outlined in Figure 1. Ideally, once the possibility of prenatal therapy is considered, many steps should be undertaken, including studies of animal models, before clinical use.[1] If therapy is successful in animal models, it is then attempted in human fetuses, with investigators reporting the results, even if negative, to one of several multicenter registries. This system allows the sharing of data and the development of patient selection criteria. In general, no prenatal treatment is given to a fetus with severe irreversible damage or a uniformly fatal abnormality.

When a fetus with an abnormality is identified, the clinical team must decide whether prenatal or postnatal treatment, or no treatment, is indicated. Options for postnatal treatment include induced preterm delivery (generally after 32 weeks, gestation) and term delivery, either vaginally or by means of cesarean section. Specialized personnel and equipment can be anticipated to enhance the baby's survival chances. Clinical criteria for selecting those patients suited for prenatal therapy are listed in Table 1.

Table 1
Criteria for Prenatal Therapy
Surgical Treatment of the Fetus

With improved imaging of the fetus came the possibility of applying neonatal surgical techniques to fetuses with anomalies. Fetal procedures range in complexity from needle aspiration of accumulated fluid to hysterotomy and exteriorization of the fetus for surgical repair.

UNIQUE ASPECTS OF PRENATAL SURGERY

Preterm labor is a risk inherent in all invasive procedures and is prevented through maternal administration of betamimetics or indomethacin (Indocin). A careful balance must be maintained between uterine relaxation and the risk of uterine hemorrhage.

Wound healing in the fetus after a surgical procedure is superior to wound healing in neonates. Acute inflammation, fibroplasia and collagen deposition do not occur. The amniotic fluid is a sterile environment rich in substances that stimulate a unique healing process. As a result, fetal skin heals without a scar.[14]

Fetal pain pathways function after six to eight weeks, gestation, often necessitating sedation and anesthesia for both mother and child.[15] Narcotics and benzodiazepines given to the mother enter the fetal circulation; general anesthesia administered to the mother will also anesthetize and immobilize the fetus.

To ensure a safe procedure, fetal paralysis can be effected with pancuronium (Pavulon), administered intravenously or intramuscularly to the fetus.[16]

SPECIFIC PROCEDURES

The most common type of invasive prenatal procedure is sonographically guided intrauterine shunt placement to drain abnormally accumulated fluid, thus allowing normal organ development. Varying degrees of success have been achieved in different fetal organ systems.

Obstructive uropathy, which results in oligohydramnios and pulmonary hypoplasia, is an example of a fetal anomaly that has been treated successfully prenatally. Prenatal treatment prevents irreversible renal damage and allows normal development of the kidneys and lungs. For these reasons, it is superior to neonatal treatment in select cases--specifically, in fetuces with obstruction but preserved renal function as assessed by fetal urinary production, ultrasonic appearance of the kidneys and chemical analysis of fetal urine.[17] Urinary diversion with a vesicoamniotic shunt placed under ultrasonic guidance (Figure 2, is now a routine procedure. Open urinary diversion--ureterostomy or vesicostomy--is being performed on select fetuses (Figure 3), with promising results.[3]

Intrauterine placement of a pleuroamniotic shunt is beneficial in some patients with significant pleural effusion. The mortality rate in untreated fetuses with pleural effusion is high because of compression and poor lung development. Early shunting can prevent such pulmonary hypoplasia.[18] In some fetuses, ascites is treated with paracentesis immediately before delivery to decompress the fetal abdomen for vaginal delivery.[3]

The morbidity and mortality associated with congenital hydrocephalus prompted early enthusiasm for the possibility of in utero shunt placement to allow normal brain development and improve neurologic outcome. During the 1980s, decompression was performed in carefully selected patients by inserting a valved shunt into the lateral ventricle, with the distal end draining into the amniotic fluid. Problems have included dislodgement and clogging of the shunt, but the greatest disappointment has been the lack of improvement in neurologic outcomes in shunted versus unshunted patients, as reported by the International Fetal Surgery Registry.[16] Shunts for hydrocephalus are currently not being placed, but methods for improving the technique and patient selection criteria are being studied.

Because most newborns with diaphragmatic hernia die of pulmonary failure despite appropriate neonatal care, prenatal correction was proposed to prevent compression of the developing lung. Several types of intervention are being studied. Perhaps the most dramatic involves hysterotomy and exteriorization of the fetus, followed by reduction of the bowel from the thorax and surgical repair of the diaphragmatic defect.[19] Several children are now thriving after successful hernia repair in utero. A less invasive technique called PLUG (plug the lung until it grows), involves endoscopic occlusion of the fetal trachea, which results in a beneficial accumulation of lung fluid. As lung volume expands, the herniated intestinal viscera are propelled through the diaphragmatic defect back into the abdomen.[20] Palliative surgery--creation of an artificial gastroschisis--reduces the viscera from the chest in preparation for postnatal diaphragm repair. Finally, immunologic tolerance for postnatal lung transplantation may be induced prenatally.[21] Other fetal procedures, such as those in Table 3,[16,13,16,22-27] are being performed in clinical and research settings.

[TABULAR DATA 3 OMITTED]

Open fetal cardiac surgery is theoretically possible, including ligation of the ductus arteriosus for tetralogy of Fallot, valvulotomy for pulmonic or aortic valve atresia and enlargement of the foramen ovale for hypoplastic left heart syndrome.[3]

Final Comment

Treatment of the unborn patient is an exciting endeavor that is itself in its infancy. The heretofore hidden world of the fetus is coming under closer scrutiny, and the scope of medicine, both its science and its humanity, has been forever broadened. Many prenatal treatments have been proved safe; many more must be subjected to prospective controlled trials to determine outcomes and selection criteria.

Research and clinical advances must be accompanied by exploration of social and ethical questions. In most medical centers where fetal therapy is performed, the many dimensions of each case are studied by an ethics committee of clinicians, ethicists and patient advocates.

Figure 2 reprinted with permission from Hobbins JC, Benacerraf BR, eds. Diagnosis and therapy of fetal anomalies. New York City: Churchill-Livingstone, 1989:273. Figure 3 reprinted with permission from Harrison MR, Golbus MS, eds. he unborn patient. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1990:384.

RELATED ARTICLE: Fetal Medicine Registries

International Fetal Surgery Registry Frank Manning, M.D., Department of Obstetrics-Gynecology, Women's Hospital, Health Sciences Center, 735 Notre Dame Ave., Winnepeg, Manitoba R3E OL8; 204-787-3991

Registry for Treated Cases of Metabolic Fetal Diseases Mark Evans, M.D., Department of Reproductive Genetics, Hutzel Hospital, 4707 St. Antoine, Detroit, MI 48201; 313-745-7066

Registry for Treated Fetuses with Cardiac Disease Charles Kleinman, M.D., Department of Pediatrics, 333 Cedar St., New Haven, CT 06510; 203-785-2022

[Figure 1-3 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

REFERENCES

[1.] Creasy RK, Resnik R, eds. Maternal-fetal medicine: principles and practice. 3d ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1994. [2.] Pinsky WW, Rayburn WF, Evans MI. Pharmacologic therapy for fetal arrhythmias. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1991;34:304-9. [3.] Harrison MR, Golbus MS, Filly RA, eds. The unborn patient: prenatal diagnosis and treatment. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1990. [4.] Copel JA, Cullen MT, Grannum PA, Hobbins JC. Invasive fetal assessment in the antepartum period. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1990;17:201-21. [5.] Reece EA, Goldstein I, Chatwani A, Brown R Homko C, Wiznitzer A. Transabdominal needle embryofetoscopy: a new technique paving the way for early fetal therapy Obstet Gynecol 1994;84:634-6. [6.] Luks FI, Deprest JA, Vandenberghe K, Brosens IA, Lerut T. A model for fetal surgery through intrauterine endoscopy. J Pediatr Surg 1994; 29:1007-9. [7.] Weiner CP, Williamson RA, Wenstrom KD, Sipes SL, Widness JA, Grant SS, et al. Management of fetal hemolytic disease by cordocentesis. II. Outcome of treatment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 165 (Pt 1):1302-7. [8.] Miller RK. Fetal drug therapy: principles and issues. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1991;34:241-9. [9.] Morales WJ. Antenatal therapy to minimize neonatal intraventricular hemorrhage. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1991;34:328-35. [10.] Reece EA, et al., eds. Medicine of the fetus and mother. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1992. [11.] Evans Ml, Schulman JD. In utero treatment of fetal metabolic disorders. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1991; 34:268-76. 12. Murphy MF, Waters AH, Doughty HA, Hambley H, Mibashan RS, Nicolaides K, et al. Antenatal management of fetomaternal alloimmune thrombocytopenia--a report of 15 affected pregnancies. Transfus Med 1994;4:281-92. [13.] Lin CC, Verp MS, Sabbagha RE, eds. The high-risk fetus. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1993. [14.] Adzick NS, Longaker MT, eds. Fetal wound healing. New York: Elsevier, 1992. [15.] Druffner M. What pain? Linacre Q 1987;51:79-85. [16.] Adzick NS, Harrison MR. Fetal surgical therapy. Lancet 1994;343:897-902. [17.] Gloor JM. Management of prenatally detected fetal hydronephrosis. Mayo Clin Proc 1995;70: 45-52. [18.] Becker R, Arabin B, Novak A, Entezami M, Weitzel HK. Successful treatment of primary fetal hydrothorax by long-time drainage from week 23. Fetal Diagn Ther 1993;8:331-7. [19.] Harrison MR, Adzick NS, Longaker MT, Goldberg JD, Rosen MA, Filly RA, et al. Successful repair in utero of a fetal diaphragmatic hernia after removal of herniated viscera from the left thorax N Engl J Med 1990;322:1582-4. [20.] Hedrick MH, Estes JM, Sullivan KM, Bealer JF, Kitterman JA, Flake AW, et al. Plug the lung until it grows (PLUG): a new method to treat congenital diaphragmatic hernia in utero. J Pediatr Surg 1994; 29:612-7. [21.] Ford WD. Fetal intervention for congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Fetal Diagn Ther 1"94;9:398408. [22.] Pinckert TL, Kiernan SC. In utero nephrostomy catheter placement. Fetal Diagn Ther 1994:9:348-52. [23.] Kyle PM, Lange IR, Menticoglou SM, Harman CR, Manning FA. Intrauterine thoracentesis of fetal cystic lung malformations. Fetal Diagn Ther 1,l94;9:84-7. [24.] Campbell WA, Yamase HT, Salafia CA, Vintzileos AM, Rodis JF. Fetal renal biopsy: technique development. Fetal Diagn Ther 1993;8:135-43. [25.] Meagher SE, Fisk NM, Boogert A, Russell P. Fetal ovarian cysts: diagnostic and therapeutic role for intrauterine aspiration. Fetal Diagn Ther 1993;8: 195-9. [26.] Allan LD, Maxwell DJ, Carminati M, Tynan MJ. Survival after fetal aortic balloon valvoplasty Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995;5:90-1. [27.] Canady JW, Landas SK, Morris H, Thompson SA. In utero cleft palate repair in the ovine model. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1994;31:37-44.

PAMELA A. CAMOSY, M.D. is a family physician in private practice in San Antonio, Tex. Dr. Camosy graduated from the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and completed a family practice internship and residency at the Naval Hospital, Jacksonville, Fla.

Address correspondence to Pamela A. Camosy, M.D., Greenway Park Medical Group, 2455 N.E. Loop 410. Suite 100, San Antonio, TX 78217.

COPYRIGHT 1995 American Academy of Family Physicians
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Sep, 2006 08:17 pm
OK, I've seen the light. Every woman should be tested monthly for any signs of impending motherhood. Once determined positive, she must be kept under armed guards to prevent her from making any personal decisions. Once these unplanned children arrive, no one will be permitted to adopt the children, they will remain with the mother and the government will pick up the tab. The miracle of DNA testing will allow us to hunt down the impregnator, and it will be up to the mother whether he has contact with her again. We need to know who his is, so the child will know all of the other brothers and children fathered by Dad, and also so that the fathers can be tested for std's and forced to contribute to the support of the child.

You win, I give up.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Sep, 2006 08:40 pm
I agree with everything you've said here, glitterbag. Those who want to force childbirth on unwilling women ought to be made to pay for thier support and perhaps raise them.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Sep, 2006 08:53 pm
Those unwilling women should get educated on birth control and disease prevention or stay off their backs. Since they are unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Sep, 2006 09:24 pm
Typical male chauvinism.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Sep, 2006 09:35 pm
Typical common sense and responsibility. What would you call it if a woman had said it? Many do, you know.
0 Replies
 
flushd
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Sep, 2006 10:17 pm
We could always cut off all men's penii and solve the problem that way!

Intrepid, I get as mad as anyone (worse, really, in a lot of cases) when I see some of the choices some people make.
Met a woman recently who found out she was pregnant and decided the solution would be to stick a coathanger up herself to kill the fetus. Shocked
She ended up in hospital. But guess what...she went on to get pregnant again. Her story is very lurid. Drugs, multiple men, a child here and a child there.

I wish in my heart that I could decide for her. That's it: surgery for you and no more pregnancies!

However, I value personal freedom too much. Gotta take the lumps with the rest of it.

Is abortion wrong? No. Sometimes it is mightly distasteful though.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Sep, 2006 10:35 pm
Intrepid wrote:
Those unwilling women should get educated on birth control and disease prevention or stay off their backs. Since they are unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions.


OK, maybe we can reach an agreement. If willing women in the prone position are the problem, lets get the drug companies to make a pill that men will BE FORCED TO TAKE to prevent any possiblity of sireen (that's the way they pronounced it in "Oh Brother where Art Thou")induced erections and they must take this pill starting at 9 years of age in front of a family values government official to guarantee that they don't go around with the ability to wave their willies. Once they are married and able to support the willing women (who refuse to get off their backs), and any offspring that might occur, they will no longer be forced to take the anti-erection pill. Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like a plan.

One more thing, if the marriage is in trouble or the wife suspects the husband is cheating, it's back on the pill for the weak-willed sap.
0 Replies
 
Scott777ab
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Sep, 2006 09:34 am
ABORTION IS MURDER.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Sep, 2006 09:37 am
Abortion is a medical procedure, ending the presence of a fetus, for whatever reason. A fetus in the early stages is not a viable human baby. That said, few relish the thought of such a thing, but it is for the woman to make her own choice. Anybody interfering is a busybody with too much time on their hands.
0 Replies
 
Red River
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Sep, 2006 09:39 am
Scott777ab wrote:
ABORTION IS MURDER.


So little boy, don't have an abortion.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Sep, 2006 09:52 am
Intrepid wrote:
Those unwilling women should get educated on birth control and disease prevention or stay off their backs. Since they are unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions.


Intrepid, glitterbag makes the point well but I must ask you.... Do you honestly think that unplanned and unwanted pregnacies only happen because women are ignorant?
0 Replies
 
Scott777ab
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Sep, 2006 09:55 am
edgarblythe wrote:
Abortion is a medical procedure, ending the presence of a fetus, for whatever reason. A fetus in the early stages is not a viable human baby. That said, few relish the thought of such a thing, but it is for the woman to make her own choice. Anybody interfering is a busybody with too much time on their hands.



THOSE WHO COMMIT ABORTION COMMIT MURDER.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/16/2025 at 05:02:42