Topic awaiting preservation: Is abhortion wrong(morally) or not? When used for 'unwanted pregnancy' predicaments. (Page 3 of 5)

quote:

---

we are talking about killing that life once it has begun. Can we all agree on that?

---

Errr.... probably not since we can't seem to agree on when life actually begins...

And Ramasax, right back at ya

quote:

---

See it however you want, it does not make it so.

---

/D

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{ ?There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. - Jeremy S. Anderson" }-

Been away from computers for a few days and it looks like things have been in full swing. Just glanced back across a couple of things:

Partial-birth abortion? I think that's taking things a little too far, and you know it too. The line we're looking for is a lot more grey, and this is where the argument springs - where does life begin? I don't think anybody can argue that your example wasn't beyond the line. It doesn't actually achieve anything to make that point.

Baby part of the mother? This is something that I see as being arguable either way. A foetus does not share the blood supply of it's mother (look up placenta) but, up to a point, is entirely reliant on sustenance from the mother to support life and growth, and its development (not to offend) is something more like that of a parasitic infestation than an internal organ. Somewhere here, I think this argument relies on the previous argument for validation. At some point, this foetus is no longer entirely dependent upon its mother's sustenance and can no longer really be considered so much 'a part of her', but until then, the argument is valid and the analogy true enough (IMO).

And, Bugimus, I think that until there is a definitive line drawn to determine the point at which life begins, then I cannot agree, generally, that it is murder. Perhaps it is at much later stages in the pregnancy (as above) but where do we all agree on that? I certainly don't consider something any more alive than a vegetable if it has no higher brain function.

I'll just stick with what WebShaman has had to re-iterate once again, seeing as it has to be constantly re-covered. There will always be abortions, and the argument isn't that abortions would still occur, but that they would be sought in unsafe, unsanitary conditions, and with no real professional help in the event that something should go wrong.

Also, what sort of moron still thinks it is possible for everybody to just stop having sex? If that seems like a viable solution to anybody, then they houldn't be trying to argue with grown-ups.

What can be changed is the popular attitude towards sex, and advocation of the use of contraceptives - but those who argue that people shouldn't have sex are usually the ones ensuring greater risks by arguing against the use of protection and decent education (yet they haven't been able to do anything about inappropriate material in every other way, eh).

Somebody, somewhere, is always going to want sex - and the day that person is the last on the planet then all humanity is doomed. There are more practical arguments - most actually reflecting a realistic acceptance of human impulse and compulsion.

And blimey - I had so much more I wanted to type, but I do so get put-off by Bible recitals. I thought we'd already been through all this?
Perhaps the rest of the world (the free-thinking, self-aware, and personally responsible, perhaps) should just give-in and become religious too so that we don't have these stupid arguments any more - no need to worry about personal culpability any more, because it's not your choice. but God's, according to God-knows-who, who lived thousands of years ago(and that's final)! Won't life be so much easier?

Now, just which cult should I join, eh? Dammit - decisions, decisions... gah!

==Why is it when we talk to God, it's called praying
- but when God talks to us, it's called paranoid schizophrenia?!==

quote:

---

DmS said:

Errr.... probably not since we can't seem to agree on when life actually
begins...

---

Don't you mean to say that we don't agree on when human life should be protected by law? I am speaking about what science has already proven, not about opinion. Saying we don't know when life begins is like saying we don't know whether the earth is flat or spherical.

WH, I think it is very important to distinguish between the biological and psychological realities involved with this issue from how we as a society will write laws regulating them. It is so often equated, especially in this thread that I think it detracts from a good understanding of what we're dealing with.

There are plenty of people who fully acknowledge that abortion is killing but support it anyway. I can respect the honesty of a position like that but what really gets under my skin are people who have bought in to all the propoganda (either side) and haven't done the math, so to speak. Cliches like "a woman should be able to do what she wants with her own body" and "abortion is murder" are usually (I said usually!) uttered by those who haven't thought through the issue, IMO.

[edit]
[aside]
I recently bought a whole bunch of Dr. Seuss books to read to my little girl and we read "Horton Hears A Who!" last night. The whole story was about an elephant who hears the voices of these little people living on a speck of dust that no one else can hear. The rest of the jungle wants to destroy the little speck of dust and all the little "who"s that live there because they can't hear them and don't believe the elephant. And all through the story, Horton the elephant defends them from harm as he maintains, "a person's a person, no matter how small"! It was hard not thinking about this thread as I read that
[/aside]
[/edit]

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-28-2005 01:41)

We weep for the bird's cry, but not for the blood of a fish. Blessed are those who have voice.

ehh if only plants could say "ouch, that freaking hurt" , buggimus would surely starve to death

quote:

---

There is no need for the pro-choice side to resort to violence because they have the law on their side. I have no doubt that if the law were reversed tomorrow you would see violence coming from your side of this debate as well.

---

Uhhh...I don't see it. In fact, this is blatantly wrong, Bugs. The US USED to be against abortion - I didn't see violence being used by "pro-choicers" back then...how would one then change things with violence? And violence against whom? No, that just doesn't make sense. You can't commit violence against an idea (Law). There are no human targets to target!!

Pro-lifers usually resort to violence because they have human targets (those Doctors and clinics doing abortions).

quote:

---

Don't you mean to say that we don't agree on when human life should be protected by law? I am speaking about what science has already proven, not about opinion. Saying we don't know when life begins is like saying we don't know whether the earth is flat or spherical.

---

Well, the line should be drawn at what point the fetus can survive outside of the woman's body safely. This line will become narrower and narrower as Science makes advances in the medical area(s).

Eventually, it will become a mute point. A woman that does not wish to bear a child, will be able to give the embryo up, and it will be concieved in an artificial womb.

Maybe you pro-lifers should concentrate your energies on acheiving this, instead of killing doctors and clinic personel, donating huge sums of money to parties that "promise" to change things, and stygmatizing women who feel a NEED to abort.

Or is that also against your beliefs?

Probably.

I might be wrong about that, sure. We'll just have to see. I seriously doubt abortion will ever be banned outright, but we certainly may see it become far more restricted in the future. And was there a "pro-choice" movement before Roe v Wade? I'm not sure the lines had been drawn quite that distinctly at the time.

Giving up the embryo removing the need for abortion? We have heard opinions stated by members of this forum that they would rather have abortions than to offer their children up for adoption, so I don't think that will change with the advent of new technology. Nope, new technology will simply present new moral challenges as new ways to harm ourselves become available to us.

This is, and has always been, a fight to educate people on how to not harm one another. That is why I don't like focusing on where the legal line is drawn nearly as much as whether the act in question will hurt or build up healthy human relationship. Abortion is inherently harmful, not just to the fetus, and I think it should be reserved for dire situations. I find the fact that it has become a method of birth control to be barbaric and savage, yet we think so highly of our society compared to those two adjectives.

Over 90% of abortions are done for convenience...

quote:

---

Moon Dancer cited:

25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

---

[edit]
...and I agree pro life efforts could be far better focused on supporting pregnancy care clinics and advocating adoptions and loving those faced with very difficult life decisions. That is why part of my giving supports a local pregnancy care clinic and I would hope more would do the same. Supporting life takes far more than protesting abortuaries and I know that many pro lifers are not willing to acknowledge that with their own resources.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-28-2005 17:35)

quote:

---

And was there a "pro-choice" movement before Roe v Wade? I'm not sure the lines had been drawn quite that distinctly at the time.

---

I honestly do not know.

Nor does it really matter if there was, or not.

Fact is, women throughout history have found and tried ways of aborting children. Obviously there must be very strong drives for doing so, because of the various penalties and risks for doing such at various times, periods, etc.

I imagine that the "Pro-Choice" movement, if Abortion gets repealed, will protest alot. But how in the hell could they even attempt to use violence to accomplish their goals? How does one change a Law with violence? Who are the human targets?

Makes absolutely no sense to me to even CONSIDER attempting to use violence in such a case. Ridiculous. It would accomplish nothing.

Surely, Bugs, you must realize this.

As a Pro-Lifer, killing a Doctor (or someone at an Abortion clinic) sends a message - practice this, and you may be killed. It establishes fear.

Sounds just like terrorism, doesn't it?

Pro-Choicers wouldn't have women and doctors to attack. I'm quite puzzled by the dichotomy of Pro-Lifers taking lives. Now that the word terrorism has been brought into, it does seem to ring true.

quote:

---

I imagine that the "Pro-Choice" movement, if Abortion gets repealed, will protest alot. But how in the hell could they even attempt to use violence to accomplish their goals? How does one change a Law with violence? Who are the human targets?

---

The women and girls getting back room abortions.

quote:

---

Don't you mean to say that we don't agree on when human life should be protected by law? I am speaking about what science has already proven, not about opinion. Saying we don't know when life begins is like saying we don't know whether the earth is flat or spherical.

---

That's not entirely true. We know when conception occurs but the question of "what is life" is a philosophical one. Microorganisms and indivdual cells are in essence "alive" but whether their existance is a "life "is a philosophical issues at the core of this debate.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

quote:

---

The women and girls getting back room abortions.

---

Could you maybe expand on this? Why would this be Pro-Choicers doing violence to further their cause?

In the second trimestre, when the brain starts developing, the heart rate goes down, gradually, as the cerebral cortex begins taking over control of body functions. This is, thus, a good indication of when a brain has developed enough for us to be able to call the foetus a human being. At least in my opinion it is.

Later in the second trimestre motor functions begin developing. The foetus starts kicking and grasping motions. Later the eyelids begin opening and shutting even though it is blind.

Many more indications of brain function and, eventually, sentience follow in later stages of development.

I believe sentient life is what pro-choicers take for actual live. Dying from Malaria or E.coli is like dying from a solar flare to them, mayhaps.

Anyway, at some stage of development or another, you just have to call it like it is: infanticide. It is merely a barbaric and savage manifestation of selfishness, criminal indifference and the harsh economics of family planning. Convenience through and through.

(Edited by sonyafterdark on 05-30-2005 08:54)

You still have not provided a valid argument as to why a woman should NOT have choice over her own body.

quote:

---

Dying from Malaria or E.coli is like dying from a solar flare to them, mayhaps.

---

Not a very smart way to argue a point, really. That is just an ignorant statement.

From the tone in your post, it would seem as though you are attempting to occupy the "high" ground, by "reducing" pro-choicers to unfeeling, savage barbarians. That is an ancient propaganda that many peoples and lands used to justify killing others.

It is also an emotional appeal, that is an attempt to diverge the discussion in an emotional direction, away from the actual point - and that is one of choice.

Terribly nihilistic, WS. I am just making the mistake of putting heart and soul into expressing my beliefs and opinions. Not unlike others, of either side.

And what do you mean by ignorant? Malaria and E.coli are not viruses, as far as I know. And they're not sentient either, also as far as I know. Perhaps you have a master's degree in microbiology, or something, and know better.

About the pro-choice side resorting to voilence to further their cause should a ban be legislated upon abortion...

Their very cause is violence. Against some of the most defenceless and unrepresented people of all.

And about religion being the main cause the pro-life side advocates a ban...

Regardless of religion or personal beliefs, this is a heinous crime and an infringement of fundamental human rights and liberties. The right to life. These have nothing to do with your or my believing in God or not, has it?

But, for the people being obsessed with 'the heinous evils of religion perpetrated upon humanity throughout human existance as a species', everything is to be blamed on religion and whatever 'religion infected' people do or say one should do and say the opposite, for no real or other reason at all. Merely for the sake of elightened, intelligent and free-thinking argument, of course. As if the Bible fires Howitzers or the New Testament says: 'kill jews, arabs and pagans and ye shall have eternal life'. Quite the opposite.

How can anyone have the nerve to advocate taking the lives of others (children, mind you) as someone's personal right and freedom to do while feeling and knowing theirself perfectly safe is a measure of the character (or lack of it) of such people. People who don't give a damn that they're killing their children or others' (like 'doctors' and staff at your friendly local human abattoir).

'Perhaps people should see their unborn child after it's been done away with. I think it should be mandatory. Let everyone see the consequences of their (and other's) actions lying dismembered (sometimes decerebrated) in a trash bin.'

Homo homini lupus. Some people make me sick.

'Leave not but the shadow you cast on the earth as memory of the righteousness of your life in this world!'

La vie humaine manque ainsi en valeur dans cet age moderne...

(Edited by sonyafterdark on 05-30-2005 09:43)

e.coli is a bacteria

malaria is a disease caused by parasites destroying red blood cells.

What's your point?

^Exactly.

That is why I posted

quote:

---

quoteying from Malaria or E.coli is like dying from a solar flare to them, mayhaps.



Not a very smart way to argue a point, really. That is just an ignorant statement.

---

It is just an ignorant statement (especially when one considers the rest of the post, and the context in which it was written).

What is the point?

Test

Hi, it is me Etheist...had some problems logging on so had to re-register. Just didn't want any mis-understanding.

Let us also recall that the operative word in "pro-choice" is "Choice".

We who support that view agree the woman has a "choice''.

Either have the baby or abort it.

The seriously mis-named "Pro-lifers", would remove that opportunity from the individual, a violation of human rights. They don't want her to have a 'choice'.

Terrorist is a perfectly apt description of the 'pro-life' movement. Snipers, bombs are exactly the tools terrorists use.

It is her body, her choice.

It seems that protection of the human rights of the foetus is the issue for pro-lifers, and not the human rights of the would-be mother. Perhaps the argument could be made that the potential complication of the woman's future is worth less than the life (and human rights) of the foetus, which would be fair to argue... if it wasn't for the fact that the moment the 'life' becomes 'human' is in contention.

I sadly note that SAD has degenerated into exhibiting a millitant pro-life attitude and has begun imparting his disgust at an imagined crime. So be it - the thread was started with a SAD question and SAD has answered it, at least from a SAD point of view.

Funny how like a raving terrorist the millitant pro-lifer seems. I'm more convinced than ever now.

Totally pointless and odd question, I know, but would SAD support the abortion of a foetus if it was destined to become an abortionist in later life itself? Not sure if that is even relevant, but it might shed light on the relationship between the value of life itself, and the actions of the owner of that life - seeing as it appears tolerable to under-value the lives of those who are pro-choice. Perhaps, if it were possible to know, a pro-lifer might advocate abortion of any foetus that might grow into an abortionist (or an aborting 'mother')? Or (again assuming prescience) should abortion be perpetuated by allowing these vile people to live?

As I stated before, this debate has helped to polarise me on this issue. Having read more from SAD, I'm getting farther and farther from any doubts I might have had.

I second that, emphatically: Her Body. Her Choice.

(Edited by White Hawk on 05-31-2005 21:35)

of course it is. you're killing a large cluster of cells when you abort. that is like, a living being.
And women, ah women. I'll be diverging, but they are definitely on the top ten of the mammals most directed for reproduction. One must be careful when analysing the status of these walking sperm retrievers, naturally stupid on a level that cant be explained to them. One may be cold, but if you follow these two simple rules you girls may avoid abortion.

1 Don't fuck.

2 If you can't avoid it and get pregnant:
- kill yourself;
- if you were raped try to kill the bastards and then kill yourself;
- if the baby is naturally deformed, it means one of your ancestors raped his sister, you have bad genes, kill yourself.

(Edited by Arthemis on 06-01-2005 02:32)

Well, the xian right has weighed in again.

Any other troglodytes out there?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

I am a little confused as to how you read that as being from the christian right?

i could of course throw at you my references in the study of science, namely in the fields of statistics, neo-darwinism and pro-creacionism.
i could then switch to the parallel between the view taken in religions and society. then from a historic perspective i would extrapolate a vectorial conclusion and integrate it in the scientific arguments.
i could then go specific and show you why human females are weird beings, using crossed inductions and deductions, mainly from an evolutionary point of view.
i could then point it out as a transitional stage, resorting again to the vectorial conclusion. finally i would point out where the fault of all these arguments is.
would explain you about the dicotomy within the entropy definition, this time using a historical evolutionary argument. Then would relate it to the life definition.
This would then leave, after a conflict with your current synapse conformation, a very thin road of thought. Followed, it will lead to only a handful of acceptable ideas on the word abortion. but you would most certainly then not trust anyone's judgement ever again.


but of course, this wont happen. to explain you these things, requires too much, specially if one has only a keyboard to use. the internet is not for educating.


edit: and you're all probably stupid females anyway, mwahaha

(Edited by Arthemis on 06-01-2005 03:07)

Why would I think it a xian view?

"Deuteronomy 2:34 We... utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.
Numbers 31:17 Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
Hosea 13:16 They've rebelled against God... their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women
ripped open".

Seems to be precedence...if you believe that book of myths.

Though I really think Arthemis is a Logorrheaic Troll having a bit of fun with us, the language he uses in his first post is very red-neck, anti-female and reflecticve of the view many xian cults hold of women as being there strictly for the pleasure of men, the bearing of sons and keeping he kitchen well.

Perhaps not you personally Bug, but you certainly have to admit this reflects the history of xianity quite accurately.

That there are other religions with equal disdain for women is admitted, but we are pretty much discussing NA xianity here.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Subject: A Great Reminder

A man was being tailgated by a stressed-out woman on a busy boulevard. Suddenly, the light turned yellow, just in front of him. He did the right thing, stopping at the crosswalk, even though he could have beaten the red light by accelerating through the intersection.
The tailgating woman hit the roof, and the horn, screaming in frustration as she missed her chance to get through the intersection with him.
As she was still in mid-rant, she heard a tap on her window and looked up into the face of a very serious police officer. The officer ordered her to exit her car with her hands up. He took her to the police station where she was searched, fingerprinted, photographed, and placed in a cell.
After a couple of hours, a policeman approached the cell and opened the door. She was escorted back to the booking desk where the arresting officer was waiting with her personal belongings.
He said, "I'm very sorry for this mistake. You see, I pulled up behind your car while you were blowing your horn, flipping the guy off in front of you, and cussing a blue streak at him. I noticed the 'Choose Life' license plate holder, the 'What Would Jesus Do' bumper sticker, the 'Follow Me to Sunday School' bumper sticker, and the chrome-plated Christian fish emblem on the trunk. Naturally, I assumed you had stolen the car."

---

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

I was always of the opinion that Arthemis was a woman, D.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Second, I think that Arthemis' first post was just a tad sarcastic - but that may come from years of posts here at the Asylum.

In any event, I cannot imagine that Arthemis is part of the Xian right.

Again, I could be wrong.

*shrugs*

My bent brain....

The 'radical element' within the pro-lifer movement - those who injure, wound and kill people within the pro-choice movement via - bomings of abortion clinics - shooting Doctors and so on... this radical element practices, when they kill someone.. a 'Post' Full term abortion.

The merely injured and wounded have undergone a 'Post Partial Full term abortion.'

The children of women - who have carried to term being 'aborted' by the children of yet other women who also carried to term. How bloody wonderful is that?!

Of course 'Goverments' of all stripes and particularly those professing to having a god of some description on their side - run the biggest 'Post' full term abortion clinics in history. It's called war.

So I would urge all pro-lifers, from radical to merely fervent to, garner support from all the Mothers who've had their children aborted in war and make {B]that[/B] the issue.

When you stop that abortion clinic we'll talk about what's going on in the womb.

The point is that the pro-choice definition of live is conveniently superficial and ignorant.

And no White Hawk, I would not endorse such a thing.

Nor do I condone violence against abortion clinics' staff and at no time during this post have I ever 'incited' to this.

This blunt attack is but a shallow way of painting me some crazed terrorist because of my supposedly hateful, when in fact pathetic, rhetoric. Quite SAD, really... Perhaps labelling me (and those who feel the same on this matter) as such eases the strain on conscience. All pro-lifers are religion driven freaks, right?... Quite...

I've just completed downloading SciLab 3.0; after already having got FreeMat 1.10.

I believe the right to free speach (within common sense and decency boundaries) is inherent to all democratic societies, isn't it?

About tackling wars before we go anywhere near banning abortion. There people that condemnd war, murder, and violence in general. This is by no means the only thing anyone has their panties in a knot about.

quote:

---

The point is that the pro-choice definition of live is conveniently superficial and ignorant.

---

Blocks are mine

Could you maybe expand on that? Ignorant implies that we (Pro Choice) do not know about the definition of "live". Is this what you are implying?

Convieniently superficial?

Hardly.

quote:

---

This blunt attack is but a shallow way of painting me some crazed terrorist because of my supposedly hateful, when in fact pathetic, rhetoric.

---

Well SAD, glad to see you admit it with those last 4 words.

What you fundamentalist zealots love to, do is claim your right to free speech is infringed when anyone opposes youtr narrow-minded point of view.

This is an attempt at diverting the discussion from the point, which is; while you are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to force that opinion upon others.

It is this last statement which you all adamantly refuse to accept.

It is her body, her choice.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Well put Diogenes (a.k.a Etheist?) - the point, ultimately, is not whether it is widely accepted as moral or immoral, but whether anyone's opinion on this actually means anything in the grand scheme of things...

...coming back to the earlier argument that whether moral or not, it has to be legal. If it were not, it would still be sought/performed (as it has always been) and with consequences far worse than the flushing of a cluster of cells that may (or may not) be considered "life".

So the initial question, again, is redundant.

Moral or not:

Her body. Her Choice i.e.- "nobody else's"!

...and I think Arthemis was simply having a laugh. From the appalling type and meaningless babble of her? second post, I'd guess, possibly, bored pre-teen without a dictionary or spell-checker... teehee

Yup, Etheist...I posted the fact on another thread, had sign-in problems-refused to recognize my password, so had to re-register.

You are absolutley right.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

What sense of morals, Etheist? I don't think you have one.

Wow! Compelling argument SAD...

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzz....

Yah, I am crushed.

She clearly has no understanding of what Asimov said.

This comment from a 'woman?' who's idea of morality is to force others to live by somone elses narrow-minded beliefs based upon mythological beings and a collection of discredited old shepherd's tales.

Typical hypocrisy by those infected with religion.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Etheist, must be so cool quoting people all the time in sigs... How original!
Have you even read any of Asimiv's stuff?

And how am I even remotely hypocritical? Please expand.

Also, I'd wish you'd stop with the 'those infected with religion' cr*p. Lest I be forced to label you integrally brain dead, in return.

The day when we stop committing the most violent act against a defenseless human person in the womb, is when we as a society will begin to become a more peaceful loving society. When we show and teach young children (the future earthly decedents) that murdering life in the womb is OK, this gives them an ideology that persons are not as important in their individual make up to society.
On the course we are at now, in terms of the quality of life, we determine decisions on who's life is worth living in regard to the human embryo, the living sick and the elderly. Human potential in the womb are treated as mere expendables. And I think when present & future generations are taught that life in the womb is a worthless piece of human tissue, herein lies the problems in degeneration of society, and the moralities. The dignity of man is demoralized. So to me that's why we have so many crimes committed by young children, teens and young adults. Our schools are filled with crime. Look at Columbine. We have and will have more acts committed against humans when these persons enter society as adults. They believe, why treat persons with respect and dignity? Only when we teach our young that life in its very beginnings is priceless, sacred and matters to the living, then they will understand the meaning of life in its protection in the womb.

If your a believer in God who is the designer and sustainer of life, we know he sends us for a reason. I believe the one chosen to find the cure for cancer could of been long ago aborted or will be aborted. We must teach our children who use to be embryos themselves that they must be embryo friendly at all cost.

Jade, your last paragraph shocks me, I didn't think we had such similar beliefs, it really caught me off guard. I too believe that abortion is the reason we do not have a cure for cancer. My idea has a slight difference, I think that the person who would have found/will find the cure was/will be shot to death by a person who should have been aborted. Shocking the similarities in our thinking.

Dan @ Code Town

WM. That means you believe the innocent life is already found guilty in the womb before he arrives, therefore it should be terminated?

I found this artilce interesting regarding fetal protection. She wanted to have an aboriton. She can't be prosecuted, but he can. Does this make sense??

June 7, 2005, 6:13AM

Life sentence given for fetuses' deaths
Boyfriend found guilty under new fetal protection law
Associated Press

LUFKIN - An East Texas man accused of causing his teenage girlfriend to miscarry twins by stepping on her belly was convicted Monday of two counts of capital murder.

ADVERTISEMENT

Gerardo Flores, 19, who was prosecuted under the state's new fetal protection law, received an automatic life sentence.

Erica Basoria acknowledged asking Flores to help end her pregnancy, but the 17-year-old can't be prosecuted because of her legal right to abortion.

The defense contended that Basoria punched herself while Flores was stepping on her, making it impossible to tell who killed the twins.

The jury reached a verdict after deliberating four hours. Since prosecutors declined to seek the death penalty in the case, Flores received the automatic life sentence, Assistant District Attorney Art Bauereiss said. The facts were unusual, but the evidence supported a guilty finding, Bauereiss told The Lufkin Daily News.

He said Basoria's family was pleased with the jury's decision, but Basoria, who sobbed as she left the Angelina County Courthouse, had stood by Flores. "It's just tragedy all around," Flores' attorney Ryan Deaton told The Associated Press. "It's a tragedy my client's convicted, I've got nothing good to say about it."

Basoria told authorities that, after about four months of pregnancy, she regretted not getting an abortion and started jogging, skipping prenatal vitamins and hitting her own belly to induce a miscarriage. When her efforts failed, she said she asked her boyfriend to help.

Flores admitted in a taped statement to police that he stepped on Basoria's belly several times the week before she miscarried two boys. He said he punched her during a fight hours before the delivery.

(Edited by jade on 06-07-2005 20:40)

SAD I have read pretty much everything of Asimov's, except his hi-brow scientific stuff which is way beyond my simple mind.

He had an extremely high intellect and was an aetheist.

If you are incapable of seeing your hypocrisy, then you will be incapable of understanding my expplanation of it.

Label me as you wish, it will make no impression upon me.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)