PDA

View Full Version : "Use Murdered Children to Make up Shortage in Adult Transplant Organs "



megimoo
03-12-2009, 04:06 PM
Use Aborted Children to Make up Shortfall of Transplant Organs: Oxford Stem Cell Expert

- An Oxford University stem cell expert has urged the use of aborted children in organ transplants as a solution to the shortage of available organs. Sir Richard Gardner has called for a feasibility study on the possibility of obtaining organs from the bodies of aborted babies.He said, "It is probably a more realistic technique in dealing with the shortage of kidney donors than others."The Daily Mail reports that pro-life and Christian groups have called the proposal "morally abhorrent," and said it will result in abortions being timed to suit transplant patients. Dr Peter...


http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09031205.html

FlaGator
03-12-2009, 04:10 PM
Use Aborted Children to Make up Shortfall of Transplant Organs: Oxford Stem Cell Expert

- An Oxford University stem cell expert has urged the use of aborted children in organ transplants as a solution to the shortage of available organs. Sir Richard Gardner has called for a feasibility study on the possibility of obtaining organs from the bodies of aborted babies.He said, "It is probably a more realistic technique in dealing with the shortage of kidney donors than others."The Daily Mail reports that pro-life and Christian groups have called the proposal "morally abhorrent," and said it will result in abortions being timed to suit transplant patients. Dr Peter...


http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09031205.html

The pro-abortion crowd should be happy. Another reason to murder pre-people.

megimoo
03-12-2009, 04:32 PM
The pro-abortion crowd should be happy. Another reason to murder pre-people.When I first read of China's killing Falun Gong prisoners for their replacement organ program my first reaction was one of horror.

Butchering a human beings,prisoner or free, just to make a profit by any government is an abomination .
But the aborting an innocent and selling their organs will surely draw the wrath of GOD and America is Justifiably doomed if we allow/follow this policy .





Falun Gong in China:
Since 1999, reports of torture, illegal imprisonment, beatings, forced labor, and psychiatric abuses have been widespread. 66% of all reported torture cases in China concern Falun Gong practitioners, who are also estimated to comprise at least half of China's labor camp population, according to the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, and the US Department of State respectively. In 2006, human rights lawyer David Matas and ex-Canadian secretary of state David Kilgour published an investigative report concluding that a large number of Falun Gong practitioners have become victims of systematic organ harvesting in China and that the practice is still ongoing

FlaGator
03-12-2009, 04:58 PM
When I first read of China's killing Falun Gong prisoners for their replacement organ program my first reaction was one of horror.

Butchering a human being,prisoner or free, just to make a profit by any government is an abomination .
But the aborting an innocent and selling their organs will surely draw the wrath of GOD and America is Justifiably doomed if we allow/follow this policy .





Falun Gong in China:
Since 1999, reports of torture,[14] illegal imprisonment,[15] beatings, forced labor, and psychiatric abuses have been widespread. 66% of all reported torture cases in China concern Falun Gong practitioners, who are also estimated to comprise at least half of China's labor camp population, according to the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, and the US Department of State respectively.[16][17][18] In 2006, human rights lawyer David Matas and ex-Canadian secretary of state David Kilgour published an investigative report concluding that a large number of Falun Gong practitioners have become victims of systematic organ harvesting in China and that the practice is still ongoing[/SIZE]

This is what happens when morality is openly disregarded by a government and removed from the decision making process.

PoliCon
03-12-2009, 05:18 PM
Use Aborted Children to Make up Shortfall of Transplant Organs: Oxford Stem Cell Expert

- An Oxford University stem cell expert has urged the use of aborted children in organ transplants as a solution to the shortage of available organs. Sir Richard Gardner has called for a feasibility study on the possibility of obtaining organs from the bodies of aborted babies.He said, "It is probably a more realistic technique in dealing with the shortage of kidney donors than others."The Daily Mail reports that pro-life and Christian groups have called the proposal "morally abhorrent," and said it will result in abortions being timed to suit transplant patients. Dr Peter...


http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09031205.html

wow - super frightening.

MrsSmith
03-12-2009, 05:40 PM
You realize that parts from aborted children are sold now? Especially eyes, there is a huge market for them. I do believe that is still illegal in the US, but is not illegal everywhere.

PoliCon
03-12-2009, 05:50 PM
You realize that parts from aborted children are sold now? Especially eyes, there is a huge market for them. I do believe that is still illegal in the US, but is not illegal everywhere.

OH FUN do you have any links to information on that? I'd love to throw it in Bob Casey's face.

MrsSmith
03-12-2009, 06:25 PM
OH FUN do you have any links to information on that? I'd love to throw it in Bob Casey's face.

I haven't come up with much tonight...though I had quite a few on a thread a couple years ago. I'm sure it's long gone. Anyway...

Anti-abortion rights groups are questioning the ethics and morality of what they call "Frankenstein experiments" at UW Madison that use fetal tissue. It's perfectly legal for UW Madison to do the research but opponets of the research say it's gruesome business that should be publicly debated. (http://www.wrn.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=3AC611C0-6E05-469D-98CC9008691ECC2E)
Bowman says while it's illegal to buy and sell human body parts, processing or service fees are allowed when it comes to fetal body parts. One Illinois supplier of fetal tissue lists prices for various organs used in research - $999 for a brain, $150 for lungs and heart, $75 for an eye.

Some other info:

Aborted Babies' Tissue Used in Burn Experiment
Tests Show Treatment Led to Normal Skin Regrowth

Washington Post | August 18, 2005
By David Brown

An experimental therapy that uses skin cells grown from an aborted fetus successfully healed severe burns in eight children, sparing them the need for skin grafts, according to a study published today. (http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/aborted_babies_used_in_burn_experiment.htm)

===

Here in North Carolina, at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, the possibility of controversy surrounding aborted fetus-tissue research has limited the information made available to the public. There is reportedly a program to develop an artificial liver that is using, in part, fetal-tissue
>But not all schools have been able to maintain anonymity. At the University of Nebraska Medical Center, the brain cells of aborted fetuses being used in the study of Alzheimer's disease by researchers was reported in a local newspaper (http://www.ashevilletribune.com/archives/tissue/Universities.htm)

===

Tax-Funded Research Implants Aborted Fetal Tissue in Mice

American scientists are using tissue from aborted babies in genetically engineered mice to study how certain diseases are spread, and the experiments are being paid for with U.S. tax dollars.
(http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=7672&print=on)

=======

U.S. Vaccines Derived From Abortion (http://www.christianpatriot.com/vaccines.htm)

===

Transplantation of fetal eye cells may restore sight
>
The fetal cells, collected after a medically necessary, second-trimester abortion, were specially prepared and grown in the laboratory for use in transplantation. (http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/970206/cells.shtml)


I'm going to quit looking for now. This is making me sick.

PoliCon
03-12-2009, 10:42 PM
I haven't come up with much tonight...though I had quite a few on a thread a couple years ago. I'm sure it's long gone. Anyway...

Anti-abortion rights groups are questioning the ethics and morality of what they call "Frankenstein experiments" at UW Madison that use fetal tissue. It's perfectly legal for UW Madison to do the research but opponets of the research say it's gruesome business that should be publicly debated. (http://www.wrn.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=3AC611C0-6E05-469D-98CC9008691ECC2E)
Bowman says while it's illegal to buy and sell human body parts, processing or service fees are allowed when it comes to fetal body parts. One Illinois supplier of fetal tissue lists prices for various organs used in research - $999 for a brain, $150 for lungs and heart, $75 for an eye.

Some other info:

Aborted Babies' Tissue Used in Burn Experiment
Tests Show Treatment Led to Normal Skin Regrowth

Washington Post | August 18, 2005
By David Brown

An experimental therapy that uses skin cells grown from an aborted fetus successfully healed severe burns in eight children, sparing them the need for skin grafts, according to a study published today. (http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/aborted_babies_used_in_burn_experiment.htm)

===

Here in North Carolina, at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, the possibility of controversy surrounding aborted fetus-tissue research has limited the information made available to the public. There is reportedly a program to develop an artificial liver that is using, in part, fetal-tissue
>But not all schools have been able to maintain anonymity. At the University of Nebraska Medical Center, the brain cells of aborted fetuses being used in the study of Alzheimer's disease by researchers was reported in a local newspaper (http://www.ashevilletribune.com/archives/tissue/Universities.htm)

===

Tax-Funded Research Implants Aborted Fetal Tissue in Mice

American scientists are using tissue from aborted babies in genetically engineered mice to study how certain diseases are spread, and the experiments are being paid for with U.S. tax dollars.
(http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=7672&print=on)

=======

U.S. Vaccines Derived From Abortion (http://www.christianpatriot.com/vaccines.htm)

===

Transplantation of fetal eye cells may restore sight
>
The fetal cells, collected after a medically necessary, second-trimester abortion, were specially prepared and grown in the laboratory for use in transplantation. (http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/970206/cells.shtml)


I'm going to quit looking for now. This is making me sick.more than enough. Thank you.

micmac
03-13-2009, 03:30 PM
That is horrible. :(

Lanie
03-14-2009, 12:52 PM
The pro-abortion crowd should be happy. Another reason to murder pre-people.

Murder is not their goal.

Lanie
03-14-2009, 01:00 PM
I've been for stem cell research because they're just cells. Heck, it still has the ability to turn into twins, tripilets, etc. It can't be an individual, and if it was, we need to outlaw hormonal birth control.

But something about using actual aborted fetuses bothers me. Miscarried fetuses might not be so bad if the parents give permission, but something about purposely terminating the pregnancy and then using it makes me think of it as saying their life isn't worth anything. I wouldn't have said that years ago. I'm getting old.

FlaGator
03-14-2009, 01:24 PM
Murder is not their goal.

But that is the end result...

PoliCon
03-14-2009, 05:13 PM
Murder is not their goal.Then what is their goal? Turning out children into a cattle?

PoliCon
03-14-2009, 05:14 PM
I've been for stem cell research because they're just cells. Heck, it still has the ability to turn into twins, tripilets, etc. It can't be an individual, and if it was, we need to outlaw hormonal birth control.

But something about using actual aborted fetuses bothers me. Miscarried fetuses might not be so bad if the parents give permission, but something about purposely terminating the pregnancy and then using it makes me think of it as saying their life isn't worth anything. I wouldn't have said that years ago. I'm getting old.

Trouble is - all of the BEST work has been done using ADULT stem cells. But adult stem cells don't help further the cause of abortion so - the press is relatively silent on the issue. :mad:

Lanie
03-14-2009, 06:19 PM
Then what is their goal? Turning out children into a cattle?

Whether one personally is pro-life or thinks the baby isn't a person yet, people who believe abortion should be legal typically believe in not creating a situation where women feel trapped. No situations where one gets themselves butchered. No situations where somebody tells their abusive husband their pregnant, and then spend the next so many months getting an increase of beatings because the husband thinks she cheated. Even in states that have parental consent laws, a minor can typically go before a judge and argue it's not safe to tell their parents about the pregnancy. If the judge buys it, they can go through with the abortion in some cases. Then you got the poor. These people often go without healthcare. Their only chance to a point is to get out of poverty. A pregnancy can hurt all those chances.

I'm not going to say in this thread that abortion should be legal, but I am going to say that if you want any chance at all of defeating the pro-choice side, you need to know them. This stuff being told on anti-abortion websites is often not an accurate portrayal of pro-choicers. They "pro-life" movement has a tactic of trying to demonize the other side as being non-human. That's convincing for those who don't know the other side. For those who do know the other side, it's bullshit. You want to stop abortion from being legal? Start addressing the issues that led out to it.
Want to actually stop abortion? (Notice I label that as different from having a law against it). Do something about the traps women are finding themselves in so they don't want an abortion as often. Do something about poverty. Do something about domestic violence. Do something about it. Don't just condemn women. Do something.

Lanie
03-14-2009, 06:20 PM
Trouble is - all of the BEST work has been done using ADULT stem cells. But adult stem cells don't help further the cause of abortion so - the press is relatively silent on the issue. :mad:

I haven't seen any real evidence of that, but I don't have a problem using adult stem cells.

Mythic
03-14-2009, 06:54 PM
Do something about the traps women are finding themselves in so they don't want an abortion as often. Do something about poverty. Do something about domestic violence. Do something about it. Don't just condemn women. Do something.
Poverty? Instead of having sex try to get a job. It may often be very difficult, but jobs are out there.
Domestic violence? Get a divorce or report your husband to the police.
If the woman doesn't want a pregnancy, she can decline to have sex. The woman will have no need to have an abortion if she abstains from sex. Having sex wont rid her of her domestic violence or poverty.

PoliCon
03-14-2009, 07:20 PM
I haven't seen any real evidence of that, but I don't have a problem using adult stem cells.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html you might want to read more then.

PoliCon
03-14-2009, 07:32 PM
Whether one personally is pro-life or thinks the baby isn't a person yet, people who believe abortion should be legal typically believe in not creating a situation where women feel trapped. Are you then excusing the womans roll and the roll of her own choices in coming to these "situations" where they feel trapped? It's hard to believe that they got trapped without some heavy complicity in the process.


No situations where one gets themselves butchered. splain.


No situations where somebody tells their abusive husband their pregnant, and then spend the next so many months getting an increase of beatings because the husband thinks she cheated. Should have thunk twice before marrying the bastard shouldn't she.


Even in states that have parental consent laws, a minor can typically go before a judge and argue it's not safe to tell their parents about the pregnancy. If the judge buys it, they can go through with the abortion in some cases. Then they shouldn't be doing things that are going to get them pregnant.


Then you got the poor. These people often go without healthcare. Their only chance to a point is to get out of poverty. A pregnancy can hurt all those chances. There is a clear and easy path out of poverty. I know. It's through hard work, education, and self control. Don't blame me or society because you or someone else falls short. And the only way that people are going to develope those three things is if they can see the value and the consequences of their choices.


I'm not going to say in this thread that abortion should be legal, but I am going to say that if you want any chance at all of defeating the pro-choice side, you need to know them. I know the pro-abortion side through and through. I have a left wing feminazi for a mother. There is a reason why politics and abortion are banned topics at our family gatherings . . . .


This stuff being told on anti-abortion websites is often not an accurate portrayal of pro-choicers. Specifically?


They "pro-life" movement has a tactic of trying to demonize the other side as being non-human.BULLSHIT. Calling abortion inhuman is not demonizing the otherside as inhuman.


That's convincing for those who don't know the other side. For those who do know the other side, it's bullshit. You want to stop abortion from being legal? Start addressing the issues that led out to it. Already do.



Want to actually stop abortion? (Notice I label that as different from having a law against it). Do something about the traps women are finding themselves in so they don't want an abortion as often. Do something about poverty. Do something about domestic violence. Do something about it. There are crisis pregnancy centers all over. I know. I help to support one financially myself. Trouble is - people don't want help. They want the easy way out. THAT's the key here. Not that there isn't help - that there isn't support - but that people want things to be easy and they want to be able to avoid and deny responsibility for their choices.


Don't just condemn women. Do something.Who has condemned women? You people on the left need to learn the difference between condemning someones choices and condemning the person.

PoliCon
03-14-2009, 07:35 PM
Get a divorce or report your husband to the police.lets do one better - get to know the guy before you start screwing him. It's pretty clear from how a guy deals with situations and events what kind of man he is. If women would THINK half as much as they FEEL - there would be far fewer chances of them finding themselves in situations where this kind of thing is a problem.

Lanie
03-15-2009, 12:46 AM
Are you then excusing the womans roll and the roll of her own choices in coming to these "situations" where they feel trapped? It's hard to believe that they got trapped without some heavy complicity in the process.
splain.
Should have thunk twice before marrying the bastard shouldn't she.
Then they shouldn't be doing things that are going to get them pregnant.
There is a clear and easy path out of poverty. I know. It's through hard work, education, and self control. Don't blame me or society because you or someone else falls short. And the only way that people are going to develope those three things is if they can see the value and the consequences of their choices.
I know the pro-abortion side through and through. I have a left wing feminazi for a mother. There is a reason why politics and abortion are banned topics at our family gatherings . . . .
Specifically? BULLSHIT. Calling abortion inhuman is not demonizing the otherside as inhuman. Already do.
There are crisis pregnancy centers all over. I know. I help to support one financially myself. Trouble is - people don't want help. They want the easy way out. THAT's the key here. Not that there isn't help - that there isn't support - but that people want things to be easy and they want to be able to avoid and deny responsibility for their choices.

Who has condemned women? You people on the left need to learn the difference between condemning someones choices and condemning the person.


I know you are too smart to be blaming women for marrying abusive husbands. I bet even some of the conservative women reading got offended by that junk. :mad:

Abusive men often wear a mask until they think they're safe, which goes to prove their abuse isn't really about "losing control".

While I don't think abortion is necessarily the answer for getting out of poverty, I don't think condemning people for having sex and trying to teach them a lesson is either. One problem I have with conservative ideas is that it's like "Here's your chance. If you screw up one time, too bad. You don't deserve a second chance". I think people should be given a chance to straighten their life out if they've made a mess out of it. Why? Because condemning isn't doing any good.

You say you're not condemning, but some of that surely sounded condemning.

I could go on and on and on and on and on about the inaccurate information given from the anti-abortion activist groups. Problem is I'm scared to. I just spoke in an abortion related thread. I'm just lucky I haven't been ripped apart yet. I think I need to stop while I"m ahead. I'll read more of your link though.

Lanie
03-15-2009, 12:49 AM
lets do one better - get to know the guy before you start screwing him. It's pretty clear from how a guy deals with situations and events what kind of man he is. If women would THINK half as much as they FEEL - there would be far fewer chances of them finding themselves in situations where this kind of thing is a problem.

What gender are you again, and how much personal experience do you have with this subject?

My sister married a wonderful man. He was one that everybody could get along with. He sang to her. He got a tattoo with her name on it. He took her out. He actually treated her pretty good for the most part. Then, they got married. Everything changed. :(

And the odd thing is everybody spoke about how nice he was at first. You think it's so easy to pick an abuser out of a crowd? That goes to show you don't know much if anything about the subject. Abusers hide their true selves very well. Then, they'll claim they abuse because of a "lack of control".

PoliCon
03-15-2009, 12:59 AM
I know you are too smart to be blaming women for marrying abusive husbands. I bet even some of the conservative women reading got offended by that junk. :mad: I'm not blaming women alone - no. But neither am I excusing them for their part in it.


Abusive men often wear a mask until they think they're safe, which goes to prove their abuse isn't really about "losing control". No it's about keeping control - over the person. Something you can sniff out nine times out of ten without needing to marry the person first. Control freaks are easy to spot.


While I don't think abortion is necessarily the answer for getting out of poverty, I don't think condemning people for having sex and trying to teach them a lesson is either. You just don't wanna get it do you? It's not about condemning or punishing this one or that one. It's about taking responsibility for your choices from the get go. You don't screw someone without first thinking it through. Am I willing to have a child with this person? Or am I so shallow and selfish that all I want is to get my rocks off??


One problem I have with conservative ideas is that it's like "Here's your chance. If you screw up one time, too bad. You don't deserve a second chance". BULLSHIT. COnservatives are all about second chances. What we don't believe in necessarily are DO OVERS. You don't get to say OH SHIT! I DIDN'T MEAN FOR THIS TO HAPPEN. CAN I GET A DO OVER?


I think people should be given a chance to straighten their life out if they've made a mess out of it. Why? Because condemning isn't doing any good. You keep trying to make this about condemning the person - and the only one I see even suggesting that - is YOU! lol.


You say you're not condemning, but some of that surely sounded condemning. Being responsible is condemning? :rolleyes: I look at these situations as more of a - you screwed up - so now what are you going to do to make it right kind of learning experience. Killing a baby doesn't make things right - it's a denial of responsibility for the choices the person has made. How does that help? It doesn't. I builds a pattern of irresponsibility.


I could go on and on and on and on and on about the inaccurate information given from the anti-abortion activist groups. as opposed to the completely unbiased and accurate stuff the pro-abortion people put out?? Facts are facts lanie. Over 90% of abortions are done for purely selfish reasons - a desire for a do over.


Problem is I'm scared to. lol scared of what?


I just spoke in an abortion related thread. I'm just lucky I haven't been ripped apart yet.BAH. This isn't DU. Go through and read the abortion threads here. They are almost universally civil. We're not the hate filled monsters you guys on the left want to paint us out to be. Sorry to disappoint. :p


I think I need to stop while I"m ahead. I'll read more of your link though.Suit yourself.

PoliCon
03-15-2009, 01:10 AM
What gender are you again, and how much personal experience do you have with this subject? Are you seriously going to make the appeal that you have to be a woman to have an opinion on this?? What a losers argument. :rolleyes: Personal experience? When I was a teenager I was repeatedly raped and abused. My girl friend ended up pregnant - don't worry. It wasn't mine. It was her fathers. He would just rape her when he was drunk. My father was horribly abusive. My mother left him when she started fearing for MY life - when he nearly beat me to death. Do I need to spill out more to prove that my opinions are valid enough? :mad:


My sister married a wonderful man. He was one that everybody could get along with. bad sign. Good people don't get alone with everyone.

He sang to her. He got a tattoo with her name on it. Bad sign.
He took her out. He actually treated her pretty good for the most part.for the most part??? lol please.
Then, they got married. Everything changed. :( Obviously not EVERYTHING since as you said he only " treated her pretty good for the most part." Like I said - THINK rather than FEEL.


And the odd thing is everybody spoke about how nice he was at first. You think it's so easy to pick an abuser out of a crowd? It usually is if you have ever been abused. I can often smell them a mile away. More importantly I can smell those that have been abused 10 miles away.


That goes to show you don't know much if anything about the subject. Abusers hide their true selves very well.nope. Sorry. They don't. What they are good at doing is getting people to feel things about them and not to think about them or their character. Abusers like emotions. They play to them.


Then, they'll claim they abuse because of a "lack of control".It is a lack of control. They lack control and they intend to get it through beating the other person into submission.

Lanie
03-15-2009, 09:09 PM
Are you seriously going to make the appeal that you have to be a woman to have an opinion on this?? What a losers argument. :rolleyes: Personal experience? When I was a teenager I was repeatedly raped and abused. My girl friend ended up pregnant - don't worry. It wasn't mine. It was her fathers. He would just rape her when he was drunk. My father was horribly abusive. My mother left him when she started fearing for MY life - when he nearly beat me to death. Do I need to spill out more to prove that my opinions are valid enough? :mad:
bad sign. Good people don't get alone with everyone. Bad sign. for the most part??? lol please. Obviously not EVERYTHING since as you said he only " treated her pretty good for the most part." Like I said - THINK rather than FEEL.
It usually is if you have ever been abused. I can often smell them a mile away. More importantly I can smell those that have been abused 10 miles away. nope. Sorry. They don't. What they are good at doing is getting people to feel things about them and not to think about them or their character. Abusers like emotions. They play to them.
It is a lack of control. They lack control and they intend to get it through beating the other person into submission.

I'm sorry to hear about the abuse you went through. :(

How is getting a tattoo and being overly nice a "bad sign"?

I can only think of two or three things this guy did that sort of sets an alarm off before they were married(and one of them had nothing to do with how he treats women, but his character in general). I suppose one could argue those three events should have been enough. Nobody got hit, but it would raise an eyebrowl.

I think I'm pretty good at spotting an abuser too. I've stepped away from men (and boys when I was in high school) because they showed "the signs". I sometimes wonder if I didn't overprotect myself though in light of my current situation. I think a lot of people fear being "alone" because they are "too picky", but it's really better to be alone in some cases.

CueSi
03-15-2009, 10:48 PM
The tat is a form of emotional manipulation. I'm betting your sister didn't ask for it, Lanie. Maybe it's just me, but when a dude says he'll ink himself for you. . .it seems like he's putting the ladies tag of ownership on her body, but he's putting the tag of his ownership on her mind.

~QC

PoliCon
03-15-2009, 11:33 PM
How is getting a tattoo and being overly nice a "bad sign"? CueSi - covered the Tat. The overly nice part is a sign that the person is in the practice of being false and is wearing a facade.

AHeneen
03-15-2009, 11:34 PM
Away from all the bickering, at least the people of So. CA and Texas would only have a short drive across the border to pick out their new organ! :D :eek:

MrsSmith
03-16-2009, 09:00 PM
Whether one personally is pro-life or thinks the baby isn't a person yet, people who believe abortion should be legal typically believe in not creating a situation where women feel trapped. No situations where one gets themselves butchered. No situations where somebody tells their abusive husband their pregnant, and then spend the next so many months getting an increase of beatings because the husband thinks she cheated. Even in states that have parental consent laws, a minor can typically go before a judge and argue it's not safe to tell their parents about the pregnancy. If the judge buys it, they can go through with the abortion in some cases. Then you got the poor. These people often go without healthcare. Their only chance to a point is to get out of poverty. A pregnancy can hurt all those chances.

I'm not going to say in this thread that abortion should be legal, but I am going to say that if you want any chance at all of defeating the pro-choice side, you need to know them. This stuff being told on anti-abortion websites is often not an accurate portrayal of pro-choicers. They "pro-life" movement has a tactic of trying to demonize the other side as being non-human. That's convincing for those who don't know the other side. For those who do know the other side, it's bullshit. You want to stop abortion from being legal? Start addressing the issues that led out to it.
Want to actually stop abortion? (Notice I label that as different from having a law against it). Do something about the traps women are finding themselves in so they don't want an abortion as often. Do something about poverty. Do something about domestic violence. Do something about it. Don't just condemn women. Do something.
I hope you realize that your entire position is bogus. There was not one issue in your post that would make murdering a child acceptable after birth, so why would it make it acceptable before birth? Speaking as one who has "been there, done that," I can guarantee that murdering the baby is NEVER the correct answer.

Aside from that, the pro-life crowd does far more than the pro-death crowd to save both babies and mothers. Everything from Pregnancy Resource Centers that help from the test to long after the birth, shelters for women (and children) escaping domestic violence, food pantries, etc. etc. IN ADDITION to the the taxes paid by pro-life people. If libs put their money where their mouths instead of just expecting "the rich" to cover the bills, far more could be done to reduce the excuses used for murder.

noonwitch
03-17-2009, 07:34 AM
Back to the original subject-my sister donated umbilical cords for stem cells after each of her children's births. I don't know anything about what kind of research has been done with umbilical cells, but it is a way to get donated stem cells that doesn't involve abortion.

Mythic
03-17-2009, 06:16 PM
Back to the original subject-my sister donated umbilical cords for stem cells after each of her children's births. I don't know anything about what kind of research has been done with umbilical cells, but it is a way to get donated stem cells that doesn't involve abortion.
I don't think stem cell research is wrong if it doesn't involve killing someone (a fetus included).

Unfortunately I have to comment in the other argument sorry...


While I don't think abortion is necessarily the answer for getting out of poverty, I don't think condemning people for having sex and trying to teach them a lesson is either.

How would abortion ever be the answer to get out of poverty? What do you mean "necessarily"? If you are poor and get pregnant you wont have a boost in social status if you have an abortion. And the pro-life side does not condemn the women. Nobody advoctates that. What is advocated is that women AND men (it is not a feminist issue, sorry) abstain from sex if they do not want children. You think of "teaching a lesson" the wrong way. When you were young, if you had good parents, you would be in some way punished for, say, hitting a kid at school. They would teach you a lesson (not in the sense of beating you) and advise you on how not to do what you did again.


One problem I have with conservative ideas is that it's like "Here's your chance. If you screw up one time, too bad. You don't deserve a second chance".
Uh-oh. You have fallen victim to the leftist made-up pro-life arguments. Nobody tells women that if they screw up, too bad. The Pro-Life movement actually has many ways of helping women before, during, and after pregnancies. The pro-choice side says that the best help is to simply kill the baby and try to forget about it. And a chance at what? Conservatives are all about trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies. If a pregnancy occurs they simply advise women not to kill their baby because that is clearly not the right choice. There are plenty of facilities that aim to help women in situations they did not want to be a part of.


I think people should be given a chance to straighten their life out if they've made a mess out of it. Why? Because condemning isn't doing any good.
First of all...nobody is condemning women. Liberals tell you that conservatives are condemning them, but we don't. We care greatly for the women, and we know how tough her situation is. Of course people should be able to straighten out there life. Who would disagree with that? You argue against phantom points made up by the Pro-Choice movement to make the right seem heartless.

Lanie
03-18-2009, 08:52 PM
I don't think stem cell research is wrong if it doesn't involve killing someone (a fetus included).

Unfortunately I have to comment in the other argument sorry...

How would abortion ever be the answer to get out of poverty? What do you mean "necessarily"? If you are poor and get pregnant you wont have a boost in social status if you have an abortion. And the pro-life side does not condemn the women. Nobody advoctates that. What is advocated is that women AND men (it is not a feminist issue, sorry) abstain from sex if they do not want children. You think of "teaching a lesson" the wrong way. When you were young, if you had good parents, you would be in some way punished for, say, hitting a kid at school. They would teach you a lesson (not in the sense of beating you) and advise you on how not to do what you did again.


Uh-oh. You have fallen victim to the leftist made-up pro-life arguments. Nobody tells women that if they screw up, too bad. The Pro-Life movement actually has many ways of helping women before, during, and after pregnancies. The pro-choice side says that the best help is to simply kill the baby and try to forget about it. And a chance at what? Conservatives are all about trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies. If a pregnancy occurs they simply advise women not to kill their baby because that is clearly not the right choice. There are plenty of facilities that aim to help women in situations they did not want to be a part of.


First of all...nobody is condemning women. Liberals tell you that conservatives are condemning them, but we don't. We care greatly for the women, and we know how tough her situation is. Of course people should be able to straighten out there life. Who would disagree with that? You argue against phantom points made up by the Pro-Choice movement to make the right seem heartless.

I don't really agree with this concept that it's society's job to punish women and teach them a lesson. One lie from the right is that abortion is some easy and convenient choice. IT'S NOT. Many women don't really want to have an abortion. Heck, I remember reading years ago that a lot of the women who do this in some of the other countries are married. What did *they* do wrong? Abortion is surgery. There's nothing convenient about surgery. Abortion costs a lot of money. Not convenient. The most "convenient" thing for women would be not to be pregnant in the first place.

Abortion does not get women out of poverty. However, if a woman is trying to get out of poverty and she has a baby, her opportunities to get out of poverty are much more limited. It's harder to finish school (which helps to get a good paying job for many). Employers will discriminate against pregnant women. And here's the funny thing. When women try to say they shouldn't have to choose between their job and their unborn baby, it's normally liberals who side with them. Conservatives often argue that the company should have a right to do what they want to, and that government shouldn't interfere. So which side is helping pregnant women who want to keep their babies here?

The Pro-life Pregnancy Resource Centers. I'll cut to the chase. Pro-choicers and some of the people who have been to those centers say the aim is to get them to give up their baby. You know how you say choicers are all about the abortion choice? Well, the accusation against the pro-life centers is that they're trying to get women to give up their babies as if *that* is their only choice.

I know for a fact that most pro-choicers are not all about the abortion choice because I've met several of them. Even the hardliner activists. I know what they're actually like. I once heard of one who suggested to a woman that she not have an abortion because it wouldn't be right *for her*. The idea that they're only for the abortion choice is a lie the "pro-life" movement made up. (I said they lie. This is one of their lies). Some of them may be a little bit zealous about their politics, but they normally don't prefer abortion. In my entire life, I've met several pro-choicers and only met two who actually had a preference to abortion. I knew another woman who was offensively close to that position, but not quite there.

You say you don't condemn women. That's great. It certainly feels that way, especially when you talk about how society needs to "punish" people.

Lanie
03-18-2009, 09:03 PM
Oh, and for those of you who have known me for forever and a day, I'm personally pro-life now. I say personally because I don't know what political position I should be taking. Most people agree that exceptions should be made for the mother's life. I know for a fact that a woman's life is in danger a lot more often than medically diagnosed. It's hard to explain. My change of heart all started when I started working with Special Ed kids. There are different levels of kids in Special Ed. Some of them have very mild problems. Some of them have very severe problems. Some of them will never be able to take care of themselves or hold down a job. At the same time, they all have their own personalities. All I could think was that if they were a fetus, it would be considered "okay" to terminate the pregnancy. I see people who say they're pro-life talk about how they would make an exception if the baby were retarded. That offends me. They're people too. We always hear about the retarded or Autistic kid who got too violent or something in the media. In reality, a lot of them are really sweet. When they learn right, a lot of them actually behave a lot better than "normal" kids. They'll accept each other's differences in a way that we don't. I think they offer a lot more than people realize to the human race. And yet there are ideas that say that it's okay to kill them if they're unborn. They're are even ideas that one is better off not existing than to live that way. Who are we to make that choice?

Obviously, that's one of the most uncommon reasons for abortion, but the whole thing made me think more about the value of life. So I actually agree with a lot of you all now a days. I still don't like how the pro-life movement does things though. It's wrong on so many levels. I realize some of you all are still offended at my current status. Just consider that it's less "offensive" than before. Maybe?

Mythic
03-19-2009, 12:26 AM
I don't really agree with this concept that it's society's job to punish women and teach them a lesson.
Well good, thats not the philosophy. You are completely missing the point.

One lie from the right is that abortion is some easy and convenient choice. IT'S NOT.
Abortion is not an easy choice. The right advocates having an abortion is favored because it is easier to have an abortion that to go through a pregnacny.


Employers will discriminate against pregnant women. And here's the funny thing. When women try to say they shouldn't have to choose between their job and their unborn baby, it's normally liberals who side with them. Conservatives often argue that the company should have a right to do what they want to, and that government shouldn't interfere. So which side is helping pregnant women who want to keep their babies here?
What right does the government have to force companies to hire pregnant women? Are you suggesting that most women who work and are pregnant get fired? That is not true at all.

The Pro-life Pregnancy Resource Centers. I'll cut to the chase. Pro-choicers and some of the people who have been to those centers say the aim is to get them to give up their baby. You know how you say choicers are all about the abortion choice? Well, the accusation against the pro-life centers is that they're trying to get women to give up their babies as if *that* is their only choice.
Well, if the woman is going to complain about how she will be in greater poverty with a child, it is best for both the child and the mother to give the baby up for adoption. Thats the hard choice the woman has to make. If the woman does not want a baby giving the baby up for adoption is pretty much the choice she will have to make. Abortion will kill it, and that is wrong.

Some of them may be a little bit zealous about their politics, but they normally don't prefer abortion. In my entire life, I've met several pro-choicers and only met two who actually had a preference to abortion. I knew another woman who was offensively close to that position, but not quite there.
The point is that killing should never be a legal choice. It doesn't matter how often someone says they are for abortion, if they are pro-choice they are pro-abortion.

You say you don't condemn women. That's great. It certainly feels that way, especially when you talk about how society needs to "punish" people.
When did I say that women should be punished? Are you referring to my child punishment reference? If somebody does something wrong, they should be told not to do it again...if a kid constantly bullies another kid a parent must tell the kid what they did is wrong...
A baby isn't a punishment. It is simply the natural result of a pregnancy.

see people who say they're pro-life talk about how they would make an exception if the baby were retarded. That offends me.
Any one who says something like that is definately not pro-life, no matter what they say. It offends me too.

Who are we to make that choice?
Well thats great that you are personally pro-life. I don't understand why you are arguing against me though...:confused:

Odysseus
03-19-2009, 10:36 AM
The issue here is that there will be even more of a profit motive to abort fetuses, and that this will encourage more abortions, especially late term, when the organs are more fully developed. The worst part is that, if the prices are high enough, some women will get pregnant in order to harvest the fetal organs. This has to be stopped now.

Gingersnap
03-19-2009, 10:46 AM
Obviously, that's one of the most uncommon reasons for abortion, but the whole thing made me think more about the value of life. So I actually agree with a lot of you all now a days. I still don't like how the pro-life movement does things though. It's wrong on so many levels. I realize some of you all are still offended at my current status. Just consider that it's less "offensive" than before. Maybe?

Welcome to the fold, Bridget. It's a complex and sometimes painful position to advocate for the unborn but the big moral issues often are painful. It's difficult to counsel a raped woman to live with a horrifically unwanted pregnancy until she can give the child into adoption. It's hard to tell a pregnant woman that the tests might be wrong and her child might be fine or fine "as is" - she'll have to wait and see.

In the end on purely pragmatic grounds, if a culture can't or won't protect its most vulnerable members, you can bet that it will eventually fail to protect the next most vulnerable members (and the next and the next...). ;)

Lanie
03-19-2009, 07:01 PM
Well good, thats not the philosophy. You are completely missing the point.

Abortion is not an easy choice. The right advocates having an abortion is favored because it is easier to have an abortion that to go through a pregnacny.


What right does the government have to force companies to hire pregnant women? Are you suggesting that most women who work and are pregnant get fired? That is not true at all.

Well, if the woman is going to complain about how she will be in greater poverty with a child, it is best for both the child and the mother to give the baby up for adoption. Thats the hard choice the woman has to make. If the woman does not want a baby giving the baby up for adoption is pretty much the choice she will have to make. Abortion will kill it, and that is wrong.

The point is that killing should never be a legal choice. It doesn't matter how often someone says they are for abortion, if they are pro-choice they are pro-abortion.

When did I say that women should be punished? Are you referring to my child punishment reference? If somebody does something wrong, they should be told not to do it again...if a kid constantly bullies another kid a parent must tell the kid what they did is wrong...
A baby isn't a punishment. It is simply the natural result of a pregnancy.

Any one who says something like that is definately not pro-life, no matter what they say. It offends me too.

Well thats great that you are personally pro-life. I don't understand why you are arguing against me though...:confused:

Why am I arguing against you? I think this started as me speaking in favor of stem cell research (because I don't think a fertilized egg is an individual since it can divide). I later told Policon that the anti-abortion movement lies. I can't remember where you came in. I guess I'm arguing with you because the anti-abortion movement is taking a lot of wrong approaches. It's not just abortion. I don't trust the anti-war movement either anymore. Some activist movements just have a bunch of horrible tactics, and I see people falling for them.

If a woman is poor, why should her only options be abortion or adoption?

PoliCon
03-19-2009, 07:11 PM
I later told Policon that the anti-abortion movement lies. you told me the lies the pro-abortionists believe about pro-lifers.

Lanie
03-19-2009, 07:11 PM
Welcome to the fold, Bridget. It's a complex and sometimes painful position to advocate for the unborn but the big moral issues often are painful. It's difficult to counsel a raped woman to live with a horrifically unwanted pregnancy until she can give the child into adoption. It's hard to tell a pregnant woman that the tests might be wrong and her child might be fine or fine "as is" - she'll have to wait and see.

In the end on purely pragmatic grounds, if a culture can't or won't protect its most vulnerable members, you can bet that it will eventually fail to protect the next most vulnerable members (and the next and the next...). ;)

Well, I wouldn't say I go that far. I once knew a woman who got raped. He ended up with migraines so bad that her Catholic doctor suggested an abortion to save her life (the migraines from the concept of giving birth to a baby conceived in rape were that bad for her). I'm still thinking I don't really know what it's like to be in *that* woman's shoes.

I just think that the value of life is being degraded. During the Palin drama, I heard ideas saying she was immoral to give birth to that baby with Downs Syndrom. What? I've heard of arguments that Euthanasia should be done in cases other than fatal diseases. Why is it that if the baby is born early, the parents are being asked if they give permission to save the baby? I suppose it can be argued that it's a parental consent issue, and that the same applies to any medical treatment of a minor. I've always thought though that if the child's life depends on something, the doctors should just do it. Need a blood transfusion? Do it. Who cares if the parents are JWs? Anyway, back to babies born with problems, I'm wondering if the parents would still be asked for consent if the baby wasn't just born.

And once those who are different are born, there's a debate about what to do with them. Can they be with the rest of society or should they be shut off? Can they contribute anything to society?

I could rant on and on. I just think there's a big problem with not understanding the value of life at times.

Lanie
03-19-2009, 07:18 PM
you told me the lies the pro-abortionists believe about pro-lifers.

That too. I wouldn't completely agree it's all lies though, not about the activists anyway.

Policon, do you really believe abortion causes breast cancer? Research shows that's probably not the case.

Do you really believe that most women who have an abortion suffer from PASS? Research shows most women do not suffer from depression after an abortion. The ones who do suffer often had problems beforehand (so it wasn't completely the abortion). I won't deny that PASS exists, but it's not nearly as bad as the anti-abortion movement makes it out to be.

Do you really believe the abortion clinics are all about getting money for abortions? People forget those places often also do checkups for the mom to be, give exams for birth control, etc. It would cost more money to get the woman to come in for checkups during a pregnancy.

Do you really believe the baby has awareness before the third or the end of the second trimester? They don't. Anything outside of a pro-life source will tell you that.

Do you really believe that most pro-choicers are all about pushing girls into having abortions? No, most of them are not.

Oh, and have you ever heard of Human Life International? Looks all virtuous from the outside. Some research shows they actually have a serious problem with of course liberals, Jews, and Muslims. And yet many prolife groups will claim them. I'm not even going to say which leftist group HLI reminds me of at the moment.

Hon, that movement has a lot of stink to it. It needs to reform.

PoliCon
03-19-2009, 07:27 PM
That too.

Policon, do you really believe abortion causes breast cancer? Research shows that's probably not the case. probably? And which researchers? Planned Parenthood? :p


Do you really believe that most women who have an abortion suffer from PASS? Enough of them do that it's an issue.


Research shows most women do not suffer from depression after an abortion. The ones who do suffer often had problems beforehand (so it wasn't completely the abortion). I won't deny that PASS exists, but it's not nearly as bad as the anti-abortion movement makes it out to be. Good point. Most women who get abortions are heartless sluts. :p Well not all of them - but enough that I could make a stereotype out of it.


Do you really believe the abortion clinics are all about getting money for abortions?Nah. Mostly they are about Eugenics.


People forget those places often also do checkups for the mom to be, give exams for birth control, etc. It would cost more money to get the woman to come in for checkups during a pregnancy. Because abortion clinics are the only place you can get this done right? :rolleyes:


Do you really believe the baby has awareness before the third or the end of the second trimester? They don't. Anything outside of a pro-life source will tell you that. And you know this for sure? Proof?


Do you really believe that most pro-choicers are all about pushing girls into having abortions? No, most of them are not. Nah. Not all of them. Actually most pro-choicers think that the majority of abortions are for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.


Oh, and have you ever heard of Human Life International? Looks all virtuous from the outside. Some research shows they actually have a serious problem with of course liberals, Jews, and Muslims. And yet many prolife groups will claim them. I'm not even going to say which leftist group HLI reminds me of at the moment. Never heard of them and I don't go around claiming organizations. I'm not a person who lives eats and breathes the abortion issue. Sorry if that's a problem :p


Hon, that movement has a lot of stink to it. It needs to reform.Movement? Meh. Lets get past movements and deal with realities.

MrsSmith
03-19-2009, 07:31 PM
Why am I arguing against you? I think this started as me speaking in favor of stem cell research (because I don't think a fertilized egg is an individual since it can divide).


Wouldn't that fact make the fertilized egg at minimum an individual...and at maximum, 2 or even 3 individuals? How can the ability to replicate oneself cause the original to be less than one individual?

Gingersnap
03-19-2009, 07:38 PM
And once those who are different are born, there's a debate about what to do with them. Can they be with the rest of society or should they be shut off? Can they contribute anything to society?

I could rant on and on. I just think there's a big problem with not understanding the value of life at times.

We are rapidly becoming a society with no tolerance for "differences". I have seen this in my own lifetime. When I was a kid, I knew other kids who had club feet, hair lips, cerebral palsy, and other conditions. This wasn't because we had a huge number of birth defects where I lived; it was because women didn't have the option to get tests and then abort all those kids. Down Syndrome kids lived with their parents and siblings (not in group homes) and we all just got used to them as they were.

Now, it's rare to see a child with some of those very common issues. Partly because some of the those conditions can now be managed with surgery but a lot of it is due to women aborting children based on prenatal testing. Testing that is by no means 100% accurate. Just about everybody knows a woman over 40 who ignored the test results predicting Down Syndrome and had an ordinary kid.

Either human life has an intrinsic value by virtue of natural law ("God" for the badly schooled) or human life has no more value than livestock. If you pick the latter then there's no reason to protect the defective and every reason to aggressively support genetic eugenics.

Lanie
03-19-2009, 08:15 PM
We are rapidly becoming a society with no tolerance for "differences". I have seen this in my own lifetime. When I was a kid, I knew other kids who had club feet, hair lips, cerebral palsy, and other conditions. This wasn't because we had a huge number of birth defects where I lived; it was because women didn't have the option to get tests and then abort all those kids. Down Syndrome kids lived with their parents and siblings (not in group homes) and we all just got used to them as they were.

Now, it's rare to see a child with some of those very common issues. Partly because some of the those conditions can now be managed with surgery but a lot of it is due to women aborting children based on prenatal testing. Testing that is by no means 100% accurate. Just about everybody knows a woman over 40 who ignored the test results predicting Down Syndrome and had an ordinary kid.

Either human life has an intrinsic value by virtue of natural law ("God" for the badly schooled) or human life has no more value than livestock. If you pick the latter then there's no reason to protect the defective and every reason to aggressively support genetic eugenics.

Well, we stopped putting most of those kids in special homes a long time ago. Most of them still are not in special homes. The kids I work with go home to their parents. However, many of them are put into special schools. I do think that maybe they need to be there. I dealt with kids today that couldn't control themselves, they fell in the floor and hit their head on it, one cried all day, etc. I actually asked to switch places with another teacher. We had a problem in which Some of the kids were a danger to others and/or themselves. One person was certified for restraining the kid, but he didn't have enough weight some of them. They switched me with another sub, which served no real purpose at all (except she was more confident). I've been told ways to ensure safety without using restraint is to move them to a safer place, sometimes alone. No way can these kids be in a regular classroom. The county is talking about taking down that special school, and putting those kids in isolated areas of other schools. They'd build a seperate area of other schools with seperate halls and a seperate cafeteria for "inclusive" reasons. That's just wrong.

Then, I've worked with severely profound kids with the minds of babies. They don't know much of what's going on in some cases. They can't be in a regular classroom. I love these kids, but I do see the purpose of self-contained rooms and schools.

It's not always necessary though. When I was a kid, we did see the mentally retarded kids eating lunch in the cafeteria. Their being around us helped both them and us socially. There was one kid there who didn't belong there at all. She spoke slow, and was in a wheelchair. That's it. She needed accomodations, NOT to be seperated. She was with the rest of us later. I've worked with highly functioning Autistics who I think could be in a regular classroom.

That's getting completely off the subject. I'll start another thread if this goes further.

Lanie
03-19-2009, 08:17 PM
Wouldn't that fact make the fertilized egg at minimum an individual...and at maximum, 2 or even 3 individuals? How can the ability to replicate oneself cause the original to be less than one individual?

There is no evidence of "two or three individuals" before implantation and/or splitting. You have a right to your opinion, but I can't agree with it. All I can say is if the fertilized egg is a person, then hormonal birth control needs to be made illegal. That's what gets me. Lots of people against stem cell research, but they're just fine with the birth control pill.

Gingersnap
03-19-2009, 08:21 PM
Then, I've worked with severely profound kids with the minds of babies. They don't know much of what's going on in some cases. They can't be in a regular classroom. I love these kids, but I do see the purpose of self-contained rooms and schools.

It's not always necessary though. When I was a kid, we did see the mentally retarded kids eating lunch in the cafeteria. Their being around us helped both them and us socially. There was one kid there who didn't belong there at all. She spoke slow, and was in a wheelchair. That's it. She needed accomodations, NOT to be seperated. She was with the rest of us later. I've worked with highly functioning Autistics who I think could be in a regular classroom.

That's getting completely off the subject. I'll start another thread if this goes further.

I'm no advocate of ruthless mainstreaming. It doesn't do anybody any good but I do see fewer and fewer "different" people in ordinary situations. I never see Down Syndrome people at the grocery store or the movies now and we certainly used to see them. We don't see them as much because there are fewer of them.

The more threads, the merrier I always say! :)

PoliCon
03-19-2009, 08:34 PM
There is no evidence of "two or three individuals" before implantation and/or splitting. You have a right to your opinion, but I can't agree with it. All I can say is if the fertilized egg is a person, then hormonal birth control needs to be made illegal. That's what gets me. Lots of people against stem cell research, but they're just fine with the birth control pill.

There is a huge difference between birth control and embryonic stem cell research. One is an attempt preventing conception - the other is harvesting a human being as if that person is a commodity to be bought or sold like pork bellies.

PoliCon
03-19-2009, 08:36 PM
I'm no advocate of ruthless mainstreaming. It doesn't do anybody any good but I do see fewer and fewer "different" people in ordinary situations. I never see Down Syndrome people at the grocery store or the movies now and we certainly used to see them. We don't see them as much because there are fewer of them.

The more threads, the merrier I always say! :)

If the kid can do the work without disrupting the class - the kid should be in the regular class. If the kid is a disruption - I'm not talking about needing special help or accommodation - I'm talking the kid is throwing poop during class - then they shouldn't be in the classroom.

MrsSmith
03-19-2009, 09:34 PM
There is no evidence of "two or three individuals" before implantation and/or splitting. You have a right to your opinion, but I can't agree with it. All I can say is if the fertilized egg is a person, then hormonal birth control needs to be made illegal. That's what gets me. Lots of people against stem cell research, but they're just fine with the birth control pill.

Lots of people do not understand that hormonal birth control can cause early abortion. Refusing to educate is a standard practice of those that think they know what's best for others.

Can you explain why the fertilized egg should be less protected BECAUSE it can become more than the one individual?

Gingersnap
03-19-2009, 09:53 PM
Okay, now we need a new thread outside of TEOTWAWKI Forum. :D

Lanie
03-19-2009, 10:33 PM
There is a huge difference between birth control and embryonic stem cell research. One is an attempt preventing conception - the other is harvesting a human being as if that person is a commodity to be bought or sold like pork bellies.

I agree, but wouldn't it be "murder" regardless if the fertilized egg is a person?

Lanie
03-19-2009, 10:36 PM
Lots of people do not understand that hormonal birth control can cause early abortion. Refusing to educate is a standard practice of those that think they know what's best for others.

Can you explain why the fertilized egg should be less protected BECAUSE it can become more than the one individual?

The boldened says it all.

PoliCon
03-19-2009, 11:15 PM
I agree, but wouldn't it be "murder" regardless if the fertilized egg is a person?

If the method is an abortificant - yes. If it is a preventative - no.

PoliCon
03-19-2009, 11:15 PM
Okay, now we need a new thread outside of TEOTWAWKI Forum. :D

I agree to a split. :)

Lanie
03-20-2009, 11:26 AM
If the method is an abortificant - yes. If it is a preventative - no.

Hormonal birth control (as in pills, shots, etc) have the ability to stop ovulation, fertilization, or implantation. Some have argued that isn't true, but nearly every resource (medical, pro-life, and pro-choice) tend to agree about its abilities.

PoliCon
03-20-2009, 01:35 PM
Hormonal birth control (as in pills, shots, etc) have the ability to stop ovulation, fertilization, or implantation. Some have argued that isn't true, but nearly every resource (medical, pro-life, and pro-choice) tend to agree about its abilities.yes and? My honest thought on birth control is simple - if God wants you to have a baby - you're gonna have a baby no matter what precautions you take. My sister is a prime example. Not only was she conceived while my parents were taking precautions - she conceived while taking precautions - even to the point that she has Irish twins.

MrsSmith
03-20-2009, 05:07 PM
The boldened says it all.

Yes, it says that, when an embryo is killed by a human being, that human cannot know if he has just murdered 1 individual, or 2, or even 3. How can this make the embryo less than an individual?