Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Abortion/Contraception/Stem Cell Research
Thread: Abortion/Contraception/Stem Cell Research This thread is 92 pages long: 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 ... 82 83 84 85 86 ... 90 92 · «PREV / NEXT»
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted May 19, 2013 12:10 PM
Edited by Elodin at 12:11, 19 May 2013.

Quote:

A "baby" is a BORN human, outside the womb. Babies can "die" and babies can be "killed".



A baby is young human offspring. People ask pregnant women about their "baby" all the time. In fact if you were to ask a pregnant woman how her fetus is she'd probably look at you as if you were some strange creature from another world. Which I sometimes think pro-abortionists are.

A fetus is a baby who is still in the womb. A fetus is a young human. When you say it is ok to kill a fetus you are saying it is ok to kill a young human, a baby. The left loves to hide behind words to pretend the horrors they advocate are not the horrors that they are, unfortunately.

You'll find doctors talk about babies in the womb all the time. For example:

Clicky
Quote:

You're pregnant. Congratulations! You'll undoubtedly spend the months ahead wondering how your baby is growing and developing. What does your baby look like? How big is he or she? When will you feel the first kick?



Let's be honest. If you are pro-abortion you are for the legal killing of a young human. Call him an zygote, an embryo, a fetus, a baby or whatever; you are in favor of allowing young humans to be killed legally.

Quote:

WE are talking about voluntary and deliberate abortion of embryos and fetusses.



Yes, we are talking about the voluntary, deliberate, inhuman killing of innocent and helpless human offspring.

Quote:

So what happens with EARLY PREGNANCY LOSSES? Are they treated like persons that just died?



Some people do bury their babies that die prematurely like that. My mother did. Two of her babies died in her womb. I have two brothers that I did not have the privilege of knowing. But not because my mother murdered them.

Try to cloud the issue all you want, pro-abortion is the position that says it should be legal to kill human offspring in the womb.

Either you believe in human rights or you don't. If you think unborn humans have no rights you don't believe in human rights.

Quote:

Humanity has apparently always known, that the thing called "human life" may start with conception, but that it becomes RELEVANT, VALID and PERSONAL only in later stages of the pregnancy phase.


Yeah, Hitler "knew" the lives of blacks and Jews were irrelevant too, huh?

The FACT is human life begins at conception and that the human organism in the womb is a unique human individual, different from everyone else who will ever live. Science establishes this. YOU may view human young as irrelevant and invalid at certain maturity levels but I respect human life regardless of age, gender, or ability.

Quote:

In my opinion there is an overwhelming majority of people who would accept the notion that while they generally would reject abortions in general for moral reasons, that there might be valid individual reasons in which an abortion would be simply the smaller evil.

It starts with the fetus being a threat for the life of the mother, it goess on with (especially) young rape victims or the victims of home abuse will come to mind - but also cases with a high probability (or even certainty) that the baby would be extremely handicapped (with other factors adding, say, poor and/or single parent and so on).



You are free to hold your own values. But I value human life. The life of the mother being in jeopardy is the only thing I can think of that would justify killing the baby.

A father being an immoral person is no reason to kill the baby. A baby being handicapped is no reason to kill him. Mommy being poor is not a reason to kill Baby. Mommy being single is not a moral reason to kill Baby.

The right to live of the baby trumps all the excuses to kill him that you gave except for the mother's life being in danger. The right to live is the most fundamental of the human rights. Without that right you can exercise no other rights.

Quote:

Persons like Elodin, who immediately start about "abortions to avoid giving up a certain lifestyle", which basically means, having a lot of "irresponsible" sex and taking the easy way out when the inevtiable happens, do NOT trust them, but that mistrust is based on the realization that they live in a society that has an educational problem and that is of course not a wrong realization (the origins and reasons for that problem are clearly a thing to be debated in a different thread).



The government exists to protect innate rights.  If people could be trusted not to violate the rights of others governments and laws would not be necessary. But given human nature government and laws are needed.
____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 19, 2013 12:25 PM

Quote:
You are free to hold your own values


That's the problem, according to you we are not. You want abortion outlawed.


@Fred

Don't worry fred, no one's naive enough to think Elodin will change his mind. Despite his extremist ideas, in the modern world, this is a closed case: Abortion wont be illegal. And it will continue not to be so, whatever he thinks. It's just that he linked about a doctor who actually killed out of womb babies and indicated it's the same thing, so the thread kind of resurrected for a while.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted May 19, 2013 12:32 PM
Edited by Elodin at 12:38, 19 May 2013.

Quote:
Quote:
Nah, I appeal to science. Science has decisively established when human life begins, as if even the most casual observer should not have known it.

And embryology tells us that the embryo is a UNIQUE (INDIVIDUAL) human organism. He is "his own organism," very distinct form his mother and his father, having obtained half of his DNA from each. He is an individual human. A member of the human species.


All science can deliver to you is the fact that the embryo has unique DNA, which nobody denies anyway. So it is an individual if you take the word as in a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item.



Well, that is what I said. An embryo is a distinct (individual) human organism.

I reject your attempt to use "individual" as a synonym for your imaginary "person" category of humans in the discussion.

Embryology establishes an embryo as an individual human. That human individual in my mother's womb so many years ago was me. I was a zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, pre-teen, teen, young adult and now am a middle aged man. I am the same individual human organism. I have been the same organism throughout these years. The organism that is me has changed in maturity, not in kind.

Quote:

Legal or moral, rights themselves don't belong in the field of positive sciences. They are abstractions, things we decide on and execute. They don't exist in the universe without us applying them. So, it's totally up to us how they will operate.




You are correct that science can't tell us what is moral or immoral. It can tell us an embryo is a unique human life.

My position is that if we are to claim to respect human rights we must respect the rights of all humans.

Like the founding fathers I contend that certain truths are self evident. For example, rights come from God/nature, not from the government. Humankind existed before governments government has no rights to give.

And like I said, without the right to live you can't exercise any other right, so it is the "Prime Right." The most fundamental right, the right on which all other rights hinge. It should be guarded jealously.

You are of course free to say,"Yes, the fetus an innocent individual human life but I say it is ok to kill it" and science can not prove you wrong.

Like I said before, that is the question it all boils down to. "Is it ok for us to kill our young?"
____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted May 19, 2013 12:36 PM
Edited by Elodin at 12:38, 19 May 2013.

Quote:
Quote:
You are free to hold your own values


That's the problem, according to you we are not. You want abortion outlawed.



I never said rights should not be protected. The baby has a right to live. You have a right to believe the baby has no right to live.

A society that claims to built on human rights should protect the riht to live, since that is the most fundamental of all rights.
____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 19, 2013 12:49 PM

Quote:
Like the founding fathers I contend that certain truths are self evident. For example, rights come from God/nature, not from the government. Humankind existed before governments government has no rights to give.


Not exactly the topic of this thread but without an authority to establish them, rights don't exist. In nature, there are no rights, there are just consequences. Before governments or civilization, people existed but in the wild, they didn't have rights, they weren't even aware of such a concept and wouldn't imagine to demand any rights. Just like birds or tigers don't demand them now. Rights are not entities, they are executions. WE established them not nature. And there are many places around the world where people are still oppressed and without those rights, so don't talk about self-evident. One epidemic and those self-evident rights are taken away in a snap: You can't even leave town.

Your founding fathers used the word self-evident to emphasize those rights were the basis of their constitution, the main establishment that all the other stuff is built on. They were wise enough to know that the constitution isn't embedded in nature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
angelito
angelito


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
posted May 19, 2013 02:04 PM

Quote:
A society that claims to built on human rights should protect the riht to live, since that is the most fundamental of all rights.
Coming from someone who protects the idea of death penalty sounds quite akward to me....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
gnomes2169
gnomes2169


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
posted May 19, 2013 03:25 PM

Was I ignored by Elodin?

In fact I was ignored by Elodin. Huh. Was I too reasonable or something?
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Hobbit
Hobbit


Supreme Hero
posted May 19, 2013 03:32 PM

Not only you, bro. Not only you.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 19, 2013 08:48 PM

I don't think it makes sense to discuss an issue with someone who invents and uses his own language in order to erase all differences. That's kind of "language rape", and since that comes from someone who comes up with "Hitler" as an argument... well.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted May 19, 2013 09:45 PM

Quote:

Not exactly the topic of this thread but without an authority to establish them, rights don't exist. In nature, there are no rights, there are just consequences. Before governments or civilization, people existed but in the wild, they didn't have rights, they weren't even aware of such a concept and wouldn't imagine to demand any rights.



No, I disagree. You are claiming that rights come from government. If so, Hitler did nothing wrong. Stalin did nothing wrong, Lenin and Pol Pot did nothing wrong. Government is not the GIVER of rights. Government should the PROTECTOR of rights.

Quote:

Just like birds or tigers don't demand them now. Rights are not entities, they are executions. WE established them not nature. And there are many places around the world where people are still oppressed and without those rights, so don't talk about self-evident. One epidemic and those self-evident rights are taken away in a snap: You can't even leave town.

Your founding fathers used the word self-evident to emphasize those rights were the basis of their constitution, the main establishment that all the other stuff is built on. They were wise enough to know that the constitution isn't embedded in nature.



No, "self evident" was not used merely to emphasize certain rights as the basis of the Declaration of Independence/Constitution. "Self evident" truths "axiomatic." Truths that need no proof.  Truths that anyone with half a brain cell should see. The founding fathers for example said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

So the founders said it is self evident that:
-all men are equal.
-people have certain rights, including but not limited to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
-Rights come from God/nature, not from government.
-Governments are formed by the people to protect their rights.

Maybe you claim that without a government to restrain you that you have the right to kill whoever you want, to rape as you please, and to take the possessions of another whenever you want. Again, I disagree.

So, you claim that if the government says it is ok for a woman to kill her unborn baby it is moral because the State granted her that right. If the State says she can kill her 5 year old then it is moral according you what you have said. If the State says if she no longer wants her teenager she can kill him then that is perfectly acceptable to you because the State establishes rights, in your words.

I reject the notion of Marxism that the State is the end all and be all, the "god" of the people. Rights are innate to humankind, not magnanimously granted to people by the all-powerful State.

@gnomes

I think I addressed everything you talked about  in posts that I made subsequent to yours. I just did not address a post specifically to you.

@Hobbit

You just made comments about me. Meh. Uninteresting. Try to say something about the topic.

@JJ

Oh, JJ, I'm flattered at your continued focus on my person instead of the topic. It make me feel so special to know I am constantly in your thoughts. But maybe you could try saying something true about me for a change.

I've been talking about science, quoting embryology texts and embryologists and using the language they use. It is the "other side" who has wanted to use vague philosophical terms like "person" and say, "Oh, not all humans are people. It's ok to kill human who are not people and by definition a fetus is not a person, so kill, kill, kill!!!!" Yeah, when you use some vague term and define it how you want to and say those humans in that group have no rights then you can justify killing any human.

Doctors call a fetus a baby all the time, and I quoted a medical website doing that. I understand your desire for me not to call a fetus a baby because "fetus" is a term that pro-abortionists use to try to hide the fact that abortion kills a young human, which most people call a baby. But if you are comfortable with the young human being killed you should not care it it is called a baby because killing that young human is a moral thing to do in your belief system.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
gnomes2169
gnomes2169


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
posted May 19, 2013 09:50 PM

Quote:
@gnomes

I think I addressed everything you talked about  in posts that I made subsequent to yours. I just did not address a post specifically to you.

Awwwwwwww, I wasn't special enough for my own post. And actually, most of my post was not addressed, as it was mostly, "None of us think like this, why are you asking us these things?" But I did ask one question that I did not see an answer to, namely, "What, to you, constitutes an individual?"
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted May 19, 2013 10:22 PM
Edited by Elodin at 22:26, 19 May 2013.

@gnomes

Quote:
But I did ask one question that I did not see an answer to, namely, "What, to you, constitutes an individual?"


I have answered this question numerous times. A human individual is a member of the human species. A human becomes a member of the human species when he is created. He is created in womb of his mother when a sperm and egg combine to form a new and distinct human organism. A new human individual.


Quote:

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

Dr. Jerome LeJeune ("father of modern genetics")
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes

Dr. Lejeune explained that within three to seven days after fertilization we can determine if the new human being is a boy or a girl. "At no time," Dr. Lejeune said, "is the human being a blob of protoplasm. As far as your nature is concerned, I see no difference between the early person that you were at conception and the late person which you are now. You were, and are, a human being." (Louisiana Legislature's House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice on June 7, 1990)

"[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being."
Keith L. Moore in The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.


"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
-Dr. McCarthy de Mere, a medical doctor and law professor at the University of Tennessee (testifying before Senate Judiciary committee, 1981)


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 19, 2013 10:39 PM

Quote:

... a term that pro-abortionists use to ...
See, the next example. "Pro-abortionist"? What is that? Who is that? The correct term is PRO-CHOICER, because people are not pro abortion but only pro letting the pregnant choose.
Remember, Elodin? That's actually the point: that it's not YOU who decides what people have to do according to YOUR morale.
I don't know about the others, but *I* am simply washing it off my hands. I think that there is only one protector for an embryo or a fetus, and that's the mother, and if MOM doesn't accept that, then it's not our job to interfere, because simply spoken, there is no reasonable way to.
And you know what? I'm comfortable with washing it off. I wouldn't act on behalf of a 6-week-old embryo. I WOULD act on behalf of a pregnant, raped 12-year-old. If you think that the rights of the 6-week-old embryo trump the rights of a 12-year-old raped that gets pregnant, I'd act on behalf of the rape victim in case you tried to tell her anything about how sinful it is to abort, and sue you. And I would feel pretty good about it.




 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 20, 2013 04:25 AM
Edited by artu at 04:34, 20 May 2013.

Quote:
No, I disagree. You are claiming that rights come from government. If so, Hitler did nothing wrong. Stalin did nothing wrong, Lenin and Pol Pot did nothing wrong. Government is not the GIVER of rights. Government should the PROTECTOR of rights.


I am claiming rights are things humans invented and they give governments the authority to establish them. So, rights are not found in nature, the easiest way to see this is simply looking at how they change through history or change from culture to culture or from state to state. Even in US, that has a very short history, the rights you had in 1812 and the rights you have now are different. This is so clear to see, it's absurd to debate about it.

Stalin or Pol Pot or Jack the Ripper did wrong things according to our values, not according to nature. Nature does not say "shame on you Stalin." Nature does not say this kid is too young and has a right to live, let me cure his cancer. Nature is indifferent to us. Why does your "nature" give rights even to a zygote but none to cows, because cows are created for man to eat... Please. It's because man come up with these laws and rights, not cows.

Quote:
I reject the notion of Marxism that the State is the end all and be all, the "god" of the people. Rights are innate to humankind, not magnanimously granted to people by the all-powerful State.


Once again, I value Marx as a philosopher and historical materialism is in my toolbox but I am not a Marxist in the sense you use the word and to put everything you disapprove under the category of Marxism and "the God-state" only shows how far away and uninformed you are from actually analyzing these matters. This has nothing to do with Marxism, not even remotely.

Quote:
So, you claim that if the government says it is ok for a woman to kill her unborn baby it is moral because the State granted her that right. If the State says she can kill her 5 year old then it is moral according you what you have said. If the State says if she no longer wants her teenager she can kill him then that is perfectly acceptable to you because the State establishes rights, in your words.


No, I say it's acceptable to kill an embryo in the early stages of pregnancy because it has no brain, hence no self yet. A very clear and solid distinction, far from imaginary. And I say the government shouldn't outlaw it, based on all the reasons I stated earlier. To me belonging to a specie does not constitute being an individual (person) of that specie automatically, an organism evolves into it in later stages of pregnancy. The government therefore, should not include a zygote to the rights it established. Looking at how it is the modern democracies that allow abortion and third world dictatorships or theocracies that outlaw it, I'd say my interpretation of those human rights are.. well, at least more favored by people who practice them as professional law makers.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Hobbit
Hobbit


Supreme Hero
posted May 20, 2013 07:51 AM

Quote:
You just made comments about me. 

If you don't mind, I was actually talking to you a lot. But you started to completely ignore my points, so I gave up. There's no sense in answering you if you're not listening.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted June 05, 2013 09:45 AM
Edited by Elodin at 10:11, 05 Jun 2013.

It would have been ok to kill these humans according to some folks.



They are children (now grown) of rape. According to some folks it would have been perfectly moral for their mothers to snuff out their lives. The simple plain truth is abortion would have killed these human organisms.

Conceived in rape

This baby survived three abortion attempts and is now two years old.



Clicky

Clicky
Quote:

An Abortion Survivor's Story

In September of 1975, a woman discovered that she was pregnant. Things were very difficult for her, as she was raising two sons, six and 15 years old. Their father had walked out on them and refused to help care for the boys financially, or in any other way. The only alternative for this woman, it seemed, was to abort this unexpected baby. After all, she could barely afford to feed the children she already had.

Between the months of September 1975 and January 1976, this woman had three therapeutic abortions in an attempt to rid herself of the unborn baby. These abortions, also known as a "salting out procedure" are performed by injecting a very large syringe into the woman's abdomen, removing a certain amount of amniotic fluid out of the womb, and then injecting three times the amount of saline back in, thus "burning" the baby out. For reasons only God knows, these abortions did not take and on April 21, 1976, two months premature, her baby was born. The child was perfect and healthy, weighing four pounds, five ounces.

Unfortunately on March 16, 1977, the mother passed away, less than a year after her baby girl was born. After the woman's death, the infant's father and paternal grandmother took custody of the baby and her two brothers. As this baby girl grew up, her father told her about the three abortions she had undergone in her mother's womb but this little girl never believed him, as she assumed that if a baby is aborted, he or she could not possibly survive.

The truth only came to this girl when she was eighteen years old, married, and approximately five months pregnant with her first child. This girl needed and soon obtained her mother's medical records from the hospital that had treated her. Imagine her utter shock as she read about how her mother tried to terminate her unborn child three times. As the young girl read the medical documents, the new life inside of her was stirring and kicking as if to say "Mommy please don't get any ideas."

Today this young woman is 25 years old and is raising a family of her own. She is healthy and normal in every way, with no physical deformities of any kind.

I am the child that I have been writing about. My mother had no right to try and abort me, no matter what the circumstances were, no matter how inconvenient her pregnancy was. And if she was here with us today, I'm sure she would agree. Life is too precious to simply throw away. Now I can speak out against abortion from the baby's perspective. Any baby would choose life.

- Amy



Clicky

Quote:

One of the best known such survivors in America is Gianna Jessen. On April 6, 1977, Gianna’s biological mother, 17 years old and seven months’ pregnant at the time, sought a saline abortion. However, Gianna was born alive, and survived. She told her story before the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on April 22, 1996:

I lived instead of died.

Fortunately for me the abortionist was not in the clinic when I arrived alive, instead of dead, at 6:00 a.m. on the morning of April 6, 1977. I was early, my death was not expected to be seen until about 9 a.m., when he would probably be arriving for his office hours. I am sure I would not be here today if the abortionist would have been in the clinic as his job is to take life, not sustain it. Some have said I am a "botched abortion," a result of a job not well done.

There were many witnesses to my entry into this world. My biological mother and other young girls in the clinic, who also awaited the death of their babies, were the first to greet me. I am told this was a hysterical moment. Next was a staff nurse who apparently called emergency medical services and had me transferred to a hospital.

I remained in the hospital for almost three months. There was not much hope for me in the beginning. I weighed only two pounds. Today, babies smaller than I was have survived.

A doctor once said I had a great will to live and that I fought for my life. I eventually was able to leave the hospital and be placed in foster care. I was diagnosed with cerebral palsy as a result of the abortion....

I am happy to be alive. I almost died. Every day I thank God for life. I do not consider myself a by-product of conception, a clump of tissue, or any other of the titles given to a child in the womb. I do not consider any person conceived to be any of those things.



Quote:

Another abortion survivor, Melissa Ohden, also took President Obama to task for his pro-abortion stance that began early in his political career: “When he was in the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama voted to deny basic constitutional protections for babies born alive from an abortion — not once, but four times.” Ohden told her story last year in a pre-election video produced by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List. As reported by The New American online last September, Ohden says in the video, “Many children — more than you might think — actually survive failed abortions and are born alive. I know, because I'm one of them. I was aborted and my body discarded like I didn't exist.” Ohden continues, “a nurse heard me crying and cared enough to save my life.”



You tube video of Melissa.
Clicky
____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted June 05, 2013 11:22 AM
Edited by artu at 11:23, 05 Jun 2013.

All of these people would have been not among us if their parents never met. According to some folks, it's perfectly moral if their parents hadn't met and conceived them.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 06, 2013 08:49 PM

Does it matter that the pregnancy endangers the life of this 11-year-old?

I mean, what use has a society that is not able to help this girl?

What use has a religion that declines to help this girl?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted July 07, 2013 01:23 AM

Quote:
Does it matter that the pregnancy endangers the life of this 11-year-old?

I mean, what use has a society that is not able to help this girl?

What use has a religion that declines to help this girl?


I don't know of any religion that opposes abortion if the mother's life is in danger. Obviously the doctors need to monitor her very closely and if necessary kill the baby to preserve the life of the mother.

But make no mistake, it is a young human organism, a baby, that dies in an abortion.
____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 07, 2013 07:22 AM

Not in Chile.

In Chile, no circumstance justifies an abortion. (And divorce is possible only since 2004). Chile is a VERY Catholic country.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 92 pages long: 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 ... 82 83 84 85 86 ... 90 92 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.2376 seconds