Abortions And Miscarriages

[KT45]

This is just something I don't really get. Now people who are against abortion say that it is murder and that it is killing innocent life. They hold up signs that show the bodies of aborted babies to show us how horribly wrong it is. My question is how much different is an abortion from a miscarriage?

 

Let me explain. For a miscarriage, the woman's body rejects the fetus. It is a physical action that had no thought process but the body voluntarly did it. Now no one goes out and screams murder because of this. Like abortion a human mothers BODY is killing the body of a potential human. But there are no riots, no signs, no nothing. Why? Because the body did it on it's own.

 

Now let me get this straight, the human body can choose to reject the baby and churchy people don't get their panties in a bunch but when it's a mental decision to reject a human baby it's wrong. I mean in both cases a part of the body chooses to get rid of the child. Only in one case its a physical choice and in the other it is a mental choice.

 

I am by no means trying to devalue life or potential life. There will always be a strong emotional response when it comes to things like miscarriages and abortions. But in both cases it is still the woman's body that decides whether a fetus lives or dies. I believe that woman should do with THEIR body as they please.

[Lizard]

I think most view miscarriage as an accidental death or death due to disease, rather than by choice as in the case of abortion.

 

I agree..its a woman's choice. And the man involved, if he is involved. Ultimately though, its the woman's choice.

[Ex-COG]

My parents had an old encyclopedia from the 40's that listed "spontanious abortion" as being a miscarraige.

 

It's true that most Christians would look upon a miscarraige as being accidental, but will it stay that way? I've heard some who fear that the day will come that every miscarraige will be considered a possible abortion needing to be investigated. I don't know if there's any proof to back this up, or if it was just thrown out there by those who are against the increasing power of the Christian Right, but it sounds like a plausible goal of those Reconstructionist types. Plus, more babies are born now because of medical advances, that in the past would have ended up as a miscarraige. If a woman has a miscarraige, will she be looked upon as not seeking the proper care, and held responsible for it, even if it was accidental?

 

The whole issue is not just about the fetus, and what is life, but the right of a woman to control her own body. My personal opinion? A living, breathing human being has more rights over their body than a potential human has over the host body. That probably sounds harsh and impersonal to some ears, but it's the way I see it.

[Ryan]

There's not a whole lot fo difference in my opinion. Especially when it's a chemical abortion. Two pills and you're done.

[Lizard]

 

 

It's true that most Christians would look upon a miscarraige as being accidental, but will it stay that way? I've heard some who fear that the day will come that every miscarraige will be considered a possible abortion needing to be investigated. I don't know if there's any proof to back this up, or if it was just thrown out there by those who are against the increasing power of the Christian Right, but it sounds like a plausible goal of those Reconstructionist types. Plus, more babies are born now because of medical advances, that in the past would have ended up as a miscarraige. If a woman has a miscarraige, will she be looked upon as not seeking the proper care, and held responsible for it, even if it was accidental?

 

I could see something like that happening. They already have issues with women who would imbibe in a single alcoholic drink while pregnant, calling it neglectful and threatening to remove said child upon birth.

The whole issue is not just about the fetus, and what is life, but the right of a woman to control her own body. My personal opinion? A living, breathing human being has more rights over their body than a potential human has over the host body. That probably sounds harsh and impersonal to some ears, but it's the way I see it.

 

Not harsh at all..though, yes, some would see it that way. Many, in fact. But, most who view it that way are not in the position of having to choose.

[Dianka]

Are we forgetting that abortions are decisions, whereas miscarriages are biological? I'd say that's quite a difference.

 

And Christians could see miscarriages as a decision made by God. G_d works is mysterious way, no?

 

What I don't understand is that they're against abortions - militantly. Unless, of course, it's God that is doing the aborting.

[Taphophilia]

Are we forgetting that abortions are decisions, whereas miscarriages are biological? I'd say that's quite a difference.

 

And Christians could see miscarriages as a decision made by God. G_d works is mysterious way, no?

 

What I don't understand is that they're against abortions - militantly. Unless, of course, it's God that is doing the aborting.

 

I hate going by churches in January and seeing all the tiny crosses that represent all the "preborn" lost to abortion. They don't get it!

 

Christians call even a zygote the "preborn".

 

They believe that this:

 

 

is the same thing as this:

 

[KT45]

Are we forgetting that abortions are decisions, whereas miscarriages are biological? I'd say that's quite a difference.

yeah. but I guess I was getting at that both are the Body rejecting a fetus. Whether mental or physical it's still the body that is responsible. If the body does it naturally then doing it mentally should be an option for women as well if they so desire.

[garrisonjj]

Are we forgetting that abortions are decisions, whereas miscarriages are biological? I'd say that's quite a difference.

 

And Christians could see miscarriages as a decision made by God. G_d works is mysterious way, no?

 

What I don't understand is that they're against abortions - militantly. Unless, of course, it's God that is doing the aborting.

 

I hate going by churches in January and seeing all the tiny crosses that represent all the "preborn" lost to abortion. They don't get it!

 

Christians call even a zygote the "preborn".

 

They believe that this:

 

 

is the same thing as this:

 

 

 

A natural miscarriage is quite different from intentionally killing your baby. I am an athiest, and your picture shows that life clearly begins at the moment of conception. I also believe that ALL abortions, except to save the life of the mother are grotesquely wrong, and I also believe its murder.

[Ex-COG]

Are we forgetting that abortions are decisions, whereas miscarriages are biological? I'd say that's quite a difference.

 

And Christians could see miscarriages as a decision made by God. G_d works is mysterious way, no?

 

What I don't understand is that they're against abortions - militantly. Unless, of course, it's God that is doing the aborting.

 

I hate going by churches in January and seeing all the tiny crosses that represent all the "preborn" lost to abortion. They don't get it!

 

Christians call even a zygote the "preborn".

 

They believe that this:

 

 

is the same thing as this:

 

 

 

A natural miscarriage is quite different from intentionally killing your baby. I am an athiest, and your picture shows that life clearly begins at the moment of conception. I also believe that ALL abortions, except to save the life of the mother are grotesquely wrong, and I also believe its murder.

How does this picture show that life begins at the moment of conception?

[garrisonjj]

Are we forgetting that abortions are decisions, whereas miscarriages are biological? I'd say that's quite a difference.

 

And Christians could see miscarriages as a decision made by God. G_d works is mysterious way, no?

 

What I don't understand is that they're against abortions - militantly. Unless, of course, it's God that is doing the aborting.

 

I hate going by churches in January and seeing all the tiny crosses that represent all the "preborn" lost to abortion. They don't get it!

 

Christians call even a zygote the "preborn".

 

They believe that this:

 

 

is the same thing as this:

 

 

 

A natural miscarriage is quite different from intentionally killing your baby. I am an athiest, and your picture shows that life clearly begins at the moment of conception. I also believe that ALL abortions, except to save the life of the mother are grotesquely wrong, and I also believe its murder.

How does this picture show that life begins at the moment of conception?

 

When a sperm cell and an egg are united that defines new life, FOR ME, actually this picture shows 4 cells of tha new life.

[LadyFeline]

A natural miscarriage is quite different from intentionally killing your baby. I am an athiest, and your picture shows that life clearly begins at the moment of conception. I also believe that ALL abortions, except to save the life of the mother are grotesquely wrong, and I also believe its murder.

Yes, well, you also believe that whacking the hornet's nest that is today's Middle East has made us "safer" and protected us from terrorism, so I think that shows just how qualified you are to espouse the "rightness" or "wrongness" of anything.

 

Tell me, Garrisson, how can you be OMFG ABORSHUN IS MERDUR, and yet still vocally advocate sending my best friend, cousins, and uncles, and other people's brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, friends and neighbors to potentially DIE overseas? How is ONE death "okay", but the other isn't?

 

LOGICAL DISCONNECT. DOES NOT COMPUTE, DOES NOT COMPUTE.

[Lizard]

Yes, LadyFeline, most rabid anti-abortionists are also prowar and pro death penalty.

 

I only know a few people personally who are against abortion who is also against war and the death penalty. They are a unique group. They are also antiBush..

 

Garrison..how many children do you support? Outside of your own, that is? Are you willing to help these mothers with their children for the next 18 years? Nurture and provide even the bare necessities? Or, do you think they should just go on welfare? Give them up for adoption?

 

We've been through this before. Its not practical to think all those "abortions" would end up in an adoptive home. More likely, in foster care or a children's group home. Is that what you have for them? A shitty life better than no life?

[Taphophilia]

As bad as the foster care system is, if abortion is outlawed we will have to go back to orphanages. We will have to institutionalize even small children and babies because there will not be enough homes for all the unwanted children. People who oppose abortion do not to care about living children, they insist that all women give birth no matter what.

[Alice]

I once suggested on a prolife forum that the world's biggest abortionist was God, (having been told when I had mine, that miscarriage was an 'act of God'.)

 

It got a heated response!

[Taphophilia]

I once suggested on a prolife forum that the world's biggest abortionist was God, (having been told when I had mine, that miscarriage was an 'act of God'.)

 

It got a heated response!

 

Yeah, I was flamed once too when I said on a pro-life board that they should save all menstral blood of sexually active women in order to have it analyzed to see if a miscarriage had taken place so they could have a funeral for said baby.

[Lizard]

As bad as the foster care system is, if abortion is outlawed we will have to go back to orphanages. We will have to institutionalize even small children and babies because there will not be enough homes for all the unwanted children. People who oppose abortion do not to care about living children, they insist that all women give birth no matter what.

Yep..I remember when my boys were young, before my daughter and before I got married..I went to a church for help with food. Was told "we don't do that" Had I gone to them while pregnant, they would have insisted I give birth (which I did anyway, but the point is, they were not there for the two living children)

 

And, I suspect, most prolifer's are the same way..lets see..Garrison..can you help with some underprivaleged children?

[Taphophilia]

I was very pro-life so I understand their postision all too well. They believe that if a woman gets herself pregnant than she should not have a way out. She must be forced to live with the consequences of her sin. She had sex after all, she knew that pregnancy was a possibility.

 

They do not take into consideration of the mental health of a young mother with several young children to care for. Motherhood is a virture and if you are pregnant you are the mother to that baby, case closed.

 

Pro-lifers, unfortunately, are more vocal and sensationalise their propaganda. I have researched both sides of the issue.

 

The Pro-life movement outright lies and misrepresents the use of procedures. Saline abortions are not preformed any longer. Partial birth abortions are done in very rare cases and in an overwhelming number of cases whree partial birth abortion is used, the pregnancy was planned and wanted. A doctor who preforms a partial birth abortion in a later second trimester is not a very good doctor. There are much better, albeit, more specialized procedures for performing them.

 

Pro-lifers say that a woman at any stage during pregnancy can have an abortion on demand even if she iis ready to deliver. This is not the case. Third term abortions are very rare and can only be preformed with varifiable medical documentation from other doctors. Later second term abortions, though they are supported by law, are difficult to obtain and are very expensive, as in a couple thousand dollars. There are not a lot of doctors who will perform them either. Usually, the cut off in clinics is 16 weeks, after that the precedures get complicated and needs a doctor with specialization.

 

The sad legacy of the pro-life movement is that there are not enough clinics. There are too many areas in this country that do not have abortion providers, and, yes, illegal abortions still happen.

 

The pro-life movement also unashamedly touts their message to young children and impressionable young teens. They have booths at every single county fair across the country, showing their pictures handing out their literature to even yourg children. They plant their poisonous seeds as early as possible.

 

The pro-choice movement, as a whole, directs their stance to late teens and adults. The only thing that I have know that pro-choice does that might be considered questionable is fudge numbers. They overestimate how many women died from illegal abortions in the US, before it became legal. However, there really isn't anyway get a remotely accurate number since most illegal abortion deaths were recorded as something else.

[NobleSavage]

Someone check my logic here:

 

1. No brain = no life.

 

We don't worry about cutting down trees or taking antibiotics, do we? It's thinking, feeling, self-aware beings that we should be concerned about.

 

2. No life = no right to life.

 

This point should be self-explanitory.

 

3. Not yet = no

 

Until it's alive, it's not alive. "It may one day be..." is not a relevant argument.

[Taphophilia]

Someone check my logic here:

 

1. No brain = no life.

 

We don't worry about cutting down trees or taking antibiotics, do we? It's thinking, feeling, self-aware beings that we should be concerned about.

 

2. No life = no right to life.

 

This point should be self-explanitory.

 

3. Not yet = no

 

Until it's alive, it's not alive. "It may one day be..." is not a relevant argument.

 

I see your point and I kind of agree. A fetus has a brain, but it's in a reptilian state until the brainstem is functioning which is around 24 weeks, which is the age of viability.

Persoanlly, I think the time to consider abortion is when the EPT test turns positive.

[KT45]

Someone check my logic here:

 

1. No brain = no life.

 

We don't worry about cutting down trees or taking antibiotics, do we? It's thinking, feeling, self-aware beings that we should be concerned about.

 

2. No life = no right to life.

 

This point should be self-explanitory.

 

3. Not yet = no

 

Until it's alive, it's not alive. "It may one day be..." is not a relevant argument.

Are people with alzheimer's, in comas, or in a vegetative state considered thinking, feeling or self aware beings? Is it okay to kill them? I see where your arguement is going but I don't think this one will work.

 

Oh and I know some christians who I don't think have brains, should I be concerned with there life.

[LadyFeline]

Someone check my logic here:

 

1. No brain = no life.

 

We don't worry about cutting down trees or taking antibiotics, do we? It's thinking, feeling, self-aware beings that we should be concerned about.

 

2. No life = no right to life.

 

This point should be self-explanitory.

 

3. Not yet = no

 

Until it's alive, it's not alive. "It may one day be..." is not a relevant argument.

Are people with alzheimer's, in comas, or in a vegetative state considered thinking, feeling or self aware beings? Is it okay to kill them? I see where your arguement is going but I don't think this one will work.

 

Oh and I know some christians who I don't think have brains, should I be concerned with there life.

And I can see what you're trying to argue, but it doesn't really work if you actually think about it.

 

People with Alzheimer's still have brains, they just gradually lose their functioning and cognizance, until they eventually die. Up until the very last, they can still feel and think - even if their memories are very badly damaged.

 

People in comas have brains. Most of them even wake up and recover fully. So that's an extremely poor example.

 

People in medically vegetative states have such severe brain damage that they will never function again. People who "miraculously wake up" from "vegetative states" aren't in a "vegetative state" - they're generally either catatonic or in a deep coma (states which can last for years). I do believe that, except in cases where it's clearly specified that the individual wanted to be kept "alive" artificially, people in vegetative states (ie: suffering from verified brain death) should be allowed to pass on. Their brain is already dead - what point is there in keeping the body?

 

And as for people who "you don't think have brains"... I think you can clearly see the fallacy there. If not, I don't know what to tell you.

[KT45]

And I can see what you're trying to argue, but it doesn't really work if you actually think about it.

 

People with Alzheimer's still have brains, they just gradually lose their functioning and cognizance, until they eventually die. Up until the very last, they can still feel and think - even if their memories are very badly damaged.

Point taken

 

People in comas have brains. Most of them even wake up and recover fully. So that's an extremely poor example.

fetus' also have brains. Most of them even are even born and live. My argument as you can see isn't centered around if they have brains but if they are considered thinking, feeling or self aware beings. Babies and people in comas are not. Saying most people in comas can come back is a poor counter argument because I can say most babies have a chance to live after birth.

 

People in medically vegetative states have such severe brain damage that they will never function again. People who "miraculously wake up" from "vegetative states" aren't in a "vegetative state" - they're generally either catatonic or in a deep coma (states which can last for years). I do believe that, except in cases where it's clearly specified that the individual wanted to be kept "alive" artificially, people in vegetative states (ie: suffering from verified brain death) should be allowed to pass on. Their brain is already dead - what point is there in keeping the body?

Point taken

 

And as for people who "you don't think have brains"... I think you can clearly see the fallacy there. If not, I don't know what to tell you.

I was clearly joking.....

[BlueGiant]

I would like to raise another point: at the cluster of cells stage, I really don't care if it is considered human life, life, or something else.

 

I just don't give a rip.

 

And yes, I have done far, far worse things to cells than just abborting them. Does anyone really want to crack open the can of worms that cell culture can raise (and yes, I was working with human derived cells: U293, human embryonic kidney).

 

Is it viable on its own or is it still parasitic in nature?

 

Anyway, the decision of what to do in the event of a potential abortion isn't mine to make. I am not the one putting my body at risk to do that (and make no mistake, it is still a signifigant risk for the woman, even in this industrialized society). It is not my call.

[NobleSavage]

Someone in a coma was alive before, is alive currently though not conscious and may come out of it again.

 

A fetus is not yet alive and wasn't before. It may be someday as a baby at which point it will have the right to life. Hence my third definition. I'm definately against post birth abortions.

 

Schivo was no longer alive when they finally pulled the plug. This is distinguished from a coma in that there was no chance of her coming out. Maybe that could be a fourth definition, "no longer alive = not alive".