ANSWERS: 41
  • typically because a fetus isn't viable on it's own - many people see it no different than eating an egg from the grocery store.... even though eggs sold are fertile...
  • i don't think it's a question of killing, it's a question of murder. obviously, the living cells that made up the aborted fetus die. however, since to some people, a fetus is not a full person and may not even have a soul yet (depending on your beleifs), then it isn't considered murder.
  • Technically it is killing because of thriving organs, lives off of someone else, ect. It's not a question of "killing". It's a question of "murder", it's a morality thing. Whether influenced or not, it's a morality thing, one of the things that makes humans human, having to have an answer to things, art, a sense of beauty, obsession, theories, maybe even humor, it's a lot of things that make humans different from other animals although still an animal, it's a point of morality. Livia
  • why do people think at all?
  • because its not
  • jeffers, so technically it is ok to kill the fetus because it is not viable on its own? by your logic then it should be ok to kill teenagers because they are not viable until they're old enough to vote or join the army.And they certainly don't have souls.
  • because their brains are not fully developed due to a lack of oxygen from a failed abortion attempt when they were still ALIVE in their mothers womb. DUH
  • You're asking us to explain why other people think the things that they think? Hmm, seems like a dead end street to me.
  • Because it isn't. A collection of cells without neurological activity, in my opinion, is not a human being. It's a collection of cells.
  • People can't seem to agree on when a fetus is actually a person. Some say a fetus is a person at conception, others don't think the fetus is a person until varying times.
  • Because if it's still early (really really early) in the pregnancy, the fetus isn't developed enough to really be a life on it's own. I think the conflict is more that people know it's bad and don't want to do it, but they have to because circumstances are out of their control. Abortions used for birth control is completely and totally wrong, but in other circumstances, you can't judge the person for their position. Try walking in their shoes for a mile or so before you condemn them as horrible people for the decisions they make.
  • Yeah, that's what I want to know.
  • Because if it's still early (really really early) in the pregnancy, the fetus isn't developed enough to really be a life on it's own. I think the conflict is more that people know it's bad and don't want to do it, but they have to because circumstances are out of their control. Abortions used for birth control is completely and totally wrong, but in other circumstances, you can't judge the person for their decision. Try walking in their shoes for a mile or so before you condemn them as horrible people for the decisions they make.
  • Scratching a few cells off my arm kills them. The living stuff there dies. Shedding an egg or some sperm kills them. The living stuff there dies. Shedding a fertilized egg kills it. Shedding a fertilized egg that has multiplied into a couple dozen cells kills it. The living tissue there dies. So at what point does skin, egg, tissue, or a dozen cells become a consious, feeling, thinking individual capable of memories, experience, and perception? Well, the organism will need some memory cells. And some senses to record. And a brain to interpret those senses. And it'll have to have a few experiences to compare it's current experience with, to know how one experience differs from another. So a "person" would need more than a few thousand nerves, plus a fairly developed brain to actually experience being a "person" at all. The very first inkling of having conscious experience or thought, a cohesive actual identity, or soul, requires a pretty complex organism. How large that brain needs to be is a matter of opinion. But lots of well-informed people use their best understanding and judgment on this, and live by their decision quite rationally and comfortably.
  • Either way, if you had a poke just 'cause it feels good you pay the piper. If you got raped the baby could still grow up to love you in a way an intentional pregnancy wouldn't. The best precaution other than rape or life threatening illness due to the pregnancy is keep the snotty end out. the best psition to prevent pregnancy is upright.
  • People who advocate abortion will argue that it is not murder because a fetus often cannot survive outside of the womb before the third trimester. But that is just semantics. What is at stake here is the ETHICS of abortion. I am a strong proponent for the right to life, and I will tell you why: The main concern of the "Pro-Choicers" is not the guarded protection of the life in the womb. Instead, the main concern is the "rights" of the mother over and against the rights of the child growing in her. The child, who cannot exercise its own will, is killed. And, in order to make the killing more palatable, the baby is called a "fetus", or "non-viable", or "not yet human", etc. This eases the conscience. But, for those who say the baby isn't 'viable', have you ever seen a sonogram of an abortion? You can see the 'non-viable fetus' retracting from the instruments of death and seeking self preservation. It wants to live. Some would respond by saying that even a rodent wants to live. But what is in the womb of the mother is human. What about earlier gestational age fetuses and even embryos? At even less than 12 weeks gestation, the fetus is incredibly complex and human. It is nowhere near our 'developed' state but it is clearly different from other types of "tissue". The DNA is clearly, from the moment of conception, completely unique from everyone else on earth. It has taken us thousands of years to obtain the capability of in-vitro fertilization. God performs this miracle thousands of times daily. What about the mother's 'choice'? The argument that she has the right to choose what happens to her own body is markedly flawed. The same ones who want to give a woman the right for an abortion would condemn women for smoking and fight what was her 'choice', clearly affecting her own body. In abortion, the baby is clearly separate in content and being than the mother. It is only riding with the mother for a few months. As Christians, we should protect the helpless, including the unborn individual as it grows. Why doesn't anyone expose that the reason for an abortion is simply selfishness? The mother's 'choice' is simply what inconvenience she wants to escape. I realize that many of you will be outraged at my position, but this is something I feel very passionate about. Abortion is murder.
  • I don't know. It is and it is not right. That child could be the next Ghandi. Who ever says it isn't killing is misinformed.
  • Because different people have different beliefs as to when life begins.
  • It is killing, just as pulling a carrot from the ground is killing. It is what we humans do. I do not think abortion should be used as a contraception but I do believe it should be available. There are many instances that I feel should be the mothers right to chose. Rape, inability to cope as a parent, pregnancy from incest, the fact that carrying to term could kill the mother, just to mention a few. People say , well let them adopt to all those people who want a baby, where are those people looking after all the unwanted babies already in the world? Where are they helping the mother who was forced to have the child and then abuses it because she cant cope? To expect a 13 year old girl who was violently raped to spend 9 months carrying this rapists child in her belly to me is incredibly cruel. Perhaps abortion isnt the cruelest thing of all.
  • Lack of education. If their mother said I am not killing my child take this "egg" out. YOU would not be here today to ask this question.
  • This is in response to an earlier comment thread attached to my earlier answer. I can't seem to get comments to post right now. Gingerminx: The fallacy of your argument is staggering. Proving an exception does not establish a general rule. Did you know that out of nearly 1.29 MILLION abortions performed each year in the US, less than 1% are a result of rape or incest? LESS THAN 1%. I would NEVER minimalize the trauma endured by a victim of rape or incest. I can tell you from personal experience that being raped leaves a gaping wound that NEVER fully heals. But do you honestly think that having an abortion will lessen the horror and psychological damage a victim has endured? Some pro-choice advocates claim that the pro-lifer lacks compassion, since the pro-lifer's position on rape and incest forces a woman to carry her baby against her will. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the rapist who has already forced this woman to carry a child, not the pro-lifer. The pro-life advocate merely wants to prevent another innocent human being (the unborn entity) from being the victim of a violent and morally reprehensible act (abortion), for two wrongs do not make a right. I will post an essay below that I think comprehensively answers your question. Please read it. I think you'll find it enlightening. Rape, Incest and Abortion: Searching Beyond the Myths David C. Reardon, Ph.D. "How can you deny an abortion to a twelve-year-old girl who is the victim of incest?" complains an indignant supporter of abortion. "And how can you call yourself a loving Christian if you would force a victim of violent rape to give birth to a rapist's child?" Every pro-lifer has heard these same challenges in one form or another. They are the emotionally charged questions designed to prove either 1) that pro-lifers are insensitive "fetus lovers," 2) or ethically inconsistent, allowing abortion for some circumstances but not others. Unfortunately, most pro-lifers have difficulty answering these challenges because the issue of sexual assault pregnancies is so widely misunderstood. Typically, both sides of the debate accept the presumption that women with sexual assault pregnancies would want an abortion and that the abortion would in some way help them to recover from the assault. Thus, the pro-lifer is left in the uncomfortable position of arguing that the sanctity of life is more important than the needs of the sexual assault victim with whom everyone should rightly sympathize. But in fact, the welfare of the mother and child are never at odds, even in sexual assault cases. Both the mother and child are helped by preserving life, not by perpetuating violence. The reason most people reach the wrong conclusion about abortion in cases of rape and incest is that the actual experiences of sexual assault victims who became pregnant are routinely left out of the debate. Most people, including sexual assault victims who have never been pregnant, are therefore forming opinions based on prejudices and fears which are disconnected from reality. For example, it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion.1 This evidence alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims. Several reasons are given for not aborting. First, approximately 70 percent of all women believe abortion is immoral, even though many also feel it should be a legal choice for others. Approximately the same percentage of pregnant rape victims believe abortion would be just another act of violence perpetrated against their bodies and their children. Second, some believe that their child's life may have some intrinsic meaning or purpose which they do not yet understand. This child was brought into their lives by a horrible, repulsive act. But perhaps God, or fate, will use the child for some greater purpose. Good can come from evil. Third, victims of assault often become introspective. Their sense of the value of life and respect for others is heightened. They have been victimized, and the thought that they in turn might victimize their own innocent child through abortion is repulsive. Fourth, at least at a subconscious level, the victim may sense that if she can get through the pregnancy, she will have conquered the rape. By giving birth, she can reclaim some of her lost self-esteem. Giving birth, especially when conception was not desired, is a totally selfless act, a generous act, a display of courage, strength and honor. It is proof that she is better than the rapist. While he was selfish, she can be generous. While he was destroying, she can be nurturing. If giving birth builds self respect, what about abortion? This is a question which most people fail to even consider. Instead, most people assume that an abortion will at least help a rape victim put the assault behind her and go on with her life. But in jumping to this conclusion, the public is adopting an unrealistic view of abortion. Abortion is not some magical surgery which turns back time to make a woman "un-pregnant." Instead, it is a real life event which is always very stressful and often traumatic. Once we accept that abortion is itself an event with ramifications on a woman's life, then we must carefully look at the special circumstances of the pregnant rape victim. Will an abortion truly console her, or will it only cause further injury to her already bruised psyche? In answering this question, it is helpful to begin by noting that many women report that their abortions felt like a degrading and brutal form of medical rape.2 This association between abortion and rape is not hard to understand. Abortion involves a painful examination of a woman's sexual organs by a masked stranger who is invading her body. Once she is on the operating table, she loses control over her body. If she protests and asks for the abortionist to stop, she will likely be ignored or told: "It's too late to change your mind. This is what you wanted. We have to finish now." And while she lies there tense and helpless, the life hidden within her is literally sucked out of her womb. The difference? In a sexual rape, a woman is robbed of her purity; in this medical rape she is robbed of her maternity. This experiential association between abortion and sexual assault is very strong for many women. It is especially strong for women who have a prior history of sexual assault, whether or not she is presently pregnant as the result of an assault.3 This is just one reason why women with a history of sexual assault are likely to experience greater distress during and after an abortion than other women. Second, research shows that after any abortion, it is common for women to experience guilt, depression, feelings of being "dirty," resentment of men, and lowered self-esteem. What is most significant is that these feelings are identical to what women typically feel after rape. Abortion, then, only adds to and accentuates the traumatic feelings associated with sexual assault. Rather than easing the psychological burdens of the sexual assault victim, abortion adds to them. This was the experience of Jackie Bakker, who reports: "I soon discovered that the aftermath of my abortion continued a long time after the memory of my rape had faded. I felt empty and horrible. Nobody told me about the pain I would feel deep within causing nightmares and deep depressions. They had all told me that after the abortion I could continue my life as if nothing had happened." Those encouraging abortion often do so because they are uncomfortable dealing with rape victims, or perhaps out of prejudice against victims whom they see as being "guilty for letting it happen." Wiping out the pregnancy is a way of hiding the problem. It is a "quick and easy" way to avoid dealing with the woman's true emotional, social and financial needs. According to Kathleen DeZeeuw, "I, having lived through rape, and also having raised a child 'conceived in rape,' feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I feel that we're being used by pro-abortionists to further the abortion issue, even though we've not been asked to tell our side." The case against abortion of incest pregnancies is even stronger. Studies show that incest victims rarely ever voluntarily agree to an abortion.4 Instead of viewing the pregnancy as unwanted, the incest victim is more likely to see the pregnancy as a way out of the incestuous relationship because the birth of her child will expose the sexual activity. She is also likely to see in her pregnancy the hope of bearing a child with whom she can establish a true loving relationship, one far different than the exploitive relationship in which she has been trapped. But while the incest victim may treasure her pregnancy because it offers her hope of release, and the hope of finding a nurturing love, her pregnancy is a threat to the exploiter. It is also a threat to the pathological secrecy which may envelop other members of the family who are afraid to acknowledge that the abuse is occurring. Because of this dual threat, the victim may be coerced into an unwanted abortion by both the abuser and other family members. For example, Edith Young, a 12-year-old victim of incest impregnated by her stepfather, writes twenty-five years after the abortion of her child: "Throughout the years I have been depressed, suicidal, furious, outraged, lonely, and have felt a sense of loss... The abortion which was to 'be in my best interest' just has not been. As far as I can tell, it only 'saved their reputations,' 'solved their problems,' and 'allowed their lives to go merrily on.'... My daughter, how I miss her so. I miss her regardless of the reason for her conception." Abortion providers who ignore this evidence, and neglect to interview minors presented for abortion for signs of coercion or incest, are actually contributing to the young girl's victimization. They are not only robbing the victim of her child, they are concealing a crime, abetting a perpetrator, and handing the victim back to her abuser so that the exploitation can continue. Finally, we must recognize that the children conceived through sexual assault also have a voice which deserves to be heard. Julie Makimaa, conceived by an act of rape, works diligently against the perception that abortion is acceptable or even necessary in cases of sexual assault. While sympathetic to the suffering her mother endured at the hands of her attacker, Julie is also rightfully proud of her mother's courage and generosity. Regarding her own view of her origin, Julie proclaims: "It doesn't matter how I began. What matters is who I will become." That's a slogan we can all live with. References 1. Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts, (Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69. 2. Francke, The Ambivalence of Abortion (New York: Random House, 1978) 84-95, 167.; Reardon, Aborted Women - Silent No More (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987), 51, 126. 3. Zakus, "Adolescent Abortion Option," Social Work in Health Care, 12(4):87 (1987). 4. Maloof, "The Consequences of Incest: Giving and Taking Life" The Psychological Aspects of Abortion (eds. Mall & Watts, Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 84-85.
  • i have mixed ideas on this. before 4 weeks your "baby" is just a bunch of cells. it has not actually become an embyro yet, and has not started to grow as a human would. so i think that taking the morning after pill, or having an abortion before 4 weeks is ok. However when the embyro starts to develop and has a heart beat and all that, then i think it is wrong and i wouldnt be able to do it.
  • 1) I suppose you mean: "Why do *some* people think abortion is not killing?". Because actually, many people think it is killing. 2) "To kill, killing or to have killed means to cause the death of a living organism. The act of killing an animal, plant, or other life form can be said to have occurred when an outside force, usually another life form, has done something to cause it to die. This may be a result of several actions: - a deliberate action such as war - in the case of animals, slaughter; see slaughterhouse - the result of a criminal act, the action or fault of another human being, see homicide and murder - the results of an accident, such as a car crash. See negligent homicide - an organism eating or otherwise ingesting another organism" Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill "In biology and ecology, an organism (in Greek organon = instrument) is an individual living system (such as animal, plant, fungus or micro-organism). In at least some form, all organisms are capable of reacting to stimuli, reproduction, growth and maintenance as a stable whole (after FAO[1]). An organism may be unicellular or made up, like humans, of many billions of cells divided into specialized tissues and organs." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism I could imagine that some people could not agree with those definitions. But let us take them as a starting point. 3) "Prenatal development is the process in which an embryo or fetus (or foetus) gestates during pregnancy, from fertilization until birth. Often, the terms fetal development, foetal development, or embryology are used in a similar sense. After fertilization the embryogenesis starts. In humans, when embryogenesis finishes, by the end of the 10th week of gestational age, the precursors of all the major organs of the body have been created. Therefore, the following period, the fetal period, is described both topically on one hand, i.e. by organ, and strictly chronologically on the other, by a list of major occurrences by weeks of gestational age." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development I would consider the fetus as a living organism. I would consider abortion as the act of causing its death. So, in this sense, abortion would be killing. Here, again, I could imagine that some people could not agree with this. However, I think that this is the most sensible view, as long as we are agreeing on the definitions. 4) Anyway, I don't think that this is the point when we are talking about abortion. The point is rather to settle what it is exactly that is killed. Some people would say that a normal human being is killed, so it is murder. I think that this is certainly not always true, and that the sooner it happens in the development, the falser this will be. And in some cases, there could be some very valid moral justifications for doing an abortion.
  • So, you are saying abortion is okay because the fetus cannot live on its own outside the womb? Ok...so then you are saying that a 26 week old fetus can be aborted as well, because chances are so low that he/she will not survive outside the womb? Have you seen a 26 week old fetus/baby? Have you seen a 20 week baby? Have you even seen an ultrasound at 8 weeks? I would like to hear that you haven't because how could you agree to abortion once you see a hearbeat, head, limbs etc.
  • Those people are probably on answer bag writing the Question - Why do people think abortion IS killing. Everybody thinks diffrent Some people like apples some people dont. It the way of life Tomado tamatoe
  • It is quite evident,that those who share the opinion that abortion is not killing have an acute distortion of reality. One only need look at the baby on ultasound to see clearly a formed baby, this being by the time she has missed her period. There is no mistaking the human infant from a rabbit. The infant has it's own DNA( genetic coding), being like no other person. When there is removal the baby parts post abortion, the trucks are called human waste disposal. I, just looked into the face of a newborn today, in effect that infant had the same features when it was in mother uterus at 8 weeks. You can call an apple an orange all day long, but the bottom line is, the apple still remains an apple, and likewise for the orange. Just because you call something not killing, but what of the evidence. So are we saying that it is a human being or not. We can't make it to suit the situation. Why do some call it a baby, and others call it products of conception. are were distorting reality or what! This is just trying to dilute the real responsibilty. I not meaning the woman,I however am saying that she is just buying into the lie, and thereby acceping the distortion. It really does take alot, but one has to ask why don't doctors that kill the mother's baby ever show the baby on ultrasound before the abortion procedure. I can tell you why because an overwelming percentage, upwards of 90% will change their mind about an abortion. Maybe the are seeing the reality, that society would otherwise like to keep from her.Why do many abortionists do a turn around, and stop doing abortions. Maybe they no longer can live with the lie, and eventually it gets to be too much.Planned parenthood proports that be making birth control available, would decrease the need for abortion, can anyone tell me why have there been over 50 million abortion in this country since Roe V Wade in 1973. Planned parenthood has been able to effect change of STD's. They haven't notified women who are on the pill or who have had abortions, the linkage with Breast Cancer, and their is clear, peer reviewed data that supports this linkage. Don't women have the right to know this information. ( Breast Cancer Institute). Why is the Susan G. Komen Foundatio (fight for the cure of breast cancer ) support planned parenthood, since they are suppose to be looking for the cure. How come no one is looking for the prevention. This abortion business seems more like the unchoice,being that everything is being done to keep the truth from these women.
  • I wonder if these same people who think this,would get an opportunity to see a developing baby in the uterus? I would bet my last dollar, that they would change their mind. It is easy to make that statement without actully seeing a growing baby. Majority of woman who are abortion bound, when they see their baby, how is it that they change their mind about having an abortion. Maybe thats why abortionist, do not show the baby on ultrasound! For those who think a baby is not alive, until the baby is born. The baby is very much alive. If it was not alive, the baby would stop developing. Take out a pregnancy book, you will see how the baby develops from month to month. At 8 wk in mother uterus, the baby is fully formed. It need only gain weight, and get further development of nerves , brian etc. But structurally the bay is completely formed. The baby yes is very much alive!
  • We have to stop this well if I decide, then its is okay, its my decision. Lady, get real you are no more making that decision. You are being feed this nonsense to make you think you are making a choice. Ask your self why do most abortions occur by black women. Margret Sanger, the founder of planned parenthood was a racist. Why are most planned parenthood places located in lower socioeconomic areas. Do you think this is by coincidence.Why are their so many women with breast cancer(breast cancer/abortion linkage, pill/breast cancer).Especially within the past twenty years, does it just have to do with better screening. I dare say no, look it up on the internet. It is right there for all to read.If you think I am making any of this up look on information on margaret Sanger, statistics on abortion, and the linkages to breast cancer.
  • I wonder how many woman know what the problems that can occur with an abortion. Potential for perforation of the uterus, which would render her sterile. Potential for pelvic inflamatory disease, again render her sterile. The potential for hemorrhage, which could lead to death. Potential for perforation of the intestines. The potential for increase ectopic for pregnancies. The potential for inability to carry future babies to term, because of lose of tone. Many use this has a means of birth control, many having upwards of ten or more.Potential for psychological effectios, post abortion grief at having the abortion, which can lead to serious depression ,and yes even suicide.I have been told by people who work in the abortion industry, that they will give a woman whose had an abortion birth control(the pill) However they fail to tell the woman they are giving her less then what is prescribed, so that this woman will come back for her future abortions. How nice of the doctor.These woman are being used by the abortion industry to keep the profits coming. Billion dollar industry, with many tenticles into planned parenthood, as well as or associated areas. If just one area of the abortion industry would no longer be available it would render the doctors ability to perform an abortion would be halted.Wan you are being cheated from getting the truth.So this is choice. I would stick to choosing bagels not babies!Don't let them win, you lose if you allow them to manipulate you!
  • A couple of things I noted from reading all of this; 1. In cases of rape their are two victim, that of the baby and the mother. The baby is innocent, and should not have to meet death because of not wanting the child. You can be certain that there will be individuals that will open there arms. Would having an abortion lessen the pain that the woman is going through. I dare say no! So the woman needs support, and safe environment for her to live in, she no more needs to be brutalized by an abortionist. A pro life person meas also pro campassion, pro knowledge, pro advocate for the woman and her baby. 2.the one who said she would consider an abortion early on in the pregnancy. Well because it is in the embroyo stage doesn't mean the baby is any less human. The baby is human from the moment of conception, to birth, life, and until that peron meets their natural death. Abortionist will not do abortions on women before the 8th week because they are looking at the size of baby, which determines the amount of money the doctor will charge her for that abortion. 3.In case of incest again I would like to mention that the baby is an innocent. See above refer same in case of rape. Do you think that a girl going thru an abortion at a young age would be any less traumactic. Actually studies show it is the reverse. Abortion are by far a lot more riskier then is going thru a pregancy. I can tell you I have seen many a 13 year old on the maternity floor.
  • 1st. Abortions are more riskier to the mothers wel being then is going thru a pregancy.Statistically this has been proven. 2.A rape/incest victim pain isn't going to be anymore lessened by her having an abortion. We seem to forget the baby is innocent. Maybe that is something we could convey to her, has opposed to adding on this woman a riskier procedure that is abortion. 3. To say that their her no one coming to aid of wanting children/ You obviously have no idea on waiting years for adoption of a child. 4. An abortions have not shown to reduce childabuse. Where is your data coming from, this is simply not the case. 5.Crisis pregnancy centers are coming up all over the country to educate the woman about her body, the effects of abortion, as well as supporting the mother throught are pregnancy, with counseling,teaching,and material needs as needed. I want to see how well an abortion place supports, educates the woman. From what I understand, they would rather keep her ignorant of the truth. 5. Bottom line Abortion is killing the baby.I have heard many a woman say that "I thought it was just a mass of tissue". Then only to realize it was a formed baby. Many experience post abortion syndrome, grief response to the abortion. If it was really a choice, how come woman are not given the information that the need to now. We are suppose to trust our doctors, they have the knowledge. What is actually happening, the weight of the dollar is stroger then the weight of the baby. What ever happened to medical profession being a healing art.Our doctors are know manipulators of killing machines. Think about this see small baby arm and legs sen in the suction bottle. You would think right out of Hitler rein of terror. The new terror is abortion. Bararck Obama if he gets in will return partial birth abortion, this a late term abortion. It is where the baby is deliveried except for the head. Then the suction sucks out the brain, collapses the skull and then delivers the baby. He is going to allow babies who are born alive after an abortion, to be let to die. Is this what we want from our president. Hitler revisited but hundredfold worse then you could ever imagine.
  • Why do most people regret their abortion, maybe they've come to terms with the truth. If anything woman are for the worse since Roe v Wade. This arguement is one of TRUTH!
  • If people have so much difficulty understanding what is clearly right before them. Tell them next time you see a baby. Face them and ask them, Now would you scramble this precious human life as eggs. If you would I dare you to eat it.
  • For those of you pro-choicers I have some information I would like to show you. This first one lists the different ways they perform abortions. Be warned it can be very emotional. http://www.prochoice.com/abort_how.html This one shows an article about a study that was performed in Finland that shows that having an abortion is four times more deadlier than bringing the child to term. http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html And finally this one shows some quotes of former abortionists. http://www.prolife.com/EVERETT.html And to those of you who say "What if the mother was raped?" I ask you, is it the baby's fault? Should you kill an innocent child for someone else's wrongdoing? Finally I would just like to tell everyone something as they read about how abortions are done. At six weeks (most abortions aren't performed until after about nine weeks) after conception a fetus has all of its limbs, its brain and a full nervous system. That means that it can feal anything done to it they way any normal person feels something.
  • Personally I dont see an embryo as a living being / creature. Therefore the ending of an embryo isn't killing, more like the removal of a growth. Sorry my answer's a little harsh just couldn't think of an alternative way to put it.
  • All I can say is that I've just read 4 pages of arguments on this subject. What this question really proves is what an unpleasant and closed minded creature us humans are. Each of us has our views, based on our life experiences. No one can say catagorically what is right as this is a question based on morallity or ethics & these vary from person to person. Frankly I'm shocked.
  • It appeases their conscience. Unless they are truly inhumane and unfeeling, facing the reality of killing a defenseless human being would be too much to take. So, they convince themselves that the unborn are not living humans.
  • Well imagine the helpless woman who has nothing and is going through so much turmoil. No women would ever want to be in that situation but yet find themselves. Imagine being told your pregnancy had a 1% chance of survival to become a normal healthy child. Imagine the fear of a sigle woman carrying an abnormal fetus in the womb and trying to figure out how to give it some kind of a life. Imagine the fear of giving birth and watching your child die when you could have prevented all of that suffering. Not everything in life is black and white.
  • "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Roe V. Wade.
  • Amoung the many reasons given pro and con, they call it a fetus to take away the vision of it being a developing life inside the uterus.
  • Delusion.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy