What should abortion laws be?

[JenT]

i am no expert on this but i believe there were several subsequent cases that solidified R v W. And the one case on late term abortions that weakened it slightly

"Roe" who originally filed Roe v Wade, has been campaigning against abortion for a long time now. She's 100% prolife.

Abortion - Pro Life - Priests for Life: Norma McCorvey's Pro-Life Ministry and Website

 

[JenT]

LMAO!! Nothing like a little gospel music and pictures of human tissue, and ESPECIALLY the image of a human face, to stir up someone's emotions.

AKA: Rhetoric.. Which is NOT objective. I have an "emoticon" for that!

Murder is devestating and shameful. Killing of human life is emotional no matter which way you cut it.

Women grieving for their children that are no more, is emotional.

The emotional scars that ruin lives, not to mention the shredded human never given the chance, are real.

Why would you throw out emotion? The tragedies of life are emotional.

The death of life is reality.

At the point of conception, when the egg combines with the sperm, everything about the child is decided. What color hair, what color eyes, will he or she have freckles... it's not subjective its fact.

 

[Care4all]

Just so you know, most video if not ALL VIDEO of late term abortions that sites like the one eots gave are pictures of late term abortions that occurred for MEDICAL REASONS, they are NOT abortions that women just chose to do haphazardly, late term, just because they felt like it.

It is a shame, a real shame that pictures of women that chose to keep their babies but in late term had to abort them due to medical reasons, like to save her own life, are used to exploit the position of the prolifers.... AND I am prolife so don't be yelling at me as though I am not....



Show me one state that legally allows abortion after 6 months. (for just the will of the mother and not medical reasons)

 

[FA_Q2]

bern
She should or could be charged from anything from manslaughter to murder, the punishment for which will very depending on the circumstances.

I would disagree here. I believe that those laws were created to deal with adults and there are many things surrounding an abortion that make it very difficult to fit it into those categories. I believe a charge for obtaining an illegal abortion should be exactly that; obtaining an illegal abortion. That should carry a heavy punishment to include some jail time to be determined, as you said, by the circumstances surrounding the charge.

Just to clarify, at what point would you place the line for illegal abortion? As I said, I believe that the first trimester is a good point but could see it going out to 4 months maybe 5 but I am not sure I am all right with 5 months. That seems to be the best place for sentience – my stance of why the line needs to be drawn.

JD
Plausible does not mean "conclusive".

And the theory of gravity is still a theory and not fact. What is your point? YOU are not conclusively sentient, it is just highly likely. There is no conclusiveness in science, even medical science.

EXCEPT that the word EXCEPT is the root word for the term and functionality of the word "exception".
Besides- "Imminent danger", at least in the world of third trimester abortionists, means "possible risk to death" and is a game of statistical risks to the mother. You invalidate my own statistical risks to the mother, based on her weight gain, and possibility of having a heart attack or gestational diabetes. When playing statistics, be sure that your own statistical risks are no less than 100%, especially when one claims that other statistical risks of death or serious injury are far less, because I guarantee you that 100% of women who have died of a heart attack or during childbirth, CAUSED by the condition of being pregnant, after seeking abortion services in a locale that does not allow or offer them, did still die. I can also guarantee you that 100% of women who have full term pregnancies die, also. Some die as a result of pregnancies, and the weight gain involved, which contributed to them getting cancer, heart disease, or diabetes. That statistic is a little bit difficult to argue with. So.. Go ahead and define "imminent danger", and try like hell to justify a woman dying from weight gain caused by multiple pregnancies, compared with her dying during the pregnancy.. Nothing is really nearly as imminent as you make it out to be, except for ectopic pregnancies, which can last for several weeks without treatment, as well.

Blah blah fucking blah. You know what imminent danger means and I will not degrade myself by explaining the meaning to you. That is not an actual exception, it is a medical necessity.

However, I refuse to accept that capacity is equivalent to actual functionality.

Based on nothing more than emotion, yes. You have no evidence or coherent argument as to why you take that stance.

We do not use all of our brains at the same time, and we are adults. In fact, we use very little of them, at any given time, no matter how hard we try to think.

Where the hell did you get that idea!!! Do you have ANY working knowledge in biology?

 

[Contumacious]

Wasn't there a later case that overruled RvW? I was under the impression that RvW was no longer the binding decision?

Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (U.S. 06/28/2000)

Held: Nebraska's statute criminalizing the performance of "partial birth abortion" violates the Federal Constitution, as interpreted in Casey and Roe. Pp. 3-27.

[18] (a) Because the statute seeks to ban one abortion method, the Court discusses several different abortion procedures, as described in the evidence below and the medical literature. During a pregnancy's second trimester (12 to 24 weeks), the most common abortion procedure is "dilation and evacuation" (D&E), which involves dilation of the cervix, removal of at least some fetal tissue using nonvacuum surgical instruments, and (after the 15th week) the potential need for instrumental dismemberment of the fetus or the collapse of fetal parts to facilitate evacuation from the uterus. When such dismemberment is necessary, it typically occurs as the doctor pulls a portion of the fetus through the cervix into the birth canal. The risks of mortality and complication that accompany D&E are significantly lower than those accompanying induced labor procedures (the next safest mid-second-trimester procedures). A variation of D&E, known as "intact D&E," is used after 16 weeks. It involves removing the fetus from the uterus through the cervix "intact," i.e., in one pass rather than several passes. The intact D&E proceeds in one of two ways, depending on whether the fetus presents head first or feet first. The feet-first method is known as "dilation and extraction" (D&X). D&X is ordinarily associated with the term "partial birth abortion." The District Court concluded that clear and convincing evidence established that Carhart's D&X procedure is superior to, and safer than, the D&E and other abortion procedures used during the relevant gestational period in the 10 to 20 cases a year that present to Carhart. Moreover, materials presented at trial emphasize the potential benefits of the D&X procedure in certain cases. Pp. 3-10.

.

 

[eots]

Meet Amillia Taylor - or what she looked like in October, when she was born as the world's youngest surviving premature baby. Amillia was born at a Miami hospital after less than 22 weeks of development. Since then she's been incubating and is expected to go home soon.

Is there nothing more amazing than those teeny tiny translucent feet. Hold your own hand out in front of you, and imagine those feet poking through your fingers. She was 10 OUNCES when born (280 grams), and 9.5 inches (24 cm). That's just longer than the length of your hand.

Now she looks like this:The Cellar Image of the Day


if an unborn child of 22 weeks is viable out of the womb ..how can it possible not be a human child and not a blob..and how can terminating this child be anything but murder that is simply veiled by the womb and hidden from view ???...I dont know what the laws should be..but I would strongly plea with any woman that finds her self with child not to end its life unless there is in very grave danger you may lose theirs and to any woman that has made that tragic error you have my sympathy and prayers not my judgement

 

[JenT]

Just so you know, most video if not ALL VIDEO of late term abortions that sites like the one eots gave are pictures of late term abortions that occurred for MEDICAL REASONS, they are NOT abortions that women just chose to do haphazardly, late term, just because they felt like it.

It is a shame, a real shame that pictures of women that chose to keep their babies but in late term had to abort them due to medical reasons, like to save her own life, are used to exploit the position of the prolifers.... AND I am prolife so don't be yelling at me as though I am not....

Show me one state that legally allows abortion after 6 months. (for just the will of the mother and not medical reasons)

Know what I think is a shame? (and as you're prolife you might agree) I think its a shame that you can't vote "unless of life threatening circumstances" because that gets exploited and millions are aborted because that opened the door to any reason.

I THINK that's how Roe v Wade was ruled isn't it? And yet abortion exists on demand. At least it is in California.

 

[JenT]

Wasn't there a later case that overruled RvW? I was under the impression that RvW was no longer the binding decision?

Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (U.S. 06/28/2000)

Held: Nebraska's statute criminalizing the performance of "partial birth abortion" violates the Federal Constitution, as interpreted in Casey and Roe. Pp. 3-27.

[18] (a) Because the statute seeks to ban one abortion method, the Court discusses several different abortion procedures, as described in the evidence below and the medical literature. During a pregnancy's second trimester (12 to 24 weeks), the most common abortion procedure is "dilation and evacuation" (D&E), which involves dilation of the cervix, removal of at least some fetal tissue using nonvacuum surgical instruments, and (after the 15th week) the potential need for instrumental dismemberment of the fetus or the collapse of fetal parts to facilitate evacuation from the uterus. When such dismemberment is necessary, it typically occurs as the doctor pulls a portion of the fetus through the cervix into the birth canal. The risks of mortality and complication that accompany D&E are significantly lower than those accompanying induced labor procedures (the next safest mid-second-trimester procedures). A variation of D&E, known as "intact D&E," is used after 16 weeks. It involves removing the fetus from the uterus through the cervix "intact," i.e., in one pass rather than several passes. The intact D&E proceeds in one of two ways, depending on whether the fetus presents head first or feet first. The feet-first method is known as "dilation and extraction" (D&X). D&X is ordinarily associated with the term "partial birth abortion." The District Court concluded that clear and convincing evidence established that Carhart's D&X procedure is superior to, and safer than, the D&E and other abortion procedures used during the relevant gestational period in the 10 to 20 cases a year that present to Carhart. Moreover, materials presented at trial emphasize the potential benefits of the D&X procedure in certain cases. Pp. 3-10.

.

So partial birth abortions are PREFERRED? Am I reading that right? (I'm sleepy, about to sign off)

your sig, though... it doesn't make much sense, it all starts at conception...or do you just like dreaming about your showers?

 

[eots]

Reality check... medical reason for late term abortion can simply mean a belief it could negatively effect the woman's mental health..ie: make her depressed..or could cause emotional trauma which effectively allows late term abortion on demand

 

[Contumacious]

Wasn't there a later case that overruled RvW? I was under the impression that RvW was no longer the binding decision?

Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (U.S. 06/28/2000)

Held: Nebraska's statute criminalizing the performance of "partial birth abortion" violates the Federal Constitution, as interpreted in Casey and Roe. Pp. 3-27.

[18] (a) Because the statute seeks to ban one abortion method, the Court discusses several different abortion procedures, as described in the evidence below and the medical literature. During a pregnancy's second trimester (12 to 24 weeks), the most common abortion procedure is "dilation and evacuation" (D&E), which involves dilation of the cervix, removal of at least some fetal tissue using nonvacuum surgical instruments, and (after the 15th week) the potential need for instrumental dismemberment of the fetus or the collapse of fetal parts to facilitate evacuation from the uterus. When such dismemberment is necessary, it typically occurs as the doctor pulls a portion of the fetus through the cervix into the birth canal. The risks of mortality and complication that accompany D&E are significantly lower than those accompanying induced labor procedures (the next safest mid-second-trimester procedures). A variation of D&E, known as "intact D&E," is used after 16 weeks. It involves removing the fetus from the uterus through the cervix "intact," i.e., in one pass rather than several passes. The intact D&E proceeds in one of two ways, depending on whether the fetus presents head first or feet first. The feet-first method is known as "dilation and extraction" (D&X). D&X is ordinarily associated with the term "partial birth abortion." The District Court concluded that clear and convincing evidence established that Carhart's D&X procedure is superior to, and safer than, the D&E and other abortion procedures used during the relevant gestational period in the 10 to 20 cases a year that present to Carhart. Moreover, materials presented at trial emphasize the potential benefits of the D&X procedure in certain cases. Pp. 3-10.

.

So partial birth abortions are PREFERRED? Am I reading that right? (I'm sleepy, about to sign off)

your sig, though... it doesn't make much sense, it all starts at conception...or do you just like dreaming about your showers?

I see, so from your standpoint the gametes can be left out of the equation without a problem!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bullshit.

.

 

[Father Time]

Is a fetus alive? yes. Is it human? yes. It is a "being" in fact, there is a flash of electricity that happens at the point of conception that last time I looked, doctors were unable to explain.



Personal testimony
Abortion: young and deceived by Jen Shroder

As I watched another shouting fest that was most abortion threads a horrible thought hit me.

I could make a worthless appeal to emotion right now.

The thought jolted through my body like a defibrillator. What kind of slow witted dolt would result to such cheesy drek? What kind of a person would result to just trying to tug on the heartstrings, and hurl insults, instead of attempting to argue their side? What kind of a person does it take to just run around screaming bloody murder (literally) at confused teens, and everyone else. As I looked down from my high horse at such people I could not help but shake my head in disgust.

Sorry, were you saying something?

Yep, that the POLITICIANS are the murderers, and they are. If you read the rest of it at the site, you would know that. The politicans and the voters that vote for them, hopefully they'll think twice about that.

Cheesy drek? I'm expressing the emotions I felt as I watched my son playing football. Fortunately the whole world didn't hound me to abort him like they did the first.

It is drek (or close to it), it's just a massive appeal to emotion and proclaiming it's murder. (It isn't as murder is a legal term). I don't doubt you can argue against it without that kind of stuff so why must you use appeal to emotion.

 

[JD_2B]

LMAO!! Nothing like a little gospel music and pictures of human tissue, and ESPECIALLY the image of a human face, to stir up someone's emotions.

AKA: Rhetoric.. Which is NOT objective. I have an "emoticon" for that!

Murder is devestating and shameful. Killing of human life is emotional no matter which way you cut it.

Abortion is not murder. Murder is a legal term, and using that term on a debate forum, especially in the "law and justice system" sub-forum, is not only being dishonest, but is an APPEAL to emotional RHETORIC, no matter which way YOU cut it.

Women grieving for their children that are no more, is emotional.

They don't grieve for their children. They never HAD the children to grieve for, and any appeal to emotion that you are trying to convey, by saying this, is planting the assumption that women do not or should not have the capacity to understand their own decisions. The only thing ANY woman who talks to YOU in response to your own words and rhetoric, is only grieving the pains of constantly being treated like a criminal, for doing something that is perfectly legal and on par with autonomy.
You pro lifers made up this pseudo=psychological term called "Post Abortion Stress Syndrome", which is a complete facade, determined by the American Psychological Association, and is only considered by the APA to be closely related to PTSD. This PTSD is generally understood to be caused by verbal abuse and emotional degradations much akin to the shit you just wrote here, directed at one specific group of women- women who abort.
Well, much like women who miscarry and do not find out they were pregnant until they miscarried, and are still HAPPY about not being pregnant, the VAST majority of women who abort, do it as a CHOICE. Whether YOU think that this choice is morally right or wrong, you should NOT be a bully and treat women like criminals, for making said choice.

The emotional scars that ruin lives, not to mention the shredded human never given the chance, are real.

The emotional scars from comments like yours, causing REAL psychological issues, such as PTSD, are MORE REAL than you seem to give a rat's ass about, and are CERTAINLY more real than any bullshit PASS claims that your side's consistent use of anti abortionist emotional rhetoric propaganda.

Why would you throw out emotion? The tragedies of life are emotional.

Abortion is not a tragedy. Neither is is some kind of affliction. It is a choice.
The fact that you want to make it out to be a tragedy, is ridiculously inane.

The death of life is reality.

And nothing dies during an abortion. A woman simply chooses to not be pregnant anymore.

At the point of conception, when the egg combines with the sperm, everything about the child is decided. What color hair, what color eyes, will he or she have freckles... it's not subjective its fact.

Not exactly. That fertilized egg could become twins, or not, even. Also, that fertilized egg could get an infection or have a mother that smokes or uses alcohol, in the third week of gestation, and be severely affected.
Being sexually active is not some kind of societal ticket to force women who ARE sexually active to have to be some kind of big brother over themselves, just in case they are pregnant, and avoid smoking, drinking, and even getting a cold. You are simply being irrational about abortion, and have no logical debate angle to use, so instead, like everyone else on here, you are dipping your hand deep into the anti abortion propaganda machine.

Gratz.

 

[JD_2B]

bern
She should or could be charged from anything from manslaughter to murder, the punishment for which will very depending on the circumstances.

I would disagree here. I believe that those laws were created to deal with adults and there are many things surrounding an abortion that make it very difficult to fit it into those categories. I believe a charge for obtaining an illegal abortion should be exactly that; obtaining an illegal abortion. That should carry a heavy punishment to include some jail time to be determined, as you said, by the circumstances surrounding the charge.

Boy was that VAGUE!!!!

So, you're still not answering the question, ey, Bernie??? LMAO!!! Figures!!

Just to clarify, at what point would you place the line for illegal abortion? As I said, I believe that the first trimester is a good point but could see it going out to 4 months maybe 5 but I am not sure I am all right with 5 months. That seems to be the best place for sentience – my stance of why the line needs to be drawn.

As specific as THIS is in comparison, Bernie- you would think that you would have some CLEAR idea of how women should be punished for not falling into the neat little timeframe that you subjectively advocate for.

JD
Plausible does not mean "conclusive".

And the theory of gravity is still a theory and not fact. What is your point? YOU are not conclusively sentient, it is just highly likely. There is no conclusiveness in science, even medical science. [/quote]

GRAVITY has been WIDELY considered a LAW OF PHYSICS, in SCIENTIFIC SETTINGS for many many many years now. Moving the fuck on. Jesus.

Blah blah fucking blah. You know what imminent danger means and I will not degrade myself by explaining the meaning to you. That is not an actual exception, it is a medical necessity.

It is an EXCEPTION because it is "except for" the "medical necessity of the mother".
Well, I call weight gain and stretch marks medical necessity, even if those are only "medical" conditions and disorders that stand in the way of a woman's career or personal life. Guess what else?? Many DOCTORS are more than willing to take this stance too. So go ahead.. Keep it an exception. Even the healthiest woman can find someone willing to make her an "exception", and write it up in his medical report as a "necessity". =)

However, I refuse to accept that capacity is equivalent to actual functionality.

Based on nothing more than emotion, yes. You have no evidence or coherent argument as to why you take that stance.

We do not use all of our brains at the same time, and we are adults. In fact, we use very little of them, at any given time, no matter how hard we try to think.

Where the hell did you get that idea!!! Do you have ANY working knowledge in biology?

You clearly do not even understand the brain function that YOU YOURSELF are arguing for. FYI, only certain parts of the brain function at any given time.
PS- Ad hominems do not help your argument, any more than rhetoric does, so please try to follow along, and remain civil.

 

[JD_2B]

Just so you know, most video if not ALL VIDEO of late term abortions that sites like the one eots gave are pictures of late term abortions that occurred for MEDICAL REASONS, they are NOT abortions that women just chose to do haphazardly, late term, just because they felt like it.

It is a shame, a real shame that pictures of women that chose to keep their babies but in late term had to abort them due to medical reasons, like to save her own life, are used to exploit the position of the prolifers.... AND I am prolife so don't be yelling at me as though I am not....

Thank you!!

Show me one state that legally allows abortion after 6 months. (for just the will of the mother and not medical reasons)

Well, that is the sad reality of it all. Even in states where it is illegal to abort based on the mother's will, rather than medical necessity, there are a great deal of doctors who are willing to mark up their own paperwork as though the woman's abortion WAS indeed a medical necessity, which is, I believe the subject of contention here. Some people are more willing to believe that a woman who is at a high risk for infliction of great harm, due to psychological reasons, is a qualifier, and some people do not believe this. I PERSONALLY think that psychological reasons can sometimes be a lie, a facade for a late term abortion on demand, which is wasteful, in my personal opinion, but LEGALLY, I feel that the woman should not be publicly judged and imprisoned, with her health history becoming public record, for making such a decision. Roe v Wade was decided for the right reasons, but it's language about late term abortions is not in complete conjunction with those reasons. I legally have to disagree with certain aspects of the decision, for the sake of a person's privacy.

 

[FA_Q2]

GRAVITY has been WIDELY considered a LAW OF PHYSICS, in SCIENTIFIC SETTINGS for many many many years now. Moving the fuck on. Jesus.

And that was the point. It is still the theory and you will never see any medical facts pertaining to conciseness, ever. That all you are doing here is misrepresenting the data.

It is an EXCEPTION because it is "except for" the "medical necessity of the mother".
Well, I call weight gain and stretch marks medical necessity, even if those are only "medical" conditions and disorders that stand in the way of a woman's career or personal life. Guess what else?? Many DOCTORS are more than willing to take this stance too. So go ahead.. Keep it an exception. Even the healthiest woman can find someone willing to make her an "exception", and write it up in his medical report as a "necessity". =)

So? I can call the earth flat and this desk a house and it will not make it so. IMMINENT DANGER TO LIFE. PERIOD. Stop placing words in my mouth and arguing semantics. It is unbecoming.

We do not use all of our brains at the same time, and we are adults. In fact, we use very little of them, at any given time, no matter how hard we try to think.

Where the hell did you get that idea!!! Do you have ANY working knowledge in biology?

You clearly do not even understand the brain function that YOU YOURSELF are arguing for. FYI, only certain parts of the brain function at any given time.
PS- Ad hominems do not help your argument, any more than rhetoric does, so please try to follow along, and remain civil.[/QUOTE]
NO, virtually all our brain is processing data at all times. Capacity may not be at 100 percent but you do use 100 percent of your brain every day. You use most of your capacity also. There are millions of processes going through your at any given moment. It was not an ad hominem; our brains are actually there in use for a reason.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

To recap

So, my assertion ^is^ that it is not a *person* until the moment it takes it's first breath

I consider it to be at the point of taking it's first breath, because the bible defines it that way.

We do not need anyone EDUCATING us on abortion or what is happening inside of our bodies. Good grief. Will Big Brother EVER take a LOAD OFF???

Yep... no information for women, lest they reject JD's extremist neofeminism

I do not believe that abortion is killing anything. Ever

The day you can adopt an embryo, and take it home with you, without taking the woman as well, let me know.

embryo transfer - definition of embryo transfer in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

AVMA Position On Embryo Transplant Procedures

Artificial Insemination and Embryo Transplant: An Artificial Insemination Centre's Viewpoint

Non-Surgical Embryo Transplants Ready For The Farm

Amazing what a few seconds on Google turns up

You are talking about entities that have the POTENTIAL to become human beings.

So why stop at the moment of conception, why not assign a police officer to every man to prevent them from jerking off and killing "babies"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

.

It's official. You're too retarded to be in this thread. Now get out.

So, If some freak show chick fucks a dog on a stage, and gets preggers with the dog, you are aware that her offspring would be human still, right??
Your argument makes no rational sense. If it is not okay to you to kill anything that is human, then it is irrational to use birth control or condoms, and men should never masturbate.it.

If I don't want to be pregnant, even if it is late term, all I have to do to get it done legally is to go to a state that does it legally (like Kansas), or talk some Doctor into doing it for me, and make it out to be threatening my life (lots of pro choice doctors out there), or do what a teenage couple did, and pay someone 50 bucks to bash the shit out of my belly with a baseball bat a few times- and that is all AFTER I belly flop off of a cliff, or try to strip my own membranes early on in the pregnancy to make the water break, which would inevitably destroy the fetus if it is not ready to be delivered.
What CASE do you have that any given person can NOT do any number of the things I just listed, ey?

So once again you're back to arguing that it should be legal for me to rape you because you can't always prevent me from doing so?[/quote]

Women are life support systems

Talk about dehumanizing women... They're nothing but baby-making machines to JD

When the Bald eagle was on the endangered species list, it was ALSO ILLEGAL to kill or to damage any of the Bald eagle's fertilized eggs....the crime and punishment were EQUAL...why is that JD?

That doesn't change the fact that Bald Eagles often push their eggs or born birds out of the nest prematurely.

So you should be allowed to kill babies because

Florida Woman Kills Son, Self at Gun Range - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com]

"Putting the kids first", is the BIGGEST mistake that parents make these days.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A fetus get's it's oxygen from a vein that goes from the mother to the fetus.
But, hey, if attacking me personally, because I happen to know that, makes you somehow feel important- then have a blast!! =)

No, Mensa Girl. There is no "vein from the mother to the fetus". I have already posted to you both a quote and a link specifying how the fetus receives oxygen and nutrients through the umbilical cord, way back when you were brilliantly - and incorrectly, needless to say - telling the board how the mother and fetus share a blood supply.

I realize this is an utter waste of time, but I'm feeling charitable.

FETAL BLOOD AND CIRCULATION

Throughout the fetal stage of development, the maternal blood supplies the fetus with O2 and nutrients and carries away its wastes.
These substances diffuse between the maternal and fetal blood through the placental membrane.

In the fetal circulatory system, the umbilical vein transports blood rich in O2 and nutrients from the placenta to the fetal body.

Once again, the mother's blood does not enter the fetal body, and they have completely separate blood supplies . . . as has been explained to you previously.

Else wouldn't all children have to have the same blood type as the mother? You know, since mixing blood types is lethal... In fact, after the first pregnancy, if the second child's bloodtype is the same as the first and different than the mothers, antibodies can still cross the membrane and cause all kinds of hell.

Well, that apparently only counts if you know that a fetus is a separate organism with a distinct genetic structure and thus the capability of having a completely different blood type from his mother. Since JD believes a fetus is just like a tumor, I guess she doesn't need to ask any questions about blood supply.

 

[Cecilie1200]

LMAO!! Nothing like a little gospel music and pictures of human tissue, and ESPECIALLY the image of a human face, to stir up someone's emotions.

AKA: Rhetoric.. Which is NOT objective. I have an "emoticon" for that!

a human face you say..interesting...and you consider the human response and emotion to the reality of abortion to be rhetoric and not your pages of flailing attempts to rationalize away these normal human responses ?

You sound like a psychiatrist. "Hmmm, interesting. Now let us talk about your toilet training."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Question: is conception when the egg and sperm unite or is conception actually when the united egg and sperm attaches itself to the uterus?

My medical dictionary says that the term "conception" is actually used to indicate both. I suspect that if doctors/scientists want to be more specific, they use the terms "fertilization" and "implantation". Otherwise, they're kinda referring to that whole period of time between.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Viability is another concern, separate from sentience. A sentient adult is not necessarily a viable adult, especially after a gunshot or a car wreck. However, the question of viability and whether they can be saved mostly comes into play after it's determined that they are either confirmed or likely sentient.

Again, I see abortion and braindeath as effectively the same fundamental issue- when is it acceptable to end a human life?

Edit:: This falls under the broader question of when it's okay to end any life- a connection i tried to make evident with the animal rights thread that died out.

And see, I don't think it's okay to end a human life at all (except in cases of self-defense). It's something else entirely to let someone go who's already dead to all intents and purposes than it is to actively kill him.