Abortion questions...?

Fidelity in mariages, abstinence for underage people, preservatives for the others (which means unmarried adults).This is how I think it should be promoted. In fact, if I remember correctly, this is the 'formula' that the pope is trying to promote in africa, andit had resounding success in diminishing HIV in the countries that applied it.

My personnal view, and I'll have to say it is not very popular with my christian friends, is that the line should be put at around the 100th cell division. Since this is when the cells start to specialize, and seperating the lump of cells effectively kills it.Before that, seperating it only creates two individuals. In fact, you could actually make as many clones as you want if you just make sure you seperate before each reached a hundred cells.So as of right now, this is where I would put the line. This means that I do not have problems with methods that prevent implantation, since at that stage it hasn't reached the 100th cell. (this is all from memory from my biology classes from way back, if anyone knows I'm totally wrong about this feel free to tell me)

Well, I know that in Canada, the constitution gives you rights only at birth. Now the abortions are obviously done before that, but intrinsically, there is nothing legally speaking that would be charged against a doctor who would kill the baby right before the birth.I was pretty sure it was about the same issue in the US. After all, up until 2002, babies who would survive abortions would be left somewhere to die.And I also remember an interview from a doctor here talking about a case in the US where the mother actually shot here baby when only his head was outside, and the doctors pursued here for murder but she was found non-guilty for this very reason: if it wasn't born, it wasn't a human. The doctor's point was actually to defend the view that it wasn't murder, in reaction to comments from a well know pro-abortionist in europe who had claimed that according to him, abortions at such a stage was murder.

The question I was asking was, "When does the soul enter the body?" Are you saying that that happens at around 100 cells?Biologically, I can see your point, although an equally valid point could be made that the fetus isn't a separate entity until it can survive outside the womb, which I think is considerably later.However, the point of my question is more theological, since many opponents of abortion talk about it as killing a person, who presumably has a soul. I'm surprised that they don't have a clearer idea of where the soul comes from and when.Edited by ringo, : Changed "but" to "although".

I'm not even sure that is true and would go so far as to say that it is more likely another example of "Lying for Jesus". And it is great that you help support a home made for young women so they can keep their children.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Well, yeah... If they are claiming there is a soul, but that condoms are ok, it seems inconsistent if they can't specifically explain when, during the reproduction process, the soul comes into play. How do they know sperm cells or eggs don't have a soul? Maybe they do and they're advocating the killing of a soul by supporting birth control. Which is where it gets complicated. If the soul begins at the union of two haploids, then you'd have to believe that half of the soul is in the sperm cell and the egg. At which point, soul's are being destroyed through birth control methods.To stay consistent you would have to oppose both. Chris Angel does it!- Oni

Yes that is what I was saying. But I have arrived at this conclusion strictly from thinking about the biology of it, because at other times it brings some questions I find difficult to answer. Yes, but a baby still can't survive outside the womb if what was given to it inside by the mother isn't still given to it once outside.It's not like it was fused with the mother when it's inside. It's only connected to it and exchanging the necessary nutriments it needs. This exchange continues once outside, albeit in a different way. I haven't yet studied the theological aspect of it.

This is only prevative maintenance. What would really need to happen is support for the single mothers AFTER the child is born. This is when they need it most, and this is exactly the time when those who are pro-life stop caring or showing any effort in trying to help.Just look at this site and the arguments presented when it comes to welfare, free healthcare, free schooling, help with housing, employment, etc. No one gives a shit, that's truth. Everyone wants to be self-righteous and act concerned for a fetus, until that fetus is born to a single mom, living in poverty, without a job and no education. At which point, everyone who cared turns their back, including the government.So what's a single mom to do at that point? When everyone could careless. You remember very incorrectly, as the Pope always was against birth control methods, including condoms, and actually increased the spread of HIV/AIDS in sub-saharan Africa. He has now softened up a bit after so many complained about his anti-condom rhetoric.- Oni

American 'abortion addict' who had 15 terminations in 17 years publishes her memoir | Daily Mail OnlineI figure if she felt uncomfortable about abortion, she would not have had 15 just to make here husband feel bad.And I personnally know a girl who has had multiple abortions and is very comfortable with it.Now, I know that an abortion is a serious thing, and that it can have some pretty big psychological effects on a woman, especially if she is young. I have another friend, who's mother's friend cries everytime she sees her because she reminds here of the abortions she had at about the same time my friend was born.But I think it's just like anything else. Some people feel bad about lying, others don't. Some feel bad about stealing, and others don't. etc. I don't see how it owuld be different about abortion. Besides, this is clearly irrelevant in determining if it is morally right or wrong to do so. And it almost got shut down by pro-abortionists lobbying who bashed it in the news.I'm not saying all pro-choice are against places like these, but to me it is surprising that some would want a place like that to close.

There is a point at which the baby can be removed from the womb and get everything it needs from somebody else. That's the point where I would call it a separate entity. After that point, I become steadily less comfortable with aborting it. Most opponents of abortion haven't. They have no clear idea of when a biological entity becomes a person. They don't know how to distinguish between a pregnancy caused by love and one caused by rape.But what they don't know doesn't prevent them from telling other people what to do.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

Let's talk about premature babies.To the best of my knowledge only a few babies born before the start of the third trimester have survived and those were all born right near 24-25 weeks gestation. In only a few cases (less than a dozen) have such premature babies have survived long enough to get discharged from the hospital.Since third trimester abortions are banned except in the case of imminent danger to the mothers life we are not talking about a viable human in the case of almost all current US abortions.While the survival rate of premature babies has gone up, generally we are talking about babies between week 30 and 37 of gestation, around seven to eight and a half months gestation.The fetuses involved in almost all abortions cannot live outside the womb even with the best medical care available today or in the foreseeable future.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I think that if the formula I mentioned was applied, there would be very little problems taking care of the much fewer unwanted pregnancies. As of right now, only the use of preservatives is focused on, while abstinence is laughed at, and fidelity in marriages is only superficially upheld as a value. We have all those things here in Quebec (apart for free schooling. but then again it is amazingly cheap) and yet, the ones who do care for the single mom who would like to keep here children are the pro-life.You'll have all the help of the world if you want to abort, and you'll get access to a doctor before everyone else. But if you ever want to keep the child, the help is clearly insufficient. And as I just said, surprisingly enough, there was pressure recently to paint in a bad light a home for those women who kept their child.

So yes, there may well be people that have abortions and are comfortable with it.But so what?It is often the best choice. Hopefully they understand that they made the best decision they could.One case which may or may not be true (the daily mail is about as reliable as quoting a Christian website) but it is NOT even a big issue then.Look at your other examples though, a woman that feels bad because she had an abortion. That sounds like a very normal experience. Again, I would want more information. I have NEVER found anyone that is pro-abortion; that is just another example of Christian misrepresentation.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

So your position is that it is in some way fused to it's mother up until that point ? That the connection between the two is more then just an exchange of nutriments ?

I don't see how our current technological development has anything to do with the ''human status'' of such and such a foetus at such and such a stage.There's nothing ''magical'' about the womb, and if we could mimick it perfectly in a lab, and premature babies would then survive, would they then suddenly become humans ?