Pro-choice here... Do you honestly think it's better to eliminate a tiny thing that doesn't yet have any thoughts and is hardly developed enough to be called a human, or have a baby born into the world to people who can't take care of it and nurture and give it it's basic needs? What about rape-victims? Should they have that baby? Would you rather have another person born into the world to suffer?
Do you honestly think over-population isn't a horrible problem that's sucking our natural resources dry and creating problems for people all over the world?
I think abortion is perfectly fine, if one can't possibly take care of a baby or give it what it needs in order to be happy.
I'm NOT saying I think it's okay that every whore out there that's too stupid to not use a condom should go and abort like crazy. I'm saying it NEEDS to be an option, for those who honestly can't have/take care of another human being.
2006-08-02 14:21:34
·
answer #1
·
answered by Natasha 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
An embryo without blood cells has no life.
Bloodless embryos should be made available to researchers who envision treatments and possible cures to debilitating illnesses that you, or someone you love, may one day encounter.
Christian Bible says one is not alive till after the period of quickening.
The ultra-conservative Christian anti-abortion leaders are denying the Bible and claiming that Life begins at conception. Their claim has absolutely no biblical support.
Earthy physical form such as a human body and the non-physical form referred to as "spirit" or "breath of life."
Genesis 2:7
Job 33:4
John 3:13
Ezekiel 37:1-10
Ecclesiastes 11:5
First Corinthians 15:35-56
Ecclesiastes 12:7
Job 27:3
Rev. 11:11
James 2:26
John 6:63
Psalm 150:6
2Cr 3:6
Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.
Roe. V. Wade "the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being” is a matter of objective science. They deplored the “popular ignorance...that the fetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.” Doctors knew it during the 1800's and doctors know it today. Human life begins at conception.
Christian Bible vs.Science
You going to choice Science or your Christian Bible?
HYPOTHETICAL CHRISTIANS
2006-08-02 21:54:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Lev 17:13
"'Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth,
14 because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, "You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off."
Its a life when there is blood.
We assume that blood first appears at the time that the human embryo's heart begins to beat. (We are confident that we will receive a flood of Emails correcting us if this is not true.) This occurs at about 18 to 21 days after conception -- before the embryo develops limbs, a head, a brain, etc. It is about 1/12" long, the size of a pencil point. It most closely resembles a worm - long and thin and with a segmented end.
2006-08-02 23:19:47
·
answer #3
·
answered by SEOplanNOW.com 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe you are unaware of what is going on. Stem-cell research does not come only from aborted fetuses. It also can come from the umbilical cord of a baby who was recently delivered.
Bush IS against stem-cell research and especially research that uses fertilized eggs. So are most people who are pro-lifers.
Life begins at conception so yes, abortion is murder. So is allowing eggs to be fertilized and then destroying them for any reason.
2006-08-02 21:18:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by Chalkbrd 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Very touchy subject.
simply for the fact that many couples for whatever reason can not concieve so it is necessary to have multiple eggs fertalized in case one or more is not viable in someway.
By outlawing this practice it would make it extremely difficult for people to have children in this way and Bush knows this.
The difference between this and abortion is that the former leads to the existence of a life the later (abortion) only leads to one conclusion ..death
2006-08-02 21:19:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Until 10 - 14 weeks after fertilization there isn't much difference between the fetus and a plant.
Life (or consciousness rather) cannot begin until this stage of development, and even within this time period it is questionable weather or not the fetus can have any kind of thoughts or sensation.
Conservatively i would say that it isn't murder until the 3rd trimester.
2006-08-02 21:20:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by ChooseRealityPLEASE 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Surprise...they ARE against that. Against ALL destruction of embryonic life.
The Church teaches that life is created by husband, wife, and God...all 3 together simultaniously. When sperm meets egg and fertilization happens God also creates and adds the little human soul to it. Any killing of a human baby...born or unborn...is baby murder. Even if we have manipulated the "Genetic Material" outside of the womb. It is no less human.
2006-08-02 21:18:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by Augustine 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
For us to ask that is to belong to the same group of sick people that follow the O.J. simpson Trial from beginning to end or MIchael Jacksons court appearances and sit in your chair, judge and give opinions. On what high moral grounds are we standing on to give these opinions? Face it, this is info-tainment which America is so obsessed with: trial by Media. It has so warped the terrestrial society that we live in. People get off you ***_ and do something about the causes you believe in. Dont just rant about it on your tiny little computers. I challenge you to make a difference and put your money where your mouth is. Ok. lets make it simple for the MTV generation. The signs are everywhere don't you see them?: See that square light bulb sitting in your living room it just said "Just do it!"
2006-08-03 17:00:26
·
answer #8
·
answered by mark 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
When I was pregnant with my children, I could emotionally "converse" with them invitro. They would respond to my touch, to music, to laughter. I bonded with them very strongly since approx. 1-2 months after conception.
Some people will say this is bull.
I know it to be my experience. New research has come out where a fetus has been filmed showing post-natal behaviours.
For me, There is no question.
It comes down to the same question whether it is justifiable to experiment on animals...are not eggs similar? Most of the research is profit-driven anyway and I certainly don't trust it.
2006-08-02 21:30:39
·
answer #9
·
answered by mariachinieve 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm against messing with God's territory. Creating life is His job....not ours. So I'm against anything that has to do with playing with eggs or sperm or embryos or fetuses. Many pro-lifers ARE against that.......they just have to pick their battles and sucking babies' brains out is the biggest evil right now.
2006-08-02 21:16:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by married_so_leave_me_alone1999 4
·
0⤊
0⤋