Because of all the advances in modern science, we know now how early a heart beats (at 5 weeks gestation) and how quickly the cells develop within an embryo.
Before these things came to light, women were told that the pregnancy they were terminating was just a blob of lifeless tissue. Doctors were satisfied giving this answer because that is all we knew about the embryo at the time.
Do you think that Science has actually made it more difficult for those who believe in pro-choice due to the astounding things we know about life in the womans womb?
Or do you think it makes it easier for a woman and doctor to terminate a pregnancy knowing these things?
*I am curious after having watched Discovery Channels series "In the Womb"*
2007-01-18 08:49:17 · 19 answers · asked by Soon2BMommy 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I do not think this new information makes it harder for people to have abortions because most people do not know the information you have just shared with us. Plus for some people abortion has nothing to do with the baby, it is all about a woman being free. It is all bull sht designed to make killing babies feel better for the murderers who kill them. I forgive most of the girls for their choices but the doctors know exactly what they are doing.
2007-01-18 08:55:04 · answer #1 · answered by Immortal Cordova 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
You are absolutely correct. There is NO reason those children should be starving to death. NONE! And, we have enough to feed those children AND the aborted babies, if we really tried. The problem lies with those governments, WAYF, they are the ones starving those children. Most aid sent gets confiscated for the military. So to blame pro-lifers for this is a bit of a stretch I would say. Need I remind you Christian charities send the most help? Also, those parents aren't intentionally killing those children, while abortion is an intentional act. Although we don't see eye to eye on this issue, this little rant was pretty good, I hope some people were listening.
2016-05-24 04:29:11 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yada, yada, yada, the Bible doesn't say how old the world is; the world very well could be millions and millions of years old and not conflict with religion or the Bible. I value science and don't believe it conflicts with my religions (as I also believe in evolution). However, I also have gone back and forth on this issue as I have seen more and more what fetuses are and how they develop. Additionally, I hate the argument that it is the womans' body, because shouldn't the helpless fetus/life have a choice, or shouldn't the woman have made the choice before she opened her legs? I am fine with abortion in times of rape, incest, or to save the mothers life or prevent serious heath issues to the mother, but otherwise we are taking away any responsibility from women who would rather have an abortion because it is convenient or doesn't really work for them at the time. I do still respect everyone regardless of their views, as we all should.
2007-01-18 09:21:39 · answer #3 · answered by straightup 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think alot of people choose to educate themselves on this type of thing. They hear what others say and decide to believe what best fits what they believe. They don't like to think of it much if they have or might have an abortion. I do think if they knew what science really has uncovered about it, they would definately have a harder time terminating a pregnancy.
2007-01-18 08:54:38 · answer #4 · answered by Miss Momma 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Do you think pro-choice people care about a human heart beat? No, they don't. For every thumbs down, that shows that the truth hurts.
As for the 20 week comment... at 8 weeks it is no longer called an embryo and the fetus can feel at that point as well.
2007-01-18 08:55:43 · answer #5 · answered by 2007 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I am pro choice. I would not have an abortion, I have two children and I love them completely. I am also aware that I am not able to speak for other women.
When I have a period I do not consider that an abortion, yet I am losing an egg that could have been a baby.
I do not have such ultimate respect for a sperm that if one should reach my egg, all of the sudden the government should intervene and religious people should stick their noses in my uterus.
2007-01-18 09:00:27 · answer #6 · answered by Sara 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
At that stage, the heart is still just a muscle. What makes a human a human is in the brain, not the heart.
People never said 'blob of lifeless tissue'. They said 'not human'. There's an important difference there.
2007-01-18 08:55:23 · answer #7 · answered by XYZ 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You might have a point there. But what's the alternative? Hide the science so that women won't feel as bad when they terminate their pregnancy? Hiding science is what religion is for and that is a negative force for progression. Let's not hide the science.
2007-01-18 08:56:52 · answer #8 · answered by Desiree J 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
This is not a personal attack, because I have no idea what your religious views are.
But. I find it interesting that some die-hard pro-lifers who base their beliefs on Biblical teaching and will use this science to support their views, while at the same time flat-out denying the physical evidence we have that the earth is thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years older than the Bible says it is and that no global flood ever happened, among many other things.
)O(
2007-01-18 09:02:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I agree...if it were me, with what I know now, I would have a hard time making that decision. But I am still pro-choice. Women should still have that right if that is the only decision they can make.
2007-01-18 08:57:19 · answer #10 · answered by Stormilutionist Chasealogist 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋