Question in need of collage grade response?

Question

Ok, I have tryed often to get some solid ansewers on this subject so here i go again. I am 32 weeks along married and working on a report for my online classes. In my most recent ultra sound i saw my baby yawn, odd it may be it fit with my topic for my report. pro life vs. pro choice. My main thing is i need honest opeions on when every one belives life starts aka when are we cosidered viable only when we are born ,in the womb or when we are concived? Be honest be blunt and keep in mind i know my child is alive i just need other's thoughts.

Answer 1

I believe we come voluntarily into this life. Our purpose is to heal the seperation of mankind from its Source. Whether we live to a ripe old age or are aborted six weeks after conception we are fulfilling our destiny. As you may suspect I believe we are spiritual beings first, human existence is insignificant, only a tool for the journey this time around. Therefore the beginning of physical life is hardly worth concerning oneself with. As spiritual beings we have no birth or death, we are eternal.
I believe what is wrong with this world will heal itself in time. That is what pain and suffering is about. When choices are made that advocate healing and unity the pain ceases, or at least diminishes. Acceptance of all of creation as being perfect(no need to judge right and wrong) toward achieving unity with our Source is the only way I've found to Peace.
I don't support the idea of abortion for conveinience, however I see no reason to unsettle my mind with things I have no control over.

Answer 2

You didn't see your baby yawn. Have you ever tried to yawn underwater in a swimming pool?

It is probably only natural for a mother to anthropomorphize a picture of her offspring.

But your baby won't yawn until s/he is breathing at a minimum, otherwise it will drown. No one wishes that on you. Please keep that in mind.

What you are asking crosses philosophical and legal boundaries, and has been pushed into political areas based on the attempts of certain folks who can't or won't accept that others might not feel the same way as they do, and might have good reason for it.

Honestly, were it not for that, there would not be a reason to discuss this at all.

It is most certainly NOT a scientific question. Science is not concerned with "when life begins". Science already sees "life" as many different states at different times - hence the term "lifecycle". Not only that, the points of transition from one state to another are not always clear, and in fact are usually gradual.

What you have here is a religious Holy War regarding an attempt to forcefeed religious beliefs of some into a secular (1st amendment!) legal system.

That the rhetoric weapons used in this war are couched (incorrectly) in the terms of science and law does not make the war nonexistent or the very question and the responses others will post I am sure any less fallacious.

Answer 3

Personally, I think life starts when we are concieved. Right away the cells start growing and multiplying, creating this new human being. It is going to be a person no matter what, unless its life is cut short by outside forces. It doesnt matter to me if you are one cell, or a billion, you are still/will be a person, and that should not be stopped.

ps: that is so awsome that you could see your baby yawn! best of luck to you and your new family member!

Answer 4

Any time there are cells dividing there is "life". Should a blastocyst have "rights"? Of course not.

I guess I don't understand want you are trying to learn with this question. Are you assuming, for the purpose of your report, acknowledgment that a group of cells are alive co-relates to being against reproductive freedom? That would be a mistake.

Answer 5

Pro life advocates support LIFE and the protection of yet-to-be-born children. Pro-abort advocates freely trample on the rights of unborn children, and fight vehemently for the legal "right" to kill them at will, and without penalty

I choose the pro-life stance, because, unlike pro-abort advocates, I recognize and respect the sancity of life, regardless of location (e.g., inside or outside the human body). Unlike the pro-abort advocates, I am willing to fight for the lives of women and children (born or unborn).

"Pro choice" is a misnomer. Murder is murder regardless of where it occurs (e.g., inside or outside a human body). Why on earth should person A (e.g., a pregnant mother) suddenly be imbued with the "right" or "choice" to KILL person B (e.g., her child). It is absolutely ludicrous.

With ANY other crime, the element of "choice" does not apply (e.g., if I "choose" to kill someone, I go to jail). When the behavior of a woman in any other situation infringes on the life of another, she faces legal consequences for it. Why is it suddently different because the location of the victim (i.e., the baby) happens to be 1" INSIDE a human body rather than 1" outside a human body?

Women have every "right" to do what they choose with their bodies, as long as it is legal and does not infringe on the rights of another. Killing another human being (e.g., aborting a baby) most assuredly DOES infringe on the rights of another.

The bottom line, is that pro-abort advocates are not fighting for a woman's right to "choose". They are fighting for the legalization of murder. Pro-life advocates are fighting to protect unborn children from being murdered.