Abortion

Abortion Forum

This issue has worked its way into other threads we have been
engaged in. It is a powerful and controversial topic. I believe it
MORE than warrants its own forum.

With that in mind I invite you all to post your thoughts,
experiences and position on this issue. In recent years even
Politicians have shied away from letting their views on this be
known.... it can be too damaging to their careers since ANY
stated position polarizes the opposing lobbyists to target them.

I would welcome exchange of thoughts ... and hope we can do
this without verbally decapitating each other as we have
sometimes done in other threads.

For the record:

I am 100% against the concept of killing outside of self defense.

Applying this towards abortion....... I have NO problem with the
idea that if a woman's life is in danger {due to some medical
problem} and we are faced with the NEED to abort in order to
SAVE her life...... well I would still weep for the child .. but I
would not argue against an abortion.

As a sloppy, barbaric, murderous form of
contraception?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

.... it is killing for convenience sake.......

I'm with you!! Abortion is murder. How is it, that when a pregnant woman is killed, liberals like Katie Couric can say how sad it is that a women and her child were murdered, but if someone goes in to have an abortion, its just a choice? Its the same thing. It is murder. Everyone who says it is about a choice is right, only the choice they are talking about is not correct. The choice is about getting pregnant in the first place, and not counting rape, it is always a choice to get into the situation that makes you pregnant. What about the human baby's choice?

Hi Rowdy! This seems like the appropriate place to put this:


'Roe' Seeks Reversal of Abortion Ruling
Wed Jun 18, 6:25 AM ET

By LISA FALKENBERG, Associated Press Writer

DALLAS - The former plaintiff known as "Jane Roe" in the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized abortion sought to have the case overturned in a motion filed Tuesday that asks the courts to consider new evidence that abortion hurts women.


Norma McCorvey, who joined the anti-abortion fight nearly 10 years ago and says she regrets her role in Roe v. Wade, said the Supreme Court's decision is no longer valid because scientific and anecdotal evidence that has come to light in the last 30 years has shown the negative effects of abortion.


"We're getting our babies back," a jubilant McCorvey said at a news conference while flanked by about 60 women, some who sobbed and held signs that read "I regret my abortion."


"I feel like the weight of the world has just been lifted off my shoulders," said McCorvey, 55.


Sarah Weddington, the abortion advocate and attorney who originally represented McCorvey, did not immediately return a call seeking comment. A representative from the National Organization for Women also did not immediately return a message.


Allen Parker Jr., McCorvey's attorney, said he could not remember any other landmark case in which the plaintiff has asked to have it overturned.


"I think the new evidence will show the court what they thought was good will turn out to be an instrument of wrong," said Parker, who is with the San Antonio-based Texas Justice Foundation.


McCorvey filed the motion with the federal district court in Dallas, which ruled to legalize abortion in Texas before the Supreme Court ruling. The Texas attorney general's office and Dallas district attorney each have 20 days to respond to the motion.


McCorvey and her attorneys asked the federal court to consider more than 5,400 pages of evidence, including 1,000 affidavits from women who say they regret their abortions.


McCorvey was a 21-year-old carnival barker when, pregnant for the third time, she sought an abortion. She agreed to be the plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking to overturn Texas' anti-abortion statute.


The Supreme Court decision came after she had the baby. It was the third child she put up for adoption. McCorvey publicly identified herself as Jane Roe in 1980.

Jamie Leggatt, B.A.
INPM Webmaster

Scott Peterson’s murder trail raises important question: Is it possible to murder an unborn child?

Scott Peterson will soon go to trail for a double homicide for the murder of his wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn son, who was due to be delivered February 20. According to California law, if a pregnant woman is killed and it results in the death of the unborn child, the crime can be ruled a double homicide.

This law clearly has implications for abortion. If I were pregnant and decided that I didn’t want to have the baby I was carrying, I could legally get an abortion, even at eight months. That’s my right and every other woman’s right to choose. The law tells me that there is nothing wrong with doing so. In fact, partial birth abortions, although dangerous, are still legal in this great country of ours.

I see the incongruity between these laws. If it an unborn child can be murdered, then someone will need to redefine the term abortion. Because aborting a fetus and murdering an unborn child seem much too close for comfort


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Okay....Id like to speak my mind...but I dont want to heavily debate this...this debate has been going on for sometime now and it seems to be getting pretty much nowhere but let me explain where I sit on this subject...

First off....for me personally, I would never get an abortion....it isnt something I would consider unless certain circumstances warranted it....BUT...the reason I am not for making it illegal, is that I do not feel it is my place to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. I realize some people feel that babies are human at conception....and thats great that some feel this way...but thats is the whole debate. Also as it can be construed as a double muder if one kills the mother and kills the child...but it can only be a double murder if the child was at a certain week, if the child is not seen as viable then only one murder applies....the mother's not the child.

This may change with the new law sitting in front of the Supreme Court right now...but where would that draw the line?

Now this was the reason I posted the above article, I found it very interesting, and Rowdy you might be familiar with Jamie Leggatt, as she wrote this, I believe, in a Canadian paper.

Lets face it...woman use condoms and they are not always effective....One of my good friends got pregnant using a condom...she has her daughter...but she wasnt necessarily ready nor planning on having her. I have also had another friend get pregnant while using birth control....she was married, so naturally there was no question she was gonna keep the baby...

But for me...well I have a son....I would never have an abortion...but I will not tell another woman what I feel is best for them...its not my place. Nor do I feel it is the place of a male dominated government to tell me what is right for my own body, or for any woman's body for that matter.

I applaud the people that feel as if abortion is wrong....but I will never strike down or lash out at another for having one....maybe they were not ready, maybe they used protection and it didnt work. I feel as if we have too many mothers on welfare now because of children they could not afford. And for the very simple fact, that we cannot afford to have woman reverting back to backalley abortions....that would be a step backwords.

I feel the best thing to do is a bigger and better nationally funded program for prevention for teens and thers that are not financially prepared or ready to have a child. Prevention is more of the key....but as for the abortion itself....I prefer it to be done soon after conception...as it usually is done by the 3rd month.....but I as a person do not feel I have the right to tell another what they should ro shouldnt do...nor do I think any government should either.....I feel the government has enough control...this isnt something else I am willing to give them.

PLEASE....this is the way I feel...I respect everyone's choice on this matter...so I certainly hope others will respect my view on this also.

Originally posted by rowdyrjp




1. Well that is the question right? Is a baby {still in the womb} a person or are they just a part of the mother's body? I think I can settle this one way. If the baby can survive outside of the womb {and with modern Neo- Natal intensive care units earlier and earlier babies are being saved} than the baby CANNOT be considered a part of the mother. In this case the mother is a care provider much like medical personnel. I use the example of nurses and doctors who have patients under life support.... they cannot decide themselves that it is just TOO much trouble so they are gonna pull the plug.... NO that would be murder wouldn't it?

I would agree with you here! Look.....let me tell you something....About 15 years ago, I got pregnant, only I didnt know I was.....I went to the doctor (it was my first pregnancy and it was before I was married to my husband now, before I even knew him)...he said I wasnt pregnant, and he gave me some meds to get my period started...well about five days later, I started bleeding BAD...I went to the hospital, and they said I was pregnant....I was bedridden at that point....almost 4 months along....the meds he gave me??? Well I miscarried because of them.....I went to a lawyer, and he said that since they could not prove the the child would be viable outside the womb...I had no case....

So you tell me.....when is a child considered viable? It wasnt 4 months in my case...so when is it?


2. But don't we do this every day mystic? We have laws telling people what they can and can't do ALL through society.... otherwise we have chaos. If we decide that a certain action is harmful and MUST be stopped... there is nothing wrong with passing laws to forbid it. That is how a society functions.

Yes.....but laws are brought upon us by social norms......I mean you can take drugs for example....at one time thye were legal...(long ago)...and then as time went on they became illegal...marijuana for example a few years back ...you could get caught with it and it wasnt a big deal....now you get caught with it and its a HUGE deal.....it depends on the social norms how laws are enforced and made.....but abortion was made legal for the fact that woman did not believe it was right for a male-dominated gov't telling them what they can and cannot do with their bodies.....It has never been proven that child is a person before a certain amount of time....so we dont really know that it is the wrong thing to do.....does that make sense?

---------

As for the back alley grotesquerie you bring up.....

ALL THOSE DOCTORS AND WOMEN WERE FILTHY MURDERERS!

I really can't sugar coat this. They broke the law and participated in a brutal disgusting practice. Often the women themselves died from these procedures. It is not that I do not have compassion for them dying ... BUT it is tempered by the fact that THEY WILLINGLY PARTICIPATED whereas the babies were assaulted and butchered

Some woman felt it was their only choice Rowdy.....you have heard of Margaret Sanger havent you? If not...you might want to read up on her on the web and see how and why she brought upon birth control for woman.....see what happpened to her own mother for haveing TOO many kids because she had no choice.

There are consequences in life. If a woman becomes pregnant then she and the father have an obligation to provide for this child as best they can or surrender the child up for adoption so that parents WHO can do this WILL.


But you have to know that not always the father is around to help.....this is the case so many times.....too many times. What happens if the man takes absolutely no repsonsibility? A friend of mine has two children, her husband walked out on them....and he does not even see his kids anymore....she has no idea where he is to even collect child support....so she was on welfare until she found a good enough job to get off and try and raise them....she struggles everyday to manage....she is not the norm. Some woman do not have the gumption to get off welfare and make more of their life....is this what we want? Are we supposed to tell a woman that if she cannot afford to have this child much less raise it, that she has to anyways? Would if she took every necessary precaution and still ended up pregnant but did not want to have it? Are we supposed to tell her she HAS to?? Is that really right?

I know for some this is a difficult and murky issue.

Not for me. I look at abortion as one of many forms of murder. The justifications for murder are basically irrelevant .... one either did it or didn't do it.

If your life is in danger {self defense, woman's life in danger due to illness/condition during pregnancy} then it is not murder.

But to take another life out of convenience sake..... that is cold blooded.

As for women who did not want children..... there are millions of people waiting to adopt..... adoption allows the pregnant woman to walk away from the responsibility of child rearing and avoids the unnecessary act of abortion/murder.

The whole "part of my body" thing, bothers me. I don't get it. After a relatively short period of time, the child has its own brain...its own heart... its own needs. The mother provides nurturing and sustenance just like they do after the baby is born. While in the womb the child if fed through the umbilical cord... AFTER birth well.... this is an excellent question actually:

If a woman breast feeds .. could she argue that killing her infant would be nothing more than abortion? After all the child is still dependent on her body for sustenance.....{ I know it sounds absurd}

POINT: Of course the above would be murder. The baby could survive away from the mother in the care of others... therefore he/she cannot be considered an extension of the woman.

POINT: In the same way ... once a child has developed in utero for a certain number of weeks we have the technology to care for them OUTSIDE of the womb. Therefore any abortion at that stage and beyond SHOULD be considered a severe human rights violation and murder.

Do you think pro-abortionists would accept such a compromise?

Before x-number of weeks {where x is defined as the limits of medical science for saving a baby} abortions can be considered a choice issue.

After x-number of weeks... abortions would be the homicide of another person.


BTW.... my first child was born less than six months into my wife's pregnancy. My wife had toxemia and her own internal organs were being damaged. An emergency C-section was performed. My daughter Genevieve came into this world at a whopping ONE pound and FOUR ounces {about the size of a brick of butter}. She was able to survive and grow and went to JK this year. Obviously Geni was a person in her own right... since she was able to live apart from her mother.

Here is a lesson that can be applied to MOST every argument on any topic in these boards:

Humanity needs to develop a greater basic respect for LIFE.

Killing, whether for personal gain, political profit or religious fanaticism..... MUST be curbed.

We have been blessed with an amazing gift.... this LIFE we live. without a fundamental respect for it we truly are doomed to blood and misery.

Originally posted by rowdyrjp

I know for some this is a difficult and murky issue.

It is difficult to decide whether to allow to prohibit abortions country-wide.

Not for me. I look at abortion as one of many forms of murder. The justifications for murder are basically irrelevant .... one either did it or didn't do it.

Embryon is not alive like we are, so when you kill the embryon it's not like killing a man. It's not a murder in usual understanding of this word.

If your life is in danger {self defense, woman's life in danger due to illness/condition during pregnancy} then it is not murder.

To me, abortion is a surgery. Every surgery is bloody and disgusting... but it's just a surgery, terminating growth of unborn child. Whether it's in self-defense (???) or for any other reason.

But to take another life out of convenience sake..... that is cold blooded.

That's not convenience. If mother can NOT handle a child, if she is not married, if she is poor... why make her and her future child unhappy?

As for women who did not want children..... there are millions of people waiting to adopt..... adoption allows the pregnant woman to walk away from the responsibility of child rearing and avoids the unnecessary act of abortion/murder.

It doesnt work that way. There are a lot of new-born children thrown out by their parents - nobody wants them. Parents who want to adopt usually pay money for somebody they know to become pregnant and give birth to a child in 9 months, so that they are sure about child's health. Few families adopt kids from orphanage.

The whole "part of my body" thing, bothers me. I don't get it. After a relatively short period of time, the child has its own brain...its own heart... its own needs. The mother provides nurturing and sustenance just like they do after the baby is born. While in the womb the child if fed through the umbilical cord... AFTER birth well.... this is an excellent question actually:

If a woman breast feeds .. could she argue that killing her infant would be nothing more than abortion? After all the child is still dependent on her body for sustenance.....{ I know it sounds absurd}

That's where the difference is. Child outside mother's body can be fed with any milk, not only mother's, as well as other food for children. Child already has his mind building up, and self-definition developing. After the child was born, killing him is a murder. Not before.

POINT: In the same way ... once a child has developed in utero for a certain number of weeks we have the technology to care for them OUTSIDE of the womb. Therefore any abortion at that stage and beyond SHOULD be considered a severe human rights violation and murder.

After a certain number of weeks we can safely remove the embryon without harming mother neither violating human rights neither killing anybody.

Do you think pro-abortionists would accept such a compromise?

Before x-number of weeks {where x is defined as the limits of medical science for saving a baby} abortions can be considered a choice issue.

After x-number of weeks... abortions would be the homicide of another person.

What x-number are you talking about?

BTW.... my first child was born less than six months into my wife's pregnancy. My wife had toxemia and her own internal organs were being damaged. An emergency C-section was performed. My daughter Genevieve came into this world at a whopping ONE pound and FOUR ounces {about the size of a brick of butter}. She was able to survive and grow and went to JK this year. Obviously Geni was a person in her own right... since she was able to live apart from her mother.

There lot's of different cases and here is what i think: every time somebody applies for abortion, doctors should decide whether it should be allowed or no depending on mother's marital and social status, financial situation, and so on. I think abortions in married couples should be disallowed since there is no reason for it. Abortion should be last resort when mother, as well as her closest relatives are NOT happy about pregnancy and future responsibility. Or as you said before, for any medical reason.

Here is a lesson that can be applied to MOST every argument on any topic in these boards:

Humanity needs to develop a greater basic respect for LIFE.

Killing, whether for personal gain, political profit or religious fanaticism..... MUST be curbed.

We have been blessed with an amazing gift.... this LIFE we live. without a fundamental respect for it we truly are doomed to blood and misery. [/B][/QUOTE]

This topic really bothers me...

If a "fetus" even at conception is not human, what is it? Is it a dog?, cat?, monkey?, pig?, elephant?, no... obviously not. It is a HUMAN, just at a different level of developement. It's like saying a 4 year old little girl is not as developed as a 45 year old woman, so if we want to kill the little girl we can... she's not fully developed. I know some people are going to say that is not the same, but how is it not? That little baby, even at conception is a human being. 3 days after conception isn't that baby going to have the same DNA as she will when she is full grown? It is a little baby girl, and it is not her fault that she is so young.. the thought of killing a little girl is disgusting...

It is no mystery that having sex can produce children. Everyone knows that. If the mother is not in a position to raise a child, she should not be engaging in an activity that can give her a child, even if it is protected, because we all know that it doesn't always work. Its like ordering ice cream and then getting upset that its cold, or eating 5 pizzas, and then getting upset because you gained some weight.... sex produces children, it is not a mystery... if someone can't afford to have a child they should not have sex. Murdering an innocent baby b/c the mother made a bad decision... how is that justifiable... again murdering an innocent baby is disgusting.

How much of a part of the mother's body is the baby in the 1st place. For starters the mother gave the baby permission to live there when she had sex. Secondly, they have different DNA, they could be a different gender, they have different fingerprints... Everything about them is different, they only have one thing in common... location. The baby is no more a part of the mother than is an adult completly dependant on life support a machine. If we assign rights to an older human that is dependant upon a machine to live, why don't we assign those same rights to a baby who is dependant on another machine(the mothers body).

There is another word for abortion: murder... the murder of the innocent baby is justified because of the baby's age, the murder of the innocent baby is justified because the baby is not as developed, the murder of an innocent baby is justified because of where the baby lives. If someone were to kill another person because of their age, or where they lived, or their developement level, aren't those crimes?

You know what it is a choice... it is the mothers choice to terminate her pregnancy. Murder is a choice, when someone kills another person, usually they chose to do so... If a mother chooses to kill her son or daughter, she should be up for 1st degree murder with the rest of the murderers in this country.

Please forgive my harsh tones, but this really bothers me, who knows who we have killed over the past 20 years... maybe the person who would have cured cancer was aborted, maybe the next Einstein was aborted, maybe the person who was going to solve the problem in the middle east was aborted... who knows?

Originally posted by 1young11

This topic really bothers me...

Bothers a lot of people, not me though. Why make a big deal of it?

If a "fetus" even at conception is not human, what is it? Is it a dog?, cat?, monkey?, pig?, elephant?, no... obviously not. It is a HUMAN, just at a different level of developement.

It is a human, but it's not alive yet - child didnt see real world yet. Biologically it's alive, but it's mind doesnt exist.

It's like saying a 4 year old little girl is not as developed as a 45 year old woman, so if we want to kill the little girl we can... she's not fully developed.

Little girl is a born human being, killing her is a murder. Just as killing a 45 y.o. woman.

I know some people are going to say that is not the same, but how is it not? That little baby, even at conception is a human being. 3 days after conception isn't that baby going to have the same DNA as she will when she is full grown? It is a little baby girl, and it is not her fault that she is so young.. the thought of killing a little girl is disgusting...

Why would you compare a girl and an embryo? Embryo is developed inside mother's body - so it's not a girl or a boy.

It is no mystery that having sex can produce children.

Indeed!

Everyone knows that.

Even i do.

If the mother is not in a position to raise a child, she should not be engaging in an activity that can give her a child, even if it is protected, because we all know that it doesn't always work. Its like ordering ice cream and then getting upset that its cold, or eating 5 pizzas, and then getting upset because you gained some weight....

Excuuuuse meeee, since when desire to have a child is same like ice cream or pizza?

sex produces children, it is not a mystery... if someone can't afford to have a child they should not have sex.

Gotcha now. I dont know even one boy or girl who dont have sex for fun. You probably will have a hard time trying to change modern fashion.

Murdering an innocent baby

Nobody argues that baby is not innocent...

b/c the mother made a bad decision... how is that justifiable...

That's what is much more important - who can abort pregnancy and who can not. Low birth rate here is caused in part by legal abortions - everybody just goes for it instead of having a child, not only leaving society without youth, but also damaging their wombs and lowering chances of becoming pregnant again.

How much of a part of the mother's body is the baby in the 1st place. For starters the mother gave the baby permission to live there when she had sex.

It's not called 'live', it's rather mother developing her child inside herself.

Secondly, they have different DNA, they could be a different gender, they have different fingerprints... Everything about them is different, they only have one thing in common... location.

Ofcourse they are different (except for some part of DNA cells), that's not the question. Judging embryo-mother relation in terms of location is wrong too - we are not comparing 2 women.

The baby is no more a part of the mother than is an adult completly dependant on life support a machine. If we assign rights to an older human that is dependant upon a machine to live, why don't we assign those same rights to a baby who is dependant on another machine(the mothers body).

Now you say that mother's body and life support machine is the same. Dont even ask me to answer your arguments - they are ridiculous.

There is another word for abortion: murder... the murder of the innocent baby is justified because of the baby's age, the murder of the innocent baby is justified because the baby is not as developed, the murder of an innocent baby is justified because of where the baby lives.

It's not age - age is counted after baby is born. Same about development and location - it's simply irrelevant.

If someone were to kill another person because of their age, or where they lived, or their developement level, aren't those crimes?

DICRIMINATION! We dont kill people who live in Mexico, why would we kill people who 'live' in mothers' bodies?

You know what it is a choice... it is the mothers choice to terminate her pregnancy. Murder is a choice, when someone kills another person, usually they chose to do so... If a mother chooses to kill her son or daughter, she should be up for 1st degree murder with the rest of the murderers in this country.

So you argue that aborting a pregnancy is same like killing a child? Do you even understand that our human common sense and our language has 2 different meanings in 2 different words: CHILD and EMBRYO. We dont KILL an embryo, because it's not alive yet.

Please forgive my harsh tones, but this really bothers me, who knows who we have killed over the past 20 years... maybe the person who would have cured cancer was aborted, maybe the next Einstein was aborted, maybe the person who was going to solve the problem in the middle east was aborted... who knows?

With low quality of life in the past, with high child and birth death rate, people like Enstein were born. Since mother cant grow her child, it's less likely that this particular child would achieve something near Einstein's knowledge.

Mr Juko, are you in favor of infantiside then? You say that the unborn are biologically alive, but their 'minds don't exist' how is that different from an infant? Tell me what point does it's 'mind exist,' birth? That's absurd. What change occurred in the mind of the baby during its trip down the birth canal? The only thing that changed was your perception of the baby (ie now you can see it). An individual's humanity is not a matter of perception ... humanity, unlike beauty, is NOT in the eye of the beholder. Actually from your argument you have exposed a quality in yourself that you share with infants, you attribute different qualities to things based on whether or not you can see them. To a baby, objects don't exist if they are out of sight, to you, babies aren't human until you can see them. Tell me, how does your perception of a baby or a fetus physically change that person?

Originally posted by 1young11

If somone is in a catatonic state, basically a vegetablem but their heart, and lungs are working, are they "alive"

It's not about lungs and heart, but self-identity that's absent at pre-birth stage.

Because the enbryo IS a little boy or girl, just younger.

No! Boy or girl was not borned yet and is not alive. You cant say that embryo is young child - embryo is embryo and child is child. Age starts counting since baby is born, not before that.

Why does it matter if the baby is born or not? Is the baby more of a human a day after its born, than a day before?

It's not that it's human or not but if the baby came out of mother's body and became a child. Embryo is human on very early stage of development, but it does not mean that we can compare embryo to born baby. Its like saying that egg is same like chicken, because chicken starts it's life in the egg. Doesnt make chicken egg or vice-versa.

I am pointing out that there are natural consequences to actions... if you get ice cream don't be mad that its cold, if you eat a bunch of pizza don't be mad that you gained weight, if you had sex don't be surprised that you might have a baby. If you're going to have sex, be prepared for the consequences.

That's why there are condomes as well as hundred of other contraceptions. Here is a typical situation: let's say your daughter is 16 and got pregnant after a party. Even if you knew who the father is he probably won't be able to support your daughter and her child. What would you do - insist on keeping the child or letting her abort?

Does modern fashion include murdering babies?

No.

I am a realist I understand that people are going to have sex, but what I am saying is that if you're going to have sex be prepared for the consequences, if you get pregnant (generally speaking) it is your fault, not the baby's, so don't murder a baby to fix your mistake.

Ofcourse it's not baby's fault, in fact it's not a fault at all! Thing is in some cases it would be better for child and mother to terminate it's growth BEFORE it was born...

Please explain to me how the mother is developing the baby... rather it is the baby growing on its own.

Pretty much same meaning, what i meant is that baby cant exist w/o mother's feed.

Why is it wrong... before the child is born they have no rights... after the child is born, they are full fledged card carrying humans. what change? location. It is a matter of location.

No, it's a change of state of the child - no longer depending on his/her mother (biologically) and living his or her own life. That's the difference.

No please, proceed to blow me out of the water with your response... how are my arguments ridiculus?

Why would you say that mother's body is just like life support machine? Then let's say that computer is a basketball field because there are basketball simulators, car is a horse since it carries people too, and bird is a plane since they both fly.

Thats just what our society has deemed a more efficient way of measuring somones age. The definition of age:
"The length of time that one has existed; duration "

Then sperm and egg cell are a young human being too.

The child began to exist at conception, it is a matter of age, a matter of level of developement, and a matter of location.. prove me wrong, give some arguments why it is not a matter of those things, instead of just saying I am wrong...

Conception? Maybe bottle of champagne that led to sex is child too? What do you understand by conception?

Then I guess the cells are just magically dividing if they are not alive. If it is not alive, then it is dead, and dead cells don't multiply.

Cells are alive in trees too - doesnt make trees alive. It's not like that.

Originally posted by jrkiv

Mr Juko, are you in favor of infantiside then? You say that the unborn are biologically alive, but their 'minds don't exist' how is that different from an infant? Tell me what point does it's 'mind exist,' birth? That's absurd.

Infant starts developing it's mind and self identity, starts seeing and hearing us - it came to real world.

What change occurred in the mind of the baby during its trip down the birth canal? The only thing that changed was your perception of the baby (ie now you can see it). An individual's humanity is not a matter of perception ... humanity, unlike beauty, is NOT in the eye of the beholder. Actually from your argument you have exposed a quality in yourself that you share with infants, you attribute different qualities to things based on whether or not you can see them. To a baby, objects don't exist if they are out of sight, to you, babies aren't human until you can see them. Tell me, how does your perception of a baby or a fetus physically change that person?

It's not me seeing or not seeing the baby - it's about baby seeing us. Baby when born radically changes biological processes inside it's body - starts using organs to feed itself and to interact with real world. You should know the difference between born baby and unborn fetus.

Lol Mr. Juko, it is amazing to me that you think some sort of magic happens when a baby is born. The magic happens at conception, obviously, you choose not to see that for reasons that only you know. It's also amazing to me that you equate a person's humanity with how and when his organs are working, even though you are wrong about when the organs begin functioning. A baby's heartbeat begins a loooonnggg time before he is born. Unborn babies can hear us and respond to music. Their minds and self identies ARE being developed in the womb, and at faster rates than at any other point in their lives.
As for interaction with the world being a qualifier for humanity, you are insane. Are blind people less human than others? Are people who are asleep temporarily un-human? There isn't a philosopher in the world that would accept your qualifiers for humanity.
By your reasoning everytime you fall asleep someone can kill you while you "are unable to interact with the world" and they wouldn't have done anything morally wrong, because you werent a human during that time. Completely absurd.
As for your statement, "when a baby is born there are radical biological changes inside its body." You are completely wrong. No debate is even possible on this one. A baby is the same outside of the womb as he was going down the birth canal. What do you seriously think, that he underwent some kind of mutation in a split second?
Let's be honest, you don't seriously believe anything that you are trying to spin. The fact is that your arguments are pretty transparent rationalizations, you believe people should have the right to abortions, and you will cook up any sort of riddiculous reason why an unborn baby isn't really human so you can do whatever you want with them. YOu know the nazis explained away the murder of jews by calling them sub-human, and slave owners did the same for their own actions by saying africans weren't quite human either.
It's a pity that in this "modern" society, we keep recyclying our rationalizations so we can do what we want. After all, if we convince ourselves that the unborn aren't really babies living in the womb, then we can do whatever we want to those little "products of conception."

Mr. Juko said, "it's not about heart and lungs, but self-identity that's absent at a pre-birth state"
he later said... "babies, when born, radically changes biological processes inside its body. Starts using organs to feed itself and interact with the world."
Mr. Juko, i thought it wasn't about organs but it was about self-identity?
Even though your statement about using organs was wrong, why does it matter?
Mr. Juko also said, "an infant starts developing its mind and self-identity - starts seeing and hearing us -- it came to the real world"
As i said earlier, if a qualifier for humanity is that one must be in the process of developing its mind and self identity, then the unborn are more human than all of us because they are developing those things at a faster rate than at any other point in their lives.
As for babies starting to "see and hear us" in the "real world" after they are born, to Mr. Juko, the "real world" constitutes a location and not an ideal. After all, the unborn ARE on planet earth, but in order to be in the real world, they have to travel a few inches down a birth canal.
As for seeing and hearing being a reason a born baby is human, Mr. Juko believes that babies born deaf and blind aren't human. Sorry helen keller, since you were born blind and deaf you don't have a right to live.
Mr. Juko, when you make broad claims about what constitutes a person's humanity, you have to apply it universally. I think if you do this honestly, you will find that by your rules, a lot of people living in our society aren't really human. Infants, disabled, sleeping, etc. They all lack what you say makes them human. I think you need to ponder your qualifiers a little more.

Mr. Juko wrote: No, it's a change of state of the child - no longer depending on his/her mother (biologically) and living his or her own life. That's the difference.

I have yet to see a baby that is any less dependent on its mother (or some other human being) after it is born than it was before birth. The necessary, life-giving nurture does not stop at birth. The location has changed, but the need for constant, 24 hour nurturing care has not. The only difference is that, in the absence of the mother, another human being could provide this care.

Being born does not change a baby's dependence on life-sustaining nurture.

Conception is the moment of life. Man doesn't have the right to remove life in any form. Even bugs don't really deserve to be squashed, but I do that so I shouldn't comment on that...

If we are going to rationalize abortion by saying that the individual isn't a self-sustaining life-form until after birth (or up until the end of the second trimester, which I believe is the latest a pregnancy can be aborted??), that is a grave rationalization and it really says a very negative thing about who we are as a society.

Why is it that the event of a birth is so precious, but the CONCEPTION that leads to the birth isn't important? Once the conception occurs, the baby will come about 9 months later. Why? Because of the conception. Life BEGINS at conception. The individual BEGINS at conception. All that happens are stages of development. That's IT.

Was I alive at the moment of conception? You bet I was. Was I independent? Heck no, silly! Was I independent at 1 year old? Did I have more than a rudimentary understanding of things beyond when I felt a hunger pang or had a messed diaper? I could identify colours and shapes, but what did I UNDERSTAND? I don't know, I can't remember. See, I hadn't even developed the ability to consciously memorize, or maybe I could, but as I developed language and communication skills, the memories that I had as an infant become unintelligible to me? What does that say about my state of self-identity as an infant?

I saw my daughter do something at a few months old that I'll NEVER forget. I think it was one of the most beautiful moments in my life, and I'm going to share it with all of you.

She was lying down on a blanket on the floor, getting her daily arm and leg exercise. She was lying on her back, and her hands were going the way all babies hands and legs go when they're excited. She was doing the excited faster breathing that all babies do as well. There was a very special moment when her focus left me (I was kinda hovering over her. Only her mother and I are allowed to do that... ), and redirected to her right hand. She CONSCIOUSLY focussed on her hand, turned it from palm-up to palm-down, spread her fingers (all very slowly, with a furrowed brow and extremely focussed eyes. I watched her intensely!). Her breathing eased as she focussed. She then noticed she had another hand that she could control CONSCIOUSLY. She redirected her focus to her left hand and did the same movements, pretty much. She recognized that she had control over them if she concentrated on it. After making her discovery of her left hand, she went back to her right hand and tried to move it to her mouth. Unconsciously, BOTH her hands moved to her mouth, but touched each other about 4-5 inches before they got to her mouth. It seems that instinctively, she tried to move her left hand out of the way, WHILE she continued to bring her right hand to her mouth. Only problem was, they were crossed, with her left arm closer to her mouth than her right arm. Essentially, she was holding her right arm away from her mouth because she was trying to get her left arm out of the way. She struggled with her arms for about 10-15 seconds, then she started to cry and gave up. At that point I gave her some help and she calmed down. I was THRILLED!!

Now, why was I thrilled? Because I believe that I witnessed the very first moment that my daughter came to a realization about herself and what she could do.

Why did I share this with everyone here? For two reasons. First, the obvious reason that these are the sorts of things that people give up when they snuff out a life before it's time. Second, to show exactly the type of development that goes on after birth, in this case a good 4-5 months after birth. For several months after her birth, my child didn't know or understand that she was in control of her arms. She didn't understand that she even HAD arms. All she could process was stimuli, but she couldn't understand any of it. She just had instinctive reactions to things that affected and influenced her consciousness, mainly through sensation. So, why is it that birth is the point at which the right to life is granted, compared to the right to life within the womb?

There is so much that is happening within the womb that is wonderous and ALL PART OF LIFE. No one can exist without first being conceived, and that includes test-tube babies and even clones. The act of conception is what STARTS life. Life doesn't come about afterwards at some point. Let's be real here. Life begins at conception, when the sperm joins with the egg and they begin their joint cellular functions as ONE CELL. From that point on, it is a human life, to be at a future date a fully functional human, but that should in no way lessen the existence of human life within that one cell.

I don't mean to measure human life on the basis of potential, but it does seem that we as a general people are more bothered when potential is wasted than many other issues. We are angrier and feel it more when young children are hurt, than we are when adults are hurt in the exact same way. Why? Because we naturally want to keep our children safe due to their innocence, etc. It's so weird and twisted that we would look at the young and cherish their innocence, but then reject the youngest human life (the joined sperm and egg as one cell) as not being complete enough to be considered properly alive or a proper human....

So what? Just because the cell can't exist for any significant length of time outside the womb, it isn't human or important? A baby can't live without food, which it can't give to itself...A toddler can't live without food, which it can't get for itself in this day and age. A youngser of about ten isn't supposed to be left at home alone, lawfully, in my country, because they haven't developed enough to be responsible for themselves at that age... People younger than 18 years old can't vote... In the US, people under 21 can't drink alcohol legally.

So, adult life doesn't actually start until age 21? Oh, but everyone develops at different paces, right? What is the one thing that all who ever lived, alive or dead, have in common? CONCEPTION. That's the only thing that links us all... If we believe that the human body contains a spirit, then we MUST believe that the spirit begins at the same time life does, and if a cell is alive, and that cell is what will grow into a human BODY, then within that cell exists a spirit.

What would happen if the baby was left to develop within the womb? It more than likely would be brought to term and birthed... It would continue to develop outside the womb, interacting with others and influencing those lives, until it's existence was ended. If we cut short that existence before birth, we aren't simply aborting a pregnancy, we are snuffing out a life, and a fellow human no less. Plain and simple, in the basest form, that's murder, and we have no right to do that...

Now I say this having possibly had a child aborted when I was 20 years old. I live with that possibility everyday and even though I'm not sure that the girl was telling the truth about the situation, it still bugs me that there is potential for it to be true, and I may not have a beautiful relationship with my child now, even if the child's conception would've been unplanned and even unwanted. And even if the birth of that child with that girl would've been one hell of a controversy... It is not (and possibly wasn't) right to disallow that newly formed life because it wasn't planned...

Obviously, this is a touchy subject with me...

what does living under water and digesting milk have to do with one's humanity? I am personally lactose intolerant.
As for the magic of conception, haven't you ever heard the expression "only god can grow a tree?" Having a seed turn into a living thing, whether it be human or a plant, is nothing short of a miracle. Birth itself is just a change of location for the baby.
You're right about one thing though, babies, once born, can live for 70+ years, a life that is being stolen from millions of them.
Maybe you should read the rest of my post helen.

I think I was not clear about the essence of my post... I think the magic of birth (which is of course made possible only by the miracle of conception necessary for the unique individual) is the point in time when the parents bond truely with the new member in their family, they can finally hold the baby, and all the baby's biological organs make it possible for it to live in a totally new environment.

But as a magical biological miracle the whole development inside the womb is amazing, ONLY the egg and the sperm merging is a relatively simple biological process YET that process took billions of years for evolution to get to that point -- the embryo developing and various different complex organs forming like clock work from the DNA and RNA etc in the inital fertilized egg ... that is almost mind boggling, and that the end result is able to live on earth eating stuff that is totally foreign to its body -- how come more people don't have allergic reactions to foods - it's all basically poisonous to our biosystems- it's not the same stuff the baby is made of. Why is the baby able to drink milk or some other food and convert it into fuel in the bloodstrean as it was made available from the placenta. That is why I think evolution has to have existed to work out all these areas that the body must be coping with and that is why our DNA is so similar to that of the fruitfly - life on earth has to breath, eat some kind of food for fuel, have legs, see, replicate, etc.

I also believe that life starts at conception and have terrible feelings of guilt about when we decided to abort our first pregnance early in our marriage - it was an accident during birth control and we were concerned about what damage the baby may have had under less than ideal conditions... and back then in 1972 abortion required two doctors to apporve the abortion... so I will always have this empty pain in my soul for that child

So after I had my son 10 years later the pregnancy and his birth was the hightlight of my life but I did feel guilty.

jrkiv - from an evolutionary standpoint the magic of birth is an enourmous accomplishment in nature... up until then the baby is in a completely sterile watery environment, breaths water - yes they practice breathing and sucking their thumbs, and then all of a sudden their system has to adapt to living among germs, process food rather than the "IV" thru the belly botton... think what would it take for us to be able to live under water on IVs and our skin to adapt to constant water exposure... we of course can't make it. So the magic of how the fertilized egg develops so long in an environt quite different from where it will eventually live-- that to me is the true miracle. Like the marsupials give birth to a fetus which then lives in the outside world in the pouch. That to me is the biologically "easy way to be born. "

How did the mammals develop this extensive 9 month process and it all works out so well that the baby who lived in water survives instantly in our world???

I think there is also the Biblical idea that God breathe the breath of life into Adam so many may believe that during birth or Babtism the baby is fully part of the Holy kingdom. I don't know.

The joy of having a healthy baby after all that waiting is just so enourmously elating that nothing compares to it... the conception and knowledge that you carry a new human inside is wonderful but not when compared to the birth and after that it just gets better ... of course both events are required to have a baby... being pregnant was one the happiest times in my life but it got even better after our son was born.

I just wish every person fully understood every miraculous step in the development of a baby from conception to birth and they could never abort anything.

I see your point helen, i did misunderstand what you were trying to say.
Great post!

sierradaddy- what a truly magnificent post! my children were 3 when i arrived in their lives. we were parents of a little boy who only survived one day. so your post gave me a look at what i missed. now we have 2 grandchildren , in another state, so again i've missed that growth. but if someone can read your post and then say abortion is ok, they have a major spark of humanity missing. and i am sorry for them.

If you do not like abortions, do not have one. Plain and simple. Just don't try and FORCE your position on someone else.

If you don't agree with murder, don't kill anybody. Don't force your morals on everybody else.
I agree with you 100% illuminate!

Thanks Grets, and I'm glad to add insight for you. Believe me, I almost missed that time of my daughter's life also, and what a terrible thing it would've been for me. I think that a lot of people can go on in their lives, even establish a relationship with their children many years after their birth, but for me it would've been a travesty, and I don't know if I could've handled it. I even went away to go to school about a year ago, and I cried myself to sleep for a week because I missed my daughter so much. I gave up going to school away from her, because the burden on my heart was too great. I came back home after only a month. Some might call me a quitter for coming back without the degree. I prefer to think of myself as a fighter for not swallowing the burden, and not permitting myself to miss anymore of my daughter's development. Sierra's the best thing that could've ever happened to me, and it's important for people to realize that while a child brings a BIG change in your life, it also gives your life new and GREAT MEANING, and you will be amazed and full of wonder at the way your outlook on life changes after becoming a parent. By no means has the transition been easy, but it's been worth all the trouble.

Sierra, so that is where your name comes from. Very touching.

Helen- a quick story... our son was conceived 2 weeks after my wife went off the pill. i was supposed to be gone 60 days, but was sent home early. our son was born alive, but he had no liver, pancreas, kidneys, or gall bladder. autopsy revealed this, and the doctors said it was "probable" all this occurred because my wife was not off the pill long enough. if he had lived, we were told he'd be on machines for up to 15 yrs or more. God took him to spare him the endless suffering. that was 1976. not enough was known of this type of occurrence- pill and birth- at the time, but i've sorta followed it in the years since, and the chemicals in the pills do affect the health of the child in many many cases. so your feelings of guilt are really unbased. your childs soul awaits you some day. the chances were extremely high that your child would have lived in pain and agony for the few moments in time he or she would have been alive. God has your child now for safekeeping until you reunite. He would not have allowed the child to endure such agony.

Well, it is heartening to read all of the wondeful posts on this thread.

I have been out of touch for a bit. A lot going on.

My daughter, the one who was born extremely premature, is going to become a BIG sister. She is very excited, as we all are. My wife is now four months pregnant and {thankfully} showing none of the signs that led to my daughter's prematurity.

I agree with the thought that showing the ultrasound images of the developing babies to pregnant women would probably greatly reduce the instances of abortion. It is harder to kill when you can see the face of your victim. {as a side note this is why the evolution of warfare has gone toward weapons of longer ranges so the battles do not have to be carried out by infantrymen..... killing someone you can see is and should be ... a very difficult thing for anyone}.

I hope with all my heart that men and women reach a point where the "battle of the sexes" is truly over. If not for this ridiculous struggle for dominance { on both sides} the whole label of murder as "pro-choice" would never have been given credence.

In my home, my wife and I share responsibility and authority. There are tasks that we each perform more easily than the other but rather than it being a contest we each designate that task to the one best suited and share the ones that require both of us.

I wish that my children could grow up in a world where killing is exposed for what it is .... and to hell with all the euphemisms!!!!!

I will do my part to teach them that LIFE has value. But will that matter greatly if they live in a world where we kill so often and easily it is accepted as normal?????

So it's okay to kill a baby but it's not okay to kill a 85 year old man who has already lived his life? The government needs to get a handle on this abortion crap. Think of better birth control or something because I think it's getting out of hand. Too many women use abortion as a birth control method and that isn't fair. Use some common sense here. Is it really okay? That is a baby. I don't care if the baby can't feel pain, it would someday. Who is anybody to decide when anybody else leaves this earth. Selfish, selfish, selfish.

Ok, these are my thoughts on the topic. In my opinion abortion is murder, and I think alot of the people use the "fetus is not alive" argument just to avoid the guilt.

This is my reasoning, lets say for arguments sake that life begins when the baby is born. But does that really matter? I think we can all agree that roughly 9 months after conception a human child is born. So you can call it whatever you want in the womb, the fact is that by destroying the "fetus or football or remote control", whatever happens to be there, a child will not be born. How can that be anything but murder? By destroying whatever is in the womb you are ending a childs life before it ever starts, whether its alive or not at the time is really irrelevent.

Now, after all that I am pro-choice. Why, you ask? Well, because if it was illegal, people would still do it. And if the mother wants to get an abortion theres no reason to endanger her life. So as long as people use it as a form of birth control, it should be legal. Some day we will grow more as a species until it isnt an issue, I hope anyway.

One more point, why is it as the father of a child, I am expected to care and provide for its welfare after its born, but have no say in whether my own child lives or dies? Ill tell you, if my wife or girlfriend ever tried to abort my child, there would be a court battle.

Well, theres my thoughts on the matter. Feel free to reply.

Gremlin, you are right on about abortion being murder, but i don't understand why you are abandoning the concept of right and wrong just because of the fact that "people will still have abortions even if they are made illegal."
Should we make murder legal in general, because obvioulsy people still committ murder even though it is illegal? The act of murder would be a lot safer for killers if it was legal.
Should we permit the use of dangerous illegal drugs, because people do them regardless of what the law says? Should we make it legal so people can overdose and have their hearts stop beating in a clinic instead of an alley? Either way their dead.
Laws are often made to protect people. To not make a law because the criminals who break it are in danger is not only absurd, but it's redundant.
In my opinion we should not watch idly while more babies are killed. If you truly believe the unborn are morally inviolable human beings, then do a simple cost benefit analysis. By outlawing abortion you would save millions of lives a year, even if a handful of women died each year from their illegal efforts to murder their child.

jrkiv, have you been following this story?

Hanging On to Life: Why Illinois Needs Born Alive Infant Protection Now! 9/19/2003

September 19, 2003
For Immediate Release
For More Info: Jill Stanek (815) 464-0984 or (815) 274-2744


The urgency of passing legislation in Illinois that defines a born alive infant has become evident again with the unfathomable court decision to overturn the 1995 conviction of Elizabeth Ehlert in the murder of her newborn baby girl.


This week, Cook County State’s Attorney Dick Devine asked the Illinois Supreme Court to reexamine a November 2002 appeals court decision that overturned two prior convictions of Ehlert for the 1990 death. Ehlert was convicted for delivering her baby at home, killing her, and throwing her in a garbage bag in a creek. The court said the infant’s cry Ehlert’s boyfriend heard at delivery “may have occurred before complete separation from the mother, and therefore it is not sufficient to prove live birth.”


The appeals court accepted legal rational based on a 183-year-old Illinois law that says the baby must be completely separated from the mother before it is an independent life. Medical advancements have made this law obsolete.


“If Elizabeth Ehlert’s murder conviction is wiped out, Illinois’ courts will have provided homicidal mothers a how-to guide for getting away with killing their babies,” said a prosecutor, according to the September 17 issue of the Daily Herald.


For the past three years, the Illinois General Assembly has considered the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (SB 1082)... Like the federal law of the same name, SB 1082 defines a baby who “breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut” as a legal person, regardless of the circumstances of birth.


This legislation resulted originally from the alarming practice of aborting babies alive and allowing them to die. Nurse Jill Stanek first uncovered this practice at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, and it is now known to be committed at several hospitals around the country. Stanek, who currently serves as Concerned Women for America’s Illinois Pro-Life Coordinator, has testified frequently before Congress and various state legislatures, including Illinois.


The Daily Herald quoted Peter Fischer, an assistant Cook County state’s attorney: “What you have here is the horrific scenario in which a mother who doesn’t want her baby delivers the baby, the baby is out and still connected by the cord, and under the complete separation doctrine … she can kill that baby. She can stab it, she can strangle it, do anything, and it’s not murder. It’s not intentional homicide of an unborn child because a mother can’t be prosecuted for that. It’s nothing.”


CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA OF ILLINOIS once again urges the Illinois General Assembly to pass the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection bills to protect innocent children.

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/4606/FIELD/life/

Wow Marlene, i have not heard of this story before. It is absolutely frightening. I'll have to read up on it some more.
thanks for the post.

Mr. JukoVette,

How do you feel about about partial-birth abortion?

I would like to make this point. I am not in favor of abortion. I think, logically, there is no way around the taking of another life, though murder might translate into something slightly different. I believe (in my own personal belief system) that anyone who has had an abortion will have to answer for thier....decisions.

That said, I still support the right of a woman to choose for herself. Simply put, it is not my business what a woman does with her own body. Nor do I feel that I have the right to decide for someone else what is right or wrong in terms of thier own body. Like it or not, the child at that point is still a part of the mother. Even if the child were my own, I would, in the end, conceed to the Woman carrying it. If I could get pregnant, and carry my own child, I would. Us males are a bit under-equipped for that, however.

Well...in the movie "Junior".......

Guess what? I think a woman has the right to choose, that is unless she puts it off until a certain time, say, 5 months. Anything after that is just disgusting and immoral.

If she doesn't realize she's pregnant after 5 months she needs her head examined.

People need to be held responsible for their own actions.

I agree.

I agree that late term abortions are pretty gruesome......but its a tricky line to draw, and abortionists are afraid of the slippery-slope type of thing....

I used to beleive (as someone who hadn't had sex) that abortions were ok. Because if I ever had sex I wouldn't wouldn't want to have to be a daddy too early.

After I did have sex I realized how selfish that stance is. Who is willing to let a human being grow inside of them to the point of having all the distinguished features of a baby, where they could survive birth and live a normal life, and kill them? When does their selfish need for sex make it ok to kill an inoscent life?

Don't get me wrong, I think abortions are necessary. Sex is necessary too. It's part of our life, like food and water. But if you don't use protection, or you have sex al lthe damn time, you had better be prepared to deal with the consiquences. That's why I think people should be aware of what the consequences are.

In the end, I'm still pro-choice. But if you ALLOW a baby to grow inside of you for 5 or 6 months, taking it past 50% or 60% of the pregnancy before you do something about it, you are a selfish, cruel, and heartless person.

THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

Like I said before, people need to be held responsible for their actions.

Wow, this time I totally agree with you.

I agree you cant kill people in or out of the womb..they are still people and that is one of the ten commandments Thou shall not murder Matt 19:18....and there is no way else to look at it its murder...Goood luck to those who are killing these babies on judgement day trying to explain it to our Heavenly Father is not going to be easy....Ill pray for you!...... Romans6:23

Thanks but its all for Gods glory.......

You know what? I do not believe in any kind of god and yet I agree with you that abortion is murder and that it is wrong. However, it is not for me to tell a woman what to do in her predicament, this I know is right.

Abortion....
This is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard of....
Why kill a baby that doesn't have anything to do with the way they were put here. babies are Gods gift to the world and for the president to be for abortions is one of the dumbest things i've ever heard.. i don't care if you're 4th months or a day pregnant it's wrong to kill a child. Why can't we just learn how to keep our legs closed instead of killing a baby?? Due to this we are slowly but surely lessening the population of women. There is no way that God can be proud of this. I don't understand why adoption can't be as big as abortion? The whole point is to get rid of the baby! Well if you give it up the baby has more of a chance of being somebody and who knows? You could be killing the person that'd save your life!!! Think about that