Abortion.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

No, the purpose of showing war images is to clarify the issue; the purpose of showing aborted foetuses is to cloud the issue.

So what about this morning-after pill then?

Let the morning after pill be the morning after pill.

And you're wrong: the language of abortion softens the reality of what abortion really is. There is nothing untruthful, if you insist on cloudy, about saying or showing photos on what abortion really is. Let the issue be cloudy if it lets people see something more than that vague "Women's right to control her body!!!!"...

...as if someone WAS trying to control her body bodily.

"Ever since the Gov overturned Rove v Wade, I could no longer control my body: now look how fat I am!"

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The reason you say that is because you support abortion (if I recall, forgive me if I am wrong), and so don't like images showing the nitty-gritty of it, while you oppose the war, and thus approve of showing said nitty-gritty.

Politicians who campaign as "pro-life", but then support abortion in some cases (rape, incest, etc.) are whores. For that matter, so are politicians who campaign as pro-life, but support death penalty. Which makes Bush a double-whore.

Supporting abortion in cases of danger of death for the mother is more understandable, but still flawed.

In response to your question. I disapprove of any after-the-fact contraception, as I believe that life begins at conception, and thus that they are in fact easier abortions. Less trauma for the mother, same death for the child.

[hectorberlioz]

In my state's newspaper, The Tennessean, there was a guy who wrote a letter to the editor, characterizing fetuses as "clumps of cells"...as if WE weren't "cumps of cells" as well?

Gwai, I am pro-life and pro-death penalty...I guess I'm in the same box Bush is...

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Supporting abortion in cases of danger of death for the mother is more understandable, but still flawed.

How so? What if there is an Ectopic pregnancy?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Because, an abortion denies the infant any chance to live. The mother A) in
most life-threatening circumstances, may survive, and B) has already lived. The fetus is denied any chance of a single moment of life with a grain of independence.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Because, an abortion denies the infant any chance to live. The mother A) in
most life-threatening circumstances, may survive, and B) has already lived. The fetus is denied any chance of a single moment of life with a grain of independence.

isn't it more like a "no-win" situation? I mean with an ectopic pregnancy, the baby (fetus) cannot survive for very long once it has implanted itself in the fallopian tube. The tube will eventually rupture as the baby grows causing the baby to die and the mother to possibly bleed to death internally. Am I right in saying this?
I certainly do NOT promote abortion...but in cases like this...what can one do? Doesn't the Church consider this more of a "self-defense" action?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

isn't it more like a "no-win" situation? I mean with an ectopic pregnancy, the baby (fetus) cannot survive for very long once it has implanted itself in the fallopian tube. The tube will eventually rupture as the baby grows causing the baby to die and the mother to possibly bleed to death internally. Am I right in saying this?
I certainly do NOT promote abortion...but in cases like this...what can one do? Doesn't the Church consider this more of a "self-defense" action?

I will be agreeing with you on this on Arien ...


NOTE TO GWAIMIR WINDGEM: CLEANETH THY BOX!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

isn't it more like a "no-win" situation? I mean with an ectopic pregnancy, the baby (fetus) cannot survive for very long once it has implanted itself in the fallopian tube. The tube will eventually rupture as the baby grows causing the baby to die and the mother to possibly bleed to death internally. Am I right in saying this?
I certainly do NOT promote abortion...but in cases like this...what can one do? Doesn't the Church consider this more of a "self-defense" action?

With this specific case, I think it could be defensible, but I was speaking in general terms.

NOTE TO HECTOR BERLYBOTTY: THOU SPEAKEST THE QUEEN'S ENGLISH BADLY!

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

With this specific case, I think it could be defensible, but I was speaking in general terms.

NOTE TO HECTOR BERLYBOTTY: THOU SPEAKEST THE QUEEN'S ENGLISH BADLY!

Gwai, you need to stop spamming , ok?

Here is an article that is a little more particular on abortion details...

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/...nathanson.html

[Gwaimir Windgem]

My dear Burly, that post was most assuredly not a spam. I responded to Arien's (completely ontopic) question. Now, perhaps my chiding you for poor Elizabethan English was a bit off, but it's hardly my fault if you can't tell the difference between second-person imperative and third-person indicative, now is it?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

My dear Burly, that post was most assuredly not a spam. I responded to Arien's (completely ontopic) question. Now, perhaps my chiding you for poor Elizabethan English was a bit off, but it's hardly my fault if you can't tell the difference between second-person imperative and third-person indicative, now is it?

Actually I am can don't start on the subject kay?


"From mistakes grow trees. Some need to be cut down."
~Anonymous, but perhaps Hectorberlioz

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

The reason you say that is because you support abortion (if I recall, forgive me if I am wrong), and so don't like images showing the nitty-gritty of it, while you oppose the war, and thus approve of showing said nitty-gritty.

But abortion does NOT always equal partial birth abortion, something the most vocal pro-lifers are so eager to ignore (and which annoys me to no end). To put on those images and pretend that abortion is always like that, that's clouding the issue, IMO.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

You are can? My dear fellow, what utter nonsense (pronouncing it "nonsins" in a crisp and quick manner )! That makes absolutely no sense at all, unless you are indicating yourself to be some sort of SPAM container. In which case, I think you're leaking!

Anyway, we OUGHT to be "on the subject"; don't you grasp the concept of threads yet?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

But abortion does NOT always equal partial birth abortion, something the most vocal pro-lifers are so eager to ignore (and which annoys me to no end). To put on those images and pretend that abortion is always like that, that's clouding the issue, IMO.

I don't see how a clean dead fetus is any better off than a bloody one...

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

You are can? My dear fellow, what utter nonsense (pronouncing it "nonsins" in a crisp and quick manner )! That makes absolutely no sense at all, unless you are indicating yourself to be some sort of SPAM container. In which case, I think you're leaking!

Anyway, we OUGHT to be "on the subject"; don't you grasp the concept of threads yet?

Earniel, this man keeps trying to tempt me to spam. *points...feels really self-righteous*

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

But abortion does NOT always equal partial birth abortion, something the most vocal pro-lifers are so eager to ignore (and which annoys me to no end). To put on those images and pretend that abortion is always like that, that's clouding the issue, IMO.

Pro-lifers don't only use partial birth abortion images.

War also does not always equal Iraqi 12-year old children with only half an arm, but I wouldn't say it is clouding the issue to put on those images. I don't think either side is pretending it's ALWAYS like that as a whole, though surely there are some whackos on both ends.

Myself, I don't use any images, and find it rather distasteful. But I don't see why either is 'clouding the issue'.

EDIT: Please note, I oppose Operation Iraqi Fiefdom. I am merely using it as an example because it was used by the others, and I see no reason why it should be okay to use gory war images, but not gory abortion images.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I don't see how a clean dead fetus is any better off than a bloody one...

It's is only called a fetus when it's ten weeks old, if I'm not mistaken. It doesn't even have lungs yet at that time. Abortion is quite possible before that stage. There's a difference between aborting a few cells and a nearly completely develloped fetus.

In countries where abortion is legal the abortion mostly has to be done before a certain development stage is reached. Thirteenth or fourteenth week tops, later only in medical emergencies.

But that is what people conveniently leave out of the debate. Images of babies, ready to be born, with a coathanger in their brains are much more forceful than an image of an aborted embryo, hardly three inches big. Those images just hijack your emotions.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

It's is only called a fetus when it's ten weeks old, if I'm not mistaken. It doesn't even have lungs yet at that time. Abortion is quite possible before that stage. There's a difference between aborting a few cells and a nearly completely develloped fetus.

In countries where abortion is legal the abortion mostly has to be done before a certain development stage is reached. Thirteenth or fourteenth week tops, later only in medical emergencies.

But that is what people conveniently leave out of the debate. Images of babies, ready to be born, with a coathanger in their brains are much more forceful than an image of an aborted embryo, hardly three inches big. Those images just hijack your emotions.

But it really doesn't change anything: The fact that babies are killed. Maybe we should take pics of the undeveloped fetuses too...

In my opinion, it isn't any better to kill them when they look less human than when they do.

[Jonathan]

And so, again, it all boils down to when, in your mind, a baby becomes a baby and when life itself begins and whether this life is sacred and mustn't be touched.

[edit] And I have to agree with Eärniel that it does matter for the sake of the debate when members of the pro-life movement show nasty pictures of dead fetuses. Those images give a distorted picture of abortion per se.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Pro-lifers don't only use partial birth abortion images.

Please point me to where I said that the only material pro-lifers use are partial abortion images.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

And so, again, it all boils down to when, in your mind, a baby becomes a baby and when life itself begins and whether this life is sacred and mustn't be touched.

It really does boil down to that, yes. And that can be boiled down even more: the beliefs of those who differ on the subject. But we pro-lifers aren't about to bow down to "cultural differences" and let fetuses be killed just because someone doesn't believe that life is sacred.

[edit] And I have to agree with Eärniel that it does matter for the sake of the debate when members of the pro-life movement show nasty pictures of dead fetuses. Those images give a distorted picture of abortion per se.

Well perhaps we're getting a distorted view of the what the wreckage really is in Iraq...after all, we never get a pic of ONE building intact

The abortion pictures give an accurate image of what a fetus looks like after whatever it went through before the pic was taken. That's not clouding up the respectable image of aborted babies...it's the truth.