Thread: Question For Anti-Abortion People

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Ya know Pale, just because you spent hours and hours pouring through medical journals (as you have confessed) to find a couple of articles that supports your position, really doesn't defend your position.

The fact that neither you, nor any other pro choicer can find credible material that rebutts it says it all.

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

As I said, it ain't scientists who determine who deserves to covered under the law, but society. So if society says that birth is when protection should be given, well their you have it.

No, that isn't what you have said. You originally said that society determines what is and isn't a human being. Now you have moderated your postion to say that society determines who is covered under the law. It is good to see that you have given up your losing position and have adopted one that is rational and true. Refer to the constitution for further truth about whose life is to be protected without regard to what "society" says and you will be well on the way to abandoning your pro choice position if you are a thinking person.

Originally Posted by PTBA

I did. Having an infant was not important to me, I have had a natural child. but there are many who would like to adopt an infant, there are very few in the United States because instead they are aborted, so they look elsewhere.

If people stopped having abortions and started giving them up for adoption, I am sure that every child would have a home.

Even if the adoption numbers equalled 1970's rate, there would be many more babies born than adopted assuming criminalizing abortion actually prevented them. If the abortion numbers are one million abortions annually, the adoption numbers are 175,000 annually, what are you going to do with the rest of the babies?

Adoption History: Adoption Statistics

"A total of approximately 125,000 children have been adopted annually in the United States in recent years, a sharp drop since the century-long high point of 175,000 adoptions in 1970. "

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Originally Posted by mulp
Is a 13, 14, 15, 16 year old girl old enough to have a child? Physically she might be. Mentally, not likely. And no way can she care for the child.

It has been the norm for thousands of years. Are you saying that we are devolving as a result of modern liberalism and as a result our ancestors were more able than we are? That may be true for you, but not for human beings as a species.

It is highly unlikely that there were a large number of very young women giving birth in earlier times.

Average age of menarche, at the Museum of Menstruation and Women's Health

"In Europe and America, and probably in other cultures, the average age at which a girl first menstruates has gradually declined in recent historical times, the possible reasons being better nutrition and health (but see below). The age seems to have leveled off in America at the end of the 20th century, although the first appearance of other signs of sexual maturity, such as breasts and pubic hair, is still declining, possibly as a result of obesity and estrogen in the environment - for example, from discarded birth control pills.
...
Researchers noted the trend 140 years ago. In 1860 the average menarche happened at 16.6 years, in 1920 at 14.6, in 1950 at 13.1 and 1980, 12.5 years."

Originally Posted by wyse wyfe

It is highly unlikely that there were a large number of very young women giving birth in earlier times.

Average age of menarche, at the Museum of Menstruation and Women's Health

"In Europe and America, and probably in other cultures, the average age at which a girl first menstruates has gradually declined in recent historical times, the possible reasons being better nutrition and health (but see below). The age seems to have leveled off in America at the end of the 20th century, although the first appearance of other signs of sexual maturity, such as breasts and pubic hair, is still declining, possibly as a result of obesity and estrogen in the environment - for example, from discarded birth control pills.
...
Researchers noted the trend 140 years ago. In 1860 the average menarche happened at 16.6 years, in 1920 at 14.6, in 1950 at 13.1 and 1980, 12.5 years."

While there is some conflict even within your own source, I will conceed your point that girls are becoming sexually mature (in general) earlier than they used to. Although anecdotally, my great grandmother born January 7, 1888 was born to my great great grandmother who was born june 15, 1874 and I have the census, county, and church records to prove it. (avid geneologist) My math tells me that my great great grandmother was 13 years, 6 months old when she had my great grandmother.

Originally Posted by PaleRider

While there is some conflict even within your own source, I will conceed your point that girls are becoming sexually mature (in general) earlier than they used to. Although anecdotally, my great grandmother born January 7, 1888 was born to my great great grandmother who was born june 15, 1874 and I have the census, county, and church records to prove it. (avid geneologist) My math tells me that my great great grandmother was 13 years, 6 months old when she had my great grandmother.

Exceptions prove the rule, but I wouldn't be too sure about those numbers if I were you. I have noted too many mistakes in the records of my own family to be certain of any of them.

Originally Posted by wyse wyfe

Exceptions prove the rule, but I wouldn't be too sure about those numbers if I were you. I have noted too many mistakes in the records of my own family to be certain of any of them.

Three sources that list the same date and year makes it a pretty sure bet.

By the way, exceptions test the rule, not prove it. Another example of how wrong common wisdom often is. The expression goes back to a time when the word prove ment to test.

Originally Posted by PaleRider

"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology” T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed.

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.

These people are only a few. Most people think differently.

Originally Posted by PaleRider

You say that a human being is a person but a fetus is not a person. A fetus is a human being, therefore it is a person.

A fetus is not a person. How many times must we tell you this?

Originally Posted by PaleRider

There is risk of hemmorage when a child is delivered vaginally as well and if it happens, it is much more difficult to bring under control than if a C section is performed.

No woman could give birth to a child with a head as big as a basketball.

Originally Posted by PaleRider

There is a reason that the incidence of C sections has increased so much in the past two decades.

It's because woman are too posh to push.

Originally Posted by PaleRider

But we both know that in the vast majority of partial birth abortions, the child did not suffer from hydrocephally and brain tissue was what was being sucked out.

In most cases, the fetus doesn't even have brain matter, so it cannot be considered a person anyway.

[QUOTE=My Winter Storm;470454]These people are only a few. Most people think differently.


Only people that are uneducated. As for those who are experts in the medical field it quite clear.

In 1981, a United States Senate subcommittee received testimony from a collection of medical experts.

(Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158 Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981)


The official Senate report reached this conclusion:


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

Thus the reason you have been able to produce one piece of credible science that states otherwise. Instead you just keep repeating your uneducated opinion.

A fetus is not a person. How many times must we tell you this?

Person
Noun
pl people or persons

1. an individual human being

The official Senate report reached this conclusion:


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.


There have been at least two other instances in American history in which specific groups of human beings were stripped of their rights of personhood as a means of justifying their horrible mistreatment. African-Americans and Native-Americans both felt the brunt of a system which denied their humanity, stripped their personhood and subjected them to horrors beyond measure. While the legal framework that made such injustice possible has now been removed, it remains firmly in place for unborn Americans.

There remains one, and only one, group of human beings in the U.S. today for which being human is not enough. The inconvenience of their existence has resulted in a legal loophole of shameful proportions. What is a person? A person is a human being (unless, of course, you haven't been born yet, in which case we'll define personhood in any way possible so as to exclude you, kill you and forget you).

Welcome to America.

Your law clearly states that a fetus is NOT a person until it has taken a breath. FACTUALLY and LEGALLY a fetus is NOT a human BEING/PERSON.

Got that? Good.