If a child learned his/her mother thought of him/her while in the womb to be equal to a parasite, ruptured appendix, or diseased gallbladder, how would it affect their self-esteem?

I don’t think you actually understand the attitude you are asking about. You hear someone make a comparison between a fetus and a parasite and you automatically think of it in negative terms, but that is an utter misunderstanding. When people make that comparison, they’re not saying that fetuses are necessarily bad. They’re saying that we have the same moral duties towards a fetus as we have towards a parasite (in other words, none at all).

And on the flip side, someone can think of their pregnancy or their child as a negative event in their life even if they don’t think that a fetus is morally equivalent to a parasite. There are plenty of unhappy mothers who didn’t abort for fear that a blastula is somehow capable of having a soul and/or moral rights. So unless you’ve done a terrible job of wording your question, it looks like you are conflating two very different scenarios.

With that out of the way, let’s look at each scenario. My mother definitely believes that a fetus is just a clump of cells with no moral rights, and it hasn’t done anything to dampen my self-esteem. Just because a fetus might be morally equivalent to a parasite (and, in some ways, acts like a parasite with regard to how it depends on its host for survival) doesn’t make something bad. Some people ingest parasites on purpose, and some people get pregnant on purpose. If they’re doing it because they want to do it, then it’s a good thing.

But now let’s look at the other side. I grew up with a guy whose mother was very vocally anti-abortion and who went on and on about how every sperm is sacred. She definitely didn’t think that a fetus was just a clump of cells, but she also was pretty adamant that getting pregnant young was a terrible thing that ruined lives. But here’s the thing—she got pregnant (very) young. So it wasn’t a big step for her son to conclude that he had ruined his mother’s life. That took a huge toll on the guy and probably contributed a lot to his eventual suicide.

This is all anecdotal, but I would conclude that self-esteem is less about how much value your parents ascribe to fetuses in theory and more about how they treat you in practice.

@Irukandji I don’t think you actually understand the attitude you are asking about.
Unlike some, I can conclude that is a plausible comment. I have made many statements of relative comparison that often (very often) get taken out of the context it was meant.

You hear someone make a comparison between a fetus and a parasite and you automatically think of it in negative terms, but that is an utter misunderstanding.
I am not a part of the Fluther Clairvoyance Club, I don’t assume to know what a person meant by what they said other than the context they said it. If a person was to say women are like the lame animal of the herd, always needing help. With no further clarification, one might think the statement was being negative towards women.

My mother definitely believes that a fetus is just a clump of cells with no moral rights, and it hasn’t done anything to dampen my self-esteem.
Some do not see this ”clump of cells” as being any part of a human, that is quite strange especially if any of those who think that way can connect the caterpillar to the butterfly or the tadpole and pollywog to the frog. However, I wonder just when did she think those ”random cells” actually became a part of human life, and off what criteria she based it on?

Just because a fetus might be morally equivalent to a parasite (and, in some ways, acts like a parasite with regard to how it depends on its host for survival) doesn’t make something bad.
While some parasites might be used beneficially most use it in the context of something that glommed onto the host but was not a natural part of development of it. The fetus and embryo are stages of development of a human not something separate, unless you had something different in biology class, if so, I would like to study what you have that said a fetus or embryo was never human but morphed into being human by some means along the way.

[…also was pretty adamant that getting pregnant young was a terrible thing that ruined lives. But here’s the thing—she got pregnant (very) young. So it wasn’t a big step for her son to conclude that he had ruined his mother’s life. That took a huge toll on the guy and probably contributed a lot to his eventual suicide.
They always say be careful of hat you say to children, if you always said they were nothing, will be nothing, and was worthless, they might actually believe they are nothing, and some might suffer depression strong enough to take their own life; be it they are stupid, or was a drain on the mother before they were born, I would challenge anyone to say that was edifying to the child.

Who gives a shit what the mother thought while carrying the child? The only thing that matters is how she treats the kid after it arrives. The fact that she carried the child to term more than compensates for any resentment expressed during the hormone roller coaster ride that comes with a pregnancy. All of these hypothetical questions involving the ethics and morality of abortion will never overcome the urgency of the realities involved with women who choose abortion. The bottom line will always be that no one, including you, I or the state should EVER have the right to compel a woman to have a child

I think this question drastically oversimplifies analogies from other threads. I think they call this cherry picking.

To try and answer the question though. I suppose it might be negative . But as long as the mother treats the child right and loves it after its born, that would be the most important. Self esteem is taught.

I’ve never heard a muderer, or career criminal say. “Im a bad person, because my mother thought of me logistically /scientifically when I was a fetus.”

The brain of the fetus is not sufficiently developed to formulate such thoughts. Even if it could, as far as the fetus can tell, the womb is the entire universe. How could it possibly know that it is attached to a person, let alone have any inkling of what the mother is thinking? I read somewhere that it is only after a few weeks of age that an infant is able to distinguish itself from the rest of the world.

I am not sure what point you are making. It would seem, though I know better, that you are making an argument in favor of abortion. If a parent is unable to give the proper love to a child then it may be better not to have the child.

I don’ t think such a belief would affect the child. Dunno about the others, but I never saw myself as a former fetus. I think it’s way more important and affecting what does mother think of the child after it’s born and how does she treat her child during it’s childhood. As stated above me, fetus does not have it’s own mind, therefore it can’t know what it’s mother thinks of it.

Fortunately my self-esteem is not so delicate as to be effected by what my mother may or may not have thought before I came tearing out of her vagina.

I think most people would be saddened or upset to hear this, especially if they heard it while young. As we age, we are better able to put others’ feelings about us into context – we’re more forgiving (or, we should be, I guess).

Having said that, I discovered in my teens that my mother wanted to abort me, and that my father had talked her out of it. I didn’t find it particularly upsetting and I still don’t, because, well, I am obviously here, so what did it matter, really? I still believe very strongly that women must have the right to control their own reproductive decisions. I don’t blame my mother for wanting what she wanted. In fact, I think her life would have been much happier had she gone through with it. None of that has anything to do with me.

Oh good grief. Do you realize you’re actually making a case for abortion here? Unless you can find a way to make all pregnancies magically wanted, there will be women who don’t want their fetuses, and yes, life is usually harder for the children who are born unwanted.

You’ve also conveniently ignored the emotional harm to children whose fathers don’t want them, I see.

Wouldn’t affect me a bit.

@stanleybmanly Who gives a shit what the mother thought while carrying the child?
Since THIS is not a question on how she feels other than how she felt about the developing human biology graced her to be a part of, I guess no one need care.

@LostInParadise How could it possibly know that it is attached to a person, let alone have any inkling of what the mother is thinking?
Until the child is birth and developed to a point outside the womb, it has no ability to reason something that complex. However, this question is about said humans who live long enough to start reasoning things out. Reasoning things like if their mother wanted to rid herself of them before they were born, maybe dear old mom would be better off if they were gone. Perhaps, their mother act the way she does because they kept her from going out and doing things. Possibly it might even be reasoned by the kid their mother is lying with all the sweet talk because the truth is she never wanted them, but got stuck with them anyhow.

@dappled_leaves _ I think most people would be saddened or upset to hear this, especially if they heard it while young._
Well, surely there is no way to test it but some here think their skin is so tough that if they discovered mom did not want to quick name a profession school to raise them they would just shuck it off. If kids were that resilient why are so many saying they were emotionally or verbally abused by their parents, by what have been said, and so long as the parents kept food on the table and clothes on their back, even if they spoke harshly or in unflattering ways, they should have just forgot about it.

I still believe very strongly that women must have the right to control their own reproductive decisions.
Well, we still have laws in place to assure a woman’s selfishness.

@Mariah Unless you can find a way to make all pregnancies magically wanted, there will be women who don’t want their fetuses, and yes, life is usually harder for the children who are born unwanted.
If one doesn’t want to be shark bitten, or jellyfish stung they don’t go swimming in the ocean (don’t worry, I know it went over your head).

@Hypocrisy_Central “Well, we still have laws in place to assure a woman’s selfishness.”

Can you clarify what you mean by that? Please, enlighten me.

“If one doesn’t want to be shark bitten, or jellyfish stung they don’t go swimming in the ocean (don’t worry, I know it went over your head).”

I suppose you share your understanding of how women can and can’t become pregnant with Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin.

@Hypocrisy_Central . It’s interesting that you mentioned sharks. Are you aware that many species of sharks actually eat each other while in the uterus? Natural abortion, one could say.

I’m not an idiot, but thanks for your snide comment. Tell me, do you think, because I do not ever want to be pregnant, that I should go my entire life without ever having sex? You do realize, don’t you, that not all unwanted pregnancies happen outside of marriage?

Um, the reference to my diseased gallbladder was a response to your nonsense analogy regarding removing a vital organ being morally equivalent to abortion.

My whole statement was “a fetus is not a vital organ, and no one has ever called me a murderer for removing my diseased gallbladder”.

Your statement that this question is not related to any user is a bald faced lie.

@AnonymousAccount8 Can you clarify what you mean by that? Please, enlighten me.
It is as clear as a burning comet streaking through a clear night sky. Laws are in place so a woman doesn’t have to live with the “mistake”, she can all on her own decide she doesn’t care to be bothered and rid her of it. Unlike if she decided to do a sport or whatever and loses a finger, arm, or foot, etc. she would be forced to live with it and make adaptations to her life, but when it comes to pregnancies, she can do the act but avoid any consequence. I would say 98.9% of the time there is no reason other than her personal whim for doing it.

@MrGrimm888 Are you aware that many species of sharks actually eat each other while in the uterus? Natural abortion, one could say.
When it starts to happen with humans, we would have a starting point to talk about that.

@Mariah Tell me, do you think, because I do not ever want to be pregnant, that I should go my entire life without ever having sex?
There are other ways, getting the tubes tied, removing the uterus or ovaries, those are ways to be certain.

You do realize, don’t you, that not all unwanted pregnancies happen outside of marriage?
Yes, I do, but from what I experienced, the couples are way more apt to deal with it instead of selfishly ducking the responsibility they created dancing between the sheets.

@Seek Um, the reference to my diseased gallbladder was a response to your nonsense analogy regarding removing a vital organ being morally equivalent to abortion.
That was not a statement I made, but a tangent you with off on. My statement was in regard to those who believe a developing human is just tissue that at some point becomes human and I ask for evidence of any other organ in the body that does or is capable of that; still have not gotten an answer. Neither how mere tissue can become human, if it were possible, then a kidney should be able to do it, or a spleen, etc.

Your statement that this question is not related to any user is a bald faced lie.
YOU stated what YOUR thought on it was, so there was no need to carry that further. I was interested to know what people would think if they discovered they were regarded no better than diseased tissue by their parents of any child in general.

Your stupid question

My answer

Hardly a tangent unrelated to your question. Liar.

@Hypocrisy_Central “Well, we still have laws in place to assure a woman’s selfishness.

”...from what I experienced, the couples are way more apt to deal with it instead of selfishly ducking the responsibility they created dancing between the sheets.”

Your perspective on this issue is not surprising, given your religious beliefs, but most people who don’t share them see abortion as just one more way of taking responsibility, not a means of avoiding it. So, while you may mean these words to be cutting or shaming, to most of us they sound like nonsense.

”...when it comes to pregnancies, she can do the act but avoid any consequence. I would say 98.9% of the time there is no reason other than her personal whim for doing it.”

The word whim is obviously meant to be derisive, but I agree with your comment in the respect that a woman who has an abortion does so for her own personal reasons, which in most cases are probably not related to the extreme “rape or incest” examples we hear so often. I have absolutely no problem with that. I judge people who do have a problem with that.

“I was interested to know what people would think if they discovered they were regarded no better than diseased tissue by their parents of any child in general.”

Well, I gave you my personal example, but it does not seem to have actually interested you – so this sounds like a lie to me. Instead, you are using the question to degrade women for exercising the right to have abortions. Disappointing, if not surprising.

Many many children, I would say especially girls, hear their mom’s and women talk about pregnancy and labor as being difficult, made them sick, was extremely painful, and other complaints. As a girl I didn’t take it personally, I just thought about what pregnancy was going to be like. I heard good and bad stories about pregnancy growing up. My mom hated being pregnant, but loved being a mom, and in her words, “especially when my children were little.”

I never felt any responsibility that she was uncomfortable being pregnant, and that it was painful to birth me. I was something she had to support in her body to bring to life, and it was a burden on her body. She went along with the burden she had to bear for the result, like so many women do.

Regarding being a negative event. A lot of people do know their timing for coming into the world was not ideal for their parents. I do think this affects some people, but not all. It depends on the kid and the parent. I know more than one adopted girl who had a baby and gave it up. Like they had to repeat what their bio-mother did. This is not the majority of adopted girls I know, but I know a few. Other kids who are raised by teen parents, I have never heard them say they felt unwanted, even though they knew it was a “bad” thing their mom got pregnant when she did. I don’t know how they actually felt, but I was never told anything. Remember, my peers were born during a time when there was much more shame regarding pregnancy out of wedlock and teen pregnancies.

I forgot to add in my family we used the term parasitic to describe a fetus, and viability was used to describe a fetus that was able to sustain its own life outside of the mother. Parasitic simply means dependent on another organism, it isn’t an overly negative term in this case. It does take from the mother though.

Neither how mere tissue can become human, if it were possible, then a kidney should be able to do it, or a spleen, etc.

How is it possible to be this ignorant? Can you tie your own shoes in the morning?

I wish the world were as simple as it is in your head…

I do not ever want to be pregnant for medical reasons; I do not think my body could handle it. One of my major medical problems these days is frequent small bowel obstructions caused by scar tissue caused by my previous abdominal surgeries. Getting another major abdominal surgery such as an elective hysterectomy would make my problems far worse.

I only have sex in the context of a stable monogamous relationship and never without two simultaneous forms of birth control. In the 0.001% chance that I get pregnant I will not hesitate to have an abortion.

But please, tell me more about how irresponsible I’m being and how to live my life.

Maybe some of your scar tissue will spontaneously turn into a fetus. Then you’ll HAVE to have a baby. Because Jesus, or something.

Listening to @Mariah I’m reminded of my MIL who in her mid 30’s went to her doctor because she was bleeding heavily all too often. Clots and blood practically gushing at times. She already had three children. Her last one, my husband, was born at barely 7 months and it was touch and go the first few days or weeks. I’m not sure how long. He was 2 kilos when born, which when I was a kid was kind of the borderline for babies making it through ok.

Before that she had had two pregnancies that didn’t make it, both ending in the second trimester, one was at 5 months, and she, my MIL, had her own health in serious risk when the baby died inside of her, and what happened during her medical care at the hospital to remove the fetus. Before those unsuccessful pregnancies she had her other two children.

Back to her now heavy bleeding on and off. It wasn’t simply heavy menstruation.

She goes to her doctor, who she describes as an older Catholic man, and he tells her he can’t do anything because she might still be able to make more babies. My MIL is a very religious Catholic woman, who she herself has told me she never planned how many children she would have, she always just thought you get married and have babies, and she was fine with that. She was one of ten herself.

The end of the story is she went to a Jewish doctor (her description) and he performed a hysterectomy. This was 45 years ago in Mexico.

That whole idea that women are baby machines and that is their only use is such a horrific way of thinking. I’m pretty sure a lot of women have died because some religions and macho men decided that is how it should be. Valuing a fetus that is unable to sustain its own life over the mother is incomprehensible to me.

I’m sure if the OP saw a 10 day old embryo in a Petrie dish, or a miscarried fetus of just a few weeks, he would throw it in the trash or flush it down the toilet without thought. He wouldn’t even know what he was looking at. He wouldn’t know it was something that could have grown into a human being.

My miscarried embryo was the size of a sesame seed, since it stopped growing at 5 weeks’ gestation. I never saw it, but it’s definitely gone now. It’s not even called a fetus until 8 weeks.

Spontaneous abortion. A flaw in the embryo’s DNA or something. Imperfect nature doing what it does. A simple accident of probability.

Right, spontaneous abortions happen in very high numbers in nature, and it baffles me how many people seem to ignore it. Often it is a defect in the embryo, sometimes the woman has something wrong or something happens that the pregnancies fails. Nature is aborting pregnancies all the time. Some stats say as high as 1 in 3 pregnancies, or 2 in 5 known pregnancies.

My Mom carried a wanted baby to term. She was still born, though. Thanks a lot, God.

@Hypocrisy_Central what if, to use a not-uncommon real life scenario, a woman finds out she is two months pregnant, and had been drinking and using drugs nearly every day of her pregnancy up to that point? In which way should she “take responsibility” for her actions?

@JLeslie – I think people ignore it because whenever someone mentions it, they’re either subjected to heaps of saccharine public mourning on their behalf, more “thoughts and prayers” than anyone can handle, or a thousand questions on their personal health and family planning choices.

One of my idols, Amanda Palmer, recently had an abortion of a wanted baby because she had been on a prescription medication that causes severe birth defects. Soon after she was off the medication and got pregnant again and now has a healthy baby boy.

Every woman’s pregnancy is a unique medical situation that is nobody’s business except hers and her doctor’s.

^ That’s Neil Gaiman’s partner, right? Their little one is gorgeous

Yep!

@Seek I was actually talking about the religious who I guess more than ignore they are ignorant, sometimes I’d go as far as willfully ignorant, to the realities of pregnancy. They don’t discuss the medical realities, they only talk about saving babies.

I understand your point though, I think you are saying that people aren’t aware of how often it happens, because most women keep it to themselves when a miscarriage happens. They don’t share for many reasons, some of which you named.

Although, in my circles we would usually share with a close friend or friends or maybe a family member, and I would think the very religious women do the same. For sure they experience miscarriages, it’s not like they only happen to the heathens.

When I miscarried the first time my friends had their stories to tell me about their miscarriages and they listened to me through my sadness. I quickly learned just how many women I knew had been through it.

@jca On Fluther, to answer this question properly would mean a bit more information about who you’re going to include in “run off” There’s no way of knowing, unless you survey each person who was here and left, why they came and left.
I am speaking only of those who professed that Jesus is Lord, I am sure others left, some maybe left on negative terms but I don’t take notice of them because if they are of the world, they are as on my radar as dust blowing through the street. I have nothing to go off that they were posting regularly then nothing, they maybe still around in hiatus (if Neptune has not eaten them), or gone but never deleted their account.

@Seek How is it possible to be this ignorant? Can you tie your own shoes in the morning?
I tie my shoes 1,000 times better than you. If I am so ignorant, then show how smart or wise you are and show how mere tissue (the term you try to use for the early developing human) becomes a human? If it is mere tissue, then it is no different from a lung, spleen, etc. those are merely tissue and will remain how they are, if they do change, they would be cancerous more than not and take over the body until the body dies. You keep dunking that question, maybe because you can’t answer it with any answer manufacturing the developing human as equal to just a glob of cells; mere tissue.

@JLeslie That whole idea that women are baby machines and that is their only use is such a horrific way of thinking.
That is not a case I am making but I am not one to ignore biology, women are the host for developing humans, anyone having a problem with that has to take that up with God, or nature if you have no God, or just a god.

Right, spontaneous abortions happen in very high numbers in nature, and it baffles me how many people seem to ignore it.
People are supposed to acknowledge it how? It if was spontaneous, it was a random act, like those need tonsils out, no one caused it for their personal benefit.

@Mariah One of my idols, Amanda Palmer, recently had an abortion of a wanted baby because she had been on a prescription medication that causes severe birth defects.
Wow, they ought to give her woman of the year. ~~~

@AnonymousAccount8 [..what if, to use a not-uncommon real life scenario, a woman finds out she is two months pregnant, and had been drinking and using drugs nearly every day of her pregnancy up to that point? In which way should she “take responsibility” for her actions?
If she was not smart enough to know living sober lends itself to being more beneficial than being drunk and high every day, maybe the baby will snap her out of her funk and she will clean her system up.

What about the same scenario but she wasn’t pregnant, if she was a drunken pill popping lush and was on cloud 9 every day and it was leading her to be poor and homeless, what should she do to take responsibility for her actions? Common sense is not that hard.

@Hypocrisy_Central holy crap there is so much wrong with what you just said.

I’m not even gonna bother.

How babies are made

@Seek did that crowning baby just wink at me?

@Hypocrisy_Central “Some do not see this ‘clump of cells’ as being any part of a human, that is quite strange especially if any of those who think that way can connect the caterpillar to the butterfly or the tadpole and pollywog to the frog.”

Again, I don’t think you actually understand what you are responding to. The word “human” has two different meanings, one biological and one ethical. The clump of cells can be classified as belonging to the species Homo sapiens (the biological meaning), but that doesn’t make it morally a person (the ethical meaning). When you talk about caterpillars and butterflies or tadpoles, pollywogs, and frogs, you are talking about biology. When people say that the clump of cells isn’t human, they are talking about ethics.

@Hypocrisy_Central When we enter into a time when the human population might cease to exist, because for some reason we dwindle down to very few people on earth then come talk to me. For now, we have plenty of people to continue the species, and plenty of people who still want to have babies. We don’t need to force anyone into it.

@Irukandji The clump of cells can be classified as belonging to the species Homo sapiens (the biological meaning), but that doesn’t make it morally a person (the ethical meaning).
Let’s stick with science or biology, those mass of cells that do not look like anything is what? If you say they are not a developing human, then I pose the question to you (since others seem to be ducking it), when does this tissue that is not a developing human becomes a developing human?

^^The first 10 days or so the cells are undifferentiated. I’d have to look up the exact number of days. All the cells in the clump are exactly the same.

The embryo’s cells start to specialize after day 13 of gestation.

But there’s literally no point in talking about the gestational process with someone who doesn’t understand the concept of stem cells. We don’t have time to be junior year biology teachers.

@JLeslie ^^The first 10 days or so the cells are undifferentiated.
After 10 days these ”undifferentiated cells” becomes human, or a human in the making? Is that your take on it or is there some biological or scientific evidence? I mean, these cells being undifferentiated, is there some scientific evidence they would decide or somehow become something other than a human if left alone?

@Seek The embryo’s cells start to specialize after day 13 of gestation.
You say that to say what, it is only a human in the making after the cells specialize?

But there’s literally no point in talking about the gestational process with someone who doesn’t understand the concept of stem cells. We don’t have time to be junior year biology teachers.
Surely if you can ask or comment about spiritual matters you lack, I can ask that you give the digest version of it. After all, I have to spoon-feed some here on spiritual matter, and as tedious as it is at times, I don’t want it said I never gave them a chance to learn it. You could not teach this lesson to suit you anyhow because there is no way to sex it up to make these ”undifferentiated cells” other than a developing human.

There is no “Reader’s Digest version.”

You went to high school, I assume? If so, you should know this stuff.

If you’re actually interested in learning, go buy a book. Watch YouTube videos. Do something. But don’t expect me to teach you basic science so you can use my explanation to attack me. Go fuck yourself.

@Hypocrisy_Central Look, if you believe life begins at conception, that the soul enters at the time of conception, then I have no argument with you. If you believe that then the cells are irrelevant.

@Seek You went to high school, I assume? If so, you should know this stuff.
Yeah, I went to school AND I paid attention, and what I learned was those random cells some try to say are just random and are not a human in the making is just a stage of human development, it is not mere tissue. Since I don’t know much, you post a title of a book that says this random tissue is not part of human development so I can buy that and read it, OH SNAP! It doesn’t exist so you cannot even recommend it.

Your politician on the stump dodge tactics is commendable.

@JLeslie If you believe that then the cells are irrelevant.
Well, now we are getting somewhere, the cells are irrelevant, what they look like, how many there are, when the egg anchors itself to the uterine wall, a human is in the making, so any stoppage or preventing of that is terminating a human life, it is ideology to say it is not a murder if said life has not breath air, or is to a point it doesn’t need the host biology mandated it needs.

It is ideology to say it is murder, when you kill more human cells by rubbing a q-tip in your ear than by aborting a first trimester pregnancy.

@Seek.It is ideology to say it is murder, when you kill more human cells by rubbing a q-tip in your ear than by aborting a first trimester pregnancy.
So now you are trying to say the cells in the human ear will produce a baby? We are speaking of cells that if left alone biology (since you do not believe in God) mandated, directed, or HOWEVER you want to call it will become another human if left alone, show me the scientific proof ear cells can do that, if not, just another failed strawman.

Is it really that hard for you to answer the question? It is quite simple, basic, and to the point, if these random cells were left to take the course biology directs it what would be the end result after about nine months on average? You said you took biology in school, what did your textbook tell you?

@Hypocrisy_Central I was talking about the soul. If you want to go back to cell talk, then that’s about science.

My textbook tells me that parasitic lifeforms cannot survive without an attachment to their host.

@JLeslie I was talking about the soul.
When the cells anchor to the uterine wall, the soul begins. I can roll with that.

@Seek My textbook tells me that parasitic lifeforms cannot survive without an attachment to their host.
Still with the duck, dodge, and hiding, but….. so are saying the textbooks you had in class said a developing human was a parasitic lifeform? What was the title of the book, and the author, I would like to examine it myself? Oh snap, you forgot didn’t you, how convenient.

God, you’re insufferable.

“Wow, they ought to give her woman of the year. ~~~”

It says a lot about you as a human that you judged her so harshly based on the very small amount of information that I gave you.

Here’s the excerpt from her memoir:

“I googled the name of the antibiotic I had taken. Pregnant women were very strictly warned to avoid it. Birth defects. I called our family doctor.

It’s not good, Amanda. Very risky. Especially in the first trimester. The antibiotic blocks the effects of folic acid, which is crucial to the the fetus at the beginning of pregnancy.
What do you mean risky? I asked. How risky? HOW not good?
Really, really not good. He hesitated. As your doctor, I’m afraid I’d advise you to terminate the pregnancy.
Neil and I spent a hard few days in bed together, talking, accepting the decision, spooning each other. I cried a lot.”

By the way, she was married when this happened. :)

That dirty sex whore and her heathen husband should have spent the next year gestating a brainless lump of humanoid flesh and having an invasive labor and delivery to birth the dead flesh, with all the physical, mental, and emotional trauma it would have brought with it, because that’s responsible.

Because Jesus knows the baby’s soul the instant the blastocyst embeds in the uterine lining, but he can’t fathom a moral justification for abortion.

@Hypocrisy_Central Are you trying to say the fetus isn’t dependent on the mother for survival? At least through 6 months? It is. It just simply is. The embryo will survive for several days in a Petrie dish, and you can save a baby in the 5th month with serious amounts of medical intervention (but the child will not be “normal”) but basically the fetus is parasitic on the mother. There isn’t any argument about it. You just don’t care, you give the same value to the fetuses life as the mother from what I can tell. Actually, I would argue you value the fetus more than the mother.

@Mariah “I googled the name of the antibiotic I had taken. Pregnant women were very strictly warned to avoid it. Birth defects. I called our family doctor.
You saying birth defects are certain 100% of the time in pregnancies where this drug is taken? I suppose if some incident happens that would be inconvenient and was unplanned it justifies ridding one’s self of it. I guess if a man or woman has a souse that suffers an unexpected spinal injury and will be bedridden the rest of their life, they should just leave them, divorce them and go find another spouse they can dance the Charleston with, hike the Ozark trail, go snorkeling with, etc.

By the way, she was married when this happened. :)
Let’s be thankful she did that part right.

@JLeslie Are you trying to say the fetus isn’t dependent on the mother for survival?
No, the fetus is designed, structured, however you want to term it, to rely on the mother just as it relies on the mother once it is born for food via the mother’s breast. The fetus is not some invading entity that the female has to put up with, it is an entity females were design to host until such a time in development the baby is ready to leave the womb and the female body knows it, it dilates the vagina and the water breaks and it pushes the baby out. Simple as pie yet some can’t seem to bring themselves to admit that is how it is done.

[..(but the child will not be “normal”)..]
I learned around here there is no “normal”.

[..but basically the fetus is parasitic on the mother.
I guess you would have to say that of every child until they can totally feed themselves, not just merely manipulate the spoon to eat what someone else has prepared.

[..you give the same value to the fetuses life as the mother from what I can tell.
Would you give the same value to a braindead young man due to an accident? If he is kept alive by machines and someone came to his room and thrust a knife into his chest stopping his heart from pumping, would you call that a murder? If he has no awareness, can’t survive on his own, I guess he is just a hunk of flesh but no longer a person.

Goddamn, HC, this is trollish even by your usual less-than-sincere standard.

Excuse me while I write an essay… Or two… Hmm (I’m almost done writing this at the moment and scrolled up to make this brief addendum [the part in parentheses]... I feel like we’ve strayed away from the original topic almost completely and are now discussing a variety of things relating to abortion, morals, science, and in some cases amusement (ah, and seemingly more often bemusement). I personally have no problem with this, I just thought I’d point it out).

AHEM

So… I’d like to take my turn in addressing this question and some of the comments that have been made so far. Some names may appear more than once, I’ll be responding to each item chronologically, as they appear on the page. Feel free to organize any response to my answer however you like. :)

To the question, “If a child learned his/her mother thought of him/her while in the womb to be equal to a parasite, ruptured appendix, or diseased gallbladder, how would it affect their self-esteem?”
I feel like the impact that this discovery would have on a child’s developing self-esteem would have a variety of factors… For example, a child whose parents were cruel or abusive might conclude that their parents are justified for treating them that way, since they were nothing more than a parasite. Another example, though, might yield different results. I believe that if a child had parents who behaved lovingly toward them, cared for them, and nurtured them… That child might view this discovery differently. The child in the first case would probably suffer a blow to their self esteem, while the child in the second case may conclude that the parent was mistaken during the pregnancy and had grown to love them (which is a sort of validation of your existence, in that, “My parent didn’t want me… But once they got to know who I am, that changed. This means that I have value beyond that of a parasite, even though that’s what they thought of me before they knew me). So… In conclusion… There are other circumstances which would define what impact this discovery had on a child. I provided examples that only referenced a single factor (the behaviour of the parent toward the child after birth).

@Hypocrisy_Central: You said, “Some do not see this ”clump of cells” as being any part of a human, that is quite strange especially if any of those who think that way can connect the caterpillar to the butterfly or the tadpole and pollywog to the frog. However, I wonder just when did she think those ‘random cells’ actually became a part of human life, and off what criteria she based it on?”

My response to this (weird [in my opinion]) comparison is: A butterfly does not grow inside of a caterpillar’s internal organ. Likewise, the caterpillar does not develop inside of the butterfly. Caterpillars are born from eggs (which yes, are formed inside of the bug in question)... And I guess I can see some connection, in that butterflies must mate in order to produce fertilized eggs… But I feel like we need to make some distinctions. A human embryo develops inside of its parent. The caterpillar embryo develops outside of its parent. The butterfly equivalent of a second trimester abortion would be destroying that (external) egg or the developing caterpillar inside of it. I mean… I’m just saying that this is a weird example, really. Do carry on.

@Darth_Algar: I love how you described your vaginal exodus. Often, when people ask me where I am from in anonymous chats (e.g. Omegle), I answer with something like, “I burst forth from my mother’s uterus in California.” (I as a c-section bebe)

@dappled_leaves: I learned that I was nearly aborted, when I was fairly young. Initially I was hurt and upset, because my parents had divorced shortly after I was born and I was just certain that somehow the desire for an abortion and their subsequent problems (with each other and with themselves [there were plenty of both]) were my fault. However, it didn’t take long for me to realize that a lot of the problems I’d observed were actually caused by my parents themselves… And eventually (again, fairly close to the discovery) came to the same conclusion that my existence itself was all the comfort I really needed. She may have considered aborting me… But in the end, she didn’t… And though her life may have turned out differently if she had, what really mattered to me most was that I felt loved and loved myself. Also, I agree with the concept that, ”[individuals] must have the right to control their own reproductive decisions.” I did change the wording a bit… But that’s because I see abortions in the same light as contraceptives and surgeries which are intended to prevent conception.

@Hypocrisy_Central: You said, “Surely there is no way to test it but some here think their skin is so tough that if they discovered mom did not want to quick name a profession school to raise them they would just shuck it off. If kids were that resilient why are so many saying they were emotionally or verbally abused by their parents, by what have been said, and so long as the parents kept food on the table and clothes on their back, even if they spoke harshly or in unflattering ways, they should have just forgot about it.”

My response: I can tell you with confidence that my skin is so tough that (though I was briefly upset) I just shrugged it off. I feel like it’s important to understand that every child is different and some may be more resilient than others. I can remember several instances of emotional, verbal, and even physical abuse in my childhood… And what I feel is wrong in your response here is that I don’t feel like being resilient means that I should forget that these things happen. These experiences were a part of what made me who I am. I learned from them. I grew from them. I was hurt by them and yes, at times, scarred by them… But we are not just the results of our experiences so far. We are also the memories and emotions associated with those experiences. Does that make sense?

You went on to say, “Well, we still have laws in place to assure a woman’s selfishness,” with regards to women having a right to make decisions about their reproduction. I take exception to this statement and the implication that abortion is (always [clearly, there are cases where it is {though I, personally, also find those cases to be justified in general}]) a selfish act on the part of a potential mother. I believe that all people (men, women, etc.) have a right to decide absolutely everything with regards to their body and especially with regard to their internal organs or reproductive organs specifically.

I know I said I’d divide my responses up chronologically… but it turns out the next response I want to give is to another of your posts, so I’ll just continue. Next you said, “Laws are in place so a woman doesn’t have to live with the ‘mistake’, she can all on her own decide she doesn’t care to be bothered and rid her of it.”

My response: Not all people who get pregnant and desire an abortion become pregnant through any mistake or even fault of their own. For example, a woman who is raped and becomes pregnant. This has nothing to do with convenience… And certainly has nothing to do with selfishness.

You went on to say, “Unlike if she decided to do a sport or whatever and loses a finger, arm, or foot, etc. she would be forced to live with it and make adaptations to her life, but when it comes to pregnancies, she can do the act but avoid any consequence. I would say 98.9% of the time there is no reason other than her personal whim for doing it.”

I’d like to clarify something here… For your example to work, the person in question would have to have the option of preventing the loss of that finger, arm, or foot, while still actively engaging in the sport for it to be an equivalent comparison. In this way, the example given and the act of abortion are like apples and oranges. They’re both fruits (doing them or not doing them has consequences), but they’re not the same type of fruit (one of them has consequences which can be mitigated and the other [with the specific stipulations of your hypothetical] has consequences which can’t be). Notice my use of the word mitigated here, as well. I want you to understand that someone who has an abortion still deals with a number of consequences. I know several people who have had abortions and they all have had a variety of consequences resulting from both the act that caused the conception and the eventual decision to terminate the pregnancy. Examples of consequences include: infection, excessive bleeding, embolism, ripping or perforation of the uterus, anesthesia complications, convulsions, hemorrhage, cervical injury, and endotoxic shock… And these are just some of the physical complications that can arise from an abortion. I’m not even (till right here) mentioning the emotional, psychological, or social impact that the decision to have an abortion has on a given individual… But it’s enough to note that they do exist. Finally… Your thought regarding the percentage of people who, “get abortions on a whim,” (not your exact wording) is a somewhat whimsical figure. My research suggests that this reason for abortion may in fact be a minority in the list of reasons.

Oh dear… I thought I’d be moving on, but I guess I’m not through with your answer here… Next you responded to the interesting factoid about the, “natural abortion,” that some sharks perform with, “When it starts to happen with humans, we would have a starting point to talk about that.”

My answer: While humans don’t necessarily eat each other in the womb (we’ll have to be discussing twins, triplets, quadruplets, et al for this discussion to make sense, by the way), it is actually very possible for one (potential) offspring to absorb another in the womb. Absorption.. Eating… Both sound like a form of intrauteran siblicide to me. It’s also interesting to note that the absorption can happen at various levels of development, meaning that this concept doesn’t only apply to embryos.

@Mariah: At one point, you said to HC, “I wish the world were as simple as it is in your head…
I do not ever want to be pregnant for medical reasons; I do not think my body could handle it. One of my major medical problems these days is frequent small bowel obstructions caused by scar tissue caused by my previous abdominal surgeries. Getting another major abdominal surgery such as an elective hysterectomy would make my problems far worse.
I only have sex in the context of a stable monogamous relationship and never without two simultaneous forms of birth control. In the 0.001% chance that I get pregnant I will not hesitate to have an abortion.
But please, tell me more about how irresponsible I’m being and how to live my life.”

My response: A simple world would be a boring one, though! Sorry to hear about the bowel obstructions, I’m aware that those are very difficult to deal with. I would like to offer my assurance that your decisions in this matter are both very responsible and quite justified. Go ahead and keep on keepin’ on, with your super kinky and deviant-in-nature (obviously… [hopefully you realize I’m teasing and in a positive way…]) stable monogamous relationship sex. I do hope that you eventually find a way to eliminate that 0.001% chance, though, as I believe that it would be easier on you to not have to worry about that. Best of luck!

@JLeslie: Regarding your MIL story… Wow! I’m proud of her for going against her primary doctor’s opinion and doing what is actually best for her. I will say that the story itself doesn’t actually seem to lend itself to the discussion of abortion… But it definitely makes a strong case regarding the right of an individual over their own reproductive organs. And I certainly agree with your second to last paragraph. And… While I wouldn’t imply that the OP necessarily wouldn’t be able to recognize an embryo or a few week old fetus, I will certainly insist that the number of people who wouldn’t is quite high. Possibly a strong majority percentage.

@Seek and @JLeslie: Spontaneous abortions are definitely a thing and if abortion is sinful… Well… I can think of no one more guilty of commiting this sin with frequency than nature herself. So… Nature must repent!

cough

Anyways, I think these are valid points being made, regarding both the definition of a fetus and things that can happen naturally to end the life of that fetus (or glob of cells [I’m not sure if there’s a stage between embryo and fetus… That’s kind of a sad realization. I’m gonna google it in a bit]).

@AnonymousAccount8: Your not-uncommon real life scenario presents a strong and relevant argument for the idea that abortions are sometimes the more responsible option. This is but one example of a responsible decision to execute an abortion.

@Mariah: Oh my GOODNESS! I didn’t realize that Amanda was preggers! The father is Gaiman, right? I mean… I can’t imagine it would be someone else, and kinda feel stupid for asking… But I’ll leave that question in my response for posterity’s sake. Also, can I just say how refreshing it is to see someone else who holds her in high regard? Have you listened to her TED Talks? She is really incredible! Anyways, the last bit you said, “Every woman’s pregnancy is a unique medical situation that is nobody’s business except hers and her doctor’s,” is something I mostly agree with. This may get me some WTF!? type reactions, but I’d like to assert that the other parent (assuming this was some sort of result of a partnership or something) might have something to contribute when it comes to making a decision about whether to abort a pregnancy. Certainly the decision isn’t theirs, but I do feel like it’s at least partially their business. Meaning I feel they should have a voice in the discussion, even though ultimately it isn’t up to them either way.

@Seek: You said, ”^ That’s Neil Gaiman’s partner, right? Their little one is gorgeous”

My response: I think it’s pretty funny that you think of her as Neil Gaiman’s partner, whereas I think of Neil Gaiman as Amanda Palmer’s partner. Heh… I do adore them both, though! I think it has to do with my having discovered Amanda Palmer long before I even heard Gaiman’s name.

@Hypocrisy_Central: I think it’s kinda funny how many times I have (and am going to) respond to your answers in this post… Hope you don’t mind, though! I would like to address one of your responses to Seek, now. You said, “show how mere tissue (the term you try to use for the early developing human) becomes a human…If it is mere tissue, then it is no different from a lung, spleen, etc. those are merely tissue and will remain how they are, if they do change, they would be cancerous more than not and take over the body until the body dies.”

My response: I think it’s important for someone to point out that tissue is defined as, “any of the distinct types of material of which animals or plants are made, consisting of specialized cells and their products.” With this definition in mind, this argument becomes a little silly on both sides. Yes, embryos are tissue. In fact, spermoza and ovum are composed of tissue. Then they merge and form slightly different tissue… Which grows and develops a variety of other tissues… Which in turn also grow and become organs (which are made of tissues), bones (also tissue), brain cells (HEY, LOOK! It’s tissue), etc. Even your hair is (you guessed it) tissue. So… There you have it! I hope I’ve successfully resolved the tissue issue.

Ah… More for you, actually… You went on to say, in response to the idea of spontaneous abortions and how they relate to the topic, “It if was spontaneous, it was a random act, like those need tonsils out, no one caused it for their personal benefit.”

My response: I feel like you can’t simultaneously argue for God’s plan and then say that random acts are somehow different. Maybe that’s not what you were going for, but let me say a few things on the subject (keeping in mind that these are just my opinions and interpretations). God gave humans free will. God is omniscient. Despite humans having free will, therefore, God is aware of everyone’s past, present, and future decisions, environments, circumstancess, and conditions. I could even make that second list longer, because it literally covers everything that exists in relation to an individual. Anyways, the point is… God, by creating the universe and all its inhabitants… Therefore created people who God knew would have abortions. God also created people, whom apparently God decided would be provided with these natural spontaneous abortions. I fail to see where one is troublesome but the other is not. In both instances the result is a consequence of events that God both set in motion and whose outcomes God knew (understood [and even created the methods by which the individual would justify them]) in advance. Anyways, just some food for thought, I guess.

Ah… I get the impression you weren’t being serious here, where you said, “Wow, they ought to give her woman of the year. ~~~” But… I do think that her decision should be viewed with an air of both respect and approval. Her decision to abort that pregnancy was hers to make… And she made it with positive intentions for both her and her future child(ren). Sure, the aborted child-to-be may not be an active part of that future… But honestly, I doubt that it minded.

Wow, this post was full of stuff I feel I need to comment on! The last part of your post here was, “If she was not smart enough to know living sober lends itself to being more beneficial than being drunk and high every day, maybe the baby will snap her out of her funk and she will clean her system up.
What about the same scenario but she wasn’t pregnant, if she was a drunken pill popping lush and was on cloud 9 every day and it was leading her to be poor and homeless, what should she do to take responsibility for her actions? Common sense is not that hard.”

My response: I’m not sure how, “being more beneficial,” and not being drunk and high are the same thing. Just because someone doesn’t do drugs or drink alcohol does not automatically make them a positive contributor to… Anything. Even their own life. Additionally, doing drugs and drinking alcohol does not necessarily preclude the possibility of being a positive contributor! Examples: #1 – There are several people in history (especially in the realm of the arts) who frequently used and abused drugs and alcohol. Many of these same people often made positive impacts in the lives of people around them, and sometimes shaped the opinions of entire nations of people. To say they weren’t able to be beneficial because they used these substances would be refusing to acknowledge some very plain facts. #2 – I’m aware of a few people who were against the very notion of drugs and alcohol who went on to not only not generally be beneficial, but actually to be detrimental to the people around them. The idea that having a baby might snap her out of a funk is… Kind of awful… Especially if it doesn’t work out that way. What if, for example, it doesn’t, “snap her out of her funk,” and instead… The baby is born with serious mental and physical complications… She becomes an even heavier user of substances… The child is later subject to physical, mental, and emotional abuse from the parent (as a result of the parents own mental/emotional instability from frequent habitual substance abuse)? The question you go on to ask is also kind of silly (realize that these things are my opinions and I don’t really mean to imply anything negative about you or your opinions… Just stating how they make me feel…) in that it would seem to suggest that in order for the non-pregnant woman to take responsibility for her actions, she should… Have a baby to snap her out of her funk? I’m almost certain that’s not what you meant to imply, but it’s definitely how that reads, to me.

@AnonymousAccount8: “I’m not even gonna bother.” I gotchu bae~

@Seek: “How babies are made” <- I feel that… In response… I must provide this link, because… It’s what you made me think of~ How is babby formed

@Hypocrisy_Central: You said, “when the egg anchors itself to the uterine wall, a human is in the making, so any stoppage or preventing of that is terminating a human life, it is ideology to say it is not a murder if said life has not breath air, or is to a point it doesn’t need the host biology mandated it needs.”

My response: I mean… If we’re considering it to be some sort of terrible thing to abort a human being in the making, I feel like we need to take steps even further back than the embryo anchoring itself to the uterine wall. I mean… With the idea that it’s unethical to kill a human being in the making or to prevent it from coalescing into a human being… You’re likening these actions to murder. Okay. I’ll proceed under that line of thought then and (in order to illustrate that this is an unrealistic position to take) posit the following based on those definitions: It is therefore also murder to ejaculate in a manner that doesn’t allow the spermatozoa to access an ovum. In fact, each individual spermatozoon is a potential human and each one that ISN’T provided with an ovum is therefore considered murdered. Each ovum, also, that is in turn not fertilized by a spermatozoon would also be murdered. Now I think it’s important that we keep in mind that even without masturbating or having sex… Or even conscious decision on the parts of either sex… There are occassions (some recurring with an observable frequency) where the acts of spermatozoa and ova murder are committed. It’s not uncommon for males to experience nocturnal emissions once they hit puberty and, likewise, once a female hits puberty there is an (sometimes, but not always… I know some people for which this is fairly spontaneous) observable pattern with which ova are released from ovaries and sent with one-way tickets through the fallopian tubes. By your rational, any male who ejaculates without ensuring that each spermatozoon reaches an ovum is guilty of murder, as is any female who doesn’t conceive every time that her ovaries release an ovum.

So you see… This position becomes really indefensible fairly quick.

Oh goodness… I’ve got more for you… Again… I hope you don’t feel like I’m picking on you. Really, I’m not trying to. It’s just that most other people, I either generally agree with them, have little to add to what they’ve said, or have no comment. Whereas your responses seem almost intended to derive dissension. Anyways, you said, “I suppose if some incident happens that would be inconvenient and was unplanned it justifies ridding one’s self of it. I guess if a man or woman has a souse that suffers an unexpected spinal injury and will be bedridden the rest of their life, they should just leave them, divorce them and go find another spouse they can dance the Charleston with, hike the Ozark trail, go snorkeling with, etc.”

My response: You’re making further assumptions about this particular set of prospective parents and the events surrounding their abortion. Nowhere does it indicate that conception was considered by them to be an “incident” which was “inconvenient” or even “unplanned”. In fact, in the initial mention of this real-life scenario, the baby is described as “wanted”. The issue here is (once again) not a matter of convenience, so much as a matter of the sense of responsibility that the prospective parents felt with regards to bringing a child into the world and giving it the best chance to succeed. It sounds to me like they took the decision very seriously, as well, which seems to defy your early assertion that so many pregnancies are terminated on a whim. Also, the comparisons that you go on to make are somewhat… Odd. Finding out that your unborn child may have already developed serious health problems as a result of a necessary medication that you have been taking is not really comparable to finding out that your spouse is going to be bedridden for the rest of their life. I feel like (without explaining how you’re comparing the two in a meaningful way), this argument is really a logical fallacy known as a non-sequitor.

You go on to say, “No, the fetus is designed, structured, however you want to term it, to rely on the mother just as it relies on the mother once it is born for food via the mother’s breast. The fetus is not some invading entity that the female has to put up with, it is an entity females were design to host until such a time in development the baby is ready to leave the womb and the female body knows it, it dilates the vagina and the water breaks and it pushes the baby out. Simple as pie yet some can’t seem to bring themselves to admit that is how it is done.”

My response: In particular I want to respond to part of a sentence in your response, where you state that, “The fetus is not some invading entity that the female has to put up with.” The fetus is created by a combination of her own genetic material and genetic material taken from a mate of some sort… Who introduces invading entities into the body.

And you further state, “I guess you would have to say that of every child until they can totally feed themselves, not just merely manipulate the spoon to eat what someone else has prepared,” regarding the idea that an unborn child is the equivalent of a parasite. This makes an incorrect assumption regarding the biological definition of a parasite (which I believe is the set of definitions you requested we stick to earlier). A parasite, in biology, is termed as, “an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host’s expense.” Once the child has left the host body, it is no longer living in or on that body… Er go, it is no longer a parasite. Ah, and… Earlier you said something about positive parasitic relationships, but I’m gonna let you know that that’s not a thing. Parasites benefit at the expense of their host… The type of relationship you were talking about is a different type of symbiosis (parasitic relationships represent one of these symbiotic relationships). There are also commensalism (one benefits, the other isn’t affected) and mutualism (the one that you meant to refer to).

Finally (oh Gawd… I’m at the bottom… Finally! [a different kind of finally… lol]), you say in response to a question regarding how you value a fetus’ life compared to its mother’s, “Would you give the same value to a braindead young man due to an accident? If he is kept alive by machines and someone came to his room and thrust a knife into his chest stopping his heart from pumping, would you call that a murder? If he has no awareness, can’t survive on his own, I guess he is just a hunk of flesh but no longer a person.”

My response: This is an interesting point to make, but I again feel like you’re comparing unlike items. They are tangentially related, sure, but they are not similar enough for me to want to lump them together as you have. That being said… As far as I’m concerned (and you too, being religious and all, I’m sure) the body is simply a vessel. It is not what makes a person a person. What makes a person a person is that “inner spark”... Consciousness… A soul… Whatever you decide to call it. If a person is braindead, at least in my opinion, they no longer have that spark. Similarly, fetuses do not develop the potential for that spark until sometime between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Dissimilarly the mother in question (presumably) has that spark. Do you see why these things are different?—It’s also worth noting that the 24–28 week figure is only referring to the development of the physical substrate [the thalamo-cortical complex] which provides consciousness… It takes another two months or so for the EEG rhythm to achieve synchrony across both cortical hemispheres (which is what signals the onset of global neuronal integration).

I hope you’ve all enjoyed my rather lengthy response! I’ve been typing this all in notepad… I sure hope that Fluther allows me to post this much in a single response…

I hope somewhere in that long answer you told the OP the vagina doesn’t dialate, the cervix does. The lack of anatomical and scientific knowledge is mind boggling.

Not to mention that all parasites and hosts appear to be made for each other. The fetus is taking blood from the mother. Vitamins and minerals and using her body systems, putting extra burden on the mother. For some women the burden is too much and they develop diabetes while pregnant, iron dificiencies, high blood pressure, and can become toxic in their own bodies. It’s not just symbiotic easy thing all of the time.

The baby is not dependent on the mother once born, that’s the viability part. A baby that is viable can be placed in a crib, completely on its own, separate from another body, and it will breath, move around, and sustain its own life all on its own. Needing to be fed doesn’t make it a parasite, anyone can feed it. A fetus at 3 months will be dead as soon as it is detached from the mother. It’s only source of sustaining life is the mother attached to her womb and blood supply.

@JLeslie: I knew I was forgetting something! Ha…

I failed to mention it in my response though, sadly… A bit of an oversight on my part.

Oh! But there is a paragraph or so where I explain what a parasite is, in comparison to other types of symbiotic relationships. :)

@JoyousLove – Haha, yeah, I love Neil Gaiman’s books, couldn’t tell you a thing about Amanda Palmer except that she made a darling little boy (with a complete, full, and healthy brain!) about a year ago. Thanks, folic acid!

@Hypocrisy_Central Again you are judging without knowing all the information. I cannot answer your questions about the probability or severity of the birth defects because everything I know of the situation is in that quote. It’s likely far more than an “inconvenience” it may be that the child was guaranteed to be stillborn or live every day in pain. I think what she did was merciful. You, as usual, choose to fill in the blanks in your knowledge with the most damning possible situation for the mourning mother. Your misogyny shows itself so clearly in the assumptions you choose to make.

@JoyousLove Yay! I don’t understand all the AFP hate myself I think she’s wonderful. Yes her TED talks are great. She’s not pregnant anymore she had her baby boy about a year ago I think? And yeah he’s Neil’s.

I’m convinced that HC honestly thinks all babies are born perfect. He has no concept of neural tube defects or the result of a folic acid deficiency in a first trimester pregnancy.

Maybe he needs pictures? (THESE ARE GRAPHIC)

Short article on anencephaly
Anencephalic corpse
Another Anencephaly

Yes, babies are perfect and nature is perfect. Women never die in labor, or have grave illness during pregnancy.

Or have eclampsia, where going into labour basically makes your heart explode. That never happens.

Basically, though, in this guy’s mind, women are nothing more than the axolotl tanks from Dune. We’re incubators, whose whole purpose is to attract some dude to impregnate us, and then bear his offspring. If we die in the incubation process, so be it. That’s our sole purpose. We don’t matter as people, we are merely vehicles for (preferably male) babies to be born.

I think the steam in the folks rigidly opposed to abortion is built from the notion that they’re pulling for the “unborn child”. It’s simplistic and therefore a surefire incentive for those who don’t (or can’t) think beyond this single aspect of a pregnancy.

There are two irreconcilable views of what it means to be human that are at play here.

HC, because of the nature of his religious interpretations, believes that at the moment of conception, a divine soul is attached to the fetus. That is the only way I can make sense of what he is saying. Otherwise we could say that every sperm cell and every egg cell is a part of a human being, which is kind of ridiculous, especially when you consider that an egg cell could be cloned to form an embryo.

Others among us believe that what we call self is within the physical apparatus of the brain, which does not develop until the later stages of pregnancy. Taking this view, to speak of a newly formed embryo as being fully human makes no sense.

We are not going to get anywhere arguing over these two ways of looking at humans.

To me, the moment a fetus becomes a “self” is immaterial. The mother has (hopefully) a minimum of 15 years, to upwards of 50 years of life lived. There are people who know her and love her. She contributes to society in some way. There’s a lot of investment in her.

A fertilized egg cell is not a person. It’s a two-in-five chance of a miscarriage. It’s a 1 in 1000 chance of neural tube defect. It doesn’t have a name, or a favourite colour, or a memory of fighting over a Game Boy with its little brother in the backseat of the car on the way to Aunt Eileen’s house for Thanksgiving dinner. It’s never asked to be baptized or wondered what it would be when it grows up. It’s never made love under the stars in the warm glow of a campfire. It’s never sat on the floor of the bathroom crying and covered in their own blood after a safe, legal, first trimester medical abortion, because they have two kids to feed and can’t afford the time off work another pregnancy would cost them.

To some people, a fertilized egg cell is exactly as important as a 30 year old woman, or her two living kids. Those people are wrong.

To me it doesn’t even matter whether the fetus is alive or has a soul in the abortion debate. The woman’s bodily autonomy applies. We can’t force anybody to give part of their body (e.g. donate blood) to someone whose alive-ness is not up for debate (say a 5 year old child) so there is no reason to say that a woman should have to be forced to give her body to a fetus either.

^ Exactly.

It doesn’t matter to me either, but it does to some people. Those people should just stick to that argument and stop talking about a fetus the size of a grain of rice as though it’s a full fledged baby.

Take the Catholics, they believe life begins at conception. To be consistent, knowing the science, the Catholic Church is against IVF. That makes sense to me. They realize IVF takes things out of “God’s hands” and that when you attempt IVF you create life that will most likely not make it. It’s creating life to kill it practically, with the hopes one or two will make it. I think they don’t like those odds. Plus, if the soul is there at conception, and then you freeze the embryos, what is happening to that soul?

The first time the Catholic church actually endorsed the idea of ensoulment at conception was in the 1860s.

@Seek Interesting. I didn’t know that. For now they seem to be sticking with it.

St. Thomas Aquinas asserted that the rational soul is one and the same as the fully formed human body, and that it was no sin to abort a pregnancy before the whole body was formed.

He also said anyone who argued otherwise was a heretic. (Council of Vienne, 1311)

Of course, our mutual opponent in this discussion is not Catholic.

The Evangelical assertion of life at conception is much newer than 1869 – more like 1979 – and has more to do with racism than abortion. This article explains it.

St. Thomas Aquinas was also the saint who suggested that one should, “Love the sinner, but hate the sin.” This is a quote that my father often (and somewhat inappropriately) uses to defend my honour (but mostly his own) against his fellow Christians (who think I’m terrible). I’m pretty sure that he says this because he feels it casts doubt on the other person’s religious convictions and he believes that if they disagree with him about it that they will be admitting some sort of fault in their religious beliefs. But what he doesn’t seem to get is that St. Thomas Aquinas was a Catholic.

Sorry, I realize that’s only tangentially related, but I read the name and was compelled to briefly discuss the subject.

And if anyone’s interested in the saint’s exact words, he wrote, “It is our duty to hate, in the sinner, his being a sinner, and to love in him, his being a man capable of bliss. And this is to love him truly, out of charity, for God’s sake,” in his unfinished work entitled Summa Theologica. This wording was later adapted to, “Love the sinner, hate the sin,” and popularized by Mahatma Gandhi.

@Seek Right. The evangelicals (I’m over generalizing, I don’t think this about all evangelicals) seem to be fine with IVF and totally fine ignoring science and even don’t care about learning about the science. The Catholics are interested in science, but they keep the spiritual separate, and they put the two together when possible. When it’s not they side with the spiritual. That’s my take anyway. Evolution is an example of that. The Catholics agree there is a plethora of science to support evolution.

It appears that most of those favoring abortion think that it is okay to have an abortion any time during the pregnancy, even if there is no threat to the health of the baby or mother. This is treading on dangerous territory. The Roe v. Wade ruling allows states to regulate abortions during the second and third trimesters. If you see no reason for any such restrictions, then do you oppose infanticide? One moment the child is in the mother’s womb and then a few moments later it is out in the world. Why draw the line at pregnancy for killing children?

No, most people who are pro-choice do not feel that any time during the pregnancy is fine. I personally think that anytime after the 1st trimester is wrong.

@LostInParadise Because when it is out in the world it is no longer using the woman’s body. I see no slippery slope here.

I’m perfectly OK with restricting third trimester abortion to medical necessity. That is why most of those abortions happen, anyway.

Literally no one is sitting at 39 weeks and four days going, “Y’know, I changed my mind. I think I’ll get rid of this one and wait ‘till next year.”

That’s right @Seek.

@LostInParadise I have to chime in and say we have been talking about when the baby is parasitic versus viable. At 7 months + the baby can be delivered and with little to no medical intervention can sustain its own life. I don’t think anyone here is talking about killing that baby. 5th and 6th month is more of a grey area, and most pro-choice people think there has to be a very good reason, not the whim of the mother. Good reason like the child will be very impaired, or will not make it to term, or will die shortly after birth.

You want the exceptions, believe me. I don’t mean rape and incest, You want doctors who are skilled at mid and late term abortions, and you don’t them or the woman to worry about breaking a law. Pro-choice keeps abortions safe for the women who want their babies, who might even be pro-life, but something goes terribly wrong and they want to terminate.

@JoyousLove My response to this (weird [in my opinion]) comparison is: A butterfly does not grow inside of a caterpillar’s internal organ. Likewise, the caterpillar does not develop inside of the butterfly. Caterpillars are born from eggs (which yes, are formed inside of the bug in question)... And I guess I can see someconnection, in that butterflies must mate in order to produce fertilized eggs… But I feel like we need to make some distinctions. A human embryo develops inside of its parent. The caterpillar embryo develops outside of its parent.
It appears you missed the whole point, let me try it this way. Say there was a very rare butterfly on the verge of extinction, a law is passed stating no one can harm the butterfly, but no laws were placed on harming the caterpillars or the larvae, if someone for any reason wanted to see the butterfly go out of existence and manages to destroy all of the caterpillars, and larvae, would the butterfly go extinct, they did not kill the actual butterfly?

I believe that all people (men, women, etc.) have a right to decide absolutely everything with regards to their body and especially with regard to their internal organs or reproductive organs specifically.
Another example of people liking the reasoning they can use on their side of the street but disliking it or ignoring it on the other side. People do not get to decide what to do with their bodies, if that were the case, if I were truly desperate for money and figure I could live without an eye, I could sell my cornea, or maybe auction my kidneys to the highest bidder of those needing one, but I can’t can I? Why can’t I, it is my body.

For example, a woman who is raped and becomes pregnant. This has nothing to do with convenience… And certainly has nothing to do with selfishness.
Well, certainly that would not be a mistake or by her design, but punishing the child for the sin of the father, still selfishness, she simply doesn’t want to be bothered or inconvenienced. If it were someone attack her with acid, it was not by her design but she would have to live with the consequence, however inconvenient, she can’t just suck it away.

For your example to work, the person in question would have to have the option of preventing the loss of that finger, arm, or foot, while still actively engaging in the sport for it to be an equivalent comparison.
Sure, the option was no playing the sport, if they played, they do not know what accident or injury will befall them that might result in the loss of a limb unless they have some clairvoyance others do not have.

Examples of consequences include: infection, excessive bleeding, embolism, ripping or perforation of the uterus, anesthesia complications, convulsions, hemorrhage, cervical injury, and endotoxic shock… And these are just some of the physical complications that can arise from an abortion.
Maybe because it is not natural to nature, (if you don’t want to say God’s design)? If someone truly thought it would be harmful, or had a high potential to be harmful, they would avoid it like not going into a reactor room or exposing themselves to radiation without protection.

While humans don’t necessarily eat each other in the womb (we’ll have to be discussing twins, triplets, quadruplets, et al for this discussion to make sense, by the way), it is actually very possible for one (potential) offspring to absorb another in the womb.
Sure, just about anything is plausible, but out of all of the twins, triplets, and more born what is the ratio of those who absorbed their twin to those who are now living with them, 1 in 1,000; 3 in 10,000, more? The number is so small it hardly is worth trying to use to justify abortion.

I think it’s kinda funny how many times I have (and am going to) respond to your answers in this post…
I would be surprised if you did not try to justify abortion with every (for lack of a better word) gimmick you can find. None of it negates that if left alone, after an average of 9 months, a human is introduced to the world.

There you have it! I hope I’ve successfully resolved the tissue issue.
I am using the reasoning others want to play by in the context that the tissue in question is not the tissue of a developing human but something else entirely.

God gave humans free will.
God does give free will, He is a just God, that doesn’t mean He designed man to murder each other, that is a product of the one who has fooled many that he doesn’t exist.

Despite humans having free will, therefore, God is aware of everyone’s past, present, and future decisions, environments, circumstancess, and conditions.
How does that fact justify people killing another even if they fathom in their mind they are justified for doing so, be it by sanction of state punishment, vengeance, or within the womb?

My response: I’m not sure how, “being more beneficial,” and not being drunk and high are the same thing.
Since we are splitting hairs, I meant more beneficial or advantageous to her life and future.

Just because someone doesn’t do drugs or drink alcohol does not automatically make them a positive contributor to… Anything. Even their own life.
Are you saying that to say a person who goes everyday drunk and or high will have the same opportunity of advancement and less financial, social, and legal troubles as those who don’t do those activities, that there is nothing negative or destructive to those actions?

It is therefore also murder to ejaculate in a manner that doesn’t allow the spermatozoa to access an ovum. In fact, each individual spermatozoon is a potential human and each one that ISN’T provided with an ovum is therefore considered murdered.
A stretch that is all hat and no cattle, or as some would like to say apples and oranges, a potential life and a life in the making is two different things. If someone jacks off in the shower it is no more a loss of a live than a woman who has a period because there was no sperm to fertilize the egg to start the process of a human to develop. It sounds good to those who want to justify actually killing a developing human, but even if one could float that, a potential human is still less than an actual human developing.

This position becomes really indefensible fairly quick.
That goes to the notion that a sperm lost down the drain is a life snuffed out.

Who introduces invading entities into the body.
No one did.

They are tangentially related, sure, but they are not similar enough for me to want to lump them together as you have.
As some others have iterated, the braindead flesh had a name, people spoke to him, he had a favorite food, color, music genera, family who will miss him, etc. that is what makes him braindead as he is more important than the human developing to come into the world who had yet to experience any of those thiings.

What makes a person a person is that “inner spark”... Consciousness… A soul… Whatever you decide to call it. If a person is braindead, at least in my opinion, they no longer have that spark. Similarly, fetuses do not develop the potential for that spark until sometime between the 24th and 28th week of gestation.
Again, sounds good but is all hat and no cattle. If it is mere consciousness I guess everyone ceases to be a person when they get an operation because they certainly have no consciousness. What doesn’t leave them, their soul; I can maybe conclude with you if you have some scientific evidence as to just when the soul enters the body and with hard facts, not any theory or gestimation. Believing before this point, no soul, after this point there is a soul, is ideology there is no science to back it up.

@JLeslie Yes, babies are perfect and nature is perfect. Women never die in labor, or have grave illness during pregnancy.
And? People die in jet crashes, die from taking bad dope, smoke like chimneys and never get cancer, etc. how does that justify killing a developing human?

@Mariah To me it doesn’t even matter whether the fetus is alive or has a soul in the abortion debate. The woman’s bodily autonomy applies.
Defined:
Full Definition of SELFISH
1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one’s own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2: arising from concern with one’s own welfare or advantage in disregard of others
If she is not regarding the man who want to be the father of the child that is half his, or no regard to the child being developed because she of whatever whim she has….well, we have it.

@Hypocrisy_Central It doesn’t matter whether you think it’s selfish or not. Being selfish isn’t against the law. I’m stating that there is no legal grounds for barring a woman from having an abortion; I couldn’t care less what your personal opinion of that woman’s abortion is.

@Hypocrisy_Central I can’t believe you just described living with the aftermath of being attacked with acid as inconvenient.

Seriously, is “inconvenient” really the word that comes to mind

when

you

look

at

these

people?

I officially have to say it now. What the hell is wrong with you?

@Hypocrisy_Central:

Oh, how I’ve waited for your response… Let us begin…

It appears you missed the whole point, let me try it this way. Say there was a very rare butterfly on the verge of extinction, a law is passed stating no one can harm the butterfly, but no laws were placed on harming the caterpillars or the larvae, if someone for any reason wanted to see the butterfly go out of existence and manages to destroy all of the caterpillars, and larvae, would the butterfly go extinct, they did not kill the actual butterfly?
I’m sorry, but not sorry… You’re lying at this point in my opinion. Trying to change what you were trying to say into something else to C-Y-A. The topic of discussion, at the time, was nothing to do with extinction… It was to do with whether a clump of cells is considered a human or not. That being said, if your goal was to indicate that if every fetus was aborted that the human race would go extinct… Well that’s actually true! But no one is trying to argue that all pregnancies should be aborted. So if that was the goal, I smell another straw-man.

Another example of people liking the reasoning they can use on their side of the street but disliking it or ignoring it on the other side. People do not get to decide what to do with their bodies, if that were the case, if I were truly desperate for money and figure I could live without an eye, I could sell my cornea, or maybe auction my kidneys to the highest bidder of those needing one, but I can’t can I? Why can’t I, it is my body.
I’m sorry, but how exactly is my argument like that in any way…? And certainly there are certain things that are prohibited by law, but if you’re really interested in actually selling pieces of your body, I’m sure I could direct you to parts of the dark web that will happily help you out. :) Everyone has free will… Self-determination… The ability to choose how and why they live their lives. And I still fail to see how my statement that people have a right to decide what they do with their bodies is somehow an, “example of [me] liking the reasoning [I] can use on [my] side of the street but disliking it or ignoring it on the other side.” Especially when you consider what the rest of that section of my response was actually addressing. You had said implied that abortion is a selfish act on the part of the woman… And while I disagreed with the general idea that it was a selfish act, I went on to say that I believe that even if it were, it is their right to do what they please with their body. Especially when it comes to reproductive organs. Remember that bullying thread, where you said something about how bullies misrepresent or twist what another person has said…? Anyways, moving on…

Well, certainly that would not be a mistake or by her design, but punishing the child for the sin of the father, still selfishness, she simply doesn’t want to be bothered or inconvenienced. If it were someone attack her with acid, it was not by her design but she would have to live with the consequence, however inconvenient, she can’t just suck it away.
Again, we’re talking apples and oranges… Once again, you’ve made an argument comparing a situation where the consequences can be mitigated with one where they cannot be mitigated. So yes, they were both unanticipated and hardly a mistake of the woman in question, however, in the case of a pregnancy that resulted from rape the woman has options that can strongly mitigate the consequences of the man’s actions. In the case of disfigurement, there are fewer options to deal with the consequences of the assailant’s actions. I also think it’s important to point out that the woman also shouldn’t be punished (and don’t try and argue that a pregnancy resulting from rape that the woman is forced to see through to the end is not a form of punishing the victim) for the actions of her assailant. You’ve opened a pretty nasty can of worms, imo. Do you also think it would be appropriate for an elementary school student who was the victim of bullying to face punishment, instead of the bully…? Obviously I don’t think the two types of impingement on another’s rights are comparable, but I do think that the reaction described is. Each (yours and the bully question just now) discuss inflicting punishment on the victim of someone else’s trespass.

Sure, the option was no playing the sport, if they played, they do not know what accident or injury will befall them that might result in the loss of a limb unless they have some clairvoyance others do not have.
Okay, let’s not get confused here… The way your analogy works is… Opting into playing = opting into having sex. The resulting injury = the resulting pregnancy. (And here’s where the analogy breaks down) The resulting inability to mitigate the consequences =\= the resulting ability to mitigate the consequences. Does it make sense to you now? The option of not playing the sport was already assumed in my original explanation of why your analogy didn’t make sense… But I guess I needed to lay it out for you.

Maybe because it is not natural to nature, (if you don’t want to say God’s design)? If someone truly thought it would be harmful, or had a high potential to be harmful, they would avoid it like not going into a reactor room or exposing themselves to radiation without protection.
I’m sorry, but what are you saying is, “Maybe because it is not natural,” because even the spontaneous abortions which have also been discussed have the potential to cause many of these complications… So… I’m pretty sure that you’re simply wrong. That being said, some people believe that it is more immoral to bring a child into the world without being able to guarantee it a positive life. Other people believe that it is more immoral to have an abortion. I’m pretty sure there’s no always right or always wrong mentality… Not all fetuses should be aborted, but also not all fetuses should be made to develop into bebes.

Sure, just about anything is plausible, but out of all of the twins, triplets, and more born what is the ratio of those who absorbed their twin to those who are now living with them, 1 in 1,000; 3 in 10,000, more? The number is so small it hardly is worth trying to use to justify abortion.
I was simply responding to your statement that if it started happening with humans, we’d have a point to start talking about it. Letting you know that it does in fact happen among humans. I don’t know the statistic and unlike you I’m not going to make random and wild guesses at the ratio. Also, I’m pretty sure that all the individual who initially mentioned intrauteran siblicide in sharks was trying to say was that abortions happen naturally as well. And it was a comical tangential factoid that the memory of which was likely sparked by your mentioning of sharks. But anyways…

I would be surprised if you did not try to justify abortion with every (for lack of a better word) gimmick you can find. None of it negates that if left alone, after an average of 9 months, a human is introduced to the world.
I’m simply responding to each of your (for lack of a better word) irrational arguments against abortion with facts, logic, and analyses. As has already been discussed above, sometimes those cells develop… Sometimes they spontaneously abort themselves… Sometimes they form in such a way as to make the resulting offspring unviable and the child dies within days (or even moments) of birth (this happened to my mother, with her first child)... Things happen. You can’t make a blanket statement that without intervention all pregnancies would result in a child.

I am using the reasoning others want to play by in the context that the tissue in question is not the tissue of a developing human but something else entirely.
I believe I indicated that my response about tissue was actually an explanation that debunked both sides of the argument somewhat. Or at least made the argument seem rather silly and whimsical. I believe that initially Seek mentioned that her gallbladder removal didn’t qualify her as having had an abortion, and your response was to seem to disagree that a, “developing human is just tissue that at some point becomes human.” In fact… It is precisely that. An embryo is not a human, in the same way that the butterfly’s egg’s contents are not a caterpillar (caterpillar – pupa – adult butterfly). Sure the egg’s contents eventually grow and change and become a caterpillar, but they aren’t a caterpillar when the egg is laid… Do butterflies lay their eggs? Or… Do they secrete them…?... What do they do? I’m not entirely clear on the mechanism involved in how butterflies do the egg placing thing on leaves like they do. Anyways, I’m distracting myself. Point is, a clump of genetic material is not the same as the animal (or whatever) that caused it to start developing. If it were, one could argue that tumors should not be removed as they have the same genetic material of their hosts and removing them would kill them. Which is apparently murder. For an embryo to develop into a fetus and eventually into a child, that embryo requires an environment (or womb, if you will) to exist in. Without it, the embryo would not survive. One lump of flesh that might (we’ve already discussed how it happens that not all embryos will make it to the child stage of development) become a child’s needs do not outweigh the needs of that embryo’s host. Oh my, I’ve clearly gone off on a rant… Oh well, posterity and whatnot. But like I said, my response regarding tissue was primarily meant to suggest that all tissue is equivalent and that we are all the sum of our parts… Our parts are not the sum of us (A human is made of tissue… Material that is human tissue is not a human [A skin cell from my leg is not a human… The strands of hair that fall out when I talk to you are not human… Neither are my toe nail clippings]).

God does give free will, He is a just God, that doesn’t mean He designed man to murder each other, that is a product of the one who has fooled many that he doesn’t exist.
And here, I have to question which faith you actually belong to… Because that has a bearing on how I will respond to this. But assuming you’re some form of Christian… God also created that, “one who has fooled many.” God, being omniscient, is/was/will be aware of all things… Including the results of God’s actions (including the creation of everything inside and outside of the universe). Unless you’re going to indicate that the God you believe in is not omniscient. In which case I’ll have to rethink this discussion a bit.

How does that fact justify people killing another even if they fathom in their mind they are justified for doing so, be it by sanction of state punishment, vengeance, or within the womb?
I guess that’s actually the point I was trying to make, really… I felt like at various points you’ve made arguments that God’s plan is more important than our free will… But the problem with that line of thought is that God’s plan is our free will… And everything else ever. It’s all God’s plan. You wanna get mad at someone for the legality of (in your opinion) selfish abortions? Get mad at the God that created everything that is/was/will be, who knew that these actions would be the result and did it anyway, and who probably thinks it’s hilarious that we’re even bothering discussing these things like this. My point, with the original response where I say that God created everything and therefore knows what everyone will do… Was that you can’t logically argue God’s plan while arguing that anything anyone does is wrong. “Yes, I murdered those people! But it’s okay! God planned for this from the instant that everything sprung into existence!”

Since we are splitting hairs, I meant more beneficial or advantageous to her life and future.
I’m pretty sure that those examples I gave of why drinking/doing drugs can actually be beneficial to a person’s life and future have nothing to do with splitting hairs. I understood what you meant. I gave an example of why it was not 100% accurate all of the time. I don’t like dealing in absolutes, so I present arguments and examples to refute it when I can.

Are you saying that to say a person who goes everyday drunk and or high will have the same opportunity of advancement and less financial, social, and legal troubles as those who don’t do those activities, that there is nothing negative or destructive to those actions?
I’m saying that it is possible for them to have such a life and that you can’t rule out that possibility all of the time. You indicated that a person who was smart would, “know living sober lends itself to being more beneficial than being drunk and high every day.” I simply provided examples of where being drunk/high doesn’t prevent them from being beneficial, and where not being drunk/high doesn’t cause them to be beneficial. That is all. Thank you. :)

A stretch that is all hat and no cattle, or as some would like to say apples and oranges, a potential life and a life in the making is two different things. If someone jacks off in the shower it is no more a loss of a live than a woman who has a period because there was no sperm to fertilize the egg to start the process of a human to develop. It sounds good to those who want to justify actually killing a developing human, but even if one could float that, a potential human is still less than an actual human developing.
I’m pretty sure that you used that phrase wrong… As I understand it being, “all hat and no cattle,” is a reference to talking boastfully without acting on ones words. Which is not what the apples and oranges comparison means. But anyways, please… Enlighten us as to how a potential life and a life in the making are two different things…? You state that they are different… Then you restate that they are different with more words (but still no tangible explanation of what makes them different)... Then you say how, “It sounds good to [most of us, who believe that most abortion is not immoral],” but that somehow they’re still different… Without explaining why they’re different. To clarify, in the last part you don’t just say that they’re different, you say one is less than the other. I challenge you to (without violating your own existing arguments) show me that the single celled spermatozoon and ovum are less human than the embryo, but the embryo is equal to a fully developed human. Challenge issued.

That goes to the notion that a sperm lost down the drain is a life snuffed out.
cough Well I mean… Why comment on this part, if you’re certain about your assertions regarding that loss (or lack thereof) of life?

No one did.
To invade… A verb… Meaning to, “enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect.” And that’s not even considering the concept of unwanted sex or internal ejaculation. The spermatozoa invade the body… That’s… Just how those definitions play out, dood. Oh wait. Or are you trying to say that no one introduced spermatozoa into the woman’s body, but she still got pregnant…? Is she named Mary?

As some others have iterated, the braindead flesh had a name, people spoke to him, he had a favorite food, color, music genera, family who will miss him, etc. that is what makes him braindead as he is more important than the human developing to come into the world who had yet to experience any of those thiings.
Wait… I have a name… People speak to me… I have a favourite food, colour, music genera, family who will miss me, and all sorts of etc.! Oh my goodness! I’m braindead! “That is what makes him braindead.” Anyways, since that part seems silly, I’ll focus on the rest. ~read~ Oh my goodness… Do you realize you just explained that the braindead person is actually more important than the developing human flesh? The developing human flesh doesn’t even have a brain with which to process things like its existence or the existence of the world. It’s not braindead… It’s absent-minded (ah ha ha ha… Sorry). Again, though… As you yourself pointed out, these are not like terms, which is… What I was saying… And even is what you quoted me saying… So I can’t understand what you’re saying, because you seem to be stumbling backwards over your own words.

Again, sounds good but is all hat and no cattle. If it is mere consciousness I guess everyone ceases to be a person when they get an operation because they certainly have no consciousness. What doesn’t leave them, their soul; I can maybe conclude with you if you have some scientific evidence as to just when the soul enters the body and with hard facts, not any theory or gestimation. Believing before this point, no soul, after this point there is a soul, is ideology there is no science to back it up.
There’s that phrase again… You keep using this phrase… I do not think it means what you think it means. I think you’re confusing my meaning when I say that consciousness is equated to the soul concept. When a person is unconscious (e.g. under anesthesia), they do not lose the capacity to have conscious thought. Sure, they may not have conscious thought in those moments, but they are still capable of having conscious thought. The fetus does not develop even the framework required to have conscious thought until the weeks of gestation that I mentioned… It is not capable of having conscious thought… The braindead man was at one time capable of conscious thought, but now he is braindead. He is no longer capable of having conscious thought. The potential mother is alive and consciously debating the ramifications of having an abortion. Her mind is simultaneously aware of herself and the world around her. She is experiencing conscious thought… Because she is capable of it. The braindead man may be more important to people around his body than the embryo is to people around its clump of cells… But neither of them has consciousness or even the capability of consciousness.

Anyways… What else did you say? ~read~ Oh wow… This part, “I can maybe conclude with you if you have some scientific evidence as to just when the soul enters the body and with hard facts, not any theory or gestimation.” Okay, so… You’re clearly disregarding my statement that (in my opinion) consciousness equates to a person’s soul or the core of their existence and that without it a body is simply a husk of flesh and bones with no real value. When I consider these two things together, I can almost believe in a thing called a soul. Without them, I have to believe that thing you are referring to is a made up term. Sure, it’s not something you made up… There was a longstanding oral tradition that existed even before the original texts of your religion were even written. But that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t (as far as I’m concerned) something that someone made up at one point, to explain a thing that they couldn’t understand (at the time). I would state that a consciousness can be scientifically proven… But a soul cannot. A soul and the ownership of one is also an ideology (for which there is no science to back it up). So… Forget I even mentioned the soul. Let’s just stick to real life things that science has proven. Like consciousness… And the things required for it to happen.

And while I want to respond to what you said to JLeslie and Mariah… I’ll let them respond on their own. They seem to do just fine without me pitching in. :)

Anywho, baibai for meow.

@AnonymousAccount8: I’ve often been left with the impression (from my experiences in life) that people tend to say anything radical or extreme if they believe that it will shock someone into agreeing with their point. Disclaimer: This is not directed or implied of any Jellie here, it is in general.

@JoyousLove Well, I see we can go round and around and you will always invent something. Spontaneous abortion (which in the scheme of overall pregnancies has to be rather low seeing people speak of overpopulation) is something that happens randomly, it was not initiated off of a selfish act by the mother (the host). Unless you can find some science that says women were not biologically formed, developed, or whatever term you want to call it, to carry developing humans to term and the growth, cells, fetus, or whatever you want to call that, is some invading entity and never designed to be there until birth, or just when the soul enters the body, and if this growth, cells, or whatever you want to call it, was left alone for an average nine months by human time measurements, it would grow into something other than another human, even if 1 in 20,000,000 times, anything else is all hat and no cattle. No more rhetoric, show me the money, point to the science to disprove any of that

@Hypocrisy_Central: Here again, you demonstrate that you are willing to engage in what you define as “bullying.” You are lying about me in your first sentence, as well as misrepresenting what I’ve said in order to attack my credibility. It is possible that we can go round and round… But I’m not the one things up (inventing them), nor am I guessing at statistics (inventing them).

Spontaneous abortions (aka miscarriages) occur with, “Around half of all fertilized eggs.” These fertilized eggs, “die and. are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among women who know they are pregnant, 15 to 20 out of every 100 will have a miscarriage. Most miscarriages occur during the first 7 weeks of pregnancy. The rate of miscarriage drops after the baby’s heartbeat is detected.” These statistics are taken from a government website, which I can provide you with, if you want it. Overpopulation happens and people speak of it, because despite this high rate of miscarriages, the number of successful births each hour still outweighs the number of deaths each hour… With around 15,000 births each hour and only around 6,316 deaths each hour, world wide. Those numbers, I took from a different website (again available to you, at your request).

Next, I never called the fetus or the clump of cells before the fetus an invader. In my explanation, the spermatozoa are the invaders and there is really no way to deny that as a fact. I’m not arguing against the fact that the female anatomy (usually… Though there are various reasons where this might not be the case) contains organs which are meant to play host or otherwise aid in the creation and sustenance of embryos that result from invasion of spermatozoa and the subsequent fertilization of ova. Nor have I denied that the embryo requires some sort of host organ in which to develop.

Oh my goodness, you continued using hat and no cattle… But there’s really nothing like that going on here.

In your response you… Misrepresent me… You make assumptions about statistics that I’ve just demonstrated are inaccurate… You talk about things that are not being argued about (at least not by me) and misrepresent other things I’ve said… Then you go back to making not much sense and using a phrase that I am now certain you don’t understand (while demanding proof of arguments that I didn’t make).

#SADT (Same arguments, different thread.)

Yawn….

@Hypocrisy_Central “Let’s stick with science or biology, those mass of cells that do not look like anything is what?”

What it looks like doesn’t matter. Anyway, the mass of cells is exactly that: a mass of cells.

“If you say they are not a developing human…”

I don’t say that. The cells are easily identified as biologically human. That is, they belong to the species Homo sapiens. And they are the first step in the development of adult human beings. But just being biologically human has no moral value. My toenail clippings contain cells that are easily identified as biologically human. In fact, they’re just as biologically human as the cells in a blastula. But they don’t have moral value. No one cares if I throw them in the trash, and no one should care. So being biologically human counts for nothing.

@Irukandji In fact, they’re just as biologically human as the cells in a blastula.
So you are actually going to with a straight face try to equal your toenail to a developing human in he womb? In all this time, have your toenail developed to a point where by design, course of action, whatever you wish to call it, developed to a point where it departed your body and with the bodies blessing? The toenail is part of the body, the developing human is not part of the body, it is designed to reside in the body of the host, the woman who conceived it until it is able to live outside the womb (on normal circumstances), it is not cancer which will take over the host until both dies, nor a parasite that will hang around indefinitely, procreating as to make more and more of themselves. Anyone who cannot see that is in selfish denial of the science they say is paramount.

@Hypocrisy_Central “So you are actually going to with a straight face try to equal your toenail to a developing human in he womb?”

There are no degrees of being biologically human. Something is either biologically human or it is not. My toenail clippings are biologically human. A blastula developing in the womb is biologically human. You’re the one who wanted to “stick with science or biology” when I distinguished between a biological human and a moral person. You took ethics off the table. Sorry it didn’t lead where you wanted it to.

“In all this time, have your toenail developed to a point where by design, course of action, whatever you wish to call it, developed to a point where it departed your body and with the bodies blessing?”

You do realize that toenails eventually break off (therefore departing the body) even if you don’t trim them, right? And a fetus can emerge from a womb without “the body’s blessing.” So this question doesn’t really make any sense. Maybe you’d like to rephrase it?

“The toenail is part of the body, the developing human is not part of the body”

This has no bearing on what we are talking about. You asked if the clump of cells was biologically human. I said yes, and then pointed out that being biologically human doesn’t tell us very much. Talking about what is or isn’t part of the body is entirely off-topic. Maybe you just ran out of counterarguments?

“it is not cancer which will take over the host until both dies”

Cancer does not take over the host. It either blocks a critical organ from functioning or impacts the host’s health until an opportunistic infection kills it. Pregnancy can, in certain cases, have the same results. Ectopic pregnancies can cause ruptures, internal bleeding, and hemorrhagic shock. And all pregnancies involved an increase in immune tolerance to prevent the mother’s immune system from attacking and destroying the fetus, which in turn opens the mother up to opportunistic infections.

“nor a parasite that will hang around indefinitely, procreating as to make more and more of themselves.”

A parasite is an organism that lives in or on another organism and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host’s expense. While some parasites stick around indefinitely, not all do. So again, you haven’t drawn any useful distinction here.

“Anyone who cannot see that is in selfish denial of the science they say is paramount.”

But again, I never said that the blastula is part of the mother’s body. And the rest of what you wrote simply misunderstands how things actually work. Regardless, you are the one who brought up cancers and parasites. They are no part of my argument.

I really love being lectured about denying science by someone who doesn’t understand it and doesn’t even attempt to genuinely understand it.

@Irukandji This has no bearing on what we are talking about.
It does when you try to introduce a silly toenail as equal to a developing human.

Maybe you just ran out of counterarguments?
You ran out a long time ago, which is why you had to stoop to a lowly toenail. The rest of that grandiloquence from the Twilight Zone doesn’t negate the fact that biology has the developing human leaving the mother’s body, usually around the 9 month period, not as a dead toenail that can’t think, breath or function, but as a functioning being (no doubt you swill still try to invent something to argue that). You might even try to say parasites are designed to go away or leave the body as a child does but even that cannot be supported by anyone with even a quarter of a brain. If you believe a baby human by nature they both have human cells are the same, try tossing a baby in the trash as you would a funky toenail of yours and see if you do not end up in jail and when you do, your cellie Bubba or Big Brenda don’t show you a lot of love and attention for doing so.

@Darth_Algar I really love being lectured about denying science by someone who doesn’t understand it and doesn’t even attempt to genuinely understand it.
I really find it annoying being lectured about faith by someone who doesn’t understand it and doesn’t even attempt to genuinely understand it. Science was taught in school, and though I might not know it all (as if anyone does) I understand more of it than some understand faith yet they keep trying to speak on it as if they know it when their understanding of it could be measured it would be lighter than vapor. I understand the process of how children are created; I think some were asleep in class from the folly they keep; trying to float here.

It’s fun watching other people do this for a change.

The basis of the question is about value.

Does the opinion of the mother ,about her unborn child while pregnant , have any bearing on the child’s self esteem if the child learns of the opinion?

I think there are too many variables to give one answer.

Age would be a factor. If the child learns that their mother perceived them as expendable as a fetus ,but isn’t educated/informed enough about the scientific facts, then they would surely be affected by it. Once the child is old enough to understandthe circumstances better,the opinion would likely be different.

There were many things that I judged adults harshly for when I was a child. Drinking, cheating/adultery, stealing etc.
As I grew up,and learned more aboutbeing human, things got far more grey. The clear black and white of each scenario became muddied by reality…

I don’t condone the many things people do,but I understand them far better than as a child.

I would think that a grown person would understand the complex nature of a woman being pregnant, and all it entails.

A child would not have the information, or cognitive ability to understand the situation.

@Hypocrisy_Central . Again I think you are seeing abortion as too “right or wrong. ” And you are ignoring the gravity of the decision. I can admire your compassion for the unborn, but I feel your focus is too sharp on the “promiscuity” aspect. I wish your empathy for fetuses extended to women…

Try and put yourself in their shoes. When I think of being a pregnant woman, it scares the shit out of me.

Have a heart brother.

@Seek It’s fun watching other people do this for a change.
Having never have need to use the egress lever I would be happy to have others do my dirty work if I were always getting missile-locked and blown from the skies. ~~

@MrGrimm888 Age would be a factor. If the child learns that their mother perceived them as expendable as a fetus ,but isn’t educated/informed enough about the scientific facts, then they would surely be affected by it.
You say that to say what, more information of the scientific process would make them more acceptable or resilient to a fact that their mother seen then as no more valuable than a spleen? Is that a manipulation of the so-called Gray areas?

As I grew up,and learned more aboutbeing human, things got far more grey. The clear black and white of each scenario became muddied by reality…
There goes the illustration that it is in the minds of humans, not the issue itself. Being unfaithful is being unfaithful. Where is the gray in that? That is saying I cheated on my spouse but it was OK because of blank, the only thing it does is try to justify the cheating, stealing, killing, etc.; then you can doctor whatever reason you wish, not that all will go along with it. There are many areas of so-called Gray that ccan be applied to people’s sacred cows here on Fluther, but because it will make them accept a harsh truth or one they do not want to stomach, they say ”this is a hard and fast black and white issue because I don’t like the other options”.People like so-called Gray areas when it works for them and try to ignore them when they don’t.

I don’t condone the many things people do,but I understand them far better than as a child.
But condoning, accepting, not accepting, etc. has no bearing on it being what it is, whatever that happens to be; damp is still has the presents of water or liquids even if it is not saturated, it still is not dry. You might not accept damp as wet, but damp is still not dry and in reality a form of wetness.

And you are ignoring the gravity of the decision.
How, when the preponderance of evidence is that those who champion it see less the gravity of the decision than I would in half a million years.

I can admire your compassion for the unborn, but I feel your focus is too sharp on the “promiscuity” aspect. I wish your empathy for fetuses extended to women…
Who says I don’t? That is a perception because I don’t want to give a woman a pass for the consequences she created in part with the man. I have seen many people have chronic pain or problems with wrist and hands, feet, ankles, and or knees, they never said that the solution to not having that debilitating pain would logically be to amputate the and/or leg, because that is a sure way to make the pain stop; they work with it, or around it while they endure it. Goes to show they are willing to endure discomfort when a part of their body but for the developing human they help procreate it is too much of a bother because it is cramping their lifestyle. If they believed the developing human as important as their right arm they would endure it until they could give it away, unlike their pain which they may have until the grave.

Try and put yourself in their shoes. When I think of being a pregnant woman, it scares the shit out of me.
I can bet my donuts to anyone’s dollars I have out myself in their shoes more than they have the developing human who has no voice, or the father who wanted to have a relation with him/her in the womb. It is certainly a better situation than those Vets who came back blind and missing limbs. Some might have thought they would have a certain career and because they lost an arm, a leg, and 30% of their earing in the Middle East their life is over. They adapt and move forward (yeah, let’s not get stupid and say because all of them did not, it is a 100% tragedy), the Vet has to live with the condition until death, the woman with a child only has to wait around 9 months and she can birth the baby, give it away, and go about her life as before, hardly any loss, or are you going to try to say the lasting effects are like that of an amputee?

@Hypocrisy_Central . Yes. I think once more aware of the science, and the trials and tribulations of living, they will see things differently. I think…

Adoption is a great idea, but not in reality. I know several social workers that work for DSS. Living with an abusive, neglectful, or apathetic relative sucks. Adoption agencies are overwhelmed , and severely underfunded. Many of children in the system are siblings. Would be adopting parents are often reluctant to take more than one child. They end up slit up , or together with no family…
If they make it to 21 in the system, they are released with almost nothing.

There are some happy stories, but for some I’m sure they wish they were never born.

I apologize for insinuating that your compassion does not extend to women. It was an assumption due to your rhetoric.

I respect your position on abortion. But it’s a jagged pill. Probably like you tolerating my atheism…

I think women who, after much consideration, decide to go through with abortions are probably making the right decisions. But it’s not malicious, or selfish. It’s probably the hardest thing they’ve ever had to do.

Hopefully, in the future, contraception will be better, and more available.

Anyone who thinks a fetus rents a woman’s body for nine months and leaves it unscathed has serious separation from reality issues.

^I couldn’t imagine having
something living inside me.

Yuck….

Guess that’s why I’m a guy….

@MrGrimm888 Adoption is a great idea, but not in reality. I know several social workers that work for DSS. Living with an abusive, neglectful, or apathetic relative sucks. Adoption agencies are overwhelmed , and severely underfunded.
CPS et al could place many more children but their draconian criteria makes all but the wealthiest and seemingly squeaky clean applicants unfit, well of you are gay you seem to get a pass.

Many of children in the system are siblings. Would be adopting parents are often reluctant to take more than one child. They end up slit up , or together with no family…
Some would love to keep the family together but told they living a house too small, they don’t earn enough, etc. it is the powers that be preventing willing parents from being parents.

I apologize for insinuating that your compassion does not extend to women. It was an assumption due to your rhetoric.
No need to apologize, it was not made from a point of malice as some do, it might be how I see it from some, which I only have what they say, and reason I know to go off of.

I respect your position on abortion. But it’s a jagged pill. Probably like you tolerating my atheism…
Be it your atheism or anyone else’s, I can live with it much better than some can live with the thought they can’t kill the unborn who cannot speak or defend themselves.

But it’s not malicious, or selfish.
Maybe not malicious but if it is not to preserve life, as in death is imminent, it is selfish, it says I cannot be put out for a only 9 months so that the unborn human can have a possible 60+ life. If I had a I had a factory and I said I am giving people a job at minimum wage or less if I could do it because the workers having some money is better than them not having any money some would say I was selfish and exploitive, I guess I could say I was just doing what was best for me, too bad for others bad luck.

@Seek Anyone who thinks a fetus rents a woman’s body for nine months and leaves it unscathed has serious separation from reality issues.
If anyone thinks that an unborn human was designed to develop there and the woman’s body was made for that is living in a delusion if they get upset that Mother Nature (if that is what they call it) did not come from cabbage patches or something.

^HC. To clarify, I wasn’t trying to insult DSS or any adoption agency. I’m glad they have strict stipulations for adoption, but it is a hindrance to getting the children homes…

Another reason I’m pleased abortion is an option.

^ Another reason I’m pleased abortion is an option.
Because humans make if more difficult to place children with people who would love them and care for them? People who are going to try to blame people who want to respect the right of the unborn to live because they are not allowed to take one of these kids are griping at the wrong people. Even if a child lingers as a state ward until they are 18, they will be their own person at some point, and who knows what they can do to contribute to society, but dead, what can they do?

@MrGrimm888 – It’s pretty weird. Especially when they do that fun thing where they place their head firmly on your bladder, then one foot on each of your ribs, and start pushing.

One girl in my Lamaze class ended up with a broken rib from that.

@Seek . Yeah. It sounds terrible.

@Hypocrisy_Central . Valid point about the dead not contributing. I’m more a quality of life person.

To the point of your question though,wouldn’t giving the child up for adoption give the child similar self esteem issues ?

At least you know the child won’t have a shitty life if it’s aborted,that’s a guarantee. Throwing the child out ,to me, should be viewed in a similar light.

@MrGrimm888 I’m more a quality of life person.
How many times I have heard that, only to see it was disingenuous If it is truly about the quality of life, when someone’s life degrades considerably because of cancer, chronic illness, Alzheimer’s, catastrophic brain injury, etc. no one really talks of termination to spare the afflicted of their suffering, if anything they fight to prolong them if not for the hope of a cure but just to preserve life.

To the point of your question though,wouldn’t giving the child up for adoption give the child similar self esteem issues ?
I would not say in some instances that is the case. The difference between the two are huge, while some children of adoption might feel bad or that their parents did not love them enough or that they were throwaway kids, they are still alive to find love, to have hobbies, careers, etc. even a chance that one day they might meet their biological parents. Killing them in the womb leaves zero chance of any redemption or positive actions happening for the developing human all benefits are solely for the mother, no one else.

At least you know the child won’t have a shitty life if it’s aborted,that’s a guarantee.
No it isn’t, how long will the child live? No one knows that, while the child might have a lousy childhood, they might have a stellar adulthood. Just as there is no guarantee a child born with a silver spoon will have a cake life before they died. The only guarantee is all opportunity for anything positive is gone when killing the child in the womb.

no one really talks of termination to spare the afflicted of their suffering,

Um… yeah we do.

HC.
1. Euthanasia is mentioned frequently in medical circles. Many of those who have to care for individuals in terminal, or serious medical condition wish it was an option, and would prefer it for themselves if it got to that point. I support it,and would utilize it if the situation arose where I was going to die a slow,painful death.

2. “all benefits are solely for the mother,no one else.” I disagree. There are many benefits to society. The human population has maxed out/exceeded the planets resources (with current forms of usage/implemented technology .) Simply put,less people is a good thing right now.
The reality is that countries can’t or aren’t willing to support large numbers of children with no parents.
Plus. It’s the woman’s body. The fetus is part of her body, until/if it is carried to term. And any decisions about the pregnancy are her right. Regardless of you or I’s thoughts of the morality of her decisions.

3. I’m not heartless. Or incapable of empathy. I feel it relevant to bring up that some children are born addicted to drugs,or with hellish birth defects,diseases, or mental inadequacies that will stack the odds high against them having a decent life. Being given up for adoption is already reducing the child’s odds of having a good life.

Again though, I agree. All possibilities for anything positive are gone if the child is not born. But I don’t create the circumstances of our reality. If the child isn’t born, it cannot suffer. It’s a cruel world. Children require food,water,lodging, medical care, education etc. for roughly 18–21 years. If you do the math,there just aren’t a lot of good options for unwanted children. That sucks. But it is what it is…

@Seek Um… yeah we do.
You do know there is a huge difference don’t you? Is there a provision in that action or initiative that says you can terminate your parent, spouse, etc. to make your life easier and get them out of the way from cramping your style as with the unborn? Do those who wish to die with so-called dignity have a say in their own demise or is someone else making that choice for them where they have zero say? If you cannot say “yes” to any or all of the aforementioned statements, it is far from the same.

It the egress button again, the jet is going down once more ~~

I disagree. There are many benefits to society. The human population has maxed out/exceeded the planets resources (with current forms of usage/implemented technology .) Simply put,less people is a good thing right now.
OK, let’s run with that. One, if you took all of the livable area of this planet, there is still a long way to go before space is maxed out. Second, if the population is overtaxed the wise thing would be to keep those who will be around for decades contributing to society in labor and what not than someone who is used up, in poor health as a group, requiring the aid of the younger people and no longer physically able to provide true contribution. There should then be a panel examining everyone at age 60 to see if they are still able to contribute physically to society, if they can, they can hang around, if they can’t, then they are euthanized, same with the disabled, if it is about space and who makes a better contribution by square feet they occupy, that would serve society better by reason.

It’s the woman’s body. The fetus is part of her body,..]
I can say a pig flew because I shot it from a cannon, and it may technically be called flying until gravity brings it crashing down, but it is has no true ability to fly. I am not saying it is the woman’s body but her body was designed to carry the body of another, of which half of the DNA that even made it possible is not her’s.

And any decisions about the pregnancy are her right. Regardless of you or I’s thoughts of the morality of her decisions.
From a selfish point of view, one would think. The same as I should be able to sell my kidney to a rich dying man for an agreed price, but I can’t do that without going to jail, and my kidney will not leave my body to live on its own with its own mind after 9 months either.

I feel it relevant to bring up that some children are born addicted to drugs,or with hellish birth defects,diseases, or mental inadequacies that will stack the odds high against them having a decent life.
Sad as it may be, in the case of being born addicted the child had no say in that, it was the mother’s selfishness for desiring to live an inebriated life and not quitting when pregnant, but at least she did not compound the problem by killing the child too. Birth defects happen, just as accidents causes people to lose limbs, which is neither here nor there.

Being given up for adoption is already reducing the child’s odds of having a good life.
Conjecture, unless you have a detailed study that shows that adopted children suffered far greater or even slightly greater than kids with both parents or even single parents (of which you can make the same argument) it is all hat with no cattle.

But I don’t create the circumstances of our reality.
Neither did the unborn, live people created the mess, down from someone murdering someone else behind greed, road rage, stealing because they want more and without earning, etc. Let’s not say abortion was just a byproduct of living, it was propped up by people selfishly not wanting to be bother by the byproduct of sex they had done.

^We are simply at an ideological impass. I respect your opinion HC. I’ll leave it at that.

^ We are simply at an ideological impass
There is an impasse but it is only ideological when you want to frame what the real facts are, but you are not alone and I can’t really blame those who are in bondage, I just have to pray harder for them. :)