Actually - I do have that poster on ignore for the most part. People who deny basic biological facts aren't worth bothering with on the whole.
I am in favor of keeping abortion legal for a variety of reasons, but I can already see the huge flaw in your argument/thought process. Gonna play a little devil's advocate here. Basically you're saying, "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!" Well my response to that, if we turn back the clock a couple hundred years, "Don't like slavery? Don't have one!" Or "Don't like animal abuse? Don't abuse animals!" "Don't like child abuse? Don't abuse children!" Seriously, it's just a terrible argument. Pro-lifers, most of them, legitimately believe it is the murder of another human being. To just go off and tell them to be all A-Ok with that is just ridiculous. I mean really what you're basically saying to them is this, "Don't like murder? Well don't murder anyone then!" But then in the same sentence you're also saying, but it's ok if other people do it, just mind your business. I can personally understand where you're coming from, because I often times feel the same way, but I definitely understand the opposing side's viewpoint in that abortion = murder to them and to tell them to get over it just isn't going to work and most certainly doesn't make for a strong argument.
You confuse their models of unborn babies, to give the size and scale of a unborn baby at that stage, with the 3d/4d pictures of the unborn babies at various stages next to it. http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images.php?thum_id=157 Let's get real. You are desperately searching for something in your attempt to discredit this award-winning educational site. Why? Because they present the truth that pro-abortionists don't want the public to know.
LOL .. cover your eyes, ears, mouth, nose .. and anything else that might let the bad news in. If you do not like the "developmental biology" textbook links that support my claims then there is little hope. But to claim that posting quotes from a "developmental biology" textbook is a denial of basic biological facts ?? Priceless !! You are in deep denial ..
What exactly is the truth that people don't know? That the fetus looks kinda cute and stuff? That it involuntarily grabs things and involuntarily sucks its thumb because its brain is still developing and those nerve movements are getting some practice in before birth? It's a nice website for a woman who wants to view her pregnancy week by week, but I can understand why others are arguing against it. It is full of emotional fallacies intended to make the fetus appear cute and adorable, which is great and all if you're a woman who's planning to continue her pregnancy and are very excited about it. But when it comes down to being an unbiased and objective medical resource I am not too sure about that. The fetus obviously cannot speak and announce what it is doing in the womb. In fact a neonate can't even coherently express what it is doing until months and sometimes a year or so later in life when it actually begins to learn speech. I always found it funny that people would apply speech to a picture of a fetus as if it had higher intelligence...and then I just think of when it's born and there is little to no intelligence yet until you begin teaching it. It's kind of like putting those silly captions on cat photos and assuming they're saying something cute, intelligent or funny. http://legacythumbs.weheartit.netdna-cdn.com/20081113164122.jpg Cute and all but definitely not accurate or medical. I do like the in the womb photos they have of the fetus at every stage on this site though. That's very interesting. We actually watched a video in my Anatomy and Physiology class which discussed the reproductive system. It showed pictures of the fetus at just about every week and they appear to be about the same as the ones they show on this website. Very cool. And I gotta admit this this little guy/gal here is pretty darn cute looking (if you don't mind creepy veins and stuff. Haha http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007/10/24/fetus.jpg Of course it gets a little more bizarre looking later on when it's head and body are twice the size of it's legs. =P But yeah, no matter how adorable and cute it is, it certainly doesn't change my position on abortion. If you're interested in seeing real life stages of fetal development there is also an exhibition known as the Bodies the Exhibition. I don't know if you've ever heard of it. It is like a museum that travels around and they use actual cadavers (donated to Science) that have been skinned and spliced in different ways and then posed in certain positions to give people a real close up look at the anatomy of the human body. They also had fetuses that had been collected at various stages due to miscarriages. I definitely would have wanted to see that up close and personal. It came through my state once but we missed it unfortunately. If you're ever interested you might look it up sometime and see if it's around or near you. =)
Wow - so much misleading in one post...impressive First off - despite your claims of emotional fallacies (and please provide examples for your claims, because NOWHERE does EHD imply that unborn babies speak - they were using lighthearted captions to point out developmental markers): http://www.ehd.org/products_bpd_dvd.php If EHD was not providing top notch information, I don't think it would win awards - especially since it is largely distributed to educators. Since the pro-abortionists make misleading comments all the time about 'it isn't alive; it's just a blob of tissue; it isn't even human' I can understand why they would attempt to discredit even a non-biased educational site such as EHD. Especially when you attempting to justify killing unborn babies. http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images.php?thum_id=429#content
Humor Just your lack of reading ability .. A human without brain function is clinically dead. The cells are alive .. but living human? .. now that is misleading. Its a "living" blob of human tissue .. just not a living human . With posts like your's that are so easy to discredit... who needs education ? If there is no living human .. there is no living baby .. is there !?
Call it what you will but it's still making it emotional, which again is great for pregnant soon-to-be mothers looking forward to having her kid(s) and feeling all cutsey over her unborn. But cuteness has no place in a serious medical discussion as far as I am concerned. I am not going to nitpick about the lack of the umbilical cord on the 3D and 4D models since it's clearly just a size measurement, but I won't stand for filling a medical website up with cute captions intended to make the audience go, "Baaaaawwwww DAS SO CYUTE!". And since when is any countries educational systems a good unbiased source? There are tons of debates about what schools should and should not be teaching to kids, Evolution or Creationism, Abstinence-Only Sex-Ed or not, Controversial Historical topics, etc. Just because a school chooses to purchase it and use it does not automatically make it correct or educational. And winning awards means essentially nothing in my book. Obama won the Nobel Prize...so what? What does that even mean? Not everyone agreed with it, etc. You show me one time where I said the fetus was a blob of tissue or said it was not alive. I acknowledged that the site has great photos of the inside shots of the fetus in womb. But it is riddled with cutsey wootsey captions and thus makes it far more acceptable for a giddy pregnant woman to use as a source to view each stage of her pregnancy. My college Anatomy and Physiology textbook isn't riddled with cutsey wootsey statements at all and it thoroughly explains the development of the fetus without adding emotional jargon to the subject of reproduction. When it starts getting emotional is when I start to question the sources intentions. I will always defend the right to bodily autonomy both against born and unborn humans.
I think that the site helps women see that what they have isn't a blob of tissue but a growing baby. Its truth...not fallacy. To see the arms and legs, head and movements lead credence to the fact that this is a human being in the first stages of life. Not a blob attached to a slime wall. It is irritating for the pro-abortion crowd to have this information out because it makes it harder for women to get rid of it and move on. To make destroying a fetus harder on a woman....is some sort of crime. It should be easy and pain-free to the abortion crowd. Showing what it actually is....just gets in the way. Your mockery can be easily applied to newborns and babies in their first weeks. Do we not see cartoon "balloons" having fun with baby thoughts or movies with talking babies? We could mock them, talk about their low intelligence capabilities and show utter disdain and contempt for even the thought that this is an actual person. Sometimes a newborn will smile. But they aren't capable of smiling. Its simply involuntary movements. Are you feeling that contempt for the thought of protecting a newborn from death yet? .
Perhaps you are talking to a different choicer because I have never once said the fetus is a 'blob of tissue' or said it was not alive, or said it is not human, or claimed it does not make movements within the womb. Sorry but I don't use those arguments. That's why you think people have an issue with this site? I don't know about you, but we had some pretty thorough reproductive health ed at my middle school. We saw development of the fetus, the stages of it, even a live birth via video of course. Seeing the fantastical cute photos of a fetus and knowing that it squirms around and does stuff obviously isn't going to stop women from having abortions though. I can even admit that a certain stage of the development of the fetus is pretty cute looking, I mean really? It's totally adorable! Just wanna eat it all up! xD But do my thoughts or anyone's thoughts on how cute it is have a place in this debate? Not really. And besides that, are women really aborting based on the factor of cuteness or something? I thought it had more to do with financial constraints and familial/partner issues? http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.html/ Which I have also addressed quite a bit because I am personally against women feeling obligated or forced to have an abortion due to these reasons. No woman should ever feel like she HAS to have an abortion for any reason other than she simply does not want to be pregnant. That is why I think we as a society should focus on helping these women with their financial burdens and such so that they DON'T feel obligated/forced to abort. Unfortunately most of the pro-life politicians who push bills to restrict/end abortion are also against social welfare programs that would ultimately help these women keep their pregnancies and be able to properly care for their babies. I often times get the feeling that the politicians in the pro-life crowd just want to punish women for having sex with the sorts of bills they push. =/ (Please note I am talking about the politicians and not you or any lifer here personally, don't know ya'll well enough yet to make that judgement). http://img607.imageshack.us/i/prolifebeliefchart.gif/ Of course this does not change the fact that I want abortion to remain safe and legal, because people do still make mistakes and some women still simply do not want to be pregnant (especially tocophobic women). But I do believe something needs to be done to help those who never wanted to abort in the first place. I'm pro-choice, not pro-screw-you-to-bad-just-abort-and-get-over-it. The way you want to do it is through emotional tactics. You want to make women feel guilty and horrible for choosing abortion, whether they've already had one or not, as well as construe medical facts. You want to say that a fetus can smile and suck it's thumb and squirm and touch things, but you want to exclude the fact that it's involuntary movement, at least in the early months of pregnancy, which I believe is wrong. Feel free to show women all the stages of her pregnancy. Feel free to tell her it can smile and freaking dance (if it's factual) so long as you don't exclude other important details and when exactly in the pregnancy it happens. I can guarantee you women will still have abortions and they will still not be sorry for them, because believe it or not women abort for other reasons than "EW it's like a booger in there or something! Eeewwww, get it out!" Just mocking the 'blob of tissue' concept now. =) http://www.imnotsorry.net/ Are you comparing the website to cartoon balloons? Clearly you see how it has no place in a serious medical debate/discussion. And by the way, those movies where the babies can talk are pretty bad movies, jus' sayin'. And I do think it's stupid, which is why I mock them and the dumb cat pics with captions. But that's just my opinion. Who said anything about showing disdain and contempt for anyone or anything? You're clearly construing things from my posts that are not there. You really need to stop making assumptions about people you hardly know. Born =/= unborn. Do me a favor and quit comparing the two. I could care less what a neonate is physically doing or thinking so long as it's not using my body for nourishment. Once it's born it deserves the rights endowed to all born humans, obviously. Are you trying to make me feel guilty for believing in the right to allow women to control their bodies based on the fact that a fetus can involuntarily smile at some point in development? What kind of logic/argument is that? Don't know if you noticed based on my other posts, but I believe if a physical, living breathing, born human is physically attached to my body and sucking nutrients from it, and he/she smiles and I can have a full on conversation with them, I still believe I have a right to remove them from my body. Hell if a born baby was somehow physically attached to me in some way I reserve the right to remove it from my body. (Hopefully you won't jump to the conclusion of 'ZOMG U WANTS TO KILLS IT!' Take conjoined twins for example, if one of the twins is more parasitic-like than the other, as in using more of the others body for survival or entirely and doctors can separate them but the more parasitic-like twin would most likely die, I am still in favor of the one twin being able to choose whether or not to continue staying physically attached to the parasitic-like twin and providing nourishment to them, even if it means one will die. Take conjoined twins Manar Maged and her unofficially named sister Islaam. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMyobzReF9w"]YouTube - Manar Maged's Short Life[/ame] This is obviously a very extreme example since Manar was still an infant and cannot make her own medical decisions to begin with (and unfortunately she died after major complications from the surgery to separate them) but if anyone is physically attached to me and I do not want to go through the burden of physiological and psychological changes I should never be forced to, ever. If there is a non-lethal way to immediately relieve myself of the burden I will gladly take it, but until there is a non-lethal way of alleviating a woman from the burden of pregnancy the moment she wants her pregnancy to end I will continue to be in favor of abortion.
I took the liberty of removing the noise and highlighting your theme. I bet you're glad that you weren't a burden to your mommy.
Your negative comments are meant to bring a negative emotion. Describing a fetus in excessive negative terms ugly, gross blood vessels, oversized head, no intelligence .is a person invoking a negative response to a piece of unsightly tissue. You can either have emotion for life or emotion against life. There is no inbetween on this one.. Actually....seeing the live moving fetus does stop women from having abortions. Which is one reason pro-abortion people are vehmenently against women seeing a sonigram of what they are about to kill. From what I'm reading... fetus being perceived as cute just really bothers you. But the reason why women are so apt to have an abortion in an accommodating society is because the baby is not tangible, not seen and cant be cuddled. But all those things arent the definition of human life. I think what gets you is that when women see the fetus they DO start to drop the negative its a burden and not very smart anyway to oh my goodness look at those little hands. That argument is stupid really. Id be embarrassed to even be making it. Politicians and people like me could care less if a woman has sex with 10 men in a day. The concern is with the human life that follows the chosen actions. Ethically a life isn't yours where you can say live or die based on your wants and desires. Legally it is...but ethically its no different to euthanizing grandpa....
Don't think anyone has "emotion against life." Pro-choicers emphasize the well-being of the woman, but they are not "against life." Sonograms have been shown to be ineffective in causing women to change their minds. http://thecurvature.com/2010/06/01/...-abortion-rates-but-continue-getting-tougher/ In one of the few studies of the issue there have been none in the United States two abortion clinics in British Columbia found that 73 percent of patients wanted to see an image if offered the chance. Eighty-four percent of the 254 women who viewed sonograms said it did not make the experience more difficult, and none reversed her decision. That generally has also been the case in Alabama, which enacted its law, the first of its kind in the United States, in 2002. About half of women opt to view them, said Diane Derzis, who owns the Birmingham clinic. And Ive never had one patient get off the table because she saw what her fetus looks like. In some instances, the ultrasounds have affected women in ways not intended by anti-abortion strategists. Because human features may barely be detectable during much of the first trimester, when 9 of 10 abortions are performed, some women find viewing the images reassuring. It just looked like a little egg, and I couldnt see arms or legs or a face, said Tiesha, 27, who chose to view her 8-week-old embryo before aborting it at the Birmingham clinic. That's a reaction that won't happen until late in the pregnancy when a woman has already decided to give birth anyway. Do you think a woman should make her decision based on an emotional reaction to how the fetus LOOKS? Generally speaking, that just isn't true. Pro-lifers reveal their true concerns all the time when they say things like "she shouldn't be allowed to avoid the consequences", "she should have thought of that before she spread her legs", etc.
Pregnancy is a burden for women. Some women may choose to go through that burden if they wish however, who am I to stop them? I wouldn't have cared if I was aborted or not. I was a wanted child but if my mom didn't want me I hope she would have aborted me instead. My mother was raped at the age of 12 and became pregnant. Fortunately she wasn't forced to become a twelve year old mother and had an abortion. She happily chose to become a mother at the age of twenty-four instead and I was her first child. Granted her marriage was an abusive one and ended in divorce when I was about five years old. (Then came the fantastic money issues and my spite for divorced couples who refuse to work together in the best interest of the children.) My mother is pro-choice though and I would not want it any other way. So...what's your point?
And after that I clearly noted that my opinions on the physical appearance of the fetus clearly should not have any bearing on the debate, same with everyone else. I am pretty sure fetuses lack intelligence since they lack cognizance. I am not invoking anything negative by stating that fact. It is what it is. If you take it negatively that's your problem, not mine. And I never once called it an unsightly piece of tissue. Shouldn't put words in my mouth sir. No one is saying not to have emotion for life or not. I have a great deal of emotion for lives that are already here and the women who can think, feel, and who have lived, loved and experienced life. Which is why I feel so strongly about women who feel obligated to abort when they don't want to in the first place. But I am sorry if I have little to no empathy for a fetus who has had no experiences or felt anything in its short life. I am just saying don't use medical sources that use colorful language in an obviously biased manner. It leads people to think there is an underlying reason for it. Sperm, egg, zygote, fetus, neonate. These are all medical terms. What is negative about them? Source? Do you know how much sonograms cost? $100-$500. http://www.costhelper.com/cost/child/ultrasound.html Who is going to pay for that? You? Me? Are you trying to make an already somewhat pricey medical procedure even more expensive for women by making them view something as unnecessary as a sonogram? What is with you and forcing women to do things they don't want to do not only with their own uteruses but with their own money!? If she is curious and wants to see a sonogram of the fetus then fine, but she shouldn't be forced to if she doesn't want to. After all it is her medical appointment, not yours. EH!? I just admitted I think it's pretty cute at a certain stage of development. How in the world did you come to that conclusion? I swear to Zeus almighty I wasn't even being sarcastic either! (I am a little now though with the Zeus thing, hehe). It's hardly an accommodating society when women feel obligated/forced to abort when they don't want to due to financial constraints and other reasons. I have already said that levying these constraints from women would probably bring a major drop in abortions across the nation. But for some reason lifers just don't want to help these would-be mothers and bring the number of abortions down! I just don't get it. Dude, I could care less if a woman goes online and does her own research on her fetus and sees adorable pics of fetuses and babies and changes her mind. Again, that's her choice and it ain't my place to tell her what to do. What I am against is outright lying to women by claiming that it has superior intelligence, it can feel pain, it can smile and stuff (without mentioning it's involuntary) things like that. Emotional tactics meant to make women feel like crap about the choice they're about to make are wrong imo. Pregnancy is no happy walk in the park and shouldn't be construed as such. Babies aren't perfect little angels either and I certainly don't believe anyone who's not totally dedicated to nurturing and raising should ever be made to bear one. I feel inclined to thoroughly disagree. As Grannie already pointed out, pro-lifers and pro-life politicians are constantly making it apparent not only with the comments they make but the sorts of bills they push but the ones they don't push (better sex ed/more access to contraceptives/better social assistance to mothers/etc.) Is grandpa physically attached to my body and causing major psychological and physiological changes to my body?
Sir, you are the one who wants abortion to end, don't you? Do you care for the children after their born or not? Really, don't go off telling people not to have abortions if you're not willing to pitch in and help with the financial burdens in the end. (Prenatal care, cost of maternity clothes, babies needs; formulas/diapers/toys/bedroom set/stroller/clothing/etc., cost of live birth or c-section, the 18 years of medical bills, school supplies, clothing, and other things the child will need until it becomes a legal adult.) Having a kid isn't cheap, at all. And birth control and abstinence both have failure rates. (In case you're wondering, for abstinence it's rape). Not to mention abstinence isn't an option for those of us who believe in having healthy sex lives with our partners and we most definitely should not be punished for something that's totally legal and consensual.
Sorry about your childhood issues...but since you just want plain facts... Pregnancy is a burden for SOME women - not all. I know. I had 5 pregnancies (4 sons, miscarried one) and not one was a burden - indeed, I consider them all blessings. And you are not your mother's first child...your half-sibling that she aborted was.
People help unwed mothers & babies all the time. I have had a couple of young women live in my home with their babies until they got on their feet financially. And yes, sex is natural. And the consequenses of sex is also natural - babies. Rational, mature people understand this, and don't engage in sex unless they are prepared to accept the consequenses of their actions.
Wow, thought you were a guy for some reason, guess I shoulda said ma'am. lol And that's great that people are helping other people. I like to see/hear things like that. It promotes good/healthy futures for people. Rational and mature people also understand that abortion is a responsible choice to pregnancy for some. And no, I don't have to 'accept' the natural consequences of my actions. If I smoke my entire life knowing it can give me lung cancer/respiratory problems I can still get medical treatment for it. People don't have to accept the natural consequences of their choices and just avoid medical treatment for those consequences every time.
Abortion always kills an unborn baby. Rational and mature people understand that and don't let their actions result in the death of their children. And rational and mature people don't engage in risky behavior that has results they don't want be it std's, pregnancy, or long-term health issues.
Sex is not risky behavior. The only time it becomes risky is when you don't use contraception, have a one night stand, or group sex, or join a swingers group. Having sex and using contraception is NOT risky, and nor is it irresponsible. It is irresponsible of lifers to say it is.
Yeah, abortion kills. So what? No human, born or unborn has a right to use my body without my ongoing consent. I have every right to terminate my pregnancy immediately in order to protect my body from the physiological and psychological changes that will occur even if that means the fetus will die. Like Mak said, sex is only risky when it's polyamorous and done without contraceptives, etc. That's why it's called 'risky sexual behavior'. Having sex with one person, boyfriend/girlfriend/fiance/husband/wife and using contraceptives is generally known as just being sexually active. I guess it's all opinion if you believe that monogamous sexual relationships are risky or not. And even if a person does engage in risky sexual behavior they STILL don't have to 'accept' the consequences and avoid medical treatment. If they get an STD they can be treated for it. If a woman becomes pregnant she can abort.
