PA abortionist, and barbarian, may face death penalty.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by fiftybelow

absolutely tragic. The sadder thing is that there are likely more of those types of clinics that have not been found.

I myself am pro-life in which i define life as beginning at conception and i just don't feel that people have the right to terminate the growth of a new baby once it has already begun..

protect zygotes! They are babies.

[Traditional_Ale]

I'm definately pro life unless there is legitimate medical reasons that put the mother in danger. There is a waiting list miles long for couples looking to adopt because they cannot concieve on their own. I consider it one of the most intrinsic human responsibilities that if you get pregnant (or get someone pregnant) even if you do not keep the child you go through the process together if possible. I know people who did this and in the end decided to keep the baby and become a family.

I had an ex girlfriend about nine years ago that I knocked up, and through her parent's badgering and our own fear she had an abortion and she was never ever the same afterward. I haven't seen her in about 5-6 years now and have no idea if she is alright over it or not.

[Thor]

My sister had an abortion, when she was younger, she's fine and dealt with it really well all things considering.

So abortion must be great?

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

And that's what really matters.

Yes because we can never really have a civilized dialogue about abortion, but maybe this will allow us to.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I'm definately pro life unless there is legitimate medical reasons that put the mother in danger. There is a waiting list miles long for couples looking to adopt because they cannot concieve on their own. I consider it one of the most intrinsic human responsibilities that if you get pregnant (or get someone pregnant) even if you do not keep the child you go through the process together if possible. I know so people who did this and in the end decided to keep the baby and become a family.

I had an ex girlfriend about nine years ago that I knocked up, and through her parent's badgering and our own fear she had an abortion and she was never ever the same afterward. I haven't seen her in about 5-6 years now and have no idea if she is alright over it or not.

Very few kids get adopted compared to the long list of kids waiting to be adopted

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/s...ars/trends.htm

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

Very few kids get adopted compared to the long list of kids waiting to be adopted

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/s...ars/trends.htm

Is that list for all ages of kids or just infants? As unfair and kind of cruel as it is to say, the older the child the less desirable they are to adopt. I should have said there is a huge waiting list for couples to adopt infants.

Sorry for being unclear.

[FiftyBelow]

Originally Posted by Thor

protect zygotes! They are babies.

Glad you agree

Regardless, I never stated that zygotes are babies. However, they eventually do become babies if left uninterrupted within the womb. Immediately after conception, the zygote possesses all the necessary DNA required (half from father and half from mother) to develop. Therefore,the zygote already possesses its own unique combination of DNA which would allow it to develop into a full human person. In my opinion this is exactly the first moments of life.

[Thor]

What's sad is in America planned parenthood is being attacked will likely lose funding, which prevents so many abortions in the first place.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by Thor

What's sad is in America planned parenthood is being attacked will likely lose funding, which prevents so many abortions in the first place.

Actually, as antagonistic as you sound, you're right.

The reason that many women do not get abortions in the US is because they cannot afford one.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

Glad you agree

Regardless, I never stated that zygotes are babies. However, they eventually do become babies if left uninterrupted within the womb. Immediately after conception, the zygote possesses all the necessary DNA required (half from father and half from mother) to develop. Therefore,the zygote already possesses its own unique combination of DNA which would allow it to develop into a full human person. In my opinion this is exactly the first moments of life.

as a scientist, I have a problem with that definiton. Researchers culture human cells all the time. Billions of them in a little petri dish. Every single cell possesses all the necessary DNA required to develop. Surely, I am not aborting billions of humans each time I throw out a petri dish of cells.

I don't know where the line should be drawn. I've heard arguements from some academics (doctors/embryologists/bioethicists) who say when there is a heartbeat; others say much earlier when the primitive streak forms, or the neural tube forms or when the neural tube closes. The line should not be at the one cell stage. There are no human characteristics in a single cell - it is just a bag of chemicals and biomolecules.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Is that list for all ages of kids or just infants? As unfair and kind of cruel as it is to say, the older the child the less desirable they are to adopt. I should have said there is a huge waiting list for couples to adopt infants.

Sorry for being unclear.

28,000 babies (less than 1 year) were waiting for adoptions in the US in 2009 and looks like only 1,100 were adopted. Not sure if this is an exhaustive list or not.

Do you have data to suggest the opposite is true?

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/s...r/report17.htm

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

as a scientist, I have a problem with that definiton. Researchers culture human cells all the time. Billions of them in a little petri dish. Every single cell possesses all the necessary DNA required to develop.

I don't know where the line should be drawn. I've heard arguements from some academics (doctors/embryologists/bioethicists) who say when there is a heartbeat; others say much earlier when the primitive streak forms, or the neural tube forms or when the neural tube closes. The line should not be at the one cell stage. There are no human characteristics in a single cell - it is just a bag of chemicals and biomolecules.

I suppose people can argue basically forever (and have done so) as to 'when' life begins.

The fact is, abortion isn't a new reality. Women have been having 'abortions' since the beginning of time. Whether they used certain herbal concoctions or saw the 'back alley' doctors, 'abortion' is not going to stop no matter how illegal or legal it is, no matter what anyone's religion says, no matter what scientists say- no matter what.

It's really a useless debate IMO.

Partial birth abortion is different. Only a few doctors do it in the US, and it's not easy for women in their third trimester, who would otherwise have viable babies, to have abortions without their help. I think it's murder, and I think most people agree.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

as a scientist, I have a problem with that definiton. Researchers culture human cells all the time. Billions of them in a little petri dish. Every single cell possesses all the necessary DNA required to develop.

I don't know where the line should be drawn. I've heard arguements from some academics (doctors/embryologists/bioethicists) who say when there is a heartbeat; others say much earlier when the primitive streak forms, or the neural tube forms or when the neural tube closes. The line should not be at the one cell stage. There are no human characteristics in a single cell - it is just a bag of chemicals and biomolecules.

So are you... and me... etc... just a more complex bag or collection of bags.

What you seem to be suggesting is that any arbitrary developmental milestone is potentially valid except for the one cell stage.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

28,000 babies (less than 1 year) were waiting for adoptions in the US in 2009 and looks like only 1,100 were adopted. Not sure if this is an exhaustive list or not.

Do you have data to suggest the opposite is true?

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/s...r/report17.htm

I think the data I need is in your link, but holy crap am I having trouble interpreting it.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

28,000 babies (less than 1 year) were waiting for adoptions in the US in 2009 and looks like only 1,100 were adopted. Not sure if this is an exhaustive list or not.

Do you have data to suggest the opposite is true?

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/s...r/report17.htm

You are confusing foster care with adoption. Whereas the first may result in the second, the second is not contingent on the first.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by zuluking

You are confusing foster care with adoption. Whereas the first may result in the second, the second is not contingent on the first.

I thought I was going mental...

[FiftyBelow]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

as a scientist, I have a problem with that definiton. Researchers culture human cells all the time. Billions of them in a little petri dish. Every single cell possesses all the necessary DNA required to develop.

I don't know where the line should be drawn. I've heard arguements from some academics (doctors/embryologists/bioethicists) who say when there is a heartbeat; others say much earlier when the primitive streak forms, or the neural tube forms or when the neural tube closes. The line should not be at the one cell stage. There are no human characteristics in a single cell - it is just a bag of chemicals and biomolecules.

Yes, but those same human cells that are cultured in a petri dish are not the same as zygotes which are continuously undergoing cell division as part of the development of a new and unique individual.

The zygote is already in the process of development and taken within the context of the womb, it is more than just a mix of biochemicals. It is a particular mix that - if left untouched within the womb in its original context - develops into a full human being.

Nonetheless, the debate is one that can never be resolved. For every conception perspective there are hundreds of other definitions. This is just simply the one that resonates most with me.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I'm definately pro life unless there is legitimate medical reasons that put the mother in danger. There is a waiting list miles long for couples looking to adopt because they cannot concieve on their own. I consider it one of the most intrinsic human responsibilities that if you get pregnant (or get someone pregnant) even if you do not keep the child you go through the process together if possible. I know people who did this and in the end decided to keep the baby and become a family.

[Traditional_Ale]

^ Fair enough. Idealism and reality seldom go hand in hand.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by zuluking

You are confusing foster care with adoption. Whereas the first may result in the second, the second is not contingent on the first.

Did you even read the link? Where do you think unwanted babies go after being born?

"How many children were adopted with public agency involvement in FY 2009? 57,466"
"How old were the children when they were adopted from the public foster care system?"
Less than 1 Year
2%
1,136

"How many children entered foster care during FY 2009? 255,418"
Less than 1 Year
16%
40,931


So by your logic if the second is not contingent on the first, and the statement that there are more couples waiting than babies available is true, there should be no babies in foster care...