Originally Posted by Leenalia

Thank you Lady.

Well since then I have finished college and my fiance is on the process of completing his college degree as well. Both of us are planning to get a career as soon as possible, we have a house that we've been keeping an eye on. I cannot wait until the next time I'm pregnant, I'm ready!

There's a saying in my family, that if you have morning sickness early on and it's brutal...then it's a boy. We believe in that saying alot because for several generations, it was always the boys that gave the expectant mother a hard time XD

That makes SOO MUCH SENSE! Both mine where boys and I was sick as a dog. My second was even worse...it all tied down to meat. I couldn't even stand the smell of it. I could be fine as rain until I take a wiff of it. lol

Good luck with your future pregnancies =3

Originally Posted by Gary Stargazer

The husband or lover should have a right to force an abortion if the mother has no chance of survival. sort of like based on temporary insanity.

Or if she needs a surgery that would jeopordize the child but save her life. Mothers can get too attached to their babies-not a bad thing.

But sometimes their own life is not worth it to the husband. I agree with the husband who will always say "we can have another"

Originally Posted by laniparis View Post
Maybe in the future, we can remove the fetus from the mother who doesn't want the baby and put it into someone who would be ever so grateful to have a child (but can't)..."

Originally Posted by Keyori
This would likely be targeted to women who want in vitro I assume, but those women typically don't want someone else's child, they want one that looks like them and is made up of their own genes. It's not a bad idea, but I don't think anyone would actually participate in this way."

I know of at least one person who would be extremely grateful to receive a child, (any child) in this way... some other people in her condition might even feel the same (although I can't speak on their behalf), she's a good friend who unfortunately suffered leukemia when she was an adult (the worse time to get it) she nearly died, and lost the ability to produce eggs, but she still has a womb, so she can physically carry another's baby (or egg) but, not her own... she's so lovely and it would be great to see her as a mother...

If you're going to quote what I or anyone else posts, you should use the [quote] tags so that you're not earning gold for content you didn't create. :)

Originally Posted by Doomfishy

I understand why you'd have that opinion after such a terrible and unnecessary situation, but I respectfully disagree.

If a woman flat-out refuses to have an abortion, even to save her own life, I can't imagine the psychological damage that forcing the surgery on her would inflict. It's hard for me to imagine a greater betrayal. If I were in that situation, I think I would become suicidal.

In any case, I support the right of individuals to refuse their own medical treatment. Bodily autonomy, and all that.

I would rather have a g/f or wife that hated my gut and left me for forcing it on her, then to have one that was in the ground. Xd

I personally believe that the mother should be the one who makes the decision whether or not to keep the fetus. Not the husband, not the family, not the doctor. The mother. It should not be up to anyone BUT her unless a dire situation (where she is unconscious and WONT wake up) calls for it.

Not to be sexist or anything, but Men do not always understand what it is like to actually carry something inside of you, to go through what we women have to/ will have to go through. I'm not saying that all of them don't because there are *some* that do, but even they would understand a little better. What you do with YOUR body should be up to YOU because it is a choice that YOU will have to live with. If the father would rather give up his own flesh and blood and force a surgery, then I would definitely feel betrayed and would never want to talk to him again. You don't FORCE something like that onto a woman.

Personally, I believe in Reincarnation anyway, so if the Fetus is aborted, it's spirit will be re-born in another body. That doesn't mean that I would deliberately abort it just simply because I can, but If I had a reason that would complicate my life or the life of my child, I would indeed consider it. I mean, there are so many children now that live in foster homes and orphanages now because they don't have a family. They are either unwanted, or they have lost their homes. I don't see the point of bringing another child into the world and give it away because there are so many already that are in need of loving homes. I would not want to add to that.

I personally don't believe in abortion But then I am not one to judge. i rather the baby be given up for adoption because there are so many women that can not comceive one of their own. If a woman is raped for instance then she might consider abortion. in this case it shouldn't be frowned on. the baby would only serve as a reminder of the rape and some woman can get on with their lives after it but then some never do

@Arousal: I agree with you on the subject of there having to be a legitimate reason for the procedure, like the ones that you have listed.

Example one: My friend was raped at 16, now 25, which resulted in pregnancy, her decision was to get the procedure done the second she had found out. i was on her side 100% of the way. She was young, it was a traumatic experience.

Example two: My friends sister, a.k.a the whore about town. she's had two abortions...because she doesn't practice safe relations. 100% of her acceptances disagree with her actions.

one view: you can't punish an innocent child for the actions of one person.
another view: you can't punish a woman by having her carry and birthing a child.

This issue is like a double edged sword.

Embryo/fetus /=/ innocent child. There's one edge gone for you :)

Originally Posted by Philomel

Embryo/fetus /=/ innocent child. There's one edge gone for you :)

You calling an embryo/fetus not a child is an opinion....for a lot of the states still recognizes those as children after a certain point of development. Depending on where you live. Sometimes as young as seven weeks. Meaning that if a expecting mother was attacked and her unborn child killed that person could be charged with murder for that "non living thing". And any willing mother recognizes them as children from the moment they find out their are pregnant.

Originally Posted by Lady_Megami

You calling an embryo/fetus not a child is an opinion....for a lot of the states still recognizes those as children after a certain point of development. Depending on where you live. Sometimes as young as seven weeks. Meaning that if a expecting mother was attacked and her unborn child killed that person could be charged with murder for that "non living thing". And any willing mother recognizes them as children from the moment they find out their are pregnant.

What states? Provide evidence. I'm aware that in cases of the murders of pregnant women, it is treated as a double homicide; however, that is done no matter how far along the pregnancy is, whether or not the woman intended to abort, even regardless of whether or not the fetus had any chance of making it to term. Embryo is the proper, scientific name for the stage of development at which most abortions take place. It is not opinion. 'Child' denotes something much different. If such designations were simply "opinion", a person would be entirely right in calling an infant an adult, and treating them as such. As infants and adults have different legal rights and responsibilities, we know this isn't the case.

And I like that you're speaking for all mothers. Nice. No, any sensible mother would call the life she carries what it is, be it zygote, embryo, fetus, whatever it happens to be at that moment. They sometimes apply emotions to it and that can cause them to say some silly things, including treating them like they're already fully developed and born a couple weeks after conception, but to say that every mother "recognizes" them as a child when they aren't is false.

Originally Posted by Gary Stargazer

I would rather have a g/f or wife that hated my gut and left me for forcing it on her, then to have one that was in the ground. Xd

Yes, well, I'd rather have a spouse who respected my right to bodily autonomy. It's not your place to force ANYONE - even someone you love - to undergo surgery that they've refused. I've watched family members override DNRs, and it's sickening.

Originally Posted by Philomel

What states? Provide evidence.

http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/S...aws092302.html

Homicide is the #1 leading cause of death for pregnant women. In my opinion, this legislation has been passed in the hope that it might deter that violence. I don't know if this is the right way to go about it, but something certainly needs to be done.

Originally Posted by Doomfishy

Homicide is the #1 leading cause of death for pregnant women. In my opinion, this legislation has been passed in the hope that it might deter that violence. I don't know if this is the right way to go about it, but something certainly needs to be done.

I think, most of those crimes are domestic violence or other crazy people trying to steal the pregnant woman's baby.

Originally Posted by Lady_Megami

http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/S...aws092302.html

I won't say anything about that site, as much as I want to. However, I was asking which states actually passed laws recognizing fetuses, embryos, etc., as children. Most of those laws do include a description of the fetus as a child, but they do not make that description official or even go into detail on why they are using that term. I imagine their science textbooks all still call fetuses fetuses, embryos embryos, and leave 'children' out of it.

Originally Posted by Doomfishy

Yes, well, I'd rather have a spouse who respected my right to bodily autonomy. It's not your place to force ANYONE - even someone you love - to undergo surgery that they've refused. I've watched family members override DNRs, and it's sickening.

This also brings up the issue of why the husband, specifically, should be allowed to override her decision and not family members or friends. It almost suggests that husbands still own their wives, to the extent that they alone are allowed to go against their wives' wishes when it comes to the wife's body.

Originally Posted by Philomel

I won't say anything about that site, as much as I want to. However, I was asking which states actually passed laws recognizing fetuses, embryos, etc., as children. Most of those laws do include a description of the fetus as a child, but they do not make that description official or even go into detail on why they are using that term. I imagine their science textbooks all still call fetuses fetuses, embryos embryos, and leave 'children' out of it.

Haven't you learned, the government does not have to give ANY reasons why they do things.

And as for the states that consider an unborn fetus as a child at ANY stage of development:

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Utah
Virgina
West Virgina
Wisconsin

Those state governments view any unborn child aka Fetus at any stage of development as a homo-sapian. The only legal way to KILL a fetus is for the mother to choose to have an abortion. But if you where to either cause harm to that unborn FETUS which caused its death otherwise, you could be charged with murder.

If you question that first website here is another one to back it up:
http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/H...6/Default.aspx

If the government ever passed a law stating that all unborn fetuses where children, then they would be back stepping to banning abortion again. Those laws are set to protect and bring justice to the women who had their unborn FETUSES murdered without their consent. There is a difference between abortion and murder you know...the first has the mother's consent...

if you think about it, kinda a double standard. But, you know it's the government's way to keep what they originally intended...but at the side lines going:

"YEA! -THIS- is what we meant! You know, when we banned abortion!"

I questioned the first website because it is anti-choice, and in my experience, anti-choicers cannot be trusted to be truthful*.

Once again, however, that is not what I asked. You said that states legally consider fetuses children. These laws do not do that. While some of them mention fetuses as 'children', nothing legally has been done to change the fact that embryo /=/ fetus /=/ child. Indeed, the laws themselves show that this is not the case, as the sentences for killing fetuses are far less than those for killing children.

*Before anyone jumps on me, I'm not saying that all anti-choicers are liars or are willing to bend the truth to support their position. It's simply that most of the anti-choicers I've come across have believed or supported falsehoods, and the organizations often promote 'facts' that are completely wrong, or fudge statistics to prove a point. It seems like the position itself promotes dishonesty, somehow.

Originally Posted by Philomel

This also brings up the issue of why the husband, specifically, should be allowed to override her decision and not family members or friends. It almost suggests that husbands still own their wives, to the extent that they alone are allowed to go against their wives' wishes when it comes to the wife's body.

Yes. I'm also led to question at what point Gary Stargazer thinks a man should be able to force an abortion on his partner - when there's an 85+% risk of her death? 50%? 15%? At what point does a woman essentially become her husband's ward?

If it were me, I'd most likely abort any pregnancy wherein the risk of death or serious injury was abnormally high. But that's my choice. I don't want one side shrieking at me to save the "baby" if it's got a chance, and I don't want the other side shrieking at me to undergo an abortion to keep my husband from worrying. It's not their decision to make.

Originally Posted by Philomel

I questioned the first website because it is anti-choice, and in my experience, anti-choicers cannot be trusted to be truthful*.

Once again, however, that is not what I asked. You said that states legally consider fetuses children. These laws do not do that. While some of them mention fetuses as 'children', nothing legally has been done to change the fact that embryo /=/ fetus /=/ child. Indeed, the laws themselves show that this is not the case, as the sentences for killing fetuses are far less than those for killing children.

*Before anyone jumps on me, I'm not saying that all anti-choicers are liars or are willing to bend the truth to support their position. It's simply that most of the anti-choicers I've come across have believed or supported falsehoods, and the organizations often promote 'facts' that are completely wrong, or fudge statistics to prove a point. It seems like the position itself promotes dishonesty, somehow.

Philomel, I am going to get something off my chest, first I am neither pro life or pro choice..I just don't care either way. Personally I wouldn't have an abortion. But I wouldn't feel harshly against a person who has. I am just stating that outside of the medical choice of abortion if a person was to harm an unborn child/fetus/parasite however you want to see it..they can be charged with murder.
I do not agree with how pro lifers act, I feel that bombing abortion clinics, protesting is despicable and goes against everything their bible or beliefs should teach.
The point you are trying to make is that a fetus is not a child, that is the opinion of yourself and of course, a lot of other individuals. What makes a fetus a child differs from person to person. Some people view that a heartbeat makes a fetus a child, others think that once a fetus is born into this world it is a child. Some people view a fetus as a child the moment of conception. It is everyone opinion and you should never try to force your opinion on other people....otherwise you are just as bad as the "pro lifers" who choose to protest in front of abortion clinics or even bomb them.
What I was stating wasn't an opinion, it was a fact..that according to the law in thirty-eight states that if a unborn fetus aka child to some was killed then the perpetrator could be charged with murder. Granted the sentencing might not be as great as if they killed a four year old or such, but it is still the law. This is fact...not an opinion.
And as for the argument about men having a mindset about the abortion. Men to not own women..there fore they should have no say on what she does. We abolished slavery hundreds of years ago. Sorry about your luck men.

You are not understanding what I am telling you. "Fetus" isn't an arbitrary description. It is a specific stage in development that comes long before childhood, just like embryo. It is not my opinion. If I called a fish a mammal, I would be wrong. Likewise, if someone describes a fetus as a 'child', they are incorrect in doing so. Words exist for a reason. If their meanings are reduced to "opinions", language becomes completely meaningless. The laws do not address whether or not a fetus is a child, which is what you said, which is what I've been asking you to prove. You even admitted that they're not legally considering fetuses children, despite calling them such in the laws, when you admitted that the sentences are not the same as they would be for an actual child. The only people who call fetuses and embryos 'children' are doing so for emotional appeal, and are usually the same people who call killing "murder".

Originally Posted by Philomel

You are not understanding what I am telling you. "Fetus" isn't an arbitrary description. It is a specific stage in development that comes long before childhood, just like embryo. It is not my opinion. If I called a fish a mammal, I would be wrong. Likewise, if someone describes a fetus as a 'child', they are incorrect in doing so. Words exist for a reason. If their meanings are reduced to "opinions", language becomes completely meaningless. The laws do not address whether or not a fetus is a child, which is what you said, which is what I've been asking you to prove. You even admitted that they're not legally considering fetuses children, despite calling them such in the laws, when you admitted that the sentences are not the same as they would be for an actual child. The only people who call fetuses and embryos 'children' are doing so for emotional appeal, and are usually the same people who call killing "murder".

from the dictionary:

child (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
1.
a. A person between birth and puberty.
b. A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.
2.
a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
b. An infant; a baby.
3. One who is childish or immature.
4. A son or daughter; an offspring.
5. A member of a tribe; descendant: children of Abraham.
6.
a. An individual regarded as strongly affected by another or by a specified time, place, or circumstance: a child of nature; a child of the Sixties.
b. A product or result of something specified: "Times Square is a child of the 20th century" (Richard F. Shepard).
Idiom:
with child
Pregnant.
[Middle English, from Old English cild.]
childless adj.
childless·ness n.

fetus (fts)
The unborn offspring of a mammal at the later stages of its development, especially a human from eight weeks after fertilization to its birth. In a fetus, all major body organs are present.

The question you have to ask yourself...what makes a human a human? Is it being born, is it having a heartbeat? A brain? The ability to breath air? The reason why the government lifted the ban on abortion to begin with is to save the thousands of lives that they had caused to be lost.

I don't know about you, but if it looks human, if it has a human heart that beats blood, if it has a human brain that can process thoughts and dreams...if it has fingers and toes that can be sucked in the formed mouth..then it is human.

In this debate, we want to remain clear and away from emotional pleas. Calling a fetus by its scientific, rather than emotional term, is better for debating purpose.

Originally Posted by Kris

In this debate, we want to remain clear and away from emotional pleas. Calling a fetus by its scientific, rather than emotional term, is better for debating purpose.

Thank you Kris..this is more acceptable and it keeps emotions out of a rational debate.

Originally Posted by Philomel

That's not true in any way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_d...al_heart_rates

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_does_...p_a_heart_beat

A quote from the site: "The human embryonic heart begins beating approximately 21 days after conception, or five weeks after the last normal menstrual period (LMP), which is the date normally used to date pregnancy."

A quote from the site I just posted: "At 18 days [when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period], and by 21 days it is pumping, through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different from that of the mother. J.M. Tanner, G. R. Taylor, and the Editors of Time-Life Books, Growth, New York: Life Science Library, 1965, p.
A quote from the site I posted:"

Also, that's a completely inane way to determine whether or not something counts as living. Bacteria don't even have hearts, but they're certainly alive. Same with tumors. No one's saying that fetuses aren't alive. The issue is whether or not they're people (which by my definition of "personhood", they aren't) and whether or not a person has a right to use another person's body without that person's consent, which they don't.

I am saying in my opinion that if they have a heart beat, then it is alive. And when a human life is alive and then you kill it, it is called murder. It wouldn't be murder if you kill bacteria, according to society.

Originally Posted by Keyori

Ovulation occurs at different times for different women, so I'm not sure that's entirely true (maybe a good guess, but certainly not applicable to everyone).

I got my information from wikianswer, so it wasn't a guess.

But again, life =/= a person (a tumor is "alive" and not considered a person), and you must be killing a person for it to be considered murder (or else you'd be convicted for murder for swatting a fly, killing a mosquito, using ant traps, etc...)

Does a tumor have a heart beat? Last time I checked it didn't. So, as I had stated, any human with a heart beat is life and if you kill a human that is alive it is murder.
Last time I checked, killing a fly isn't considered as murder, but killing human life was.

Hello, RAPE?

Personally, I have NEVER heard of anyone (aside from internet rumors) voluntarily having sex before age 13. I'm not saying it never happens, I'm just saying that it's not something that you should expect out of a 12-year-old, and at that age, pregnancy is much more likely to be a result of rape instead of consensual sex.

Have you ever been in the inner city? I live there right now, and believe me most of these girls who are 11 or over have lost their virginity by choice. My cousin lost hers with a guy who was 21--probaly didn't know how old she really was, but now she is a lesbian. When I lived with my sister in these apartments, there were several young girls who dressed like little hoochie mamas and hung around with mostly guys who did drugs. I am pretty sure they weren't little innocent virgins.