http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/womenfamily.html?in_articl e_id=429098&in_page_id=1799&in_a_source=&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=picbox&c t=5

Herb

Wonderful images for sure.

My wife and I chose not to use ultrasound for two reasons: 1. We didn't want to know the sex of our child 2. Not all that comfortable with ultrasound waves so close to my baby and my wifes womb. I know, I know, many have done ultrasound without problems, but we liked keeping as much of that stuff out of the picture. My wife was also able to give birth without any meds. What a stud, for a wife.

Dang, Chris, that's pretty freakin' heroic on your wife's part. If I were a woman, I would have been asking for an epidural about the time I found out I was pregnant .....

I live with Mrs. God.

Here are some more pictures for you Herb.

Pulled

Amus- I certainly didn't need to see that picture. Your point is made, but I'm sorry that you chose to go there.

Wow, Amus, I guess it would be tough to be pro-life ... and look at what all sides have done to God's creations ... and not get p-o'ed at the people who keep this fight going.

Guess that's why I'm so FREAKING P-O'ED.

Chris,

I was having second thoughts about it.
So I pulled it.

For those who did not have the misfortune of seeing it, it was graphic images of Iraq war injuries.

Amus- Thank you. I appreciate it.

Good Call, IMHO.

I won't post the links to them, but for anybody that is pro-choice do a Google search for "abortion pictures" or "partial birth abortion pictures".

I was doing some research and dis those searches. It’s sad.

If you have any doubt that it's a BABY in the womb, go look.

If you know it's a BABY in the womb, I don't recommend it. It'll make you cry.

Sutton, I'm P-O'd too. I think I made this statement in another post a while back, but here goes again; one of the things that I think should be done is put it up for a nationwide vote. 50.1% vote to ban it, it's banned. 50.1% vote to keep it it's kept. Clear cut. Put an end to the debate.

Here's why I think that will never happen; Organizations like Planned Parenthood get too much funding from the Government (They get about 33% of their budget from Uncle Sam). Other organizations, both pro and against abortion have too many $$ either donated or granted to them.

It all boils down to money. Too many people making too much money debating the issue. Not to mention the PAC’s that donate to the politicians coffers.

It'll never be completely settled IMHO.

I'd like to clear up that I am disturbed by abortion, but my concern is more for the born than the unborn.

I think that our senseless war in Iraq is more wrong by far than any abortion is.

And the president sending troops to their death ... for a purpose that has nothing to do with any real terror threat to the USA ... is much worse than a 15-year-old mom deciding to have an abortion because she knows she can't give the kid any kind of life.

I think most of us on this board agree that abortion is not our choice if we were given that choice. I know I would not make that choice. However I can't make it for someone else. Thus my Pro-Choice stance. It's an individual thing and for sure.

As discussed many times, if an abortion happens hopefully it's very early on. As Andrew has quoted Clinton on many occasions: "Keep it legal, but keep it rare."

Chris, you continue to amaze me.

Growing up in a Catholic family...everything was bad and they were very apt to judge somebody. It gave me little hope for people who believe in god.

But you are one of the few religious people that are like a breath of fresh air.

Murder is wrong. If you want to call the war in Iraq murder and say it's worse than abortion, that's your right.

However I believe we've freed millions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Girls go to school. No more rape rooms. No more Saddam, Uday or Quesay to murder innocents.

"I think most of us on this board agree that abortion is not our choice if we were given that choice. I know I would not make that choice. However I can't make it for someone else. Thus my Pro-Choice stance."

Chris. I can't help but compare that to the argument that many made during slavery and the Civil War: 'I would not make that choice...but who am I to make it for someone else?'

Here's the deal. If abortion is the taking of innocent life, then it's ok to make that call. If it's not, then it isn't. If partial birth abortion makes people squeamish..and it should..then it should make people think deeper.

Herb

I don't like it, would not do it, recommend others do not do it, but if they do, do it as early as is possible, ideally using contraception to avoid it.

The issue boils down to these things:

-it's a womans issue first and foremost. They are the ones directly affected.

-no matter what any of us says, a woman is in charge of her body. If she really wants to end the pregnancy, she has the means to do so, up to and including ending her own life.

The ability to destroy a thing is complete control over said thing period. This physical reality defines the matter as one of choice period. No amount of law or advocacy will ever change that.

So, better to provide as many solid options as we can to keep the numbers down and know that's a balance that's worth it.

Herb,

Here's the real deal.

I consider you, as supporter of Bush and his policies, complicit in the murder of more than 3000 American soldiers, and several tens of thousands, of innocent Iraqi civilians.

This is something I believe that you will have to recon with when the time comes.

On the other hand, I would think that you would consider me complicit in the murder of millions of innocent unborn children because of my support for a woman's right to choose an abortion.

These are our opinions and beliefs.
My opinion is neither more nor less valid than yours.

We are entitled to them, and will only know for certain who is right on judgment day.

The difference between us is that you would make your beliefs and opinions law, and mine criminal.

Herb-

For me it's not so black and white. For you it is. Okay I can deal with that, it's not our first difference.

From my faith perspective I believe Jesus would love the woman no matter the decision.

Here's the other important issue for me. You want to stop abortion, make sure men don't put sperm where it doesn't belong. Call it birth control, call it making a better decision or choice before having sex. Men need to take more responsibility.

Copernicus-Thanks for the encouraging words.

"From my faith perspective I believe Jesus would love the woman no matter the decision."

Of course. There is no question about that.

We are to love the sinner, but we're also not to condone the sin. Jesus certainly didn't condone sin! He called people on their sin, told them to repent and was loving in the process.

Yet as Paul would say, I'm chief among sinners and thank God for Grace.

Herb

Herb- Hypothetical question.

You get a woman pregnant. You want the pregnancy to go to term. She wants an abortion. How would you handle this?

Give her the facts upon the gory details of abortions that Planned parenthood does not want you to know.

If she then decided the best thing for her to do is kill a baby then its on her conscience.

This brings up a point that one could call "the bias of beautiful things". It is the inclination to attribute things that are beautiful, cute or pretty as being good; and things that are gory, ugly or disgusting as being bad.

All too often the gory-ness of something is the only argument put forth against it. In the same vein, things that are beautiful or cute get a lot more attention and consideration than ugly things. Save the Baby Harp Seals (cute!) v. Save the Mullosks (ick).

Hey, some of the most beautiful sunsets occur over L.A. due to the noxious levels of air pollution. And a mushroom cloud is very pretty when you think about it.

If you were to show me images of someone trying to do life-saving brain surgery with a hacksaw and a coathanger, I'd be grossed out the same way that some of the more graphic abortion images make me. An image is not an argument, and an image in isolation does not indicate the way all such procedures may or may not occur.

My point is, "gory" really doesn't add anything to the policy discussion about abortion. If you want to talk about pain (physical and emotional) that might be experienced during an abortion, that's valid. Just get off the "gory" thing - as if my emotional reaction to watching an abortion should have any bearing on whether a woman should be able to do it or not.

"Herb- Hypothetical question.

You get a woman pregnant. You want the pregnancy to go to term. She wants an abortion. How would you handle this?"

A fair question.

I'd try to show compassion, and point out that even if an abortion is decided upon, it won't 'fix' everything. Post-abortion trauma is common and she'll likely deal with her decision the rest of her life. I'd also pray, let her know I would support her and the child if she so decides and also discuss adoption as another option.

Ultimately, it's going to be her decision.

Herb

"Ultimately, it's going to be her decision."

Good!

If that's the case,
If Roe v. Wade were repealed,
Would you then advocate her prosecution, and imprisonment?

"If Roe v. Wade were repealed, would you then advocate her prosecution, and imprisonment?"

No. These women need compassion.

Right now, the law of the land is to prosecute any 'doctor' doing late term abortions.

If Roe v. Wade were repealed, I'd go after the lot of them...with big financial settlements paid directly to women suffering from post-abortion trauma.

My line of reasoning is like with drug dealers...go after the 'big fish.' Try to help the little fish.

Herb

Edselehr, the pictures that you would find if you were to do those searches are not the back alley coat hanger jobs.

They are the legal ones done surgically by a doctor. I just wanted to let you know that. Hopefully you didn't go look!

My question to everyone is what difference does it make if you abort the baby early or late?

It's still a baby. It is a baby from the time of conception. It has to be, it can't be anything else. I mean, it doesn't start out as something different then one day poof! It’s magically a baby.

While it is a woman's choice, she is not the only one affected. First and foremost, the baby is "affected". Yes, the woman is affected. There is both physical and emotional trauma that she will go thru.

Chris hit the nail on the head. Its 1/2 the man's responsibility to make sure that an unwanted pregnancy does not occur too. As the saying goes, "It takes 2 to tango"

This is a touchy and very personal subject. I'm glad we are all able to discuss it civilly with out it turning into what some of the other threads have become.

It breaks down for me where "it's a baby" is concerned.

On one end you have a coupla cells. I'll agree this is a baby, but a very incomplete one. IMHO, there is not yet a self --no self, no murder.

This is exactly why I think the morning after pill is such a great thing. It's a very easy way to address this before the real trouble begins. It's contraception essentially, and contraception and not having sex is best anyway.

(assuming you don't want kids!)

Somewhere along the path, the self begins to form. Now I have trouble because the self being present means murder.

From there, the farther you go, the worse it gets.

So it does make a difference to me. Earlier is better for sure.

Missing, You're right. It boils down to when you(generic) believe the self begins.

For me, I believe; "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5

The way I read that is that "you" were somebody before "you" were concieved ("you" being generic of course)

IMHO

Say you have a couple that is about to make a coupla choices. Also let's say God knows of a self could happen in the near future.

Couple decides to take short-cut home, gets into accident, ends up in divorice. No self ever occurs, though God knew them.

Couple takes ordinary route home, decides to enjoy a late evening, she takes morning after pill because it was rushed. No self ever occurs.

Couple enjoys their late evening, she finds out she is pregnant, has early abortion, no self occurs.

Either we have free will or we don't. In all these cases, the self known by God, has not yet been embodied. Thoughts?

Of course we have free will. That's not the issue. It's human nature. Man thinks like man and is selfish. That's not what we're here for and part of the problem.

From the African Queen:

Charlie Allnut [Humphrey Bogart]: A man takes a drop too much once in a while, it's only human nature.

Rose Sayer [Katherine Hepburn]: Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above.

Herb

My wife's first pregnancy ended with a miscarriage. Not to get overly graphic but what I saw in the toilet was certainly not any kind of "self". It was mass and embryonic fluid. One black dot was the only distinguishable part and even that was not defined.

We think my wife had been pregnant 4-6 weeks though at the time of the miscarriage we had not done a pregnancy test.

Having known several women who have had abortions, one woman had two, she is guilt ridden to this day. However I have known other women who are not guilt ridden and their choice to have an abortion was based not on selfish reasons but safety. One woman was in an abusive relationship and didn’t want to bring a child into that scenario. Both would have suffered greatly.

Abortion needs to be looked at per situation and not as a moral imperative.

Chris-

Please accept my condolences to you and your wife.

Please also let her know that she sounds absolutely great with Corky Coreson on the latest Les Schwab Radio ads.

To address the immediate topic at hand, the Almighty says:

"Before you were formed in the womb, I knew you."

Who knows why God allows certain things like the tragedy of miscarriage? I would be guessing.

Herb

Herb-
Thank you. The miscarriage was 15 years ago. We have learned over the years that 20 percent of first pregnancies end in miscarriage. Thankfully our other two pregnancies gave us to very healthy kids. So in some ways that miscarriage could have cleared the way for two good pregnancies.

We never asked God "why", we simply relied on God's encompassing love.

Missing,

If I read what you are saying correctly, here are my thoughts;

In scenario #1: No pregnancy, abortion is a non issue.

In scenario #2: This one can be viewed a couple (no pun intended) of ways;

a. Depends on what the outcome of their rushed late evening was. If there was no fertilized egg, there was no pregnancy, again no issue.

b. If the egg was fertilized, this open up a couple (again no pun) different discussion topics; When does "I'm pregnant" actually occur? When the egg is fertilized or when it is implanted in the uterine lining. And how does the Morning After pill actually work. There is some discussion that says it prevents the egg from being fertilized. If this is the case then cool, no pregnancy, no abortion.

There is also discussion that says it prevents the fertilized egg from being implanted in the uterine lining. If this is the case, depending on when you feel pregnancy occurs, the case could be made that the morning after pill is not a birth control pill, it is an abortion pill.

I'm not a doctor and don't understand a lot of the medical jargon, but I did a Google search for the Morning After Pill and found the following link;
http://www.morningafterpill.org/
Granted, it's a pro life site, but I think from what I read the discussion on how the pill works seems fairly unbiased.

Scenario #3: Depending on your view point, either it's not an issue or a child had been killed.

Anyway, the best thing I think is education and let the people make their own decision. If enough people feel that it is killing an innocent baby then the abortion industry will go away by attrition.

Chris, regarding your last statement; that’s the best thing we can do! It's hard not to wonder why and to question. If everyone could accomplish that, what a great place this world would be!

Now we've shifted from "When does life begin" to "When does pregnancy begin?" It's interesting how the morality of this issue has shifted with technological advancement. 100 years ago it was often nearly impossible for someone other than the mother to determine if pregnancy had occured until the "quickening", which is when the baby first kicks, usually in the 5-6th month or so. Since there was no way to objectively determine pregnancy before that time, there was officially no pregnancy. Did abortions occur in the first two trimesters back then? Yes, but not offically, since there was no way to prove that the woman was pregnant.

I don't know what point I'm trying to make. Just food for thought.

Edselehr, I was kind of using the terms interchangeably.

BTW, I don't know if you noticed or not but your post was #10,000 on this side of the board!

I think it's an important point actually. With greater tech, comes greater understanding of the issue in general.

Looking back, it's fairly easy to not differentiate the stages. Now, it's growing pretty clear where the different development is, and with that the risk, harm, viability, etc...

With lesser tech, I would be quite unsure where the self forms. Highly likely to take a more conservative stance on the issue as a result. Perhaps this is why we see some push back on science?

10,000th post? Kewl! Do I get a toaster?

I was rushed with my last post (had to get the kids down to late-night free swim at the pool) so I stumbled my way through it. kskd is picking up on my point, which is that I don't think our morality about abortion has changed so much as our scientific definitions around the terms "pregnancy" and "life". I don't think they are interchageable terms.

The beginning of life questions are related to the end of life questions. In the olden days, the condition of being sick was not all that common - generally, you were either you were healthy or you were dead. The Terry Schiavo case could not have happened 100 years ago because the medical means to keep her alive did not exist then, so the moral question of whether to take her off life support would have been moot.

The beginning of life questions we are debating today could not have been debated 100 years ago because by the time it was determined that the woman was carrying a baby and not just a holiday bulge, the baby was viable and could as often as not survive outside the womb. "Preemies" have a much better chance today, but the fact that they no longe require the womb and umbilical cord to survive categorizes them as "life" to me.

Now, just because we can determine pregnancy earlier doesn't necessarily mean that the mother carries individual life at that early stage. I think it's more accurate to refer to it as "potential life", because it still has a long way to go before it can exist on its own - and by that I mean survive independent of a physiological connection to the mother, not "on its own" in a fend-for-itself way.

Anyway, that's the point I was trying to make.