Everything After - A 9.11 Youth Circle

OKay to kind of be a realted topic to Teens having sex , I thougth this would be a pretty good addition. Well i know that most people are like well i think you shouldnt abort your baby unless you are raped, well i am against it all the way. Even if you are raped. It isnt the baby's fault that you were raped so why go and kill it? and this child that you are killing could be the person who cures AIDs or who is a messagner from God. God and nature have their own natural way of aborting a child > and those are miscarriages and still borns. I really hate it that women are abusing their their rights of using pills to kill their child. and then they go ahaead and have sex again. Abortion shouldnt even be a choice. I think the perosn who is pregnan shuld be allowed to give their child up . Even though I still think that it isnt right ot give a perfecdtly healthy child up.

I totally agree with you on this topic. Children are such wonderful gifts. How could anyone bear to kill them? Abortion is archaic and cruel. Especially late-term abortions, in which the doctor lets the baby be halfway delivered, inserts a pair of scissors into the back of the neck at the base of the brain stem, and forces the scissors open, killing the child. I'm sorry to post such gruesome things, but I think everyone needs to know the facts about this practice.

OH MY GOSH! I hav never heard of this type of abortion! This should be outlawed! It seriously should be. I dont see how a mother could bear to know this is happening

That kind of abortion IS illegal. But I don't agree at all with saying that all abortion is bad. I've never heard of the type of abortion you spoke of, Kalidah, but that is not an abortion. That's murder. That's when the baby is a developed, breathing, being.
Within the first trimester, however, it is not developed at all. It is a group of cells that have formed to take the human shape. The genes determining what a person might be like are there, but they are still grouping together, and have not fully formed the basis on which the fetus will develop.
All abortions are not like the revolting one you described. Rarely are there any past the first trimester, and then practically none past the second. When a normal abortion is performed, the embryo is removed from the woman's body. There isn't a complete fetus yet. There is, in fact, nothing archaic or cruel about this type of abortion. It is really a small clump of cells at this point, nothing more. You may argue that if you look at a picture of it during this time, it is in the shape of a fetus. But that is just it. It is in the shape of a fetus. It does not have a mind, a personality, shaped out yet.

We can not outlaw abortion. We can not outlaw a woman's right to choose. Those who choose abortion live with it for the rest of their lives. Perhaps they were raped, perhaps they were too young, and even if they did give it up for adoption, the stress and lifelong pain associated with that would be unbarable. The lifelong pain of knowing you chose an abortion would be awful, too. The fact is, getting pregnant when you don't want to be is unbearable. Maybe it wasn't that person's fault. Maybe it was rape, maybe it was an accident. You can't blame people for things happening that they didn't want to. You can't force them to go through nine months of carrying a child and then tell them to either give the child up and know forever that somewhere in the world, there is someone wondering who their mother is, or tell them give up your school, your job, your life for a child to take care of when you haven't grown up yourself!
Abortion, to those who get it, isn't just a "quick solution" or a way to get out of dirty mistake so they can go make it again. It is a painful solution to an even more painful problem.

It's basically a question of where you think life begins. How many cells must form before a "cluster" or a "choice" becomes a person? Women should not be blamed for rape, but neither should the child. There are so many alternatives. As for what you say about a child being somewhere in the world wondering who there mother is-- yes, that doesn't seem fair. But is it up to us to decide that? Should everything be planned? It might seem a very brave and good thing for someone to decide that they would rather not grow up than to grow up with people not their biological parents. But with abortion it is not the child making that choice, and I don't think we have the right to decide who may live and who may die.

Of course abortion is a very difficult and painful decision for a woman. However, her lifelong grief does not make up for the loss of the child. I feel the same way about abortion that I do about war. Life is precious-- and prevention, not punishment, is the answer.

Even though we'll never resolve that conflict - when life is life - I don't think we can deny a woman her right to choose. It really is an unsolvable conflict, but if some believe differently, we can't deny them their actions according to our belief.

Some say "We can't deny a woman s right to choose." but what kind of country is this where a woman is given the "right" to "choose" to murder her child?
The hardest part of the abortion debate is that all the wrong questions are
being asked, and all the extreme cases are focused on. Frequently in a
discussion, the circumstances that lead to most abortions are ignored, and
instead, the sympathy cases are exploited to make the pro-choice,
pro-abortion side more favorable. They word their questions in ways that
dance around the issue and make it all but impossible to answer in the way
they want. I will not do that.

Pro-choice and pro-abortion advocates argue that because a fetus is not
fully developed, that it's not yet entitled to the right to life like
children seconds out of the womb. However, the developmental cycle of a
child is irrelevant when it comes determining it's right to live, for at
conception, at the very beginning of life, it gains the same rights as any
other human, born or pre-born. Conception is the beginning phase of a human
being that will continue to develop, not for nine months, but for
twenty-five to twenty-seven years after birth. To say that we determine a
beings rights based on it's amount of time in existence or its amount of
development time is absurd. Once this is realized, the pro-choice question
of, "Do I choose to bring this child into the world," is already answered.
That happened at conception. Like it or not, a child in the womb is still a
child. Instead, we must now face the question, "Shall I let this child
live?"

Many people will not readily agree with my claim that life begins at
conception, however, not a single one of them can ever make a legitimate
claim about when life actually begins. Some will say that life begins at
birth, but then support an 8-* month abortion (when many babies are born
at 8 * months). Some will argue that abortions are acceptable until the
first trimester, but then look at you with spite when you ask them if they'd
support an abortion at three months and one day. The fact of the matter is,
it's impossible to draw, with any certainty, a line as to when life begins
other than at conception.

Even if there IS uncertainty, shouldn't the benefit of the doubt go to
preserving life anyhow? Imagine for the moment that you saw a person lying,
unmoving, in the roadway. Not knowing whether he's dead or alive, would you
assume he might be alive and try to help him, or simply assume he was
already dead and walk away? Simply because something might not be alive,
that gives us no reason to destroy it.

Assuming that life begins at conception (as we have no reason for believing
otherwise), our stance on the subject of contraception is brought into play.
When exactly does the use of contraception equate into an abortion? To
answer this, the question must first be answered: What do we define as an
abortion?

Abortion is separation of a child from it's mothers womb, by means other
than normal childbirth, emergency c-section, or with the woman's menstrual
cycle. During procedures such as Dilation and Curettage (hook and pull),
Suction Aspiration (vacuuming), Saline Injection (salt poisoning),
Hysterotomy, and Dilation and Extraction (partial birth), the fetus is
killed while still inside the mother and then removed, generally with
external tools. This is abortion. Preventative contraception, however, is
not.

The difference between an egg or sperm and a conceived child is simple. Egg
or sperm are dead-end cells that remain the way they are until they die
within a matter of days. Simply put, preventative contraception does not end
a life because there is no life to end. Therefore it is not abortion.

However, there are other contraceptives that act in a different way. Both
The Morning-After Pill and RU-486 (The Abortion Pill) act in a way that
fools the woman's body into having a period, and thus flushing the embryo
from her body. The only difference between the two is that the Morning-After
Pill works for up to 72 hours, whereas RU-486 works up to the first 9 weeks.

If it is ever proven that life begins after conception, I will justify the use of the
Morning-After Pill. Because the embryo lacks any defining human
characteristics whatsoever (other than genetic code), there remains doubt
whether or not to call it human. While I remain uneasy, I believe that the
72-hour pill is, at the very most, an� acceptable "easy way out." However,
since it has not been proven that life begins sometimes after conception, I do not support this method of contraception, as it does, in fact, end the life of a human.

RU-486 I will never support because it most certainly terminates the
life of an innocent child. This drug has the ability to force a menstrual
period for as long as 9 weeks after conception, approximately 60-63 days.
Unbeknownst to most people, a fetal heartbeat can be heard at 21 days. More
importantly, brain waves are detected by day 40. By the 8th week, every part
is present that will be found in an adult. If there was any doubt about life
beginning at conception, there can certainly be no doubt after these first
few weeks. A person that would use RU-486, a person that would terminate a
life at 9 weeks, would just as soon kill a full grown adult.

Again, I have no qualms about the use of preventative contraception.
However, with after-sex drugs that flush out the embryo, I am less inclined
to be supportive (certainly with RU-486). Should it ever be proven that life begins a certain time after conception, I will continue to have no support for the pill contraceptives except for the Morning-After Pill that provide an "easy way out" for the irresponsible.

Yes, irresponsible. If I had to pick one thing to say about those that would
justify abortion, it's that they are irresponsible. I say this because 99%
of abortions are results of people who were not ready to face the
consequences of their actions. Pro-choice shouldn't even be considered a
position in this debate because in most cases of abortion, the person
already gave up their right to choose. All events prior to the pregnancy
were under their complete control. For example, a common statement is: "It
was an accident, we didn't mean to get pregnant. We should be allowed to
choose what happens next in our lives." Well, that's too bad. These people
already made their choices. They already chose to have sex. They chose to
not use protection. They chose to not use an after-sex contraceptive. I once
heard a person reply, "Well, what if they were drunk and forgot all that."
THEY MADE THE CHOICE TO DRINK!

We all make choices that affect the outcome of our lives, and whether we
like it or not there are consequences to our actions, consequences that
should NEVER be allowed to be side-stepped by taking the life of an innocent
human being. Abortion is NOT an easy way out. It is wanton murder stemmed
from irresponsibility, and it's wrong.

Of course, there are many criticisms to this view. Many people believe, for
example, that the emotional trauma of a pregnancy outweighs the life of an
innocent child. The fact of the matter is, it does not. Many people have
appealed to the negative stigma, the embarrassment, or the inconvenience of
a pregnancy one receives when becoming pregnant. While this seems to relate
more to a premarital pregnancy, the marital status is really irrelevant.
Married or unmarried, making the choice of having sex before both partners
are ready is NEVER compensated by the far worse choice of killing an
innocent child. It causes one person to pay for the mistakes of another.
Just as the unfortunate situation of having your car stolen does not justify
you stealing somebody else's, the unfortunate circumstances of a pregnancy
simpl

the unfortunate circumstances of a pregnancy
simply do not justify the heinous action of murdering a child.

Unfortunately, making this kind of argument generally leaves a person with
the belief that they only have two options: the wanton murder of a child or
the misery of having to deal with it. The fact of the matter is, there are
alternatives such as adoption that relieve a person of the burden of child
raising, as well as allowing a child a chance to live. Furthermore, it
brings happiness to other families that want, but can't have children of
their own. People considering abortions usually say that their child is
unwanted, but this is only true for them. Every child is a wanted child, and
there is not a single child that does not wish to be born. And while it may
seem unfair to be stuck in a 'murder vs. emotional trauma' predicament, it's
even more unfair to deny a child a glimpse of the light of day.

While this is the ugly truth behind most abortions, the truth that most
people refuse to acknowledge, pro-abortion advocates often resort to
arguments that aim for sympathy and really unfortunate circumstances that a
person would feel bad for not supporting. They argue for "the life of the
mother," "the case of rape or incest," or the worst of them all, "the child
that will be born handicapped." However, what they don't tell you is that
every one of these extreme cases together makes up about 1% of all abortions
reported. Furthermore, arguing that such rare and extreme cases are reason
for passing laws that condone irresponsibility is simply absurd. However,
for sake of argument, it should be said why all three of these cases are
insufficient reasons for justifying an abortion.

In the case of an abortion that would save the life of the mother, I can
only say that it's the most selfish of all the reasons ever suggested to
justify this heinous act. What kind of person would EVER choose their own
life over the life of their child? A man or woman that wouldn't step in
front of traffic to save their child, in my opinion, has no business being a
parent. It goes right back to the responsibility factor. As a parent,
whether your child is born or pre-born, you have an obligation to protect it
and keep it from harms way, regardless of the expense to yourself.

The argument of rape is by far the weakest because rape and abortion are
really the same things, minus one aspect. The violent attack on an innocent
woman in a rape is all but exactly the same as the violent attack on an
innocent child in an abortion. Both are done in response to a subjective and
misguided sense of need, and both done at the expense of an innocent person.
Both a raped woman and an aborted child are brutally victimized; the only
difference lies in intent and disposition. However, as horrible as it is for
a woman to be victimized in this nature, it is even worse that a deed
committed by the father is taken out in punishment from the child.

A child is a child, regardless of the circumstances of his conception.
Imagine for the moment that you found out someone close to you were the
product of rape. Would you love them any less? Why should we view an
innocent unborn child any differently? The same goes for children of incest.
They're still human beings who deserve a right to live.

Furthermore, despite the popular belief, incest children are rarely born
with defects or disabilities. However, even if they were, they STILL deserve
a right to life. Of all the arguments against pro-life, the belief that an
abortion would be justified if a child would be born deformed or handicapped
is by far the most sickening. It flat out states that handicapped people
should not be given a right to live. The fact of the matter is, handicapped
people are people too, and generally (children especially) are delighted to
be alive. Furthermore, it's the most hypocritical of all pro-abortion
arguments. People feel sympathy for those they see with multiple sclerosis
or Down's syndrome. They cheer extra loud for the wheelchair racers for
their ability to face adversity. They look to disabled people who have
climbed mountains and swam channels for joy and inspiration. However, when
it's a child still inside the womb, they say, "Kill it before it's born."

What do we do if a baby becomes handicapped after birth? He has become more
of a burden to his family and to society. Raising him will cost more and is
more inconvenient. Supporting him becomes more taxing on ones psychological
health. Some would even say his quality of life has been reduced. But do we
kill him too? No.

As I've proved, not a one of these arguments can possibly justify an
abortion. Regardless of the burdens he may place on the family, regardless
of the circumstances surrounding his birth, regardless of what one believes
his quality of life will be, a child is still a child that is wanted by
somebody and wants only the chance to live. We, as procreators, possess
every ability to prevent things that we don't want from happening. It takes
only personal responsibility and good judgment in your daily life. And
regardless of whatever unfortunate circumstances might happen, a human life
is worth more than anything one might compare it to. Every child, from their
conception, has a right to a life and we have no right to choose to take
that from them.

Allright. You have your point of view, I have mine. I still do not agree. But helk, that's the point of these boards. One thing however - neither I nor anyone I know would "word their questions in ways that
dance around the issue and make it all but impossible to answer in the way
they want." That's an unfounded attack. Perhaps it is your experience, but I base my arguments purely on the science and research I have found. Plus, very few of the pro-choice people I know would justify the abortion of 8 1/2 month old fetus. If it were at that point, the doctors would probably perform a C-section instead and save the baby's life. No one I know would answer "with spite" when you ask them about and 3 month and one day abortion. Really, if we talk about individual cases, we've got to look at those individual details. Don't attack me because my views differ from yours.

ChristianGal, not everyone believes as you do. And perhaps their beliefs are right (or perhaps not!). And until your belief is proven, the others whose beliefs differ from yours deserve the right to act on their beliefs. In your mind it constitutes murder. In others' it does not. Until the murder is proven, they deserve the right to choose according to their beliefs.

FREEDOM MEANS CHOICE.

ChristianGal, what is wrong with letting people make their own moral decisions?
Maybe this will seem off topic, but what's the problem with having legal abortion?
Having access to abortion is entirely different from being forced to have one, while outlawing abortion makes this moral choice for everyone. Since many of your arguments strike me as relgiously or morally based, I'll give you a quote to think about:
"Religious belief is a fine guide around which a person might organize his own life, but an awful instrument around which to organize someone else's life."
-Richard D. Mohr

I am so totally on Chritian Gal's side. If you guys didn't read the dicussion from the beginning then you guys should. I made some really good points on how if you kill a baby that baby could be the next prophet or the person who finds the cure for AIDs. It doesn't matter if you are raped is it fair to kill a child for someone eles's mistake? If Moses' mother was raped and she killed it somehow then who would lead the jews out of Egypt? WHo would give us the only written word of GOd? WHat if your mother was a victim of rape and she chose to abort you, would you be here, no. Also, if you are a victim of rape , you know the pain , so why bring pain upon an unborn spirit? I am 100% against abortion and I think there is no good reason for it.

Shannon brought up an excellent point. Read her quote.

Hello Kallie.

"If you guys didn't read the discussion from the beginning then you guys should."
I did, did you?

"I made some really good points on how if you kill a baby that baby could be the next prophet or the person who finds the cure for AIDs."
So could a little girl left at an orphanage in China, a street child in Russia, a foster child shuffled from home to home in the USA.

"If Moses' mother was raped and she killed it somehow then who would lead the jews out of Egypt? WHo would give us the only written word of GOd?"
God would've found someone else. (of course, if you believe God is all powerfull, he could've stopped her and it would be irrelevant.)

"WHat if your mother was a victim of rape and she chose to abort you, would you be here, no."
No, I wouldn't be, and having never been born I could not miss life-I wouldn't exist and you'd be arguing with someone else.

"Also, if you are a victim of rape , you know the pain , so why bring pain upon an unborn spirit?"
So it's not a child anymore,it's a spirit? Is this some new definition of spirit that I haven't heard of becuase I never heard of a spirit being able to feel pain-it has no body.

"I am 100% against abortion and I think there is no good reason for it. "
Just because YOU think there is no good reason for it doesn't mean everyone in the world agrees with you. And who gave YOU the right to dictate morals to everyone?
In the US there's this thing called freedom...including the freedom to terminate a pregnancy.(unless people like you get Roe vs. Wade over thrown,which I hope never happens.)

Okay why would I ask if people read the discussion if I didnt read it? I am the one who came up with the topic. Also, I didnt say that child in an orphanage couldnt cure AIDs, I am saying that when killing a baby it could be killing the next hope for curing AIDs. And finding a prophet isnt as easy as finding a person infected with AIDs. It has to be someone worthy of spreading the direct word of God. And if Moses' mother didnt truly want her child then God wouldn't make her not abort forcefully, he will kno that it wasn't the right person to hold such a powerful peice of God's word. And you dont have ot feel pain physcially to know pain there is pain mentally and emotionally. When your raped your more so hurt emotionally then physcially. Okay and lastly I never ever said that just because this is what I think that means everyone has to think the same way. I have no idea where you got this idea but obviously you made it up from somewhere. And like i said before which is allowed on message boards because in America there is also a thing called freedom of speech , I FEEL as though abortions should be stopped all togther because it is disgusting. If you dont want to be faced with this type of situation than you shoudlnt even be having sex in the first place.

Hey it's our last day, so even if we don't agree, let's have some peace.

Perhaps it's from your line "Abortion shouldn't even be a choice"? And if God's so powerful, he doesn't need to find a prophet, he can make one or choose another mother,right? But earache has a point, so I'll call it a truce if you will.(though I would appreciate it if you read the quote I posted, it really is relavent,esp. if morals is put in for religion)

I dont know why you would question God's decision but maybe your just not a devout Jew, Muslim, or Christian. But anyway , sure why not , truce.