Abortion: When does life really start?

What's your stand?

Sakin basta gumagalaw may life hehe

Depends on how you will define "life."

Personally, I see life as starting at the successful implantation of the zygote in the uterus. Only then is the zygote assured of further development and the chance at completing the gestation period and arriving at birth.

As for abortion, I will only agree to it under certain conditions:

1. The pregnancy critically endangers the life of the mother, the fetus, or both.

2. The fetus has been diagnosed as having an incurable disorder / disease that will only guarantee it suffering and certain death after birth.

For all other reasons, my answer is no.

Gagawing legal na daw iyan sa Pilipinas???

korrill wrote:Depends on how you will define "life."

Personally, I see life as starting at the successful implantation of the zygote in the uterus. Only then is the zygote assured of further development and the chance at completing the gestation period and arriving at birth.

As for abortion, I will only agree to it under certain conditions:

1. The pregnancy critically endangers the life of the mother, the fetus, or both.

2. The fetus has been diagnosed as having an incurable disorder / disease that will only guarantee it suffering and certain death after birth.

For all other reasons, my answer is no.

Thanks Korrill! How about victims of rape? And unwanted pregnancies?

vril wrote:

Thanks Korrill! How about victims of rape? And unwanted pregnancies?

As I stated, I only agree with abortion based on the two conditions I mentioned.

As for victims of rape, I believe that the child is not accountable for the sin of the father. Also, a child born out of such cases can be put up for adoption or placed in the care of an orphanage.

Unless, of course, the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother such as the case of the 9 year-old brazilian girl who got pregnant with twins after being molested by her father.

For unwanted pregnancies, I also recommend the options I gave for the victims of rape. However, I see this as an easily avoidable situation easily solved by having the proper knowledge. This is one of the reasons I advocate sex education in schools.

If the rape victim is traumatized and psychologically broken by the fact that the rape produced something in her body, then it brings the question which welfare should prevail -- the woman or the fetus.

korrill wrote:

As I stated, I only agree with abortion based on the two conditions I mentioned.

As for victims of rape, I believe that the child is not accountable for the sin of the father. Also, a child born out of such cases can be put up for adoption or placed in the care of an orphanage.

Would the pregnancy add insult to injury? Imagine after a traumatic experience, the mother has to bear the child she did not want?

Let's say your daughter gets raped by a serial rapist. She went thru indescribable fear, pain and trauma. Would you let your daughter go and bear the child of the serial rapist? I wouldn't.

Just asking for opinions. Thanks.

I find it odd why the Moral Institutions defend the rights of the unborn soooo much, but once these fetuses get born they don't even oppose the military system where most of those who grew up end up being dead anyway.

vril wrote:

Would the pregnancy add insult to injury? Imagine after a traumatic experience, the mother has to bear the child she did not want?

Let's say your daughter gets raped by a serial rapist. She went thru indescribable fear, pain and trauma. Would you let your daughter go and bear the child of the serial rapist? I wouldn't.

Just asking for opinions. Thanks.

Well, let me put it this way: would you kill your own grandchild?

The child may be the product of a rapist's gene, but it also has half that is from my daughter. I may want the rapist's gene to perish, but I don't want to kill the part from my daughter.

It is traumatic for the victim but then, that's what we're here for - to provide support, guidance, and a shoulder to cry on.

The most extreme method I could think of to prevent a rape victim from suffering such an ordeal as carrying the rapist's child is the after-morning pill. But that option is only viable immediately after the rape - the next day. In that period of time, a pregnancy can be prevented by stopping fertilization or implantation.*

=====

There will be those who will say my definition of life is only so the use of after-morning pills can be acceptable. Let me just pre-empt it by saying this option is only something I would consider in a rape case due to the following considerations:

1. The kind of life the child would have. Ostracism should his parentage be discovered, the emotional trauma of being abandoned, and the other psychological effects it would produce in him/her.

2. The emotional and mental effect the pregnancy would produce in the victim.

3. The possibility that the victim would seek illegal means to terminate the pregnancy. Such could be dangerous to the victim as well.

I still don't advocate abortion or the use of pills once implantation has been confirmed.

korrill wrote:Depends on how you will define "life."

Personally, I see life as starting at the successful implantation of the zygote in the uterus. Only then is the zygote assured of further development and the chance at completing the gestation period and arriving at birth.

As for abortion, I will only agree to it under certain conditions:

1. The pregnancy critically endangers the life of the mother, the fetus, or both.

2. The fetus has been diagnosed as having an incurable disorder / disease that will only guarantee it suffering and certain death after birth.

For all other reasons, my answer is no.

Ganito rin po ang stand ko

element_115x wrote:I find it odd why the Moral Institutions defend the rights of the unborn soooo much, but once these fetuses get born they don't even oppose the military system where most of those who grew up end up being dead anyway.

George, is that you?

Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're pre-born, you're fine; if you're pre-school, you're f#$&@?%.

Conservatives don't give a s%&# about you until you reach "military age". Then they think you are just fine. Just what they've been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.

George Carlin, "Back in Town" - 1996

I miss George...

korrill wrote:

Well, let me put it this way: would you kill your own grandchild?

The child may be the product of a rapist's gene, but it also has half that is from my daughter. I may want the rapist's gene to perish, but I don't want to kill the part from my daughter.

It is traumatic for the victim but then, that's what we're here for - to provide support, guidance, and a shoulder to cry on.

The most extreme method I could think of to prevent a rape victim from suffering such an ordeal as carrying the rapist's child is the after-morning pill. But that option is only viable immediately after the rape - the next day. In that period of time, a pregnancy can be prevented by stopping fertilization or implantation.*

=====

There will be those who will say my definition of life is only so the use of after-morning pills can be acceptable. Let me just pre-empt it by saying this option is only something I would consider in a rape case due to the following considerations:

1. The kind of life the child would have. Ostracism should his parentage be discovered, the emotional trauma of being abandoned, and the other psychological effects it would produce in him/her.

2. The emotional and mental effect the pregnancy would produce in the victim.

3. The possibility that the victim would seek illegal means to terminate the pregnancy. Such could be dangerous to the victim as well.

I still don't advocate abortion or the use of pills once implantation has been confirmed.

Thanks Korill. I would not kill my own grandchild. But I would terminate a would-be grandchild as a product of rape. I said would-be because I think a zygote/fetus is not a child yet.

The things you would consider regarding allowing to terminate pregnancy of rape victims is always the case for rape victims. It has never been otherwise.

I guess the big question is when is something that is alive is considered a life.

I would agree with Vril. "Grandchild" is a loaded term. A zygote is not exactly a grandchild yet.

A zygote contain a potential human being, but it is not a human being. With cloning technology, even my skin scrapings contain the potential to become a human being. But unless, it has become human, it is not human yet.

fredms3 wrote:A zygote can grow into you. It can grow as an adult.

Well, only if it can successfully implant in the uterus. Otherwise, it has no chance.

According to medical data, around 60-70 percent of zygotes don't manage to implant and are flushed out during a woman's menstrual cycle.

This is why the issue of when life actually begins is a tricky one.

Ateo wrote:I would agree with Vril. "Grandchild" is a loaded term. A zygote is not exactly a grandchild yet.

I know. I actually agree with it as well. But just to clarify, I was talking about an active pregnancy when I asked the question about killing one's grandchild. Like I said, I don't condone abortion for any reason other than the conditions I mentioned.

As for zygote, I mentioned the morning after pill as an extreme measure to prevent the start of the pregnancy of a rape victim.

Abortion: When does life really start?

A prenatal is defined as any human being from conception to birth. Human life begins at conception and develops through several different stages until the prenatal is viable outside the womb and is born. The word “prenatal” means “before birth.” A prenatal is a developing human being.

The soul is infused at conception, at the formation of what is called a zygote (first single cell in the development of human life).

korrill wrote:

Well, only if it can successfully implant in the uterus. Otherwise, it has no chance.

According to medical data, around 60-70 percent of zygotes don't manage to implant and are flushed out during a woman's menstrual cycle.

This is why the issue of when life actually begins is a tricky one.

I believe that's the point of contention here: the zygote successfully implants itself inside the uterus.

As Korrill correctly pointed out, some 70% of all zygotes is routinely flushed out by God. I start to wonder if He really dislikes abortion because He does it more than anybody else.

Let me state that clearly: If life starts at conception, then GOD is the biggest abortionist.

Ateo wrote:As Korrill correctly pointed out, some 70% of all zygotes is routinely flushed out by God. I start to wonder if He really dislikes abortion because He does it more than anybody else.

Let me state that clearly: If life starts at conception, then GOD is the biggest abortionist.

Flushed out by God? Where did you get that idea?