Abortion: When does life really start?

Ateo wrote: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.

Esther wrote:wow that's fantastic,in the name of love you cannot kill, and why do you willed the death of the prenatal in the womb? that is direct killing.

You even call the mother(badwords) because of her noble decision not to murder the baby in the womb. Do you not know that the baby is also a second patient in that scenario.

by the way you just made an answer similar to mine(when you badmouth me... remember hmm) but that is past... I'm now happy for your decision not to kill. However in the case of the prenatal why do you will its death by direct killing?

The baby in the womb would probably say to you: thank God your not a mother!

RavlaM wrote:I hope this information will help us decide.


Within four days of fertilization, the sex of the zygote can be determined through microscopic techniques.

After one week of fertilization, the zygote contains the beginning of all major body structures.

Fetal circulation occurs by three weeks - complete with heart and major blood vessels.

And at five weeks, all basic body systems are developing, including the brain and nervous system enabling the zygote to feel pain.

When the zygote reaches the eighth week, it is called a fetus for the remaining of the fetal development.

korrill wrote:

Let me clarify my point: How is it killing when technically, the child is dead?

It has no hope of survival no matter what decision is made. If it is removed from the mother, it dies. If it is left in the mother, it still dies.

The only difference is that in the second option, the mother dies along with it.

This is why I find the church's excuse about direct and indirect abortion as unrealistic. Their only contention is that in ectopic pregnancies:

* the fetus has no hope of developing further

* it is probably dead already so it's okay to remove

* the treatment is the removal of the fallopian tube, not the fetus. The unfortunate effect is the death of the fetus.

Yet what is ignored is the fact that ectopic pregnancy is still the removal of the threat to the mother's life by terminating a failed prenancy. Furthermore, the same can be argued for the case I mentioned:

* the fetus has no hope of developing further

* it will die, no matter what is done.

* the treatment is the removal of the umbilical cord, not the fetus. The unfortunate effect is the death of the fetus.

You would probably say that it is different and that removing the umbilical cord is actually killing the baby directly. Well, bear in mind that removing the fallopian tube to which the ectopic fetus is attached to has the same effect.

You can argue direct or indirect all you want but what cannot be denied is that in both cases, the death of the fetus is the end result.

So answer the question: How sure are you that that is really what god wants?

How sure are you that god really wants a mother to die needlessly for a child whose death is inevitable no matter what decision is made?

Esther wrote:Ravlam,

in that case given by korril, the prenatal is not dead it is a healthy Baby in the womb, korril calls it technically dead because the mother is dying and consequently of course the baby. He is advising adirect abortion or direct killing of the baby in the womb which is immoral. He did not consider the baby as the second patient in the case. And there is no even guarantee that the mother will live. Doctors are not God you know.

vril wrote:

You are still failing to see that you can save a life(mother) instead of losing both lives. The prenatal has no chance of surviving. Save the mother for christ's sake. You worry too much about the unborn child who has no chance of living and stupidly forget that the mother has a chance to live.

Lolo Bosyong wrote:Abortion is of the devil.

element_115x wrote:

Why's that? Is it because the spirit of the unborn becomes Satan's ?

vril wrote:

You are still failing to see that you can save a life(mother) instead of losing both lives. The prenatal has no chance of surviving. Save the mother for christ's sake. You worry too much about the unborn child who has no chance of living and stupidly forget that the mother has a chance to live.

Liway wrote:

what a foolish question asketedly and vindictively by the run away spider man , hak hak! Do you want me to answer that baby? or you will run and run and run again like the run away bride hi hi hi

adanedhel wrote:Abortion is murder.

vril wrote:

For all catholics , yes.

But in common law, only a person can be murdered. Therefore, abortion is not murder unless one considers the fetus to be a person. According to Roe v. Wade, the word "person" does not include the unborn, and a fetus does not have equal status with the mother until the point of viability, or when the fetus can exist outside of the mother's womb. In addition, according to the common law in criminal matters, the definition of a "person" is one who has been born alive.

http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9407/myths.html

element_115x wrote:
Enough with the hak hak,

element_115x wrote:
just answer it please,

element_115x wrote:
share your views.

element_115x wrote:
Why's that? Is it because the spirit of the unborn becomes Satan's ?

RavlaM wrote:

In cases where the mother is terminally ill. You said that the unborn is alive...then a cesarean section may be done to save the child. Outside the mothers womb the child could live and develop inside an incubator.

If the mother could not go trough with labor pains and normal delivery( usually if the mother have heart ailment) C/S could be performed..

I had an experience where we saw a terrible accident. The woman was ran over by a truck, her head was caught by the wheels leaving her dead on the spot.. We immediately rushed to the woman and noticed that she was pregnant. Signs that the unborn was still alive so we performed a non-sterile C/S
It was messy but we performed a non-sterile C/S. We then rushed the child to the nearest hospital. Amazingly the baby survived.