
It is difficult to think of a fetus as a being whose point of view should be considered. There certainly is some boundary when the baby's life should be considered equal to everyone else's, but when is that point? is it when the baby is just conceived, some point in the middle, or when it is born? Or, it could be said, some time after? The reason it is hard to think of a fetus as an equal being is that we can't see him, hear him, maybe feel him kick once in a while, but not much more than that. Also, we know he is not yet fully developed. But, what? Suddenly, when the baby is born, he qualifies as a human being? One might say that using protection kills a potential baby. That is a bit far fetched in my opinion. But at what point should the baby's rights be considered? It is a question on which I am not yet fully decided.
In response to this article:
QUOTE |
Report Saying Babies Don't Feel Abortion Pain Early Comes Under Fire Berkeley, CA (LifeNews.com) -- A new report from researchers at the University of California says unborn children do not likely feel the pain of abortions during the earlier parts of a woman's pregnancy. The findings are coming under fire from doctors who specialize in fetal development and they say it's off the mark. The UC report, which appears in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association, says unborn children likely do not feel any pain, including that of an abortion, until 28 weeks into pregnancy. |
QUOTE |
The reason it is hard to think of a fetus as an equal being is that we can't see him, hear him, maybe feel him kick once in a while, but not much more than that. |
Offtopic but, You should visit one of those websites that detail the development of a baby during gestation. It's an eye-opener. (Even though I realize this won't really change much more than your education of how a baby develops.) |
ABORTION LINKED TO MENTAL PROBLEMS
A Christchurch study linking abortion and mental health problems has ignited controversy internationally and may prompt changes to advice for New Zealand women seeking abortions.
Ref. https://www.stuff.co.nz/hlc/1,,93498~3529305a10~,00.html
INDIA ABORTING 500,000 FEMALE FETUSES A YEAR: STUDY
Up to 10 million female fetuses have been selectively aborted in India since 1976, according to a Canadian-led study published Monday in the British medical journal, the Lancet.
Ref. https://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...bies060109.html
Here is some more information about abortion in India....
https://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodna...F%29&sid=1&pn=1
This story shows how many villages in the Punjab region of India have a female:male ratio of less than 500:1000 among children 0-6 years old. One of the complaints that people have is that young men demand high dowries to get married. Well, it appears to me that it won't be very long before that trend will go down. As those children grow up, there won't be ANY women for about half the young men to marry! They will have to start PAYING for the right to get married!
At least it appears that the practice of infanticide of baby girls is not too bad a problem there, unlike China.
The reason why women chose or are forced to abort/dump baby girls, is purely cultural.
Women cost money to be married off, men don't. Men demand dowries, which go to their parents. Men are also bread winners, women aren't - even though they do most of the back breaking work in the country.
I don't agree with this part of their culture, but it has been like this for centuries. India is a very caste-driven country. Having a baby boy can make a huge difference to a low caste poor family.
When I was visiting my relatives in a Punjab village in 2000, it didn't appear that there was such a huge shortage of women. Mind you it is hard to know in a place like India, especially in larger cities where women are not encouraged to leave their home.
On the topic of abortion, the Australian Health Minister Tony Abbott was recently stripped of his control over the abortion pill RU486. In a vote in the lower house, the woman bandied together to defeat the veto in a new bill.
The Health Minister has held a unique veto power over the drug since 1996 when the government negotiated a deal with a conservative independent MP to pass a separate bill.
So now the administration of the abortion pill is in the hand of science experts at the Therapeutic Goods Administration. This has caused a huge debate in Australia between the pro-choice, anti-abortion lobbies.
My question is, should a politician ever have control over drugs whether they are for abortion or any other use?
Pakistani Nurse Raped for Refusing to Perform Abortions
QUOTE |
MATTRAI, Pakistan, February 27, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A young woman was raped by three men in retribution for refusing to perform illegal abortions in a rural community in the western Punjab last Wednesday. Rubina Kousar, 26, worked as a nurse in the Mattrai health center. She refused to carry out abortions on two women, reported the Telegraph, despite six months of constant pressure from the women's families |
Recently, I made a statement in another thread that may seem stereotypical about places like Pakistan / Indian culture being still in a primitive state of which a native of India, who is also a Member here, told me it was basically ridiculous and small minded to come to such a conclusion. Well, these kinds of incidents and many others surrounding there and the Middle East continue to give enforcement to my statement. Think about it... you will use such an evil act as abortion (in my opinion it is) to force another to commit an evil act, then when they of their own agency choose not to, you commit an evil act upon them? There is a word we use for people like this, but I will refrain from using it as we are not on the Religions Board.