I'm sorry to hear about your niece.

As a practical solution, that sounds reasonable.

That also sounds reasonable, if horrible. I've met too many men (and a few women) who I strongly suspect have been oopsed to think differently. If you want to have a baby, that's fine, but there seems to be an assumption that if they want it, then that's their right and therefore their partner's wishes don't matter.

Don't get me wrong...I wouldn't mind if abortion was illegal if it didn't mean that women would die in a backstreet ally but I'm a practical person and I face reality. Women can and will attempt to purposely miscarry if they can't go to a real physician to obtain an abortion. Hell, they do it now, even with abortion being legal! Rather than have those women die for their irresponsibility, I'd rather that they had the option to be taken care of properly. But I would most definitely like to see more education for women, especially those that are seeking an abortion. That also includes more parents realizing that their children aren't necessarily going to be 'saints'. A girl should be able to go to her mother and say, "Mom, I know you don't want me to have sex but I love Johnny and I want to go on the pill." Rather than mom having a fit and trying to keep her daughter away from Johnny, she should put the child on the pill because the kids will find a way to be together anyway. I know a mom that made her 16 year old daughter have an abortion and within a few months, the child purposely got pregnant again. Mom foolishly thought that she could keep the two separated! The girl was a senior in high school when the baby was born. She went on to graduate and then she graduated from nursing school!

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

MS in biochemistry actually.

The embryo establishes a point of contact, but unlike a parasite which makes direct contact to its host via hooks or suckers, the embryo itself does not attach to the lining of the uterus. The embryo itself very soon after establishing a point of contact, only makes indrect contact with its mother via the umbilical cord and the placenta.

The placenta, for that matter does not attach directly to the uterine wall as would a parasite. The contact is formed via chorionic villi which, at high magnification would somewhat resemble interlaced fingers rather than a direct attachment. The chorionic villi handle the transfer of nutrients very much like the villi in your intestines pass nutrients on to your circulatory system.

No offense, but a LPN should be more versed in what actually happens during a pregnancy and not restricted to the mundane language that gives, at best, a general impression of the mechanics of a pregnancy.

I am well aware of the process. No offense intended, but more aware, it might seem, than you. From your own source:

"The trophoblast is coated with a protein known as L-selectin. The wall of the uterus is coated with carbohydrate molecules. The researchers believe that as the blastocyst travels along the uterine wall, L-selectin on its surface binds to the carbohydrates on the uterine wall, until the blastocyst gradually slows to a complete stop. After this happens, the cells that later become the fetus' contribution to the placenta develop. The placental tissue from the fetus then invades the uterine wall by sending finger-like extensions into it. These projections make contact with the maternal blood supply, becoming the pipeline through which the fetus derives nutrients and oxygen, and rids itself of carbon dioxide and wastes. "

Note that it is the cells that form the placenta that actually make the physical contact with the uterine lining. The "finger-like projections" that are spoken of are the chorionic villi, which as I pointed out, do not so much "invade" the uterine wall so much as establish a contact that resembles interlaced fingers.

If you are pro life, you should know that it is important to speak in accurate, and explicit terms when you are addressing the issue of the unborn child. The pro choice side of this argument provides enough inaccuracy and misinformation for both sides. There are numerous reasons why an uborn can not accurately be equated with a parasite. If you want a few, I would be happy to provide them to you.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Thank you.



I've known a couple of women that 'trapped' a guy by intentionally becoming pregnant against his wishes. Men who get women pregnant unintentionally are just as irresponsible, IMO, as a woman who becomes pregnant unintentionally. The difference is, society allows the woman an out, but not the man. I do know one woman that had the father sign over all legal rights in exchange for not paying child support but more often than not, the courts force a man to pay, especially if the woman is seeking government help.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

None of this seems to be a rational reason to allow women to kill another human being without legal consequence. The child is no less a human being before it is born than it is after.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

In practical terms, especially for those not in the medical field, the embryo attaches to the uterine wall. Yes, it's a complicated procedure and scientists are just figuring out the entire process but the end result is if nothing is attached, the embryo will not live, just as a parasite will not live without a host.
And for the record, I am not pro-choice, I'm pro-life, as Si Modo has told you. As I said, in another post, I just don't want to see abortion made illegal because too many women will die trying to induce their own abortions or in a backstreet alley. It's called facing reality and choosing the lesser of the two evils. If you could guarantee me today that no woman would die trying to kill her unwanted baby, then I'd be all for criminalizing abortion.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

In practical terms, the child does not attach itself to the uterine wall. Suggesting that it does is misinformation. It is inaccurate and untrue. The vast majority of the abortion argument consists of simply trying to wade through the miasma of misinformation, distorted truth, deliberate lies, and red herrings put out there by the pro choice side. The matter is only exaserbated when someone such as yourself speaks in language that lends itself to even further distortion.

Allowing women to kill children without legal consequence is a lesser evil than women injuring themselves when trying to kill the same children?

And you are a pro choice pro lifer? Interesting.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

I believe that in some circles it's known as being pro-the-lives-that-already-exist. It may be hard for you to believe, but some people find the idea of born women dying horrible deaths from internal injuries worse than abortion.

Both lives already exist and neither is more valuable than the other. Under our legal system when the rights of two individuals clash, the rights of the one must always give way to the more fundamental rights of the other. In this country, the right to live is the most fundamental right of all.

Your argument is a logical fallacy. You beg the question and assume that only one life exists and argue from that viewpoint. The viewpoint is false. If you can prove that there are not two lives at issue here, then by all means do so and proceed with your line of thought. If you can't prove it (and we both know that you can't) then the line of thought isn't worth continuing with as it is fallacious.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Sorry, but even researchers disagree with you...if they didn't, they wouldn't word it so simplistically. Direct quotes:
Researchers Discover How Embryo Attaches to the Uterus

Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

PaleRider, in a perfect world, there would be no abortions, however, we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where people can and do have unwanted pregnancies and women kill those babies because they can. Tell them they can't and yes, some of those babies will be carried to term but many of them will die along with the mothers in a less than sterile setting. I don't condone killing the babies by a long shot, but neither do I believe the alternative is to have the possibly mothers die. This sort of thinking comes from maturity and recognizing that there are many gray areas in life. You're willing to trade the life of the mother for the life of a baby and while I don't think either is acceptable, I'd rather not have two people die which is what will happen by criminalizing abortion. And for the record, I do view abortion as murdering an innocent child.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

While I believe that life starts at conception, it's easier on everyone involved to sacrifice a baby that no one knows than to sacrifice a woman that is someone's daughter, sister, mother, wife or friend. If only we lived in a perfect world then no sacrifices would have to be made.....

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

So a clump of tissue is equal to a real life born human? They each have the same rights? Justify this.

No one has an obligation to keep a fetus alive when they don't want to, regardless of the physical and emotional implications.

How am I wrong? It's only a logical fallacy if I am, and stating that I am doesn't necessarily make it so.

Thank you.

If you can prove that the rights of a person don't trump the rights of a cluster of cells (and we both know you can't) then...ah, fuck it.

"I don't want to see abortion made illegal" is what defines the pro-choice position. Regardless of your personal moral views, you are pro-choice. Many people who are pro-choice are also personally against abortion and would never choose to have one.

This is why I seldom use the term "pro-life." It's misleading. One can be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time; what the other side of the debate is, is anti-choice, or, less provocatively, anti-legal-abortion. As you say you want abortion to remain legal, that does not describe you.