Abortion is this the answer to unplanned pregnancies?

[blm03]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Most states require by law that insurance cover contraceptive pills.

Seeing how you are from IL: http://contraceptives.illinois.gov/

I have insurance that covers it now. When I lived in Wisconsin (which was about 7 years ago), I paid out of pocket for contraceptive. I also paid for it here when I first moved also. I have been under hubby insurance since 2001, and have had coverage.

[blm03]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Got to love philosophy for its proclivity to obfuscate the simple.

Human life is simply and obviously come into existence when the unique organism in created as a result of the sperm fertilizing an egg cell. That is the beginning of human life, simply by definition. That is when a human organism which is alive is created.

Then am I considered an abortionist because I miscarried my last pregnancy at 5 weeks? That baby died from what I know about development before it had a brain and I think heart too. (I don't remember what is all developed at that point.)

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by blm03

I have insurance that covers it now. When I lived in Wisconsin (which was about 7 years ago), I paid out of pocket for contraceptive. I also paid for it here when I first moved also. I have been under hubby insurance since 2001, and have had coverage.

Well in that case I can definitely support your right to murder any children you had, whether born or unborn, as the result of insurance not covering the pill. I mean, what is the world coming to when they expect us not to rip the limbs off our children while not giving up the contraceptives for free?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by blm03

Then am I considered an abortionist because I miscarried my last pregnancy at 5 weeks?

So you elected to end your child's life?

[blm03]

Originally Posted by John Scott

So you elected to end your child's life?

Well I personally didn't -- my body did. What the doctors pretty much tell you is that they don't know why and that there was something wrong with the baby.

So is that what makes the difference -- going to a clinic and choosing?

[blm03]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Well in that case I can definitely support your right to murder any children you had, whether born or unborn, as the result of insurance not covering the pill. I mean, what is the world coming to when they expect us not to rip the limbs off our children while not giving up the contraceptives for free?

No, my question was why do insurance companies have no problem covering Viagra yet won't cover birth control? Trust me, the birth control is cheaper.

[blm03]

Let me add. I am 8 months pregnant right now. I personally do not think I could ever have an abortion. However, I think I should have the choice.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by blm03

So is that what makes the difference -- going to a clinic and choosing?

A child dies in his sleep of SIDS. Another child is sleeping in bed and the mother comes in with a hammer, bashes the kid's head in, suffocates the child, stabs the kid a couple times for good measure and then returns to smashing the kid in the head with the hammer, and you evidently cannot tell the difference?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by blm03

Let me add. I am 8 months pregnant right now. I personally do not think I could ever have an abortion. However, I think I should have the choice.

How old should the child be before you lose the right to murder your offspring? 12 years old? 13? Or maybe 18?

[blm03]

Originally Posted by John Scott

A child dies in his sleep of SIDS. Another child is sleeping in bed and the mother comes in with a hammer, bashes the kid's head in, suffocates the child, stabs the kid a couple times for good measure and then returns to smashing the kid in the head with the hammer, and you evidently cannot tell the difference?

Ok how about - Baby is killing mother. Shouldn't she have the choice whether or not it is her life or the baby's?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by blm03

Ok how about - Baby is killing mother. Shouldn't she have the choice whether or not it is her life or the baby's?

The former head of the Harvard school of medicine said that he had never heard of such a case.

The only time I know of that a hospital tried to force a mother to have an abortion, saying that she would surely die if she didn't, the court ruled against the hospital and the mother had the child, and the mother survived in good form.

So, yeah, not a likely situation.

[blm03]

I know several women who have developed severely high blood pressure and they were told to deliver early or she would die, the baby would die, or they both will die.

Isn't that basically the same?

[Julie]

Delivering early isn't the same as killing the baby.

[blm03]

Yes and no. Depending on how early you deliver, if you deliver at 24 weeks the baby only has a small chance of survival.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by blm03

I know several women who have developed severely high blood pressure and they were told to deliver early or she would die, the baby would die, or they both will die.

Isn't that basically the same?

You seem easily confused. Delivering early can result in a live child. Indeed, I have a very beautiful healthy and happy son who was delivered early and spent time in an incubator. The intention of delivering early is to save a life. You compare that to the common abortion, which in 99.9% of all cases is intended only to serve one purpose - ending a life.

If the child dies in an attempt to save a life, that's the unfortunate. If a child dies because the mother paid a doctor to kill the child, that's murder.

Is common sense so foreign to America?

At least in Japan, we admit that abortion is killing a child. We don't deny that. We simply value the social and economic benefits of abortion more than we do the rights of that child. We can do so without abandoning common sense and lying about what abortion is.

[blm03]

You believe a baby is a baby when conceived. Not everyone agrees with that. (and I actually agree with you). I'll agree to disagree about being able to chose.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by blm03

You believe a baby is a baby when conceived. Not everyone agrees with that. (and I actually agree with you). I'll agree to disagree about being able to chose.

LOL!

No. A baby is not a baby. I don't know what a baby is. Is that even scientific? I believe a human organism is a human organism from the time it becomes a human organism.

[NullPointer]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Got to love philosophy for its proclivity to obfuscate the simple.

Human life is simply and obviously come into existence when the unique organism in created as a result of the sperm fertilizing an egg cell. That is the beginning of human life, simply by definition. That is when a human organism which is alive is created.

I don't think a philisophic approach obscures the issue. I think it provides the only grounds for a reasonable answer to the question at hand. It is easy to say that abortion is murder because a human life is created and has rights at the moment the egg is fertilized, but there are those that will disagree with you. This just degenerates into shouting yes and no.

It is easier to show that someone does not have knowledge of something than it is to show that you do and that what you 'know' contradicts what they 'know'. This was Socrates' approach. I think a much better argument made towards those who claim that life does not begin at conception would be to show that the development of a child is a gradual process and it is impossible to draw a line and claim that at that instant the child has a right to life, and before that it is just a pile of tissue.

I completely agree with you by the way. I just don't think your argument is persuasive.

Note for this topic: I do not intend to offend anyone!

[Brian]

I was aborted. Look what happened to me, I'm perfect. Ask John.