.

Dear Runner,

.

You wrote :

« give up your lies. Changing the name of an unborn baby does not change what it is. You employ the same tactics as the nazis did with the Jews. By all means defend murdering unborn human beings but try being a little honest instead of using pseudo science and pseudo language to justify the unjustifiable. There is no honesty or science to back you »
.

The earliest known life forms on earth date from about 4.28 billion years ago. From those early beginnings, life has constantly been relayed from generation to generation. Consequently, fertilization produced by the fusion of a male sperm with a female ovum is not the beginning of life. It is its continuance.

Life is not a single event. It is a process. The fusion of sperm and ovum produces an entirely new cell called a zygote (a fertilized egg) which develops into an embryo that later becomes a fetus before ultimately being ejected from the womb as a baby.

The gestational process usually takes about 40 weeks from fertilization to birth – unless it is interrupted – either as a result of natural causes, accidentally or deliberately. Although the process normally ends at birth, further growth and development continues well into old age.

An abortion is the deliberate interruption of the gestational process (the pregnancy) beginning at fertilization and ending at birth.

Therefore, while it is correct to say that somebody did not have the baby because she had an abortion. It is not correct to say that the baby was aborted because if it was a baby it was already born and therefore could not be aborted.

I grant you that this may seem a little complicated and difficult to understand, Runner, but it is by no means a “lie”. It is simply the correct expression of the intricate biological reproduction process of human beings and how abortion relates to that process.

None of this is my invention. I'm no specialist. I’m sure your family doctor could explain it better to you than I can.

.

Dear David,

«Abstinence for teenagers brimming with hormones? Ha!»

Hormones play some role, but a greater role, I believe, is played by social pressure.

Peer pressure of course, but also family-pressure, from parents and grandparents who encourage their offspring to be sexually active, not always consciously, because they desire to continue their genetic line. And peer pressure too is often derived from the attitudes that one's peers absorbed from their own parents and grandparents.

Where there is a greater motivation to life than just continuing the biological line, sexuality falls by the wayside and one even tells their hormones: "shut up, can't you see that I am busy?"!

But then, if you discard religion, what greater motivation to life remains? Humanity perhaps? You don't believe in that yourself, David, you know it has no lasting future and you just commented yourself that you would be glad to see the human race disappear.

What remains then - well sex, you said so yourself: «I favor allowing and encouraging teenagers to have as much sex as they want but to prevent pregnancy. I had my first sex at 22, and I mourn those lost years.»:
I sadly suspect that due to your own personal experience, you favour encouraging teenagers to have even more sex, beyond what they want themselves.

To David f.

You said:

<<The problem with adoption is that it does not terminate a pregnancy. A woman who has an abortion does not want to give birth. She wants to terminate her pregnancy. Adoption does not terminate a pregnancy.>>

Does it matter that abortion kills babies? Apparently the point of that question is lost on you and several others here. Even though that point is the title of the article this conversation is drawing from.

Dear NNS,

The article is called: “Does it matter if abortion kills babies?”

The question incorporates a false equivalence. To be a baby one has to be born. A fetus is not a baby. Abortion kills a fetus. That is necessary if a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy. I support the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy and place her rights above the preservation of a fetus. You apparently don’t.

You, like the author of the article, equate a fetus with a baby. That is a false equation and bad language. With twisted logic and bad language there is no possibility for reasonable dialog. I support the right of a woman to decide to terminate her pregnancy with a safe and legal abortion. If all women were fitted with IUDs which prevent pregnancy and did not remove them unless they wanted to be pregnant there would be less need for abortions. Of course even if she wanted to become pregnant her circumstances might change after she became pregnant, and she may feel an abortion is in her best interests. If that is the case she should have the right to have an abortion by a doctor. It was a great step forward to a woman to have the right to abortion. I hope the clock will not be turned back.

david f,

<<The question incorporates a false equivalence. To be a baby one has to be born. A fetus is not a baby.>>

Please provide the medical evidence that the baby in the womb is not a human being and that to be a baby, he or she has to be born.

Using the term fetus doesn't change the sitution. Since fetus is the only justification for killing when it is still very much human, showing even the same qualities of babies even in the early stages of developement, it is a horrible excuse. Women who do not want to have babies should not have sex. If they volunteerily have sex, get pregnet, then the excuse that the baby isn't born yet is all the excuse they need to justify killing them.

Hiding behind the term fetus shows more dishonesty in the discussion then it justifies anything. Trying to force the conversation to the terms of fetus is just as bad, because all it means is trying to force a term that is used to justify countless voluntary deaths every year. I'm not blind, I've seen many sonograms online mapping out the stages of developement. The stages within the womb should be protected just like the stages of developement outside of the womb. Least we have one of those pro abortion arguments actually justify killing babies after birth as well because there's no known difference in whether the baby is self aware, alive, intelligent, dependent on it's parents for survival, and just about every other argument justifying that a fetus is a lower class human.

The only difference is blind terminology. It's not born yet, it counts as a fetus. If it's unwanted kill it. Murder before birth doesn't count as long as we keep feeding ourselves the crap terminology to justify and control the conversation.

As for the rights of the woman, try adoption if they don't want to raise the child. But if she chose to have sex and got pregnant, then let the baby live, damn it. That's not asking much. Maybe have a little less social preasure to have sex would be a better solution? It's worth a shot that might actually help relationships from spiraling out of control because sex and love are confused too often in a relationship. There are other strategies to help the situation besides resorting to the mass killing that we currently have.