Abortion at nine weeks

Original post by Bio 7

And this is why people are worried about aborting a child they can’t support. You can’t murder a small ball of cells that doesn’t even have brain activity.

Why because someone will tell them they are being immoral or wrong? Wow, gee must be a tough life.

After about 7 ish weeks your "clump of cells" has developed neurons and can begin moving, has a sense of touch and already has some of the brain formed somewhat.

Yeah sure just a clump of meaningless cells

Reply 22

Jmonay

13

Wow smh but it is what is u gotta do whats best for u

Reply 23

Anonymous #1

Original post by AperfectBalance

Why because someone will tell them they are being immoral or wrong? Wow, gee must be a tough life.

After about 7 ish weeks your "clump of cells" has developed neurons and can begin moving, has a sense of touch and already has some of the brain formed somewhat.

Yeah sure just a clump of meaningless cells

It's aking to a tumour or a parasite. What was the point in posting in a thread on a topic that you are renowned for not agreeing with? Did it make you feel better about yourself?

Reply 24

Original post by Anonymous

It's aking to a tumour or a parasite. What was the point in posting in a thread on a topic that you are renowned for not agreeing with? Did it make you feel better about yourself?

Yeah sure ok, a tumor or a parasite that would create a human life (since that is how you define human life) absolutely sickening treatment of human lives as "just parasites"

Sorry for standing against murder, crazy me.

Reply 25

Anonymous #2

Original post by Anonymous

I hope that's your motto with anything that has the risk of consequences in life.

Well, I don't tend to think in terms of short-term convenience vs. long-term benefit, so...

Hmm...

Now that I think about it...

I guess you could say that what the OP did was convenient in terms of the outcome and that it led to them achieving the benefit of having convenience from not having to deal with a child, but... other than that, i dunno, man. Problem is though, is that this could have all been avoided easily and medical resources and that "clump of cells", as many like to call it, wouldn't have had to have been wasted. The avoidance of the situation could have been achieved by simply not having sex, making sure that projection was actually in effect, using the pull out method if possible, or just not doing viginal penetration.

Reply 26

Anonymous #3

Original post by Qup

So.... is the child dead now, or...?

it wasn't a child, it was a fetus.

Reply 27

Anonymous #4

i feel no difference between murdering a born and an unborn child. the only difference here is that the child was still a part of mother's body. why would people never accept the murder of just-born babies but accept killing the same child a couple of weeks before birth? ever imagined who would your child be when the baby grows up? i cant believe what i've just read. i cant understand how people can tolerate this. are you going to justify a murder of a child for not being able to support him or her? it would still be better for a baby to live in a orphanage where someone else could take care of, grow up, say the first words, go to school, meet friends, and enjoy the life as we all are, rather than being murdered and buried nobody knows where, carelessly. no hard feeling to the OP, this is over for her. thats just my thoughts. im done

Reply 28

Original post by Bio 7

No, it was never alive. That is the point of doing it early before that issue arises.

It was nice to see your story OP, maybe some people will see it and be able to go through with having an abortion if they can’t support a child and are concerned about having an abortion.

When is a fetus considered to be alive? How do we even determine that? If we are to say 10 weeks for example, surely this wouldn't apply to all fetuses as some would reach that level of development quicker. This is a genuine question not intended to put anyone down. I'm curious to know people's thought processes behind this topic.

Reply 29

Original post by Funkymintbrother

When is a fetus considered to be alive? How do we even determine that? If we are to say 10 weeks for example, surely this wouldn't apply to all fetuses as some would reach that level of development quicker. This is a genuine question not intended to put anyone down. I'm curious to know people's thought processes behind this topic.

For me I wouldn't consider it alive until it would be able to survive outside the mother.

Reply 30

Original post by Funkymintbrother

When is a fetus considered to be alive? How do we even determine that? If we are to say 10 weeks for example, surely this wouldn't apply to all fetuses as some would reach that level of development quicker. This is a genuine question not intended to put anyone down. I'm curious to know people's thought processes behind this topic.

at the moment of conception due to the difference between inaction and action.

Before conception, there has to be direct action to eventually produce a baby (or at least to have a very good chance of)

After conception there needs to be direct action to stop a child from being born (after birth pretty much everyone agrees it is a life) through inaction you will probably have a child. Taking direct action will mean a child is not born thus it is murder.

Reply 31

Original post by Bio 7

For me I wouldn't consider it alive until it would be able to survive outside the mother.

So do you mean a fetus is not alive up until the mother gives birth to it, thus making it okay to abort at any time in the pregnancy?

Or do you mean as early as a fetus can be prematurely given birth to without it dying?

The second option is a grey area in my eyes, because there have been babies born at 24 weeks but have to kept under medical care to ensure they survive...and some of them do survive, but only under medical intervention. So, by your logic, are they not alive until they are fit to survive without the medical aid?

Reply 32

Original post by Funkymintbrother

So do you mean a fetus is not alive up until the mother gives birth to it, thus making it okay to abort at any time in the pregnancy?

Or do you mean as early as a fetus can be prematurely given birth to without it dying?

The second option is a grey area in my eyes, because there have been babies born at 24 weeks but have to kept under medical care to ensure they survive...and some of them do survive, but only under medical intervention. So, by your logic, are they not alive until they are fit to survive without the medical aid?

The second option, with medical aid. If it could be taken out of the mother and still survive with whatever care it needed then it would be alive.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 33

Original post by AperfectBalance

at the moment of conception due to the difference between inaction and action.

Before conception, there has to be direct action to eventually produce a baby (or at least to have a very good chance of)

After conception there needs to be direct action to stop a child from being born (after birth pretty much everyone agrees it is a life) through inaction you will probably have a child. Taking direct action will mean a child is not born thus it is murder.

I'm already familiar with the reasoning behind a human life being considered a life the moment after conception. It makes sense and the logic is easy to follow. But I can't say the same with the reasoning behind "it's only alive after X weeks" or something along those lines. I find it a little confusing when I delve into those statements.

It's a complex issue and I wanna see it from both perspectives.

Reply 34

Original post by AperfectBalance

at the moment of conception due to the difference between inaction and action.

Before conception, there has to be direct action to eventually produce a baby (or at least to have a very good chance of)

After conception there needs to be direct action to stop a child from being born (after birth pretty much everyone agrees it is a life) through inaction you will probably have a child. Taking direct action will mean a child is not born thus it is murder.

Just because it can one day be alive doesn't mean it is murder. You can't kill something that wasn't alive.

Reply 35

Original post by Bio 7

Just because it can one day be alive doesn't mean it is murder. You can't kill something that wasn't alive.

Well since I consider that life begins at conception it was alive.

Reply 36

Original post by AperfectBalance

Well since I consider that life begins at conception it was alive.

I could consider myself to be the flying Spaghetti Monster but that doesn't make it true.

Basing the child being alive when it is a new entity seems far more agreeable than a zygote being classed as a new life. Does anyone look to a zygote and say that is a human?

Reply 37

Original post by Bio 7

The second option, with medical aid. If it could be taken out of the mother and still survive with whatever care it needed then it would be alive.

So let's say, hypothetically, that a fetus at 168 days would not be able to survive outside of the mother even with medical aid. But at 169 days it would have just about reached the stage of development where it can survive outside of the mother with medical aid. And we know this because in this hypothetical scenario we have a miracle piece of technology which allows us to determine this. You're saying the fetus at day 168 wouldn't be alive, but the day after it would be?

And also consider the possibility of premature birth survival rates increasing with advancements in medical technology. Let's say baby X was born at 7 months, and didn't survive despite medical aid. But what if that same baby was put 30 years into a future through a miracle time machine and was subsequently given access to future medical care, and as a result survived. By your logic, baby X wouldn't be alive in 2018, but alive in 2048...

ABORTION ETHICS HURTS MY BRAIN.

Reply 38

Original post by Bio 7

I could consider myself to be the flying Spaghetti Monster but that doesn't make it true.

Basing the child being alive when it is a new entity seems far more agreeable than a zygote being classed as a new life. Does anyone look to a zygote and say that is a human?

The question of when does life begin is not a scientific one at all.

Reply 39