Technically though, isn't it actually something else that you die for with AIDS? Since it tears down your immune system.

Actually AIDS didn't come from gay males, at least according to one credible theory.

lula posts:

Concerning cases of rape of very young girls who then become pregnant...here is more on the story of the 9 and 5 year old girls who became pregnant.

Neonatologist Says Brazilian Nine-Year-Old Could Have Safely Brought Child to Term

March 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The horrific case of a nine-year-old Brazilian girl who was repeatedly raped by her step-father, and who subsequently became pregnant with twins has made headlines around the world in recent days. The case created widespread controversy after the girl had an abortion, an act that was condemned by the Catholic Church in the country due to the fact that doctors had originally refused to perform an abortion, stating that the girl's life was not in danger.

The doctors who later performed the abortion, however, claimed that the girl's life was indeed in danger, a claim that has been widely repeated in the mainstream media.

But in a recent interview with LifeSiteNews.com, Dr. Paul Byrne, a neonatologist and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Toledo, Ohio, strongly refuted the assumption that the Brazilian girl's life was threatened by the pregnancy, simply because of her age.

Byrne told LSN that it is certainly medically possible for a young girl safely to carry a pregnancy of twins to term. He acknowledged that the circumstances are unusual, but said that the problem of giving birth with an undeveloped pelvic structure could be safely avoided by a caesarean section. 
 
Dr. Byrne cited the case of Lina Medina, a Peruvian girl from the Andean village of Ticrapo who made medical history when she gave birth to a boy by caesarean section in May 1939 at the age of five years, seven months and 21 days.
 
But he emphasized that no matter what the situation in the case, "abortion is not the solution." The girl, he said, "was sexually abused" and needed treatment. "Someone should have tried to help this girl."
  
"The mother and both babies should have had their life protected, preserved and defended. There is no reason to kill these babies," he said.
 
Dr. Byrne noted also that the girl now faces the usual long-term health risks associated with abortion, including possible future pre-term births and miscarriage due to an "incompetent cervix," a cervix that is too weak to stay closed during a pregnancy.
 
Much research has shown other serious long-term health complications of abortion, including increased risk of breast, cervical, ovarian and liver cancers. Other risks associated with abortion include such serious mental health issues as post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, eating disorders, suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.

I'm falling behind on reading these comments and apologize if I'm repeating something that has already been discussed.  

EL-DUDERINO POSTS:

C'mon...stop playing abortion propaganda word games. If you favor abortion or are for abortion, then you are pro-abortion.  

el-duderino posts #127

El-Duderino,

The problem with abortion isn't about people making choices, rather it's about the choice they make. In a choice to commit abortion, the baby always gets killed and it's fundamentally wrong, unacceptable and unjust to kill one's baby. If we continue the savagery of allowing big people to kill little unborn people by abortion, then where does killing stop?

First point: Becasue the mother isn't the only one that is under consideration in this circumstance...there is a baby's life to consider in the mix. To do as you suggest would be to take part in a big lie...and that is the mother has a right to make a personal decision over her unborn baby's right to continue living. Like anything else, we should not only focus on the mother's choice, but also on the concrete reality of the consequences that comes with it.

Second point: It's not only the mother who has to live with whatever the consequences of abortion, we too become complicit in the horrible act if we approve it, or take part in any way. We are answerable for the sins of others whenever we either cause them, or share in them, through our own fault. We may cause or share the guilt of another's sin in 9 ways:

By counsel....by command...by consent....by provocation...by flattery or praise....by concealment...by being a partner in sin...by silence...and by defending the ill done.

But when that child is born, all decisions are therein defaulted to the mother/parents. So...i guess, again playing devils advocate, how does that differ? Setting aside the issue of it being her body, technically she is still the mother.

((It's funny how there are those who are hypocrits because they accept other forms of body modification, sometimes even claiming religious nature in it. ))

~Alderic

Lula, sorry, but I have to be blunt; you're being a bit of a stingy bella on that. Tell me, why does a person have to be pro abortion, when they say they are pro choice, You're completely setting aside the humanity aspect there.

Myself: I would be considered pro-choice. However, I will never, ever, never "have" or agree to an abortion. I will flat out fight it. Still, that is a personal choice. (Key words: personal choice)

For me that is what it comes down to. I chose a year and two months, but that does not mean that I feel that because I'm agaisnt having an abortion (so to speak), that i will let my personal choice rule that of others.

That is, for me, what being pro choice is.

~Alderic

See lula, that is just it, it is your opinion - your choice. Frankly, your opinion and choices have no influence on anyone else, save your children.

~Alderic

El-duderino posts: #127

When it comes to abortion, just becasue someone doesn't believe in God doesn't change the reality of what is being done.

That's just it...with the exception when the mother's life is at stake, women aren't making choices for just their own lives. Abortion isn't a private matter rather it's a public matter because it doesn't involve the mother alone, it also involves the rights of the father, along with the rights of the unborn baby.

lula posts:

Stingy bella..interesting!  Did you see the movie Bella?

Anyway back to the serious business of discussing semantics and the reality behind them. It's the pro-abortion crowd who sets aside the humanity aspect when they disconnect killing by the words they use....words as "pro-choice" and "reproductive  "rights" are a few of their falsities. "Pro-choice" is a euphemism that hides the act of killing babies in the womb...they use it to manipulate people into accepting the killing.

We have a holocaust going on and it would end if, one....it were perceived as it really is .....killing children instead of a an exercise of a woman's "right to her own body" or "right to choose" and two...people, especially legislatures, were made to view an abortion and see the blood and gore of it all.

ALDERIC POSTS:

The problem with abortion isn't about people making choices, rather it's about the choice they make.

Opinion or truth, Alderic?

In a choice to commit abortion, the baby always gets killed

Opinion or truth, ALderic?

 it's fundamentally wrong, unacceptable and unjust to kill one's baby.

Opinion or truth, Alderic?

I'm going to have to disagree with you here.  From the debates that I've had with Lula and KFC they seem to have done a decent job of educating their kids.  I may not agree with the abstinence route but that was their choice to make.  As for parents who opt their kids out of sex ed and still refuse to do sex ed at home they are just asking for problems.

I agree with this.  But any sex ed class should NOT tell the kids that they shouldn't be gay, or straight for that matter, they should simply present the facts so that the students have the information.  What they do with the information is up to them.

No.  The question from the Red Cross should be about unprotected anal sex not the persons sexuality because it's the unprotected anal sex that increases the risk of AIDS not the persons sexuality.

The education needs to focus on unprotected sex of any kind not about the sexuality of the people involved.  AIDS doesn't care what your sexuality is it just needs a fluid exchange to transmit itself to another host.  If you are protected against the fluid exchange then the risk drops significantly.  Yes abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent transmission via sex but it still doesn't prevent it via IV drug use or blood transfusions (although our screening process takes care of this for the most part).

If the information is infact incorrect then it needs to be corrected plain and simple.  Yes abstinence should be emphasized as the only 100% method to not contract stds but the other methods to prevent should be presented with their efficacy so that people can make informed decisions if the need arises.

I think the problem isn't so much the school system as it is the culture.  We have an over sexed culture in the entertainment industry.  Our kids look up to people like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, etc. and those people don't set a good example.  We also have a lot of parents (present company excluded) who like to ignore the problem and expect it to go away.  Most parents are quite content to sit their kids in front of the tv of computer all day as long as the kids are out of their hair and we reap what we sow.  The solution to this is a combination of proper education (emphasizing abstinence) and parents getting involved in what their kids do on a daily basis (knowing who their friends are, where they go after school and on the weekends, etc).

Exactly.  Well said.

It jumped from Chimps to humans.  How isn't exactly clear but the most likely scenario involved blood transfer of some sort.  The reason that the homosexual community has been impacted so severly is because for a long time they had the largest population of people having unprotected sex since there was no risk of pregnancy.  AIDS is NOT a gay disease.

I honestly don't care whether her life was in danger or not from the pregnancy she had already been tortured by repeated rapes by her step father and you actually want her to go through the trauma that is child birth at 9 years old?  I'm sorry but there is nothing that can be said to make that justified to me.

You are the one playing word games.  I don't favor abortion.  I favor giving the woman the choice on her reproductive options.  Pro-abortion makes it sound like I want every woman to have at least one abortion and I would like nothing more than for abortions to never be needed.

This comes down to one's opinion on when life begins.  You think that abortion is killing a baby, I think that abortion is terminating a fetus well before it becomes a baby.  I say let the woman decide what she wants to do with her life and she will have to live with whatever consequences come her way.  And as I have said before there is a line at which abortion should no longer be an option, first trimester is ok, second trimester should only be allowed when the health of the mother is at risk, and in the third trimester if the woman's health is at risk they should attempt to deliver the child to see if it can survive outside of the womb, if it can great.

As you know I disagree with you but I'm not going to detail why because I have said it time and time again.

This is your opinion based on your religion.  You believe that your religion says that life begins at conception which means YOU have to consider the unborn babies rights.  I believe something else entirely, and as for the father he should be counciled of course but ultimately it is the woman's body, she is the one who has to endure 9 months of pregnancy plus child birth not the man.

I realize the following was asked of Alderic but I will respond as well:

From a scientific standpoint you are wrong.

But its not politically correct to admit that you are ending a life for your own convinience. albeit a life that has yet to develop a mind or personality / be born and have emotional bonds form to it. But you are still ending a life. I am pro-abortion (for other people), no pussy footing about.

The explanation I have read is that in some countries, monkeys and very poor humans root through the garbage of restaurant for food remains... and often fight over those remains. Biting and scratching is the most likely cause in such a fight.

I personally would guess a bite by an infected monkey after it started bleeding from its gums due to a punch.

Choice over your reproductive options means using contraceptives (which the crazy religious people also oppose). Abortion is the choice to kill your own children.

Correct, there is no magic in homosexuality that makes unprotected anal sex more dangerous for them then it is for hetrosexuals despite lulas odd interpretation of the bible.

And what do you mean by HAD the largest? they still do. most people "trust" their partner (its not a matter of trust but they think of it as trust) to be free of disease, so only use protection as a form of contraceptive, not for STD prevention.

Think it cruel if you want but until that fetus (or baby if you prefer) is able to survive outside the womb (with or without life support) I view it more as a symbiotic parasite much like a tape worm.  If you want to terminate it that is your choice.  If abortion had not been legal it is likely that my wife would have died a few years ago so call it whatever you like I think that it is necessary to keep it legal and safe and preferably rare.

And hence it would be stupid to say that children shouldn't be taught that smokers are more at risk of cancer than non-smokers!

But it is - if you're heterosexual, then you will typically be having 'lower risk' sex that is not a possibility if you're homosexual. To go back to the smoking example, it's a bit like saying that inhaling smoke and toxins etc. is harmful to your health, but that non-smokers can also engage in this as well as smokers. Non-smokers are far less likely to engage in such activity than smokers.

Pro choice means you support a womans right to choose whether to have an abortion. In other words, you're supporting the use of abortion (in such cases). You might not think that abortion should be chosen in every case, but you're still supporting it being chosen by people who think they should have an abortion. In fact pro-choice by itself is misleading - it's only pro the mothers choice, not the baby. The  baby gets no say in whether it is killed. It's bizarre that mothers who kill their baby (or leave it to die) moments after it is born are reviled, yet mothers who have the baby killed before it's born are supported and even encouraged.

Abortion when the mothers life is in danger is a completely different thing. In the typical abortion a life is ended for the mothers convenience. In the case where the mothers life is in danger, a life is ended to save another.

You're not understanding my stance. I'm taking the issue out of my hands, because what another does should not be in my hands period. Therefore, I am prochoice; i.e. in favor of others choosing what they want.

I, however, choose to not support/"have" an abortion.

~Alderic

I do understand what you're saying but to me it's like sitting on the fence with one leg over each side.  While you personally don't like it or would have one yourself you are all about our  freedom to choose.  I get that.   I agree to a point and probably would agree with you if it were another issue that didn't involve a hushed voice that has no say.  

For me Ronald Reagan summed it up perfectly when he said this:

there is NO baby even one that comes to full term who can support himself (with no outside help) outside the womb. 

Then there are others who are full term who need extra help in making it.  According to your statement here we should kill them as well even though they are wanted and helped to stay alive. 

Uh, I'm not seeing how you're linking the two. I'm firmly against abortion, but the catch is that when it comes down to it...what others do, is not my issue. I have no say. Perhaps it would be better of me to say, I'm pro you. You make the decision based off what you believe.

because the two are linked.  If it came down to a vote today....what would you vote? 

Would you cast a vote with the pro-abortion side or would you cast your vote with the anti-abortion side? 

To be "against" means "anti"   So if you really are "firmly against" abortion, as you say, that would make you "anti-abortion." 

Heterosexual sex is no less risky than anal sex.  The difference is that those having vaginal intercourse will more likely be using a condom to prevent pregnancy which also protects them from AIDS.  If those having anal sex were to use a condom they would be equally protected.

Different yes, but it is also the argument to keep abortion around as safe and legal so that there are doctors available to perform the procedure when the woman's life is at risk.  If abortion is made illegal it will be almost impossible to find a doctor who knows how to do the procedure properly which significantly increases the risk to the woman.  Not to mention the fact that making it illegal will lead to a potentially dramatic increase in the number of back alley abortions which are extremely dangerous potentially ending in the woman hemoraging to death.

Which is why I say with or without life support.  A fetus that had 30 weeks of gestation can potentially live outside the womb with the help of life support and it should be given that chance to survive.  I have heard of cases of as early as 22 or 23 weeks being able to live outside the womb.  Much earlier than that and it's not yet possible, maybe some day it will be and abortion will no longer be needed because the developing fetus can be transplanted to an artifical womb.

That's not what I said at all.  Try re-reading my comment.

ok,  I must have reacted to your strong wording when you used "parasite" and "tapeworm." 

You may want to look at what the baby looks like at say 22-23 weeks before you say such a thing. 

Here's a description of exactly the time period you put in for it being a parasite or tapeworm. 

In the fifth month (20 weeks) of the Second Trimester, the baby's eyelids are still fused shut. The internal organs - with the exception of the lungs- are maturing rapidly. The baby will have grown enough now that when it moves the mother may be able to feel it. The baby now has a pattern of waking and sleeping, it can cry, hiccup and starts to do uterine acrobatics (that's what it feels like anyway).

In the sixth month (21-24 weeks) of the Second Trimester, the baby starts accumulating fat and weighs approximately 1 to 1 1/2 pounds now. The expectant mother will surely feel movement if she hasn't already and she may feel the baby hiccuping also. The baby can open its eyes and month and their little eyelashes are visible. The baby's bones start to harden, technically referred to as ossification. At the end of the sixth month, the baby's lungs are still not mature enough for the baby to be born.

http://www.essortment.com/all/developmentstag_rjlp.htm

The primary time period that I use the description of a parasite is in the first trimester, if I was unclear in that I appologize.  As I have said once you enter the second trimester the only reason for an abortion should be in the case of the woman's health being at risk, and once the fetus is able to be put on life support outside the womb that should be attempted rather than abortion (currently it can be attempted as early as 22-23 weeks, but that is extremely rare).

EL-DUDERINO POSTS: 186

TALTIMER POSTS: #187

Yes, absolutely true. He is wrong. Scientific data reveal the dignity of human life from the first moment of fecundation, defined at the moment the sperm and the egg unite...therefore human personhood begins at conception.

So, once and for all, .....life begins at conception has been now scientifically determined.It's not a guess, it's not a wish, it's not an opinion...it's a scientific certainity. The biological facts are absolutely conclusive that the fetus is a living human being. That's a fact that you are going to have to come to grips with El-Duderino.

Now, to recognize a person in the womb is a moral decision and that's the last thing the proponents of abortion want done and that's why they come up with euphemisms like the one you used here..."terminating a fetus"...which really means killing a baby.

Ah, the ol' ploy of linedrawing...proponents of abortion committed to kill the unborn baby in the womb use this kind of arbitrary linedrawing for two reasons...to distract attention from the nature of the moral decision and to deny the fetus is a human being, a person.  There is no line at which abortion should be an option becasue with a fetus from living cell to dying corpse a continuum exists.    

really?

please provide some documentation--like peer-reviewed scientific papers--to back that up.

lula posts:

El-duderino posts #186

Again, what I said is not opinion, but truth. Yes, my religion says life begins at conception and science and the medical field have confirmed this truth. And yes, my religion teaches we must speak up for those (unborn) who have no voice, and also that we are protect, not harm Christ's little ones...the little one in the womb, although a stranger, is nonetheless my neighbor and I am to love my neighbor and at my Judgment, Christ will ask me what did I do to welcome the stranger. 

There  is a saying, "no man is an island"...that's true of the pregnant mother. Abortion is not a private matter and from the getgo, that is at conception, at least two other persons are involved. Actually, it might be better to say abortion is a human matter.