Slashdot Mirror

There is no such thing as a "baby" until it is born. Before that it is a faetus, a pre-stage in the creation of a baby. 99% of all chosen abortions are done before the featus has organs, let alone nervous system.

Source? Citation? The heartbeat begins at week five. The nervous system during week four. wiki, Because with that, this page contradicts you give with 48% of abortions occurring after the 9th week, by which time the brain, eyes, skin and other organs have begun devolpment.

It is quite immoral to force people what to do with their bodies, especially since the grounds for objections are at best some kind of vitalism - soul, spirit and other nonsense.

How about the immorality of deciding to end the life of the fetus? Isn't this exactly the same thing you are complaining about, except on the other person involved? By the time most abortions occur, the fetus has a brain, an active nervous system, a heart beat, skin, eyes, what more do you need to know that the fetus is alive?

Interesting that you should ask such an ignorant question. (I call it ignorant because--what the hell are you talking about? What videos? Extreme Islamic aggression is a widespread movement with thousands upon thousands of adherents worldwide and active training campaigns. The bombing of abortion clinics and the slaying of doctors is a matter of the occasional nutjob, not a significant social movement.)

Will this prohibition be limited to violent groups? Or will it be applied to any video discussing non-violent protests by unpopular groups? I hope not.

Your comment about gruesome abortion footage highlights the question I intended to ask. Who's going to be in charge of classifying things as terrorism? Will others follow you in your classification of abortion images as "terrorism"? (A classification which far exceeds "copyright violation==piracy" in its absurdity.)

There is a long history of using disturbing images to raise social awareness of disturbing realities. (It is very easy to dismiss a situation if you do not know what is actually happening. IIRC, when the first photos of the brutality of the American Civil War reached the public, it had a significant impact on public support.) Disturbing images can be used the replace rational discourse, sure--but they can also be used to supplement it.

There's more to be said about proper contexts. There is honest debate over the appropriate use of gruesome images in the pro-life movement. For instance, I would say these images certainly shouldn't be shown to children. And there's reasonable debate over whether they should be shown in public, on the sides of trucks. But calling this terrorism is silly.

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/abortion.html

That's a good point, though it assumes intelligence is not influenced by genetics.

There are also 126,000 abortions per day, so that seems like an even bigger problem with regard to loss of human potential.

From here:

Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.

and for good reason!

Take a good long hard look at where most of your stem cells come from before you open your selfish mouth next time. Destroying life to save life is sin.

You lost souls should stop playing god lest ye be destroyed.