cherry apple babies
 

Did you know that their is a way to get a baby aborted that is essentiallly poisoning a baby while it is alive and in the woman's body? Apparently, a woman has some fluid that the baby lives in drawn out, about 6 ounces, and they replace that with a salt solution of about 25% salt to water. The baby dies an incredibly gruesome death, as it is poisoned and it's skin is partially burnt off. woman who have had this done said that the baby frantically struggled and kicked and then it stopped alll action. The baby was exibiting death throws and then went comatose. So, how can you support a woman's "right" to kill her baby in this way. I hope to god this procedure is illegal or is becoming so.

That sounds awful. :fuzmad: Well nothing people do can really shock me any more... but that is just sick. When we had the abortion topic a while back I was really surprised to read about the vacuming stuff etc. Are these things really leagal some where? And how far can the breagnance be until abortion becomes illegal? Because you're talking about babies...
In here abortion is leagal till 11th-12th week.

I'm both for and against abortion, but I surely do not support abortion done like that...

ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww *shivers* who in there right mind would do an awful thing like that that makes me sick. I sure as hell couldn't watch a baby struggle to live and then die. what a sin

Firstly, it's illegal to kill a baby anywhere.

Secondly, that method of termination sounds very stressful for the would-be mother.

Thirdly, do the would-be mothers get the chance to choose the method of termination?

Fourthly, the 'fluid that the baby lives in' you are reffering to is called amniotic fluid.

Editly, it's a foetus.

Actually, a baby is not legally born until their head emerges from the womb - that's why these types of abortions are used so often. I still thinks it's icky.

Since when has a foetus been a baby?

Foetus: Antenatal human
Baby: Postnatal human

the foetus? What, just cause the human doesn't come out of the mother's womb it isn't worhty of life. Yeah, it is just a foetus, so let's poison it with salt water and burnt its skin off, wait until it is comotose, and then suck it out piece by friggin' piece or extract it by forcing the woman to expel the baby. Than, lets put it in a bag and send it off to the incerator! Oh, and it wouldn't be wrong if the doctor was paid for his torturous services would it. How the hell can you condone the killing of a baby. I don't get it at all.

How the hell can you be so pro-life that you think I'm pro-death?

You are pro death!

No, I am pro-choice.

I am pro-choice because if there is going to be a small thing living inside Person A for nine months, Person A should have to choice as to whether or not they have it living inside them.

If terminations were made illegal, people who really didn't want the child would find a less legal and less healthy method of termination. Do you think that's a good thing?

No one has answered my question... How far can the breagnance be until abortion becomes illegal?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MudokonOddball
Actually, a baby is not legally born until their head emerges from the womb - that's why these types of abortions are used so often.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you serious? So you can kill the baby (don't give me any dictionary.com crap! It is a baby) even if it's nine months old and just about to be born and you can call that abortion? In which country is this?

In america, you can only hava an abortion up to the sixth month of pregnancy.

I agree, Fazerina. You can't rely on static definitions that are tied in with something as variable as birth. The only difference between a Baby born four months premature and a foetus of five months is that one is in the womb and one is out of the womb. It's called murder if the one outside of the womb is killed, while it's called "abortion" if the one within the womb is killed, when in reality the only difference between the two is their location.

Yes, I agree, totally. I thought you were going to come here and raise total hell against me. I am glad you haven't. I don't get all of the word bending and euphenisims that are being tossed around on pro murder's side.Hey, you have to be absolutely silly or at the least scientifically backward to say a baby isn't really human in the womb and "aborting" it is therefore not murder. But the minute the baby comes out of the mom you can't lay a hand on the baby because that would be murder. It's the mother right to privacy and all of that BS. I think I can clarify all of this legalistic pro murder mumbo jumbo a little. Of course someone for abortion wouldn't say, "We are for a mother's right to give the order to execute a baby" because who in their right miind would support that? Instead, the have to cover the brutality of the murder with odd sounding phrases and replacement words.

only up to the sixth month...? That is sick. *has now a whole new perspective to that abortion conversation a while back* Like I said, in here abortion is leagal only up to the 12th week. So that is 3 months... I never knew it can be leagal somewhere for so far...:fuzsad: How is it in Australia? Or in England?

Exactly.

I don't know how long it is here, Jenni. But I expect that it'll be 6 months.

1. What euphamisms?

2. What was that in response to? Nobody said that here. Of course a foetus is human.

3. Will you consider me pro-choice when an artifical human womb is invented and the government forces all foetuses to be born?

I am shocked and appalled. Not at Statikk's descriptions, but at the fact that so many people were taken in by them. I'd have thought that most of you would have been above that.

Statikk described a termination in a very late stage of pregnancy (which is not an Abortion, but a Stillbirth). The vast majority of abortions are not in fact conducted on Foetuses, but on Embryos, which are not even humanoid, and are totally incapable of "frantically struggling and kick[ing]" or of "exibiting death throws". I don't know about the US, but in Britain it is illegal to kill a foetus once it has reached such an advanced stage of development. Statikk's description was misleading in the extreme, and it would be absurd to use it as a basis for a blanket ban on Abortion.

And another thing. Can we please stop this ridiculously misleading use of the word "baby"? I have already pointed out that the vast majority of Abortions are performed on Embryos, which are clearly not babies.

As for the words "murder" and "death": How stupid do you think we are? People aren't going to be swayed by your rhetoric...

Danny, I still disagree with you that late abortions are considered stillbirths. Stillbirths are the natural loss and expulsion of the foetus, whereas induced abortion is intentionally destroying the foetus. It's still abortion no matter how far into the pregnancy the woman may be.

I was never unreasonable, I never demanded that abortion in all its forms should be banned. I have no problem at all with abortion up until about two months into pregnancy.

Not technically.

I know. That part of my post was directed against all the people that did.

Could you elaborate on that?

Exactly.

Why is that?

My thoughts exactly. I'm pro choise, but I think the mother is able to make the choise in time. If you don't want the baby, you can get rid of it, but if you don't want the baby, you know that you don't want it and you could at least do the decision in time.

I don't know if you meant me here, but I sure think that a nine months old embryo is a baby. That's the only time when I talked about babies. And that was when MudokonOddball said this: "Actually, a baby is not legally born until their head emerges from the womb - that's why these types of abortions are used so often. "

There is no such thing as a nine-month-old embryo. I'm not sure of the precise cut-off point, but as soon as the embryo has reached the stage where it is clearly recognisable as human (IE when its internal organs are fully developed), it is defined as a Foetus. My point was that most abortions are performed before this point.

Sydney, to elaborate, I'm not sure of the cut-off point, but there is a point somewhere in the gestation period beyond which a termination can no longer be technically termed an Abortion, and is known as a Stillbirth. Like I say, I'm not sure what time this point is, but I'm pretty sure it's there. I think it's fairly close to the cut-off point between Embryo and Foetus.

EDIT: I've just realised that this topic is entitled "cherry apple babies". Why?

h,H
 

I saw the abortion topic.

I see this topic.

I don't like both.

It is so......................

I can't explain it, it is so...........

I just can't say how I think about it.

I understand that this is an stupid reply.
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ti...her/kohrak.gif
EDIT: But: What is inside counts!

Yes, but I was talking about an abortion, which is made when the foetus is nine months old, so it is a baby and your point had nothing to do with it! Okey, I'll try to make myself clear here... I asked if it would still be called an abortion.

So, Statikk. Till what point is this abortion you described legal?

I haven't read the entire thing...but i think i get the gist of it and Foetus' cannot dance. So your wrong!!

Tell around the 6th month. It is common, not so as killing the embryo, which I think is immoral, whatever you may say. There was a court proceding around the 78-81 period that ruled on saline abortions, saying they are legal.

Well I see it as a baby as soon as it crowns, a foetus from part way through the pregnancy to crowning and an embryo before it's a foetus and after the nuclei fuse.

I know that a Stillbirth is when the baby is born dead. But it is also used to describe the termination of a foetus beyond a certain stage of development. A Miscarriage can also be described as a Stillbirth, incidentally.

Exactly! It's illegal at that stage of development! Therefore, Statikk was just stirring up trouble, as what he was describing would not occur! Using Statikk's example to criticise Abortion is therefore ridiculous...

But abortions are not made when the foetus is nine months old, so your point has nothing to do with it...

That shit is still going on today. And it doesn't matter when you abort/kill(I don't have time to quibble over word definitions. If you fancy yourself a human dictionary, please Shush) the person never gets a chance to live outside the mother. That friggin' simple

I don't mean to question your knowledge Danny, but I'm still not convinced. If you can provide a link or two that uses "stillbirth" in the context you describe, I'll change my views.

still·birth
n.1.The birth of a dead child or fetus.
2.A child or fetus dead at birth.

mis·car·riage
n.1.The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus. Also called spontaneous abortion.

a·bor·tion
n.1.a.Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.
b.Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion.
2.The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage.
3.Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation.
4.An aborted organism.
5.Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity.

Does this help? It's from dictionary.com

Simple. Yes, I'd agree with that. Let's extend your logic slightly, shall we?

Statikk's argument: "Abortion prevents a person from being born. Therefore Abortion is bad."

Agree here? I think that is more or less your argument, but if your argument is different, then please feel free to correct me. Anyway...

A Logical Extension of Statikk's Argument: "Contraception prevents a person from being born. Therefore Contraception is bad."

Now, for all I know, you might object to Contraception as well, so I'd better give an even more ludicrous proposition, so that you can see how feeble that particular line of reasoning is.

A Further Logical Extension of Statikk's Argument: "Not having a child at every possible opportunity prevents a person from being born. Therefore Not having a child at every possible opportunity is bad."

what do different reilogeoins think about this? whats their view?:fuzconf:

All I know is that Catholosism thinks it is wrong but Catholosism also thinks contraception is wrong. Not that I'm trying to imply the stupidity of Catholocism or anything. They do that well enough without my assistance.

I'll ask again, since nobody noticed last time: Why is this topic entitled "cherry apple babies"? I can't see that it has anything to do with cherries or apples, and has very little to do with babies, really...

Cherry apple babies is slang for an aborted person who had their skin burnt raw or off by a saline injection abortion. that is what I meant this topic to be about, not all abortion, just saline injection abortions and if they were ethical. really. I don't plan on using contraceptives, now or ever. I can't get dates and even if I did It wouldn't that pretty. think mick foley with a straighter stance and a little less beard and you have what I look like. Not having a child at every opportunity. clarify please, Dan, i'm not getting with it. So say perchance that the universe switched polarity and the impossible started happening frequently. the Vikings win the Superbowl, O. J. really didn't do it and roseanne barr suddenly becomes a svelte siren. and in this odd freaktastic universe, a once ugly but know drop dead gorgeous vixen says "I lust for you Statikk! I want to have your baby!!!! Oh, give it to me!" And I said no(hey,this is a parrelel universe you know) I am sinning. but the difference between using a jimmy cap and aborting an embryo is big. Even though i don't like contraceptives and yeah, maybe the sperm would make a baby. I always wanted to be a dad, i think it would be so fun, so sacred, ad nauseam. I know of a family who not ounce used contraceptives and they have 6 precious children. So is it a sin to use contraceptives? Yeah, cause all you use 'em for is to have a one night stand or avoid the terrible inconveineience(did I just spell it like that! Holy mother of god I need spellcheck) of having a baby.

I have another point: with all this "embryo or baby" discussion, ask yourself this: "When are we talking about a human? At it's birth? At a number of months old? After the conception, when it's still one cell? From that moment, I see it as human life, which may not be destroyed if not really necesary (but what is that - really necesarry?).

H
 

When it is one cell.

It's always a human.

When it's a gamete, it's a human gamete. When it's an embryo, it's a human embryo. When it's a foetus, it's a human foetus. When it's an infant, it's a human infant. When it's an adult, it's a human adult.