Replies

I happen to know of one woman who has had seven abortions and will not practice contraception because she is afraid of the hormone additives to her hormonal system. Well, she had her seventh abortion (all were done prior to reaching the third month of pregnancy) and then had her uterus removed due to scarring and endometriosis. She developed brat's cancer two years ago, in her early forties. I've not heard what has followed since. In fairness to full information, her family does have a history of breast cancer, though it tends to show up in the late fifties with the other women in her family.

What this 'debate' comes down to is the reality of the alive, gestating unborn ... are they humans at an early age and thus abortion purposely kills an innocent human, or are they mere tissue masses 'with potential to become human beings'? THAT is the heinous dichotomy of abortion on demand ... science says the gestating life is a human being at an early age in a lifetime already begun at conception. Secular humanism says it doesn't matter if the one giving life support wants to terminate the relationship, thus empowering women in this secular/god-slapping way. When science provides a dependable artificial womb for transferring these young humans for continued life support, what do we suppose the argument will transmogrify into to continue the slaughtering empowerment?

I used to be pro-choice. I was young, had a good grasp of the human sciences. I was willing to buy that the unborn were relatively under developed, nobody ever put any effort into teaching otherwise.

I changed my mind in one night. I was working as a secretary for a med/surg unit in a hospital.

Labor and delivery was packed to the gills. Had a lady come into er she was in labor with a 5month old dead baby.

We delivered her on my unit. I had to wrap the baby for photographs and take it to lab.

5 Months old about 16 ounces. Perfect down to eyelashes and fingernails.

20 weeks, not viable but it is a human baby not a collection of tissues.