Welcome to Gaia! ::

Whu- confused

You're equating every time a woman does not have sex and get pregnant to a conscious and deliberate decision to terminate a pregnancy? That's a hell of a cognitive leap!

Just want to say that abortion and menstruation are two completely things. What the body does on it's own as a biological process can't be helped. But manually going in and "disposing" of a zygote, egg, embryo, or what have you is murder. No matter what stage the fetus is in if you abort it you're killing it. Plain and simple.

As for the people who abort instead of adopt, maybe they are a bit selfish. If they can't raise their child they think nobody else should raise it?

To the religious, well depending on how religious you are, I doubt they would have an unplanned pregnancy in the first place. But if they do I can see why they would abort. Certain religions frown upon some pregnancies and would probably shun the female.

My post wasn't directed at fertilization or the act of sex. It was about menstruation. Not preventing fertilization of an egg. However, you can prevent the chance to get pregnant. But I was talking about without any type of prevention. Menstruation is not a psychological process. A female can't control when or when she doesn't menstruates unless she has some form of hormone-controlled birth control. So without any type of birth control it can not be helped. It's a natural process.

Doesn't matter. Either way, the possible potential of a child is destroyed. That's the main problem pro-life people have with abortion, so my argument was that they might as well be against the body's natural process.

Well just for the record, I have nothing against the body's natural process, thats nature, but I am against intentionally ending life once the process of the baby forming has started.
EXPECIALY once it's in the fetus stage and past such.

It depends on what you define as "possible potential". An unfertilised egg on its own cannot possibly develop into a child, so therefore has no viability, in much the same way that embryos that are spontanously aborted (in other words, miscarried) are often found to have had mutated DNA which reduced their viability.

In my opinion, as soon as the zygote (egg/sperm combo) is formed, that combination of DNA and cellular matter has the capability to grow and develop into a fully-functioning being and therefore is "alive", just as much as it is alive when it develops into a ball of cells, then into an embryo and finally into the unborn child. An unfertilised egg is haploid - it only has half of the DNA matter inside it, meaning that it is physically incapable of developing into a living being, just as a sperm cell is incapable of becoming a baby on its own.

In order for something to be considered alive, from a scientific standpoint, it must be able to support itself, develop and grow on it's own. Does a fetus do this? NO! It is attatched to its mother, and recieves nutrients and oxygen from her. Without these, the fetus would cease to exist, except as a large grouping of cells, that would eventually deteriorate within the mother's womb. It's not until about 6 months (give or take, depending on the strength and development of the fetus) that it can even survive outside the womb. Prior to this, it's not life. It's development. So, you can't kill something that's not actually alive. It's destroyed, yes, but not killed, so abortion is not murder.

This is my belief, I stand by it wholeheartedly, and I am done with this thread.

For myself, Abstinence until marriage and then birth control, if needed.

I am also a HUGE fan of adoption as my boyfriend and I are planning to adopt when we marry.