Do you believe in a heaven, that there is somewhere we all go after we die where we will meet our loved ones who had already died before us? If you are a pro-choicer and get an abortion, is there some reason why you think your unborn child won't be waiting for you there? Don't you believe that little human life, the one who was once growing inside you, has a soul? When your child asks "Why did you abort me, Mommy?", what are you going to say? "My body, my right" ?? http://whymommywhy.org/
Nope. No Heaven in any traditional Biblical sense. It might be possible our brains generated sentience might allow us to exist as some entity with a level of consciousness. Or perhaps we might all be part of a collective consciousness. But any thought that after you die that you will go to some construct as dictated in the Bible as the thought that a person becoming pure consciousness and therefore no longer having a need for a physical body only to go to some Godly Mansion....well....it just seems....STUPID! IF there is a GOD....and that is a BIG IF....it will most likely not be anything anyone would have imagined it to be. AboveAlpha...p.s....using the SHOCK...Mommie thing is really low.
But some pro-choicers do believe in a heaven, or at least a "higher power" and an afterlife where we will be reunited with our loved ones.
Abortion deadlier than all other forms of child abuse combined One of the empty promises in unleashing abortion upon society was that somehow the availability of this procedure would decrease the incidence of child abuse. Yet it was an empty promise. Exactly the opposite has happened. Since the legalization of abortion, child abuse has increased. E.F. Lenoski reported as early as 1976, the opposite is actually true. Abuse is more likely to occur among "wanted" children. Canadian psychiatrist Philip Ney reports the same findings. He writes, "When I investigated the relationship between child abuse and abortion and reported a direct correlation, people were angry and astonished. It appeared that the rate of child abuse did not decrease with freely available abortions. In fact, the opposite was true. In parts of Canada where there were low rates of abortion there were low rates of child abuse. As the rates of abortion increased, so did child abuse…Indeed, it is a vicious cycle. That is, parents who have been involved in abortion are more likely to abuse and neglect their children. Mothers and fathers who were abused as children are more likely to abort their child" (Deeply Damaged, p.91). According to the National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, child maltreatment has risen dramatically since the 70s (when abortion became legal). The study, which is congressionally mandated effort to provide estimates for child abuse and neglect in the USA, show a 67% increase in abuse from 1986 and 149% increase from 1981, including increases in physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and physical neglect. Of course, the first thing that has to be noted when examining the relationship between abortion and child abuse is that abortion is child abuse. Allowing the abuse of an unborn child, then, creates an atmosphere in which -- more quietly and secretly -- we justify the abuse of born children.
By 22 weeks, the bones in the eardrum have calcified and the unborn baby can recognize their mother's voice. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97635&page=1#.UdtQFffn99A http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130102083615.htm
Correlation does not imply causation Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other. Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables. A few go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship; examples are the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping. The counter assumption, that correlation proves causation, is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy in that two events occurring together are taken to have a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this", and "false cause". A similar fallacy, that an event that follows another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is sometimes described as post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this").
Misquoting the actual articles just enforcing the fact you can't tell the truth. From the first link - "Earlier research by Kisilevsky revealed that fetuses hear sounds at 30 weeks, although that won't come as much of a surprise to mothers who may have felt their baby jump when someone slammed a door", not a single mention of 22 weeks in the whole article. From the second link - "The study shows that the newborn has the capacity to learn and remember elementary sounds of their language from their mother during the last 10 weeks of pregnancy (the sensory and brain mechanisms for hearing are intact at 30 weeks of gestational age).", again not a single mention of 22 weeks in the article. You couldn't even get a simple fact of when a fetus can hear right - http://whattoexpect.co.uk/pregnancy/pregnancy-calendar/week-16-of-pregnancy-babys-hearing-develops/ A fetus can start to hear at around 16 weeks, To begin with the fetus only hears low noises, but as development continues he/she starts to hear higher pitched noises too. Why oh why should any person trust a single thing you say?
Hearing sounds and recognition of voice does not just suddenly begin at a single point in the pregnancy. It is a gradual process that happens over a period of development. Different sources give slightly different ages at which the fetus can recognize its mother's voice. That doesn't mean they are wrong, it's just that the ability to hear doesn't happen all at once.
Why would you start a thread entertaining heaven.... considering the people mainly pagans on here hate the religious?
Woman who regrets abortion: "I would do anything to get my baby back" http://www.silentscream.org/twowomen.htm
That is one woman, or are you of the delusion that all women feel the same way? Fake as you well know - - - Updated - - - so why post the erroneous item, or did you think people would not notice?
some of them believe in new age spirituality, that there is some sort of afterlife. typical example: http://www.erinpavlina.com/blog/2010/04/do-aborted-or-miscarried-babies-come-back/
Woman: I am so sorry, I just wasn't prepared for you at that time. Fetus: Nah, it's cool. I just spent the last 40 years in paradise. So glad you aborted me since you saved me a lot of pain. Woman: Excuse me? Fetus: Are you crazy? Mortality sucks. Why would I want to live 40 years on Earth, with all the pain and suffering that is accompanied with it, as opposed to living in paradise? You did me the hugest favor. Thank you, Mom. Woman: You're welcome?
Anders, that is absolutely preposterous, even for you. Abortion does not in any way legitimize child abuse.
So, hypothetically speaking, if she had regretted having the child and going through the pregnancy, does that mean we should regulate or ban childbirth? Someone regrets something they decided to do, that is unfortunate, but it shouldn't hold others back from making that same choice.
It's always funny when people bring up religion in this debate considering the amount of death God is responsible for, including that time he wiped out EVERYONE except one family, and two of every species. And why did he do this? He regretted his children. Says so right in the bible. If God can commit murder and infanticide at will and beyond reproach, who in their right mind invokes God to tell a woman what she can or cannot do when she's pregnant.
And the ironic thing is that the Roman Catholics church is main opponent of abortion rights throughout the world. They don't even bat an eye when their beloved god kills Egyptian first borns. Hey, Lifers, isn't that called INFANTICIDE? At least when us pro-choicers kill the unborn, they don't feel pain 99% of the time and the woman is perfectly okay with it. Meanwhile, the pro-"lifers" are okay with their god killing little babies for some messed up and trite reason. Moses: Why don't you just kill the Pharaoh and all those responsible for enslaving my people? God: No way, let me kill a bunch of innocent kids instead. That'll show them! Moses: WTF?!
Anyone who advocates sacrificing little unborn babies in their mothers womb. http://usminc.org/humansacrifice.html
1) we have no idea if there is a heaven or a soul (This alone means that your question contains logical fallacy (assuming the premise) in ordered to be answered. 2) If heaven does exist then it could well be a better place than "hell on earth" ( some children end up joining the army when adults, get captured and tortured to the point where they beg for death - In such a case you did the potential person a huge favor) 3) Heaven may be better than earth on all accounts. 4) Even if a soul exists we do not know when that soul enters the body - It does not make sense to think it enters at conception because the single cell can result in numerous humans - (does the soul split in such cases?) I could go on but this above commentary is silly on numerous accounts
The picture is that of a 21-week-old unborn baby named Samuel Alexander Armas, who is being operated on by a surgeon named Joseph Bruner. The baby was diagnosed with spina bifida and would not survive if removed from his mother's womb. Little Samuel's mother, Julie Armas, is an obstetrics nurse in Atlanta. She knew of Dr. Bruner's remarkable surgical procedure. Practicing at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, he performs these special operations while the baby is still in the womb. Michael Clancy, working for USA Today captured the surgery on film. During the procedure, the doctor removes the uterus via C-section and makes a small incision to operate on the baby. During the surgery on little Samuel, the little guy reached his tiny but fully developed, hand through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger. The photograph captures this amazing event with perfect clarity. The editors titled the picture, "Hand of Hope." The text explaining the picture begins, "The tiny hand of 21-week-old fetus Samuel Alexander Armas emerges from the mother's uterus to grasp the finger of Dr. Joseph Bruner as if thanking the doctor for the gift of life." Little Samuel's mother said they "wept for days" when they saw the picture. She said, "The photo reminds us my pregnancy isn't about disability or an illness, it's about a little person." After the fetus had been sedated, doctors pulled the little arm out to get a good look at it: So tell me, pro-choicers, wouldn't it have just been easier to abort and try for another one?? Sixty years ago, who could have ever dreamed that one day it would become an "undeniable right" that a woman could contract a so-called "doctor" to reach into her uterus with forceps and crush the head of a well-formed thinking and feeling baby, pull apart the baby's limbs with cold steel instruments and burn its small body with saline solution?
