no they have not if you look at the case of roe vs wade scientist in fact show us that life begins at the quickening which is the time in which the fetus will begin to show signs of life. and the reason why abortion is legal and dumpster babies aren't would be because any time before the quickening the baby has absolutely no chance at surviving without its mother seeing as how it relies on its mother to continue the developmental process as oppose to after the quickening when there is a substantial chance that if something were to happen to mother the baby still has a chance to be safe it is why abortion is only legal to a certain point.(i believe it was the third trimester) at this point the baby can maintain life outside the mothers womb although it may need artificial aid. now dumpster babies are already alive outside of the womb (the only aid most typically need is to be fed change and well over all cared for) they have proven that they can sustain life outside the womb so killing them is illegal.


________________
Shmoke!!!!!!

Abortion and abandoning babies in the dumpster are the same thing.

For those who like facts:

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a famous doctor in the US and responsible for more than 75,000 abortions throughout his career as an abortion provider became a pro-life activist and joined the anti-abortion movement after observing a real-time abortion with a ultrasound.
During the procedure he noticed that the fetus tried - desperately - to protect itself from being killed.This led him to reconsider his views on abortion.



- That's why I think abortion is murder.

ohhh.. I myself also look forward to contradicting with myself.
For me abortion is a tough moral issue because its life of another that we are talking about not our own but anothers and we are making the decision for them because they dont have the ability to do so. Its like playing GOD. But we are just humans with very difficult circumstances so its definitely and infinitely ahrd،to decide and whatever choise you make will seem to haunt you with a lot of what ifs because you are just HUMAN and you cannot see the future.

________________
oh please do click this!
The sweeter the apple, the higher the branch. The quieter the fart, the nastier the smell.
GUESS WHO??

There are two possible viewpoints prior to the embryo/fetus being old enough to potentially survive outside on its own:
1- It is part of the mother's body; she can do whatever she wants with it.
2- It is a separate entity; she has the right to have it removed from her body.

If the mother were to have the embryo/fetus removed early in the pregnancy without harming it, it would still die shortly afterwards. Killing it before the removal is, I would imagine, a simpler and safer process and with the same end result.

________________
"It is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

Who do you think you are, red255, that you should decide when a human soul (a supernatural event, off limits for science) shall enter the body? This is an invalid argument.

Also, the fetus and it's cells are not foreign to the women's uterus, they are a part of her own genetically information, for example, how the mitochondrian of the fetus is inherited directly from the mother.

________________
www.Hyperiums.com

Half of the genetic information is from the father. He deserves a say too.

Basically, women who get their children aborted can be divided into two groups - the selfish ones, and those who are thinking of the children.
The selfish ones can eat crap. The ones who know that, due some circumstance(s), they will not be able to take care of the child have my sympathy.

________________
There are times when you will miss what you never had. I wonder how you will find what you so desperately need.

I was just emphasizing women's half only to show that it isn't a foreign collection of cells.

________________
www.Hyperiums.com

And I was just emphasizing that in this entire discussion, the father has been ignored. Now if it is someone who doesn't want anything to do with the child, he can join those already eating crap. Otherwise, the father has every right to be a participant in the decision making process. Usually, in such cases, the mother doesn't even inform the father that he has conceived a child. Imagine his despair when he realizes that he had almost brought life into this world, but because of his partner's selfishness, will never be able to see it, touch it, hear it, feel it's heart beat.......
Hell, if you don't want the kid and the father wants him/her, just give the child to him.

________________
There are times when you will miss what you never had. I wonder how you will find what you so desperately need.

Indeed, that father has been ignored, mainly because it is argued that it is the women's choice, so the fathers standing is useless unless she wishes to converse with him about what she plans to do.

________________
www.Hyperiums.com

And that's what I said - the father has as much of a right to the unborn child as the mother does.

________________
There are times when you will miss what you never had. I wonder how you will find what you so desperately need.

I'm sorry I can't respond to all the things that were posted here but most of the people here seem to have misunderstood this topic. This is not a topic about me being against abortion, fact which automatically makes me evil. I am not trying to say that every woman who gets pregnant should keep her baby even though she can't take care of it. So stop putting words in my mouth.
All I wanted to know was your answer to my question, regardless of what you think about abortion (be it morally wrong or not - this is not my concern).

And of course I am going to measure people by my own standards. You also did this when you posted here. That's what we all do. It's impossible not to judge others/make an opinion of somebody without taking in consideration yourself. Humans are subjective beings, especially when it concerns themselves, their lives and the things that surround them.
So unless you have an opinion on this topic and you want to answer my question I'd rather not read rude remarks that have nothing to do with my question. Those I can imagine them myself.

And for the other people who posted: Thank you for the diversity of your answers. This has surely made me see things in a new light. I still see it somehow as the erasing of a form of life (if it can't be called murder), but at least I became more open minded about the subject.

I had nothing against the special cases in which abortion is the solution. So please disregard the cases in which the baby is deformed, the mother has been raped, the baby will be born with a disease (ex: Down syndrome), etc. mainly whichever case in which abortion could be an answer not something that would be considered by others a bad thing to do. Perhaps I should have made the question more particular in order to get rid of the confusion.

I merely meant what's the difference between someone who got pregnant and didn't want to keep the baby and a female who didn't have the money for an abortion/didn't want to get an abortion/ was afraid of an abortion/etc. so she gave birth and then threw it to the dumpster instead of giving the baby to adoption. So if you don't want it/you hate the idea of having a child, it's ok for a doctor to remove it but it's not ok if you don't want it after it was born so you get rid of it yourself. Make me understand that it's ok to abort a living thing from the womb that cannot live on its own yet but it's bad to dump a baby in the trashcan. Make me understand why their evolution stages make their lives unequal.

I hope this is clear enough now.

________________
Does not compute.

Well, the fetus is a foreign body, without the placenta the immune system would get to work on the baby.

Personally I think after finishing the procedure of a elective abortion they should also take the liberty of sterilizing the individual. That way the danger of their bad genes is eliminated. (If you seen people go through abortion six + times you'll feel this way too.)

________________
Mad people either have no sense or too many extra senses...
On the net, men are men, women are men and children are the FBI. =D

I don't agree with abortion, nor do I agree with throwing babies in dumpsters.

But they are not the same and the decision to get rid of a baby should not lead to these two choices, therefore just because someone didn't have an abortion when they wanted to does not mean they'll throw their baby in the garbage in the future.

It is not cause and effect, but are two separate decisions.

Abortions - choosing whether to kill the growing life or not - I personally don't agree that just because a fetus needs to rely on the mother to live makes that being a 'thing', even after birth, the baby still needs a caregiver to live or else it will die within a few days.

Dumpster baby - choosing whether to raise the baby or not to raise the baby. In this case, they chose not to raise the baby. But they could have done so in many other ways in this situation instead of killing the baby through abandonment such as giving the baby up for adoption.

________________
"...that ain't no unicorn" - Wakusei no Samidare

-------------------

Wasn't GOING to argue it. I was stating a fact. Not really relevant to this topic even if it was. just covering it because the guy was sorta leaning toward the fact there was some difference.



-------------------

Uh....So If I go and rape a woman, I got as much say to whether she goes thru with childbirth as she does? No.

The man's got say in the case of a dumpster baby, sure. He doesn't have say in the unborn child situation. for the same reason the fetus doesn't have rights to the woman's body. the woman's body is the property of the woman.

Don't be giving it to other people. You have no grounds, and should retract the statement.